[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 66 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E972-E973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 13, 1997

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of H.R. 5, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997, Congress has 
vastly improved the ability of and access for children with 
disabilities to receive a free appropriate public education. With this 
reauthorization, Congress has built upon the successes of IDEA and made 
modifications where experiences over the 22 years of the act's 
existence has necessitated change.
  Prior to the enactment of what was then the Education for All 
Handicapped Children Act, 2 million children were excluded from 
receiving their right to a public education. On top of this gross 
injustice, another 2\1/2\ million children were receiving totally 
inadequate educational instruction. Fortunately, my predecessors in 
Congress recognized this terrible injustice and passed IDEA's 
predecessor. This civil rights initiative has served our Nation's 
children with disabilities well throughout its 22 years.
  During the 104th Congress, attempts were made to reauthorize IDEA. 
Unfortunately, the partisan atmosphere of the Presidential elections 
and the inability to fashion a document which could gain the support of 
the act's many constituencies essentially doomed these efforts to 
failure. With the commencement of the 105th Congress, I realized the 
importance of fashioning a bill which could gain the support of both 
sides of the aisle, and called on the majority to recognize this fact 
during the first hearing the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and 
Families had on IDEA reauthorization. Fortunately, Chairman Goodling 
saw the wisdom in this suggestion and joined together with Senator 
Jeffords and Senate Majority Leader Lott in proposing that we negotiate 
a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation with significant input 
from groups and individuals who are affected and served by the act. 
This process commenced on February 20, and has led us to House and 
Senate consideration of this measure.
  The current IDEA statute consists of 3 formula grant programs that 
assist States to serve children with disabilities in different age 
ranges, and 14 special purpose programs that support early intervention 
and special education research, demonstrations, technical assistance, 
and personnel training. Of the formula grant programs, two are 
permanently authorized--the grants to States program, better known as 
part B, and the preschool program. Despite part B, the heart of the act 
which mandates that children with disabilities receive a free 
appropriate public education, being permanently authorized, 
modifications were necessary to strengthen the acts protections, 
safeguards and enforcement means. In addition, interpretations by the 
courts of various aspects of part B has necessitated that Congress 
clarify its intent.
  Among the modifications made by H.R. 5 to the act is a provision 
which specifically states that educational services for children with 
disabilities who are suspended or expelled cannot be ceased. Since the 
inception of the act, the Department of Education has interpreted 
current law to allow schools to use disciplinary proceedings on 
children with disabilities, including explusion. However, the 
Department's interpretation of the law is that these procedures cannot 
result in a cessation of educational services. Unfortunately, this 
interpretation of the statute was called into question by a recent case 
before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals--Virginia Department of 
Education versus Riley. In the Virginia case the court held that the 
department's interpretation of the statute was incorrect and that 
services could be ceased to children with disabilities in certain 
circumstances.

  In order to clarify congressional intent, the bill codifies the long 
held interpretation of the department with language that would require 
a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities, 
including those who are suspended or expelled. This will end the short-
sighted practice of leaving children with disabilities without the 
educational tools they need to become active and successful members of 
society.
  Another modification to current law contained in H.R. 5 is the 
provisions regarding the policies and procedures each State must have 
in effect with respect to personnel standards in order to be eligible 
for part B funding. The language contained in section 612(a)(15)(C) 
sets forth parameters by which a State may deal with a documented 
shortage of qualified personnel. In subparagraph (C), I want to clarify 
that the reference ``consistent with state law,'' is intended to be 
applicable to the laws governing the profession or discipline. This 
policy should be applied to the most qualified individuals, who shall 
be supervised by qualified personnel within that profession or 
discipline, for each position--in other words, on a case by case basis. 
Further, shortages must be documented by any agency applying this new 
policy.
  H.R. 5 also amended current law in the area of least restrictive 
environment. This bill codifies recent cases (Greer v. Rome City School 
District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991); Oberti v. Board of Education, 
995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993); Sacramento City Unified School District 
v. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994)) regarding the inclusion of 
children with disabilities in the general education classroom. This 
principle of inclusion is so fundamental and central to the purpose and 
principles of the bill and always has been. The bill underscores the 
strong presumption in the law recognized by innumerable courts, that 
children with disabilities should be educated with children without 
disabilities in the general education classroom. All children, whether 
or not disabled, benefit from such education. This is surely the best 
approach to eradicating the prejudice which has kept people with 
disabilities out of the work force and out of our communities 
generally--and surely the best way to guarantee equal educational 
opportunity for all children.
  Research technology and experience with integration in the last two 
decades has flourished. It has demonstrated that children with the full 
range of disabilities can successfully be taught in the general 
education classroom--whether or not they are at grade level and whether 
or not they have disabilities that require them to partially complete 
tasks or participate in activities differently from other students. 
Educators have learned a great deal about modifying and adapting 
curriculum so that children like Rachel Holland with developmental 
disabilities are successfully receiving all of their education in the 
general education classroom. This bill is intended to further dismantle 
the walls of segregation.

  Last, I would like to comment on the provisions in the bill which 
pertain to the provision of FAPE to juveniles who have been adjudicated 
as adults and are incarcerated in adult correctional facilities. Once 
this bill is signed into law by the President, States will be permitted 
to transfer the responsibility for educating juveniles with 
disabilities placed in adult correctional facilities from State and 
local educational agencies to other agencies deemed appropriate by the 
Governor and to allow for the modification of an individualized 
education

[[Page E973]]

plan [IEP] and the least restrictive environment provision for bona 
fide security reasons and compelling penological reasons. In addition, 
the bill will permit public agencies to not serve juveniles who are 
incarcerated in adult correctional facilities who have not been 
identified or did not have an IEP in their last educational placement.
  In exercising these new authorities, public agencies should remember 
that children with disabilities who are incarcerated in adult 
correctional facilities will be more likely to return to prison after 
their initial release if they do not have the educational tools to 
survive in life after prison. The small savings gained by not serving 
these children while they are in adult correctional facilities will 
pale in comparison to exorbitant future costs of additional prison time 
or reliance on social welfare programs.
  In ensuring compliance with the act, the appropriate education and/or 
prison official will have the obligation to determine if a youth 
entering the prison system had been previously identified as eligible 
for special education services. The prison officials should develop a 
system for making this determination that includes: interviews with 
each incoming youth under the age of 22 regarding prior special 
education participation, notice to each youth under the age of 22 
regarding the special education process, and a procedure for contacting 
educational authorities, including those in correctional or juvenile 
institutions, to determine special education eligibility and to obtain 
prior special education records.

                          ____________________