[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                      Amendment No. 241, Withdrawn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  The amendment (No. 241) was withdrawn.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.

                          ____________________