Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4401-S4413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 717, which 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 Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Gregg amendment No. 241, to modify the provision relating
to the authorization of appropriations for special education
and related services to authorize specific amounts or
appropriations.
Gorton amendment No. 243, to permit State and local
educational agencies to establish uniform disciplinary
policies.
Smith amendment No. 245, to require a court in making an
award under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
to take into consideration the impact the granting of the
award would have on the education of all children of State
educational agencies and local educational agencies.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Under the previous order, the
Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Amendment No. 241, Withdrawn

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas
and nays and withdraw my amendment which is No. 241.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 241) was withdrawn.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just to clarify the record on this, this
amendment was addressing the issue of funding relative to special
education which is, I believe, a critical element of the whole issue
obviously of special education, especially the fact that the Federal
Government has failed to live up to its obligation to fund 40 percent
of the cost of special education. It is only funding approximately 7 to
8 percent of the cost.
After discussions with the majority leader, and with members of the
Appropriations Committee on which I serve, I think there is a
reasonable opportunity that we will receive the type of funding and
support we need in order to start on the path toward reaching the 40
percent.
This path was outlined in S. 1, Senate bill 1, which is the Senate
Republican position and which commits to having us fund 40 percent over
a 7-year period. This year I am hopeful we can increase funding for
special ed so we can get up above the $4 billion mark in this account,
which would allow us to--under the new bill, if it is passed, as I
presume it will be--allow us to kick in the ability of the local
communities to use some of this special ed funding which the Federal
Government was supposed to be paying for, which presently is being paid
for by local taxpayers, to use those local taxpayer dollars for other
areas of education and to relieve some of the pressure on the
communities and the local taxpayers.
So with that understanding, which is not formal--I appreciate that--
but which I believe was made in good faith, I am withdrawing this
amendment. I

[[Page S4402]]

recognize a lot of work has gone into this bill, that there is a great
desire to pass this bill without amendments so it will be able to be
moved quickly and because it involves an intricate and delicate,
delicate compromise. And it is a step forward in the attempt to address
the IDEA question and issue of caring for children with disabilities.
This amendment I believe would have had a good chance of passing, but
I believe it also would have undermined the desire of those who want to
reach an accommodation to make sure to move the process forward and
improve the basic special ed bill, and we can do so with this bill, and
it would undermine the capacity to do that.
I still believe we can still get to the role of the funding issue
which runs on a parallel course without necessarily having to attach
this specific language to this bill.
I would note that the law continues to retain in it the 40 percent
language. It remains the commitment of the Federal Government and it is
a commitment which I and I know the majority, the chairman of the
committee, ranking member on the subcommittee, and the majority leader
are committed to try to reach.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to thank you for what you have just done. You
have provided a way for clear passage of this bill today. But most of
all, I want to commend you for your continuous efforts to try to fully
fund the 40 percent that we promised the people when this bill was
passed some 22 years ago.
I also want to remind Members that your amendment--I think it was on
the goals 2000 bill--passed 93 to 0, where we said we would do what
Judd Gregg wants. So I am hopeful that will be kept in mind as the
people go forward with the budget. I certainly am going to do all I can
to make sure that we live up to the obligations of our own party's
promise, which is in S. 1, to do what the Senator from New Hampshire
believes we should do.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I thank him for his
courtesy and enjoy working with him.

Amendment No. 243

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 20
minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from Washington
[Mr. Gorton], and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], on the
pending question, amendment No. 243 by the Senator from Washington [Mr.
Gorton].
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment which we are about to vote
on is extremely simple, plain, easy to understand and totally logical.
It reads in its entirety:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each State
educational agency or local educational agency may establish
and implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and
order applicable to all children within its jurisdiction to
ensure the safety and appropriate educational atmosphere in
its schools.

Mr. President, I have spoken about the fact that this bill imposes a
huge unfunded mandate, $35 billion a year, on the schools of this
country with no more than 10 percent of that money paid for by the
Federal Government.
I have spoken of the huge complexity--327 pages in this bill--
imposing identical rules on every school district in the country no
matter how large or how small. But the single aspect of this bill that
is most questionable and most unjust is the double standard it sets
with respect to discipline, response to violence, disorder in the
classroom. Each and every school district retains its full and complete
authority over all of these questions as they apply to students who are
not disabled. They lose almost all of that authority under the present
IDEA statute and regain only a modest amount of it under this revision.
This double standard makes it difficult to provide an appropriate
education to tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of our
students around the country. They make it difficult to impose rational
disciplinary measures on those students who are denominated disabled.
They create a tremendous incentive to seek some ``expert'' who will
provide for a given student the title ``disabled.'' We find the
decisions that the very disorder, the very violence in classrooms that
is to be the subject of discipline is found to be evidence of
disability so that the discipline cannot be imposed.
For the educational attainment of all of our students, for the proper
protection of all of our students, we should allow each school, each
school district, each State to set rules with respect to disorder, to
discipline, to violence that are the same for all of the students.
Nothing could be simpler.
This amendment will not in any way undercut the right created by this
bill for a free and complete education for every student, disabled or
not. That remains. What is restored to each school district is the
right on its own to make those decisions while looking at the
educational atmosphere in which all of its students must learn. The
vice of this bill is that it pretends that there are no nondisabled
students, only the disabled students count, only their rights count.
The rights of all other students and their parents are ignored.
So we ask very simply that this bill be amended to allow each
educational agency to establish and implement uniform policies with
respect to discipline and order applicable to all children within its
jurisdiction in order that they may be safe and have an appropriate
educational atmosphere--nothing more, nothing less.
This bill says that the U.S. Senators know more about how to educate
students than do their teachers, their administrators, their school
board members, people who have spent their lives and careers at this
job. We do not know more. They know more. We should permit them to do
their jobs.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I wish to speak in strong opposition to the amendment.
I understand the emotionalism that has gone on in our States throughout
this Nation over the years, and even up to the point that we speak,
about the problems that were created, and which the Senator from
Washington is attempting to address.
I point out, first of all, that the bill tries its best to preserve
the order in the classroom through uniform policies for all school
districts, and to ensure that every child with a disability is treated
fairly, but also balances the needs of those in the classroom to have a
safe and peaceful, shall we say, learning environment. That is done.
The House voted yesterday with only three dissenting votes on this
bill, recognizing that those kinds of balances had been reached after
an incredible effort on the part of so many to give us a bill that
everyone who is deeply involved in this issue can agree with.
I know this body respects the order that is necessary in the
classroom and also the ability of local schools to be able to try and
accommodate the interests of all, but I believe this bill, by doing
this, what it says is, ``notwithstanding any other provision of this
act, each State, educational agency or local educational agency may
establish and implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and
order.''
Now, what does that mean? I do not know. But if it means what it
says, it wipes out everything. It would be contrary to what they want
to do. That means we could have thousands or hundreds of different
ideas on how to bring order to the classroom. It would set back the
system.
I know the Senator from Washington speaks sincerely, and I know that
Washington had a terrible problem, initially, in the early parts of
this decade. Almost half the cases, I believe, went to due process
hearings and ended up in court. However, this past year, 96 percent of
those cases that were heard in mediation were solved and did not go to
court. So his own State, I think, has solved the problems he is trying
to deal with.
I hope Members would not vote for this amendment. At the appropriate
time I will move to table it. This would create havoc in the whole
system.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong opposition, as
well, to this amendment before the Senate, put forth by the Senator
from Washington,

[[Page S4403]]

an amendment which would instruct local education agencies to set out
their own policy, a potentially very different policy, in disciplining
students with disabilities. In short, under his amendment, each school
district potentially would have its own distinct policy in disciplining
disabled children, and with 16,000 school districts, the potential for
conflicting policies is very real, and I am afraid this would be a
turnback to the pre-1975 era before IDEA.
Is this a double standard? I say ``no.'' Clearly, we have outlined a
process whereby students, if there is a manifestation of a disability,
would go down one process, and if a discipline problem was not a
manifestation of a disability, that student would be treated just like
everyone else.
I think this is fair. This is equitable. Remember, if behavior is not
a result of that disability, all students are treated the same in this
bill. If behavior is secondary to a disability, there is a very clear
process, which is outlined in detail. Yes, it does take several pages
to outline that, but it sets up a balance between the school, between
school boards, between parents, and between children.
Senator Gorton claims this amendment is about local control, and I
feel that it will be used, I am afraid, to turn back the hands of the
clock to the pre-1975 conditions where we know that children with
disabilities were excluded from the opportunity to receive a free and
appropriate public education.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, not just
because, as has been pointed out, it will kill our overall bipartisan
effort that we brought forward, but that it would, in fact, turn back
the clock and lead, potentially, to discrimination that children with
disabilities faced before IDEA was enacted 22 years ago.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Could I inquire to the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 4\1/2\ minutes
and the other side has 3 minutes, 45 seconds.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership and I thank
Senator Frist for his eloquent comments.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by my colleague
Senator Gorton.
The amendment drives a stake through the heart of the bipartisan,
bicameral, fair, and balanced provisions in the bill relating to
disciplining children with disabilities.
The amendment states plain and simple that local school districts can
totally ignore every word of the bill if they so choose. In other
words, the amendment effectively repeals every protection in the law
for disabled children.
Last night, this extreme position was rejected by 420 of my
colleagues in the House in favor of the commonsense approach included
in the bill.
The bill specifies procedures for the immediate removal to an
alternative setting of disabled children who bring weapons to school or
who knowingly use, possess, or sell illegal drugs.
The bill also authorizes: The removal to an alternative setting of
truly dangerous children; proper referrals to police and appropriate
authorities when disabled children commit crimes, so long as the
referrals, do not circumvent the school's responsibilities under IDEA.
And, the transfer of student disciplinary records.
Under the amendment, local school districts could cease educational
services for any disabled child regardless of whether or not the
child's behavior was related to his or her disability. Cessation of
services is not only opposed by all disability organizations, but is
opposed by the major groups representing general education and the
police and prosecutors. That is why the bipartisan bill rejects
cessation.
My colleague raised a number of other points in the course of the
debate which I would like to respond to at this point.
My colleague constantly refers to IDEA as an unfunded Federal
mandate.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the American Law
Division of the Congressional Research Service, and the U.S. Supreme
Court, IDEA is not an unfunded mandate.
IDEA is a civil rights statute that implements the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution. IDEA helps States and local school
districts pay for the costs of implementing their constitutional
obligation to disabled children.
My colleague also talks about the high costs of educating disabled
children but fails to talk about the savings to society, not to mention
the enhanced quality of life for disabled children and their families.
Prior to the enactment of IDEA, 70,655 children were in institutions.
Because of IDEA, that number is down to 4,001. The average cost of
serving a child in a State institution is $82,256 per person. With
66,654 fewer children institutionalized, the savings to States is $5.46
billion per year.
Danny Piper from Ankey IA, was born with Down's syndrome. He has an
IQ of 39. At birth, his parents were told to institutionalize him
because he would be a burden and would not benefit from education. The
cost to the taxpayers of Iowa over the course of his life would have
been $5 million. His parents said no and instead placed him in early
intervention and then in an intergrated program at Ankeny High School
where he was a manager of the wrestling team.
The cost of special education over his 18 years was $63,000. Was it a
good investment? You decide. Today, Danny works, he pays taxes, and he
has his own apartment.
My colleague also quotes a parent of a nondisabled child who was told
by a lawyer that she has no rights when her child's class is disrupted
by a disabled child. I say to that parent she better get a new lawyer.
They have a right to a class environment that is safe and conducive
to learning.
That parent has a right to insist that the schools develop positive
behavioral approaches and train teachers and provide them with the
necessary supports.
What they don't have is the right to kick that disabled kid out of
the class just as school systems cannot kick out African-American
children when a white child or his parents are uncomfortable around
African-Americans.
Can we have school environments that are safe and conducive to
learning without kicking disabled kids out? Yes we can. Just ask Dr.
Mike McTaggart of West Middle School in Sioux City, IA. In just 1 year,
the number of suspensions of nondisabled children went from 692 to 156
of which 7 were out-of-school suspensions. The number of suspensions of
disabled children went from 220 to zero. Attendance has gone from 72
percent to 98.5 percent. Juvenile court referrals went from 267 to 3.
His philosophy of discipline for all students is to use discipline as
a tool to teach rather than to punish.
In closing, let's reject the Gorton amendment and send a message that
we can ensure school environments that are safe and conducive to
learning without gutting the rights and protections of disabled
children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in a recent article in the National
Review, the author, Chester Finn, Jr., made the following comments
about the present statute equally applicable to this bill.

. . . prescriptive federal mandates that create heavy costs
and regulatory burdens for local communities; extra benefits
for government-protected populations and their exemption from
rules that others must obey; ample opportunities for
activists and lawyers to hustle taxpayer-financed largesse
for their clients; barriers to needed reforms of school
quality and discipline; . . . [and above all] the smug
assumption that Washington knows best how the nation's
schools should be run.

While various professional organizations have more or less been
required to endorse this bill because, as I have already said, it is an
improvement over present law, just last month, USA Today published the
results of a poll of 6,000 principals, 80 percent of whom said Federal
law interfered with their ability to create safe schools.
My two friends on this side of the aisle used the word ``balance.''
There is no balance in this bill. There is no balance at all. There is
no consideration--no consideration, none--of the rights of nondisabled
students. Yes, there are 16,000 school districts in this country. That
is the genius of our country, that

[[Page S4404]]

we solve our problems locally, and yet as far as these are concerned,
we should have one school district, one Department of Education that
should set one set of rules applicable to everyone under all
circumstances and at all times. That is wrong. Let our teachers and our
principals and our school boards make the decisions as to how their
schools should be operated.
If all time has been taken on the other side, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, very quickly, the balance has been
reached in this bill. The most critical question is, what can you do
with the dangerous child? It is very simple: If it is not a matter
involved with the disability, that child could be disciplined like any
other child. If it is related to the disability, as determined by a
hearing officer, then there can be up to 45 days removal in an
appropriate educational setting. If the problem still exists and the
school can demonstrate that the child may be substantialy likely to
cause harm to himself or others, the child will remain in an interim
alternative educational setting for an additional 45 days, et cetera--
tremendous balance, tremendous help to the present situation.
Mr. President, I urge the defeat of the Gorton amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do both sides yield back their time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
Mr. GORTON. Yes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to table the Gorton amendment, and 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment 243 offered by the Senator from Washington [Mr.
Gorton].
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virgina [Mr.
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

{Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bumpers
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Harkin
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Sarbanes
Snowe
Stevens
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--48

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Cochran
Conrad
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 243) was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we please have order so that we can
continue the Senate's business.
We have several more votes to go. We have some short debate between
them. The quicker we have order, the quicker we can continue. Please
take your discussions to the Cloakroom or the hallway.

Amendment No. 245

The question now recurs on amendment No. 245 offered by the Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith]. There will be 4 minutes of debate
equally divided in the usual form. Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, could I have order,
please. The Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Please clear the well. Staff please take their
seats.
The Senator deserves to be heard. There are 4 minutes of debate
equally divided.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Like the previous amendment offered by my
colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, this is a very reasonable
amendment. It simply requires the courts, when they make an award under
IDEA, to take into consideration what impact that award will have on
all of the students in the district or in the particular classrooms.
For example, we have cases where a $1,000 IDEA program or plan,
educational plan costs $13,000 or $14,000 in legal fees. There are
millions of dollars in legal fees spent in all 50 States, all over
America, that are taken out of the classroom. These are dollars that
you cannot use for teachers, you cannot use for computers, you cannot
use for textbooks or, frankly, for infrastructure or schools or
buildings.
The issue here is whether or not you want to have these dollars go to
the students or go to the lawyers. That is the simple issue. This is a
very reasonable amendment. There is nothing unreasonable about it.
I think the process here where we say we cannot amend a bill to
strengthen it, to make a better bill is a bad process and one for which
I wish we had not set the precedent. I urge my colleagues to think
about it because at some point in the not too distant future you are
going to have another piece of legislation coming through here, and you
are going to be on the other side. You are going to want to offer an
amendment and you are going to have to say to yourself, well, when I
had the opportunity before, I opposed that opportunity for another
colleague. Sure, I can offer the amendment but the deal by the
leadership is to oppose the amendment because we have a deal. The
answer is very simple. You can vote for my amendment and take dollars
out of the pockets of lawyers and put them into the classroom for the
students or you can oppose my amendment and favor the lawyers.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment would require a court before
awarding attorney fees to prevailing parents to do an analysis of the
impact of the award on the local school district. The point is that the
court already has the discretion to assess the impact of an award on a
school district. Thus, this is unnecessary. Awarding fees today is at
the court's discretion. This amendment would actually require a formal
cost analysis, an additional bureaucratic burden on a school district.
It is unnecessary. It is covered in the underlying bill. I urge
opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith
amendment which adds limitations on the awarding of attorneys fees to
parents of disabled children that are unprecedented in any other fees
provision.
The provisions in current law relating to attorneys fees were added
by our colleague Senator Orrin Hatch. He modeled the IDEA fees
provisions on provisions in other civil rights laws. On final passage
of these provisions he explained that they reflected a carefully
crafted compromise that provides for reasonable attorneys fees to a
prevailing parent while at the same time protecting against excessive
reimbursement.
Let's not upset that carefully crafted compromise. Let's retain the
parity between the fees provisions in the IDEA

[[Page S4405]]

with the fees provisions in other civil rights statutes. It is
inappropriate to establish a double standard for parents with disabled
children.
Listening to Senator Smith, one might get the impression that there
is a proliferation of litigation under IDEA. The data does not bear out
such an assertion. The number of court cases under IDEA is actually
declining from 199 in 1992 to 120 last year. This is out of 5.3 million
disabled children. The number of due process hearings in New Hampshire
last year was 10. In my State of Iowa, the number was four. In the
entire State of California, with almost 600,000 disabled children in
the IDEA program, the number of due process hearings was 57--1,289
requests for hearings but the overwhelming majority were resolved in
mediation.
Let's reject the Smith amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me speak to my colleagues very sincerely.
Last year we came almost to the point where we passed a bill similar
to this for the disabled community and for the schools. It broke down
at the last minute because there was dissension over one issue. You
have had your opportunity this time to show your concern about how the
bill goes, but if we have one amendment, then it has to go back and
there are those out there now who want to disrupt it. Senator Lott and
Dave Hoppe spent hundreds of hours to bring these communities together
to agree on this bill which is a tremendous step forward. If you vote
no on the motion to table, you could kill this bill and we could start
over again.
Mr. President, I move to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second. The yeas and
nays are ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 245
offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. The clerk will now call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

YEAS--68

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--31

Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
McCain
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 245) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments this
morning and talk about this Congress' commitment to education, and
special education in particular.
S. 717, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Amendments Act of
1997, is the first piece of major legislation to come out of the Senate
Labor Committee since the start of the 105th Congress that directly
affects the important issue of education. This piece of legislation
before the Senate today is an integral part of providing educational
services to over 5 million children across this country. This
legislation reminds us of the fundamental importance of the need for
strong educational funding at a time when all eyes are focused on
budget-balancing.
Mr. President, special education is of critical importance to my home
State of New Mexico, in which over 50,000 children receive specialized
educational services. In New Mexico over 14 percent of the eligible
school age population receive needed educational services from this
law. Currently, New Mexico receives over $26 million in Federal funding
to assist the educational needs of special education students. This
funding is very important to States like New Mexico that have rural and
isolated communities and are working to provide specialized educational
services at great distances.
Over the past 2 years especially, and throughout my tenure in the
Senate, I have heard numerous stories from New Mexico's students,
parents, educators, and administrators about the need for added
resources and effective programs for special education students.
I have also heard their concerns about the current Federal law, which
include: financial incentives to over-identify students as disabled;
lack of standards and performance assessments; the difficulty teachers
and administrators face in maintaining classroom discipline; and the
concerns of parents who are struggling to find the best possible
placement for their child and to ensure that educational services are
provided.
However, I believe that the legislation before the Senate begins to
address these concerns. This bill:
First, includes language that will increase educational
accountability and standards for disabled students,
Second, creates new measures to allow parents and Federal agencies to
monitor and assure the adequacy of special education programs,
Third, includes language that aims to increase flexibility for State
and local school districts and reduces paperwork for school districts,
Fourth, strengthens teachers' and administrators' abilities to
control their classrooms, without ceasing educational services to
students,

Fifth, includes language that will ensure access to assistive
technology for our special education students and provisions to allow
blind and visually handicapped students learn Braille,
Sixth, removes past incentives to encourage the overidentification of
children with disabilities.
I am especially happy to see statutory language that requires the
inclusion of almost all special education students in testing and
accountability programs.
Just recently I heard a story from a special education administrator
in New Mexico that expressed the importance of integrating standards in
special education and how they promote accountability and improved
services.
In Kentucky, for many years, some neighborhood schools were sending
their special education students to other schools to receive
specialized services. However, when Kentucky started to require
assessments for special education students and included these scores in
school report cards, some of these neighborhood schools started to
educate their special education students within their own schools so as
to improve the student's academic levels.
Mr. President, the requirement for inclusion of special education
students in academic assessments is a key aspect to ensuring that this
legislation will be effectively implemented in schools throughout New
Mexico and across the United States.
Mr. President, I plan to support this legislation because I believe
it strikes a balance between the different views and needs of many of
the stakeholders within the special education community. This
legislation begins to address many of my concerns and the concerns that
I have heard from my constituents in New Mexico. I am especially
pleased to see language included in this legislation that allows states
and local districts flexibility in the implementation of IDEA.
Just 2 weeks ago, the President and congressional leaders reached a
budget agreement that included increased funding for education. It is
imperative that Congress remains committed to providing quality
education to our Nation's youth.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to

[[Page S4406]]

take the bipartisan and bicameral commitment to education that has been
exemplified in the reauthorization of IDEA and to focus on increased
funding and the development of standards that provide educational
opportunities to all students. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of
my colleagues both here in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives to reauthorize IDEA and I applaud their commitment to
education. This is not the time in our Nation's history to waver on our
commitment to educate America's students.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first I want to commend the Senators and
staff who have committed so much time to the reauthorization of the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. It is a good bill that
incorporates the insights and experiences of the hundreds of groups who
have been involved in the development process. I planned to offer my
strong support, however, for the amendment that was to have been
offered by Senator Gregg because I believe the underlying bill would be
better if it contained a strong commitment on Federal funding--for a
number of reasons.
I am familiar with education spending at the State level because I
come to this process as a former State Legislator. I served the State
of Wyoming for 10 years--5 years in the State House and 5 years in the
State Senate. During that time, in my tenure as chairman of the Senate
Revenue Committee, I felt all of the constraints in the State budget.
The most difficult one, however--the one that was always fraught with
protestation and controversy--was how we spent money on education,
where it came from and where it went. Elementary and secondary
education is my State's largest single expenditure.
In the 1995-96 school year, the Wyoming State Government expended
$237 million, or 44 percent, of the total amount of money spent on K-12
education in Wyoming. Fifty percent of the funding, or $280 million,
came from local sources. I am proud of that commitment. The people in
my State invest over $5,800 per student, per year, and that is the
second highest amount in the country as a percentage of State income.
But let me focus for a minute on the other 6 percent--the Federal
contribution.
Federal support for elementary and secondary education is a sensitive
issue in Wyoming. Federal dollars always come with Washington strings
attached and that is a problem for me and for a great number of my
constituents. I believe we should leave more of our tax revenue in the
States and let the people who live there make the decisions about
education.
Special education is different, however, because the strings are
already in place. The distinction is that they don't come with much
money. Wyoming's State and local taxpayers spent $58 million for
special education last year. That was matched by only $5 million in
Federal funds--about 8 percent.
Mr. President, IDEA is a good law. It protects disabled kids from
discrimination in public education. It is an issue that needs national
attention, coordination, and support. We should recognize why this law
exists, why these services are mandated, and understand why there
should be an assurance of strong Federal funding. The Gregg amendment
would have made that commitment. It would say that we, as a body,
believe the Federal Government should pay more for special education.
Why is this amendment so important? Because Congress has failed to
support its share of the cost for 20 years. Without this amendment, the
States really have no reason to expect that the situation is going to
change. To add insult to injury, the bill places a new maintenance of
effort requirement on State education agencies. That is a difficult
pill to swallow when the Federal maintenance of effort has been so
clearly lacking.
I would have objected to the new State maintenance of effort because
my State currently pays 85 percent of special education costs. The
local relief provided in this bill will do little to offset the State's
heavy burden. The bill does, however, allow for a waiver if the State
can show it is providing all kids with a free appropriate public
education. That is an important consideration and I think it adds
enough flexibility to the law to make it acceptable. But it does not
solve all the problems.
This legislation will also require States to provide some new
services. Without a guarantee of additional Federal funding, the States
are going to have to bear that cost. One expense will be the mandate to
provide alternative education for kids who are expelled due to
disciplinary problems. There is also a requirement to provide State
mediation as an alternative to due process. I support these changes. I
hope they will actually reduce costs in the long run. But if we cannot
even pay the Federal share for current mandates, then we should not be
adding new ones. Congress needs to ante up the Federal share. If we are
unable to do that, then this bill loses some of its luster.
The Gregg amendment would have made that commitment. I understand the
problems a conference might present on this bill. I sympathize with
Members who have spent so many hours working to reach consensus, but I
believe the Gregg amendment is important enough to deserve conference
consideration.
Mr. President, I do support the bill. It makes some sorely-needed
improvements to the law--particularly in the areas of discipline, State
coordination, and legal fees. We have before us a compromise that will
improve current law, but it still lacks a strong funding resolution.
That would have been an important part of this legislation that I think
members of both parties would have supported.
If we are going to help States live up to their responsibility in
providing a free appropriate public education to all kids, then we need
to do it. And that means more than just piling on regulations.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, all children should have access to a
quality education, regardless of whether they have disabilities. The
importance of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] is
that it enables parents to acquire special educational assistance for
their children who may be fully capable of becoming productive members
of society, but may need some extra help along the way. I am pleased
that Members of Congress on a bipartisan, bicameral basis have worked
out a compromise that allows us to reauthorize this important piece of
legislation.
While I generally support the compromise on the IDEA bill that is
before us today, I want to touch briefly on an issue that some school
nurses have raised with regard to this legislation.
I have heard from many Oregon school nurses about the importance of
including nurses in the individual education program [IEP] development
process. Under current IDEA regulations, school nurses are considered
qualified health professionals and are considered fully capable of
assessing a student's disabilities during the IEP process. The school
nurses had asked to be mentioned specifically in the statute as
``related service providers'' in a disabled child's multidisciplinary
team. While this could not be worked out, I understand that the
committee report addresses this issue, and I want to convey my support
for the inclusion of school nurses as part of the IEP process.
In this country we frequently underestimate the excellent quality of
care provided by this Nation's nurses. School nurses have the training
and provide the supervision to safely deliver specialized health
services. For children with chronic or special health care needs, the
school nurse is often a crucial member of the multidisciplinary team
that enables children with disabilities to participate fully in their
educational program. As long as they are fully qualified to make an
assessment of a child's disability, there should be no reason that
localities should discriminate against nurses.
Again, I complement my colleagues for breaking through the logjam on
this important reauthorization, and I want to reemphasize my support
for the school nurses who play such an important role in the care of
children with disabilities.

personnel standards

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is a new policy with respect to
personnel standards in section 612(a)(15)(c) of the bill that sets
forth parameters by which a State may deal with a documented shortage
of qualified personnel. In that subparagraph, I want to clarify that
the reference ``consistent with

[[Page S4407]]

state law,'' is intended to be applicable to those State laws governing
the profession or discipline. I offer this statement to provide
guidance at the U.S. Department of Education to help them in
implementing the reauthorization.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with that interpretation and thank the Senator
for this clarification.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 717. I
support this bill because it has become clear to me that the status quo
in special education is not acceptable.
Even though Iowans have done a good job under existing law, it is
time to make changes. These changes are necessary in order to keep pace
with the challenges facing educators today. Students with a variety of
special needs are now in the schools. They have needs we couldn't even
imagine when the first special education law was passed.
At this time I will address only two aspects of S. 717 that are
sufficient reasons for supporting it. First of all, this bill would
give schools and parents additional tools to improve education for all
children.
In response to school complaints, clearer guidance is given for
actions to assure the safety of all students in the classroom. I
believe all of us here today recognize the need to do this.
For parents, the right to participate in decisions about their
child's education is given more support. This is done through
attendance at evaluation and assessment meetings and at any meeting at
which the placement of their child might be decided.
And for students, in this bill we send a clear message that we have
high expectations for all students--including students in special
education. More accountability for progress on IEP's would be required.
Participation in statewide and districtwide measures of school
performance would be required. Stronger linkages to the regular
education curriculum would be required for these students. We expect
success from special education programs under this bill, and we expect
that success to be measurable.
The second aspect of S. 717 I want to address is this. This bill
clarifies that schools are not the only agencies that should pay for
the services special education students need. This proposal does
not retreat from the principle that all children have the right to an
education, no matter what their needs are. What this bill does is
require that Governors work to assure that all sources of funding for
services are used to support these students.

This will be of particular importance to schools and families in
Iowa.
Last week, I had a visit from a school superintendent in Iowa. His
district has about 15,000 students; 2,000 of those students are in
special education. Of those students there are about six or seven kids
a year who require substantial medical support in order to attend
school.
The school district hires nurses and other professionals in order to
assure that these students can get an education. But this
superintendent has been unable to get other agencies and programs to
contribute to the costs of providing health services to these students.
And this school year approximately $2 million will be spent by this
school system on health services for these few students, some of whom
are eligible for Medicaid.
Clearly these costs are beyond what we should be asking schools to
pay. And that is one reason why S. 717 is important. It provides clear
direction that these costs are not the primary responsibility of
educators. They are instead the responsibility of other programs that
have been created to support students and families. I am happy to
provide such support to that school superintendent in his efforts to
secure all the services his students need.
That superintendent represents a strong tradition in Iowa.
Education for students with disabilities in Iowa was mandated 6 years
before the predecessor to IDEA was passed by Congress in the 1970's. At
that time, when I chaired the Education Committee in the Iowa House, a
State mandate for special education was passed. Following that, we
developed a system of area education agencies that still serves Iowans
today. It took us 2 years to get the area agency legislation passed; we
were successful in 1974. That system is still the basis for delivering
special education services to students all over Iowa, particularly in
rural areas.
Regarding this bill, S. 717, my colleagues have enumerated positive
aspects of this compromise proposal other than those I have mentioned.
I have followed the progress of the work group closely and now provide
my support for this landmark legislation.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since 1966, the Federal Government has
supported special education services for America's disabled children.
Today, school districts depend on the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act [IDEA] for assistance in assuring that children with
special needs receive a comprehensive education in a supportive
environment. In Kentucky alone, over 85,000 children benefitted from
IDEA during the 1996-97 school year.
Today, the U.S. Senate takes a historic step forward in its
consideration of S. 717, a bicameral, bipartisan bill to reauthorize
IDEA. Over the last two decades, changes in educational resources and
the needs of students have impaired the ability of schools to meet
IDEA's goal of a free, appropriate education for disabled students.
This measure seeks to ensure that the Federal statute effectively
addresses the special education issues of today's classrooms and is
prepared for the future needs of educators, parents, and students
involved in special education.
This bipartisan, bicameral legislation achieves these objectives by
building upon three primary goals: To focus on the successful education
of children with disabilities, instead of rote completion of paperwork;
to assure increased parental participation; and to give teachers the
tools they need in order to teach all children.
S. 717 helps schools improve the delivery of special education
services by eliminating unnecessary paperwork, streamlining data
collection, and enhancing program flexibility and service integration.
Schools also assume greater accountability for the educational progress
of special education students through their inclusion in States and
district-wide assessments.
S. 717 reduces the financial strain on school districts and parents
by including mediation as an option for resolving disputes. The revised
funding formula delivers more IDEA dollars directly to local education
agencies, and the bill also requires interagency agreements so other
responsible agencies pay their fair share of the service delivery costs
for disabled students. As a cosponsor of S. 1, I look forward to
working with my colleagues in fulfilling its promise of an additional
$10 billion for IDEA over the next 7 years.
Further, S. 717 expands the ability of parents to participate in the
planning of special education services for their child. The bill seeks
to provide parents with the information they need to effectively work
with their local school system by improving the preparation and
dissemination of school notices and requiring student progress reports.
Teacher preparation for the successful delivery of special education
services is also a priority in this legislation. Educators also receive
greater freedom to coordinate instruction between special and regular
education students. Finally, S. 717 offers a sound compromise solution
for managing the disciplinary concerns of educators, parents, and
students with disabilities.
I am also pleased that the bicameral, bipartisan working group
responded to my request and the request of other committee members that
this reauthorization include reforms specifically focused on the
braille literacy needs of blind and visually impaired children. Since
1968, the percentage of blind students who lack reading or writing
skills grew from 9 to 40 percent. This measure takes a two-pronged
approach to this serious educational need by focusing on the importance
of including appropriate braille instruction in a qualified student's
individual education plan and emphasizing the need to enhance teacher
preparation in the use and instruction of braille. I want to thank the
Members of the working group for their leadership in addressing this
key educational issue for our Nation's blind and visually impaired
children.
IDEA's guarantee of a free, appropriate public education for children
with disabilities remains one of our Nation's greatest accomplishments
in civil rights. After 2\1/2\ years of work,

[[Page S4408]]

this final legislative proposal demonstrates the firm commitment of
America's educators, parents, disability advocates, and this Congress
to provide every child with an opportunity for educational success. Mr.
President, I am proud to join as an original cosponsor of S. 717, and I
encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this worthwhile education
measure.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the reauthorization
of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. For over 20
years, IDEA has been assisting children with disabilities overcome
obstacles and become successful students who go on to become productive
citizens.
I commend the efforts of Chairman Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and
Senator Frist. The Labor and Human Resources Committee has crafted a
bill which is the product of hours and hours of consultation and
discussion on both a bipartisan and bicameral basis. I also understand
that Majority Leader Lott has taken a special interest in this bill as
well, and I appreciate his leadership in the effort to enact this
legislation.
I have personally been assisted throughout this process by my Utah
Advisory Committee on Disability Policy, and specifically by Dr. Steve
Kukic, director of the Utah State Office of Education's Services for
Students At Risk. Early on in this process, Dr. Kukic presented
testimony to the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and
identified what I believe is a key factor in this ultimately successful
reauthorization which is a balanced system of accountability. Crucial
to the success of IDEA is a framework where parents, advocates, school
administrators and educators all work together to ensure that children
are appropriately served.
I appreciate that parents, advocates, school administrators, and
educators may have different and strongly held opinions about how to
accomplish the goal of delivering educational services to all children,
particularly with regard to disciplinary actions and attorneys fees. I
believe that central to the intention of this reauthorization was the
attainment of balance between the objective of these interested
parties. I also believe that this reauthorization, by and large,
achieves this balance.
I concur with several of the points raised by Senator Gregg,
particularly the notion that if the Federal Government fulfilled its
commitment to funding IDEA at an appropriate amount, then resources
would be available on the state level to fund projects deemed necessary
by the State.
However, as has often been stated in the Senate, we should not allow
the perfect to become the enemy of the good. It is vital that we move
ahead with the reauthorization of IDEA. This program makes a tremendous
difference in the lives of children with disabilities.
I again want to commend all senators who participated in bringing
this legislation to the floor. And, I would also like to single out a
couple of staff members for their dedication to this goal. Pat
Morrissey with Senator Jeffords and Robert Silverstein with Senator
Harkin deserve special kudos for hanging in there for the duration.
I am pleased that both the Senate and House of Representatives have
ensured that the services provided under IDEA will continue, and I am
pleased to vote in support of final passage. I urge the President to
sign it promptly.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act Amendments.
The bill before us today serves as a shining example of what Congress
and the administration can do when working together in a bipartisan
basis to address the concerns of diverse interests. In this case, these
interests include parents, teachers, disability advocates, and school
administrators. Too often these groups have been pitted against one
another and have risked losing sight of a goal they all share--
providing the best education for children with disabilities. This bill
helps clear away problems that have obstructed that goal and reaffirms
a child's right to a free appropriate education.
Since the inception of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
in 1975, later changed to the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act [IDEA], our education system has undergone significant changes.
Prior to this monumental legislation, children with disabilities were
often shunned from traditional schools and relegated to State
institutions. Today, special needs children are learning in the
classroom side by side with their peers. This would not have been
possible without IDEA.
Advances in technology, teaching methods, and understanding of
childhood development have changed the way we approach education in
general, and special education in particular. But this progress has not
been painless. School districts face enormous challenges in meeting the
needs of all children. Given the intense resources often required to
help keep special needs children in the classroom, schools and states
have struggled with rising costs. Along with the financial burden,
schools have been faced with growing societal pressures.
I have been troubled by reports from parents, teachers, and
administrators in Wisconsin about violence in the classroom. Some of
these cases have involved students with disabilities. Although often a
reflection of inadequate resources directed to the special needs of the
disabled student, disruptions affect the entire classroom. No student
should have to learn in a classroom of fear and no teacher should be
forced to chose between educating a special needs student and the rest
of the class. And Mr. President, no student should be denied an
appropriate education.
I am also troubled that despite IDEA, some disabled students are not
be getting the education they deserve. Procedures and resources may
vary tremendously from State to State and even between school districts
within States. Clarification is needed to help schools and States
conform with the goals of IDEA. This bill provides that clarification.
The bill makes numerous improvements to the current provisions of
IDEA, while maintaining key principles. To address concerns with
litigation, the bill encourages use of mediation and parent training
centers, which are effective resources that provide low-cost dispute
resolution between parents and schools. Paperwork burdens faced by
schools and States are also addressed. Although documentation is a
necessity, educators should concentrate on teaching, not paperwork.
Important, parents rights are maintained and each child is still
guaranteed an appropriate education.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation will intensify the
focus on early intervention services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities. As we know from the growing body of scientific evidence
on brain development, the most important time to influence a child's
learning capacity is in the zero to 3 age range. This section of IDEA
recognizes the need for early intervention and represents one of the
very few areas of Federal investment in this critical age group.
Finally, Mr. President, this bill helps resolve two very contentious
issues involving special education--discipline and due process. This
compromise will ensure that disabled children retain access to special
education services while giving school districts greater ability to
maintain order and safety in the classroom. If students pose a threat
to themselves or others, there is new authority to allow removing the
child from the class to an alternative educational setting. But the
student cannot be shut out of school doors because of behavioral
problems relating to the child's disability. In addition, parents will
maintain a key role in their child's education and retain legal rights
if a child's education is neglected.
Although these changes may not please everyone, I believe they
represent a fair compromise to a very delicate area of law. Overall,
this bill is a balanced attempt to enable infants, toddlers, and
children with disabilities to receive a high-quality education and
helps schools provide that education.
Mr. President, this compromise was a long time coming and will have
an impact for a long time to come. I urge my colleagues to support this
consensus legislation.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
S. 717, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act reauthorization
[IDEA].
Over the last 2\1/2\ years or so, this body has worked diligently to
reauthorize IDEA. I commend Senators Jeffords, Harkin, Lott, Coats,
Frist, and Kennedy, and all of the others who

[[Page S4409]]

have contributed to the development of this legislation and to the
debate here on the Senate floor this week. The education of our
children, including those with disabilities, is an important issue, and
not one which may be taken lightly. The efforts of the Senators I just
mentioned demonstrate the high level of concern which exists on this
matter.
I would like to begin by addressing a matter which I have heard
discussed several times over the last couple of days. That matter is
unfunded mandates. As the author of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, I
am well aware of this issue. In fact, I have worked on the question of
whether or not IDEA, or similar legislation, should fall under the
definition of an unfunded mandate since well before my legislation
became law.
Early in my work on unfunded mandates legislation, I included
specific limitations on the application of such a law. Among those
limitations were exceptions for a Federal statute or regulation which
establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin,
handicapped, or disability status. Let me again say, an exception is
included to protect the statutory rights of numerous groups, including
the handicapped and disabled. Clearly, IDEA is designed to protect the
rights of disabled students. Given these two very specific facts, I
believe it is inescapably obvious that IDEA is not an unfunded mandate
as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Public Law 104-4.
One aspect of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act which did impact IDEA
was the provision which called for the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] to explore any law which placed an
enforceable duty on State or local governments. Among the laws which
the ACIR reviewed was IDEA. At the time, many groups contacted me in
firm opposition to any consideration of IDEA in ACIR's report. I
maintained that we should have no sacred cows, that reviewing IDEA in
the report could play an important role in reauthorizing this
legislation. While many people expressed numerous concerns about the
final ACIR report, I think one aspect of that report was particularly
notable. That part mentioned that the Federal Government needed to
finally start picking up its fair share of the costs of IDEA, that we
should contribute the 40-percent of the costs that were originally
promised. I am sure my colleagues would not be surprised to find out
that no one expressed any opposition to that specific recommendation.

And I am pleased to note that the ACIR recommendation on funding has
not been ignored. From the very beginning of the 105th Congress
additional attention has been focused on the need for increased federal
funding for IDEA. S. 1, the Safe and Affordable Schools Act of 1997,
contained increased authorizations for IDEA to finally reach the 40-
percent federal share for which we have aimed. In addition, earlier
this year, Senator Gregg took the lead in circulating a letter to
President Clinton, later signed by myself and 20 of our colleagues,
requesting his cooperation in fully funding special education. Now that
the issue of IDEA funding has been raised, I believe the increased
consciousness about this issue will result in Congress soon achieving
full funding for this important program.
Mr. President, while we may have many different approaches on this
issue, I believe we share exactly the same goal--providing our
children, regardless of their level of disability, with the best
possible education. Does S. 717 reach this goal? Quite honestly, the
answer is no. This legislation is not perfect. No bill ever is. But S.
717 gets us closer to our goal. Through untold hours of hard work on
the part of Members of Congress and various groups affected by IDEA, a
compromise was reached. Because of this effort, we now have before us
legislation which will make IDEA better.
I believe S. 717 improves the implementation of IDEA for all affected
parties--students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. The
bill takes significant steps to reduce the paperwork associated with
the current law and to increase the flexibility available to teachers
and school administrators, allowing schools to focus on what should be
their first priority--edu- cating young people. It improves the ability
of schools to discipline disabled students in appropriate
circumstances, most notably in any situation involving the possession
of a weapon or controlled substance. It requires mediation as an option
to taking disputes between parents and schools to the courts. It also
enhances the ability of parents to participate in educational decisions
which affect their child. All of these things together will help us
provide better educational opportunities to students, both the disabled
and non-disabled, and will ease some of the burden on schools which
exist in the current law.
Mr. President, as I stated before, the bill before us today is the
result of a great deal of lengthy and painstaking negotiations. While
it is likely that no one would say this is the bill they would choose
if the decision was entirely up to them, it is the bill on which often
opposing sides were finally able to come to an agreement. After all the
work which went in to creating this delicate balance, I believe
altering the bill would be detrimental to the fragile agreement which
was finally built. With this in mind, I will oppose the amendments
which have been offered on this legislation. While I understand the
concerns expressed by these amendments, and commend the amendments'
sponsors for their concern about the needs of school districts, I
cannot support any amendment which could unravel the current consensus
which has been forged.
Mr. President, the legislation we have before us today will increase
flexibility for schools, improve educational opportunities for
students, and encourage parents, teachers and school administrators to
work more closely together to address concerns about the education of
the disabled. I am pleased to support this bill and urge its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the House companion bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, to reauthorize and make improvements to that
Act, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes of debate equally
divided between the two managers prior to the vote on passage of the
bill.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleagues. I
understand the difficulties when we are asked to do things that common
sense tells us otherwise. I know how hard it is to vote against
amendments that are common sense and also express ourselves on how we
feel about some of the problems we have had with the special education
legislation.
I deeply appreciate the vote on the last amendment to move this bill
forward. As my colleagues know, we are now on the House bill which
passed with only three dissenting votes yesterday. I hope the Senate
will do likewise.
I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this bill is a clear improvement over
present law. Nevertheless, it remains a $35 billion per year almost
totally unfunded mandate on the school districts of our country. It
takes away control over quality of education that they can provide and,
regrettably, in spite of the fact that it is a slight improvement, I am
constrained to vote against it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 30 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in paying special tribute to
Senator Frist. As a new Member, he took over the responsibilities in
this area and has made an enormous contribution to bringing us where we
are; also, Senator Coats, and, in particular, the chairman of the
committee, Senator Jeffords, who has exercised leadership.

[[Page S4410]]

I also thank Tom Harkin. This act was passed 22 years ago. I remember
when 5\1/2\ million children were pushed aside and lacked any kind of
hope and opportunity. Senator Harkin has been a giant in the Senate for
all those who have been disabled in our country. Today is a victory for
children, it is a victory for the parents of these children, and it is
a victory for our country. I think, quite frankly, it is the finest
moment we have had in this session. I commend those who made it
possible to make a difference for disabled children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his kind
remarks, for his leadership in this area. I thank Senator Jeffords and
especially Senator Frist, who had the first hearing on this 2 years
ago, May 9, 1995. It has been a long process. We have worked with all
groups.
We worked with all groups, and we have a very balanced, fair, and
forward looking bill.
To sum it up, Mr. President, what this bill says is that prior to
1974, almost 1 million kids were totally excluded from not receiving
education only because they were disabled. Now they are in school, they
are learning, they are becoming productive citizens, they are working.
They are taxpayers, not tax consumers. They are not in institutions any
longer.
Are there problems out there? Yes, but we are meeting those problems,
and we are a better and stronger country because of what we did 22
years ago. This bill moves us into the 21st century by saying that we
are going to strengthen this law and we are going to provide that this
country meets its obligations to all of our children, including
children with disabilities.
Again, this is a bill that reaches out and lifts up everyone in this
country. I urge its passage.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are now going to vote on the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as IDEA, has been on the
books for 22 years.
The obligation to provide children with disabilities a free and
appropriate education is grounded in the 14th amendment to the
Constitution, title V of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and by the laws of every State. IDEA is one
additional civil rights tool that guarantees children with disabilities
the right to receive a quality education. IDEA is the only Federal
civil rights statute that provides funds to assist States in meeting
the obligation to educate all children. This bill is about the
educational future of 5.4 million children.
From my perspective, IDEA is a voluntary grant-in-aid program. It
provides funds to States to assist them in making available a free
appropriate public education to 5.4 million children with disabilities
from 3 through 21. If a State elects to take its allotment of funds
appropriated for IDEA in any year, it must provide a free appropriate
public education to these children as prescribed by the law. Today,
every State is participating in the IDEA grant-in-aid program, and 49
States have elected to participate in and comply with IDEA since 1975.
The history of these IDEA amendments precedes the 105th Congress. In
the last Congress our colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources
Committee attempted to move a bipartisan reauthorization of IDEA
through the Senate. Their bill, S. 1578, did not make it to the floor
before that Congress ended. Those of us involved in the last minutes of
the 104th Congress, especially the distinguished Senator from
Tennessee, Dr. Frist, and Mr. Harkin from Iowa, the authors of S. 1578,
Senator Jeffords and myself, pledged to make the reauthorization of
IDEA one of our top legislative priorities in this Congress. We are
here again with a bipartisan approach. And, actions speak louder than
words.
Since January of this year, Senate and House staff, as well as
representatives from the administration have been meeting daily to
craft our bipartisan bill and to bring this legislation to the floor as
quickly as possible. Those involved in crafting this legislation
included not only Senators and Labor and Human Resources Committee
staff, but also our House counterparts, especially Chairman Goodling,
Mr. Riggs, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Martinez. Officials from the U.S.
Department of Education, particularly Judith Heumann, Assistant
Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and White
House representative, Lucia Wyman, also participated in the process.
The range of expertise and knowledge brought to bear in developing this
bill as well as the spirit of bipartisan, bicameral cooperation
demonstrated in writing it is unprecedented. I have seen nothing like
this in my 24 years in Congress. In fact, the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee and the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, unanimously reported out identical legislation, S. 717 and
H.R. 5 respectfully, on the same day, May 7, 1997. Moreover, the
committees collaborated with each other in developing their respective
reports.

The frequency, scope, and type of input we sought and received in
putting together this final product was extraordinary. Almost every
week for 3 months we held public meetings using a town hall format.
This permitted those interested in our progress in drafting the IDEA
bill to offer feedback and input. Students, educators, advocates, and
parents traveled from all over the country to provide comments on our
proposals. Often, more than 100 people would speak at an individual
meeting. No effort was made to limit the amount of people that
testified or limit the time they could speak. Many told personal
stories that were oftentimes both heart warming and heart wrenching.
Their recommendations came from the real education front lines. Our
inclusive process, although unorthodox, has paid off. As of today, we
have heard from over 30 groups that support our moving this legislation
without amendment. They view our 5-month effort as worthy of their
unequivocal support.
Many of you in this Chamber and your constituents, who are involved
in this issue, appreciate the delicate balance this bill represents. It
is built on principles, it is built on consensus, and it is built on
compromise.
I acknowledge that States need additional Federal funding to fully
implement IDEA the way it is intended. We have said in S. 1, the Safe
and Affordable Schools Act of 1997, that we will increase funding, from
the current $3.2 billion to $13.2 billion in 7 years. More Federal
dollars for IDEA is an appropriations issue that we will turn to after
we pass this important legislation. I am confident that dollars spent
today for the education of children with disabilities is money well
spent. When all children are provided a quality education, they stand a
better chance of becoming productive and contributing adults in our
society. IDEA is an important investment in the future of children with
disabilities.

Another benefit that IDEA provides is that it offers everyone one set
of rules on how to go about providing an education to children with
disabilities. Prior to 1975, 35 States, through Federal courts, State
courts, and State legislatures, were grappling with how to define the
provision of an education to children with disabilities. Individual
States and the country as a whole did not need, did not want 35
interpretations of what constituted an education for children with
disabilities. Everyone wanted one rule book. That is why IDEA
originally passed. That is why today, with States educating 5.4 million
children with disabilities, less than one-half of 1 percent of
disagreements between parents and school districts, over a disabled
child's education, end up in court. Do we want to step backward? Do we
want to reset the clock and create a legal free-for-all? I don't
believe we do.
I would like to make another observation. I, as much as anyone else
in this Chamber, want Federal IDEA dollars to be spent on educating
children with disabilities, not on attorneys' fees. I am convinced that
this bill makes that happen. Could we have put more limitations on when
attorneys could be used or when parents, who prevail against a school
district in a legal dispute, could be reimbursed? You bet. Could we
have gotten here today having done so? No. Most of the limitations on
attorneys' fees were put in the statute by our colleague from Utah,
Senator Hatch in 1986. They are in this bill.
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997
is,

[[Page S4411]]

in my view, an important legislative accomplishment. The process we
implemented to develop this legislation provides us with a new standard
for how we can work together. This bill sends a message to the country
that we care about education, that we care about children, that we care
about families, and that we care about the future. This is a powerful
and positive message. Please join me and the rest of my colleagues who
have worked long and hard to get here, in supporting this bill. The
President is waiting. He is ready to sign the IDEA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
tolerance. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation that
will do so much to straighten out the problems that we have with
respect to special education in our schools. It allows much more
flexibility in discipline in the schools. It takes care of the numerous
problems that we have had.
I will point out that Senator Lott and Dave Hoppe spent an infinite
number of hours bringing these groups together. Senator Frist did so
much last year to prepare us, but it fell apart at the last minute.
Senator Coats also worked very hard on this.
I commend all colleagues for their support. I point out that this
passed the House yesterday 420 to 3. I hope we can do even better on
this side. I thank all the staff who have helped us.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill is
considered read three times.
The question is, Shall the bill, H.R. 5, pass? The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--1

Gorton

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The bill (H.R. 5) was passed.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for the
tremendous vote and support for the legislation. This has been an
incredible endeavor: So much effort, so much time. The vote that we
have is certainly, percentagewise, perhaps at least identical to the
House, and certainly with only one dissenting vote is a tremendous
tribute to all those who worked to put this bill together.
In particular, I wish to thank Senator Frist, who brought it almost
to this point last year, and it fell apart at the last minute. His
efforts were so paramount in bringing this bill to us this year.
I thank the majority leader and Dave Hoppe for their help in getting
all the groups together, and thank as well the work of both sides of
the aisle, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, all on my side, certainly
Senator Coats and, as I mentioned, Senator Frist and Senator Lott, and
all who have worked so hard--Senator Gregg in particular on the
funding--this past year. We have had a real joint effort. And I am
blessed and thank Pat Morrissey and Jim Downing of my staff who also
did tremendous work, and also the staff on the majority side and the
minority side.
I yield to Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes to thank a
lot of people because this has been indeed a long journey and a tough
journey.
It started, as I said, 2 years ago, on May 9, 1995, when Senator
Frist had the first hearing on the reauthorization of the bill. And it
has taken us 2 long years of working literally, if not every day, every
week on this, and lately every day on it for the last several months.
So I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the people who have
made it possible to reach this passage of S. 717. There are many people
with a deep commitment to improving educational results for disabled
children who stayed the course throughout this very long, tough
journey. And today we can now point with satisfaction to a well-
balanced, bipartisan bill that makes the kinds of improvements we are
seeking in reauthorizing IDEA.
Twenty-two years ago, as we have all said, with the enactment of
Public Law 94-142, Congress took steps to ensure children with
disabilities would no longer be excluded from school and would be
guaranteed access to a free appropriate public education.
Today, we have taken another major step by ensuring that the disabled
children will now have the opportunity to enjoy the same expectations
in the general curriculum as enjoyed by their nondisabled peers. And
that success will be judged by the same high standards applicable to
others.
So first I would like to thank Judy Heumann, the Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Ms.
Heumann, who has polio and herself was excluded from school, has
successfully overcome diversity and discrimination. She sued the New
York City Board of Education for the right to teach from her wheelchair
in that city. She won. And she taught. And she has devoted her adult
life to advocating for the rights of disabled persons.
I think it is especially significant to point out in 1975, Judy
worked for Senator Harrison Williams, who was one of the sponsors of
Public Law 94-142. In her role with the Department of Education, she
and Dr. Tom Hehir, Director of the Office of Special Education
Programs, together with Secretary Riley, and their respective staffs
crafted a reauthorization bill that has served as the framework and
foundation for what we have just passed.
So I express my appreciation to Secretary Riley, Ms. Heumann, and Tom
Hehir. I want to give special thanks to their respective staffs who
continuously provided crucial technical assistance and leadership
throughout this entire reauthorization process.
I would especially, Mr. President, like to commend our majority
leader, Senator Lott, for his deep commitment to ensuring passage of
the IDEA reauthorization bill as soon as possible in this legislative
session. The majority leader demonstrated the extent of his commitment
by arranging for his own chief of staff, David Hoppe, to facilitate the
bipartisan, bicameral working group that has worked so hard over the
last 10 weeks to develop this final bill.
I simply cannot say enough to express my appreciation to Senator
Lott's chief of staff, David Hoppe, for his enormous contribution to
this reauthorization process. We would not have had a bill today
without his involvement. Mr. Hoppe brought to this process a strong
sense of integrity, superb negotiating skills, a sense of humor, and a
stick-to-itiveness. It was a continuous exercise of all of these
attributes in facilitating the working group that resulted in the bill
we passed today.

[[Page S4412]]

As I said, Mr. President, it was 2 years ago this week that Senator
Frist, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy brought to
order the 20th anniversary joint House-Senate informational hearing on
IDEA. And following that hearing, Senator Frist worked diligently to
secure passage of the bill before the end of the 104th Congress. Well,
although it was not possible to fully meet that goal, the groundwork
laid by Senator Frist, and his unending devotion to making sure we
passed it, was of significant help to the working group this year in
crafting again the bill we just passed.
It was a pleasure and a privilege for me to work as the ranking
minority member on the Disability Policy Subcommittee with Senator
Frist in this effort. I want to thank Senator Frist for his tireless
leadership and contribution to this bill.
Let me pay tribute to a friend of longstanding from House days, and
now in the Senate, who now stands across the aisle from me as the
chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator
Jeffords of Vermont, for his commitment over a lifetime, for developing
quality education for all of our children--for all of our children.
Senator Jeffords has always been in the forefront of the fight. I thank
him especially for his leadership in supporting passage of this bill.
Senator Jeffords' long commitment, not only to education of all
kinds, but especially for kids with disabilities, also played a key
role in the enactment of 94-142 in 1975. And I thank him publicly for
that lifetime of work and dedication.
I also especially want to thank Senator Kennedy for the tremendous
contribution he made to this. Throughout his tenure with this body,
Senator Kennedy has continually provided the leadership we have needed
in championing all civil rights issues. He has consistently worked with
me to support various laws ensuring the rights of individuals with
disabilities.
Through Senator Kennedy's diligence, he ensured that stronger
enforcement requirements would be added to S. 717 to help ensure that
States and local school districts would be in full compliance with
IDEA.
Let me pay tribute also to Senator Coats and Senator Dodd for their
contribution to the successful passage of this bill, and all of my
colleagues in the House who worked with us in a very unique
arrangement.
I say to my friend from Vermont, it was so successful. We had to spin
this off from other bills. We pulled together not only bipartisanship
here in the Senate, but it was bicameral. And we worked together with
the House Republicans and Democrats, jointly, day after day in
developing this bill.
And I would just mention--hopefully without excluding too many
people--Representatives Goodling, of course, and Martinez,
Representatives Riggs and Miller, Castle and Scott. So this bill has
truly been a bipartisan, bicameral effort. And I am proud to have been
a part of that effort.
But now let me also thank all of the staff members of the working
group. As I said, they were here every day, all week, weekends, late
Fridays, Saturdays. I would get phone calls on Saturday night and
Sunday afternoons, and they were still working. I hate to admit it, I
was home. They were working.
But I have to first thank Bobby Silverstein for his leadership on
this bill, and going back for many, many years, first when he worked
for Congressman Williams in the House and then saw the light and came
over to the Senate to work on my staff on the Disability Policy
Subcommittee in the mid-1980's. And it was through Bobby Silverstein's
lifetime, long and deep commitment to ensuring the rights of people
with disabilities that we got through the Americans With Disabilities
Act in 1990. And it was through his efforts that we were able to
finally pull together all of the working people on this bill and the
reauthorization of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. So to
Bobby Silverstein, I thank him for many years of service on this
committee and for his service for making this country more fair and
just for all people. I thank Tom Irvin of my own staff, on detail from
the Department of Education. I thank Pat Morrissey, who took over the
leadership on the staff in the subcommittee 2 years ago with Senator
Frist. Again, Pat has been a stalwart, always there, always working, no
matter what hour, no matter what day. I want to thank Pat again for all
of her work in ensuring the passage of this bill. Also, Jim Downing,
Senator Jeffords' staff, again, Jim, I thank you again for everything
you have done. You have always been there. Thank you to Townsend Lang
of Senator Coats' staff, Dave Larsen of Senator Frist's staff, and Kate
Powers, Connie Garner, and Danica Petroshius of Senator Kennedy's
staff. I also commend the hard work of the House staff, including Sally
Lovejoy and Todd Jones of the House committee majority staff, Alex Nock
of the House subcommittee minority staff, Theresa Thompson of
Representative Scott's staff and Charlie Barone of Representative
Miller's staff.

Finally, Mr. President, most importantly--most importantly --I want
to thank all of the members of the disability community and the general
education community who stuck with this process through 2 long years.
It was up and it was down, up and down, all the time. We thought we had
agreements, then it would fall back. We kept bringing them together,
bringing them together. It was a deep commitment by those who
understand the need for a balance.
I am sympathetic, as I said many times, with teachers who find
themselves in a classroom and perhaps they have children there that
they do not know how to handle. They are at their wits' end, and
principals maybe get to their wits' end. I have a lot of sympathy for
them. That is why we have to meet more of our obligations in providing
more funds to the States for teacher training and supportive services
for those teachers so they can do what is right and proper and meet
their obligations.
Well, what those who wanted a bill in the education community did and
the disability community did over the last couple of years, they said,
``We will forget all the anecdotes. Everyone has a horror story.'' You
can always find a horror story someplace no matter which side you are
on. If you are on the disability side, you can find horror stories
about teachers or principals who did bad things to kids with
disabilities. If you are on the education side, you can find horrible
things--maybe somebody claimed they had a disability and they did not.
But we cannot legislate by anecdote. We cannot legislate by one, two,
or three horror stories. We have to do what is right for the entire
Nation. We have to cut through the fog and the haze and the one or two
stories that keep cropping up. We have to cut through the
misconceptions.
I do not know how many times I keep hearing this is an unfunded
mandate when we all know it is not an unfunded mandate. So we have to
keep cutting through, cutting through, all the time. That is what some
of the leaders in the general education community and the disability
community did for the last couple of years.
I thank them, not those who wanted to throw a hand grenade in
periodically because they had a horror story, but those who understood
that we had to reach a consensus, we had to strike a balance. That is
what this bill is.
In closing, I hope and believe the bill we passed today, the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, will
clearly enhance equal educational opportunities for all children with
disabilities as we enter the 21st century. We promised that in 1975. We
have met a lot of those promises--not all of them. We have a lot of
promises to keep.
I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will take a moment and thank the Senator from Iowa
for his most eloquent statement. I think for those of us who were
involved in the original writing of it back in 1975, I think only we,
perhaps, had the legal understanding of what has happened over the last
20-odd years now as to improving the lives of individuals with
disabilities and to improve the confidence of our educational system in
giving an appropriate education to all our students.
I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to say that this bill
is about

[[Page S4413]]

education. This bill is about children. Today we have seen a real
victory for the over 40 million individuals with disabilities in this
country, but especially the 5 million children, individuals with
disabilities, who will benefit--who will benefit--from this modernized,
updated Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
The bipartisan vote of 98-1 shows the Republicans and Democrats are
working together, have worked together, and will continue to work
together to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the same
opportunities that every other American has to achieve the utmost
potential for themselves. It was a bicameral bill. I am delighted the
House passed it, the exact same bill, just 2 days ago.
I want to thank people from my staff, including Sue Swenson, Dave
Egnor, Robert Stodden, Dave Larson, Pat Morrissey, Bob Silverstein, and
Tom Irvin from the minority staff who helped me so much over the last 2
years, and once again, I thank Dave Hoppe, Senator Jeffords, and
Senator Harkin for their leadership, for their experience, and their
wisdom in passing this bill today. It is a victory for education, a
victory for children, a victory for all Americans.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. President, last evening the House adopted H.R. 5 by a recorded
vote of 420 to 3. Today we have voted 98-1. In the last week Congress
has demonstrated once again, its willingness to invest in human
capital--the children of today and the taxpayers of tomorrow, children
with disabilities and children, who, if not helped, might develop
disabilities. We have said in H.R. 5: children with disabilities will
continue to receive a free appropriate public education, we do expect
them to succeed in the general education curriculum, and we will be
accountable for their progress. That is a clear, simple message, a
message of power, potential, and promise.
We invested in human capital in another way in H.R. 5. We recognized
the range of decisions and obligations that fall to local school
districts on a daily basis. We gave them flexible, practical guidelines
on how and when they may discipline children with known disabilities.
We gave them greater access to Federal dollars and greater discretion
in how those dollars may be used. We directed more resources to
personnel preparation and to technical assistance. We reshaped
procedural requirements so school personnel may concentrate on children
and teaching them.
We invested in human capital through incentives for partnership
between State educational agencies and local education agencies, and
between parents and professionals. These partnerships will not only
foster cooperative planning and problem solving, but innovation and
expanded opportunities for children, with and without disabilities, to
benefit from school.
The process by which we arrived here today, for this vote, may be
unprecedented and never be repeated, but it allowed us to achieve a
consensus on a fundamental point. All children are entitled to a good
education, we reaffirm that, and make it more likely for children with
disabilities in H.R. 5.
Although others may characterize our efforts differently, I would say
that we were guided by the premise that special education is not a
place but an attitude. It is an attitude that says children need not
fail in order to be helped; that communication and partnership with
parents is a commitment, not an accident; and that solutions to
problems do not come from mandates, but from reaching common ground.
I wish to thank my colleagues for their support in the passage of
this historic legislation.

idea reauthorization

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to express my gratitude to all the
folks who made possible the passage of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act reauthorization bill. It's been a real
struggle over the last 2 years, but a concerted effort led by David
Hoppe of Majority Leader Lott's staff has resulted in a compromise bill
that received near unanimous support in both the House and the Senate.
I was among those voting for this bill.
Mr. President, Montana's schools are breathing a sigh of relief that
they will have more flexibility in dealing with disruptive students who
pose a threat to teachers and other students. At the same time, the
bill preserves the right of disabled students to a free appropriate
public education.
However, as with all compromises, there is something in this bill for
everyone to dislike. I don't think the bill goes far enough in giving
local educational agencies the ability to remove and expel dangerous
students. I supported Senator Gorton's amendment to allow local
agencies to develop their own policies on disciplining students. This
amendment was defeated.
I also have serious concerns about the costs of implementing this
bill, costs which fall directly on the States and the school districts.
Make no mistake: at current Federal funding levels, this bill is an
unfunded mandate on the States. The Federal Government funds less than
10 percent of the bill's costs, though it has promised to pay 40
percent. This bill does not set funding levels--it is not an
appropriations bill. We will have a separate debate on funding later in
the year. But I want to point out that we are mandating that our local
schools take specific actions which are very expensive and getting even
more so every year. We must take more responsibility for our actions,
and I hope we will do that when we debate funding later this year.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent S. 717 be
returned to the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________