Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. OK. Three on each side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Three minutes a side is fine.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will take managers' time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will take that time. Let me respond first to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I know how deeply he cares about this issue. I understand his concerns. We are not trying to undertake anything that would be detrimental to children with disabilities. I want him to understand clearly that under the example cited about a child who was frustrated because they could not hear the television-- and some of those things happen--under this amendment I have presented, that child could not be removed without a manifest determination hearing, and if in any hearing that would occur it is clearly shown there was a connection between his disability and his behavior, he could not be denied school services. That is the difference between our amendment and the one that passed the House a few weeks ago in May that does not provide for the hearing. Under the House bill that passed by 250 or 40-some-odd votes, they would be treated as any other child for disciplinary purposes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. For example, it says for disciplinary purposes the children shall be treated equally. ``(2) Limitation.-- ``(A) In general.--A child with a disability who is removed from the child's regular educational placement under paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public education which may be provided in an alternative educational setting if the behavior that led to the child's removal is a manifestation of the child's disability, as determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (k)(4). ``(B) Manifestation determination.--The manifestation determination shall be made immediately; if possible, but in no case later than 10 school days after school personnel decide to remove the child with a disability from the child's regular educational placement. I wanted to get that straight. I know the Senator cares deeply about that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Our amendment further says: (A) Review of manifestation determination.--If the parents or the local educational agency disagree with a manifestation determination under subsection (n)(2), the parents or the agency may request a review of that determination through the procedures described in subsections (f) through (i). That is current law, and we provide for the hearing.

Mr. SESSIONS. The school gets to protect the students until it is complete, no later than 10 days. I think the school system ought to be given some deference. The principals and the teachers love children. They care about their school. They want to do the right thing. We have pounced on them. Why does the disability act come up in the U.S. Congress? Because it is a Federal law that is controlling our teachers and principals. When they express concern to us, we should listen. I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen. He was a former Governor and was deeply involved in education.

Mr. SESSIONS. How much time remains on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the school system does treat differently students who bring drugs and guns to school. There is no doubt about that. I know Senator Harkin feels strongly about this, and Senator Kennedy does. Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy opposed, when we had 74 votes on the juvenile bill, an amendment that simply said if you bring a gun to school, you can be treated as any other child for disciplinary purposes. That got 74 votes in this body. It is time to do something about this. Do we not love children if we simply say a child who acts illegally, who abuses other children, who is sexually aggressive against girls in the classroom, even teachers, who curses teachers in the classroom-- engaging in that activity, if it is not connected to their disability, should they be protected and given a special status, as they absolutely are here? All this amendment says is, if a child has a disability, as Senator Harkin used the example, a hearing disability, and that is connected to their misbehavior, then they cannot be denied services in the school. They can remain there, and they are entitled to a hearing even on whether or not they go to a special classroom. We do not deny hearings. But we are simply saying it is time for the school principals and teachers to be given some respect. It is time for school students, as the 14-year-old about whom I read here, who said she can't respond but she is abused regularly--her glasses are knocked off. The girl told her she was going to kill her, and she was afraid to go to school. That child is getting no relief and cannot get it, it seems. I believe we have a modest step forward in making progress. Unfortunately, the Harkin amendment undermines everything the amendment I have offered seeks to do. It is return to the status quo. It is return to the Federal Government micromanaging school classrooms and discipline problems. It is not healthy for America. All we are trying to do is exact some balance. The House passed a much stronger bill earlier last month with 246 votes. That vote did not provide the kinds of hearings that our bill does. I believe this is the right approach. It is time to respond to the educators. Senator Kennedy says the Federal Government is paying for this. We know the Federal Government is not paying for this. We know we are paying only a fraction of the cost. It is basically an unfunded Federal mandate on local schools in America. They are required to do all of these things. Newsweek had an article on a student who was called ``the meanest kid in Alabama.'' He had an aide who went with him from the time he got on the schoolbus until the time he got to class, all through class, and then on the way home on the bus. One day he assaulted the schoolbus driver, and the aide, I think, tried to stop him. Those are the kinds of problems we have created under this law that seems to be impossible to deal with. I think the Disabilities Act is a historic step forward. We want to keep every child in the regular classroom who can possibly be kept there. I have visited schools in Alabama. I have seen schools with children in wheelchairs in the classroom. I have seen blind children in the classroom. I think that is wonderful. But if a child in a wheelchair sells dope, should they be treated differently from any other child who sells dope in school? That is all we are saying. But even then that child would have to have a hearing, and the school would have to show that the action he was being disciplined for was not a result of the disability before he could be removed from the classroom. This is a modest step forward to deal with a problem that is very real for teachers all over this country. If you go into their schools and talk to them, you will hear them talk about it. If you have friends who are teachers, ask them about it. There are many actions in this legislation that are unfair and cannot be justified, in my opinion. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Harkin amendment does not do the job. I urge its defeat. It has the pretense of improving the law, but it does not in any way. Under the amendment, the schools would not be free to set uniform discipline provisions for all students. The double standard that now exists would continue to exist. Our amendment does not completely remove the double standard, but it makes substantial progress after providing a hearing to that student to ensure they are treated fairly. Even if the bad behavior that a school seeks to address in the classroom has no relation to the child's disability, the school would be forced to keep that disruptive or even violent student in the classroom. If a child, for example, were blind, and if there were an excellent blind school nearby, the Harkin amendment would deny the school and the parent the right to agree--it would take both of them agreeing--to accept the average daily allowance for that student and apply that to that school, if the parent wanted to make up the difference and get the kind of high-quality education that might not be available in that school. I believe this is a concern for children. I believe it is compassionate in every way. It simply tries to give our beleaguered principals, teachers, and schools more options to deal with a very real problem. I thank the Chair. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a real problem in education today. It is a mandate that we know we do not fully fund. We are paying about 10 percent of the cost of IDEA. We ought to be paying 40 percent, according to our agreement. We have voted to increase that funding fully now. The next thing we need to do is deal with the Federal regulations that are contained in this book that teachers and principals are having to deal with on a daily basis. Most of you have heard from your teachers and schools. You know the way we are administering the Disabilities Act does not work. My amendment would simply say that a child, after a hearing where it is found that they are disruptive or perform an illegal or improper act in school that was not a product of their disability, would be treated, for disciplinary purposes, as any other child. That would mean that a child who sold dope, even though they may have a mobility disability, would be treated as any other child that sold drugs in a classroom. I think that is the right approach. The House passed a bill much stronger which said flatout that any child, whether disabled or not, would be treated the same for disciplinary purposes. This is a more modest step, but I believe a good step, in dealing with the problem that we are hearing about from all our teachers. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Allen, Bond, and Voinovich be listed as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is there any other agreement in terms of speaking between the votes? Are we going to speak and then vote? Will we just have an hour equally divided and then vote?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. My request was that I be allowed to speak first.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will not object.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 604, as modified.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is a real problem in education today in kindergarten through 12th grade. Anybody who talks to teachers at any length, as I have, will realize that discipline is a key problem for teachers, principals, and administrators. It undermines the ability of learning in the classroom, and it is not a healthy environment too often. It is a real challenge today. Children are always difficult to manage, and in today's world I think it is more so than in the past. I have been to quite a number of schools in my State over the last year--maybe as many as 20. Each time, I spent a good deal of time with teachers and principals and sometimes superintendents and board members. We talked about what is going on. I can say with absolute certainty that they told me over and over again that the biggest problem they see from the Federal Government is the discipline rules that have been set forth under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I suggest that if anybody is doubtful about that, call a schoolteacher they know and talk to them about what is being said and what is occurring within their schools. I was amazed. It is a Federal mandate. It is a law that has the best of all intentions to deal with disabled children, and I support it entirely. But there have been some unintended consequences in how children are disciplined in a classroom. We have absolutely created two classes of children for the purpose of discipline. I have had teachers tell me: Jeff, last year in this very school a child who was a disabled child sold marijuana to two other children. The two who bought it were removed from school. The one who sold it, because he was disabled, could not be removed from school under Federal law. I have had circumstances where another teacher told me about two children who brought a gun to the parking lot. They didn't bring it into the school, but they violated the school rules, and one that was disabled was able to stay in school. The teacher said: Every time I see that other child who was removed from our classroom, I know and he knows that another who did the very same act was not removed from the school. In addition to that, there are extraordinary problems within the classroom. I want to share some comments and letters I received from teachers in my State. I don't believe it is different from around the country. At one of our hearings that Senator Jeffords chaired last year, a superintendent from Vermont came and testified that 20 percent of his school district's budget goes to IDEA students. It is a matter of great importance. We want to give them the highest possible opportunity to succeed, but we also want to be sure we aren't creating a circumstance that makes learning more difficult in the classroom than it ought to be. Let me read to you from a special education program coordinator's letter. This person works with special ed kids. He said: Thank you for your efforts to amend IDEA 97. We thought that was going to help when it passed in 1997. Teachers and principals are telling me it made the situation worse. It didn't help. The restrictions inherent in this legislation have the potential to cripple a school system beyond repair. Although my job is to advocate for students with disabilities, I also feel a responsibility to protect the rights of all children to an appropriate education. An elementary school principal wrote: Today, general educators at all grade levels must deal with a large number of students who are challenged. Having to deal with these behavior problems and to constantly change behavior interventions not only takes away from important instructional time, but inadvertently reinforces a disabled child's behavior. All class rules should apply to all students. Therefore, they should have the same disciplinary actions. A middle school principal wrote: I am a middle school principal of a great school with wonderful children. I have witnessed the evolution of IDEA and am very concerned about the impact these regulations have on public education. This issue is causing many fine teachers to reconsider their choice of professions after a few years in education. Most of us know that most teachers who decide to give up the profession do so because of discipline problems and the frustrations of trying to maintain discipline in the classroom. A high school principal wrote: I am writing to support your efforts to change some of the current special education laws. The current laws are very frustrating in dealing with disruptive pupils. In order for us to maintain and provide a safe environment for all students, your provisions must be made in the law. A city school superintendent wrote this: In the short time since these regulations have been in effect, numerous instances have taken place involving special ed students where hardships, disruptions, and chaos have resulted from restraints placed on the administrators by the new regulations. Another superintendent wrote: We have written to advise you of our frustrations with trying to implement the 1997 amendments to IDEA relating to classroom discipline of disabled students. Classroom teachers must devote a significant amount of time and attention to address behaviors that interfere with the learning of students with disabilities or their required disciplinary action. Often this time and attention is to the detriment of the other students in the classroom and valuable instructional time is lost. It is of a particular concern to me as a superintendent to know that the roles and responsibilities of both our general and special educators have been redefined to the degree that teachers and administrators cannot act immediately when the situation demands it. Our teachers and administrators are committed to serving all children, regardless of needs, in a fair and equitable manner. If we don't teach these children right from wrong at a young age, how can they learn to act as good law-abiding citizens as adults. Another one writes: There have been several students with disabilities at our school who totally disrupt the learning environment of the regular classroom. They yell out, try to run away, are defiant and create havoc in the classroom. The teachers are required to spend so much time with these disruptive students that the other students are missing out on the quality instruction they need to be successful. I hope that when you consider changes in IDEA, you will not lose sight of those other students who need to be provided with quality education. The letters go on. I will add one more: I have dealt with several instances over the last 3 years in which special education students have disrupted classrooms and threatened administrators and teachers. I have heard that more than once. In many cases, their parents use psychologists and lawyers to create a climate of intimidation. Another teacher wrote me this letter. I thought it was particularly poignant: As a special educator of 6 years, I consider myself on the front lines of the ongoing battles that take place on a daily basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that part of the ammunition that fuels these struggles are the rights guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA 97. The law, though well-intentioned, has become one of the single greatest obstacles that educators face in their fight to provide all our children with a quality environment education delivered in a safe environment. There are examples that I can offer firsthand. However, let me reiterate, I am a special educator. I have dedicated my life to helping children with special needs. It is my job to study and know the abilities and limitations of such children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology and master's degree in special education and a Ph.D. in good old common sense. Nowhere in my educational process have I been taught that a certain few disabled students should have a right to endanger the right to an education of all other disabled children. It's nonsense, it's wrong, it's dangerous, and it must be stopped. There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost by teachers in dealing with behavioral problems. In times of an increasing competitive global society, it is no wonder that American students fall short. Certain students are allowed to remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to extend the school day. There is no need to extend the school year. If the politicians would just make it possible for educators to take back the time lost on a daily basis, there is no doubt we could have a better educated student. It is even more frustrating when it is a special education child who knows and boasts that ``they can't do anything to me,'' and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it day after day, week after week. It is clear that IDEA 97 not only undermines the educational process, it also undermines the authority of educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources, our credibility is being stripped from us. I am sure you have heard the saying that teachers are scared of the principals, the principals are scared of the superintendents, the superintendents are scared of the parents, the parents are scared of the children, and the children are scared of no one. And why should they be? I have experienced the ramifications of the new and improved law firsthand. I had one child attempt to assault me. He had been successful with two other teachers. He was suspended for 1 day. I had another child make sexual gestures to me in front of the entire class. Despite the fact that every child in my class and a majority of the children in the school knew of it, I was told by my assistant principal that nothing could be done because special-ed kids have rights. I literally got in my car to leave that day, but my financial obligations to my family and my moral responsibility to my children I had in my class kept me there. The particular child I spoke about frequently made vulgar comments and threats to my girls in my class on every opportunity he had when there was no adult present. Fortunately, the girls, also special-ed, could talk to me about it. Unfortunately they had to put up with it because nothing could be done. I know of a learning disabled child who cut a girl in a fight. The child and her parents then attempted to sue the school system because the child was burned when she grabbed a coffee pot to break it over another child's head. I know of another specific incident where three children brought firearms to school. The two regular children were expelled; the special-ed student was back in school the following week. I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington will do what it takes to take our schools back from this small group of children who feel it is their right to endanger the education of every other child in the school. As my grandmother said, right is right and wrong is wrong, and to enable this to continue is wrong. There are other letters. I want to read one more from a student. It makes the point, I think, very well: I am a 14-year-old 8th grader. I have a problem. There is this girl that goes to school with me, and she is an ADD student. A disabled student. She has been harassing me for no reason. She has pretty much done everything from breaking my glasses to telling me she is going to kill me. This really bothers me because she is an ADD student and the only punishment she ever gets is a slap on the hand. My principal says there is not much he can do because of her status. I asked, what would happen if I threatened her back? And he told me I would be suspended from school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever gotten is 3 days in-school suspension. I think this is wrong. She scares me, and I'm tired of this. It has been going on for 5 months, and it's really getting scary. Mr. President, it is a very small percentage of disabled students who are behaving in this way, but even a few who would do so make it very difficult for the schoolteachers and principals to conduct a safe class. It is an important issue for us. In terms of all the things we are doing here, if you talk to your teachers in your school systems, if we can make some improvement in this situation, they would feel as though Congress has listened to them and has responded.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time did I have?

Mr. SESSIONS. Originally, when I began.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry, I thought it was 30. I conclude by saying this amendment I offer will say this, and this is very important. It is a very modest attempt at improving the situation. If a child is a disabled child and their misbehavior is not connected to their disability, then they can, and I think should, be treated like any other child in the school. If a child has a nervous condition and cannot control himself, then that child ought to be placed in an environment within the school that is healthy for him, and this law would require that. They could not be removed from school if their actions or misbehavior were connected to that disability, but if they had perhaps a movement disability and they are selling dope, they ought to be treated like any other child in the school. That is what this amendment says. No. 2, it says if a school acts on a child, that they can take them out of a mainstream classroom and place them in another classroom until a hearing has been conducted about an individual educational plan for that child so they can be provided special education. Under current law, they have to be back in the classroom at least within 45 days, and in other circumstances, less than that. They go right back in before a determination can be made. This will give more flexibility to principals and teachers. Finally, under current law, if a school believed that a student could be sent to a school for the blind, for example, and this doesn't have anything to do with discipline, the State or local school system could pay the tuition and let that child go to the school for the blind. The trouble is, the special schools often cost a lot of money. The school system does the best they can with their own programs. My parent would expand options for these parents. If parents think others might be better, this amendment says if the school agrees and if the parents agree, they can take the value of the tuition that child has and go to a special school that has the ability to deal with that disability. There are some superior schools for the blind, for the deaf, perhaps better than most public schools. A lot of families sacrifice to send their children there. This funding could assist them in making that choice, to the benefit of the child. It is purely an option that, I think, is healthy and benefits disabled children. I can't imagine anyone not supporting it. I believe this is a modest amendment that will begin to help in some way to deal with an unfortunate situation. So many of the children do so well. The vast majority of our disabled children do exceedingly well, and we have great programs. This bill we are passing today provides unprecedented new funding for IDEA. We are excited about those possibilities, but we ought to deal with this particular problem that is disrupting our schools.