Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am glad to yield to one of you, and then I am yielding myself off the floor. I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Based on constitutional decisions that were levied back in the late 1960s and 1970s, which determined that you had to give an equal opportunity to children with disabilities. Part of that equal opportunity is appropriate education, which takes into consideration the nature of the disability.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree very strongly with Senator Boxer's goal of increasing the availability of positive, engaging activities for school-aged children and youth during the nonschool hours. This is a very important issue that cannot, and should not, be decided within the context of a floor amendment on the juvenile justice legislation. Even without this year's Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, I would have reservations about this amendment. But we do have the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization in progress, and that is the time when this amendment, or something similar to it, ought to be considered. As the author of the original 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act, I have an enormous interest in any changes to this legislation, much less changes as dramatic as those proposed in this amendment. When Congressman Steve Gunderson and I drafted the 21st Century Learning Centers legislation, our purpose was to promote the broader use of school facilities, equipment, and resources. Our largest investment in education is for buildings and equipment, and in most communities these resources are closed more than they are open. By encouraging schools to share their facilities, equipment, and other resources to meet the broader needs of the community, these centers can expand educational and social service opportunities for everyone in the community. Until 2 years ago, the Clinton administration failed to support the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, even to the point of repeatedly requesting that funds for the program appropriated by Congress be rescinded. Then, last year, the administration, through the competitive grants process, substantially changed the focus and indeed, the very nature, of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Overnight, this initiative to expand the use of existing facilities became an afterschool program, almost to the exclusion of the multi-purpose community centers which were envisioned when I wrote the legislation. This dramatic change in direction for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program raises questions which must be answered before we can consider such a huge expansion of the program. We will be doing that during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is now being considered in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We need to address questions such as: Can the legislation still serve the purposes for which it was originally intended, with the current, overwhelming focus on providing afterschool programs? If it is to be an afterschool program, are there changes needed in the legislation to make it more effective? If this program is to serve primarily as an afterschool program, where do community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, fit in? Public schools currently provide less than one-third of the afterschool care, with other community groups providing most of the care. The current grant program clearly demonstrates that schools are, by and large, failing to coordinate their afterschool services with those of other care providers in the community. And the Boxer amendment does nothing but perpetuate that situation. The amendment by Senator Boxer proposes changes that will eviscerate the act.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator answer a question?

Mr. JEFFORDS. That goes back to the 14th amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think that narrows it down to all that I am saying which is, yes, they do that, but they have to provide an alternative educational circumstance, which is something different than other people without disabilities may not have been entitled to. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. JEFFORDS. You are accurate.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I was referring to about 100 percent of the 40 percent.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I say if the Congress achieves what we are trying to do, particularly what the Republicans are trying to do, fully fund IDEA, then many of those concerns would go away. But we are far, far from providing the State and local governments the money we told them we would.

Mr. JEFFORDS. They can be removed either way. It is just a question where they end up--whether they end up going outside of the school and joining a gang or whether they get a special educational situation outside of the classroom, outside of the school. Those are the kinds of problems we must address whether or not they have a disability.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I listened very carefully. I think when you get right down to it the basic question is, in the final analysis, should the school have to afford an alternative education situation and pay for it. It is a matter of dollars and cents. It has nothing to do with the safety of the children or anything else. Under the circumstances you are dealing with here, if a child comes in with a gun, if it is somebody without an IEP or whatever, they can be thrown out of school and they can be let back into school. That is entirely the discretion of the school officials. They can say this is an aberration or whatever. If a child with a disability comes in, then you go through the 45 days to assess as to whether or not it was as a result of a disability. If it was not the result of a disability, then the child can be disciplined as any other child. If, on the other hand, it was the result of a disability, then they are required to provide an alternative educational situation. It may or may not cost something. But that child is not in the classroom. So no child goes back into the classroom if they are a threat to the classroom. What it comes down to, and what the school officials object to, as I understand it, is they have to set up a special 45-day program for this child, and pay for it. The reason is not to protect the school or protect the kids; it is to make sure they do not have to provide the funds. You can keep those 45 days going forever. Then that costs money. So this is not a safety question. This is a money question. The school boards are saying they don't want to pay for those 45 days. That is what they are saying.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate the remarks. I, again, point out, if the child is violent and it is not a manifestation of their disability, they can be treated like anyone else as far as removal from school. If it is a manifestation, then special rules apply. Those special rules may well determine that they not be in the general education classroom. That process may require maybe an aide to be assigned to them. That is the way the law works. Many, many students who have disabilities have special aides assigned to them. We cannot let these kinds of very difficult incidents of violence throw out the whole law. We have to examine exactly how you handle students with disabilities, and situations where the disability results in school violence. In such cases they can be removed from the classroom; they can be removed from the school. But they must to be provided an appropriate education under the law.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me get organized here. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. Please refer back to me and then I will recognize the others, and we will have an orderly process here.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to let the Senator from Missouri finish so I can depart.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to volunteer this point.

Mr. JEFFORDS. He may not have to return to the school.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is not correct.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I might point out, under your theory here, if a child with a disability comes in, and it is not a manifestation of disability, they are not entitled, under the IDEA, to have any education at all. You just get rid of them, like you get rid of the one who came in who was not disabled.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Under these circumstances which we are talking about-- expelled but not a manifestation--then a child is expelled from school but is still entitled to educational services. That is the difference. That means an additional expense. The child who does not have a disability and is thrown out of school has to find another school, has to get a tutor or do something else. We are all talking dollars and cents. We are talking about a cost that is added by virtue of the fact that you must provide special services.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have the floor.