[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1354-S1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1578. A bill to amend the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


   THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I am pleased and proud to introduce 
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1996. 
These amendments will guide our actions into the next century as we 
plan and secure educational opportunities for over 5 million American 
children with disabilities. Many recent polls have ranked education as 
one of the top concerns of Americans. These polls are a wakeup call. We 
must help America's children succeed and be able to demonstrate that 
they have succeeded. We must find ways to affect the culture of 
education, not through intrusive mandates, but through incentives for 
partnership and innovation. We must not give up on any child. We must 
view planning a child's education as a collaborative process. These 
important goals are the basis of the reauthorization of the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act, commonly referred to as IDEA.
  As everyone knows I am new to this business of drafting Federal 
legislation. I am not new to the effects of Federal legislation on 
individual lives. In my surgical practice, I have sometimes been able 
to save lives because of Federal legislation and sometimes in spite of 
the barriers such legislation imposed on my efforts.
  Thus, I take my responsibility as chairman of the Disability Policy 
Subcommittee very seriously. I am grateful for the partnership of my 
colleague from Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin, who was a partner in the 
entire process, and whose past leadership of this subcommittee was and 
is an inspiration.
  I have been both cautious and careful as I have weighed 
recommendations for amendments bought to me to change IDEA.


  The Right of a Child with a Disability to an Education is Preserved

  IDEA is a civil rights statute. It guarantees access to a free 
appropriate public education for children with disabilities. This 
understanding was established clearly in the predecessor to IDEA, 
Public Law 94-142, which was enacted in 1975. IDEA is founded in the 
14th amendment of the Constitution, which is the equal protection 
clause. This connection is reinforced through 20 years of case law and 
bipartisan legislative history. The IDEA amendments introduced today 
will not undermine the civil right of any child with a disability to a 
free appropriate public education.
  Public Law 94-142 was based on five principles.
  First, educational planning for a child with a disability should be 
done on an individual basis. Public Law 94-142 required that an 
individualized education program [IEP] be developed for each child with 
a disability.
  Second, parents of a child with a disability should participate in 
the development of their child's IEP. Public Law 94-142 required such 
participation.
  Third, decisions about a child's eligibility and education should be 
based on objective and accurate information. Public Law 94-142 required 
evaluation of a child to establish his or her need for special 
education and related services and to determine the child's progress.
  Fourth, if appropriate for a child with a disability, he or she 
should be educated in general education with 

[[Page S1355]]
necessary services and supports. Public Law 94-142 required educational 
placements based on such determinations.
  Fifth, parents and educators should have a means of resolving 
differences about a child's eligibility, IEP, educational placement, or 
other aspects of the provision of a free appropriate public education 
to the child. Public Law 94-142 required that if the parents of a child 
requested one, they were entitled to an impartial due process hearing. 
And, if differences between parents and educators could not be resolved 
through administrative proceedings such as a local due process hearing 
or a State-level review of the facts in the situation, either side 
could use court to settle the matter. In 1986, the law was amended to 
clarify that the Federal courts have the power to require the awarding 
of attorneys' fees to parents who prevail in administrative proceedings 
or court actions.
  The amendments offered today will not undermine any of these five 
principles or their manifestation in IDEA.
  In fact, this reauthorization of IDEA reinforces its basic principles 
and adds to the law a viable set of tools with which to help adults 
help children with disabilities prepare for a successful future.


                    Focused Accountability Expected

  The amendments address accountability. People involved in educational 
planning for a child with a disability will be expected to show 
results--where a child is and where a child is going in terms of the 
general education curriculum. How does he or she do in the classroom? 
How does he or she do on local or statewide assessments of student 
progress? Is a child getting appropriate services and supports to 
demonstrate what he or she knows and can do? The amendments reshape 
expectations for children with disabilities and create a common frame 
of reference--the general education curriculum. Most children with 
disabilities can learn and benefit from the general education 
curriculum. Some may need to learn it at a slower pace or in a modified 
form. Some may need to demonstrate what they have learned in a 
different way than their peers. Nonetheless, they can learn and 
therefore, should have the opportunity to learn, what their brothers, 
sisters, and friends are learning.

  Unless we secure the general education curriculum as the educational 
anchor for most children with disabilities, their ability to succeed on 
district-wide and statewide assessments of student progress will be 
jeopardized. If they fail or perform poorly on such assessments, 
because they were taught from a watered-down general education 
curriculum or a different curriculum, we are reinforcing the beliefs of 
people who say that children with disabilities cannot learn as much or 
as well as other children. We also are reinforcing the beliefs of 
people who prefer separate educational opportunities for children with 
disabilities. Moreover, if children are taught from a watered-down 
general education curriculum or a different curriculum, we may 
inadvertently create a justification for ignoring children with 
disabilities when undertaking school reform initiatives.
  If the general education curriculum is the focus for planning for a 
child with a disability, it will improve communication throughout the 
system--a child with a disability and peers, educators and the child's 
parents, special education teachers and general teachers, related 
services professionals and teachers, and parents of children with and 
without disabilities. Such a focus also will affect expenditures and 
uses of personnel. The emphasis will shift to what services and 
supports are necessary in order for a child with a disability to 
succeed in the general education curriculum. This shift may save a 
school district money, while continuing an appropriate education for a 
child with a disability. Lines of responsibility will blend--the 
question will become--``How do we make the general education curriculum 
work for a particular child with a disability?'' If this blending of 
responsibility takes off, and I believe it will work, not only will 
children with disabilities benefit, but children at risk will benefit, 
because personnel will acquire new skills and supports that equip them 
to serve all children.


             Culture in the Educational Environment Changed

  The amendments will affect the culture of schools--to create new 
bases for teamwork, to reinforce existing partnerships, and to provide 
incentives to view the delivery of educational services to children 
with disabilities not as a distinct, separate mandate, but as an 
integral part of the overall business of education. I come to this 
conclusion from personal experience.
  Giving an individual a new heart, a chance at a longer life with 
quality, is the ultimate high. When that moment comes, I am filled with 
powerful emotions--pride, love, prayers of thanks, satisfaction, and a 
profound appreciation of the power of teamwork. Reaching that moment 
and the critical ones that follow it is not possible without teamwork, 
involving the transplant recipient, the donor's bereaved family, the 
organ donor coordinator, medical, surgical, technical and nursing 
staff, counselors, and the recipient's family. This process is long, 
complex, emotional and risky, but it is not a contest. Everyone has a 
common goal. Information is compiled and analyzed. Options are 
considered. Differences are aired. Decisions are made.
  As I became engaged in the reauthorization of IDEA I realized that 
planning the education of any child with a disability should not be 
viewed as a contest, but as an opportunity for teamwork. The bill 
includes many provisions which encourage and reinforce teamwork. 
Parents will be a source of information when compiling evaluation data 
on a child suspected of having or known to have a disability. Parents 
will have the opportunity to participate in all meetings in which 
decisions which affects their child's education are made. Parents of 
children with disabilities will have the opportunity to help develop 
school-based improvement plans designed to expand and improve 
educational experiences for their children. Teachers--those who do or 
could work with disabled children--will be involved in providing and 
interpreting information on the educational and social strengths, 
progress, and needs of children with disabilities, which would be used 
in IEP meetings.
  School districts will see a substantial reduction in paperwork under 
IDEA and will have increased flexibility on the use of personnel and 
the fiscal tracking of the use of personnel. Because of these 
amendments we will see more reasons for educators and parents to have 
common goals; fewer reasons for administrators to call IDEA burdensome; 
more general and special education teachers and related services 
personnel working together; more children with disabilities succeeding 
in the general education curriculum; more children with disabilities 
participating in school reform initiatives; and most important, more 
children at risk of failure will succeed.
  We will not see these changes overnight. They will take time. The 
amendments to IDEA restructure the 14 discretionary or support 
programs--totaling $254 million in authorizations--to facilitate and 
realize these changes, as well as others. Thirty million dollars are 
authorized for a new Systems Change State Grant Program. States will 
compete for access to these dollars. The purpose of this grant program 
is to provide funds to help States to address problems that have 
statewide implications. For example, States could use grant awards to 
design effective ways for general education and special education 
teachers to work in the same classrooms; to develop effective within-
school options for addressing behaviors subject to school disciplinary 
measures; or to arrange effective transitions for children with 
disabilities from early intervention to preschool programs, from high 
school to the adult world, or at other important times in a child's 
life.
  The amendments clearly link funding for personnel training and 
research to the needs of children with disabilities, their families, 
school personnel, and school districts. Any institution that seeks a 
training grant will be obligated to identify a personnel shortage that 
they intend to address. Any institution that seeks to train teachers to 
work with blind children must teach trainees how to teach Braille.
  With regard to research grants, I appreciate the fact that research 
takes extended effort. Research results are never immediate and are 
often modest building blocks toward some broader area of knowledge. 
Research infrastructure requires a sustained, predictable commitment to 
funding. However, 

[[Page S1356]]
the amendments offered today expect researchers to keep their eye on 
the child in the classroom, the teacher in the classroom, the principal 
in the school, the child's parents, the school district, or the State 
education agency. Researchers will be expected to provide information 
that benefits children with disabilities, their teachers, or other 
targeted audiences. Practical research will be valued. Through this 
reauthorization, the allocation of research dollars will emphasize 
lines of inquiry that will result in information that teachers or 
others can use to help children with disabilities succeed in the 
general education curriculum.

  The amendments also sustain and strengthen the Federal support for 
information that helps children with disabilities, their parents, 
teachers, related service personnel, early intervention professionals, 
administrators, researchers, teacher trainers, and others learn about, 
access, and use state-of-the-art tools and strategies to be effective 
as partners in the business of education. The amendments require 
grantees who are involved in the business of information gathering and 
dissemination and the grantees who are responsible for technical 
assistance to make a difference--to know their audiences, to provide 
them with information and assistance that they need and can use, and to 
verify that their efforts counted, not just in terms of numbers of 
people reached or pieces of paper disseminated, but in terms of lives 
changed.
  I certainly know the difference between an established and an 
experimental surgical procedure, and I know what it takes to teach new 
techniques to professionals across the country, and to do it well. It 
is my hope that the standards of information and dissemination and 
technical assistance achieved in medicine will come to be expected 
within the professional community serving infants, toddlers, children, 
and youth with disabilities. I think it is reasonable to expect that 
when anyone asks for information or assistance from a federally funded 
source, that source is prepared to say, ``This will work; or, this will 
work if certain conditions are present; or, this works 50 percent of 
the time; or this might work.'' This reauthorization moves us toward 
increased confidence in the information requested, received, or offered 
under information dissemination and technical assistance activities 
funded through IDEA. With increased confidence will come the 
opportunity to be a better equipped participant and partner in the 
identification, evaluation, selection or design of educational 
opportunities for children with disabilities.


           Helping Each Child Is an Investment in the Future

  The amendments also address another priority of many Americans--
intervening in the lives of children before they fail, before they are 
labeled, or before they are lost. Effective intervention and targeted 
prevention are themes that cut across many of the provisions in the 
reauthorization of IDEA.
  Early intervention. The bill reauthorizes part H, the Early 
Intervention Program, in IDEA. Part H was originally enacted in 1986. 
This program, in which all States participate, has been extremely 
effective in reaching infants and toddlers with disabilities early in 
their young lives, often at birth. This early intervention program 
helps these small ones, and their parents, unlock their abilities and 
become prepared to realize maximum benefits from their later preschool 
and school experiences.
  The amendments direct the Federal Government to develop a model 
definition and service delivery standards for infants and toddlers at 
risk of being developmentally delayed. Early intervention professionals 
are very successful at diagnosing and serving infants and toddlers with 
disabilities, that is, disabilities which are discernable before, 
during, or shortly after birth. These professionals are experienced in 
developing appropriate intervention strategies for such children. They 
are less successful in identifying infants and toddlers who show more 
subtle signs indicative of later disability. I anticipate that the 
model definition and service standards, which will draw from the 
experiences of States which currently are serving at-risk populations, 
eventually will provide early intervention professionals with the tools 
to identify and reach greater numbers of at-risk infants and toddlers.
  The amendments also give States increased administrative flexibility 
with regard to the transition of a child from an early intervention 
program funded by part H into a preschool program funded by section 619 
of part B of IDEA. This flexibility will provide an incentive to focus 
on what is best for a particular child--allowing the child to remain in 
an early intervention program after his or her third birthday during a 
school year and to transition to a preschool program in the next school 
year. This flexibility permits the child's individualized family 
services plan [IFSP] to be the child's IEP until planning is done for 
the next school year.
  As a surgeon I understand the importance and effect of early 
intervention in a medical situation. As a Senator I have been reminded 
of the benefits of Headstart and have witnessed the benefits of early 
intervention and preschool programs at the Kennedy Institute at 
Vanderbilt University. I have no doubt that as we continue to invest 
Federal funds in the very young lives of infants and toddlers with 
disabilities, we will deliver to our schools children who can learn 
more easily, participate more fully, and be less distinguishable from 
their peers in terms of expectations, progress, and friendships.
  Labeling deemphasized. These amendments lessen the need for and 
meaning of labels. School districts will be required to report the 
number of children with IEP's, and the number of students in each of 
two placement categories. They will not be required to continue 
reporting the numbers of children in twelve disability categories, by 
age group, or by multiple types of placements. This will significantly 
reduce the longstanding reporting burden imposed on school districts 
and States. I anticipate that this administrative relief will translate 
into less interest in and use of disability labels in schools and 
classrooms.
  The amendments encourage States to adopt placement-neutral funding 
formulas. Thus, over time there will be fewer incentives for 
segregated, label-driven educational placements for children with 
disabilities.
  Under certain conditions, school districts also will have the 
opportunity to commingle IDEA dollars with other funds when serving 
children with disabilities--when children with disabilities are in 
general education classrooms being taught by general and special 
education teachers; when children eligible for services under IDEA are 
being served with children identified as disabled under the Americans 
With Disabilities Act or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; or when 
a school has a school improvement plan in effect. This flexibility in 
the use of IDEA dollars will cause school officials to rethink how 
services may be delivered more efficiently and more effectively; cause 
labeling to be viewed as less relevant or necessary; and cause teachers 
to view their roles in reaching children as complementary and their 
responsibilities for helping all children succeed as a joint effort.

  The amendments recognize that many children from minority backgrounds 
are inappropriately identified as being eligible for special education 
and related services under IDEA. It is anticipated that with the 
opportunity to use IDEA funds in more flexible ways, parents, teachers, 
and administrators will not need to use the referral and evaluation 
procedures connected to special education as frequently as in the past 
to secure more or different services for children from minority 
backgrounds.
  No child to be lost or forgotten. The amendments take a broad view of 
the concept of ``dropout.'' In the amendments numerous, interrelated 
provisions have been crafted to reduce the likelihood that child with a 
disability will either figuratively or literally drop out of school and 
become disconnected from peers and professionals who can contribute to 
the child's growth and success in school. These provisions will require 
affirmative efforts on the part of educators, other professionals, and 
the parents of the child to keep the child connected in meaningful ways 
to the business of learning. Three sets of provisions particularly 
should result in fewer children with disabilities being lost or 
forgotten. 

[[Page S1357]]

  Integrated transition services for secondary school students with 
disabilities. Developing a secondary student's IEP for a particular 
year should not be an activity divorced from transition planning for 
the child that may encompass multiple years. Therefore, the amendments 
make transition planning for a child 14 or older a part of the IEP 
process. This clarification should result in simplification of 
administrative procedures. Secondary school personnel and personnel 
responsible for transition services, to the extent that they are 
different, will have a common process--the development or modification 
of a student's IEP--in which to make contributions and through which to 
influence what others may propose. Parents and students with 
disabilities will continue to have direct roles in the planning process 
as well. Students at the designated age of majority, in States where 
this is permitted, will be able to be the principal representative of 
their own interests and preferences.
  Clarification of fiscal responsibilities for related services. In 
order to succeed in school and connect to the social culture of school, 
children with disabilities may need more than specially designed 
instruction. They may need one of many related services, such as speech 
therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, or counseling. Such 
services may be critical at any time in the school years of a child 
with a disability, because they help a child acquire the tools to blend 
in and be accepted by peers and teachers--to communicate, to walk, to 
sit, to function more independently, to hold a pen, use a keyboard, or 
to use socially appropriate behavior. Accessing related services 
personnel can be costly and is not always easy, even when cost is not a 
factor. The amendments clearly establish that fiscal responsibility for 
such services extends beyond school districts; spell out the broader 
obligation of local and State agencies that could and should absorb 
such costs; and indicate that school districts have the opportunity to 
seek reimbursement from such agencies, when a child's eligibility for 
such services, funded by other than a local school district, is known.
  School discipline and civil rights. A few children with disabilities 
sometimes pose a danger to themselves or others, or are so disruptive 
that neither they or their classmates can learn. Such children should 
not, must not, be abandoned.
  How to best address such situations was the most contentious issue 
during the development of this reauthorization of IDEA. Educators 
reported that current provisions in IDEA prevent them from removing 
disabled students who are dangerous from school. One exception in 
current law is when a student with a disability brings a weapon to 
school. Such a student can be removed from his or her current 
educational placement for up to 45 days. Parents of children with 
disabilities argued strenuously that if IDEA were to make it easier for 
educators to remove disabled students who are dangerous or seriously 
disruptive from their educational placements, the law would give 
educators a reason to serve children with disabilities in more 
segregated settings or not at all. Moreover, parents argued that 
increasing educators' ability and discretion to remove children with 
disabilities from their current educational placements, without 
parental consent, would provide educators with the opportunity to 
divert responsibility for having inappropriately served children with 
disabilities in the first place and reward educators for the actions or 
inactions that led to the dangerous or disruptive behavior.
  The amendments to address this issue are not in the bill. I plan to 
continue working on this issue with my colleagues, with professional 
organizations and associations who have already contributed to this 
process, and especially with parents. I have come to consider both the 
contentions of educators and those of parents to be valid. I anticipate 
creation of an amendment that will strike a balance between the 
educators' responsibility to maintain safe schools and the right of 
children with disabilities, even when they engage in dangerous or 
seriously disruptive behavior, to continue their education.
  I anticipate negotiating a discipline amendment that will: Define 
dangerous behavior; sustain a commitment from schools to involve 
parents in their children's education before crises develop; reach an 
agreement on a mechanism that allows the removal of a student with a 
disability in an expedited manner when the student is truly a danger to 
himself or herself or to others; and that will allocate resources to 
train principals and to train teachers and students in conflict 
resolution strategies and related behavior management techniques.
  We have a long history of bipartisan commitment to IDEA. We must 
continue to be courageous, on both sides of the aisle, in our 
commitment to improve the lives of our citizens with disabilities, most 
especially children. We must continue to be courageous in our 
commitment to making American schools the best they can be for all of 
our children.

  In our hearings on IDEA in May 1995, a mother from Kentucky came in, 
even though her son Ryan had died, and told us her son's story. I 
remember that she said she was guided in her advocacy by a quote from 
Daniel Burnham, who said:

       Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's 
     blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big 
     plans, aim high and hope they work, remembering that a noble, 
     logical diagram, once recorded, will never die, but long 
     after we are gone will be a living thing asserting itself 
     with ever-growing insistency.

  This is the kind of courage children with disabilities must bring to 
their everyday lives. This is the kind of courage that parents of 
children with disabilities show every day as they dream their dreams 
and work, step-by-step, toward a better, more independent, more 
productive life for their child. This is the kind of courage that 
America's dedicated and professional teachers bring to their work with 
American students every school day, aiming high and hoping their big 
plans work.
  We can do no less. We will do no less. These amendments will keep us 
on track.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a short list of 
improvements to IDEA, and a section-by-section summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1996

          SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE TO CURRENT LAW BY FRIST BILL


               Part A--General provisions (Secs. 601-610)

     Sec. 601--Short Title/Findings/Purpose
       Updates ``Findings''--to reflect changes made in the 
     education of children with disabilities over the past 20 
     years (since enactment of P.L. 94-142), and to restate that 
     the ``right to equal educational opportunities'' is inherent 
     in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
       Updates ``Purposes'' of IDEA--to incorporate all relevant 
     IDEA programs in the purpose statements (i.e., the basic 
     State grant program under Part B, the early intervention 
     program for infants and toddlers with disabilities under Part 
     H, and the various support programs under Parts C through E, 
     including systems change activities, coordinated research and 
     personnel preparation, and coordinated technical assistance, 
     dissemination, and technology development and media 
     services).
     Sec. 602--Definitions
       Adds definitions of ``behavior management plan'', 
     ``educational service agency'' (to replace ``intermediate 
     educational unit''), ``general education curriculum'', 
     ``inappropriately identified'', ``individualized family 
     service plan (IFSP)'', ``infant or toddler with a 
     disability'', ``outlying areas'', ``parent'' (to include 
     guardians), ``public or private nonprofit agency or 
     organization'', ``supplementary aids and services'', 
     ``systems change activities''; ``systems change outcomes'', 
     and ``unserved and underserved''.
       Deletes definitions of ``research and related purposes'', 
     ``public and private agency'', and ``youth with a 
     disability''; and moves the definition of ``transition 
     services'' to sec. 614(i).
       Revises definitions of--
       (1) ``IEP''--by removing all substantive provisions, and 
     referring to sections 614(d)-614(j), where all provisions 
     (both process and content) are contained.
       (2) ``Institution of Higher Education (IHE)''--by making a 
     simple cross reference to the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     etc.
       (3) ``Related Services''--by adding ``orientation and 
     mobility services'' (to be consistent with current policy of 
     the Education Department).
       Makes technical and conforming changes to several other 
     definitions e.g., by adding a definition for the term ``child 
     with a disability (current law defines the plural ``children 
     with disabilities''), and alphabetizes and adds heading to 
     terms.
     
[[Page S1358]]

     Sec. 603--Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). 
         (Provisions regarding the administrative staffing of 
         OSEP)
       Amends sec. 603--to allow OSEP to ``accept voluntary and 
     uncompensated services in furtherance of the purposes of this 
     Act.''
     Sec. 604--Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity. (Current 
         law provides that the Federal Government has the right to 
         bring a suit against a State for violation of IDEA)
       No changes.
     Sec. 605--Acquisition of Equipment and Construction of 
         Necessary Facilities
       Repealed.
     Sec. 606--Employment of Individuals with Disabilities
       No changes.
     Sec. 607--Grants for the Removal of Architectural Barriers
       Repealed.
     Sec. 608--Requirements for Prescribing Regulations. (Current 
         law requires a 90-day public comment period for 
         regulations proposed under Part B of the IDEA)
       Makes technical and conforming changes.
     Sec. 609--Eligibility for Financial Assistance. (Current law 
         provides that no grants may be made for projects that 
         focus exclusively on children aged 3-5, unless the State 
         is eligible for a preschool grant under sec. 619)
       Makes technical and conforming changes.
     Sec. 610--Administrative Provisions Applicable to Parts D and 
         E
       (Parts D&E include support programs under IDEA concerning 
     research, personnel training, etc. The Senate bill (1) 
     reduces the number of support programs from 14 to 7, and (2) 
     reorganizes the remaining provisions contained in Parts C 
     through G of current law into three Parts: Part C--State 
     Systems Change Grants, Part D--Coordinated Research and 
     Personnel Preparation, and Part E--Technical Assistance, 
     Support, and Dissemination.) The Senate bill reorganizes and 
     substantially revises sec. 610, as described below:
       1. Requires Secretary to develop and implement a 
     comprehensive plan for activities under D and E, to enhance 
     services to children with disabilities under parts B and H.
       2. Identifies eligible applicants for awards (SEAs, LEAs, 
     IHEs, private nonprofit organizations, Indian tribes, and, in 
     some cases, ``for profit'' organizations); and specifies that 
     the Secretary may limit individual competitions to one or 
     more categories of applicants, etc.
       3. Extends current provisions regarding outreach to 
     minorities (i.e., requires at least one percent of the total 
     funds appropriated under parts D and E to be used for 
     outreach purposes for ``HBCUs'' and IHEs with minority 
     enrollments of at least 25 percent. This is a continuation of 
     current law.
       4. Provides that the Secretary may, without rulemaking, 
     limit competitions to projects that give priority to one or 
     more targeted areas set out in the bill--so long as each 
     project addresses the needs of children with disabilities and 
     their families.
       5. Sets out specific applicant responsibilities.
       6. Includes provisions for application management--
     including (1) requiring a peer review process, with detailed 
     criteria for selection of panel members, and (2) providing 
     that the Secretary may use a portion of funds under Parts D 
     and E (a) to pay nonfederal entities for administrative 
     support, (b) for Federal employees to monitor projects, and 
     for evaluation of activities carried out under these 
     programs.


  part b--assistance for education of all children with disabilities 
                            (secs. 611-620)

     Sec. 611--Entitlements and Allocations
       1. Retains the ``child count'' formula.
       2. Expands the list of activities that a State may carry 
     out if it retains Part B funds at the State level (e.g., to 
     meet performance goals, and to develop and implement the 
     mediation process required by sec. 615, systems change 
     activities authorized under part C, and a statewide 
     coordinated services system, etc.).
       3. Revises the $7,500 minimum subgrant provision (which 
     prohibits subgrants to very small LEAs that would receive 
     less than $7,500 under sec. 611). The bill (1) eases this 
     restriction by giving States the option to decide whether to 
     make subgrants of less than that amount, and (2) adds 
     preschool funds under sec. 619 to the amount that could be 
     counted in determining if an LEA meets the $7,500 minimum. 
     (Bill retains the provision requiring that, if a State 
     doesn't make a subgrant to an LEA, it must use those funds to 
     provide FAPE to children residing in the LEA).
       4. Defines ``outlying areas'' as including the Federated 
     States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and 
     the Republic of Palau and requires the outlying areas to use 
     their Part B funds in accordance with the purposes of IDEA, 
     and not for other purposes, as permitted under P.L. 95-134.
       5. Makes technical changes regarding grants to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and makes other technical and 
     conforming changes.
     Sec. 612--State Eligibility
       1. Simplifies provisions related to State participation 
     under Part B--by combining most of the elements of current 
     sections 612 (State eligibility) and 613 (State plans), so 
     that all conditions of State eligibility (including policies 
     on FAPE, procedural safeguards, LRE, etc.) appear in one 
     comprehensive section.
       2. Amends ``child find'' requirements (Sec. 612(a)(3))--to 
     codify current Department policy, which provides that, so 
     long as a child meets the ``two-pronged'' test as a ``child 
     with a disability'' under sec. 602(4) (i.e., has a disability 
     and needs special education), the child does not have to be 
     classified by a specific impairment or condition in order to 
     be eligible for service under Part B.
       3. Amends LRE provisions (Sec. 612(a)(5))--to ensure that 
     the State's funding formula does not result in placements 
     that violate the policy that children are placed in the least 
     restrictive environment, and (2) that the state educational 
     agency examines data to determine if significant racial 
     disproportionality is occurring in the evaluation and 
     placement of children under this Act; and if either situation 
     is identified, to take appropriate corrective action.
       4. Amends provisions on Transition from Part H to Preschool 
     Programs (Sec. 612(a)(9))--to conform Part B with the 
     transition planning requirements under Part H (Sec. 
     678(a)(8)) (i.e., to ensure the LEA staff participate in 
     transition planning conferences convened by the Part H lead 
     agency, in order to ensure an effective transition for 
     infants and toddlers with disabilities who move into 
     preschool programs under Part B.
       5. Addresses unilateral placements by parents (Sec. 
     612(a)(10))--to clarify that if the parents of a child with a 
     disability unilaterally place the child in a private school 
     and a hearing officer agrees with the parent's placement, the 
     LEA may be required to reimburse the parents. However, the 
     amount of reimbursement may be reduced or denied--(1) if 
     prior to removal of the child from the public school, the 
     parents do not provide a statement to the LEA rejecting its 
     proposed placement, or (2) upon a judicial finding of 
     unreasonableness the respect to actions taken by the parents.
       6. Strengthens requirements on ensuring provision of 
     services by non-educational agencies (Sec. 612(a)(12)) (i.e., 
     while retaining the single line of responsibility of the SEA 
     (Sec. 612(a)(11)), the bill provides (1) that if a non-
     educational agency is responsible for providing or paying for 
     services that are also necessary for ensuring FAPE to 
     children with disabilities, that agency must pay for, or 
     provide such services directly or by contract or other 
     arrangements, (2) that the State must ensure that interagency 
     agreements or other mechanisms are in effect between 
     educational agencies and non-educational agencies for 
     defining respective financial responsibilities, resolving 
     interagency disputes, and for interagency coordination, and 
     (3) that the State must establish a mechanism by which local 
     educational agencies may seek reimbursement from agencies for 
     the costs of providing related services and disseminate those 
     procedures to local educational agencies.
       7. Amends ``comprehensive system of personnel development'' 
     (CSPD) requirements (Sec. 612(a)(14))--to simplify and reduce 
     the burden of such requirements, especially the data 
     provisions, and make the requirements more meaningful.
       8. Amends ``Personnel Standards'' to include use of 
     paraprofessionals (Sec. 612(a)(15))--to allow districts to 
     utilize appropriately trained and supervised 
     paraprofessionals to provide services.
       9. Conforms the IDEA to general education initiatives (sec. 
     612 (a)(16) and (17))--by requiring States to (1) establish 
     performance goals and indicators for children with 
     disabilities, and (2) ensure that these children participate 
     in general State and district-wide assessments, with 
     appropriate accommodations, where necessary, and that 
     guidelines are developed for participation in alternative 
     assessments for those children who cannot participate in 
     state and district-wide assessments.
       10. Consolidates funding requirements under current law in 
     one place (Sec. 612(a)(18)), and deletes non-germane 
     provisions.
       11. Consolidates the public participation requirements of 
     current law in one place (Sec. 612(a)(19)), and provides 
     language to reduce burden--by clarifying that, if the State's 
     policies and procedures have been subjected to public comment 
     through a State rulemaking process, no further public review 
     or public comment period is required.
       12. Amends provisions on State Advisory Panels--by (1) 
     specifying other categories of participants of such panels, 
     (2) adding new duties of the Panel (e.g., advise the SEA 
     developing corrective action plans to address findings 
     identified through Federal monitoring reports, and to 
     developing and implementing policies related to coordination 
     of services), and (3) providing that a State panel 
     established under the ESEA or Goals 200: Educate America Act 
     may also serve as the State Advisory Panel if it meets the 
     requirements of this part.
       13. Significantly reduces paperwork and staff burden, by no 
     longer requiring States to submit three-year State plans. 
     Once a State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that it has in effect policies and procedures that 
     meet the eligibility requirements of the new sec. 612, the 
     State does not have to resubmit such materials, unless those 
     policies and procedures are change.
       14. Simplifies provisions related to participation of 
     LEAs--by (1) replacing the LEA application requirements in 
     sec. 614 of current law with new ``LEA eligibility'' 
     provisions in sec. 613, and (2) conforming those provisions, 
     as appropriate, to the new State eligibility requirements 
     under sec. 612.
     Sec. 613--LEA Eligibility
       1. Simplifies provisions related to participation of LEAs--
     by (1) replacing the LEA application requirements in sec. 614 
     of current 

[[Page S1359]]
     law with new ``LEA eligibility'' provisions in sec. 613, and (2) 
     conforming those provisions, as appropriate, to the new State 
     eligibility requirements under sec. 612.
       2. Includes ``Maintenance of Effort'' provision--to ensure 
     that the level of expenditures for the education of children 
     with disabilities within each LEA from State and local funds 
     will not drop below the level of such expenditures for the 
     preceding fiscal year; but provides four specific exceptions 
     (i.e., (1) decreases in enrollment of children with 
     disabilities, (2) end of LEA's responsibility to provide an 
     exceptionally costly program to a child with a disability 
     [because child leaves the LEA, etc.], (3) retirement or other 
     voluntary departure of special education staff who are at or 
     near the top of the salary schedule, and (4) end of unusually 
     large expenditures for equipment or construction). (Bill 
     retains ``excess costs'' and ``supplement--not supplant'' 
     provisions of current law.)
       3. Provides greater flexibility to LEAs in the use of Part 
     B funds, while still ensuring that children with disabilities 
     receive needed special education and related services. The 
     bill identifies specific activities that an LEA may carry out 
     (notwithstanding the excess cost and noncomingling 
     requirements in secs. 613(3)(B) and 612(a)(18)(A)(ii)), 
     including using Part B funds for--
       Incidental benefits (i.e., LEAs could provide special 
     education services to a child with a disability in the 
     regular classroom without having to track the costs of any 
     incidental benefits to non-disabled students from those 
     services).
       Simultaneous services on a space-available basis (i.e., 
     special education and related services that are provided to 
     ``IDEA-eligible'' children could simultaneously be provided, 
     on a space available basis, to children with disabilities who 
     are protected by ``ADA-504'').
       A coordinated services system (i.e., an LEA could use up to 
     5 percent of its Part B funds to develop and implement a 
     coordinated services system that links education, health, and 
     social welfare services, and various systems and entities in 
     a manner designed to improve educational and transitional 
     results for all children and their families, including 
     children with disabilities and their families).
       A school-based improvement plan (i.e., an LEA could (if 
     authorized by the SEA) permit one or more local schools 
     within the LEA to design, implement, and evaluate a school-
     based improvement plan for improving educational and 
     transitional results for children with disabilities and, as 
     appropriate, for other children, consistent with the 
     provisions on incidental benefits and simultaneous services 
     in sec. 613(a)(4) (A) and (B)).
       4. Provides that an LEA may join with other LEAs to jointly 
     establish eligibility under Part B.
       5. Significantly reduces paperwork and staff burden for 
     SEAs and LEAs--by providing that once an LEA demonstrates to 
     the satisfaction of the SEA that it has in effect policies 
     and procedures that meet the eligibility requirements of the 
     new sec. 613, the SEA may consider that those requirements 
     have been met; and the LEA would not have to resubmit such 
     materials, unless those policies and procedures are changed.
       6. Simplifies local involvement with a State's 
     Comprehensive System of Personnel Development--and requires 
     that a local educational agency only, to the extent 
     appropriate, contribute to and benefit from the State 
     Comprehensive System of Personnel Development.
     Sec. 614--Evaluations, Reevaluations, IEPs, and Educational 
         Placements
       1. Simplifies State and local administration of provisions 
     on evaluation, IEPs, and placements--by placing all such 
     provisions in one newly established sec. 614.
       2. Addresses Evaluations and Reevaluations:
       Reduces cost and administrative burden--by requiring that 
     existing evaluation data on a child be reviewed to determine 
     if any other data are needed to make decisions about a 
     child's eligibility and services. (If it is determined by 
     appropriate individuals that additional data are not needed, 
     the parents must be so informed of that fact and of their 
     right to still request an evaluation; but no further 
     evaluations are required at that time unless requested by the 
     parents.)
       Includes protections in evaluation procedures--by requiring 
     LEAs to ensure that tests and other evaluation materials are 
     relevant, validated for the specific purpose for which they 
     are being used, etc.; and retains the nondiscriminatory 
     testing procedures required in current law.
       3. Addresses IEP provisions:
       Consolidates all substantive provisions on IEPs (both 
     content and process) in one place (secs. 614(d)-614(j)), and 
     re-orders the provisions, so that there is a logical 
     sequence--from (1) procedures for developing IEPs, (2) IEP 
     content, (3) measuring and reporting on each child's 
     progress, and (4) reviewing and revising the IEP.
       Requires IEP team to consider specific factors in 
     developing each child's IEP, including (1) basic information 
     about the child (e.g., most recent evaluation results, 
     child's strengths, and parent concerns for enhancing the 
     child's education), and (2) other special factors and 
     possible remedies, as appropriate (e.g., in the case of a 
     child with a visual or hearing impairment, limited English).
       Revises content of IEPS--by (1) replacing ``annual goals 
     and short term instructional objectives'' with ``measurable 
     annual objectives'', (2) placing greater emphasis on ensuring 
     that each child, as appropriate, has the opportunity to 
     progress in the general curriculum, and to participate with 
     nondisabled children in various environments.
       Amends provisions on transition services (i.e., the bill 
     requires that transition services needs (1) be considered for 
     all students with disabilities beginning at age 14 (or 
     younger . . .), and, as appropriate, addressed under the 
     applicable components of the IEP (e.g., levels of 
     performance, objectives, and services), and (2) be considered 
     in light of the student's participation in the general 
     curriculum (e.g., a vocational education or school to work 
     program).)
       The bill (1) retains current law requiring a statement of 
     transition services beginning at age 16 (or younger), and (2) 
     moves the definition of ``transition services'' from Part A 
     to sec. 614(I).
       4. Adds a provision regarding transfer of rights at the age 
     of majority (i.e., requiring that, at least one year before a 
     student reaches the age of majority under State law, the IEP 
     must include ``a statement about the rights under this Act, 
     if any, that will transfer to the student on reaching the age 
     of majority under sec. 615(j).''
     Sec. 615--Procedural Safeguards.
       1. Revises the written notice provision--(a) to set out the 
     specific content of notices to parents, and (b) to reduce 
     burden under current law and regulations--by permitting 
     notices to include only a brief summary of the procedural 
     safeguards under Part B relating to due process hearings (and 
     appeals, if applicable), civil actions, and attorney fees--
     together with a statement that a full explanation of such 
     safeguards will be provided if the parents request it or 
     request a due process hearing, etc.
       2. Reduces potential conflict between LEAs and parents of 
     children with disabilities--by requiring States to make 
     mediation available to such parents, on a voluntary basis. 
     (The use of mediation can resolve disputes quickly and 
     effectively, and at less cost.)
       3. Provides clearer notice of the existence of a conflict 
     between an LEA and the parents of a child with disabilities. 
     The bill requires the parents to provide the LEA a written 
     notice of their intent to file a complaint (request a due 
     process hearing) under Part B, on any matter regarding the 
     identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the 
     child or the provision of FAPE to the child, 10 calendar days 
     prior to filing the complaint, if the parents (1) have new 
     information about any matter described above, and (2) are 
     initiating a complaint about such a matter, and have signed 
     the most recent IEP of the child.
       The bill further states that (1) if, prior to filing the 
     complaint, the parents have new information on any matter 
     described above, they must provide the information to the LEA 
     along with the notice of intent to file a complaint; and (2) 
     if the parents were duly informed by the LEA of their 
     obligation to file such a notice, and fail to do so, ``the 
     time line for a final decision on the complaint shall be 
     extended by 10 calendar days.''
       4. Amends provisions on attorney fees--by clarifying that 
     ``the determination of whether a party is a prevailing party 
     under this section shall be made in accordance with the law 
     established by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 
     U.S. 424 (1983);'' and (2) that, ``for the purpose of this 
     section, an IEP meeting, in and of itself, shall not be 
     deemed a proceeding triggering the awarding of attorneys 
     fees''.
       5. Permits the transfer of parental rights to a student 
     with disabilities upon reaching the age of majority under 
     State law; and provides that if (under State law) such a 
     student is determined to not have the ability to provide 
     informed consent under Part B, the State must have procedures 
     for appointing the parent or another person to represent the 
     student's interests throughout the student's eligibility 
     under this part.
       6. Makes other technical and conforming changes.
     Sec. 616--Withholding and Judicial Review
       Makes technical and conforming changes.
     Sec. 617--Administration
       1. Adds a provision prohibiting the Secretary from 
     rulemaking via policy letters or other statements. (The bill 
     provides that, in order to establish a new rule that is 
     required for compliance and eligibility under Part B, the 
     Secretary must follow standard rulemaking requirements.)
       2. Adds a provision requiring the Department of Education 
     to widely disseminate, on a quarterly basis, a list of 
     correspondence from the Department during the previous 
     quarter that describes the Department's interpretations of 
     this part and the implementing regulations. (Each item on the 
     list must identify the topic being addressed, include ``such 
     other summary information as the Secretary finds 
     appropriate.''
     Sec. 618--Evaluation and Program Information
       1. Significantly reduces the data burden to States and 
     LEAs--by eliminating the requirement for individual State 
     data reports by disability category, but requires the 
     Secretary, directly or by grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement, to conduct studies and evaluations necessary to 
     assess the effectiveness of efforts to provide FAPE and early 
     intervention services, including assessing ``the placement of 
     children with disabilities by disability category.''
       2. Requires the Secretary to conduct a longitudinal study 
     that measures the educational and transitional services 
     provided 

[[Page S1360]]
     to and results achieved by children with disabilities under this Act, 
     etc.
       3. Provides for earmarking up to one-half of one percent of 
     the amounts appropriated under Parts B and H to carry out the 
     purposes of sec. 618.
     Sec. 619--Preschool Grants
       Includes changes that are virtually identical to the 
     changes made in sec. 611, with respect to State 
     administration and State use of funds, subgrants to LEAs and 
     other State agencies, and the provision on the use of funds 
     by the outlying areas.
     Sec. 620--Payments
       Makes technical and conforming changes.

              Support Programs (Parts C through E, and H)


      part c--promoting systems change to improve educational and 
transitional services and results for children with disabilities (Secs. 
                                621-625)

       A new Part C has been developed. [It replaces current Part 
     C which authorized a wide range of special interest 
     demonstration and technical assistance initiatives, most with 
     their own authorization earmarks.] The new Part C authorizes 
     a new ``Systems Change'' State grant program. State Education 
     Agencies, in partnership with local education agencies, and 
     other interested individuals, agencies, and organizations, 
     would be able to compete for planning or implementation 
     grants to improve educational and transitional services and 
     results for children with disabilities on a system wide 
     basis.
     Sec. 621--Findings and Purposes

     Sec. 622--Grants

       Authorizes grants to State Education Agencies in 
     partnership with local education agencies, and other 
     individuals, agencies, and organizations to address 
     comprehensive systems change.
       Authorizes grants to multiple States, in collaboration with 
     universities and interested persons to address system change 
     barriers of a regional or national scope.
       Grants for planning for one year duration and 
     implementation grants may be 5 years duration.
     Sec. 623--Application
       Grants to be based upon the performance of children with 
     disabilities on State assessments and other performance 
     indicators.
       Grants to describe the organizational structures, policies, 
     procedures and practices that will be changed to improve 
     educational and transitional services and results for 
     children with disabilities.
     Sec. 624--Incentives
       Provides incentives for significant and substantial levels 
     of collaboration among participating partners.
       Provides incentives for addressing the needs of unserved, 
     underserved, and inappropriately identified populations of 
     children with disabilities.
     Sec. 625--Authorization of Appropriations


        part d research and personnel preparation (sec. 631-634)

       A new Part D authorizes research/innovation and personnel 
     preparation activities which are to be coordinated with 
     system changes initiatives funded under Part C and improve 
     results for children with disabilities. [Consolidates current 
     Part D, which funds personnel preparation, and Part E, which 
     funds research.]
     Sec. 631--Findings and Purpose
     Sec. 632--Definitions
     Sec. 633--Research and Innovation
       New knowledge production--supports research and innovation 
     projects in areas of new knowledge, such as, learning styles, 
     instructional approaches, behavior management, assessment 
     tools, assistive technology, program accountability and 
     personnel preparation models.
       Integration of research and practice--supports projects 
     which validate new knowledge findings through demonstration 
     and dissemination of successful practice.
       Improvement in the use of professional knowledge--supports 
     projects to organize and disseminate professional knowledge 
     in ways that empower teachers, parents, and others to use 
     such knowledge in their classrooms and other learning 
     settings.
     Sec. 634--Personnel Preparation
       High incidence disabilities--supports the preparation of a 
     variety of personnel providing educational and transitional 
     services and supports to students in high incidence 
     disability areas, such as, learning disabilities, mental 
     retardation, behavior disordered, and other groups.
       Leadership preparation--supports the preparation of 
     leadership personnel at the advanced graduate, doctoral, and 
     post-doctoral levels of training.
       Low-incidence disabilities--supports the preparation of a 
     variety of personnel providing educational and transitional 
     services and supports to children in low incidence disability 
     areas, such as, sensory impairment, multiple disabilities, 
     and severe disabling conditions.
       Projects of national significance--supports the development 
     and demonstration of new and innovative program models and 
     approaches in the preparation of personnel to work with 
     children with disabilities.


part e--technical assistance, support, and dissemination of information 
                            (secs. 641-644)

       A new Part E provides authorizations for parent training 
     and information centers, technical assistance, support, 
     dissemination, and technology and media activities which are 
     to be coordinated with system change initiatives funded under 
     Part C and other activities that are designed to improve 
     educational and transitional services and results for 
     children with disabilities. [Consolidates activities 
     authorized in various Parts of current law, especially Parts 
     G and F; removes numerous authorization earmarks.]
     Sec. 641--Findings and Purposes
     Sec. 642--Definitions
     Sec. 643--Parent Training and Information
       Provides support for Statewide Parent Training and 
     Information Center activities, as authorized in current law, 
     with the following additions:
       Supports collaboration between Centers and other parent 
     groups in a State and between parent groups and systems 
     change activities in States.
       Requires Centers to work together through national and 
     regional networks, and to address the needs of unserved and 
     underserved parents in their State.
       Provides support for Community-based Parent and Information 
     Programs:
       Supports the building of capacity, demonstration, and 
     replication of models to ensure that parents of children with 
     disabilities from unserved and underserved populations 
     participate in parent training and information activities.
       Supports the provision of services to parents of children 
     with disabilities from unserved and underserved populations.
       Supports the provision of training and information 
     concerning children inappropriately identified as disabled.
       Supports technical assistance activities to develop, 
     coordinate, and disseminate information.
     Sec. 644--Coordinated Technical Assistance and Dissemination
       Supports systemic technical assistance to States, local 
     education agencies, and other entities to plan and conduct 
     comprehensive systems change activities.
       Supports inter-organizational technical assistance 
     activities to address interagency barriers to systems change 
     and to improved transitional and educational results for 
     children with disabilities.
       Supports national dissemination activities in areas related 
     to: Infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities 
     and their families; provision of services and supports for 
     deaf-blind children; services to blind and print disabled 
     children; postsecondary services to individuals with 
     disabilities; personnel to provide services to children with 
     disabilities.
       Supports national technical assistance and dissemination 
     coordination activities.
     Sec. 645--Technology Development, Demonstration, and 
         Utilization and Media Services
       Supports research, development, and demonstration of 
     innovative and emerging technology benefiting children with 
     disabilities.
       Supports dissemination and transfer of technology for use 
     by children with disabilities.
       Supports video descriptions, and open and closed captioning 
     of television programs.
       Supports recorded free educational materials and textbooks 
     for visually impaired and print-disabled students in 
     elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and graduate school.
       Supports activities of the National Theater of the Deaf.
       Requires the collection and reporting of appropriate 
     evaluation data concerning technology and media activities.


     part h--infants and toddlers with disabilities (secs. 671-687)

       The early intervention program for infants and toddlers 
     with disabilities under Part H of this Act is an evolving 
     program that has proven successful and enjoyed strong support 
     since its enactment in 1986. Therefore, no major amendments 
     are proposed. However, the bill:
       1. Provides greater flexibility in addressing the needs of 
     ``at risk infants and toddlers'' in those States not 
     currently serving such children--by permitting Part H funds 
     to be used for referring those children to other (non-Part H) 
     services, and conducting periodic follow-ups on each referral 
     to determine if the child's eligibility under Part H has 
     changed.
       2. Provides for a review of the definition of 
     ``developmental delay''--by requiring the Federal Interagency 
     Coordinating Council (FICC) to convene a panel to develop 
     recommendations regarding a model definition of 
     ``developmental delay''--to assist States, as appropriate, 
     with their own respective definitions.
       3. Facilitates the provision requiring a smooth transition 
     for toddlers with disabilities from the Part H program to 
     preschool services under Part B--by permitting the planning 
     to begin up to 6 months before the child's 3rd birthday, if 
     the parents and agencies agree.
       4. Provides technical changes related to (1) membership on 
     the FICC (2) responsibilities of the State and Federal 
     Interagency Coordinating Councils, and (3) definitions of 
     terms; and makes other technical and conforming changes.
                                                                    ____


            The First Bill--Commonsense Improvements to IDEA

       1. Eliminates the major bureaucratic burden of three-year 
     plan submissions.--State and local educational agencies will 
     make only one plan or application, instead of the currently 
     mandated submission of once every three years. Under the 
     First bill, state and local agencies will update their plans 
     only if they report substantial changes.
     
[[Page S1361]]

       2. Reduces burden on school funding sources to pay for 
     supports and related services.--The First bill helps local 
     districts pay for supports and related services by requiring 
     that other agencies pay their fair share of the cost of 
     services to children who are eligible for those agencies' 
     services.
       3. Cuts mandatory data collection by 50%.--The First bill 
     cuts data collection and reporting burdens on state and local 
     educational agencies. Currently, agencies are required to 
     report numbers of children receiving special education by 
     age, by four placement categories and by the disability of 
     the student. Under the Frist bill, agencies will report only 
     the total number of children receiving special education and 
     the number of children in each of only two placement 
     categories.
       4. Reduces litigation by adding mediation.--If there is a 
     dispute over an IEP, school districts and families will be 
     able to use mediation to try to resolve issues instead of 
     automatically having to go to a due process hearing.
       5. Eliminates regulation through Department of Education 
     policy letters.--The Frist bill will reduce the burden of new 
     regulations on state and local educational agencies. Policy 
     letters issued by the Department of Education will no longer 
     be used for purposes of eligibility and compliance 
     monitoring. Letters may be issued only for non-regulatory 
     guidance and purposes of explanation and clarification of 
     existing policy.
       6. Relieves burden by allowing flexible local control of 
     funds:
       A. Allows flexibility in the use of funds for school 
     improvement and coordination with general education reform.--
     States will be allowed to use up to 1% of the funds received 
     under Part B, and local districts may use up to 5% of Part B 
     funds to develop better services for all children, including 
     children with disabilities. In addition, school districts 
     will be allowed all of their Part B funds to establish 
     school-based improvement plans designed to improve 
     educational results for children with disabilities.
       B. Relieves financial burden of the current maintenance of 
     effort requirement.--The Frist bill allows local education 
     agencies to reduce the overall level of spending for 
     educating children with disabilities by the following; when 
     the reduction results from lower per-teacher staff costs or 
     per-pupil student costs, when a reduction is due to a one-
     time expenditure in the preceeding fiscal year, or when there 
     are decreases in district enrollment of students with 
     disabilities.
       C. Eliminates wasteful fiscal tracking mandates.--Building 
     and district administrators will no longer be required to 
     keep track of the educational benefits to non-disabled 
     children when a child with a disability is provided special 
     education and related services in the regular education 
     classroom.
       7. Reduces the administrative burden of student 
     evaluations.--The Frist bill will simplify and streamline the 
     process of student evaluation. Initial evaluations and 
     reevaluations will focus on collecting only the information 
     that is necessary for educational planning. Reevaluations 
     will take place when additional information is needed, or at 
     natural transitions such as when a student moves from 
     elementary school to junior high.
       8. Cuts data collection requirements of personnel 
     development programs.--The Frist bill simplifies and reduces 
     data collection requirements for a state to maintain its 
     Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD). In 
     addition, local control will increase because school 
     districts will decide their level of participation in the 
     state's CSPD.
       9. Cuts paperwork and providers administrative relief in 
     IEP process.--The Frist bill eliminates mandated short-term 
     objectives in an IEP. Paperwork will be reduced by the 
     elimination of short-term objective tracking and repetitive 
     reporting of test results and other information in the IEP. A 
     flexible, sensible, workable schedule of educational reports 
     to parents of children with disabilities will be determined 
     by the IEP team.
       10. Empowers school officials in disciplining children.--
     For the first time since its enactment, IDEA will contain 
     comprehensive language that will untie school officials' 
     hands when disciplining students with disabilities. 
     [Currently under discussion, will be worked out by date of 
     mark-up and then inserted]

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I am pleased to join Senator Frist, 
the chair of that subcommittee, in introducing the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Amendments of 1996. It has been a 
privilege and a pleasure for me to work with Senator Frist and our 
respective staffs in developing this reauthorization proposal. I also 
would like to compliment Pat Morrissey, Senator Frist's staff director 
for the Subcommittee on Disability Policy for her efforts to enhance 
the partnership between parents of children with disabilities and the 
educational community.
  The amendments we are proposing today provide fine-tuning to powerful 
education legislation with a long and successful history. Just 3 months 
ago, on November 29, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the signing 
of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 
1975, now known as part B of IDEA. The purpose of this law is simple--
to assist States and local communities to meet their obligations to 
provide equal educational opportunity to children with disabilities in 
accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution.
  As we look back on that day two decades ago, we know that this law 
has literally changed the world for millions of children with 
disabilities. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 94-142, 1 million 
children with disabilities in the United States were excluded entirely 
from the public school system, and more than half of all children with 
disabilities did not receive appropriate educational services.
  On that day in 1975, we lit a beacon of hope for millions of children 
with disabilities and their families. We sent a simple, yet powerful 
message heard around the world that the days of exclusion, segregation, 
and denial of education for children with disabilities are over in this 
country. And we sent a powerful message that families count and they 
must be treated as equal partners
  Because of IDEA, tremendous progress has been made in addressing the 
problems that existed in 1975. Today, every State in the Nation has 
laws in effect assuring the provision of a free appropriate public 
education for all children with disabilities. And over 5,000,000 
children with disabilities are now receiving special education and 
related services.
  For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of 
hope. As one parent recently told me:

       Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the 
     challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has 
     kept our family together. Because of IDEA our child is 
     achieving academic success. He is also treated by his 
     nondisabled peers as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident 
     that he will graduate high school prepared to hold down a job 
     and lead an independent life.

  In May, Danette Crawford, a senior at Urbandale High School in Des 
Moines, testified before the Disability Policy Subcommittee. Danette, 
who has cerebral palsy, testified that:

       My grade point average stands at 3.8 and I am enrolled in 
     advanced placement courses. The education I am receiving is 
     preparing me for a real future. Without IDEA, I am convinced 
     I would not be receiving the quality education that Urbandale 
     High School provides me.

  We are now graduating the first generation of students who have had 
the benefits of the provisions of IDEA. Already, for example, since 
1978 the percentage of incoming college freshman with disabilities has 
more than tripled from 2.4 percent to over 9 percent. We once heard 
despondency and anger from parents. We now hear enthusiasm and hope, as 
I have, from a parent from Iowa writing about her 7-year-old daughter 
with autism. She said, ``I have no doubt that my daughter will live 
nearly independently as an adult, will work, and will be a very 
positive contributor to society. That is very much her dream, and it is 
my dream for her. The IDEA has made this dream capable of becoming a 
reality.''
  Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents 
in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law 
across the country. The National Council on Disability [NCD] recently 
conducted 10 regional meetings throughout the Nation regarding progress 
made in implementing the IDEA over the past 20 years. In its report, 
NCD stated that ``in all of the 10 regional hearings * * * there were 
ringing affirmations in support of IDEA and the positive difference it 
has made in the lives of children and youth with disabilities and their 
families.'' The report adds that ``all across the country witnesses 
told of the tremendous power of IDEA to help children with disabilities 
fulfill their dreams to learn, to grow, and to mature.''
  These comments, as well as testimony presented at the four hearings 
held by the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, make it clear to me that 
major changes in IDEA are not needed nor wanted. IDEA is as critical 
today as it was 20 years ago, particularly the due process protections. 
These provisions level the playing field so that parents can sit down 
as equal partners in designing an education for their children.
  The witnesses at these hearings did make it clear, however, that we 
need to fine-tune the law--in order to make sure that children with 
disabilities are 

[[Page S1362]]
not left out of educational reform efforts that are now underway, and 
to take what we have learned over the past 20 years and use it to 
update and improve this critical law.
  Based on 20 years of experience and research in the education of 
children with disabilities, we have reinforced our thinking and 
knowledge about what is needed to make this law work, and we have 
learned many new things that are important if we are to ensure an equal 
educational opportunity for all children with disabilities.
  For example, our experience and knowledge over the past 20 years have 
reaffirmed that the provision of quality education and services to 
children with disabilities must be based on an individualized 
assessment of each child's unique needs and abilities; and that, to the 
maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated 
with children who are not disabled and children should be removed from 
the regular educational environment only when the nature and severity 
of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the 
use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved 
satisfactorily.
  We have also learned that students with disabilities achieve at 
significantly higher levels when schools have high expectations--and 
establish high goals--for these students, ensure their access to the 
general curriculum, whenever appropriate, and provide them with the 
necessary services and supports. And there is general agreement that 
including children with disabilities in general State and district-wide 
assessments is an effective accountability mechanism and a critical 
strategy for improving educational results for these children.
  Our experience over the past 20 years has underscored the fact that 
parent participation is a crucial component in the education of 
children with disabilities, and parents should have meaningful 
opportunities, through appropriate training and other supports, to 
participate as partners with teachers and other school staff in 
assisting their children to achieve to high standards.
  There is general agreement today at all levels of government that 
State and local educational agencies must be responsive to the 
increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that prevails in 
the nation's public schools today. Steps must be taken to ensure that 
the procedures used for referring and evaluating children with 
disabilities include appropriate safeguards to prevent the over or 
under-identification of minority students requiring special education. 
Services, supports, and other assistance must be provided in a 
culturally competent manner. And greater efforts must be made to 
improve post-school results among minority students with disabilities.
  The progress that has been made over the past 20 years in the 
education of children with disabilities has been impressive. However, 
it is clear that significant challenges remain. We must ensure that 
this crucial law not only remains intact as the centerpiece for 
ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children with 
disabilities, but also that it is strengthened and updated to keep 
current with the changing times.
  The basic purposes of Public Law 94-142 must be retained under the 
proposed reauthorization of IDEA: To assist States and local 
communities in meeting their obligation to ensure that all children 
with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public 
education that emphasizes special education and related services that 
are designed to meet the unique needs of these children and enable them 
to lead productive independent adult lives; to ensure that the rights 
of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; and to 
assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with 
disabilities.
  We also need to expand those purposes to promote the improvement of 
educational services and results for children with disabilities and 
early intervention services for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities--by assisting the systems change initiatives of State 
educational agencies in partnerships with other interested parties, and 
by assisting and supporting coordinated research and personnel 
preparation, and coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and 
evaluation, as well as technology development and media services.
  Mr. President, this bipartisan bill we are presenting here today 
provides the fine-tuning that is needed to up-date current law along 
the lines I have described. These amendments will help ensure that 
children with disabilities have equal educational opportunities along 
with their nondisabled peers to leave school with the skills necessary 
for them to be included and integrated in the economic and social 
fabric of society and to live full, independent productive lives as 
adults.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to quote Ms. Melanie Seivert 
of Sibley, IA, who is the parent of Susan, a child with Downs syndrome. 
She states:

       Our ultimate goal for Susan is to be educated academically, 
     vocationally, [and] in life-skills and community living so as 
     an adult she can get a job and live her life with a minimum 
     of management from outside help. Through the things IDEA 
     provides . . . we will be able to reach our goals.
       Does it not make sense to give all children the best 
     education possible? Our children need IDEA for a future.

  Mr. President, IDEA is the shining light of educational opportunity. 
And we, in the Congress, must make sure that the light continues to 
burn bright. We still have promises to keep. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 
1996.
                                 ______