[Senate Report 105-17]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        Calendar No. 46
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                     105-17
_______________________________________________________________________


 
     INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

                                _______
                                

                  May 9, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Jeffords, from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 717]

    The Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 717) to amend the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, to reauthorize and make 
improvements to that Act, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Introduction.....................................................1
 II. Purpose and summary..............................................2
III. Background and need for legislation..............................2
 IV. Legislative history and committee action.........................4
  V. Explanation of bill and committee views..........................4
 VI. Cost estimate...................................................40
VII. Regulatory impact statement.....................................45
VIII.Application of law to the legislative branch....................45

  IX Section-by-section analysis.....................................46
  X. Changes in existing law.........................................61

                            i. introduction

    S. 717 was the result of extensive discussions among 
Senators and Congressmen, and officials of the U.S. Department 
of Education, as well as recommendations from parents of 
children with disabilities, educators, and other individuals 
interested in improving the quality of education for children 
with disabilities. S. 717 and its companion bill in the House, 
H.R. 5, as amended, are identical. The legislation was 
developed through a bicameral, bipartisan, legislative branch, 
executive branch collaborative effort that preceded committee 
action.

                        ii. purpose and summary

    In reporting S. 717, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act Amendments of 1997, the committee improves the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through 
provisions that: (1) place the emphasis on what is best 
educationally for children with disabilities rather than on 
paperwork for paperwork's sake; (2) give professionals, 
especially teachers, more influence and flexibility and school 
administrators and policymakers lower costs in the delivery of 
education to children with disabilities; (3) enhance the input 
of parents of children with disabilities in the decision making 
that affects their child's education; (4) make schools safer; 
and (5) consolidate and target discretionary programs to 
strengthen the capacity of America's schools to effectively 
serve children, including infants and toddlers, with 
disabilities.
    The committee also makes it easier to understand and use 
IDEA by simplifying its structure and the organization of 
provisions. The legislation, in part A alphabetizes definition 
in section 602; in part B, consolidates all State educational 
agency eligibility requirements in section 612 and all local 
educational agency eligibility requirements in section 613; 
groups evaluation and reevaluation, individualized education 
program, and placement provisions in section 614; and places 
all procedural safeguards requirements in section 615. Part H, 
the early intervention program for infants and toddlers, 
becomes part C. Other discretionary programs are condensed and 
consolidated into part D, with two authorized subparts 
including a State Program Improvement Grant Program.

                iii. background and need for legislation

    Congress established a State grant program for the 
Education of Handicapped Children under title VI of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 89-
750). In 1970, Congress authorized the Education of the 
Handicapped Act (EHA) as title VI of P.L. 91-230. With the 
enactment of P.L. 91-230, the State grant program established 
in 1966 was redesignated as part B of the EHA
    In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped 
Children Act, P.L. 94-142. It amended part B, the State grant 
program in the EHA. P.L. 94-142 refined and expanded 
requirements for State participation in the State grant 
program. In accepting State grant funds, a State was required 
to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all 
children with disabilities in the State according to specific 
procedures and civil rights protections.From 1979 through 1994, 
a series of amendments to the EHA refined and increased in number 
discretionary programs in personnel preparation, research, 
demonstration, and technical assistance. In 1986, the Handicapped 
Children's Protection Act, P.L. 99-372, was enacted. In amending part B 
of the EHA, P.L. 99-372 authorized attorneys' fees for parents who 
prevail in due process proceedings and judicial actions against school 
districts. Also in 1986, P.L. 99-457 was enacted, creating a new part H 
in the EHA. Part H provides funds for State programs in early 
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities from 
birth through two years of age. The EHA amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-
476, renamed the statute as the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA). In 1994 P.L. 103-382, the Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994, eliminated the separate authorization for the chapter 1 
Handicapped Program and merged its authorization for funding with part 
B funding under the IDEA and gave school districts the discretion to 
remove children with disabilities to an interim alternative educational 
setting for up to 45 days when such children bring firearms to school.
    This committee believes that the critical issue now is to 
place greater emphasis on improving student performance and 
ensuring that children with disabilities receive a quality 
public education. Educational achievement for children with 
disabilities, while improving, is still less than satisfactory.
    This review and authorization of the IDEA is needed to move 
to the next step of providing special education and related 
services to children with disabilities: to improve and increase 
their educational achievement.
    In the 104th Congress, Senator Frist, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Disability Policy, with Senator Harkin, 
introduced the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
Amendments of 1996, S. 1578. The legislation was reported out 
of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources on March 21, 
1996. No further action was taken in the Senate.
    In 105th Congress on January 28, 1997, Chairman Jeffords 
introduced the Frist-Harkin bill as S. 216.
    On January 29, 1997 the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources held a hearing (S. Hrg. 105-1) to solicit 
recommendations for the reauthorization of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act (IDEA). The following individuals testified:
    Judith E. Heumann, Assistant Secretary, Office of Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of 
Education, Washington, DC; Madeline Will, Former Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services, U.S. Department of Education, Chevy Chase, MD; Daniel 
Sullivan, Chairman, Bedford, New Hampshire School Board, 
Nashua, N.H.; David S. Wolk, Superintendent, Rutland City 
School District, Rutland, VT, on the behalf of the American 
Association of School Administrators; Michael Remus, Team 
Leader for Student Support Services, Kansas Board of Education, 
Chairman of the Board, the HRC, and member, National 
Association of State Directors of Special Education, Topeka, 
KS; Elisabeth T. Healy, Member, Pittsburgh School Board, and 
board member, TASH, Pittsburgh, PA; Anne L. Bryant, Executive 
Director, National School Boards Association, Alexandria, VA; 
Stanley S. Herr, Professor of Law, University of Maryland, 
Baltimore, MD; Marcia Reback, President, Rhode Island 
Federation of Teachers, Providence, RI; H. Michael Brown, 
Principal, Hope High School, on behalf of the National 
Association of Secondary School Principals, Hope, AR: Robert 
Chase, President, National Education Association, Washington, 
DC; and Gerald Hime, President, Council for Exceptional 
Children, Reston, VA.

              iv. legislative history and committee action

    The committee considered the legislation on May 7, 1997. 
Chairman Jeffords offered four amendments en bloc. The first 
amendment makes clear that States are not obligated by Federal 
law to provide IDEA services to individuals aged 18 to 21 who 
are incarcerated in an adult prison and who were not receiving 
services immediately prior to their incarceration. If they were 
receiving services, the obligation to provide services, would 
continue. The second amendment clarifies that the only two 
exceptions to the so-called ``stay put'' rule in section 615(k) 
are when guns or drugs are involved, or when continued 
placement is substantially likely to result in physical harm. 
For all other violations of school rules or codes of conduct 
the stay put rule applies. Thus, if a child's parents object to 
a change in placement, the child would stay in his or her 
current placement. The third amendment defines substantial 
evidence for the purposes of the subsection of the bill dealing 
with placement in an alternative educational setting. A hearing 
officer's determination that continued placement is 
substantially likely to result in harm would require something 
more than a preponderance of the evidence. The fourth amendment 
clarifies what the law is today with respect to referral for 
enforcement, which may include referral to the Department of 
Justice.
    Senator Gregg offered, and then withdrew, an amendment to 
specify minimum levels of appropriations to be provided in each 
of the fiscal years 1998 through 2004. Under the amendment, 
appropriations would be authorized at not less than 
$4,107,522,000 for fiscal year--an increase of $1 billion over 
the current funding level. Not less than $13,107,522,000 would 
be authorized in fiscal year 2004--an increase of $10 billion 
over the current level.
    Final Action: The bill as amended was reported favorably by 
unanimous voice vote.

               v. explanation of bill and committee views

    The purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act Amendments of 1997 are to clarify and strengthen the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by providing 
parents and educators with the tools to:
          Preserve the right of children with disabilities to a 
        free appropriate public education;
          Promote improved educational results for children 
        with disabilities through early intervention, 
        preschool, and educational experiences that prepare 
        them for later educational challenges and employment;
          Expand and promote opportunities for parents, special 
        education, related services, regular education and 
        early intervention service providers, and other 
        personnel to work in new partnerships at both the State 
        and local levels;
          Create incentives to enhance the capacity of schools 
        and other community-based entities to work effectively 
        with children with disabilities and their families, 
        through targeted funding for personnel training, 
        research, media, technology, and the dissemination of 
        technical assistance and best practices.
    In its 22-year life span, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act has achieved many of the important goals it 
sought to achieve. Children with disabilities are for the most 
part well served in America's public and private schools and 
are guaranteed the right in every State and outlying area to a 
free appropriate public education by law.
    The IDEA has been a very successful law. Prior to its 
implementation, approximately 1 million children with 
disabilities were denied education. The number of children with 
developmental disabilities in State institutions has declined 
by close to 90 percent. The number of young adults with 
disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education has tripled, 
and the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in 
their twenties is almost half that of their older counterparts.
    Despite this progress, the promise of the law has not been 
fulfilled for too many children with disabilities. Too many 
students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out 
of school. Almost twice as many students with disabilities drop 
out as compared to students without disabilities. Of further 
concern is the continued inappropriate placement of children 
from minority backgrounds and children with limited English 
proficiency in special education. In addition, school officials 
and others complain that the current law is unclear and focuses 
too much on paperwork and process rather than on improving 
results for children.
    This authorization is viewed by the committee as an 
opportunity to review, strengthen, and improve IDEA to better 
educate children with disabilities and enable them to achieve a 
quality education by:
          (1) Strengthening the role of parents;
          (2) Ensuring access to the general education 
        curriculum and reforms;
          (3) Focusing on teaching and learning while reducing 
        unnecessary paperwork requirements;
          (4) Assisting educational agencies in addressing the 
        costs of improving special education and related 
        services to children with disabilities;
          (5) Giving increased attention to racial, ethnic, and 
        linguistic diversity to prevent inappropriate 
        identification and mislabeling;
          (6) Ensuring schools are safe and conducive to 
        learning; and
          (7) Encouraging parents and educators to work out 
        their differences by using nonadversarial means.
    In drafting the bill, the committee was guided by the 
premise that, to achieve a quality education for children with 
disabilities, it should start with current law and build on the 
actions, experiences, information, facts, and research gathered 
over the life of the law, particularly in the last 3 years. 
Further, in developing these amendments the committee 
distinguished between problems of implementation and problems 
with the law, and responded appropriately in addressing any 
issue raised.
    Through this legislation the committee intends to encourage 
exemplary practices that lead to improved teaching and learning 
experiences for children with disabilities, and that in turn, 
for these children, result in productive independent adult 
lives, including employment. Through these efforts, the 
committee intends to assist States in the implementation of 
early intervention services for infants and toddlers with 
disabilities and their families, and support the smooth and 
effective transition of these children to preschool.
    The committee views the structure and substance of this 
legislation as critically important, if the country is to see 
clearer understanding of, and better implementation and fuller 
compliance with, the requirements of IDEA.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

Amendments to part A of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

            Definitions
    Section 602 of the Amendments consolidates the majority of 
the definitions in the act and reorders them alphabetically. 
Most definition in current law are retained, and where 
appropriate updated. Forexample the definitions of ``State 
educational agency'' and ``Local educational agency'' were amended to 
be consistent with the definition of these terms in title XIV of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the 1994 
Improving America's Schools Act and the term ``intermediate educational 
unit'' has been replaced by the term ``educational service agency'' and 
its definition, to reflect the more contemporary understanding of the 
broad and varied functions of such agencies.
    The bill amends the definition of ``related services,'' by 
adding ``orientation and mobility services.'' This change is 
not intended to reduce or alter the scope of related services 
or special education services that are available to children 
with disabilities, but merely to emphasize the importance of 
orientation and mobility services. Orientation and mobility 
services are generally recognized to be services provided to 
children who are blind or have visual impairments. However, it 
is important to keep in mind that children with other 
disabilities may also need instruction in traveling around 
their school, or to and from school. A high school aged child 
with a mental disability, for example, might need to be taught 
how to get from class to class so that he can participate in 
his inclusive program. The addition of orientation and mobility 
services to the list of identified related services is not 
intended to result in the denial of appropriate services for 
children with disabilities who do not have visual impairments 
or blindness.
     The bill retains the 13 disability categories. However, 
the bill expands the definition for service eligibility in part 
B called ``developmental delay,'' to be used at State and local 
discretion, for children ages three through nine. The use of a 
specific disability category to determine a child's eligibility 
for special education and related services frequently has led 
to the use of the category to drive the development of the 
child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement to 
a greater extent than the child's needs.
    The committee believes that, in the early years of a 
child's development, it is often difficult to determine the 
precise nature of the child's disability. Use of 
``developmental delay'' as part of a unified approach will 
allow the special education and related services to be directly 
related to the child's needs and prevent locking the child into 
an eligibility category which may be inappropriate or 
incorrect, and could actually reduce later referrals of 
children with disabilities to special education.
    The committee wants to make clear that changing the 
terminology from ``serious emotional disturbance'' to ``serious 
emotional disturbance (hereinafter referred to as `emotional 
disturbance') in the definition of a child with a disability is 
intended to have no substantive or legal significance. It is 
intended strictly to eliminate the pejorative connotation of 
the term ``serious. It should in no circumstances be construed 
to change the existing meaning of the term under 34 C.F.R. 
300.7(b)(9) as promulgated September 29, 1992.
            Policy letters and regulations
    Section 607 maintains the requirements of current law that 
prescribe a 90-day public comment period for enacting proposed 
regulations under parts B and C, and establishes a baseline for 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary under the act that 
provides protections to children with disabilities. The section 
also specifies that the Secretary may not establish a rule 
required for compliance with, or eligibility under, this part 
without following the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 607 
also specifies that the Secretary shall, on a quarterly basis, 
publish in the Federal Register, and widely disseminate through 
various additional forms of communication, a list identifying 
the topic and other appropriate summary information, of 
correspondence from the Department of Education that describes 
its interpretation of IDEA or regulations issued by the 
Department in the previous quarter. Furthermore, if the 
Secretary receives a written request regarding a policy, 
question, or interpretation under part B of IDEA, and 
determines that it raises an issue of general interest or 
applicability of national significance to the implementation of 
part B, the Secretary shall include a statement to that effect 
in any written response; and widely disseminate that response 
to SEA's, LEA's, parent and advocacy organizations, and other 
interested organizations subject to appropriate confidentiality 
laws. The bill directs the Secretary not later than one year 
after responding on such a matter to issue written guidance on 
the policy, question, or interpretation through such means as a 
policy memorandum, notice of interpretation, or notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    The bill requires that those written responses by the 
Secretary shall include an explanation that the Secretary's 
written response is provided as informal guidance and is not 
legally binding; and represents the interpretation by the 
Department of Education of the applicable statutory or 
regulatory requirements in the context of the facts presented.
    The committee recognizes the need for the Secretary to 
offer correspondence for a variety of reasons. Among those are 
technical assistance, interpretation and clarification of this 
act and the accompanying regulations, and monitoring for 
compliance. Section 607 of the bill is not intended to prohibit 
the Secretary from answering such correspondence.
    The committee believes the guidance in section 607 is 
consistent with the public notice and comment procedures of the 
Administrative Procedures Act and will provide all stake 
holders witha common frame of reference and expectation with 
regard to any particular written correspondence from the Secretary, its 
significance, and its future implications. With the enactment of 
section 607, such guidance should reduce substantially the degree and 
amount of misapplication or misinterpretation of Secretarial 
correspondence.

Amendments to part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

             Funding formula
    Section 611 of the act retains the disability child count-
based formula in current law until the appropriation for part B 
of the IDEA reaches $4,924,672,200. When this threshold funding 
level is reached, a change in the funding formula for 
distributing funds to States will be triggered. At that point, 
yearly child counts based on disability will no longer 
determine a State's allotment. When the threshold funding level 
is reached, a State's allotment will be based on two 
calculations, which would be added together to determine the 
State's allotment under the new formula: (1) the amount the 
State received in the year prior to the threshold amount being 
reached; and (2) the State's proportional share of funds that 
exceed that previous year's appropriation, based 85 percent on 
the State's census data for children from 3 through 21 (if the 
State provides FAPE to children of these ages), and 15 percent 
on the State's poverty rate. Distribution of part B funds 
within States will be on the same basis.
    The legislation caps the maximum increase for a State 
gaining from the change in formula and includes a floor for 
States receiving less under the change in formula. States would 
receive no more than 1.5 percent more than the total percent 
part B appropriations increase for that year. In addition, the 
State would receive no less than either 1.5 percent less than 
the total percent part B appropriations increase for that year 
or 90 percent of the total percentage increase, whichever is 
greater. No State will receive less than the amount it received 
in the prior year. In the year the new formula is triggered, 
the State minimum will become \1/3\ of the one percent of the 
new formula funds.
    The committee wishes to make clear that the change from a 
formula based on the number of children with disabilities to a 
formula based on census and poverty should in no way be 
construed to modify the obligation of educational agencies to 
identify and serve children with disabilities.
    Section 501 of P.L. 95-134, permitting consolidation of 
grants, would not apply to the outlying areas or freely 
associated States under this section. The purpose of this was 
to assure that entities actually use IDEA funds for delivering 
services to children with disabilities.
    The percentage of the appropriation that will go to the 
Secretary of the Interior to provide special education and 
related services to Indian children with disabilities has 
changed to 1.226 percent of the total appropriation. This 
percentage will provide the Secretary of the Interior the same 
amount of funding as the 1.25 percent did under the past 
authorization, because the future amounts will come out of a 
larger base of funding in the total part B formula.
    The committee developed the change in formula to address 
the problem of over-identification of children with 
disabilities. When the act was first passed in 1975, States 
were not providing educational services to many children with 
disabilities. Therefore, Congress proposed to distribute 
Federal Funds for special education services in order to 
encourage and reward States for serving eligible children. In 
the 22 years since then, the States have made excellent 
progress in identifying children with disabilities and 
providing them access to special education, and are now serving 
5.5 million children with disabilities or approximately 10 
percent of children aged 3 through 17. Logically, a formula was 
established at that time that based funding on counting the 
number of children with disabilities identified. This was to 
encourage States to locate children with disabilities.
    Today, the growing problem is over identifying children as 
disabled when they might not be truly disabled. The challenge 
today is not so much how to provide access to special education 
services but how to appropriately provide educational services 
to children with disabilities in order to improve educational 
results for such children. As States consider this issue, more 
and more States are exploring alternatives for serving more 
children with learning problems in the regular educational 
classroom. But in doing so, they face the prospect of 
reductions in Federal funds, as long as funding is tied to 
disabled child counts.
    While it is unlikely that individual educators ever 
identify children for the additional funding that such 
identification brings, the financial incentive reduces the 
scrutiny that such referrals would receive if they did not have 
the additional monetary benefit. It also reduces the scrutiny 
of children who might be moved back out of special education. 
In-State funding formulas that follow the current disability-
based Federal child-count formula further reduce such scrutiny, 
with more children being identified to draw additional State 
funds.
    This problem is most intense with minority children, 
especially African-American males. Over-identification of 
minority children, particularly in urban schools with high 
proportions of minority students, remains a serious and growing 
problem in this Nation. The problem alsocontributes to the 
referral of minority special education students to more restrictive 
environments.
    The committee is also cognizant, however, that in some 
areas under identification remains a problem, particularly for 
minority children.
    The committee has squarely faced this problem by shifting, 
once the targeted threshold is reached, to a formula of which 
85 percent of additional funds is based on the total school age 
population and 15 percent is based on the poverty statistic for 
children in a State. This system was encouraged in the 1994 
report of the Department of Education's Inspector General. The 
Inspector General noted: ``Because [a population-based] method 
[of allocating funds] uses objective data derived for other 
purposes, [this method] eliminates the financial incentives for 
manipulating student counts [that exist in the current 
formula], including retaining students in special education 
just to continue receiving Federal funds.'' The committee added 
a poverty factor to the formula because there is a link between 
poverty and certain forms of disability. This concept was also 
encouraged by the Inspector General's report.
    Based on the significant progress that has been made in 
providing access to special education and concerns about the 
over-identification of children as disabled, the committee 
believes this new formula will address many of these concerns. 
This change will enable States to undertake good practices for 
addressing the learning needs of more children in the regular 
classroom without unnecessary categorization or labeling 
thereby risking the loss of Federal funds. Changing the Federal 
formula may also motivate States to change their own formulas 
for distributing State aid in ways that eliminate inappropriate 
financial incentives for referring children to special 
education.
    The bill continues to authorize that States may retain a 
portion of their State allotments with certain changes 
effective for fiscal year 1998. First, the 5 percent for 
administrative purposes is capped at the fiscal year 1997 
level, with future annual increases limited to the lesser of 
the rate of inflation or the rate of Federal appropriation 
increases. The remaining 20 percent of the State's share of its 
part B allotment is capped in the same manner. Any excess above 
inflation in any year goes into a new 1-year fund that must be 
distributed that year through grants to LEA's for local 
systemic improvement activities or for specific direct 
services. In the next year, the amounts expended for such 
activities must be distributed to LEA's based on the part B 
formula.
    A new reporting provision was included for the Secretary of 
the Interior's Advisory Council. This is intended to provide a 
means of determining if the Advisory Council is carrying out 
its duties and whether the Secretary is incorporating the 
recommendations of the Council into the Department of the 
Interior's programs.
            State eligibility
    Section 612 establishes the conditions of State eligibility 
for part B funds. Many provisions are retained from current 
law. Other provisions have been added to promote a better 
understanding of, and more consistent compliance with, part B 
of the statute.
    Provisions retained from current law are obligations of a 
State to: establish a full educational opportunity goal and a 
timetable for meeting it; comply with the evaluation and 
confidentiality, IEP, and procedural safeguards provisions; 
require that private placements made by public agencies meet 
State standards; not commingle part B funds with State funds; 
seek public comment prior to adopting policies and procedures 
necessary to comply with this section; and meet LEA eligibility 
requirements if the SEA provides direct services. In addition, 
section 612 retains the opportunity of a State to apply for a 
waiver from the ``supplement not supplant'' provision, when it 
can demonstrate, through clear and convincing evidence, that it 
is providing a free appropriate public education to all 
children with disabilities in the State.
    Other provisions in section 612 taken from current law are: 
(1) the construction clause pertaining to the fact that part B 
does not permit a State to reduce medical or other assistance 
or alter eligibility under titles V and XIX of the Social 
Security Act; and (2) the ``by-pass'' provision that allows the 
Secretary to make arrangements to provide services to children 
with disabilities in private schools, if a State is prohibited 
by State law from providing for the participation of such 
children.
    Section 612 contains clarifications of current law. To 
receive part B funds, States are to make available a free 
appropriate public education to all children with disabilities, 
including children with disabilities who have been suspended or 
expelled from school. States must also conduct child find 
activities, which include identification of children in private 
schools and a process to determine which children are in need 
of special education and receiving it (while allowing 
identified children not to be labeled with a disability 
category).
    The bill provides that a State may also opt not to serve 
individuals who, in the educational placement prior to their 
incarceration in adult correctional facilities, were not 
actually identified as being a child with a disability under 
section 602(3) or did not have an individualized education 
program under this part. The committee means to set the point 
in time when it is determined whether a child has been 
identified or had an IEP. This makes clear that services need 
not be provided to all children who were at one time determined 
to be eligibleunder this part. The committee does not intend to 
permit the exclusion from services under part B of children who had 
been identified as children with disabilities and had an IEP, but who 
had left school prior to their incarceration. In other words, if a 
child had an IEP in his or her last educational placement, the child 
has an IEP for purposes of this provision. The committee added language 
to make clear that children with disabilities aged 18 through 21, who 
did not have an IEP in their last educational placement but who had 
actually been identified should not be excluded from services.
    The bill amends the provisions on least restrictive 
environment (redesignated as section 612(a)(5)) to ensure that 
the State's funding formula does not result in placements that 
violate the requirement that children be placed in the least 
restrictive environment.
    The committee supports the longstanding concept of the 
least restrictive environment, including the policy that, to 
the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are 
educated with children who are nondisabled and that special 
classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with 
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs 
only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that 
education in regular classes with the use of special education 
and related services or supplementary aids and services cannot 
be achieved satisfactorily.
    The committee supports the longstanding policy of a 
continuum of alternative placements designed to meet the unique 
needs of each child with a disability. Placement options 
available include instruction in regular classes, special 
classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in 
hospitals and institutions. For disabled children placed in 
regular classes, supplementary aids and services and resource 
room services or itinerant instruction must also be offered as 
needed.
    Section 612 also includes an obligation on a State to 
require LEA's to participate in transition planning conferences 
for toddlers with disabilities about to enter preschools; and 
to provide a proportionate amount of IDEA funds to private 
schools in which children with disabilities are enrolled, and, 
to the extent consistent with law, at State discretion, provide 
services on the premises of private, including parochial, 
schools.
    Section 612 also includes several other factors that affect 
possible parental reimbursement for unilateral private 
placements of their child. Parents must give notice about their 
concerns and intent at the most recent IEP meeting or written 
notice 10 days before they transfer the child to the private 
school. Prior to removal of the child from the public school, 
if the public agency informed the parents of its intent to 
evaluate the child (including a statement of the purpose of the 
evaluation that was appropriate and reasonable), the parents 
must make the child available for such an evaluation. If the 
parents do not comply with notice and evaluation requests or 
engage in unreasonable actions, hearing officers and courts may 
reduce or deny reimbursement to parents for unilateral private 
placements. The bill specifies that reduction or denial of 
reimbursement must not occur for parents' failure to comply 
with these requirements if parents are illiterate and cannot 
read English; compliance would result in physical or serious 
emotional harm to the child; the school prevented the parents 
from complying; or the parents had not received notice with 
regard to the potential consequences of noncompliance.
    The bill strengthens the requirements on ensuring provision 
of services by non-educational agencies while retaining a 
single line of responsibility. The chief executive officer of a 
State must develop and implement interagency agreements and 
reimbursement mechanisms to ensure that educational agencies 
have access to funding from non-educational public agencies 
that are responsible for services that are also necessary for 
ensuring a free appropriate public education to children with 
disabilities.
    A provision is added to the Act to strengthen the 
obligation to ensure that all services necessary to ensure a 
free appropriate public education are provided through the 
coordination of public educational and non-educational 
programs. This subsection is meant to reinforce two important 
principles: (1) that the State agency or LEA responsible for 
developing a child's IEP can look to noneducational agencies, 
such as Medicaid, to pay for or provide those services they 
(the noneducational agencies) are otherwise responsible for; 
and (2) that the State agency or LEA remains responsible for 
ensuring that children receive all the services described in 
their IEP's in a timely fashion, regardless of whether another 
agency will ultimately pay for the services.
    The committee places particular emphasis in the bill on the 
relationship between schools and the State Medicaid Agency in 
order to clarify that health services provided to children with 
disabilities who are Medicaid-eligible and meet the standards 
applicable to Medicaid are not disqualified for reimbursement 
by Medicaid agencies because they are provided services in a 
school context in accordance with the child's IEP.
    The bill makes a number of changes to clarify the 
responsibility of public school districts to children with 
disabilities who are placed by their parents in private 
schools. These changes should resolve a number of issues that 
have been the subject of an increasing amount of litigation in 
the last few years. First, the bill specifies that the total 
amount of money that must be spent to providespecial education 
and related services to children in the state with disabilities who 
have been place by their parents in private schools is limited to a 
proportional amount (that is, the amount consistent with the number and 
location of private school children with disabilities in the State) of 
the Federal funds available under part B. Second, the bill specifies 
that school districts may provide the special education and related 
services funded under part B on the premises of private, including 
parochial, schools. This provision is designed to implement the 
principle underlying the ruling of the Supreme Court in Zobrest v. 
Catalina Foothills School Dist. that it was not an ``entanglement'' 
violation of the First Amendment to provide a sign interpreter paid for 
with IDEA funds to a deaf student at his parochial school. Third, the 
bill clarifies that the child-find, identification, and evaluation 
provision of section 612(a)(3) applies to children placed by their 
parents in private schools. Comparable language is also included in the 
child-find provision itself to make it clear that this obligation is 
independent from the participation requirements addressed in section 
612(a)(10(A).
    Section 612 also specifies that parents may be reimbursed 
for the cost of a private educational placement under certain 
conditions (i.e. when a due process hearing officer or judge 
determines that a public agency had not made a free appropriate 
public education available to the child, in a timely manner, 
prior to the parents enrolling the child in that placement 
without the public agency's consent). Previously, the child 
must have had received special education and related services 
under the authority of a public agency.
    Section 612, as current law, requires that a State have in 
effect a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) 
that is designed to ensure an adequate supply of qualified 
personnel, including the establishment of procedures for 
acquiring and disseminating significant knowledge derived from 
educational research and for adopting, where appropriate, 
promising practices, materials, and technology. The bill 
requires the State to coordinate CSPD requirements with the 
personnel sections of a State improvement plan under part D, if 
the State has such a plan, so the State only has to meet one 
set of requirements for both purposes.
    With regard to personnel standards, the bill adds two 
provisions to the standards in current law. Paraprofessionals 
and assistants must be appropriately trained and supervised in 
accordance with State law, regulations, or written policy in 
order to assist in the provision of special education and 
related services. In implementing the personnel standards 
requirements, a State may adopt a policy that includes a 
requirement that LEA's make an ongoing good-faith effort to 
recruit and hire appropriately and adequately trained personnel 
to provide special education and related services to children 
with disabilities, including, in a geographic area of the State 
where there is a shortage of such personnel, the most qualified 
individuals available whoa re making satisfactory progress 
toward completing applicable course work necessary to meet 
State standards within 3 years.
    With regard to section 612(a)(16), the committee wishes to 
make clear that its requirements are not intended to prevent 
the integration of performance goals and indicators for 
children with disabilities into the performance goals and 
indicators for nondisabled children, so that SEA's and LEA's 
can be held accountable for all children.
    Section 612(a)(19) specifies that a State must maintain its 
level of expenditures for special education and related 
services for children with disabilities from one year to the 
next. Calculations of the level of expenditures may not include 
Federal or local dollars. Reductions from this level are 
allowed through a waiver from the Secretary for exceptional or 
uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a 
precipitous and unforeseen decline in the State's financial 
resources. In the absence of a waiver situation, if a State 
fails to maintain its level of expenditures as required in this 
section, the Secretary shall reduce the State's allocation for 
any fiscal year following the year of the failure to maintain 
the level of effort required, by the same amount by which the 
State fails to meet the requirement.
    The bill requires the Secretary, by regulation, to 
establish procedures for determining whether to grant a waiver 
under section 612(a)(19)(E) within one year of enactment based 
on compliance with the obligations of part B. These procedures 
are to include objective criteria and consideration of the 
results of compliance reviews of the State conducted by the 
Secretary. The committee intends this provision to be a real 
mechanism for waivers under this provision for States that are 
complying with their obligations under this act.
    With regard to a State's advisory panel, in section 
612(a)(21), the committee has added more detail relating to the 
panel's duties and added representation from private and public 
charter schools and from the State's juvenile and adult 
corrections agencies.
    Section 612 contains several new provisions. It requires a 
State to establish performance goals for children with 
disabilities and to develop indicators to judge such children's 
progress. Any State that has a state improvement plan under 
part D must revise it based on information it obtains from the 
assessment of such progress. It requires that children with 
disabilities participate in State and districtwide assessments 
of student progress, with or without accommodations as 
appropriate for the child. By July 1, 2000, for children who 
cannot participate in such assessments, alternative assessments 
must be developed and conducted. The State must report to the 
public on theassessment performance of children with 
disabilities with the same frequency and detail it reports on the 
performance of nondisabled children, including the number participating 
in regular assessments and the number participating in alternative 
assessments. Data related to children with disabilities must be 
disaggregated. Further, the section requires States to determine if 
there is a disproportionate number of long-term suspensions and 
expulsions of disabled children and if so to take appropriate action 
and to modify policies and procedures in order to be consistent with 
the Act.
    The section retains the provision in current law requiring 
that the SEA have general supervisory authority over 
educational programs for children with disabilities, but 
provides that the Governor (or another individual pursuant to 
State law), consistent with State law, may assign to any public 
agency in the State the responsibility of ensuring that the 
part B requirements are met with respect to children with 
disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law and 
are incarcerated in adult prisons. In addition, the provisions 
requiring participation of students with disabilities in 
Statewide assessments will not apply, the transition services 
requirements will not apply to students whose eligibility under 
IDEA will terminate before their release from prison, and the 
IEP team may modify a student's IEP/placement if the State has 
a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that 
cannot otherwise be accommodated. These changes, however, do 
not affect the student's eligibility for services under IDEA. 
Neither do they affect students who are in juvenile facilities.
    The act specifies that if a State already has on file with 
the Secretary policies and procedures that demonstrate that it 
meets any requirement of section 612, it shall be treated by 
the Secretary as meeting that requirement, and that State 
applications need be submitted only once, and remain in effect, 
until the State submits modifications it deems necessary. 
Further, the Secretary may require a State to modify its 
application to the extent necessary to ensure compliance if the 
act or its regulations are amended, or there is a new 
interpretation by a Federal court or the State's highest court 
or an official Department of Education finding of noncompliance 
with Federal law or regulations. These modifications would be 
developed and submitted subject to the same process 
requirements as the original plan.
            Local educational agency eligibility
    Section 613 consolidates LEA eligibility requirements, 
which if met, make an LEA eligible for part B funding. The 
committee believes that these amendments will promote a better 
understanding of and more consistent compliance with part B of 
the IDEA.
    In section 613, the following provisions are retained 
without substantive alteration: conditions associated with 
notice of LEA or State agency ineligibility; compliance with 
part B of the IDEA and State requirements associated with it; 
consequences connected to direct services by the SEA when an 
LEA cannot or does not provide a free appropriate public 
education to children with disabilities within its 
jurisdiction; and the conditions associated with the joint 
establishment of eligibility, except that the mandatory 
obligation on an LEA eligible for less than $7,500 to 
consolidate with another LEA is deleted.
    Section 613 maintains the requirement that LEA's must 
provide information to the SEA so that the SEA will be able to 
carry out its responsibilities. A specific reference is added 
to this provision regarding information that must be provided 
by the LEA so that the SEA can comply with the CSPD and 
personnel standards requirements.
    The committee also has included several modifications to 
current law in section 613. LEA's are required to submit an 
application only once to the SEA, instead of once every three 
years as under current regulations. Additional information may 
be required by the SEA when there are: amendments to the Act or 
its Federal regulations; new interpretations of either the act 
or its regulations by Federal or State courts; or an official 
finding of noncompliance with Federal or State law or 
regulations. In these instances, the SEA may require an LEA to 
modify its application only to the extent necessary to ensure 
the LEA's compliance with part B of IDEA. This section also 
explicitly requires that an LEA make available to parents of 
children with disabilities and the general public all documents 
pertaining to the LEA's eligibility.
    This section of the bill maintains the current ``supplement 
not supplant'' and maintenance of effort obligations on LEA's, 
except that LEA's are required to include only local funds 
expended for special education and related services in 
determining whether the LEA has maintained its effort. The bill 
includes a local maintenance of effort provision to ensure that 
the level of expenditures from State and local funds for the 
education of children with disabilities within each LEA does 
not drop below the level of such expenditures for the preceding 
year. However, the committee recognizes that there are times 
when appropriate exceptions to this rule must be made. Thus, 
the bill includes four specific exceptions:
          (1) The voluntary departure, by retirement or 
        otherwise, or departure for just cause, of special 
        education personnel who are paid at or near the top of 
        the agency's salary scale. This exception is included 
        in recognition that, in some situations, when higher-
        salaried personnel depart from their positions in 
        special education, they are replaced by qualified, 
        lower-salaried staff. In such situations,as long as 
certain safeguards are in effect, the LEA should not be required to 
maintain the level of the higher-salaried departing personnel. In order 
for an LEA to invoke this exception, the agency must ensure that such 
voluntary retirement or resignation and replacement are in full 
conformity with existing school board policies in the agency, with the 
applicable collective bargaining agreement that is in effect at the 
time, and with applicable State statutes.
          (2) A decrease in the enrollment of children with 
        disabilities.
          (3) The end of an agency's responsibility to provide 
        an exceptionally costly program to a child with 
        disability because the child has left the agency's 
        jurisdiction, no longer requires such a program, or has 
        aged-out with respect to the agency's responsibility.
          (4) The end of unusually large expenditures for long 
        term purchases such as equipment or construction.
    Section 613 also provides that in any fiscal year for which 
amounts appropriated under 611 exceed $4.1 billion, an LEA may 
treat, as local funds, up to 20 percent of the funds it 
receives under part B that exceed the amount it received in the 
previous fiscal year, effectively permitting local schools to 
reduce the level of local expenditures for special education 
and related services. This section gives a State the authority 
to prevent an LEA from reducing its local level of effort when 
an LEA has been cited by the SEA as failing to substantially 
comply with the act. The committee does not intend that the 
Secretary could find an SEA out of compliance based solely on 
the fact that LEA's in the State have reduced their effort 
under this provision.
    New provisions in section 613 give LEA's increased 
flexibility in the use of part B funds. Section 613(a)(4)(A) 
allows an LEA to use part B funds for special education and 
related services provided in a regular class or other education 
related setting to a child with a disability in accordance with 
the child's IEP, even if one or more nondisabled children 
benefit from those services. In addition, section 613(g) allows 
an LEA, if granted the authority by the State, to use part B 
funds to permit a public school within the jurisdiction of the 
LEA to design, implement, and evaluate a school-based 
improvement plan that is consistent with the purposes and 
activities described under the State Program Improvement Grant 
program under part D of these amendments. A school-based 
improvement plan must be designed to improve educational and 
transitional results for all children, consistent with section 
613(a)(4)(A). The section also authorizes LEA's to use part B 
funds for school-wide programs, except that the amount of part 
B funds that may be used is limited to the number of disabled 
children in the school multiplied by the per child allotment.
    Section 613 contains two provisions concerning how charter 
schools can use part B funds to serve children with 
disabilities. First, charter schools that are LEA's may not be 
required to apply for part B funds jointly with other LEA's 
unless State law specifies otherwise. Second, in situations 
where charter schools are within an LEA, the bill directs LEA's 
to serve children with disabilities attending charter schools 
in the same manner as it serves children with disabilities in 
its other schools and directs LEA's to provide part B funds to 
charter schools in the same manner they provide such funds to 
other schools. The committee expects that charter schools will 
be in full compliance with Part B.
    Section 613 also provides that the State may require that a 
local educational agency include in the records of a child with 
a disability a statement of any current or previous 
disciplinary action that has been taken against the child and 
transmit such statement to the same extent that such 
disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, 
the student records of nondisabled children. The statement may 
include a description of any behavior engaged in by the child 
that required disciplinary action, a description of the 
disciplinary action taken, and any other information that is 
relevant to the safety of the child and other individuals 
involved with the child. If the State adopts such policy, and 
the child transfers from one school to another, the 
transmission of any of the child's records must include both 
the child's current individualized education program an any 
such statement of current or previous disciplinary action that 
has been taken against the child.
            Evaluations, eligibility determinations, IEPs, and 
                    placements
    The bill consolidates in section 614 all interrelated 
provisions regarding the evaluation and reevaluation of 
children with disabilities and the development, review, and 
revision of individualized education programs (IEP's) for these 
children. Most of these provisions are current law, as it is 
expressed in statute, regulations, and other regulatory 
guidance and policies from the U.S. Department of Education. 
The committee anticipates that the consolidation of these 
provisions in one section, and the clarification of procedural 
and administrative requirements associated with them, will 
reduce the burdens imposed by the interpretations of current 
law and make the requirements more understandable. The 
committee expects that these particular amendments will 
facilitate State and local implementation of, and compliance 
with, these provisions.
    Provisions on evaluation in section 614 codify the 
requirement that a full and individual initial comprehensive 
evaluation must be conducted before the provision of special 
education and related services; that the purposes of the 
initial evaluation are to determine whether a child is a child 
with a disability, and to determine the child's specific 
educational needs. The bill specifies that parentsmust provide 
informed consent before the initial evaluation of a child, but that 
such consent shall not be construed as consent for placement for the 
receipt of special education and related services. If a child's parents 
refuse consent for evaluation, an LEA may continue to pursue an 
evaluation by using the mediation and due process procedures under 
section 615, except to the extent inconsistent with State law relating 
to parental consent.
    Reevaluations are to be conducted if conditions warrant a 
reevaluation or if the child's parents or teacher requests a 
reevaluation, but at least once every 3 years. Informed 
parental consent also must be obtained for reevaluations, 
except that such informed consent need not be obtained if the 
LEA can demonstrate that it has taken reasonable steps to 
obtain consent and the child's parents have failed to respond.
    The bill requires that, in conducting evaluations, the LEA: 
(1) use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather 
relevant functional and developmental information, including 
information from the child's parents, to establish the child's 
eligibility and to determine the content of the child's IEP, 
including information relating to enabling the child to be 
involved in and progress in the general education curriculum; 
(2) not use any single procedure as the sole criterion for 
determining a child's eligibility or for determining an 
appropriate educational program for the child; and (3) use 
technically sound instruments that may assess the relative 
contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition 
to physical or developmental factors.
    In addition, the bill requires an LEA to ensure that: (1) 
tests and other evaluation materials used to assess a child are 
selected and administered so as not to be racially or 
culturally discriminatory, and are administered in the child's 
native language or other mode of communication, unless it is 
clearly not feasible to do so; (2) any standardized tests given 
to the child have been validated for the specific purpose for 
which they are used; are administered by trained and 
knowledgeable personnel; and are administered in accordance 
with the instructions provided by the producers of such tests; 
(3) the child is assessed in all areas of suspected disability; 
and (4) assessment tools and strategies provide relevant 
information that directly assists persons in determining the 
educational needs of the child. These requirements reflect 
current policy contained in current law and regulations, but 
not for the first time, the bill codifies them in one section 
of statute.
    The committee intends that professionals, who are involved 
in the evaluation of a child, given serious consideration at 
the conclusion of the evaluation process to other factors that 
might be affecting a child's performance. There are substantial 
numbers of children who are likely to be identified as disabled 
because they have not previously received proper academic 
support. Such a child often is identified as learning disabled, 
because the child has not been taught, in an appropriate or 
effective manner for the child, the core skill of reading. 
Other cases might include children who have limited English 
proficiency. Therefore, in making the determination of a 
child's eligibility, the bill states that a child shall not be 
determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant 
factor for such a determination is lack of instruction in 
reading or math or limited English proficiency. The committee 
believes this provision will lead to fewer children being 
improperly included in special education programs where their 
actual difficulties stem from another cause and that this will 
lead schools to focus greater attention on the these subjects 
in the early grades.
    The bill specifies that the determination of a child's 
eligibility is to be made by a qualified team of professionals 
and the child's parents. The bill requires that a copy of the 
evaluation report and the documentation of the child's 
eligibility determination be given to the child's parents.
    One of the most significant changes in the bill relates to 
how the evaluation process should be viewed. For example, over 
the years, the required 3-year reevaluation has become a highly 
paperwork-intensive process, driven as much by concern for 
compliance with the letter of the law, as by the need for 
additional evaluation information about a child. The committee 
believes that a child should not be subjected to unnecessary 
tests and assessments if the child's disability has not changed 
over the three-year time period, and the LEA should not be 
saddled with associated expenses unnecessarily. If there is no 
need to collect additional information about a child's 
continuing eligibility for special education, any necessary 
evaluation activities should focus on collecting information 
about how to teach and assist the child in the way he or she is 
most capable of learning.
    Thus, provisions in the bill require 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 the IEP team 
and other qualified professionals that additional data are not 
needed, the parents must be so notified of the determination 
that no additional data are needed, the reasons for it, and of 
the parents' right to still request an evaluation. Unlike 
current law, however, no further evaluations will be required 
at that time unless requested by the parents.
    To assist in improved compliance with the IEP provisions, 
the committee placed all provisions pertaining to the IEP, 
including the definitions of the IEP and the IEP Team, in 
section 614(d). The definition of the Individualized Education 
Program includes all of the required elements of an IEP, 
beginning with a statement of a child's present levels of 
educational performance, including how the child's disability 
affects the child's involvement and progress in the general 
educationcurriculum, or for a preschool child with a 
disability, how the child's disability affects the child's 
participation in appropriate activities. The IEP should also address 
the unique needs of the child that arise out of his or her disability 
that must be addressed in order for the child to progress in the 
general education curriculum, such as the need of a blind child to read 
Braille, or of a cognitively disabled child to receive transportation 
training (i.e., how to use public transportation). The committee wishes 
to emphasize that, once a child has been identified as being eligible 
for special education, the connection between special education and 
related services and the child's opportunity to experience and benefit 
from the general education curriculum should be strenghtened. The 
majority of children identified as eligible for special education and 
related services are capable of participating in the general education 
curriculum to varying degrees with some adaptations and modifications. 
This provision is intended to ensure that children's special education 
and related services are in addition to and are affected by the general 
education curriculum, not separate from it.
    The new emphasis on participation in the general education 
curriculum is not intended by the committee to result in major 
expansions in the size of the IEP of dozens of pages of 
detailed goals and benchmarks or objectives in every curricular 
content standard or skill. The new focus is intended to produce 
attention to the accommodations and adjustments necessary for 
disabled children to access the general education curriculum 
and the special services which may be necessary for appropriate 
participation in particular areas of the curriculum due to the 
nature of the disability.
    Specific day-to-day adjustments in instructional methods 
and approaches that are made by either a regular or special 
education teacher to assist a disabled child to achieve his or 
her annual goals would not normally require action by the 
child's IEP team. However, if changes are contemplated in the 
child's measurable annual goals, benchmarks, or short term 
objectives, or in any of the services or program modifications, 
or other components described in the child's IEP, the LEA must 
ensure that the child's IEP team is reconvened in a timely 
manner to address those changes.
    The bill requires that a child's IEP include a statement of 
measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term 
objectives. The committee views this requirement as crucial. It 
will help parents and educators determine if the goals can 
reasonably be met during the year, and as important, allow 
parents to be able to monitor their child's progress. The bill 
requires that annual goals included in a child's IEP relate to 
``meeting the child's needs that result from the child's 
disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress 
in and progress in the general education curriculum.'' This 
language should not be construed to be a basis for excluding a 
child with a disability who is unable to learn at the same 
level or rate as nondisabled children in an inclusive classroom 
or program. It is intended to require that the IEP's annual 
goals focus on how the child's needs resulting from his or her 
disability can be addressed so that the child can participate, 
at the individually appropriate level, in the general 
curriculum offered to all students.
    Prior to the enactment of P.L. 94-142 in 1975, the 
opportunity and inclination to educate children with 
disabilities was often in separate programs and schools away 
from children without disabilities. The law and this bill 
contain a presumption that children with disabilities are to be 
educated in regular classes. Therefore, the legislation 
requires that the IEP include an explanation of the extent, if 
any, to which a child with a disability will not participate 
with nondisabled children in the regular class and in the 
general education curriculum including extra-curricular and 
nonacademic activities.
    This committee recognizes that every decision made for a 
child with a disability must be made on the basis of what that 
individual child needs. Every child is unique and so will be 
his or her program needs. Nonetheless, when the decision is 
made to educate the child separately, an explanation of that 
decision will need, at a minimum, to be stated as part of the 
child's IEP.
    Children with disabilities must be included in State and 
district-wide assessments of student progress with individual 
modifications and accommodations as needed. Thus, the bill 
requires that the IEP include a statement of any individual 
modifications in the administration of State and district-wide 
assessments. The committee knows that excluding children with 
disabilities from these assessments severely limits and in some 
cases prevents children with disabilities, through no fault of 
their own, from continuing on to post-secondary education. The 
bill requires that if the IEP team determines that the child's 
performance cannot appropriately be assessed with the regular 
education assessments, even with individual modifications, the 
IEP must include a statement of why the assessment is not 
appropriate and alternative assessments must be made available. 
The committee reaffirms the existing Federal law requirement 
that children with disabilities participate in State and 
districtwide assessments. This will assist parents in judging 
if their child is improving with regard to his or her academic 
achievement, just as the parents the parent of nondisabled 
children do.
    As under current law, a child's IEP must include a 
statement of the special education and related services and 
supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or 
on behalf of the child. The committee intends that, while 
teaching and related services methodologies or approaches are 
an appropriate topic for discussion and consideration by the 
IEP team during IEP development or annual review, they are not 
expected to be written into the IEP. Furthermore, the committee 
does not intend that changing particular methods or approaches 
necessitates an additional meeting of the IEP Team. 
Additionally, the committee is aware of, and endorses, the 
provision in section 300.350 of the current regulations 
relating to personal accountability. The regulation provides 
that eachpublic agency must provide special education and 
related services to a child with a disability in accordance with an 
IEP. However, part B does not require that any agency, teacher, or 
other person be held accountable if a child does not achieve the growth 
projected in the annual goals and objectives.
    The location where special education and related services 
will be provided to a child influences decisions about the 
nature and amount of these services and when they should be 
provided to a child. For example, the appropriate place for the 
related service may be the regular classroom, so that the child 
does not have to choose between a needed service and the 
regular educational program. For this reason, in the bill the 
committee has added ``location'' to the provision in the IEP 
that includes ``the projected date for the beginning of 
services and modifications, and the anticipated frequency, 
location, and duration of those services'' (emphasis added).
    The bill requires that the IEP include, beginning at age 14 
``a statement of the transition service needs of the child 
under the applicable components of the child's IEP that focuses 
on the child's courses of study (such as participation in 
advanced placement courses or a vocational education 
program).'' The purpose of this requirement is to focus 
attention on how the child's educational program can be planned 
to help the child make a successful transition to his or her 
goals for life after secondary school. This provision is 
designed to augment, and not replace, the separate transition 
services requirement, under which children with disabilities 
beginning no later than age sixteen receive transition services 
including instruction, community experiences, the development 
of employment and other post-school objectives and, when 
appropriate, independent living skills and functional 
vocational evaluation. For example, for a child whose 
transition goal is a job, a transition service could be 
teaching the child how to get to the job site on public 
transportation.
    Current law is not clear on what is required when a child 
with a disability attains the age of majority. In order to 
clarify the situation, the IEP definition in the bill includes 
a statement that the child has been informed of his or her 
rights under part B, if any, that will transfer to the child 
when he or she attains the age of majority. The bill clarifies 
that when a child is considered incapable of making educational 
decisions, the State will develop procedures for appointing the 
parent or another individual to represent the interests of the 
child. This transfer of rights is also addressed under section 
615(m) in the bill.
    Additionally, the bill requires that a child's IEP include 
a statement of how the child's progress toward the annual goals 
will be measured and how the child's parents will be regularly 
informed of the child's progress toward those goals (by such 
means as report cards) as often as parents are informed of 
their nondisabled children's progress. The committee believes 
that informing parents of children with disabilities as often 
as other parents will, in fact, reduce the cost of informing 
parents of children with disabilities and facilitate more 
useful feedback on their child's performance. One method 
recommended by the committee would be providing an IEP report 
card with the general education report card, if the latter is 
appropriate and provided for the child.
    An IEP report card could also be made more useful by 
including checkboxes or equivalent options that enable the 
parents and the special educator to review and judge the 
performance of the child.
    An example would be to state a goal or benchmark on the IEP 
report card and rank it on a multipoint continuum. The goal 
might be, ``Ted will demonstrate effective literal 
comprehension.'' The ranking system would then state the 
following, as indicated by a checkbox: No progress; some 
progress; good progress; almost complete; completed. Of course, 
these concepts would be used by the school and the IEP team 
when appropriate. This example is not intended to indicate the 
committee's preference for a single means of compliance with 
this requirement.
    The bill's definition of the Individualized Education 
Program team includes the parents of a child with a disability; 
at least one regular education teacher of such child (if the 
child is, or may be, participating in the regular education 
environment); at least one special education teacher, or where 
appropriate, at least one special education provider of such 
child; a representative of the local educational agency who is 
(a) qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, 
specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of 
children with disabilities; (b) knowledgeable about the general 
curriculum; and (c) knowledgeable about the availability of 
resources of the local educational agency; an individual who 
can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation 
results, who may be a member of the team; at the discretion of 
the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge 
or special expertise regarding the child, including related 
services personnel as appropriate; and whenever appropriate, 
the child with a disability. Very often, regular education 
teachers play a central role in the education of children with 
disabilities. In that regard the bill provides that regular 
education teacher, participate on the IEP team, but this 
provision is to be construed in light of the bill's proviso 
that the regular education teacher, to the extent appropriate, 
participate in the development of the IEP of the child. The 
committee recognizes the reasonable concern that the provision 
including the regular education teacher might create an 
obligation that the teacher participate in all aspects of the 
IEP team's work. The committee does not intend that to be the 
case and only intends it to be the extent appropriate. The 
committee wishes to emphasize thatthe ``support'' for school 
personnel, which is stated in the child's IEP, is that support that 
will assist them to help a particular child progress in the general 
education curriculum.
    Related services personnel should be included on the team 
when a particular related service will be discussed at the 
request of a child's parents or the school. Such personnel can 
include personnel knowledgeable about services that are not 
strictly special education services, such as specialists in 
curriculum content areas such as reading. Furthermore, the 
committee recognizes that there are situations that merit the 
presence of a licensed registered school nurse on the IEP team. 
The committee also recognizes that schools sometimes are 
assumed to be responsible for all health-care costs connected 
to a child's participation in school. The committee wishes to 
encourage, to the greatest extent practicable and when 
appropriate, the participation of a licensed registered school 
nurse on the IEP team to help define and make decisions about 
how to safely address a child's educationally related health 
needs.
    The bill also clarifies obligations in two areas. First, 
nothing in section 614 may be construed to require the IEP team 
to include information under one component of a child's IEP 
that is already contained in another component. Second, section 
614 requires that each LEA or State educational agency ensure 
that the parents of each child with a disability are members of 
any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of 
their child. The committee expects that the majority of 
placement decisions will be made by the IEP team, but in those 
unique cases where it is not, the committee expects parents to 
be involved in the group making the decision.
    The bill requires that, at the beginning of every school 
year, an IEP be in effect for each child with a disability 
served by an LEA, a State agency, or an SEA. In the case of a 
child with a disability aged 3 through 5 (or at the discretion 
of the State educational agency, a 2-year old child with a 
disability who will turn 3 during the school year), an 
individualized family service plan that contains the 
requirements described in section 636, and that is developed in 
accordance with section 614, may serve as the child's IEP if 
using that plan as the IEP is consistent with State policy and 
agreed to by the agency and the child's parents.
    The bill specifies that the LEA shall ensure that a child's 
IEP team review a child's IEP periodically, but not less than 
annually to determine whether the annual goals of the child are 
being achieved; and revises the IEP as appropriate to address: 
(1) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and 
in the general education curriculum, where appropriate; (2) the 
results of any reevaluation; (3) information provided by or to 
the parents; (4) the child's anticipated needs; or (5) other 
matters.
    With regard to transition services in IEP's, the bill 
provides that if an agency, other than the LEA, participating 
in the child's education fails to provide the transition 
services described in the child's IEP, the LEA must reconvene 
the IEP team to identify alternative strategies to meet the 
child's transition objectives.
    In developing a child's IEP, the bill requires that the IEP 
team consider the strengths of the child and the concerns of 
the parents for enhancing the education of their child; and the 
results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation of 
the child. In addition, the committee believes that a number of 
considerations are essential to the process of creating a 
child's IEP. The purpose of the IEP is to tailor the education 
to the child; not tailor the child to the education. If the 
child could fit into the school's general education program 
without assistance, special education would not be necessary.
    The bill provides that, in the case of a child whose 
behavior impedes the learning of the child or others, the IEP 
team, as appropriate, shall consider strategies, including 
positive behavior interventions strategies and supports, to 
address that behavior. Similarly, in the case of a child with 
limited English proficiency, the IEP team is to consider the 
language needs of the child as such needs relate to the child's 
IEP. In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, 
the IEP team must provide for instruction in Braille and the 
use of Braille unless the IEP team determines, after an 
evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, 
and appropriate reading and writing media (including an 
evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in 
Braille or the use of Braille), that instruction in Braille or 
the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child.
    The team also is to consider the communication needs of the 
child in order to ensure that local educational agencies better 
understand the unique needs of children who are deaf or hard of 
hearing. Section 614(d)(3)(B)(iv) includes special factors that 
must be considered in developing IEP's for these children. The 
policy included in the bill provides that, in the case of the 
child who is deaf or hard of hearing, the IEP team must 
consider the language and communication needs of the child; 
opportunities for direct communication with peers and 
professional personnel in the child's language and 
communication mode; the child's academic level; and the child's 
full range of needs, including the child's social, emotional, 
and cultural needs and opportunities for direct instruction in 
the child's language and communication mode. The committee also 
intends that this provision will be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the policy guidance entitled ``Deaf Students 
Education Services,'' published in the Federal Register (57 
Fed. Reg. 49274, October 30, 1992) by the U.S. Department of 
Education.
    The bill further requires that the IEP team consider the 
provision of assistive technology devices and services when 
developing the child's IEP.
            Procedural safeguards
    The procedural safeguards in the IDEA have historically 
provided the foundation for ensuring access to a free 
appropriate public education for children with disabilities. 
Key to these due process procedures is the law's ``stay put'' 
provision, which this bill retains. The committee has added 
clarifications to the procedural safeguard provisions to 
facilitate conflict resolution, describe how schools may 
discipline children with disabilities, and ensure that due 
process is useful for all parents and schools.
    The bill retains all provisions concerning the opportunity 
to use, and the administrative procedures associated with, an 
impartial due process hearing, and appeals through state-level 
reviews, and the courts, as well as certain existing exceptions 
to reductions in attorneys' fees.
    The bill simplifies the process of delivering, and the 
content of, notices to parents about their child's rights. The 
committee hopes that these provisions will result in user-
friendly information that parents can understand.
    In section 615 of the bill, provisions affecting possible 
reduction of attorneys' fees to prevailing parents are retained 
from current law. A provision has been added that would allow 
parents' attorneys' fee to be reduced, if the attorney 
representing the parents did not provide the LEA with specific 
information about the child and the basis of the dispute; 
specifically: (1) the name of the child, the address of the 
residence of the child, and the name of the school the child is 
attending; (2) a description of the nature of the problem of 
the child relating to the proposed initiation or change, 
including facts relating to that problem; and (3) a proposed 
resolution of the problem, to the extent known and available to 
the parents at the time. The committee believes that the 
addition of this provision will facilitate an early opportunity 
for schools and parents to develop a common frame of reference 
about problems and potential problems that may remove the need 
to proceed to due process and instead foster a partnership to 
resolve problems.
    The committee believes that the IEP process should be 
devoted to determining the needs of the child and planning for 
the child's education with parents and school personnel. To 
that end, the bill specifically excludes the payment of 
attorneys' fees for attorney participation in IEP meetings, 
unless such meetings are convened as a result of an 
administrative proceeding or judicial action.
    Questions have been raised regarding the relationship 
between the extent of success of the parents and the amount of 
attorneys' fees a court may award. In addressing this question, 
the committee believes the amount of any award of attorneys' 
fees to a prevailing party under part B shall be determined in 
accordance with the law established by the Supreme Court in 
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and its progeny.
    As we stated in the 1986 report accompanying the 
legislation that added the attorneys' fees provisions: ``It is 
the committee's intent that the terms `prevailing party' and 
`reasonable' be construed consistent with the U.S. Supreme 
Court's decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 
(1983). In this case, the Court held that:

        the extent of a plaintiff's success is a crucial factor 
        in determining the proper amount of an award of 
        attorney's fees. Where the plaintiff has failed to 
        prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects 
        from his successful claims, the hours spent on the 
        unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering 
        the amount of a reasonable fee. Where a lawsuit 
        consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won 
        substantial relief should not have his attorney's fees 
        reduced simply because the district court did not adopt 
        each contention raised. But where the plaintiff 
        achieved only limited success, the district court 
        should award only that amount of fees that is 
        reasonable in relation to the results obtained.

    To encourage early resolution of problems whenever 
possible, section 615 requires States to offer mediation as a 
voluntary option to parents and LEA's as an initial process for 
resolving disputes. However, the bill requires that a State's 
mediation system may not be used to delay or deny a parents 
right to due process. The bill allows SEA's and LEA's to 
establish procedures to require parents who choose not to 
engage in mediation to meet, at a time and place convenient for 
them, with a disinterested party who would encourage and 
explain the benefits of mediation. This individual would be 
under contract with either a Parent Training and Information 
Center funded under part D or an alternative dispute resolution 
entity.
    The committee believes that, in States where mediation is 
not offered, mediation is proving successful both with and 
without the use of attorneys. Thus, the committee wishes to 
respect the individual State procedures with regard to attorney 
use in mediation, and therefore, neither requests nor prohibits 
the use of attorneys in mediation. The committee is aware that, 
in States where mediation is being used, litigation has been 
reduced, and parents and schools have resolved theirdifferences 
amicably, making decisions with the child's best interest in mind. It 
is the committee's strong preference that mediation become the norm for 
resolving disputes under IDEA. The committee believes that the 
availability of mediation will ensure that far fewer conflicts will 
proceed to the next procedural steps, formal due process and 
litigation, outcomes that the committee believes should be avoided when 
possible. Section 615(e)(2)(B) of the bill provides that the State 
shall maintain a list of individuals who are qualified mediators. The 
committee intends that, whenever such a mediator is not selected on a 
random basis from that list, both the parents and the agency are 
involved in selecting the mediator, and are in agreement with the 
individual who is selected. The committee further intends that any 
individual who serves as an impartial mediator under part B of IDEA may 
not be an employee of any local educational agency or State agency 
described in section 613(h), and not be a person having a personal or 
professional conflict of interest. Individuals who serve as mediators 
under part C of this bill are expected to be selected in the same 
manner described in this paragraph and to meet the same criteria of 
impartiality with respect to employment in the lead agency and not 
having a personal or professional conflict of interest. The committee 
believes that mediators should be experienced, trained, and understand 
the law. The committee clearly does not intend that all mediators be 
attorneys. Section 615 also specifies that a State will bear the cost 
of mediation.
    The legislation requires that agreements reached in 
mediation shall be put in writing. Furthermore, the amendments 
require that discussions held in mediation would be 
confidential and could not be used as evidence in any 
subsequent due process hearing or civil action. However, the 
committee intends that nothing in this bill shall supersede any 
parental access rights under the Family Educational Rights and 
Privacy Act of 1974 or foreclose access to information 
otherwise available to the parties. Mediation parties may enter 
into a confidentiality pledge or agreement prior to the 
commencement of mediation. An example of such an agreement 
follows:

          a. The mediator, the parties, and their attorneys 
        agree that they are all strictly prohibited from 
        revealing to anyone, including a judge, administrative 
        hearing officer or arbitrator the content of any 
        discussions which take place during the mediation 
        process. This includes statements made, settlement 
        proposals made or rejected, evaluations regarding the 
        parties, their good faith, and the reasons a resolution 
        was not achieved, if that be the case. This does not 
        prohibit the parties from discussing information, on a 
        need-to-know basis, with appropriate staff, 
        professional advisors, and witnesses.
          b. The parties and their attorneys agree that they 
        will not at any time, before, during, or after 
        mediation, call the mediator or anyone associated with 
        the mediator as a witness in any judicial, 
        administrative, or arbitration proceeding concerning 
        this dispute.
          c. The parties and their attorneys agree not to 
        subpoena or demand the production of any records, 
        notes, work product, or the like of the mediator in any 
        judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding 
        concerning this dispute.
          d. If, at a later time, either party decides to 
        subpoena the mediator or the mediator's records, the 
        mediator will move to quash the subpoena. The party 
        making the demand agrees to reimburse the mediator for 
        all expenses incurred, including attorney fees, plus 
        the mediator's then-current hourly rate for all time 
        taken by the matter.
          e. The exception to the above is that this agreement 
        to mediate and any written agreement made and signed by 
        the parties as a result of mediation may be used in any 
        relevant proceeding, unless the parties agree in 
        writing not to do so. Information which would otherwise 
        be subject to discovery, shall not become exempt from 
        discovery by virtue of it being disclosed during 
        mediation.

    Section 615 adds a provision that requires that five 
business days prior to a due process hearing, each party 
disclose to other parties all evaluations completed by that 
date and recommendations associated with those evaluations that 
are to be used at the hearing. If any party fails to provide 
such information within the time specified in the bill, the 
hearing officer may bar that party from introducing the 
relevant evaluation or recommendation at the hearing without 
the consent of the other party.
    Section 615(j) provides that, except as provided in 
615(k)(7), during the pendency of any proceedings conducted 
pursuant to section 615, unless the State or LEA and the 
parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then 
current educational placement of such child, or if applying for 
initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent 
of the parents, be placed in the public school program, until 
all such proceedings have been completed.
    The committee recognizes that school safety is important to 
educators and parents. There has been considerable debate and 
concern about both if and how those few children with 
disabilities who affect the school safety of peers, teachers, 
and themselves may be disciplined when they engage in behaviors 
that jeopardize such safety. In addition, the committee is 
aware of the perception of a lack of parity when making 
decisions about disciplining children with and without 
disabilities who violate the same school rule or code of 
conduct. By adding a new section 615(k) to IDEA, the committee 
has attempted to strike a careful balance between the LEA's 
duty to ensure that schoolenvironments are safe and conducive 
to learning for all children, including children with disabilities, and 
the LEA's continuing obligation to ensure that children with 
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. Thus, drawing 
on testimony, experience, and common sense, the committee has placed 
specific and comprehensive guidelines on the matter of disciplining 
children with disabilities in this section.
    It is the committee's intent that this set of practical and 
balanced guidelines reinforce and clarify the understanding of 
Federal policy on this matter, which is currently found in the 
statue, case law, regulations, and informal policy guidance. By 
placing all pertinent guidance in one place, the committee 
anticipates that educators will have a better understanding of 
their areas of discretion in disciplining children with 
disabilities and that parents will have a better understanding 
of the protections available to their children with 
disabilities.
    The bill codifies current law by allowing school personnel 
to order a change in the placement of a child with a disability 
to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, 
another setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 school 
days (to the extent such alternatives would be applied to 
children without disabilities). The bill also provides two 
exceptions to the pendency provision under section 615(j). 
First, the bill allows school personnel to order a change in 
the placement of a child with a disability to an appropriate 
interim alternative educational setting for the same amount of 
time that a child without a disability would be subject to 
discipline, but for not more than 45 days, if the child carries 
a weapon to school or to a school function under the 
jurisdiction of a State or an LEA; or the child knowingly 
possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or solicits the sale 
of a controlled substance while at school or a school function 
under the jurisdiction of a State or an LEA. The appropriate 
interim alternative educational setting shall be determined by 
the IEP team.
    The bill requires that, either before or not later than 10 
days after taking such a disciplinary action, if the LEA did 
not conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a 
behavioral intervention plan for such child before the behavior 
that resulted in the suspension, the agency shall convene an 
IEP meeting to develop an assessment plan to address that 
behavior; or, if the child already has a behavior intervention 
plan, the IEP team shall review the plan and modify it, as 
necessary, to address the behavior.
    Under the second exception to the pendency provision, a 
hearing officer is permitted to order a change in the placement 
of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim 
alternative educational setting for not more than 45 days if 
the impartial hearing officer determines at the hearing that 
the public agency has demonstrated by substantial evidence that 
maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially 
likely to result in injury to the child or to others; considers 
the appropriateness of the child's current placement; considers 
whether the public agency has made reasonable efforts to 
minimize the risk of harm in the child's current placement, 
including the use of supplementary aids and services; and 
determines that the interim alternative educational setting 
enables the child to continue to participate in the general 
education curriculum, although in another setting, and to 
continue to receive those services and modifications, including 
those described in the child's current IEP, that will enable 
the child to meet the goals set out in that IEP; and includes 
services and modifications designed to address the behavior so 
that it does not recur.
    The standard ``substantially likely to result in injury to 
the child or others'' codifies the standard established by the 
Supreme Court in Honig v. Doe. The bill requires the impartial 
hearing officer to consider the appropriateness of the child's 
placement and efforts by the school district to minimize the 
risk of harm in the child's current placement, including 
through use of supplementary aids and services. If the school 
district has failed to provide the child an appropriate 
placement or to make reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of 
harm, the appropriate response by an impartial hearing officer 
is to deny the school district's request to move the child to 
an alternative setting and to require the district to provide 
an appropriate placement and make reasonable efforts to 
minimize the risk of harm. Thus, it will not be permissible to 
move a child when the child's behavior can be addressed in the 
current placement.
    Section 615(k)(10)(C) defines the term ``substantial 
evidence'' as used in section 615(k). The term means evidence 
that is beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The standard in 
615(k)(2)(A) that maintaining a child in the current placement 
is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or 
others codifies the standard set by the Supreme Court in Honig 
v. Doe.
    The bill requires that, if a disciplinary action is 
contemplated either as described in the preceding paragraphs 
for a behavior of a child with disability or if involving a 
change in placement for more than 10 school days for a child 
with a disability who has engaged in other behavior that 
violated any rule or code of conduct of the LEA that applies to 
all children, not later than the date on which the decision to 
take that action is made, the parents shall be notified of that 
decision and of all procedural safeguards accorded under 
section 615 of IDEA. In addition, immediately, if possible, but 
in no case later than 10 school days after the date on which 
the decision to take that action, a review shall be conducted 
by the IEP team and other qualified personnel of the 
relationship between the child's disability and the behavior 
subject to the disciplinary action.
    The bill allows for a change of setting for the educational 
services provided a child with disability in the two specific 
circumstances identified above, but it does not change the 
other requirements of the act. The bill describes the standards 
that that setting--the interim alternative educational 
setting--must meet. It must be a setting, although a different 
setting, where the child can continue to participate in the 
general curriculum, and continue to receive the general 
curriculum services and modifications, including those in the 
child's current IEP, so that the child can meet the goals of 
that IEP, and it must include services or modifications 
designed to address (so that it does not recur) the behavior 
that led to the child's placement in the interim alternative 
educational setting.
    The bill prescribes the relevant information that must be 
considered by the IEP team in carrying out a review in terms of 
the behavior subject to the disciplinary action--all relevant 
information, including evaluation and diagnostic results, 
including relevant information supplied by the parents, 
observations of the child, and the child's IEP and placement. 
The committee limits the scope of this review by including the 
phrases ``in relationship to the behavior subject to 
disciplinary action'' and ``behavior subject to disciplinary 
action''.
    In addition, this section prescribes, also in terms of the 
behavior subject to disciplinary action, the standards for 
determining whether or not the behavior of the child was a 
manifestation of the child's disability:
    The IEP team must determine that--
          (1) in relationship to the behavior subject to 
        disciplinary action, the child's IEP and placement were 
        appropriate, and special education and related 
        services, and supplementary aids and services, and 
        behavior intervention strategies were provided 
        consistent with the child's IEP and placement;
          (2) the child's disability did not impair the ability 
        of the child to understand the impact and consequences 
        of the behavior subject to disciplinary action; and
          (3) the child's disability did not impair the ability 
        of the child to control the behavior subject to 
        disciplinary action.
    The committee offers the following clarification with 
respect to the first standard in section 615(k)(4)(C)(ii). This 
standard recognizes that where there is a relationship between 
a child's behavior and the failure to provide or implement an 
IEP or placement, the IEP team must conclude that the behavior 
was a manifestation of the child's disability. Similarly, where 
the IEP team determines that an appropriate placement and IEP 
were provided, the IEP team must then determine that the 
remaining two standards have been satisfied. This section is 
not intended to require in IEP team to find that a child's 
behavior was a manifestation of a child's disability based on a 
technical violation of the IEP or placement requirements that 
are unrelated to the educational/behavior needs of the child.
    Section 615(k)(5) of the legislation codifies current law, 
which permits a public agency to apply to a child whose 
behavior is not a manifestation of the child's disability the 
same disciplinary procedures that apply to children without 
disabilities. This section must be construed in light of the 
act's obligation not to terminate services to children with 
disabilities and the pendency provision. A child with a 
disability would not be subject to disciplinary action for 
behavior that was a manifestation of the child's disability.
    To promote the timely sharing of relevant information, 
section 615(k) of the bill requires that, if the public agency 
initiates disciplinary procedures applicable to all children, 
the agency shall ensure that the special education and 
disciplinary records of the child with a disability are 
transmitted for consideration by the person or persons making 
the final determination regarding the disciplinary action.
    The committee also addresses parents' appeal options in 
section 615(k) of the bill. If parents disagree with a 
determination that the child's behavior was not a manifestation 
of the child's disability or with any decision regarding 
placement, the parents may request a hearing. In such a case, 
the State or LEA shall arrange for an expedited hearing.
    In reviewing a decision with respect to the manifestation 
determination in an expedited hearing, the hearing officer 
shall determine whether the public agency has demonstrated that 
the child's behavior was not a manifestation of such child's 
disability consistent with the requirements of paragraph 
(4)(C), used by an IEP team when determining whether a behavior 
is or is not a manifestation of the disability. That is, the 
hearing officer in an expedited hearing, would determine that 
(1) in relationship to the behavior subject to disciplinary 
action, the child's IEP and placement were appropriate, and 
special education services and related services, supplementary 
aids and services, and behavior intervention strategies were 
consistent with the child's IEP; (2) the child's disability did 
not impair the ability of the child to understand the impact 
and consequences of the behavior subject to disciplinary 
action; and (3) the child's disability did not impair the 
ability of the child to control the behavior subject to 
disciplinary action.
    The bill requires that, before a hearing officer in an 
expedited due process hearing selects an interim alternative 
educational setting for a child, the officer is to: determine 
if the public agency has demonstrated by substantial evidence 
that maintaining the current placement of the child 
issubstantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others; 
consider the appropriateness of the child's current placement; consider 
whether the public agency has made reasonable efforts to minimize the 
risk of harm in the child's current placement, including the use of 
supplementary aids and services; and determine that the interim 
alternative educational setting meets two requirements. First, it must 
enable the child to continue to participate in the general education 
curriculum, although in another setting, and to continue to receive 
those services and modifications, including those described in the 
child's current IEP, that will enable the child to meet the goals set 
out in that IEP; and second, it must include services and modifications 
designed to address the behavior subject to discipline so that it does 
not recur.
    When parents request a hearing regarding a disciplinary 
action with respect to weapons, illegal drugs, or a controlled 
substance or actions that are substantially likely to result in 
injury to the child or others or to challenge the interim 
alternative educational setting or the manifestation 
determination, the child shall remain in the interim 
alternative educational setting pending the decision of the 
hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period 
provided for i.e., the same amount of time that a child without 
a disability would be subject to discipline but not more than 
45 days) in section 615 (1)(A)(ii) or (2) of the bill, 
whichever occurs first, unless the parents and the State of LEA 
agree otherwise.
    If a child is placed in an interim alternative educational 
setting for the reasons described in Section 615(k) (1)(ii) or 
(2) and school personnel propose to change the child's 
placement after expiration of the interim alternative 
educational placement, during the pendency of any proceeding to 
challenge the proposed change in placement, the child shall 
remain in the current placement (i.e.; the child's placement 
prior to the interim alternative educational setting). In the 
bill the committee allows an exception. If school personnel 
maintain that is dangerous for the child to be in the current 
placement (placement prior to removal to the interim 
alternative educational setting) during the pendency of the due 
process proceedings, the district may request an expedited 
hearing.
    In determining whether the child may be placed in the 
alternative educational setting or in another appropriate 
placement ordered by the hearing officer, the hearing officer 
shall apply the standards set out above. That is, the officer 
is to: (1) determine if the public agency has demonstrated by 
substantial evidence that permitting the child to return to his 
or her current placement (the child's placement prior to the 
interim alternative educational setting); is substantially 
likely to result in injury to the child or to others; (2) 
consider the appropriateness of the child's current placement 
(the child's placement prior to the interim alternative 
educational setting); (3) consider whether the public agency 
has made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the 
child's current placement (the child's placement prior to the 
interim alternative educational setting), including the use of 
supplementary aids and services; and (4) determine that the 
continued use of an interim alternative educational setting 
meets these requirements: (a) enables the child to continue to 
participate in the general education curriculum, although in 
another setting other than the original placement, and to 
continue to receive those services and modifications, including 
those described in the child's current IEP, that will enable 
the child to meet the goals set out in that IEP; and (b) 
includes services and modifications designed to address the 
behavior subject to discipline so that it does not recur.
    In the bill, the committee addresses the issue of 
disciplining children not yet eligible under part B of the 
IDEA. A child who has not been determined to be eligible for 
special education and related services under part B and who has 
engaged in behavior that violated any rule or code of conduct 
of the LEA may assert any of the protections provided for in 
part B of IDEA, if the LEA had knowledge that the child was a 
child with a disability before the behavior that precipitated 
the disciplinary action occurred. An LEA shall be deemed to 
have had knowledge that a child is a child with a disability if 
the parents of the child have expressed concern in writing 
(unless the parents are illiterate or have a disability that 
prevents compliance with the requirements of this clause) to 
personnel of the appropriate educational agency that the child 
needs special education and related services; the behavior or 
performance of the child demonstrates the need for such 
services; the parent of the child has requested an evaluation 
of the child under section 614, or the child's teacher, or 
other LEA personnel, has expressed concern about the behavior 
or performance of the child to the director of special 
education or to other agency personnel.
    If an LEA does not have knowledge, or could not reasonably 
have known, that a child is a child with a disability prior to 
taking disciplinary measures against the child, the child may 
be subjected to the same disciplinary measures applied to 
children without disabilities, who engaged in comparable 
behaviors, consistent with section 615(k)(2) pertaining to the 
authority of a hearing officer.
    If a request is made for an evaluation of a child during 
the time period in which the child is subject to disciplinary 
measures, the evaluation shall be conducted in an expedited 
manner. If the child is determined to be a child with 
disability, taking into consideration information from the 
evaluation conducted by the agency and information provided by 
the parents, the agency shall provide special education and 
related services in accordance with part B, except that, 
pending the results of the evaluation, the child shall remain 
in the educational placement determined by school authorities.
    In the bill, the committee clarifies that nothing in part B 
shall be construed to prohibit an agency from reporting a crime 
committed by a child with a disability to appropriate 
authorities or to prevent State law enforcement and judicial 
authorities from exercising their responsibilities with regard 
to the application of Federal and State law to crimes committed 
by a child with a disability. An agency reporting a crime 
committed by a child with a disability shall ensure that copies 
of the special education and disciplinary records of the child 
are transmitted for consideration by the appropriate 
authorities to whom it reports the crime.
    The ensure uniformity in the application of the provisions 
that have safety implications in section 615(k), the terms 
``controlled substance,'' ``illegal drug,'' and ``weapon'' have 
been defined in the bill. ``Controlled substance'' means a drug 
or other substance identified under schedules I, II, III, IV, 
or V in section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 812(c)). The term ``illegal drug'' means a drug or other 
substance identified under schedules I, II, III, IV, or V in 
section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
812(c)), but does not include such a substance that is legally 
possessed or used under the supervision of a licensed health-
care professional or that is legally possessed or used under 
any other authority under the Controlled Substance Act or under 
any other provision of Federal law. ``Weapon'' means a weapon, 
device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or 
inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing 
death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not 
include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches 
in length.
            Withholding and judicial review
    The committee recognizes and fully expects that the 
Secretary will utilize the board enforcement authority 
available for ensuring compliance with and implementation by 
State educational agencies with the applicable provisions of 
part B. The bill authorizes the Secretary to withhold part B 
funds, in whole or in part, from States that are not in 
compliance with part B. Thus, based on the nature and degree of 
noncompliance, the Secretary may determine the level of funding 
to be withheld and the type of funding to withhold e.g., the 
entire State set-aside or the set-aside for administrative 
purposes).
    The committee expects the Secretary to initiate actions to 
ensure enforcement, including the reexamination of current 
Federal monitoring and compliance procedures to improve the 
implementation of the law, and a subsequent annual report to 
Congress which evaluates the impact of the improved procedures 
on compliance. The committee also expects that the Secretary's 
reexamination of current enforcement procedures will place 
strong emphasis on: (1) including parents in the state 
monitoring process; (2) focusing monitoring efforts on the 
issues that are most critical to ensuring appropriate education 
to children with disabilities, and (3) timely follow-up to 
ensure that a State has taken appropriate action to demonstrate 
compliance with the law.
    In addition, the Secretary may initiate other actions to 
ensure enforcement, such as requiring the State to submit a 
detailed plan for achieving compliance, imposing special 
considerations on the State's part B grant, referring the 
matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate enforcement 
action, and other enforcement actions authorized by law.
    The committee has included in express reference ``referral 
to the Department of Justice'' in section 616(a)(1)(B) to the 
authority now in current law of the Department of Education to 
refer instances of noncompliance to other agencies. In 
reiterating this authority, the committee does not intend to 
expand present enforcement powers of any other Department, nor 
establish any new rights of action against State or local 
governments, education agencies, or private parties.
    Similar enforcement authorities exist for States to ensure 
that local educational agencies meet their responsibilities 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
            Data collection
    The legislation substantially streamlines the current data 
collection requirements by eliminating reporting on the 
services needed, by disability category, for children leaving 
the educational system, and the number and type of personnel 
employed and data on current and projected personnel needs. New 
reporting requirements are added in the bill for, the number of 
children moved to interim alternative educational settings, and 
the number of infants and toddlers at risk of developing 
developmental delays. The bill allows the Secretary of 
Education discretion to allow States and the Secretary of the 
Interior to collect needed data through sampling.
    Because of the committee's desire to see the problem of 
over identification of minority children addressed the bill 
requires States to provide for the collection and examination 
of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on 
race is occurring with respect to particular disability 
categories or types of educational setting.
            The preschool program
    The legislation amends the section 619 Preschool Grants 
program to conform with the funding formula changes for the 
section 611 Grants to States program. Under the news formula, 
no Statewould receive less than it received in fiscal year 
1997. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, all new appropriations above the 
FY 97 level will be 85 percent based on the general population of 
children aged 3 through 5, and 15 percent on the poverty rate in the 
State. The formula also includes the same minimum and maximum 
allocation provisions that apply to the new formula under the Grants to 
States program. These provisions ensure that every State receives part 
of any increase, and there is no radical shift in resources.
    The legislation would eliminate funding for the Outlying 
Areas under the Preschool Grants program and add an amount 
equivalent to the amount received in fiscal year 1997 to the 
fiscal year 1998 allocations the Outlying Areas would otherwise 
receive under the Grants to States program. This would maintain 
overall funding for the Outlying Areas while eliminating 
paperwork associated with their allocations under the Preschool 
Grants program, which is unduly burdensome for the Outlying 
Areas given the nominal amount of funding involved.
    Unlike the Grants to States program, the new funding 
formula for Preschool Grants takes effect on July 1, 1998.

Amendments to part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

    The bill reorganizes part H which authorizes the early 
intervention program as part C.
    The committee continues to recognize the importance of 
early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities 
from birth through age two. Infants and toddlers with 
disabilities whose families receive early intervention services 
often need less intensive services when they reach school age. 
The committee believes that it is in the best interest of the 
infants and toddlers, their families, schools, and society in 
general that these services continue to be provided.
    The bill retains current law and adds clarifications with 
regard to a State is discretion when it elects to address the 
needs of infants and toddlers at risk of having substantial 
developmental delays if they do not receive early intervention 
services. To provide greater flexibility in addressing the 
needs of ``at-risk infants and toddlers'' in those States not 
currently serving such children, the bill permits a State to 
use its part C funds for initiating, expanding, or improving 
collaborative efforts related to at-risk infants and toddlers, 
including: establishing linkages with public and private 
organizations, services and personnel for identifying and 
evaluating at-risk infants and toddlers; referring those 
children to other (nonpart C) services; and conducting periodic 
follow-ups on each referral to determine if the child's 
eligibility under part C has changed.
    While the provision in the preceding paragraph applies only 
to States that do not serve at-risk infants and toddlers under 
part C, States that are serving those infants and toddlers may 
carry out these activities as well, under the general authority 
to use part C funds to implement the components of statewide 
systems. The provision addressed in the preceding paragraph is 
intended to provide both clear authority and an incentive for 
States that are not serving at-risk infants and toddlers, not 
to penalize States already doing so.
    The committee has addressed the serious problem of 
personnel shortages in the provision of early intervention 
services. The bill adds a provision that allows 
paraprofessionals and assistants, who are appropriately trained 
and supervised, in accordance with State law and regulations, 
or written policy, to assist in the provision of early 
intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities 
under part C. With regard to personnel standards, the bill, as 
does current law, clarifies that, to the extent that the 
standards met by providers of early intervention services in a 
State are not based on the highest requirements in the State 
applicable to a specific profession or discipline, the State is 
to take steps to require the retraining or hiring of personnel 
that meet appropriate professional requirements in the State. 
In addition, the bill in part C clarifies this State 
responsibility in a manner that conforms to parallel language 
in part B.
    The bill describes the assurances a State must submit as 
part of its application for funding under part C.
    The bill clarifies that part C is truly the payer of last 
resort even for military families who are eligible for medical 
programs administered by the Department of Defense. The 
committee does not intend to change the types of services that 
are currently covered by DOD programs nor expect that the 
services covered under DOD medical programs will change.
    Changes are made to the provisions for submission of State 
applications, consistent with similar changes in part B.
    The bill includes an authorization level for part C of $400 
million. The committee recognizes the effort, both fiscally and 
programmatically, that all States are making through part C and 
the current Federal/State partnership in this important effort.

Amendments to part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

    Discretionary programs in IDEA, which fund personnel 
training, research, systematic change activities, parent 
training and information centers, technical assistance, and 
media and technology initiatives to assist children with 
disabilities, have evolved since the act's original passing to 
cover a variety of particular needs. Many of these needs 
continue to this day, while others have receded.
    Current law authorizes nineteen funded and unfunded 
discretionary programs. This legislation consolidates these 
programs into four broad areas. The committee believes that by 
creating a refocused national program for discretionary 
programs, such programs will be more strategically able to 
assist States, and local communities, to maintain and improve 
their capacity to reach and serve infants, toddlers, and 
children with disabilities.
    The act creates a new part D, National Activities to 
Improve Education of Children with Disabilities. Subpart 1 of 
part D authorizes new State Program Improvement Grants. This 
subpart 1 establishes a new system of grants to improve results 
for children with disabilities through systemic reform with an 
emphasis on personnel training. State educational agencies, in 
close cooperation with their ``contractual partners,'' local 
educational agencies, and parents of children with and without 
disabilities, individuals with disabilities, the Governor, and 
other State and local agencies, organizations, and institutions 
concerned with the needs of and services for children with 
disabilities shall develop an improvement plan after 
identifying the State's needs in several areas; these include 
assessing children with disabilities and their performance, 
training and personnel needs, and evaluating system 
effectiveness. States that receive these competitive grants 
will be able to use funds to implement the improvement 
strategies they have proposed in their plan which will be based 
on the needs of the State's children with disabilities and the 
nature of the State's capacity and methods of serving these 
children.
    The legislation requires that 75 percent of State Program 
Improvement Grant funds be used for personnel training. This 
reflected the committee's desire that subpart 1 grants be a 
primary means of supporting personnel training, complemented by 
an authorization for additional, but targeted, personnel 
training initiatives in subpart 2, chapter 1 of part D. The 
rationale for focusing personnel training funds at the State 
level through subpart 1, State Program Improvement Grants, is 
an attempt to improve results for children with disabilities 
through addressing personnel training needs of States, as 
identified and defined by a State, not by the Federal 
Government.
    Under the current program, universities receive grants 
based on applications made to the Department of Education. 
These applications generally focus on pre-service training for 
special education teachers. In many States, the greatest need 
for training is for in-service training for general and special 
education teachers, and for pre-service training in addressing 
the special instructional needs of children with disabilities, 
including their integration in regular education classes, for 
future general education personnel. The committee believes 
that, by targeting State Program Improvement Grant funds as it 
has, appropriate training for teachers addressing the learning 
needs of children with disabilities, especially general 
education teachers in early grades, will help reduce 
inappropriate referrals to special education of learning 
disabled children and improve results for children with 
disabilities served by both general and special educational 
personnel. Instead of learning from a teacher whose abilities 
cannot properly meet the child's particular needs, learning 
disabled children will have been taught in a manner that they 
can understand from teachers whose training permitted them to 
understand that child's learning style.
    In part D, subpart 2, the committee authorizes Coordinated 
Research, Personnel Preparation, Technical Assistance, Support, 
and Dissemination of Information. The committee intends that 
the new Chapter 1 National Research and Innovation Activities 
Program lead to a new coordinated effort in special education 
research and grant activities. Section 661 in the bill contains 
the administrative provisions. In this section the Secretary of 
Education is provided with both direction and flexibility that 
the committee believes will facilitate the development of a 
comprehensive plan to guide the distribution of funds under 
subpart 2. Stakeholders will have direct input in developing 
the plan. As in current law, in the bill each major grant 
competition requires peer review, to promote the selection of 
high quality applicants for funding that will be responsive to 
the needs identified in a particular competition. The committee 
intends that the Secretary's planning process establish a new 
coordinated system of funding to reflect what the stakeholders 
collectively view as funding priorities.
    The bill authorizes research and targeted training 
activities. The bill provides wide flexibility in terms of 
funding for research, distinguishing among funding for 
knowledge production, integration of research knowledge and 
practice, and the use of professional knowledge. The committee 
believes strongly that an organized, collective commitment to 
get validated research--best practice information--to the 
teacher in the classroom is essential. Thus, the committee 
anticipates that the substance and organization of these 
provisions pertaining to research will facilitate such an 
outcome.
    The bill authorizes funding for targeted personnel 
preparation activities related to preparing personnel to serve 
children with low-incidence and high-incidence disabilities, 
leadership personnel, and projects of national significance. 
The focus of the latter projects will be to develop and 
demonstrate effective and efficient practices; to apply 
research findings in personnel preparation,demonstrate 
effective models for preparing personnel; to reduce shortages of 
personnel, and develop, evaluate, and disseminate model teaching 
standards; as well as to develop and disseminate models that prepare 
teachers with strategies, including behavioral interventions, for 
addressing the conduct of children with disabilities that impedes their 
learning and that of others; to fund institutes for professional 
development, activities promoting the transfer of certification 
requirements across States; and selected other activities, including 
projects to improve the ability of general education personnel--
teachers, principals, and administrators--to meet the needs of children 
with disabilities. The bill specifies that high-incidence personnel 
preparation activities, including those conducted by local educational 
agencies and other local entities, are to address improvement and 
reform of existing training programs and the incorporation of best-
practices and research-based knowledge into these training programs.
    The bill directs the Secretary to undertake a national 
assessment of the Nation's systems of providing services to 
infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and their 
families. The Secretary is to prepare recommendations for 
improving these systems in a fashion that will be useful to the 
107th Congress, as it considers the effectiveness of these 
amendments in improving services for children with disabilities 
and whether further changes are needed. In addition, the 
Secretary is authorized to conduct longitudinal studies and to 
provide technical assistance directly to local educational 
agencies.
    The bill retains the authority, substantially unchanged 
from current law, to fund the Parent Training and Information 
Centers. The bill adds authority to fund local parent 
organizations, referred to in the bill as ``community parent 
resource centers''. The committee recognizes the substantial 
contribution that State Parent Training and Information 
Centers, and local parent organizations have made, in educating 
parents about the IDEA, and especially in responding to parents 
of diverse racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. The 
committee anticipates that, by working in tandem, the state-
level and community-based grantees will be able to reach even 
more parents, many of whom are isolated by geographic, social, 
language, cultural, or racial factors.
    The bill retains the authority for the Secretary to fund 
Regional Resource Centers, and clearinghouses, and other 
programs to help State and local entities build capacity to 
serve infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and 
their families. It also retains the Secretary's authority to 
fund systemic technical assistance to assist with the 
implementation of State program improvement grants, promoting 
change through multistate and regional frameworks that benefit 
State and local educational agencies, and the collection and 
dissemination to a wide range of stakeholder audiences.
    The bill retains the authority of the Secretary to fund 
projects related to the development, demonstration, and use of 
technology. It also retains the authority to fund educational 
media services. The authority extends support for video 
description, open captioning, and closed captioning of 
television programs, videos, or educational materials. On 
October 1, 2001, such support will cover video description, 
open captioning and closed captioning of educational, news, and 
informational television, videos, or materials. By that point, 
the committee anticipates that the transition toward privately 
financed captioning of all broadcast television will be well 
underway, because of the publication of, and expected 
compliance with, the Federal Communication Commission's 
regulations on the subject in August 1997.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    Title II repeals and extends provisions of the IDEA 
consistent with the amendments in title I of the bill. Title II 
also provides that most amendments to parts A and B will be 
effective on the date of enactment. It provides that part C and 
sections 612(a)(4), 612(a)(14), 612(a)(16), 614(d) (except for 
paragraph (6)), and 618 of part B will be effective on July 1, 
1998. It provides that amendments to part D, the new 
discretionary programs, and section 617 of part B will take 
effect October 1, 1997 consistent with the start of the Federal 
fiscal year 1998.
    Title II establishes that section 618 of IDEA as in effect 
on the day before enactment, and the provisions of parts A and 
B of IDEA relating to IEP's and the State's comprehensive 
system of personnel development, as so in effect, shall remain 
in effect until July 1, 1998. It provides that beginning on 
October 1, 1997, the Secretary of Education may use funds 
appropriated under part D of IDEA as in effect on the day prior 
to enactment to make continuation awards for projects that were 
funded under section 618 and parts C through G of IDEA as in 
effect on September 30, 1997. Part I, the Family Support 
Program, will be authorized through September 30, 1998 as part 
of IDEA.

                           VI. Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 9, 1997.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 717, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin Latus 
who can be reached at 226-2820.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

    Enclosure.

S. 717--Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 
        as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
        Resources on May 7, 1997

    Summary: S. 717 would revise the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and would reauthorize funding 
for many of the programs that fall under the act. The purposes 
of S. 717 are to ensure that children with disabilities receive 
a free appropriate public education that is designed to meet 
their needs and prepare them for employment, to assist states 
and localities in providing education for children with 
disabilities, and to assess the effectiveness of efforts to 
educate children with disabilities.
    The bill would give states the option to expand the 
definition of developmentally disabled children to include 
children aged 6 to 9, and in doing so would increase 
authorizations of appropriations for the permanently authorized 
general grants to states program by about $200 million a year. 
S. 717 would reduce authorizations of appropriations for the 
permanently authorized preschool grant program by $400 million 
in 1998.
    S. 717 would also reauthorize several programs that have 
expired, including the infants and toddlers program and the 
special purpose funds. The bill would reauthorize the special 
purpose funds and also consolidate fourteen separate programs 
that received an appropriation in 1997 into five new programs. 
These reauthorizations total $700 million to $800 million a 
year.
    This cost estimate describes what S. 717 would authorize 
for spending on programs under the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act. Since all IDEA spending is 
discretionary, however, the amount that will actually be spent 
on this program will be determined in the annual appropriations 
process. For example, although total authorizations of 
appropriations under S. 717 in fiscal year 1998 are $16 
billion, the program was funded at $4 billion in fiscal year 
1997.
    The provisions of S. 717 are excluded from consideration 
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because they would 
``establish or enforce statutory rights that prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of * * * handicap, or disability.''
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 717 is shown in the following tables.

                                  TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 717                                 
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         WITH ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION                                         
                                                                                                                
Authorizations of appropriations under current law:                                                             
    Estimated authorization.........................     4,036    15,927    16,664    17,424    18,224    19,064
    Estimated outlays...............................     3,320     4,988    12,394    15,924    17,239    18,030
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       523       952       982     1,013     1,045
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        52       409       800       955     1,005
Authorizations of appropriations under S. 717:                                                                  
    Estimated authorization.........................     4,036    16,449    17,616    18,406    19,237    20,109
    Estimated outlays...............................     3,320     5,040    12,803    16,724    18,194    19,035
                                                                                                                
                                        WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Authorizations of appropriations under current law:                                                             
    Estimated authorization.........................     4,036    15,927    16,664    17,424    18,224    19,064
    Estimated outlays...............................     3,320     4,988    12,394    15,924    17,239    18,030
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       523       933       943       953       964
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        52       407       784       920       951
Authorizations of appropriations under S. 717:                                                                  
    Estimated authorization.........................     4,036    16,449    17,596    18,367    19,177    20,029
    Estimated outlays...............................     3,320     5,040    12,801    16,709    18,159    18,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Notes. The 1997 levels are the amounts appropriated. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.     

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 
500 (education, training, employment, and social services).

              TABLE 2. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 717 BY PART, WITH ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION             
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part B--General grants:                                                                                         
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       204       214       224       234       245
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        20       144       201       221       232
Part B--Preschool grants:                                                                                       
    Estimated authorization.........................         0      -400         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................         0       -40      -240      -100       -20         0
Part C:                                                                                                         
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       400       411       422       433       445
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        40       281       389       419       430
Part D--Subpart 1:                                                                                              
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       104       107       110       113       116
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        10        73       101       109       112
Part D--Subpart 2, section 672:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       110       113       116       119       122
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        11        77       107       115       118
Part D--Subpart 2, section 673:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0        50        51        53        54        56
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         5        35        49        52        54
Part D--Subpart 2, section 686:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0        25        26        26        27        28
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         3        18        24        26        27
Part D--Subpart 2, section 687:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0        30        31        32        32        33
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         3        21        29        31        32
Part D--Subtotal:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       319       328       336       345       355
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        32       224       310       334       343
Total:                                                                                                          
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       523       952       982     1,013     1,045
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        52       409       800       955     1,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes. The 1997 levels are the amounts appropriated. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.      


            TABLE 3. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 717 BY PART, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION            
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part B--General grants:                                                                                         
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       204       214       224       234       245
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        20       144       201       221       232
Part B--Preschool grants:                                                                                       
    Estimated authorization.........................         0      -400         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................         0       -40      -240      -100       -20         0
Part C:                                                                                                         
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       400       400       400       400       400
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        40       280       380       400       400
Part D--Subpart 1:                                                                                              
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       104       104       104       104       104
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        10        73        99       104       104
Part D--Subpart 2, section 672:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       110       110       110       110       110
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        11        77       105       110       110
Part D--Subpart 2, section 673:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0        50        50        50        50        50
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         5        35        48        50        50
Part D--Subpart 2, section 686:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0        25        25        25        25        25
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         3        18        24        25        25
Part D--Subpart 2, section 687:                                                                                 
    Estimated authorization.........................         0        30        30        30        30        30
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         3        21        29        30        30
Part D--Subtotal:                                                                                               
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       319       319       319       319       319
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        32       223       303       319       319
Total:                                                                                                          
    Estimated authorization.........................         0       523       933       943       953       964
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        52       407       784       920       951
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes. The 1997 levels are the amounts appropriated. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.      

    Basis of estimate: The spending that would occur under S. 
717 would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 
Estimated outlays are based on the historical spending of 
programs authorized by IDEA. Parts A, B, and C would be 
effective on July 1, 1998, and Part D would be effective on 
October 1, 1997.
            Part B
    S. 717 would revise Part B of IDEA, including the program 
of general grants to states. Current law permanently authorizes 
such sums as may be necessary for this program and contains a 
formula for determining how much states would get if the 
program is fully funded--the number of children with a 
disability times 40 percent of the average per pupil 
expenditure. S. 717 would give states the option to expand the 
definition of children with disabilities to include children 
aged 6 to 9 who are determined to be developmentally delayed 
(i.e., experiencing delays in physical, cognitive, 
communication, social, emotional, or adaptive development). 
This expansion of eligibility by about 10 percent would 
increase the authorizations of appropriations by about $200 
million in 1998 and $1.1 billion over the 1998-2002 period, 
including adjustments for increases in the number of disabled 
children and costs per pupil.
    S. 717 would also revise the section of Part B of IDEA of 
that deals with preschool grants to states. Current law 
permanently authorizes such sums as may be necessary to provide 
funding for grants for preschool children with disabilities, 
with a maximum grant for each child capped at $1,500. 
Authorizations of appropriations for 1998 under current law are 
estimated to be about $900 million. S. 717 would authorize 
appropriations for preschool children with disabilities of $500 
million in fiscal year 1998 and such sums as necessary in 
subsequent years. The bill would remove the limit on the grant 
amount per child. CBO estimates that S. 717 would decrease 
authorizations of appropriations by $400 million in 1998. The 
authorization level represents an increase, however, over the 
fiscal year 1997 appropriation for grants for preschool 
children of $360 million.
            Part C
    Part C of S. 717 would authorize $400 million in 1998 and 
such sums as necessary in fiscal years 1999 through 2002 for 
spending on infants and toddlers with disabilities. Part C 
would be similar to part H of current law, which covers infants 
and toddlers with disabilities and which is authorized through 
fiscal year 1997. Budget authority is estimated to increase by 
$400 million in fiscal year 1998 and $2.1 billion over the 
1998-2002 period, with adjustments for inflation. Without 
adjustments for inflation, the total would be $2.0 billion.
            Part D
    Part D of S. 717 would authorize such sums as necessary for 
grants to fund activities to improve the education of children 
with disabilities for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. The 
fourteen current law special purpose funds that this part would 
replace are not authorized beyond 1997.
    Subpart 1.--Subpart 1 of Part D would authorize 
appropriations for state program improvement grants for 
children with disabilities. This program has no equivalent 
under current law. The program would give money to states to 
improve their systems of delivery of services to children with 
disabilities. States would be required to spend a certain share 
of the grants they receive on training and development of 
personnel who work with children with disabilities. This 
subpart authorizes a maximum grant of $2 million per state for 
each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico. CBO uses this maximum amount to estimate total 
authorizations of appropriations for fiscal year 1998 of $104 
million. Authorizations of appropriations would total $550 
million over the 1998-2002 period with adjustments for 
inflation and $520 million without adjustments for inflation.
    Subpart 2--Section 672 authorizes such sums as necessary 
for ``research and innovation to improve services and results 
for children with disabilities'' for fiscal years 1998 through 
2002. CBO assumes this section would authorize spending on 
activities covered under such current programs as innovation 
and development, deaf-blindness, serious emotional 
disturbances, severe disabilities, early-childhood education, 
secondary and transitional services, postsecondary education, 
and special studies. Using the amounts appropriated for these 
activities in fiscal year 1997 as a benchmark, CBO estimates 
that section 672 would authorize $110 million in fiscal year 
1998, or $580 million over fiscal years 1998-2002, with 
adjustments for inflation. Authorizations of appropriations for 
the same period without adjustments for inflation would total 
$550 million.
    Section 673 authorizes such sums as necessary for 
activities related to the professional development of personnel 
who work with children with disabilities. Current 
authorizations of appropriations for these activities do not 
extend beyond 1997. Personnel development activities under this 
subpart would be implemented by the Secretary of Education, as 
contrasted with the personnel development activities in subpart 
1 which would be initiated by states. Spending on the current 
personnel development program (conducted by the Secretary of 
Education) was about $100 million in 1997. CBO assumes that 
under S. 717, some personnel development spending would be 
shifted to Subpart 1 and that authorizations of appropriations 
under Subpart 2 would be only $50 million in fiscal year 1998, 
or about $260 million for fiscal years 1998-2002 when inflation 
is considered. The total for 1998-2002 without adjustments for 
inflation would be $250 million.
    Section 686 would authorize appropriations for parent 
training and information centers and community parent resource 
centers. Current programs that would be authorized under this 
section include parent training, clearinghouses, and regional 
resource centers. Using the 1997 appropriations for these 
programs as a guide, CBO estimates that this section would 
increase authorizations of appropriations by $25 million in 
fiscal year 1998 and $132 million over the 1998-2002 period, 
with adjustments for inflation. The total over the same period 
without adjustments for inflation would be $125 million.
    Section 687 would authorize such sums as necessary for 
activities related to media services and technology 
development, demonstration, and utilization. CBO estimates that 
this section would increase authorizations by $30 million in 
1998. The total increase in authorizations over the 1998-2002 
period would be $158 million with adjustments for inflation, or 
$150 million without adjustments for inflation. CBO used what 
was appropriated for media and captioning services and 
technology applications under the current IDEA law for fiscal 
year 1997 as its basis for estimating these amounts.
            Repeals
    S. 717 repeals Parts C, E, F, G, H, and I of current law. 
Authorizations of appropriations for Parts C, E, F, G, and H 
have expired, so repealing these parts would have no budgetary 
impact. Part I is authorized at such sums as may be necessary 
through fiscal year 1998 under the General Education Provisions 
Act (GEPA). (GEPA provides an automatic one-year extension of 
authorizations for all programs in the Department of 
Education.) Since this part (family support) has never received 
an appropriation, the estimate includes no savings from its 
repeal.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Interogovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from consideration 
under that Act any bill that would ``establish or enforce 
statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of * 
* * handicap, or disability.'' S. 717 fits within that 
exclusion because it would ensure that the rights of children 
with disabilities are protected in the public education system.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal cost: Justin Latus; Impact on 
State, local and tribal governments: Marc Nicole; Impact on the 
private sector: Kathryn Rarick.
    Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    VII. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

    The committee has determined that there will be no increase 
in the regulatory burden imposed by this bill.

           VIII. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    S. 717 improves State grant programs and reauthorizes 
related support programs that assist in providing a free 
appropriate public education to children with disabilities, and 
as such has no application to the legislative branch.

                    IX. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 of the bill permits this title to be cited as the 
``Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 
1997.
    Section 101 of the bill amends the current provisions of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as follows.

Part A

    Section 601 contains the short title of the Act, the Table 
of Contents, the findings, and the purposes.
    Section 602 defines the key terms used in this title, 
including: Assistive Technology Device, Assistive Technology 
Service, Child with a Disability, Educational Service Agency, 
Elementary School, Equipment, Excess Costs, Free Appropriate 
Public Education, Indian, Indian Tribe, Individualized 
Education Program, Individualized Family Service Plan, Infant 
or Toddler with a Disability, Institution of Higher Education, 
Local Educational Agency, Native Language, Nonprofit, Outlying 
Areas, Parent, Parent Organization, Parent Information and 
Training Center, Related Services, Secondary School, Secretary, 
Special Education, Specific Learning Disability, State, State 
Educational Agency, Supplementary Aids and Services, and 
Transition Services.
    Section 603 authorizes the Office of Special Education 
Programs headed by a Director who is selected by the Secretary 
and also authorizes the Secretary to accept the work of 
volunteers in carrying out the Act.
    Section 604 denies a State immunity under the Eleventh 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for 
violating this Act. This section also provides for remedies for 
violation and for an effective date for the provision with 
respect to violations.
    Section 605 authorizes the acquisition of equipment and 
construction of necessary facilities, and provides that any 
construction must meet specified accessibility standards.
    Section 606 directs each recipient of funds under this Act 
to make positive efforts to employ individuals with 
disabilities in programs assisted under this Act.
    Section 607 includes requirements for prescribing 
regulations, and for issuing policy letters by the Department 
of Education.

Part B

    Section 611(a) authorizes the Secretary to provide grants 
to the States and amounts to the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide special education and related services to children with 
disabilities.
    Section 611(b) describes the allotment formula for the 
outlying areas.
    Section 611(c) specifies the proportion of funds to be 
provided to the Secretary of the Interior.
    Section 611(d) includes the allotment formula for making 
part B grants to States.
    Section 611(e) specifies the States use of part B funds, 
including the use of funds for State administration and other 
State-level activities, and subgrants to LEAs and former 
Chapter 1 State agencies.
    Section 611(f) addresses the use of funds provided to the 
Secretary of the Interior for the education of children with 
disabilities living on reservations or enrolled in elementary 
or secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by 
the Secretary of the Interior.
    Section 611(g) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provision 
of special education and related services to children with 
disability ages 5 through 21 years.
    Section 612(a) describes the policies and procedures that a 
State must have in effect to be eligible for receipt of funds 
under part B of the Act, including policies and procedures 
relating to: Free Appropriate Public Education; Child Find; 
Individualized Program, Least Restrictive Environment; 
Procedural Safeguards; Evaluation; Confidentiality; Transition 
from Part C to Preschool Programs; Children in Private Schools; 
State Education Agency Responsible for General Supervision 
(including an exception relating to disabled children who are 
convicted as adults under State Law and incarcerated in adult 
prisons); Obligations Relating to and Methods for Ensuring 
Services; State Educational Agency Eligibility; Comprehensive 
System of Personnel Development; Personnel Standards; 
Performance Goals and Indicators; Participation in Assessments; 
Supplementation of State, Local and other Federal Funds; 
Maintenance of State Financial Support; Public Participation; 
State Advisory Panel; and Supervision and Expulsion Rates.
    Section 612(b) lists the additional requirements under 
section 613(a) that a State Education Agency must meet if it 
provides a free appropriate public education or direct services 
to children with disabilities.
    Section 612(c) includes conditions under which States are 
required to submit amended policies and procedures to the 
Secretary, and the Secretary's responsibilities under this 
section.
    Section 612(d) describes what actions the Secretary must 
take in approving a State's eligibility, and before making a 
final determination that a State is not eligible.
    Section 612(e) provides that nothing in the IDEA permits a 
State to reduce medical and other assistance available, or to 
alter eligibility, under Titles V and XIX of the Social 
Security Act (Maternal and Child Health Services and Medicaid) 
with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public 
education for children with disabilities within the State.
    Section 612(f) directs the Secretary to arrange for the 
provision of special education to children with disabilities in 
private schools if, in 1983, a State was prohibited by State 
law from providing that education.
    Section 613(a) sets out the local eligibility requirements 
under part B. The section provides that to be eligible for any 
fiscal year, an LEA must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
SEA that its policies, procedures, and programs are consistent 
with the State policies and procedures described under section 
612; and that the LEA uses its part B funds in accordance with 
the specified requirements of this section; meets the personnel 
development requirements; and provides the SEA with information 
to enable that agency to carry out its duties under this part. 
The section permits LEAs to use the part B funds for various 
specified purposes. The section also addresses the treatment of 
charter schools under part B and the disabled children that 
they serve.
    Section 613(b) includes conditions under which LEAs are 
required to submit amended policies and procedures to the SEA, 
and the SEA's responsibilities under this section.
    Section 613(c) provides that if the SEA determines that an 
LEA or a State agency is not eligible under this section, it 
must notify that agency of its determination and provide the 
agency with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
    Section 613(d) provides that if an eligible LEA or State 
agency is failing to comply with any requirement under section 
613(a), the SEA shall not make any further payments to that 
agency until it comes into compliance.
    Section 613(e) sets out conditions under which an SEA may 
require an LEA to establish its eligibility jointly with 
another LEA, and describes the conditions under which an 
educational service agency and a charter school would be 
exempted from this section.
    Section 613(f) permits an LEA to use up to five percent of 
its annual part B allotment to develop and implement a 
coordinated services system.
    Section 613(g) authorizes each LEA to use its part B funds 
to permit a public school within the jurisdiction of an LEA to 
design, implement, and evaluate a school based improvement 
plan.
    Section 613(h) requires the SEA to use the payments that 
otherwise would have been available to an LEA or State agency 
to provide special education and related services directly to 
children with disabilities for whom the agency is responsible, 
if the SEA determines the existence of one or more specified 
situations.
    Section 613(i) requires any State agency that desires to 
receive a subgrant for any fiscal year under part B to 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SEA that the agency 
meets the conditions described in the section.
    Section 614(a) sets out requirements relating to initial 
evaluations, parental consent and refusal of consent, and 
reevaluations.
    Section 614(b) includes requirements for procedures 
relating to providing notice to parents about evaluations, and 
conducting evaluations.
    Section 614(c) includes requirements relating to 
determining a child's eligibility under part B; reviewing 
existing evaluation data; obtaining parental consent for 
revaluations, and actions to take if additional data are not 
needed.
    Section 614(d) includes definitions of ``IEP'' and ``IEP 
Team''; requires that an IEP be in effect at the beginning of 
each school year for each child with a disability, and provides 
that, for a child aged three, four, or five, an IFSP developed 
under part C could serve as the child's IEP; requires that each 
IEP be developed in a meeting by the IEP team, and lists 
specified areas that must be considered in developing a child's 
IEP; and requires LEAs to ensure that the IEP team reviews each 
IEP periodically, but not less than annually, and revises the 
IEP, as appropriate. The section also requires LEAs to 
reconvene the IEP team to identify alternative strategies to 
meet the transition objectives for a student if a participating 
agency, other than the LEA, fails to provide the transition 
services described in the IEP. Further, the section includes 
provisions relating to children with disabilities in adult 
prisons.
    Section 614(e) provides that nothing in the section shall 
be construed to require the IEP team to include information 
under one component of a child's IEP that is already contained 
under another component.
    Section 614(f) requires that each SEA or LEA ensure that 
the parents of each disabled child are members of any group 
that makes decisions on the educational placement of their 
child.
    Section 615(a) provides that any SEA, State agency, or LEA 
that receives part B funds must establish and maintain 
procedures to assure that children with disabilities and their 
families are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to 
the provision of a free appropriate public education.
    Section 615(b) requires that procedural safeguards include: 
parental opportunity to examine all relevant records on their 
child; procedures to protect the rights of the child whenever 
the parents are not known, can't be located after reasonable 
efforts, or the child is a State ward, including appointing a 
surrogate parent for the child; written prior notice to the 
parents, provided in their native language, unless it is 
clearly not feasible to do so; an opportunity for mediation and 
to present complaints; notice by the parents or their attorney 
in the complaint, includinginformation about the child, the 
problem, and a possible solution known and available at the time; and 
development of a model by the SEA to assist parents in providing 
notice.
    Section 615(c) describes the content of the prior written 
notice provided by the agency.
    Section 615(d) describes the content and timing of the 
procedural safeguards notice given to the parents.
    Section 615(e) requires SEAs or LEAs to make mediation 
available to parents, but provides that it is voluntary for 
both parties to determines whether they want to participate, 
and is not used to deny or delay a parent's right to a due 
process hearing under section 615, or to deny any other rights 
afforded under part B. The section authorizes LEAs to require 
parents, before requesting a due process hearing, to attend a 
meeting at which representatives from Parent Training and 
Information Centers or other alternative dispute resolution 
groups would explain the benefits of mediation and encourage 
its use.
    Section 615(f) requires that whenever a complaint has been 
received, the parents involved in the complaint must have an 
opportunity for an impartial due process conducted by the SEA 
or LEA, and also outlines the requirements for the hearing 
process.
    Section 615(g) provides that any party aggrieved by a due 
process hearing conducted by the LEA may appeal the decision to 
the SEA.
    Section 615(h) lists the procedural safeguards rights that 
are available to any party to a due process hearing or an 
appeal, including the right to a written, or, at the option of 
the parents, electronic verbatim record of the hearing and 
electronic findings of fact and decisions.
    Section 615(i) provides that any party aggrieved by the 
findings and decision in this section, or in section 615(g), 
has the right to bring a civil action in a State court or in a 
District Court of the United States without regard to the 
amount in question. This section permits the award of 
attorneys' fees and lists the considerations for reducing 
attorney's fees.
    Section 615(j) provides that, except as provided in 
615(k)(7), the child must remain in the current educational 
setting while any proceedings conducted under this section are 
pending.
    Section 615(k) provides two exceptions to the pendency 
provision under section 615(j): first, with respect to a 
situation in which a disabled child carries a weapon to school 
or a school function or knowingly possesses or uses illegal 
drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled substance 
while at school or at a school function; and second, with 
respect to a situation in which a child's actions are 
substantially likely to result in injury to the child or 
others. as determined by a hearing officer. The section sets 
out conditions and procedures relating to placing a child in an 
alternative educational setting, conducting a manifestation 
determination, required actions by the LEA when the child's 
behavior was not a manifestation of the child's disability, and 
the required hearing procedures and pendency provisions. The 
section also sets out protections for children not yet eligible 
for special education; includes a provision relating to 
referral to and action by law enforcement and judicial 
authorities; and includes definitions of ``controlled 
substance'', ``illegal drug'' and ``weapon''.
    Section 615(l) maintains the rights available under the 
Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, title V of 
the Rehabilitation Act and other Federal laws.
    Section 615(m) requires the State to provide for transfer 
of rights from the parent to the child with a disability when 
the child reaches the age of majority under State law, unless 
the child has been found to be unable to provide informed 
consent to educational decisions.
    Section 616 allows the Secretary to withhold payments to 
the State, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a 
hearing, for substantial failure to comply with any provision 
or condition under this part. The section also describes the 
nature of the withholding and availability and process of a 
judicial review.
    Section 617 describes the responsibilities of the Secretary 
under part B, including: arranging for the provision of 
technical assistance to the States; the issuance of rules and 
regulations to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with 
part B; confidentiality; and the hiring of personnel to conduct 
data collection and evaluation activities.
    Section 618 describes the program information that each 
State receiving Part B funds and the Secretary of the Interior 
must provide to the Secretary each year, and permits States and 
the Secretary of the Interior to obtain the data through 
sampling. The section also requires each State to collect and 
examine data each year to determine if significant 
disproportionality based on race is occurring in the 
identification and placement of children with disabilities, and 
provides that if a situation is identified, the State must 
review and revise, if necessary, it policies, practices, and 
procedures.
    Section 619(a) directs the Secretary to make grants to 
assist States to provide special education and related 
services, in accordance with Part B, to children with 
disabilities aged three through five and, at the State's 
discretion, to 2-year-old children with disabilities who will 
turn three during the school year.
    Section 619(b) provides that a State is eligible for a 
grant under section 619 if it has established its eligibility 
under section 612 and it makes a free appropriate public 
education available to all children with disabilities, aged 
three through five, residing in its jurisdiction.
    Section 619(c) includes the allotment formula for the 
Preschool Grants program.
    Section 619(d) describes the general amount of Preschool 
Grant funds that may be retained by the State.
    Section 619(e) specifies the use of Preschool Grant funds 
for State administration.
    Section 619(f) specifies the use of Preschool Grant funds 
for other State-level activities.
    Section 619(g) provides for subgrants to LEAs.
    Section 619(h) provides that part C of this Act does not 
apply to any child with a disability receiving a free 
appropriate public education in accordance with part B, with 
Preschool Grant funds.
    Section 619(i) includes a special definition of ``State'' 
for purposes of allocating funds under the Preschool Grants 
program.
    Section 619(j) exempts the outlying areas from the 
provisions of section 501 of Public law 95-534.
    Section 619(k) authorizes an appropriation of $500 million 
for FY 1988 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
subsequent fiscal year.

Part C

    Section 631(a) lists the Congressional findings relating to 
Part C.
    Section 631(b) outlines the policy of the United States to 
provide financial assistance to enhance the State's capacity to 
provide quality early intervention services and expand and 
improve existing early intervention services.
    Section 632 defines the key terms used in this part, 
including ``at-risk infant or toddler'', ``council'', 
``developmental delay'', ``early intervention services'', and 
``infant or toddler with a disability''.
    Section 633 authorizes the Secretary to make grants to the 
States to assist them in implementing and maintaining a 
statewide system of early intervention services for infants and 
toddlers with disabilities and their families.
    Section 634 establishes the criteria each State must meet 
to be eligible for a grant under this part including: adoption 
of a policy that appropriate early intervention services are 
available to all infants and toddlers with disabilities and 
their families in the State (including Indian infants and 
toddlers with disabilities and their families living on an 
Indian reservation within the State); and provision of a 
statewide system of early intervention services which meets the 
requirements of section 635.
    Section 635(a) establishes the minimum components for a 
statewide system of early intervention services including: a 
definition of developmental delay, a timely, comprehensive, 
multidisciplinary evaluation of each infant or toddler; an 
Individualized Family Service Plan in accordance with section 
636; a comprehensive child find system consistent with Part B; 
a public awareness program; a central director; a comprehensive 
system of personnel development; policies and procedures 
relating to personnel standards; a single line of 
responsibility for the administration and supervision of the 
statewide program, a policy pertaining to contracting with 
service providers; a procedure for reimbursement of funds; 
procedural safeguards; a system for compiling data; a State 
interagency coordinating council that meets the requirements of 
section 641; and a policy for ensuring that early intervention 
services are provided in natural environments to the maximum 
extent appropriate.
    Section 635(b) allows the State to make ongoing, good faith 
efforts to recruit and hire appropriately and adequately 
trained personnel and, where there is a shortage of such 
personnel, to use the most qualified individuals available who 
are making satisfactory progress toward completing course work 
necessary to meet State certification standards.
    Section 636(a) requires the statewide system to provide for 
each infant or toddler with a disability, and each family, to 
receive: a multidisciplinary assessment; a family-directed 
assessment; and a written individualized family service plan 
(IFSP) developed by a multidisciplinary team, including the 
parents.
    Section 636(b) requires the IFSP be evaluated once a year 
and requires that every six months the family receive a review 
of the plan.
    Section 636(c) requires the IFSP be developed within a 
reasonable time after the assessment, and provides that, with 
parental consent, early intervention services may commence 
prior to the completion of the assessment.
    Section 636(d) directs that the individualized family 
service plan be in writing and details what it must contain.
    Section 636(e) requires parents to provide informed written 
consent before implementation of the IFSP, and permits the 
delivery of only those services for which consent has been 
given.
    Section 637(a) requires that each State desiring to receive 
a grant under this part submit an application to the Secretary 
at the time and in the manner required by the Secretary, and 
describes the information required to be in the application.
    Section 637(b) lists the assurances that the State must 
include in its application to the Secretary.
    Section 637(c) provides that the Secretary may not 
disapprove a State's application without first determining, 
after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the 
application fails to comply with the requirements of this 
section.
    Section 637(d) provides that if a State already has on file 
with the Secretary policies and procedures that demonstrate 
that it meets any requirement of part C, the Secretary shall 
treat the State as meeting that requirement for purposes of 
receiving a grant under part C.
    Section 637(e) provides that an application submitted by a 
State in accordance with section 637 shall remain in effect 
until the State submits to the Secretary such modifications it 
determines necessary.
    Section 638 lists the allowable use of funds under part C, 
including providing greater flexibility in addressing the needs 
of at risk infants and toddlers in those States not currently 
serving such children.
    Section 639(a) details the minimum procedural safeguards a 
State shall have in place.
    Section 639(b) provides that during the pendency of any 
proceeding or action involving a complaint by the parents, the 
infant or toddler shall continue to receive the early 
intervention services currently being delivered, or if applying 
for initial services, shall receive the services not in 
dispute.
    Section 640(a) provides that funds under part C may not be 
used to pay for services which would have been paid for by 
another source, including any medical program administered by 
the Department of Defense, but for the enactment of part C, 
except to prevent a delay in the provision of early 
intervention services pending reimbursement from the agency 
which has ultimate responsibility for the payment.
    Section 640(b) prohibits the State from reducing medical or 
other assistance available or from altering eligibility under 
title V of the Social Security Act (relating to maternal and 
child health) or to title XIX of the Social Security Act 
(relating to Medicaid for infants or toddlers with 
disabilities) within the State.
    Section 641(a) requires each State wishing to receive funds 
under this part to establish an interagency coordinating 
council with the membership outlined in this section appointed 
by the Governor.
    Section 641(b) prescribes the composition of the Council, 
including: 20% parent members; 20% service provider members; 
and at least one member representing the State legislature, 
personnel preparation, each of the State agencies providing or 
paying for early intervention services; and other members 
selected by the Governor.
    Section 641(c) requires the council to meet at least 
quarterly, and to conduct meetings that have been publicly 
announced and are open and accessible to the general public.
    Section 641(d) allows the council, subject to the approval 
of the Governor, to use funds under this part to conduct 
hearings and forums, reimburse council members for necessary 
expenses related to attending meetings, hire staff, and for 
other purposes.
    Section 641(e) describes the functions of the council.
    Section 641(f) prohibits any member of the council from 
voting on any matter which would give the appearance of a 
conflict of interest.
    Section 642 provides that sections 616, 617, 618, and 620 
shall, to the extent not inconsistent with part C, apply to the 
program authorized under this part.
    Section 643(a) allows the Secretary to reserve up to one 
percent of the funds from the appropriation for payment to the 
outlying areas, and exempts those funds from the provisions of 
P.L. 95-134.
    Section 643(b) directs the Secretary to make payments of 
1.25 percent of the amount available to the States to the 
Secretary of the Interior for distribution to Indian tribes and 
includes the methods of allocation, allowable uses of funds, 
and reporting requirements.
    Section 643(c) describes the manner in which the part C 
funds will be distributed to the States.
    Section 643(d) allows the Secretary to reallot any funds 
refused by a State to the remaining States.
    Section 644(a) requires the Secretary to establish a 
Federal Interagency Coordinating Council to minimize 
duplication of programs and activities across Federal, State, 
and local agencies, ensure the effective coordination of 
Federal early intervention and preschool programs across 
Federal agencies, and for other coordinative purposes.
    Section 644(b) prescribes the composition of the Council.
    Section 644(c) requires the council to meet at least 
quarterly, and to conduct meetings that have been publicly 
announced and are open and accessible to the general public.
    Section 644(d) describes the functions of the Council.
    Section 644(e) prohibits any member of the Council from 
voting on any matter which would give the appearance of a 
conflict of interest under Federal law.
    Section 644(f) exempts the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(5 U.S.C. App.) from applying to the establishment or operation 
of the Council.
    Section 645 authorizes an appropriation of $400,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 
the fiscal years 1999 through 2002.

Part D--Subpart 1

    Section 651(a) sets out congressional findings in support 
of a new program of grants to States to support the development 
and implementation of plans to improve their systems for 
educating children with disabilities. The program would be 
authorized by subpart 1 of a new part C of the IDEA.
    Section 651(b) would provide that the purpose of the new 
program is to assist SEAs and their partners in the State in 
reforming and improving their systems for providing 
educational, early intervention, and transitional services to 
improve results for children with disabilities.
    Section 622(a) permits an SEA to apply for a grant under 
subpart 1 for a period of not less than one year and not more 
than five years.
    Section 652(b) requires an SEA that wants to apply for a 
grant to establish a partnership with LEAs and other State 
agencies involved in, or concerned with, the education of 
children with disabilities, and to work in partnership with 
other organizations and individuals involved in and concerned 
with the education of children with disabilities. The SEA must 
involve identified individuals and organizations in the 
partnership, and may include others at its discretion.
    Section 653 describes the material (including a 
comprehensive needs assessment and a description of the 
strategies the State will use to meet those needs) that must be 
included in a State's application under Subpart 1, the process 
by which the Secretary makes competitive awards to States, and 
the obligation of States receiving grants to submit regular 
performance reports to the Secretary.
    Section 654 describes the permissible uses of a State 
Improvement grant, and requires each State to use a substantial 
part of its grant to ensure that there are sufficient personnel 
who have the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the needs 
of children with disabilities in the State.
    Section 655 establishes minimum grant amounts for States 
whose applications are approved, allows the Secretary to 
increase the minimum amounts in later years to account for 
inflation, and lists the factors the Secretary considers in 
setting the amount of individual grants.
    Section 656 authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out Subpart 1 for each of the fiscal 
years 1998 through 2002.

Part D--Subpart 2

    Section 661(a), which is similar to current section 610(a), 
requires the Secretary to develop and implement a comprehensive 
plan for activities under Subpart 2 of Part D, in order to 
assist States and LEAs in providing educational, related, and 
early intervention services to children with disabilities under 
Parts B and C of the IDEA. In developing that plan, the 
Secretary is required to consult with individuals with 
disabilities; parents of children with disabilities; 
appropriate professionals; and representatives of SEAs, LEAs, 
private schools, institutions of higher education, other 
Federal agencies, the National Council on Disabilities, and 
national organizations with an interest in, and expertise in, 
providing services to children with disabilities and their 
families.
    Section 661(b)(1) replaces the individual statements of 
eligibility that are now scattered throughout the discretionary 
program authorities with a single comprehensive statement that, 
except as otherwise provided, those eligible to apply for 
awards under Subpart 2 are: (1) SEAs; (2) LEAs; (3) 
institutions of higher education; (4) other public agencies; 
(5) private nonprofit organizations; (6) Indian tribes and 
tribal organizations; and (7) when the Secretary finds it 
appropriate in light of the purposes of the particular 
competition, for-profit organizations.
    Section 661(b)(2) permits the Secretary to limit individual 
competitions to one or more categories of eligible entities 
listed above.
    Section 661(c) affords the Secretary some flexibility in 
using funds under subpart 2 by allowing the Secretary to use up 
to 20 percent of the funds available under chapter 1 or chapter 
2 for activities authorized by the other chapter, or for any 
combination of activities consistent with the purposes of 
either or both chapters.
    Section 661(d), relating to special populations, is based 
on current section 610(b) and (j). Paragraph (1) directs the 
Secretary, as appropriate, in making awards under subpart 2, to 
require applicants to demonstrate how they will address the 
needs of children with disabilities from minority backgrounds.
    Section 661(d)(2)(A) further directs the Secretary, 
notwithstanding any other provision of the IDEA, to ensure that 
at least one percent of the total amount of funds appropriated 
for Subpart 2 is used to provide outreach and technical 
assistance to Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCUs), and to institutions of higher education with minority 
enrollments of at least 25 percent, to promote their 
participation in activities under the subpart 2 programs; and 
to enable those HBCUs and institutions to assist others in 
improving educational results for children with disabilities. 
Paragraph (3)(B) would allow the Secretary to reserve funds 
appropriated under parts D through G (and, for fiscal year 
1996, under parts C through G) to meet that requirement. These 
provisions are analogous to current section 610(j)(2)(C)(iii).
    Section 661(e) enables the Secretary to give priority to 
particular types of projects without requiring public comment.
    Section 661(f)(1) directs the Secretary to require that 
applicants for, and recipients of, awards under subpart 2 
involve individuals with disabilities and parents of 
individuals with disabilities in planning, implementing, and 
evaluating projects, and, where appropriate, determine their 
projects' potential for replication and widespread adoption. 
Paragraph (2) permits the Secretary to require that those 
applicants and recipients share in the cost of projects; 
prepare their findings and products in formats useful for 
specific audiences; disseminate their findings and products; 
and collaborate with other recipients. These two paragraphs 
replace current section 610(g).
    Section 661(g), which is similar to current section 601(h), 
provides for peer review of applications under subpart 2 for 
more than $75,000. (The current threshold is $60,000.) Separate 
peer-review provisions for State Improvement Plans under the 
new Subpart 1 apply to that program.
    Section 661(h) allows the Secretary to use funds 
appropriated to carry out subpart 2 to evaluate activities 
carried out under that subpart.
    Section 661(i)(1) ensures that the needs of children with 
low-incidence disabilities continue to be met during the 
implementation of the new, more flexible authorities by 
guaranteeing that, however the Secretary implements those 
authorities, certain absolute dollar amounts continue to be 
spent in the following specified areas: (1) $12,832,000 to 
address the educational, related services, transitional, and 
early intervention needs to children with deaf-blindness; (2) 
$4,000,000 to address the postsecondary, vocational, technical, 
continuing, and adult education needs of individuals with 
deafness; and (3) $4,000,000 to address the special 
educational, related services, and transitional needs of 
children with emotional disturbance and those who are at risk 
of developing an emotional disturbance. Paragraph (2) provides 
for a proportionate reduction of these amounts if the total 
amount appropriated for any fiscal year for Subpart 2 falls 
below $130 million.
            Chapter 1
    Section 671(a) sets out congressional findings in support 
of the chapter 1 program. Section 671(b) provides that the 
purpose of chapter 1 is to provide Federal funding for certain 
coordinated research, demonstration projects, outreach, and 
personnel-preparation activities that are linked with, and 
promote, systemic change; and that improve early intervention, 
educational, and transitional results for children with 
disabilities.
    Section 672(a) directs the Secretary to make competitive 
awards to eligible entities to produce and advance the use of 
knowledge for six specified purposes.
    Section 672(b) directs the Secretary to support activities, 
consistent with the objectives described in section 672(a), 
that lead to the production of new knowledge, and lists a 
variety of specific activities that may be carried out.
    Section 672(c) directs the Secretary to support activities, 
consistent with the objectives described in section 672(a), 
that integrate research and practice, including activities that 
support State systemic-change and local capacity-building and 
improvement efforts, and lists examples of activities that may 
be carried out under this subsection.
    Section 672(d) directs the Secretary to support activities, 
consistent with the objectives described in section 672(a), 
that improve the use of professional knowledge, including 
activities that support State systemic-change and local 
capacity-building and improvement efforts, and lists examples 
of activities that may be carried out under this subsection.
    Section 672(e) requires the Secretary, in carrying out 
section 632, to ensure that there is an appropriate balance 
among knowledge production, integration of research and 
practice, and use of professional knowledge; and across all age 
ranges of children with disabilities.
    Section 672(f) requires an eligible entity that wishes to 
receive an award under section 672 to submit an application to 
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
information as the Secretary may require.
    Section 672(g) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out section 672 for each of the 
fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
    Section 673(a) directs the Secretary to make competitive 
awards to eligible entities to help address State-identified 
needs for qualified personnel in special education, related 
services, early intervention, and regular education to work 
with children with disabilities; and to ensure that those 
personnel have the skills and knowledge reflecting successful 
practices determined through research and practice that are 
needed to serve those children.
    Section 673(b) directs the Secretary, in carrying out 
section 673, to support activities, consistent with the 
objectives described in section 673(a), that benefit children 
with low-incidence disabilities; identifies examples of 
activities that may be carried out under this subsection; 
defines the term ``low-incidence disability''; and permits the 
Secretary to give preference to applications that propose to 
prepare personnel in more than one low-incidence disability, 
such as deafness or blindness.
    Section 673(c) directs the Secretary to support leadership-
preparation activities that are consistent with the objectives 
described in section 673(a), and lists examples of specific 
activities that may be carried out under this subsection.
    Section 673(d) directs the Secretary to support activities, 
consistent with the objectives described in section 673(a), 
that are of national significance and have broad applicability, 
and lists examples of specific activities that may be carried 
out under this subsection.
    Section 673(e) directs the Secretary to support activities, 
consistent with the objectives described in section 673(a), to 
benefit children with high-incidence disabilities, and lists 
examples of specific activities that may be carried out under 
this subsection.
    Section 673(f) requires an eligible entity that wishes to 
receive an award under section 673 to submit an application to 
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
information as the Secretary may require, and describes certain 
material that must be included, or that the Secretary may 
require to be included, in applications for funds to carry out 
certain activities.
    Section 673(g) establishes various rules for the selection 
of recipients under section 673.
    Section 673(h) requires applicants for certain projects 
under section 673 to provide an assurance that they will ensure 
that individuals who receive scholarship assistance under the 
proposed project will subsequently work in the area for which 
they received training or repay all or part of that assistance, 
in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.
    Section 673(i) permits the Secretary to include funds for 
scholarships, with necessary stipends and allowances, in awards 
under section 633.
    Section 673(j) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out section 673 for each of the 
fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
    Section 674(a) directs the Secretary to assess progress in 
the implementation of the IDEA, including the effectiveness of 
State and local efforts to provide a free appropriate public 
education to children with disabilities, and to provide early 
intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities 
and infants and toddlers at risk for developmental delay. To 
that end, the Secretary may support studies, evaluations, and 
assessments, including various studies described in this 
subsection.
    Section 674(b) directs the Secretary to carry out a 
national assessment of activities carried out with Federal 
funds under the IDEA in order to: (1) determine the 
effectiveness of the IDEA in achieving its purposes; (2) 
provide information to the President, the Congress, the States, 
LEAs, and the public on how to implement the IDEA more 
effectively; and (3) provide the President and the Congress 
with information that will be useful in developing legislation 
to achieve the purposes of the IDEA more effectively. An 
interim report is due to Congress by October 1, 1999; and a 
final report of the findings of the assessment is due by 
October 1, 2001.
    Section 674(c) requires the Secretary to provide an annual 
report to Congress that includes an analysis and summary of the 
data reported by the States and the Secretary of the Interior 
under section 618; the results of activities conducted under 
section 674(a);and the findings and determinations resulting 
from reviews of State implementation of the IDEA.
    Section 674(d) directs the Secretary to provide technical 
assistance to LEAs to assist them in carrying out local 
capacity-building and improvement projects under section 611(e) 
of Part B.
    Section 674(e) allows the Secretary to reserve up to one-
half of one percent of the amount appropriated under Parts B 
and C for each fiscal year to carry out section 674.
            Chapter 2
    Section 681(a) sets out congressional findings in support 
of Chapter 2.
    Section 681(b) provides that the purposes of Chapter 2 are 
to ensure that: (1) children with disabilities, and their 
parents, receive training and information on their rights and 
protections under the IDEA; (2) parents, teachers, 
administrators, early intervention personnel, related services 
personnel, and transition personnel receive coordinated and 
accessible technical assistance and information to assist them 
to improve services and results for children with disabilities 
and their families; (3) appropriate technology and media are 
researched, developed,demonstrated, and made available in 
timely and accessible formats to parents, teachers, and all types of 
personnel providing services to children with disabilities; (4) on 
reaching the age of majority under State law, children with 
disabilities understand their rights and responsibilities under Part B 
of the IDEA, if the state provides for the transfer of parental rights 
under Part B; and (5) the general welfare of deaf and hard-of-hearing 
individuals is promoted.
    Section 682(a) authorizes the Secretary to make awards to 
parent organizations to support parent training and information 
(PTI) centers.
    Section 682(b) requires each PTI center assisted under 
section 682 to carry out a variety of specified activities.
    Section 682(c) identifies additional activities that PTI 
centers may, but are not required, to carry out.
    Section 682(d) requires each application for a PTI center 
to identify the special efforts that the applicant will 
undertake to: (1) ensure that the needs for training and 
information of underserved parents of children with 
disabilities in the area to be served are effectively met; and 
(2) work with community-based organizations.
    Section 682(e)(1) requires the Secretary to make at least 
one award to a parent organization in each State, unless the 
Secretary does not receive an application from a parent 
organization in the State of sufficient quality to warrant 
approval.
    Section 682(e)(2) requires the Secretary to select among 
applications submitted by parent organizations so as to ensure 
the most effective assistance to parents, including parents in 
urban and rural areas, in the State.
    Section 682(f) requires the board of directors or special 
governing committee of each organization that receives an award 
for a parent training and information center to meet at least 
once in each calendar quarter to review the activities for 
which the award was made.
    Section 682(g) identifies the characteristics of those 
private nonprofit organizations that qualify as ``parent 
organization'' and that are, therefore, eligible to apply for 
PTI center awards under section 682. In addition to other 
requirements, such an organization must either have a board of 
directors the majority of whom are parents of children with 
disabilities or have established a special governing committee 
for the Secretary center that meets that condition.
    Section 683(a) authorizes the Secretary to make awards to 
local parent organizations to support local parent training and 
information centers that will help ensure that underserved 
parents of children with disabilities have the training and 
information they need to enable them to participate effectively 
in helping their children with disabilities: (1) meet 
developmental goals and, to the maximum extent possible, those 
challenging standards that have been established for all 
children; and (2) be prepared to lead productive, independent 
adult lives to the maximum extent possible.
    Section 683(b) identifies certain activities that each 
local PTI center assisted under section 683 must carry out.
    Section 683((c) defines the term ``local parent 
organization'', as used in section 683.
    Section 684(a) would authorize the Secretary to provide 
technical assistance for developing, assisting, and 
coordinating parent training and information carried out by PTI 
centers assisted under section 682 and 683.
    Section 684(b) would allow the Secretary to focus technical 
assistance under section 684 on various areas.
    Section 685(a) directs the Secretary to provide technical 
assistance and information to interested parties in order to 
improve early intervention, educational, and transitional 
services and results for children with disabilities and their 
families, and to address systemic-change goals and priorities.
    Section 685(b) directs the Secretary to carry out or 
support technical assistance activities, consistent with the 
objectives described in section 685(a), relating to systemic 
change, and identifies examples of specific activities that are 
authorized under this subsection.
    Section 685(c) directs the Secretary to carry out or 
support activities, consistent with the objectives described in 
section 685(a), relating to specific topics or populations, and 
identifies examples of specific activities that are authorized 
under this subsection.
    Section 685(d) directs the Secretary to carry out or 
support information dissemination activities that are 
consistent with the objectives described in section 685(a), 
including activities that address national needs for the 
preparation and dissemination of information relating to 
eliminating barriers to systemic-change and improving early 
intervention, educational, and transitional results for 
children with disabilities.
    Section 685(e) requires an eligible entity that wishes to 
receive an award under section 685 to submit an application to 
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
information as the Secretary may require.
    Section 686 authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out sections 681 through 685 for each 
of the fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
    Section 687(a) directs the Secretary to make competitive 
awards to eligible entities to support technology development, 
demonstration, and utilization activities described in section 
687(b) and educational media services activities described in 
section 687(c).
    Section 687(d) requires any eligible entity that wishes to 
receive an award under section 687 to submit an application to 
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
information as the Secretary may require.
    Section 687(e) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary to carry out section 687 for each of the 
fiscal years 1998 through 2002.

Miscellaneous provisions

    Section 201 of the bill extends the effective date of the 
Jeffords Amendment, section 314(a)(2) of the Improving 
America's Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382; 108 Stat. 
3936), to July 1, 1998.
    Section 202 of the bill specifies effective dates, as 
follows: Except for sections 605 and 607, which take effect on 
the date of enactment, parts A, B, and C of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by section 101 of 
the bill, shall take effect on July 1, 1998; and part D of the 
Act, as amended by section 101 of the bill, shall take effect 
on October 1, 1997.
    Section 203 of the bill provides that notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, beginning on October 1, 1997, the 
Secretary of Education may use funds appropriated under part D 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to make 
continuation awards that were funded under parts C through G of 
such Act (as in effect on September 30, 1997).
    Section 204 of the bill repeals part I of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, effective October 1, 1998; 
repeals part H of such Act, effective July 1, 1998; and repeals 
parts E, F, and G, effective October 1, 1997.

                       X. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    The Committee has determined that it is necessary, in order 
to expedite the business of the Senate, to dispense with the 
requirements of rule XXVI, paragraph 12, of the Standing Rules 
of the Senate, with respect to this legislation.