The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“H.R. 5--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1997” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E951-E952 on May 19, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
H.R. 5--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1997
______
speech of
GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 13, 1997
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in both parties today to support this remarkable achievement on behalf of children with disabilities and their families.
I have always believed that it is an honor and a privilege to serve in Congress. Today I can say that I am truly proud to serve in Congress and to have played a role in upholding the laws that protect our children and their families.
We had some very serious disagreements when we started this effort 2 years ago to revise the two-decades-old law on disability education.
At that time, there were several critical points that prevented us from coming to an agreement.
I believed then and still believe that all children, regardless of the nature of severity of their disability, must be guaranteed a free and appropriate public education and that no child should be denied an education.
I said last year that if the California Legislature could conclude that this sound educational and social policy does not compromise school safety, then Congress should do so as well. The language in this bill before us specifically prohibiting cessation of services accomplishes that goal.
I believed then and still believe that treatment of children with disabilities should be guided by what we know about the nature of the child's disability and its effect on his or her behavior. Unfortunately, this knowledge needs to be more widely disseminated. Language proposed in consideration of this bill previously would have allowed schools to discipline disabled students solely for so-called
``disruptive behavior''.
Most of us assume this was a well-intended effort, yet nonetheless it would have resulted in a situation where any of a wide-range of nonthreatening but, to some, unpleasant behaviors, could have been grounds for suspension or expulsion.
I am pleased that my colleagues had the good sense to strike this provision from the bill.
I believed then and still believe that parents are entitled to pursue all legal avenues available to them to ensure their child is treated fairly. Unfortunately, some had argued for provisions which would have curtailed or severely diminished these rights.
I am pleased that the bill before us maintains the fundamental rights we established when this groundbreaking law was written over 20 years ago.
The bill before us today resolves these differences to the satisfaction of the many different parties that have contributed to this process and who are affected by this legislation.
Other more, specific aspects of the bill also deserve note.
First, this bill permits a hearing officer to decide whether to place a child in an alternative educational setting for no more than 45 days if a school district proves beyond a preponderance of evidence that maintaining the child in his or her current educational placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. The standard substantially likely was established by the Supreme Court in Honig versus Doe. In that case, the Court described the children who could be moved as those who are truly dangerous, and noted that it was up to the school district to rebut the presumption of maintaining the child in the current placement. In deciding whether the district has met this burden, it would not be permissible to move a child based on behavior that is not truly dangerous.
In addition, H.R. 5 requires the hearing officer to consider the appropriateness of the child's placement and efforts by the school district to minimize the risk of harm. Thus, the bill assumes that it would not be permissible to remove a child when the child's behavior can be addressed in the current placement.
In placing the additional authority with the hearing officers, the proposed bill recognizes the important role already assigned to these individuals in guaranteeing the rights of children with disabilities. It is because of the importance of this role that the Act requires that hearing officers be impartial and prohibits the designation of an employee of the child's school district as a hearing officer.
It is expected that hearing officers will be provided appropriate training to carry out this new responsibility in an informed and impartial manner and that both State educational agencies and the Secretary of Education will closely monitor the implementation of this provision.
The intent behind this bill was to strengthen the least restrictive environment requirement and participation of children with disabilities in the general curriculum and the regular education classroom.
In keeping with this goal, the bill clarifies that the regular education teacher is part of the IEP team if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment. With respect to the IEP team, it is also important to underscore the right of parents to bring advocates or anyone else they care to bring to support them in the IEP process. Parents often need this support to level the playing field and allow them to participate meaningfully in the IEP process.
I am particularly pleased that the bill strengthens enforcement of IDEA by providing the Secretary more flexibility in withholding funds in cases of noncompliance and by explicitly clarifying the Secretary's ability to refer matters to the Department of Justice for enforcement action. Enforcement of this Act has been one of the main obstacles to full implementation. These new features will help assure that noncompliance will not go unchecked.
This process we went through in crafting these agreements was not easy. We had to overcome very real and difficult disagreements. Those of us who believed the rights of children and their parents were going to suffer were able to work with our colleagues in Congress who saw this issue differently and were able to agree that these rights should be protected.
What we strove to achieve, and what I think we've accomplished, is a bill that protects the rights of children with disabilities, and at the same time fosters cooperation between parents, teachers, school boards, administrators, and State and local agencies to help ensure that each recognizes their responsibilities and that each must make a commitment to work collaboratively to serve the best interests of all children.
I particularly wish to thank Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for allowing us the arena in which to make this achievement. It was a remarkable process. Senator Lott's dedication, and that of his chief of staff, David Hoppe, have served us all well.
I would also like to thank the other members of the bipartisan House-
Senate IDEA working group--Chairman Goodling, Representatives Riggs, Castle, Martinez, and Scott, and Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Harkin, and Coats--along with their staffs, for the extraordinary effort they made in putting this agreement together.
I would also like to extend special thanks to Assistant Secretary of Education Judy Heumann, whose commitment to and effectiveness in addressing issues affecting those with disabilities, and whose impact on my knowledge and understanding of these issues, is second to no one's. Judy was an integral part of this process from beginning to end and this agreement simply would not have been possible without her.
Mr. Speaker, during our deliberations on this act I received in the mail a letter from an old friend of mine, retired superior Court judge Robert J. Cooney, enclosing a copy of a book written by his son, Peter, describing what life is like for a child with Down's syndrome and for that child as he becomes an adult and seeks his place in American society. Over the years I have had the opportunity to watch Peter grow as he progressed through school and participated in the Special Olympics and achieve greater and greater independence.
Peter makes it clear in his book the importance of family and the available resources: ``it is the love of parents and others that make the person special. We need help sometimes. Parents and teachers and counselors should help us when we need help but don't do too much for us.--Some counselors need to think of us as special. Part of their job is helping us become independent.''
Peter is now 32 years old, lives in a residential facility and works in the food service business at Cosumnes River College when he is not attending a book signing.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about empowering parents and students to be able to get the best education they can, so that like Peter they too will have the chance to participate fully in American society.
We should never forget why we went through this process. Before the IDEA law was on the books over 20 years ago, more than a million children with disabilities were not being educated. Schools refused to take them, and States did not force them to do.
IDEA is a civil rights law. For a parent with a disabled child, there is nothing more important than knowing your child will get as good an education as any other child. You would think that is not so much to ask in this great and rich country of ours. In fact, twenty years ago, it was too much to ask. But it is not any more.
____________________
