[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1048-H1064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PREVENTING HARMFUL RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION IN SCHOOLS ACT

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1126, I call up the bill (H.R. 4247) to prevent and reduce 
the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the bill 
is considered read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in the bill is adopted.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4247

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Harmful Restraint 
     and Seclusion in Schools Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Physical restraint and seclusion have resulted in 
     physical injury, psychological trauma, and death to children 
     in public and private schools. National research shows 
     students have been subjected to physical restraint and 
     seclusion in schools as a means of discipline, to force 
     compliance, or as a substitute for appropriate educational 
     support.
       (2) Behavioral interventions for children must promote the 
     right of all children to be treated with dignity. All 
     children have the right to be free from physical or mental 
     abuse, aversive behavioral interventions that compromise 
     health and safety, and any physical restraint or seclusion 
     imposed solely for purposes of discipline or convenience.
       (3) Safe, effective, evidence-based strategies are 
     available to support children who display challenging 
     behaviors in school settings. Staff training focused on the 
     dangers of physical restraint and seclusion as well as 
     training in evidence-based positive behavior supports, de-
     escalation techniques, and physical restraint and seclusion 
     prevention, can reduce the incidence of injury, trauma, and 
     death.
       (4) School personnel have the right to work in a safe 
     environment and should be provided training and support to 
     prevent injury and trauma to themselves and others.
       (5) Despite the widely recognized risks of physical 
     restraint and seclusion, a substantial disparity exists among 
     many States and localities with regard to the protection and 
     oversight of the rights of children and school personnel to a 
     safe learning environment.
       (6) Children are subjected to physical restraint and 
     seclusion at higher rates than adults. Physical restraint 
     which restricts breathing or causes other body trauma, as 
     well as seclusion in the absence of continuous face-to-face 
     monitoring, have resulted in the deaths of children in 
     schools.
       (7) Children are protected from inappropriate physical 
     restraint and seclusion in other settings, such as hospitals, 
     health facilities, and non-medical community-based 
     facilities. Similar protections are needed in schools, yet 
     such protections must acknowledge the differences of the 
     school environment.
       (8) Research confirms that physical restraint and seclusion 
     are not therapeutic, nor are these practices effective means 
     to calm or teach children, and may have an opposite effect 
     while simultaneously decreasing a child's ability to learn.
       (9) The effective implementation of school-wide positive 
     behavior supports is linked to greater academic achievement, 
     significantly fewer disciplinary problems, increased 
     instruction time, and staff perception of a safer teaching 
     environment.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and 
     seclusion in schools;
       (2) ensure the safety of all students and school personnel 
     in schools and promote a positive school culture and climate;
       (3) protect students from--
       (A) physical or mental abuse;
       (B) aversive behavioral interventions that compromise 
     health and safety; and
       (C) any physical restraint or seclusion imposed solely for 
     purposes of discipline or convenience;
       (4) ensure that physical restraint and seclusion are 
     imposed in school only when a student's behavior poses an 
     imminent danger of physical injury to the student, school 
     personnel, or others; and
       (5) assist States, local educational agencies, and schools 
     in--
       (A) establishing policies and procedures to keep all 
     students, including students with the most complex and 
     intensive behavioral needs, and school personnel safe;
       (B) providing school personnel with the necessary tools, 
     training, and support to ensure the safety of all students 
     and school personnel;
       (C) collecting and analyzing data on physical restraint and 
     seclusion in schools; and
       (D) identifying and implementing effective evidence-based 
     models to prevent and reduce physical restraint and seclusion 
     in schools.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Chemical restraint.--The term ``chemical restraint'' 
     means a drug or medication used on a student to control 
     behavior or restrict freedom of movement that is not--
       (A) prescribed by a licensed physician for the standard 
     treatment of a student's medical or psychiatric condition; 
     and
       (B) administered as prescribed by the licensed physician.
       (2) Educational service agency.--The term ``educational 
     service agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     9101(17) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(17)).
       (3) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 9101(18) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801(18)).
       (4) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101(26) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7801(26)).
       (5) Mechanical restraint.--The term ``mechanical 
     restraint'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     595(d)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     290jj(d)(1)), except that the meaning shall be applied by 
     substituting ``student's'' for ``resident's''.
       (6) Parent.--The term ``parent'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 9101(31) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(31)).
       (7) Physical escort.--The term ``physical escort'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 595(d)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(2)), except that the 
     meaning shall be applied by substituting ``student'' for 
     ``resident''.
       (8) Physical restraint.--The term ``physical restraint'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 595(d)(3) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(3)).
       (9) Positive behavior supports.--The term ``positive 
     behavior supports'' means a systematic approach to embed 
     evidence-based practices and data-driven decisionmaking to 
     improve school climate and culture, including a range of 
     systemic and individualized strategies to reinforce desired 
     behaviors and diminish reoccurrence of problem behaviors, in 
     order to achieve improved academic and social outcomes and 
     increase learning for all students, including those with the 
     most complex and intensive behavioral needs.
       (10) Protection and advocacy system.--The term ``protection 
     and advocacy system'' means a protection and advocacy system 
     established under section 143 of the Developmental 
     Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 15043).
       (11) School.--The term ``school'' means an entity--
       (A) that--
       (i) is a public or private--

       (I) day or residential elementary school or secondary 
     school; or
       (II) early childhood, elementary school, or secondary 
     school program that is under the jurisdiction of a school, 
     educational service agency, or other educational institution 
     or program; and

       (ii) receives, or serves students who receive, support in 
     any form from any program supported, in whole or in part, 
     with funds appropriated to the Department of Education; or
       (B) that is a school funded or operated by the Department 
     of the Interior.
       (12) School personnel.--The term ``school personnel'' has 
     the meaning--
       (A) given the term in section 4151(10) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7161(10)); and
       (B) given the term ``school resource officer'' in section 
     4151(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7161(11)).
       (13) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 9101(38) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801(38)).
       (14) Seclusion.--The term ``seclusion'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 595(d)(4) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(4)).
       (15) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (16) State-approved crisis intervention training program.--
     The term ``State-approved crisis intervention training 
     program'' means a training program approved by a State and 
     the Secretary that, at a minimum, provides--
       (A) evidence-based techniques shown to be effective in the 
     prevention of physical restraint and seclusion;
       (B) evidence-based techniques shown to be effective in 
     keeping both school personnel and students safe when imposing 
     physical restraint or seclusion;
       (C) evidence-based skills training related to positive 
     behavior supports, safe physical escort, conflict prevention, 
     understanding antecedents, de-escalation, and conflict 
     management;

[[Page H1049]]

       (D) first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
       (E) information describing State policies and procedures 
     that meet the minimum standards established by regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to section 5(a); and
       (F) certification for school personnel in the techniques 
     and skills described in subparagraphs (A) through (D), which 
     shall be required to be renewed on a periodic basis.
       (17) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (18) State educational agency.--The term ``State 
     educational agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 9101(41) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(41)).
       (19) Student.--The term ``student'' means a student 
     enrolled in a school defined in section 11, except that in 
     the case of a private school or private program, such term 
     means a student enrolled in such school or program who 
     receives support in any form from any program supported, in 
     whole or in part, with funds appropriated to the Department 
     of Education.
       (20) Time out.--The term ``time out'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 595(d)(5) of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(5)), except that the meaning shall be 
     applied by substituting ``student'' for ``resident''.

     SEC. 5. MINIMUM STANDARDS; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Minimum Standards.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, in order to protect each 
     student from physical or mental abuse, aversive behavioral 
     interventions that compromise student health and safety, or 
     any physical restraint or seclusion imposed solely for 
     purposes of discipline or convenience or in a manner 
     otherwise inconsistent with this Act, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations establishing the following minimum 
     standards:
       (1) School personnel shall be prohibited from imposing on 
     any student the following:
       (A) Mechanical restraints.
       (B) Chemical restraints.
       (C) Physical restraint or physical escort that restricts 
     breathing.
       (D) Aversive behavioral interventions that compromise 
     health and safety.
       (2) School personnel shall be prohibited from imposing 
     physical restraint or seclusion on a student unless--
       (A) the student's behavior poses an imminent danger of 
     physical injury to the student, school personnel, or others;
       (B) less restrictive interventions would be ineffective in 
     stopping such imminent danger of physical injury;
       (C) such physical restraint or seclusion is imposed by 
     school personnel who--
       (i) continuously monitor the student face-to-face; or
       (ii) if school personnel safety is significantly 
     compromised by such face-to-face monitoring, are in 
     continuous direct visual contact with the student;
       (D) such physical restraint or seclusion is imposed by--
       (i) school personnel trained and certified by a State-
     approved crisis intervention training program (as defined in 
     section 4(16)); or
       (ii) other school personnel in the case of a rare and 
     clearly unavoidable emergency circumstance when school 
     personnel trained and certified as described in clause (i) 
     are not immediately available due to the unforeseeable nature 
     of the emergency circumstance; and
       (E) such physical restraint or seclusion end immediately 
     upon the cessation of the conditions described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (3) States and local educational agencies shall ensure that 
     a sufficient number of personnel are trained and certified by 
     a State-approved crisis intervention training program (as 
     defined in section 4(16)) to meet the needs of the specific 
     student population in each school.
       (4) The use of physical restraint or seclusion as a planned 
     intervention shall not be written into a student's education 
     plan, individual safety plan, behavioral plan, or 
     individualized education program (as defined in section 602 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1401)). Local educational agencies or schools may establish 
     policies and procedures for use of physical restraint or 
     seclusion in school safety or crisis plans, provided that 
     such school plans are not specific to any individual student.
       (5) Schools shall establish procedures to be followed after 
     each incident involving the imposition of physical restraint 
     or seclusion upon a student, including--
       (A) procedures to provide to the parent of the student, 
     with respect to each such incident--
       (i) an immediate verbal or electronic communication on the 
     same day as each such incident; and
       (ii) within 24 hours of each such incident, written 
     notification; and
       (B) any other procedures the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (b) Secretary of the Interior.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall ensure that schools operated or funded by the 
     Department of the Interior comply with the regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary under subsection (a).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize the Secretary to promulgate 
     regulations prohibiting the use of--
       (1) time out (as defined in section 4(20)); or
       (2) devices implemented by trained school personnel, or 
     utilized by a student, for the specific and approved 
     therapeutic or safety purposes for which such devices were 
     designed and, if applicable, prescribed, including--
       (A) restraints for medical immobilization;
       (B) adaptive devices or mechanical supports used to achieve 
     proper body position, balance, or alignment to allow greater 
     freedom of mobility than would be possible without the use of 
     such devices or mechanical supports; or
       (C) vehicle safety restraints when used as intended during 
     the transport of a student in a moving vehicle; or
       (3) handcuffs by school resource officers (as such term is 
     defined in section 4151(11) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7161(11)))--
       (A) in the--
       (i) case when a student's behavior poses an imminent danger 
     of physical injury to the student, school personnel, or 
     others; or
       (ii) lawful exercise of law enforcement duties; and
       (B) less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.

     SEC. 6. STATE PLAN AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) State Plan.--Not later than 2 years after the Secretary 
     promulgates regulations pursuant to section 5(a), and each 
     year thereafter, each State educational agency shall submit 
     to the Secretary a State plan that provides--
       (1) assurances to the Secretary that the State has in 
     effect--
       (A) State policies and procedures that meet the minimum 
     standards, including the standards with respect to State-
     approved crisis intervention training programs, established 
     by regulations promulgated pursuant to section 5(a); and
       (B) a State mechanism to effectively monitor and enforce 
     the minimum standards;
       (2) a description of the State policies and procedures, 
     including a description of the State-approved crisis 
     intervention training programs in such State; and
       (3) a description of the State plans to ensure school 
     personnel and parents, including private school personnel and 
     parents, are aware of the State policies and procedures.
       (b) Reporting.--
       (1) Reporting requirements.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date the Secretary promulgates regulations pursuant to 
     section 5(a), and each year thereafter, each State 
     educational agency shall (in compliance with the requirements 
     of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act 
     (commonly known as the ``Family Educational Rights and 
     Privacy Act of 1974'') (20 U.S.C. 1232g)) prepare and submit 
     to the Secretary, and make available to the public, a report 
     with respect to each local educational agency, and each 
     school not under the jurisdiction of a local educational 
     agency, located in the same State as such State educational 
     agency that includes the information described in paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Information requirements.--
       (A) General information requirements.--The report described 
     in paragraph (1) shall include information on--
       (i) the total number of incidents in the preceding full-
     academic year in which physical restraint was imposed upon a 
     student; and
       (ii) the total number of incidents in the preceding full-
     academic year in which seclusion was imposed upon a student.
       (B) Disaggregation.--
       (i) General disaggregation requirements.--The information 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be disaggregated by--

       (I) the total number of incidents in which physical 
     restraint or seclusion was imposed upon a student--

       (aa) that resulted in injury;
       (bb) that resulted in death; and
       (cc) in which the school personnel imposing physical 
     restraint or seclusion were not trained and certified as 
     described in section 5(a)(2)(D)(i); and

       (II) the demographic characteristics of all students upon 
     whom physical restraint or seclusion was imposed, including--

       (aa) the categories identified in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)(i));
       (bb) age; and
       (cc) disability status (which has the meaning given the 
     term ``individual with a disability'' in section 7(20) of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(20))).
       (ii) Unduplicated count; exception.--The disaggregation 
     required under clause (i) shall--

       (I) be carried out in a manner to ensure an unduplicated 
     count of the--

       (aa) total number of incidents in the preceding full-
     academic year in which physical restraint was imposed upon a 
     student; and
       (bb) total number of incidents in the preceding full-
     academic year in which seclusion was imposed upon a student; 
     and

       (II) not be required in a case in which the number of 
     students in a category would reveal personally identifiable 
     information about an individual student.

       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Use of remedies.--If a State educational agency fails 
     to comply with subsection (a) or (b), the Secretary shall--
       (i) withhold, in whole or in part, further payments under 
     an applicable program (as such term is defined in section 
     400(c) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1221)) in accordance with section 455 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1234d);
       (ii) require a State educational agency to submit, and 
     implement, within 1 year of such failure to comply, a 
     corrective plan of action, which may include redirection of 
     funds received under an applicable program; or
       (iii) issue a complaint to compel compliance of the State 
     educational agency through a cease and desist order, in the 
     same manner the Secretary is authorized to take such action 
     under section 456 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1234e).
       (B) Cessation of withholding of funds.--Whenever the 
     Secretary determines (whether by certification or other 
     appropriate evidence) that

[[Page H1050]]

     a State educational agency who is subject to the withholding 
     of payments under subparagraph (A)(i) has cured the failure 
     providing the basis for the withholding of payments, the 
     Secretary shall cease the withholding of payments with 
     respect to the State educational agency under such 
     subparagraph.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to limit the Secretary's authority under the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.).

     SEC. 7. GRANT AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--From the amount appropriated under section 
     12, the Secretary may award grants to State educational 
     agencies to assist the agencies in--
       (1) establishing, implementing, and enforcing the policies 
     and procedures to meet the minimum standards established by 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     5(a);
       (2) improving State and local capacity to collect and 
     analyze data related to physical restraint and seclusion; and
       (3) improving school climate and culture by implementing 
     school-wide positive behavior support approaches.
       (b) Duration of Grant.--A grant under this section shall be 
     awarded to a State educational agency for a 3-year period.
       (c) Application.--Each State educational agency desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require, including 
     information on how the State educational agency will target 
     resources to schools and local educational agencies in need 
     of assistance related to preventing and reducing physical 
     restraint and seclusion.
       (d) Authority to Make Subgrants.--
       (1) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this section may use such grant funds to award 
     subgrants, on a competitive basis, to local educational 
     agencies.
       (2) Application.--A local educational agency desiring to 
     receive a subgrant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the applicable State educational agency at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the State educational agency may require.
       (e) Private School Participation.--
       (1) In general.--A local educational agency receiving 
     subgrant funds under this section shall, after timely and 
     meaningful consultation with appropriate private school 
     officials, ensure that private school personnel can 
     participate, on an equitable basis, in activities supported 
     by grant or subgrant funds.
       (2) Public control of funds.--The control of funds provided 
     under this section, and title to materials, equipment, and 
     property purchased with such funds, shall be in a public 
     agency, and a public agency shall administer such funds, 
     materials, equipment, and property.
       (f) Required Activities.--A State educational agency 
     receiving a grant, or a local educational agency receiving a 
     subgrant, under this section shall use such grant or subgrant 
     funds to carry out the following:
       (1) Researching, developing, implementing, and evaluating 
     strategies, policies, and procedures to prevent and reduce 
     physical restraint and seclusion in schools, consistent with 
     the minimum standards established by regulations promulgated 
     by the Secretary pursuant to section 5(a).
       (2) Providing professional development, training, and 
     certification for school personnel to meet such standards.
       (3) Carrying out the reporting requirements under section 
     6(b) and analyzing the information included in a report 
     prepared under such section to identify student, school 
     personnel, and school needs related to use of physical 
     restraint and seclusion.
       (g) Additional Authorized Activities.--In addition to the 
     required activities described in subsection (f), a State 
     educational agency receiving a grant, or a local educational 
     agency receiving a subgrant, under this section may use such 
     grant or subgrant funds for one or more of the following:
       (1) Developing and implementing high-quality professional 
     development and training programs to implement evidence-based 
     systematic approaches to school-wide positive behavior 
     supports, including improving coaching, facilitation, and 
     training capacity for administrators, teachers, specialized 
     instructional support personnel, and other staff.
       (2) Providing technical assistance to develop and implement 
     evidence-based systematic approaches to school-wide positive 
     behavior supports, including technical assistance for data-
     driven decision-making related to behavioral supports and 
     interventions in the classroom.
       (3) Researching, evaluating, and disseminating high-quality 
     evidence-based programs and activities that implement school-
     wide positive behavior supports with fidelity.
       (4) Supporting other local positive behavior support 
     implementation activities consistent with this subsection.
       (h) Evaluation and Report.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this section shall, at the end of the 
     3-year grant period for such grant--
       (1) evaluate the State's progress toward the prevention and 
     reduction of physical restraint and seclusion in the schools 
     located in the State, consistent with the minimum standards 
     established by regulations promulgated by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 5(a); and
       (2) submit to the Secretary a report on such progress.
       (i) Department of the Interior.--From the amount 
     appropriated under section 12, the Secretary may allocate 
     funds to the Secretary of the Interior for activities under 
     this section with respect to schools operated or funded by 
     the Department of the Interior, under such terms as the 
     Secretary of Education may prescribe.

     SEC. 8. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT.

       (a) National Assessment.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     national assessment to determine the effectiveness of this 
     Act, which shall include--
       (1) analyzing data related to physical restraint and 
     seclusion incidents;
       (2) analyzing the effectiveness of Federal, State, and 
     local efforts to prevent and reduce the number of physical 
     restraint and seclusion incidents in schools;
       (3) identifying the types of programs and services that 
     have demonstrated the greatest effectiveness in preventing 
     and reducing the number of physical restraint and seclusion 
     incidents in schools; and
       (4) identifying evidence-based personnel training models 
     with demonstrated success in preventing and reducing the 
     number of physical restraint and seclusion incidents in 
     schools, including models that emphasize positive behavior 
     supports and de-escalation techniques over physical 
     intervention.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate--
       (1) an interim report that summarizes the preliminary 
     findings of the assessment described in subsection (a) not 
     later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) a final report of the findings of the assessment not 
     later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 9. PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEMS.

       Protection and Advocacy Systems shall have the authority 
     provided under section 143 of the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15043) 
     to investigate, monitor, and enforce protections provided for 
     students under this Act.

     SEC. 10. HEAD START PROGRAMS.

       (a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     promulgate regulations with respect to Head Start agencies 
     administering Head Start programs under the Head Start Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.) that establish requirements 
     consistent with--
       (1) the requirements established by regulations promulgated 
     pursuant to section 5(a); and
       (2) the reporting and enforcement requirements described in 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 6.
       (b) Grant Authority.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 12, the Secretary may allocate funds to the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to assist the Head Start 
     agencies in establishing, implementing, and enforcing 
     policies and procedures to meet the requirements established 
     by regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 11. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     restrict or limit, or allow the Secretary to restrict or 
     limit, any other rights or remedies otherwise available to 
     students or parents under Federal or State law or regulation.
       (b) Applicability.--
       (1) Private schools.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to affect any private school that does not receive, 
     or does not serve students who receive, support in any form 
     from any program supported, in whole or in part, with funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Education.
       (2) Home schools.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) affect a home school, whether or not a home school is 
     treated as a private school or home school under State law; 
     or
       (B) consider parents who are schooling a child at home as 
     school personnel.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act for fiscal year 2011 and each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part 
A of House Report 111-425, if offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) or his designee, which shall be considered read, 
and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent.
  The amendment printed in part B of House Report 111-425, if offered 
by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) or his designee, shall be 
considered read, and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on H.R. 4247.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.

[[Page H1051]]

  Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today in strong support 
of this bipartisan legislation that will make our classrooms safer for 
our children and our teachers. But first I would like to tell the story 
of Cedric. This is a picture of Cedric, who was a young man from 
Killeen, Texas, who died in his classroom when he was just 14 years of 
age.
  Cedric was living with a foster family after an early childhood 
filled with abuse. Among other things, his biological family had 
neglected him by denying him food. Despite knowing this, on the morning 
he died, Cedric's teacher punished him for refusing to do his work by 
delaying his lunch for hours. When Cedric tried to leave his classroom 
to find food, his teacher put him face down in restraint and sat on him 
in front of his classmates. He repeatedly cried out that he could not 
breathe. He died minutes later on the classroom floor.
  Now I would like to tell you the story of Paige. Paige was a bright, 
energetic, and happy young girl who started a new school in Cupertino, 
California. But Paige, who has Asperger's Syndrome, came home from her 
school the first week with bruises complaining that her teacher hurt 
her.
  Paige's parents confronted the teacher, who denied causing the 
bruising. She did admit to restraining Paige for simply wiggling a 
loose tooth. Her parents were shocked to learn later that the teacher 
had lied and that she had actually held Paige face down and sat on her. 
Sitting on a 7-year-old for wiggling a loose tooth. Paige barely 
weighed 40 pounds.
  Over the course of many months, Paige was repeatedly abused and 
injured during restraint incidents until her parents finally pulled her 
out of the school. She survived, but she still bears the emotional 
scars of this abuse.
  Cedric's and Paige's stories are not isolated incidents in America's 
schools today. Last May, the Government Accountability Office told our 
committee about the shocking wave of abuse of children in our public 
and private schools. This abuse was happening at the hands of untrained 
school staff who were misusing restraint and seclusion.
  Hundreds of students across the U.S. have been victims of this abuse. 
These victims include students with disabilities and students without 
disabilities. Many of these victims were children as young as 3 and 4 
years of age. In some cases, children died.
  Restraint and seclusion are complicated practices. They are emergency 
interventions that should be used only as a last resort and only by 
trained professionals. But GAO found that too often these techniques 
are being used in schools under the guise of discipline or convenience.
  Last year, in my home State of California, there were more than 
14,300 cases of seclusion, restraint, and other ``emergency 
interventions.'' We don't know how many of these cases were actual 
emergencies.
  We have Federal laws in place to prevent these types of abuses from 
happening in hospitals and other community-based facilities that 
receive Federal funding, but currently there are no Federal laws on the 
books to protect children from these abuses in the schools, where they 
spend most of their time.
  Without a Federal standard, State policies and oversight, they vary 
widely, leaving children vulnerable. Of the 31 States that have 
established some law or regulation, many are not comprehensive in 
approach and several only address restraint or address seclusion, not 
necessarily both.

                              {time}  1445

  For example, in one State there are rules only for children enrolled 
in pre-K. In another, only children with autism are protected. In yet 
another example, only residential schools are covered. Many States 
allow restraints or seclusion in nonemergency situations, simply to 
protect property or to maintain order. No child should be subject to 
these extreme interventions for simple noncompliance, like the 7-year-
old who died after being restrained for blowing bubbles in her milk.
  Mr. Speaker, when these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual 
victim who suffers. It hurts their classmates who witness these 
traumatizing events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and 
staff who are trying to give students a quality education. It's a 
nightmare for everyone involved. We are here today to try and end this 
nightmare. We are here today to make sure that no other children suffer 
the same fate as Cedric and Paige. The Keeping All Students Safe Act 
will ensure that all children are safe and protected in schools.
  This bill takes a balanced approach to addressing a very serious 
problem. For the first time, it will establish minimum safety standards 
for schools, similar to Federal protections in place for children in 
other facilities. Under this legislation, physical restraint and 
seclusion can only be used to stop imminent danger of injury. The bill 
prohibits mechanical restraints, such as strapping children to their 
chairs or duct-taping parts of their bodies, and any restraint that 
restricts their breathing. It also prohibits chemical restraints, using 
medication to control behavior without a doctor's prescription. The 
bill also will require students to notify parents after a restraint or 
seclusion incident so that parents don't learn about these abuses from 
whistle-blowing teachers or from their own children's bruises.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that teachers play the single most 
important role in helping students grow, thrive, and succeed. Teachers 
support this bill because it focuses on keeping both students and staff 
safe, giving teachers the support they need do their jobs. It asks 
States to ensure that enough personnel are properly trained to keep 
both students and staff safe and encourages the schools to implement 
positive approaches to managing these behavioral issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud that we worked on this legislation in a 
bipartisan way. I want to thank Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers 
for her leadership, her diligence, her persuasion, and her hard work in 
fashioning this legislation. I would also like to thank the National 
Disability Rights Network for bringing this abuse to our attention; the 
National School Boards Association; and more than a hundred other 
organizations for their support.
  Everyone in this Chamber can agree that nothing is more important 
than keeping our children safe. It's time to try to end this abuse. I 
believe that this legislation will go a long way in setting the 
standard and showing States the way, and hopefully in the next 2 years 
the States will develop their own standards that at least meet these 
minimum standards of not depriving these children of the cushion of 
safety that they are entitled to and that their parents and family 
expect when they go to school on a daily basis.
  So I would like to once again remind us of what happened to Cedric 
and to Paige at their age; their vulnerabilities, their history, and 
what happened to them one day when they went to school.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4247, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me begin by stating unequivocally that the incidents uncovered by 
the GAO are unacceptable. No child should be put in physical danger by 
the use of seclusion or restraints in school. The tragic stories just 
related by the chairman of Cedric and Paige are unacceptable 
everywhere.
  In each of the cases reviewed by the GAO, there was a criminal 
conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large 
financial settlement. In other words, everyone agrees that what 
happened is simply wrong. We do not need a change in Federal law for 
such behavior to be condemned. Sometimes the most powerful tool we have 
as elected officials is the bully pulpit, and Chairman Miller and Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers have certainly availed themselves of it. They have 
worked hard to call national attention to the misuse of seclusion and 
restraints in our schools.
  States clearly recognize the need to proactively limit the use of 
these disciplinary tools. Today, 31 States have policies and procedures 
in place to govern when and how seclusion or restraint techniques may 
or may not be used. Another 15 States will have such protections in 
place in the near future. Many, many independent school districts and 
school boards have such procedures in place.
  The question today is: Who is best equipped to create and enforce 
those

[[Page H1052]]

policies? To answer that question, I would point to a letter from the 
Council of the Great City Schools, which States, ``Every injury to a 
student in school is a matter of serious concern, but all such 
incidents are not necessarily matters of Federal law.'' In fact, until 
recently, the U.S. Department of Education was not even collecting data 
on the use of seclusion and restraint tactics in schools. The 
Department has no experience or expertise regulating in this area. Yet, 
H.R. 4247 would establish a new, one-size-fits-all Federal framework 
that overrules the work of these States.
  I will include the letter from the Council of the Great City Schools 
in the Record, along with letters from the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council 
for American Private Education, the American Association of Christian 
Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, and the 
National Conference of State Legislatures.

                                    American Association of School


                                               Administrators,

                                     Arlington, VA, March 2, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The American Association of School 
     Administrators, representing more than 13,000 school 
     administrators and local educational leaders, would like to 
     express serious concerns with HR 4247, the Preventing Harmful 
     Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act, which is expected to 
     be considered in the next few days. We ask that the voices of 
     rank-and-file teachers, principals, superintendents and 
     school board members be heard and that HR 4247, as reported 
     from Committee, be defeated.
       The need to establish these particular federal regulations 
     for seclusion and restraint has not been established by 
     objective, carefully gathered and analyzed data. For example, 
     the report by the National Disability Rights Network upon 
     which HR 4247 partially relies mixes data from regular public 
     schools with data from schools for children with serious 
     behavioral disorders and institutions for students who are 
     regularly violent. Further, the incidents took place over an 
     unknown period of time--perhaps a decade or more. It seems to 
     us that most of those cases took place in settings serving 
     either the small percentage of students with serious behavior 
     disorders or the even smaller percentage of students who are 
     a violent danger to themselves or others. Finally, the NDN 
     report counts incidents of seclusion and restraint without 
     noting whether those events took place over a decade or some 
     other time period.
       The Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of 
     Education is preparing to gather more objective information 
     this coming school year. We urge the House to await 
     objective, uniformly reported and analyzed data from OCR 
     before acting. Based on experience, we are sure that a 
     student in a regular public school is extremely unlikely to 
     be physically harmed, secluded in a windowless room, taped to 
     a chair or handcuffed to a fence by a teacher or 
     administrator. Just how unlikely such events are is unknown 
     because objective, uniformly gathered and analyzed data 
     simply are not available.
       In addition, the report recently released by the U.S. 
     Department of Education states that 31 states currently have 
     policies in place to oversee the use of seclusion and 
     restraint and 15 states are in the process of adopting 
     policies and protections. Given this massive state action, 
     AASA questions the need for federal involvement on this 
     issue.
       Reviews of HR 4247 by state-based teacher, administrator 
     and school board associations have identified a number of 
     serious flaws, which they have raised to their congressional 
     delegations, but so far their voices have not been included 
     in the discussions.
       HR 4247 includes a prohibition against including seclusion 
     and restraint in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 
     behavioral plan. The IEP and behavioral plans are the 
     communication platform for parents and school staff to 
     discuss the students' needs and corresponding school 
     interventions. Prohibiting the inclusion of seclusion and 
     restraint in the IEP or behavioral plans where past behavior 
     clearly indicates a need will only lead to further conflicts 
     and misunderstandings between parents and school staff.
       The Protection and Advocacy agencies are given broad 
     undefined authority to enforce the new law. P&A agencies have 
     long monitored and investigated on behalf of disabled 
     students, but enforcement is new. Enforcement of federal law 
     has been the sole responsibility of state or federal 
     agencies. A bigger problem for school systems is that the 
     meaning of enforcement is undefined. For example, does the 
     enforcement authority permit P&A staff to enter schools 
     without checking in with appropriate school personnel? Arrest 
     authority? Authority to change school policy on the spot?
       HR 4247's prohibition against mechanical restraints is too 
     broad and could prevent appropriate use of restraints in 
     emergency situations where students must be restrained to 
     protect themselves and others.
       This legislation applies to both the special education and 
     regular education populations, and thus raises mandate 
     training and reporting costs for school districts. These 
     increased fiscal and operational burdens are accompanied by 
     minuscule authorization and few prospects for an 
     appropriation. A huge, new, unfunded mandate is difficult to 
     justify at a time when schools are cutting teaching staff and 
     stretching resources to balance budgets.
       HR 4247 also prescribes a debriefing session for school 
     personnel and parents within 72 hours of the use of seclusion 
     or restraint, to address documentation of the antecedents to 
     the restraint or seclusion and prevention planning (although 
     it cannot involve the IEP). School staff are already over-
     committed in their daily schedules. Imposing short, mandatory 
     timelines for extensive meetings will likely result in the 
     cancellation of other instructional commitments or missed 
     timelines and new litigation.
       Finally, the tone of HR 4247 is relentlessly negative 
     toward teachers and administrators. This tone indicting all 
     teachers and administrators is unwarranted by plain 
     observation, is unsupported by any credible data and should 
     be eliminated. AASA is certain that every member of the House 
     knows at least one teacher or administrator who has dedicated 
     his or her professional life to the education and development 
     of children and who has never restrained or secluded a single 
     student, even if his or her career spanned over 40 years.
       Thank you for your consideration. If there are any 
     questions, please do not hesitate to contact me for further 
     discussion of this important issue.
           Yours truly,
                                                     Dan Domenech,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         Council of the Great City


                                                      Schools,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
     Subject: HR 4247--Restraint and Seclusion bill.

       Dear Representative: It is unusual that the Council of the 
     Great City Schools, the coalition of the nation's largest 
     central city school districts, cannot support an education-
     related bill pending before the House of Representatives, but 
     H.R. 4247, the restraint and seclusion bill, is not 
     supportable in its current form. The bill is overly broad and 
     will override numerous state and local policies that already 
     address this issue and will do so in ways that will be hard 
     to predict.
       Every injury to a student in school is a matter of serious 
     concern, but all such incidents are not necessarily matters 
     of federal law. Testimony before the Education and Labor 
     Committee clearly points out that the extent of the use of 
     inappropriate restraints and seclusion in schools could not 
     be specifically determined. The Government Accountability 
     Office (GAO) report provided only ten case studies--three of 
     which involved incidents occurring between ten and fifteen 
     years ago; two involved residential facilities that were not 
     regular public schools; and one involved a school volunteer. 
     The National Disability Rights Network study in January 2009 
     provided information on multiple incidents, but failed to 
     cite either the year or the decade of the occurrence. In 
     recognition of the limited data on the scope of inappropriate 
     restraints and seclusion, the U.S. Department of Education 
     has undertaken a formal data-collection initiative that may 
     provide more up-to-date information on this issue. The 
     Council suggests that it is premature for Congress to act 
     until the Department's data collection effort is complete. At 
     that time, depending on the results, the Council may revise 
     its position.
       Moreover, the requirements in the pending bill present 
     serious concerns for the thousands of school districts and 
     school officials, including school board members, charged 
     with the responsibility of and subject to the potential 
     liability of implementing the federally-crafted definitions 
     and assurances. Section 9 of the bill will subject the 
     nation's schools to an extraordinary outsourcing of 
     investigations, monitoring, and enforcement actions to 
     protection and advocacy attorneys under the Developmental 
     Disabilities Act, in addition to oversight and enforcement by 
     each state educational agency and the U.S. Department of 
     Education--a new authority likely to result in additional 
     disputes and litigation that may involve any student or 
     employee, as well as contractors, service providers, other 
     agencies, and potentially on-site community services and 
     volunteers.
       The Council also questions the assignment of policies, 
     procedures, and requirements currently applicable to 
     psychiatric hospitals, mental health programs, and medical 
     facilities onto the nation's elementary, secondary and pre-
     schools, which are not designed, equipped, or staffed to 
     implement these requirements, and are often excluded from the 
     federal mental health funding or Medicaid reimbursements for 
     related services that could assist in implementation. All 
     current state and local restraint and seclusion laws, 
     policies, guidelines, and procedures will have to be reviewed 
     and aligned with this federal legislation.
       In addition, H.R. 4247 mandates, without funding, a major 
     training and certification program in order to comply with 
     the proposed legislation. Again, the nation's schools

[[Page H1053]]

     will have to train and state-certify an unspecified number of 
     personnel and then periodically re-certify each one. 
     Moreover, this bill requires that each of these individuals 
     from every school receive first aid and CPR training--an 
     entirely new federal requirement for schools and one not 
     directly related to restraints and seclusion. School 
     responsibilities for training and certification extend to 
     school contractors as well.
       The Council is unable to adequately project how many school 
     employees and service providers would have to be trained and 
     certified in restraint and seclusion techniques, conflict 
     resolution, first aid, and CPR in schools serving thousands 
     of students. This broad unfunded mandate would be 
     questionable under the best of circumstances, but in the 
     current economic environment, where schools are laying off 
     thousands of teachers and other support staff and seeing 
     class sizes rise, such new federal requirements are also 
     untimely.
       Congress could achieve the same basic objective by 
     requiring local school districts and/or state educational 
     agencies to adopt, implement and monitor policies for 
     appropriate and restricted use of restraints and seclusion in 
     disruptive, violent, and emergency circumstances--much like 
     the federal gun-free schools policy or school prayer policy.
       Appropriate restraint and seclusion policies, restrictions, 
     and procedures are already in widespread use among the Great 
     City Schools and a large number of states, though few if any 
     as wide-ranging as H.R. 4247. The Council suggests that a 
     bill requiring the limited number of states and/or other 
     school districts without such policies to adopt and implement 
     restraint and seclusion policies would likely garner broader 
     support from school officials. We have offered to assist in 
     developing such legislation that would be more workable. 
     However, we cannot support H.R. 4247 as currently crafted.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeffrey A. Simering,
     Director of Legislative Services.
                                  ____

                                      National Conference of State


                                                 Legislatures,

                                                    March 3, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     House Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       The National Conference of States Legislatures (NCSL), 
     representing state legislators in the nation's 50 states, 
     commonwealths and territories, is deeply troubled by the 
     federal preemption of state policy in the Preventing Harmful 
     Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act (HR 4247).
       HR 4247 is a well intended effort by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives that ignores the leadership and progress made 
     by states to protect students from harm during seclusion and 
     restraint. Furthermore, the need to establish the federal 
     regulations identified in the legislation is not supported by 
     objective or carefully analyzed research. The U.S. Department 
     of Education is in the process of gathering such information 
     in the coming school year, and we strongly urge the House to 
     allow this process to be completed and to make an informed 
     decision based on sound research to determine whether federal 
     legislation is needed to address this issue.
       According to the U.S. Department of Education, 31 states 
     currently have policies in place to oversee the use of 
     seclusion and restraint with another 15 in the process of 
     adopting similar policies and protections. HR 4247 would 
     preempt these efforts in favor of federal guidelines that 
     have little basis in research and would require states to 
     adopt them within two years irrespective of the varying 
     conditions in the states and without any consideration given 
     to the costs associated with compliance.
       State legislators, who have the constitutional 
     responsibility to establish and fund the nation's system of 
     public education, are concerned about another unfunded 
     mandate and continued federal overreach into the daily 
     operations of schools. HR 4247 is the latest example of this 
     approach. The National Conference of State Legislators urges 
     members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against 
     HR 4247.
           Sincerely,
     Representative Larry M. Bell,
       Chair, Education Committee, North Carolina General 
     Assembly; Chair, NCSL Standing Committee on Education.
                                  ____

                                              Council for American


                                            Private Education,

                                                February 17, 2010.
     Re H.R. 4247, Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in 
         Schools Act.

       Members of the House of Representatives: The Council for 
     American Private Education (CAPE), a coalition of 18 major 
     national organizations (listed left) and 32 state affiliates 
     that serve religious and independent PK-12 schools, writes to 
     express strong concerns regarding H.R. 4247. At the start, we 
     must be clear that as a matter of ethical principle, moral 
     law, and basic human decency, the private school community is 
     unreservedly committed to the safety and well-being of 
     students. Parents willingly entrust the education and care of 
     a child to a religious or independent school because they 
     know the school will act to ensure the child's best 
     interests. Thus, with respect to the bill's intent to protect 
     children from harm, we stand in solidarity with the sponsors. 
     Our disagreement is with specific provisions of the bill, not 
     its overall purpose.
       CAPE is deeply concerned about the possible adverse effects 
     the bill could have on the welfare of students. The 
     neighborhood and community schools we represent are likely to 
     experience the reach of this legislation in ordinary and 
     typical encounters: a teacher breaking up a schoolyard 
     dustup, a coach holding back two hot-tempered players, an 
     aide grabbing a child about to dart into the carpool lane at 
     dismissal. Under such circumstances, competent professionals 
     instinctively apply physical restraint in order to protect a 
     child from imminent danger--restraint that meets the 
     definition referenced in the bill (i.e., ``a personal 
     restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of an 
     individual to move his or her arms, legs, or head freely''). 
     Yet the burden of this legislation, with its array of 
     conditions and clauses (see section 5(a)) specifying when and 
     under what circumstances and by whom such ordinary, 
     protective action may lawfully be carried out could 
     effectively serve to inhibit such instinctively shielding 
     behavior by causing the adult to hesitate or second-guess 
     herself out of fear she might be violating federal law. 
     Hesitation in such circumstances could be dangerous.
       Our read of this bill is that it was intended to address a 
     narrow set of special-purpose schools and circumstances in 
     which students are restrained or secluded for an extensive 
     period of time in connection with an institution's 
     inappropriate disciplinary practice or policy. But the 
     schools we represent do not fall in that category and would 
     be inadvertently affected by the bill's far-reaching 
     provisions.
       Another serious concern we have is that this legislation 
     would impose an unprecedented degree of federal mandates on 
     religious and independent schools.
       The class of schools that would be affected by this bill is 
     broad. Based on the definition of ``school'' found in section 
     4(11), a religious school with even a single student 
     receiving math or reading instruction under Title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) would be 
     subject to all the provisions of this bill, as would a school 
     receiving a single piece of instructional material or 
     professional development for a single teacher under any other 
     ESEA title. The U.S. Department of Education reported in 2007 
     that a full 80 percent of Catholic schools across the country 
     participate in one or more programs under ESEA.
       What requirements would apply to affected schools? First, 
     they would have to have one or more teachers trained and 
     certified under a state-approved training program, as defined 
     in section 4(16). The required number of trained teachers for 
     each school would be determined by the state (see section 
     5(a)(3)). In the history of education legislation, the 
     federal government has never imposed training or 
     certification requirements on neighborhood religious and 
     independent schools for any reason.
       Second, they would have to comply with the annual reporting 
     requirements involving disaggregated demographic data on the 
     number of incidents in which physical restraint was imposed 
     upon a student. (And keep in mind that the bill's cross-
     referenced definition of ``physical restraint'' encompasses 
     the ordinary occurrences described above.) Although states 
     are required to file the reports described in section 6(b), 
     schools themselves would have to provide the data, since 
     states are obligated to report on the number of instances 
     ``for each local educational agency and each school not under 
     the jurisdiction of a local educational agency.''
       Third, and most important, they would have to comply with 
     the school-related provisions of the law that, in our 
     judgment, could have the unintended adverse effects on the 
     health and safety of students described above.
       We urge you to oppose this legislation unless it is amended 
     to address these important concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Joe McTighe,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           American Association of


                                            Christian Schools,

                                                    March 2, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The American Association of Christian 
     Schools writes to express concern over H.R. 4247, 
     ``Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools 
     Act.'' The goal of the bill--to protect children from 
     suffering abuse at the hands of the educators--is a point of 
     strong agreement that we share with the sponsors. Our schools 
     are committed to providing safe environments for their 
     students, and as a national organization, AACS is supportive 
     of efforts to ensure that children are protected and free 
     from harm.
       As the bill has moved through the Education and Labor 
     Committee and to the House Floor, we have appreciated the 
     opportunity for many discussions on how best to protect all 
     students and still maintain protections for private schools 
     against unwarranted federal intrusion. We appreciate the 
     efforts to mitigate the effect of this bill on private 
     education, and we are grateful for the inclusion of language 
     that does specify protection for those private schools which 
     do not receive federal funds.

[[Page H1054]]

       However, we are concerned that there still may be 
     unintended negative consequences for those private schools 
     whose teachers or students may be benefiting from a federal 
     education program. It seems that the language of the bill 
     opens the door for these schools to become subject to 
     training and reporting requirements of the government: For 
     example, a school which receives instructional materials or 
     professional development services under any ESEA title could 
     be subject to the regulations set forth in this bill. 
     Further, any school who serves a Title I student could also 
     be required to adhere to the reporting and training 
     requirements. While private school regulation may not be the 
     intention of the bill, this could set a dangerous precedent 
     for future federal regulation of private education.
       Private schools, including our Christian schools, have 
     enjoyed marked success in providing excellent education for 
     students of all ages and abilities. Their freedom and ability 
     to maintain their autonomy contributes greatly to this 
     success, and the opportunities that thereby are provided for 
     the students. The language of H.R. 4247 seems to set 
     unwarranted intrusion of the federal government into this 
     autonomy.
       We believe the intent of the sponsors of this bill was not 
     to establish federal intrusion on private schools; however, 
     we are concerned that this will be an unintended consequence. 
     For this reason, we cannot support the bill. We appreciate 
     your consideration of our concerns.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Keith Wiebe,

                                   President, American Association
     of Christian Schools.
                                  ____



                              Committee on Catholic Education,

                                                February 25, 2010.
     Re H.R. 4247, Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in 
         Schools Act.

       Dear Members of the House of Representatives: As Chairman 
     of the Committee on Catholic Education of the United States 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops I wish to acknowledge the 
     efforts of the Members of the House Education and Labor 
     Committee to reduce the use of harmful and dangerous 
     restraint and seclusion in schools. We agree completely with 
     your desire to protect and enhance the safety and well-being 
     of all students enrolled in both public and private schools.
       However, we must urge you to vote against H. 4247 in its 
     present form.
       We believe it would be unprecedented and intrusive for the 
     Federal government to involve itself in some of the 
     activities that would be required by H.R.4247, such as:
       Sec. 3(5)(C)--collecting and analyzing data from private 
     schools;
       Sec. 4(11)(A)(II)(ii)--extending the requirements of this 
     legislation to every private school which has even one 
     student or one teacher participating in a program 
     administered by the U.S. Department of Education; and
       Sec. 5(a)--requiring school personnel to be certified in 
     crisis intervention, although federal education law has never 
     before imposed certification requirements on private school 
     educators.
       It is clear from the language of ESEA and IDEA that it was 
     Congress' intent, and properly so, to avoid federal 
     involvement in the internal administration of private 
     (nonpublic) schools. By ignoring that principle, H.R. 4247 in 
     its present form crosses a dangerous line, without any 
     demonstrated need to do so. The only private schools cited in 
     the report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO-
     09-719T) that apparently led to the drafting of H.R. 4247 
     were either residential facilities or schools which served 
     emotionally disturbed teens.
       I urge you to alter the scope of this unnecessarily 
     intrusive legislation so that it focuses directly on the 
     dangerous types of situations referenced in the GAO report, 
     rather than imposing intrusive and onerous data collection, 
     coverage, and certification requirements on private schools.
           Sincerely,
     Most Reverend Thomas J. Curry,
       Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles; Chairman, USCCB Committee 
     on Catholic Education.
                                  ____

                                  Association of Christian Schools


                                                International.

     Re H.R. 4247, Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in 
         Schools Act.

       Hon. Members of the House of Representatives: The 
     Association of Christian Schools International, an active 
     member of the Council for American Private Education (CAPE), 
     writes to express strong concerns regarding H.R. 4247. ACSI 
     must be clear that as a matter of ethical principle, biblical 
     mandates, and basic human decency, the Christian school 
     community is unreservedly committed to the safety and well-
     being of our students. Parents willingly entrust the 
     education and care of a child to our religious schools 
     because they know the school will act to ensure the child's 
     best interests. Thus, with respect to the bill's intent to 
     protect children from harm, we stand in solidarity with the 
     sponsors. Our disagreement is with specific provisions of the 
     bill, not its overall purpose(s).
       ACSI is deeply concerned about the possible adverse effects 
     the bill could have on the welfare of students. The 
     neighborhood and community schools we represent are likely to 
     experience the reach of this legislation in ordinary and 
     typical encounters: a teacher breaking up a schoolyard 
     dustup, a coach holding back two hot-tempered players, an 
     aide grabbing a child about to dart into the carpool lane at 
     dismissal. Under such circumstances, competent professionals 
     instinctively apply physical restraint in order to protect a 
     child from imminent danger--restraint that meets the 
     definition referenced in the bill (i.e., ``a personal 
     restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of an 
     individual to move his or her arms, legs, or head freely''). 
     Yet the burden of this legislation, with its array of 
     conditions and clauses (see section 5(a)) could lead an adult 
     to hesitate or hold back out of fear of violating this 
     federal law. Such hesitation could be dangerous.
       We agree with CAPE's read of this bill, that it was 
     intended to address a narrow set of special-purpose schools 
     and circumstances in which students are restrained or 
     secluded for an extensive period of time in connection with 
     an institution's inappropriate disciplinary practice or 
     policy. But the schools we represent do not fall in that 
     category and would be inadvertently affected by the bill's 
     far-reaching provisions. Another serious concern we have is 
     that this legislation would impose an unprecedented degree of 
     federal mandates on religious schools. The class of schools 
     that would be affected by this bill is broad. Based on the 
     definition of ``school'' found in section 4(11), a religious 
     school with even a single student receiving math or reading 
     instruction under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (ESEA) would be subject to all the provisions 
     of this bill, as would a school receiving a single piece of 
     instructional material or professional development for a 
     single teacher under any other ESEA title. The U.S. 
     Department of Education reported in 2007 that a full 80 
     percent of Catholic schools across the country participate in 
     one or more programs under ESEA, (aka: ``No Child Left 
     Behind'').
       What requirements would apply to affected schools? First, 
     they would have to have one or more teachers trained and 
     certified under a state-approved training program, as defined 
     in section 4(16). The required number of trained teachers for 
     each school would be determined by the state(see section 
     5(a)(3)). In the history of education legislation, the 
     federal government has never imposed training or 
     certification requirements on neighborhood religious or 
     independent schools for any reason. Second, they would have 
     to comply with the annual reporting requirements involving 
     disaggregated demographic data on the number of incidents in 
     which physical restraint or seclusion was imposed upon a 
     student. (And keep in mind that the bill's cross-referenced 
     definition of ``physical restraint'' encompasses the ordinary 
     occurrences described above.) Although states are required to 
     file the reports described in section 6(b), schools 
     themselves would have to provide the data, since states are 
     obligated to report on the number of instances ``for each 
     local educational agency and each school not under the 
     jurisdiction of a local educational agency.'' Third, and most 
     important, they would have to comply with the school-related 
     provisions of the law that, in our judgment, could have the 
     unintended adverse effects on the health and safety of 
     students described above. We urge you to oppose this 
     legislation unless it is amended to address these important 
     and draconian concerns.
           Sincerely,
     Rev. John C. Holmes,
       ACSI Director of Government Affairs.

  Taken together, the concerns raised by these groups paint a picture 
of premature legislating and Federal overreach, in essence, attempting 
to solve a problem we do not fully understand in a way that could 
actually make it more difficult for teachers to keep their classrooms 
safe.
  I'm especially concerned that H.R. 4247 would extend its new system 
of mandates into private schools. Historically, independent schools 
have been free from the Federal mandates attached to Federal education 
dollars. Private school teachers are entitled to services, but no 
direct funding, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
and other laws. Yet, under H.R. 4247, schools whose students receive 
services would be subject to the same prescriptive rules on the use of 
seclusion and restraints, despite the fact that these private schools 
receive no Federal funding. This is a major departure from longstanding 
Federal education policy.
  The Council for American Private Education explains it this way: ``A 
religious school with even a single student receiving math or reading 
instruction under title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
would be subject to all the provisions of this bill, as would a school 
receiving a single piece of instructional material or professional 
development for a single teacher under any other ESEA title.''

[[Page H1055]]

  Another likely consequence of H.R. 4247 is increased litigation. The 
bill's vague and overly broad language is an invitation to trial 
lawyers who will eagerly take every opportunity to sue school districts 
who grapple with confusing and stringent new requirements. H.R. 4247 
creates a climate of legal dispute by expanding the role of the 
protection and advocacy system of State-based trial lawyers, a clear 
recognition that seclusion and restraint are to become litigation 
magnets. In fact, there's a very real danger that schools will stop 
addressing safety issues entirely out of fear they could be sued. 
Instead, schools may resort to law enforcement to manage physically 
disruptive or threatening students. This will mean fewer students in 
the classroom and more students in police handcuffs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that teachers and school leaders need 
training and guidance on how to keep classrooms safe. Seclusion and 
restraint are never the first choice for promoting positive behavior, 
but if they must be used, they must be used safely. It is just as clear 
that States, and not the Federal Government, should take the lead on 
developing and implementing these policies.
  H.R. 4247 is a bill with good intentions, but at the end of the day 
it is simply not the most direct and effective way to keep our 
classrooms safe.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, for his leadership on this 
legislation.
  The hearing which was held at the Education and Labor Committee was 
one of the most stunning, amazing, eye-opening events, I think, of this 
Congress. The bipartisanship which came together after that hearing to 
craft this legislation, again, I think is a testament to your 
leadership and the bipartisanship that you have created on that 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, back in 1998, The Hartford Courant won a Pulitzer Prize 
for a four-part investigation of seclusion and restraint all across the 
country. The name of the series was ``A Nationwide Pattern of Death,'' 
which I'd like to offer a copy of for the Record, and which, again, in 
chapter and verse, laid out the shocking, uneven application of this 
type of force against America's schoolchildren. In Connecticut, it 
actually resulted in action in terms of legislation which was put into 
place. Many of the minimum standards which are included in the 
legislation we're voting on today were incorporated into that measure. 
But, clearly, as a Nation, we have much more work to be done.

               [From the Hartford Courant, Oct. 11, 1998]

                     A Nationwide Pattern of Death

                            (By Eric Weiss)

       Roshelle Clayborne pleaded for her life.
       Slammed face-down on the floor, Clayborne's arms were 
     yanked across her chest, her wrists gripped from behind by a 
     mental health aide.
       I can't breathe, the 16-year-old gasped.
       Her last words were ignored.
       A syringe delivered 50 milligrams of Thorazine into her 
     body and, with eight staffers watching, Clayborne became, 
     suddenly, still. Blood trickled from the corner of her mouth 
     as she lost control of her bodily functions. Her limp body 
     was rolled into a blanket and dumped in an 8-by-10-foot room 
     used to seclude dangerous patients at the Laurel Ridge 
     Residential Treatment Center in San Antonio, Texas.
       The door clicked behind her.
       No one watched her die.
       But Roshelle Clayborne is not alone. Across the country, 
     hundreds of patients have died after being restrained in 
     psychiatric and mental retardation facilities, many of them 
     in strikingly similar circumstances, a Courant investigation 
     has found.
       Those who died were disproportionately young. They entered 
     our health care system as troubled children. They left in 
     coffins.
       All of them died at the hands of those who are supposed to 
     protect, in places intended to give sanctuary.
       If Roshelle Clayborne's death last summer was not an 
     isolated incident, neither were the recent deaths of 
     Connecticut's Andrew McClain or Robert Rollins.
       A 50-state survey by The Courant, the first of its kind 
     ever conducted, has confirmed 142 deaths during or shortly 
     after restraint or seclusion in the past decade. The survey 
     focused on mental health and mental retardation facilities 
     and group homes nationwide.
       But because many of these cases go unreported, the actual 
     number of deaths during or after restraint is many times 
     higher.
       Between 50 and 150 such deaths occur every year across the 
     country, according to a statistical estimate commissioned by 
     The Courant and conducted by a research specialist at the 
     Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
       That's one to three deaths every week, 500 to 1,500 in the 
     past decade, the study shows.
       ``It's going on all around the country,'' said Dr. Jack 
     Zusman, a psychiatrist and author of a book on restraint 
     policy.
       The nationwide trail of death leads from a 6-year-old boy 
     in California to a 45-year-old mother of four in Utah, from a 
     private treatment center in the deserts of Arizona to a 
     public psychiatric hospital in the pastures of Wisconsin.
       In some cases, patients died in ways and for reasons that 
     defy common sense: a towel wrapped around the mouth of a 16-
     year-old boy; a 15-year-old girl wrestled to the ground after 
     she wouldn't give up a family photograph.
       Many of the actions would land a parent in jail, yet 
     staffers and facilities were rarely punished.
       ``I raised my child for 17 years and I never had to 
     restrain her, so I don't know what gave them the right to do 
     it,'' said Barbara Young, whose daughter Kelly died in the 
     Brisbane Child Treatment Center in New Jersey.
       The pattern revealed by The Courant has gone either 
     unobserved or willfully ignored by regulators, by health 
     officials, by the legal system.
       The federal government--which closely monitors the size of 
     eggs--does not collect data on how many patients are killed 
     by a procedure that is used every day in psychiatric and 
     mental retardation facilities across the country.
       Neither do state regulators, academics or accreditation 
     agencies.
       ``Right now we don't have those numbers,'' said Ken August 
     of the California Department of Health Services, ``and we 
     don't have a way to get at them.''
       The regulators don't ask, and the hospitals don't tell.
       As more patients with mental disabilities are moved from 
     public institutions into smaller, mostly private facilities, 
     the need for stronger oversight and uniform standards is 
     greater than ever.
       ``Patients increasingly are not in hospitals but in 
     contract facilities where no one has the vaguest idea of what 
     is going on,'' said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a nationally 
     prominent psychiatrist, author and critic of the mental 
     health care system.
       Because nobody is tracking these tragedies, many restraint-
     related deaths go unreported not only to the government, but 
     sometimes to the families themselves.
       ``There is always some reticence on reporting problems 
     because of the litigious nature of society,'' acknowledged 
     Dr. Donald M. Nielsen, a senior vice president of the 
     American Hospital Association. ``I think the question is not 
     one of reporting, but making sure there are systems in place 
     to prevent these deaths.''
       Typically, though, hospitals dismiss restraint-related 
     deaths as unfortunate flukes, not as a systemic issue. After 
     all, they say, these patients are troubled, ill and sometimes 
     violent.
       The facility where Roshelle Clayborne died insists her 
     death had nothing to do with the restraint. Officials there 
     say it was a heart condition that killed the 16-year-old on 
     Aug. 18, 1997.
       Bexar County Medical Examiner Vincent DiMaio ruled that 
     Clayborne died of natural causes, saying that restraint use 
     was a separate ``clinical issue.''
       But that, too, is typical in restraint cases. Medical 
     examiners rarely connect the circumstances of the restraint 
     to the physical cause of death, making these cases impossible 
     to track through death certificates.
       The explanations don't wash with Clayborne's grandmother.
       ``I'll picture her lying on that floor until the day I 
     die,'' Charlene Miles said. ``Roshelle had her share of 
     problems, but good God, no one deserves to die like that.''
       With nobody tracking, nobody telling, nobody watching, the 
     same deadly errors are allowed to occur again and again.
       Of the 142 restraint-related deaths confirmed by The 
     Courant's investigation:
       Twenty-three people died after being restrained in face-
     down floor holds.
       Another 20 died after they were tied up in leather wrist 
     and ankle cuffs or vests, and ignored for hours.
       Causes of death could be confirmed in 125 cases. Of those 
     patients, 33 percent died of asphyxia, another 26 percent 
     died of cardiac-related causes.
       Ages could be confirmed in 114 cases. More than 26 percent 
     of those were children--nearly twice the proportion they 
     constitute in mental health institutions.
       Many of the victims were so mentally or physically impaired 
     they could not fend for themselves. Others had to be 
     restrained after they erupted violently, without warning and 
     for little reason.
       Caring for these patients is a difficult and dangerous job, 
     even for the best-trained workers. Staffers can suddenly find 
     themselves the target of a thrown chair, a punch, a bite from 
     an HIV-positive patient.
       Yet the great tragedy is that many of the deaths could have 
     been prevented by setting

[[Page H1056]]

     standards that are neither costly nor difficult: better 
     training in restraint use; constant or frequent monitoring of 
     patients in restraints; the banning of dangerous techniques 
     such as face-down floor holds; CPR training for all direct-
     care workers.
       ``When you look at the statistics and realize there's a 
     pattern, you need to start finding out why,'' said Dr. Rod 
     Munoz, president of the American Psychiatric Association, 
     when told of The Courant's findings. ``We have to take 
     action.''
       Mental health providers, who treat more than 9 million 
     patients a year at an annual cost of more than $30 billion, 
     judge themselves by the humanity of their care. So the misuse 
     of restraints--and the contributing factors, such as poor 
     training and staffing--offers a disturbing window into the 
     overall quality of the nation's mental health system.
       For their part, health care officials say restraints are 
     used less frequently and more compassionately than ever 
     before.
       ``When it comes to restraints, the public has a picture of 
     medieval things, chains and dungeons,'' said Dr. Kenneth 
     Marcus, psychiatrist in chief at Connecticut Valley Hospital 
     in Middletown. ``But it really isn't. Restraints are used to 
     physically stabilize patients, to prevent them from being 
     assaultive or hurting themselves.''
       But in case after case reviewed by The Courant, court and 
     medical documents show that restraints are still used far too 
     often and for all the wrong reasons: for discipline, for 
     punishment, for the convenience of staff.
       ``As a nation we get all up in arms reading about human 
     rights issues on the other side of the world, but there are 
     some basic human rights issues that need attention right here 
     at our back door,'' said Jean Allen, the adoptive mother of 
     Tristan Sovern, a North Carolina teen who died after aides 
     wrapped a towel and bed sheet around his head.
       Others have a simple explanation for the lack of attention 
     paid to deaths in mental health facilities.
       ``These are the most devalued, disenfranchised people that 
     you can imagine,'' said Ron Honberg, director of legal 
     affairs for the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. ``They 
     are so out of sight, so out of mind, so devoid of rights, 
     really. Who cares about them anyway?''
       Few seemed to care much about Roshelle Clayborne at Laurel 
     Ridge, where she was known as a ``hell raiser.''
       But Clayborne had made one close friendship--with her 
     roommate, Lisa Allen. Allen remembers showing Clayborne how 
     to throw a football during afternoon recess on that summer 
     afternoon in 1997.
       ``She just couldn't seem to get it right and she was 
     getting more and more frustrated. But I told her it was OK, 
     we'd try again tomorrow,'' said Allen, who has since rejoined 
     her family in Indiana.
       Within three hours, Clayborne was dead.
       She had attacked staff members with pencils. And staffers 
     had a routine for hell raisers.
       ``This is the way we do it with Roshelle,'' a worker later 
     told state regulators. ``Boom, boom, boom: [medications] and 
     restraints and seclusion.''
       After she was restrained, Roshelle Clayborne lay in her own 
     waste and vomit for five minutes before anyone noticed she 
     hadn't moved. Three staffers tried in vain to find a pulse. 
     Two went looking for a ventilation mask and oxygen bag, 
     emergency equipment they never found.
       During all this time, no one started CPR.
       ``It wouldn't have worked anyway,'' Vanessa Lewis, the 
     licensed vocational nurse on duty, later declared to state 
     regulators.
       By the time a registered nurse arrived and began CPR, it 
     was too late. Clayborne never revived.
       In their final report on Clayborne's death, Texas state 
     regulators cited Laurel Ridge for five serious violations and 
     found staff failed to protect her health and safety during 
     the restraint. They recommended Laurel Ridge be closed.
       Instead, the state placed Laurel Ridge on a one-year 
     probation in February and the center remains open for 
     business. In a prepared statement, Laurel Ridge said it has 
     complied with the state's concerns--and it pointed out the 
     difficulty in treating someone with Clayborne's background.
       ``Roshelle Clayborne, a ward of the state, had a very 
     troubled and extensive psychiatric history, which is why 
     Laurel Ridge was chosen to treat her,'' the statement said. 
     ``Roshelle's death was a tragic event and we empathize with 
     the family.''
       With no criminal prosecution and little regulatory action, 
     the Clayborne family is now suing in civil court. The Austin 
     chapter of the NAACP and the private watchdog group Citizens 
     Human Rights Commission of Texas are asking for a federal 
     civil rights investigation into the death of Clayborne.
       Medications and restraint and seclusion.
       Clayborne's friend, Lisa Allen, knew the routine well, too.
       For six years, Allen, now 18, lived in mental health 
     facilities in Indiana and Texas, where her explosive 
     personality would often boil over and land her in trouble.
       By her own estimate, Allen was restrained ``thousands'' of 
     times and she bears the scars to prove it: a mark on her knee 
     from a rug burn when she was restrained on a carpet; the loss 
     of part of a birthmark on her forehead when she was slammed 
     against a concrete wall.
       Exactly two weeks after Roshelle Clayborne's death, Lisa 
     Allen found herself in the same position as her friend.
       The same aide had pinned her arms across her chest. 
     Thorazine was pumped into her system. She was deposited in 
     the seclusion room.
       ``It felt like my lungs were being squished together,'' 
     Allen said.
       But Lisa Allen was one of the lucky ones.
       She survived.

  The fact of the matter is that today, 19 States have no laws or 
regulations related to the use of seclusion or restraints in school. 
Seven States place some restrictions on restraint, but do not regulate 
seclusions. That's within the 31 that was referred to by Mr. Kline. 
Seventeen States require that selected staff receive training before 
being permitted to restrain children. The rest do not. Thirteen States 
require schools to obtain consent prior to foreseeable or nonemergency 
physical restraints, while 19 require parents to be notified 
afterwards. Only two States require annual reporting on the use of 
restraints. Eight States specifically prohibit the use of prone 
restraints or restraints that impede a child's ability to breathe.
  I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as a government, as a Nation that 
provides massive amounts of education dollars across the country, we 
would never countenance racial discrimination or gender discrimination 
by any institutions that receive those funds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I don't think it's too much to say that we should not 
allow these types of practices which, in some instances, result in, as 
the chairman said, actual deaths and traumatic lifelong injuries, to be 
countenanced by the American taxpayer. This measure establishes minimum 
standards. It establishes transparency. It gives us as a country the 
opportunity to allow States to take leadership in terms of implementing 
their own rules and regulations. But it says as a Nation we are not 
going to tolerate this type of behavior, of which schools themselves 
are mandated reporters. If it was happening in a child's home, and as a 
teacher became aware of it, they would be required by law to report it 
to child protection agencies as a result of Federal law. We can do at 
least as much for the school environment which children go to every day 
in this country.
  I urge a strong, powerful bipartisan vote in support of this 
legislation so that we can raise our children to a new level as they go 
to school every day.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 4247, the Keeping All Children Safe Act, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it as well.
  When is it appropriate to lock up or tie up a child, or handcuff a 
child to a desk? Common sense tells us these extreme measures should 
not ever be used against children with autism or Down syndrome or other 
learning disabilities. Yet the truth is there are thousands of 
incidents reported involving the inappropriate use of seclusion and 
restraint. Reports by the National Disability Rights Network, GAO, and 
others reveal that our children are at risk for serious injury and even 
death in the school setting.
  The bill we are considering today outlines minimum standards that 
must be included in guidelines issued by the Department of Education. 
States then have the flexibility to determine how best to proceed. For 
the 10 States that already have comprehensive policies, all they need 
to do is show what they have already done. For the other States, the 
law will put in motion a review of current practices and a chance to 
put in place adequate guidelines. I would like to emphasize that these 
are guidelines. These are standards, like parents should be notified, 
that seclusion and restraints should only be used as a last resort, 
that training needs to be given to staff. I believe more often than not 
staff don't even know how to respond. And I would also like to 
emphasize that there is no private cause of action. This bill is not 
opening up all these lawsuits.
  When we send our son Cole to school, my husband Brian and I send him 
with the expectation that he is safe from

[[Page H1057]]

danger. We entrust him to teachers, and principals, and aides. And I 
know that those school personnel have done an outstanding job to keep 
him safe. But this has not been the case for other children.
  Students have been traumatized, injured, and even died in the 
classroom. Ignorance is not bliss for the children who have been 
harmed. And many times parents are not even aware of these practices. 
More than anything, I want teachers and school administrators to have 
the support for children who become anxious and unruly. If they better 
understand the situation, they will know that there are more positive 
choices to teach children rather than using harmful techniques such as 
restraint and seclusion.
  Under the Children's Health Act, current law includes these kind of 
protections for children in public and private hospitals, medical and 
residential facilities. And this bill would add those same protections 
for our children in schools.
  There are some that believe this is an unprecedented expansion of 
Federal authority, but I disagree. The Federal Government is involved 
in the schools. The Federal Government is the one that mandated that 
every child should have access to an education, including those with 
special needs. When we enacted the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, we committed to ensuring that children with special 
needs have access to a free, appropriate public education. This bill 
ensures those children, as well as all students, are safe.
  I urge my colleagues to protect our children by supporting the 
Keeping All Students Safe Act.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 
seconds.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Washington. I don't believe she was in 
the Chamber at that time, but I want to again thank her, while she is 
here, for all of her work and all of her effort to bring this bill to 
the floor. I enjoyed working with her.
  At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Sires).
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4247, 
the Keeping All Students Safe Act. I would like to thank Chairman 
Miller as well as the members and staff of the Education and Labor 
Committee for their leadership on this crucial piece of legislation.
  Last year, Chairman Miller requested that the GAO investigate 
allegations of abuse in schools. The GAO report revealed many cases of 
abuse and harmful restraint, and most of those cases involved children 
with disabilities. Additionally, the GAO report found that no Federal 
agency or other entity collects comprehensive information on these 
practices that occur in our schools. Without consistent data 
collection, it is impossible to calculate an accurate number of 
children, families, and schools that have been affected by these 
harmful practices.
  Just one instance of harmful restraint of our children is one too 
many. Unfortunately, there have been hundreds of allegations, and some 
children have even died. Unlike federally funded institutions such as 
hospitals, schools have no Federal laws that address minimum safety 
standards in schools. Instead, State laws and regulations vary 
tremendously, which leave our children vulnerable. Indeed, New Jersey 
is one of the 19 States with no laws or regulations related to 
seclusion or restraint in schools. It is imperative that we protect our 
children and provide them with a safe place to grow and develop.
  As a former teacher, I know that teachers and other school employees 
have the best interests of the children at heart. This legislation can 
address the problems of harmful restraints and ensure the safety of 
both children and school professionals. This bill will provide grants 
for professional development training and also give States and local 
districts the flexibility to determine training needs. Our children 
deserve to learn in a secure, protected environment, and a Federal 
solution to this problem is long overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.
  No one wants children to be in danger in this country, especially 
children who are in public institutions designed to serve them. 
Teachers, principals, and other school personnel have a responsibility 
to ensure the environment is maintained at all times. In many cases, it 
is vitally important, though, that teachers and classroom aides use 
interventions and supports that are both physically and emotionally 
safe for the child.
  What the bill before us fails to recognize is that 31 States 
currently have laws and regulations in place that govern the use of 
seclusion and restraints in schools. An additional 11 have policies and 
guidelines in place, and in some cases school districts may also have 
their own guidelines governing the use of such practices in the 
classroom.
  In addition, the Federal Government has no reliable data on the 
prevalent use of harmful seclusion and restraint techniques in public 
and private schools and whether they result in child abuse. It is my 
belief that State and local governments can identify student needs and 
determine the most appropriate regulations better and more efficiently 
than the Federal Government.
  Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they assembled 
the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees, specifically 
the 10th amendment. The authors of this amendment, ratified in 1971, 
remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of a distant, all-
powerful government and understood that a one-size-fits-all approach 
just doesn't work.
  Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the Federal 
Government has slowly, steadily, and insidiously eroded the notion of 
States' rights and our individual liberties. What we need to focus on, 
as the distinguished ranking member talked about earlier, is the strong 
punishment of those who do wrong, but not to create costs to the local 
units of government who must comply with Federal rules and regulations, 
and in addition giving the Federal Government authority it should not 
have.
  This bill is not needed. The States and the localities can handle 
these situations. They will look after the children. They are the 
people closest to the children that they are serving. They will do it. 
If they don't do it, the community will be up in arms and will require 
them to do that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HARE. I thank the chair.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4247, the Keeping 
All Students Safe Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this very 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the sponsor of this 
bill, Chairman Miller. Because of his commitment to protecting students 
from abuse, our schools are safe havens once again.
  Mr. Speaker, restraint and seclusion in schools is often unregulated 
and is too frequently used for behaviors that do not pose danger to the 
children or others. These emergency interventions are also 
disproportionately used on some of our most vulnerable students, 
children with disabilities.
  Today Fragile X advocates, including my constituent, Holly Roos, are 
here to lobby Congress to pass H.R. 4247. Holly's son Parker was 
diagnosed with Fragile X Syndrome, the most common known cause of 
inherited mental impairment in the world. I met with Holly today, and 
she is concerned that Parker, her son, was inappropriately restrained 
at school because he seemed to be exhibiting aggressive behavior after 
a possible seizure.
  Mr. Speaker, Parker is a real life example that speaks to the 
importance of adopting minimum safety standards for the use of 
restraint and seclusion in our schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill also makes an investment in 
positive behavior supports, an evidence-based approach designed to 
create a positive school climate that reinforces good behaviors and 
supports academic achievement. My State of Illinois has effectively 
reduced the majority of behaviors which resulted in the use of 
seclusion and restraint by implementing

[[Page H1058]]

this preventative approach throughout the school system.
  This bill ensures our schools are safer and more effective learning 
environments. I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4247.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding, 
and I appreciate the stance that he is taking on this bill, H.R. 4247.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I would say a couple of words about the 10th 
amendment and those rights that are reserved for the States or to the 
people respectively. What are the States doing wrong? How is it that 
the States, that now 31 of them have some type of controlling 
legislation, another 15 States are taking a look at this, that adds up 
to 46 States that could potentially have this resolved each in their 
own fashion, what is the crisis that requires Uncle Sam to step in and 
ignore the direct guidance in the 10th amendment of the Constitution 
itself?
  So I am going to stand on the States' rights side. And if I were in 
one of these States, and if this legislation were to pass, my response 
would be to the Federal Government, Keep your money. We don't need 
these strings attached, because it is one thing after another after 
another after another. And pretty soon it is a national curriculum with 
Federal mandates and imposing cultural impositions at the school level 
in every accredited district in the country.
  And one of the cases in point will be, if this is about keeping our 
students safe, if this is about the Keeping All Students Safe Act, 
which is the title of it, then we ought to take a look at the 
President's czar. The President has appointed a Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools czar. His name is Kevin Jennings. I don't know what Kevin 
Jennings says about this particular bill, but if he is appointed to 
this task, I would think he would have been the person that testified 
before the hearings. But I suspect that the President of the United 
States isn't interested in having Kevin Jennings come before the 
cameras here in the United States Congress because he has made a 
totality of his life about promoting homosexuality within the schools, 
and much of it at the elementary school level.
  He has written a foreword in a book called Queering Elementary 
Education in a favorable fashion, which aims to indoctrinate elementary 
students with homosexuality. Additionally, Kevin Jennings has written 
several other books. One of them is Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, where 
he describes his own use of illegal and illicit drugs, and written 
about it in a cavalier fashion. He has not retracted those statements.
  If he is going to be about safe and drug-free schools, there should 
be something he had to offer about safety for kids and drug-free for 
kids. That could possibly be something that we could take up in here. 
But the czar of Safe and Drug-Free Schools has another agenda. It is 
the promotion of homosexuality within our schools.
  Kevin Jennings has spoken in a favorable way about Harry Hay, who was 
on the cover of NAMBLA magazine, the North American Man/Boy Love 
Association magazine. Kevin Jennings said of Harry Hay that he is 
always inspired by Harry Hay. Additionally, some of these things, Mr. 
Speaker, I am just not going to say into the record. If I did so, I 
imagine somebody, at least on my side of the aisle, would move to take 
my words down. Some of it is that revolting. And this is the Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools czar, who has crossed the line over and over again, 
made a complete career about advocating for homosexuality in our 
schools, much of it in our elementary schools. This is the man that the 
President of the United States has appointed as the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools czar.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4247, the Keeping 
All Students Safe Act. Children with autism, many of whom are nonverbal 
or have other communications challenges, are especially vulnerable to 
dangerous interventions at school by staff who can at times be ill-
prepared to deal with unique behavioral issues.
  I sat recently with a constituent from Greenwich, whose autistic 
daughter suffered terrible isolation and trauma in her school years, 
and who herself founded a group of volunteer advocates whose sole 
mission is to prevent other autistic children from suffering these same 
abuses.
  The GAO study cited by my colleagues included stories which shock the 
conscience: a 7-year-old who died after being held face down for hours 
by school staff, and 5-year-olds allegedly being tied to chairs with 
bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms 
and bloody noses. These could have been your children or mine.
  This legislation is an important step toward ending inhumane 
treatment of children with autism and other disabilities who, like all 
students, should be able to trust their educators and feel completely 
safe in their school environments.
  There are, of course, rare and extreme emergencies where it may be 
necessary to physically intervene. But we affirm today, Mr. Speaker, 
that any behavioral intervention must be consistent with a child's 
right to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse.

                              {time}  1515

  With the help of this bill, teachers and school personnel will be 
trained regularly, and parents will be kept informed on the policies 
which keep our schools orderly and safe and on the alternatives 
available to traditional forms of restraint and seclusion.
  I'm grateful to my friends in the autism advocacy community, 
including Autism Speaks and the Greenwich-based Friends of Autistic 
People, for their tireless work on this issue. Children with autism 
deserve the same rights available to all children, a free and 
appropriate education, safety and dignity. This bill is a step in the 
right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman 
from Texas, I would like to yield myself a minute.
  My friend from Illinois was just here. I'm sorry that he left. He 
underscored for me one of the many problems with this legislation. It 
turns out that Illinois is one of those States that actually has a very 
strong seclusion and restraint law. They passed it in 2001. It went 
into effect in 2002; and in 2006, there was an incident, one of those 
reported by the GAO, where a teacher restricted a child 
inappropriately. The teacher was prosecuted, found guilty, and yet I 
find it interesting that even today, or the last look that we had at 
this, she still has a teacher's certificate to be a substitute teacher 
in Illinois, something which this bill doesn't address either. We need 
to get these teachers out of the teaching business.
  It just makes a point that when you pass a law, it doesn't 
automatically keep kids safe. You have got to enforce that law. You've 
got to educate folks, and you've got to have people locally take an 
active interest.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Truly, the examples that were given here today of children who have 
lost their lives, children who have suffered is untenable. There is 
nobody in this body that I can imagine who would think this is 
appropriate. Of course it is not. Our hearts go out to the families, 
all of us who have raised children, had children go through school. I 
have a great fear of something like that.
  But there was also a fear that our Founders had. There was a fear of 
even coming together for the Constitutional Convention because they 
were afraid that it would allow for a Constitution that would set in 
motion a Federal Government that would continue to take away the powers 
of the people in the local government and the State government. So the 
only way they were able to come together on this Constitution was to 
assure the people there that if they would pass the Constitution, they 
would put together 10 amendments to make sure that the Federal 
Government would never do the very things we're doing here.
  There is no State that would put up with this knowingly. Every State 
would say, This is ridiculous; of course we don't want children killed 
in school. But what gets me is during my first 2

[[Page H1059]]

years here when we were in the majority in this body, I was one of the 
few Republicans that said No Child Left Behind is not appropriate. And 
I was joined by many across the aisle who said the Federal Government 
shouldn't have a program like No Child Left Behind. You don't know more 
here in Washington than people know back in the school districts. And I 
appreciated the support of my colleagues across the aisle. I told that 
to the White House. That's an area we are going to disagree on because 
you should not be mandating back to the States and the local 
governments and the local school boards, because they are competent.
  I know that it's not the intent of this bill, but the underlying 
message is, You people back in your States and local school boards and 
local governments are a bunch of morons. You can't figure out that 
sitting on a precious little child and killing them is inappropriate. 
So the big, smart Federal Government has to come in and let you know 
that that's not appropriate. We don't need that. We didn't need No 
Child Left Behind as a mandate rammed down the throats of the State and 
local government. We don't need this. We need logic and reason, and we 
need proper schooling; but it doesn't come at the tip of a fisted 
mandate from Washington.
  We need to encourage the States to do the right thing. But under the 
10th Amendment, the power is not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States or reserved to the 
States. We doggone sure ought to respect that.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership 
on this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4247, the Keeping All 
Students Safe Act. This bill is aimed at restricting some of the most 
abusive practices still employed in certain schools around the country: 
negligent restraint and abusive seclusion.
  Last spring, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony from 
the Government Accountability Office, which investigated the use of 
these practices in schools. What the GAO found was stunning. There were 
many instances of serious injury and abuse and even some accounts of 
death. Even more troubling to me, as a strong supporter of disability 
rights in special education, was that many of the victims were students 
with intellectual disabilities.
  This bill is meant to protect our most vulnerable students against 
the worst kinds of abuse. The committee heard about a 4-year-old girl 
with cerebral palsy and autism who was restrained in the chair with 
leather straps for being uncooperative at school. The girl suffered 
bruises and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
  In another instance, five children, ages 5, 6 and 7, were gagged and 
duct taped for misbehaving in another school. At a school in my State 
of New York, a 9-year-old child with a learning disability was put in a 
time-out room for hours on end for whistling, slouching and hand 
waving. The child's hands became blistered when he tried repeatedly to 
escape the room described as smelling of urine. Finally, the committee 
heard the case of a 14-year-old boy who, because he did not stay seated 
in class, was restrained by his teacher. The 230-pound teacher put the 
boy face-down on the floor and lay on top, restricting his breathing 
and ultimately suffocating him. At the time the committee heard this 
testimony, the teacher was still teaching in the suburbs of Washington, 
D.C.
  This is the kind of restraint and seclusion we're saying cannot be 
used. We cannot allow this neglect and abuse of our Nation's children 
to continue one more day. Please support this bill to keep our students 
and our schools safe.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the amount 
of time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 13 minutes 
left, and the gentleman from California has 12 minutes left.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If I might just yield to myself to 
respond to the inquiry. We have Mr. Langevin who is waiting to speak, 
and I think Mrs. McCarthy is on her way.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I will be yielding to Mr. Souder momentarily, 
and then I will close.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Kline, and 
our chairman, Mr. Miller.
  This is one of these bills you kind of go, Well, how could you 
possibly favor tying kids up and putting tape across them or letting 
people abuse them? That isn't what this is really about. I am going to 
make four basic points, which I know we have been making all afternoon, 
but there is no harm with repetition because they are important.
  One, there is no reliable data on how much use there is of these 
techniques. We've heard all sorts of individual horror stories that my 
sociology prof used to call ``my Aunt Annie stories.'' We have some 
real cases of abuse that need to be addressed. We have others of a wide 
variety. I, for example, would abhor most of them. I don't find being 
made to stand in a corner quite the same as some others might, but I 
think there is a wide range. We need to know how many of these are 
serious, how many of these justify intervention, and how many of them 
are things where there is a difference of opinion. It also fails to 
acknowledge in this bill that 31 States have had this, and this is a 
one-size-fits-all, and that many other States who don't have it are 
doing it. This is the ultimate arrogance.
  We are saying that basically State legislators believe that their 
kids should be tied up, mouths taped, they should be abused, and 
they're too ignorant to fix this. Since when do we get to always 
determine the speed and kind of satisfactory level of intervention that 
a State does, particularly since we don't have the data to prove our 
case?
  Thirdly, it doesn't exempt private schools. Even though there is no 
direct funding from the Federal Government, we have to have some kind 
of a clause or a hook that the Federal Government is going in and 
taking over this since they would be covered by State law on human 
rights or student rights cases. Private schools generally don't even 
get direct funding or indirect funding, although some do. And about 
half of the private, independent schools would fall under that hook, 
and the danger, of course, is that it could be broader.
  Lastly, the bill fails to clarify or delete language that may open 
States and school districts up to additional litigation. In other 
words, adverse behavioral interventions that compromise health and 
safety is undefined and would have to be litigated.
  But I want to come back to a basic thing. Number one is, What is the 
constitutional justification? We have this debate in education a lot 
that things are reserved to the States that aren't given to the Federal 
Government. Now we're going to a second degree in the education. Now 
maybe this comes under the clause that says, If States don't move as 
fast as we would like them to, then we can intervene and take over 
their jurisdiction. Maybe it comes under the clause that as we get 
emotionally upset about something, and we're emotionally moved about a 
case we saw on TV, therefore the Federal Government and Congress have a 
right to take it over.
  It is truly tragic in thinking that we're the only ones to address 
this. We had a clause, after the Republicans had first taken over 
Congress, that we were trying to put in and had in, briefly, that says, 
Put the constitutional justification of why this is uniquely the 
problem of the Federal Government and how the Constitution, in effect, 
justifies that intervention. And generally speaking, what we saw was, 
Promote the general welfare. Promote the general welfare. Promote the 
general welfare. Promote the general welfare.
  Now, Thomas Jefferson said that this clause, in a letter which I 
believe was to Madison, was the most pernicious, I believe was the word 
he used, clause in the Constitution and it would be abused by future 
generations to justify Federal intervention wherever they felt they 
wanted to intervene and that ultimately, unless that ``promote the 
general welfare'' was restrained by Congress itself and by the courts, 
that Congress would intervene on a regular basis, and ultimately 
everything that is reserved for the States would be at the Federal 
level.
  I believe there are times, such as in civil rights cases, where there 
were

[[Page H1060]]

clear, systemic, systematic, multigenerational interventions that we 
needed to get in; that many times those who were more States' rights-
oriented defended their positions based on States' rights.
  But what we're looking at today is insufficient data. We're looking 
at the States actually addressing it. Thirty-one States have addressed 
it. A number of others--the bulk of the rest of them actually have laws 
up at this time. And I see no reason, no compelling evidence of why we 
need to do this as opposed to the State legislators. I see no 
compelling constitutional justification for it. And I believe that 
Thomas Jefferson, were he here, would call this a pernicious use of 
promoting the general welfare even though the end-all in the hearts of 
the people who are doing this are motivated for the right reasons. They 
care about the safety of the kids. They're worried about whether kids 
are going to be harmed in the schools, and we all are, and so, quite 
frankly, are State representatives and State senators.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4247, the Keeping All Students 
Safe Act. As a cosponsor, I am certainly pleased that for the first 
time this bipartisan legislation will protect all children in schools 
from harmful uses of restraint and seclusion.
  The need for this legislation was highlighted by a recent GAO report 
that found hundreds of cases of schoolchildren being abused as a result 
of inappropriate uses of restraint and seclusion, often involving 
untrained staff. One of these cases included a locked isolation room in 
a school basement at a school in Rhode Island, my home State. This room 
was used to restrict a student who was deemed overly aggressive and 
another who showed undesirable behavior.
  Well, this bill will provide the proper guidance to ensure that our 
schools and educators are treating children appropriately. I have been 
a strong advocate in Congress to educate colleagues on the value that 
individuals with developmental disabilities can bring to society with 
the right system of support. The bill that's before us today represents 
an important step in ensuring that these children are treated fairly 
and given the opportunities they deserve to succeed in school. I look 
forward to continuing working together on our work to make sure that 
our children with developmental disabilities receive the care that they 
need to reach their full potential.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  I wanted to touch on a couple of things that we have talked about in 
the course of this debate that I find to be interesting. We have heard 
an appeal from one of the Members here on the floor, I think it was the 
gentleman from Illinois, who said he was applauding this evidence-based 
approach. And yet we have heard other Members say we have insufficient 
data. I must admit that I fall in the latter category. We really don't 
know the extent of the situation.
  We have heard the numbers quoted. California, for example, is quoted 
as having 14,000 incidents. We really don't know what is in those 
14,000. These include emergency interventions. So we don't know if 
that's the case of a teacher breaking up a fight or stopping an 
argument. It is certainly not 14,000 cases of taping children to their 
chairs, and I don't think anybody in this body believes that is the 
case.
  But the point is we don't know. We don't know, and yet we are using 
numbers as though they were gospel.
  Look, on this issue let's start with what we agree on. We agree 
students and teachers should be safe at school. We agree children with 
disabilities are especially vulnerable because they may struggle with 
behavioral and communication problems that are difficult for teachers 
to control. As a result, children with disabilities have been more 
likely to be restrained or placed in seclusion when, in many cases, 
positive behavioral interventions could be much more successful and 
pose a lower risk to students.
  We also agree that teachers must be able to protect students with 
serious behavioral problems from injuring themselves or their 
classmates or their teachers.
  The only real disagreement, outside some dispute over the data and 
the evidence and the GAO report, and I find the GAO report particularly 
interesting because it cited 10 incidents of really egregious behavior 
in seclusion and restraint. Of course, one of those incidents was 18 
years ago, two were 12 years ago, and the most recent was 4 years ago. 
It just seems to me, when we are going to enact this kind of 
legislation, this sort of Federal overreach, in my judgment, we ought 
to have better data.
  So our only real disagreement is who should address the use of 
seclusion and restraint in schools. I believe States and local school 
districts have an obligation to keep their classrooms safe. I have seen 
real progress from the 46 States that have or will soon have their own 
policies to train teachers on how to handle difficult behavior and to 
ensure seclusion or restraints are only used to protect children from 
harming themselves or others.
  I believe the Federal Government has historically limited its reach 
into private schools, and it would be a mistake to start applying new 
Federal mandates to independent schools that do not receive taxpayer 
funding. I also believe that we do not protect schools by empowering 
trial lawyers.
  For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose H.R. 4247. Through 
hearings and public outreach, Members of Congress have successfully 
spurred a national dialogue about the dangers of these strategies for 
controlling student behavior. That dialogue is a positive step, as is 
the action it has prompted at the State and local level. Let's not 
discard the work of these States and districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument against this legislation is that somehow 31 
States have taken care of this problem and that we all share the 
concern. The facts are that 31 States have not taken care of this 
problem. As we pointed out, in a number of States, it only goes to one 
particular population in that school, in that setting, or to an age 
bracket, or to just reporting, what have you. These are not laws that 
are designed to protect these children in this situation.
  Illinois has been cited. Illinois is very close to what you would 
like to see have happen, and they have spent a lot of effort trying to 
do that.
  But in my own State, we talk about the 14,000. When you ask the 
person responsible for this, they say, We don't use the data. So is 
that sufficient for Members of Congress? California has ``addressed the 
problem''? Yes, they collect data that they refuse to characterize or 
do anything else with.
  Paige could have been in that data. She could have been one of those 
14,000.
  So I think we have to understand. I appreciate there is a difference 
here about the approach. But as Mr. Courtney pointed out, in 1998 we 
had a national discussion, an expose of many of the same behaviors that 
are going on today, it is 12 years later, and children are still being 
abused, dramatically abused. Restraint and seclusion is being 
dramatically misused. It is being used by people who don't know what to 
do in that situation. They have not been trained.
  I find it interesting that the school boards who have to live with 
this problem on an everyday basis support this legislation. The 
classroom teachers who have to live with this on an everyday basis 
support this legislation. People who are on the front lines want this 
legislation passed because it will bring them greater understanding, 
greater knowledge, greater skill, and greater training to deal in these 
situations. An understanding, yes, there are situations where, in an 
emergency case, where there is a danger to the individual student or to 
others, that this may be proper. But it also takes training to 
understand that and how you use it.
  I refuse to believe that was the 14,000 incidents in California, that 
each one of those was an emergency, dangerous

[[Page H1061]]

situation. They may say it is an emergency, but in California they 
don't describe what an emergency is. So compliance with current law all 
across this country is not a big deal. It is not doing much for the 
families of these children. It is not doing much to protect these 
children.
  That is why we move. We move with some minimum standards about taping 
children, mechanical restraints of children, about secluding very young 
children in darkness for hours at a time, maybe repeatedly for days on 
end. You should not be able to do that.
  We have other investigations in the committee where the simple 
withdrawal of water has killed children because of dehydration. So we 
ought not to withdraw water here. We ought to not withdraw food as a 
means of punishment. We ought not deny them the use of the bathroom 
facilities. We ought not have them in a situation where they are 
soiling themselves in front of their classmates, where they are 
humiliated, where circles are drawn around their chair and they sit in 
the classroom tied down by duct tape, while they are humiliated and 
pointed at by the teacher. These are 4- and 5- and 6-year-old kids. 
None of us would stand for this with our children or our grandchildren, 
not for a minute. But many of these parents are never notified that 
this is happening to their children. Many of the grandparents are never 
notified that this is happening to a child that they were caring for. 
Many of the foster parents are never notified that their children are 
in danger, in peril. Think about it. Just put the vision of your child, 
your grandchild, your next-door neighbor child in this picture.
  And you want to say, We have addressed it; the States have addressed 
it; there is no role for the Federal Government. Well, who the hell is 
going to step in and protect these children? They can't do it 
themselves.
  This may not be perfect, but we ought to take this step to put us on 
record that we are prepared to do something to end this practice, this 
abuse, this torture, of very young children, in many instances children 
with disabilities, children who are unable to communicate in an 
effective fashion. Just think about that. Think about your family. You 
don't have to take this to the abstract. These children cannot defend 
themselves against this practice, and their parents can't speak for 
them if they don't know. These children can't control themselves if 
they are denied the use of a bathroom facility.
  That is what this legislation is about. It is about whether or not we 
are going to take this step, whether or not this step is important, and 
I do not believe that you can nullify this by suggesting that somehow 
because 31 States have done something, that this problem need not be 
addressed, need not have our attention. We cannot do this to these 
children and these families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to applaud 
Chairman Miller on this important, bipartisan bill.
  As we know, the use of seclusion and restraint has resulted in harm 
to schoolchildren, and also death in some cases.
  This is wrong, and I am glad we are taking this important step to 
change it.
  I am proud to have been one of the first cosponsors of the bill.
  I also want to thank the Committee for working with me to include a 
technical change important to New York.
  The definition of Chemical Restraint would have required that only a 
``licensed physician'' be allowed to administer any medication 
prescribed by the physician for the standard treatment of a student's 
medical condition.
  However, in New York and other states, we allow health professionals 
other than physicians, such as nurse practitioners, to prescribe drugs.
  I am glad we have been able to correct the bill to allow states this 
flexibility.
  While I am happy the House is moving ahead on this important bill, I 
want to say a word about the issue of corporal punishment--that is 
hitting of children in schools. Each year in the United States, 
hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren in twenty states are hit in 
public schools according to the Department of Education.
  However, thirty, including my state of New York, states have 
appropriately banned this practice.
  Often this is called ``paddling'' and the student is struck with a 
wooden paddle, which can result in bruises, other medical complications 
that may require hospitalization.
  Just as with seclusion and restraint, paddling can cause immediate 
pain, lasting physical injury, and on-going mental distress.
  Gross racial disparity exists in the hitting of public school 
children.
  Further, public school children with disabilities are hit at 
approximately twice the rate of the general student population in some 
States.
  Corporal punishment is associated with increased aggression in the 
punished child, physical and emotional harms, and higher rates of drop 
out, suspension, and vandalism of school property.
  The federal government has outlawed physical punishment in prisons, 
jails and medical facilities.
  Yet our children sitting in a classroom are targets for hitting.
  We know safe, effective, evidence-based strategies are available to 
support children who display challenging behaviors in school settings.
  Hitting children humiliates them.
  Hitting children makes them feel helpless.
  Hitting children makes them feel depressed.
  Hitting children makes children angry.
  Hitting children teaches them that it is a legitimate way to handle 
conflict.
  We are adults.
  We shouldn't be hitting kids in schools.
  One of my other concerns is that by placing restrictions only on 
seclusion and restraint and allowing hitting to continue, we may be 
encouraging hitting.
  Instead, we, as a nation, should move toward these alternative 
strategies when it comes to our schoolchildren.
  I plan to introduce legislation in the next few weeks to ban the use 
of corporal punishment in schools and look forward to hearings in the 
Committee on this topic.
  In the meantime, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4247, the Keeping All Students Safe Act. At the outset, let me thank 
Chairman Miller, Congresswoman McCarthy, Congresswoman McMorris 
Rodgers, and Congressman Platts for their leadership on this bill.
  Last year, the Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing that 
examined the disturbing and shocking use of restraint and seclusion in 
schools. The hearing made clear that federal and state officials have 
little information about the frequency, nature, or effectiveness of 
these potentially-deadly practices in educational settings. Witnesses 
expressed concerns that certain groups of children and youth--
especially those in special education--may be at heightened risk to 
experience these interventions. The hearing further presented numerous 
studies, including one by the Government Accountability Office, 
documenting the need to restrict these practice to emergencies, provide 
staff training, and report data about which students experience these 
practices.
  Given that minority students are disproportionately referred to 
special education and given that minority students are 
disproportionately suspended and expelled, a number of my colleagues 
within the Congressional Black Caucus and I have serious concerns that 
minority children disproportionately experience these harmful and 
sometimes deadly restraint and seclusion practices. Given our concerns, 
we asked Chairman Miller to lead a federal effort to document these 
practices and limit abuses. This bill provides such leadership. Passage 
of this important legislation will help regulate the use of seclusion 
and restraint, further document its use, and eventually eliminate the 
use of abusive restraint and seclusion through appropriate training.
  H.R. 4247 provides basic protections for students within schools 
while still giving states and local districts the flexibility to tailor 
policies and procedures to meet their needs. This bill provides a 
balanced approach. It recognizes that there are times when danger is 
imminent and when restraint may be necessary. It also recognizes that 
seclusion and restraint are not educational services or therapeutic 
treatments and, consequently, should be administered by trained 
personnel and should be monitored.
  The Keeping All Students Safe Act is bipartisan legislation that 
provides overdue federal leadership to document and regulate these 
techniques and to eliminate abusive tactics.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4247, the 
``Keeping All Students Safe Act.''
  I have spoken with officials from the Nebraska Department of 
Education and superintendents in my District and the overwhelming 
conclusion that I reached was that my local school districts are doing 
a good job of dealing with student discipline. The guidelines and 
procedures that are now in place are intended to keep every student 
safe in the school environment.
  Like many states, Nebraska makes any form of corporal punishment 
illegal and teachers or staff can be disciplined for unprofessional 
behavior or even be terminated for

[[Page H1062]]

any verbal or physical abuse of a student. Based on the information 
provided by my school officials, there has not been any significant 
problems with the treatment of students in my district. Therefore, I 
really do not see the need for this legislation. It will become just 
one more federal intrusion into our local education systems.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend Chairman Miller and 
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers for their work and dedication on this 
issue. We all want our children to have the highest quality education 
and educational experience available. That cannot happen in an 
environment where students, paraprofessionals, teachers and 
administrators are not safe.
  This bill establishes standards that will ensure that those in 
classroom settings are safe and will prevent and reduce inappropriate 
restraint and seclusion by establishing minimum safety standards in 
schools, similar to protections already in place in hospitals and non-
medical community-based facilities. By establishing minimum standards 
for situations that require the seclusion of students, this bill offers 
support to the nineteen states that have no standards set for such 
situations.
  Special education students are at a higher risk of being harmfully 
restrained. Because minority children are disproportionately placed in 
special education, this bill will offer them protection against harmful 
actions such as being denied food in order to punish or preempt 
behaviors. By setting minimum standards that apply to the whole student 
body, H.R. 4247 protects students without singling out anyone or 
placing a stigma on a child or a group of children.
  I am sensitive to the concerns of those who worry that they may lose 
the ability to implement certain behavioral interventions. I wish to 
continue this discussion with an eye toward further improvements in 
safety. This bill's parent notification provision is a positive step 
towards a continual dialogue between educational stakeholders that we 
in Congress can participate in. To those who have expressed concern 
over this bill, I want you to know that this bill is part of the on 
going conversation about students' safety in school and does not signal 
the end of our efforts to protect students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill, as amended, 
has expired.


          Amendment Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in part A of House Report 111-425 offered 
     by Mr. George Miller of California:
       Page 3, beginning on line 4, strike ``Preventing Harmful 
     Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act'' and insert ``Keeping 
     All Students Safe Act''.
       Page 7, line 3, insert ``, or other qualified health 
     professional acting under the scope of the professional's 
     authority under State law,'' after ``physician''.
       Page 7, line 7, insert ``or other qualified health 
     professional acting under the scope of the professional's 
     authority under State law'' after ``physician''.
       Page 9, line 13, insert ``local educational agency,'' 
     before ``educational service agency''.
       Page 10, line 22, insert ``training in'' before ``evidence-
     based''.
       Page 11, line 1, insert ``training in'' before ``evidence-
     based''.
       Page 11, line 9, insert ``training in'' before ``first 
     aid''.
       Page 14, line 15, strike ``and local educational agencies'' 
     and insert ``, in consultation with local educational 
     agencies and private school officials,''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  The manager's amendment makes minor technical corrections and 
clarifications. It renames the bill Keeping All Students Safe Act. The 
amendment adds clarifying language to the definition of ``chemical 
restraint'' to exclude medications prescribed and administered by 
qualified health professionals acting under State law. It fixes the 
definition of ``school'' to include all schools and programs under the 
jurisdiction of the local educational agency. It clarifies language 
describing ``State-approved crisis intervention training program,'' and 
the amendment requires States to consult with private school officials 
on determining that a sufficient number of personnel are trained to 
meet the needs of the student population.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with the chairman. This is a technical amendment. It changes 
the short title of the bill and some other technical and clarifying 
changes to the bill. While I still cannot support the underlying bill, 
we have no objection to this. I will vote for it and encourage my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in part B of House Report 111-425 offered 
     by Mr. Flake:
       Add at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 13. PRESUMPTION OF CONGRESS RELATING TO COMPETITIVE 
                   PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) Presumption.--It is the presumption of Congress that 
     grants awarded under this Act will be awarded using 
     competitive procedures based on merit.
       ``(b) Report to Congress.--If grants are awarded under this 
     Act using procedures other than competitive procedures, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report explaining why 
     competitive procedures were not used.

     ``SEC. 14. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.

       ``None of the funds appropriated to carry out this Act may 
     be used for a congressional earmark as defined in clause 9e, 
     of Rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives of 
     the 111th Congress.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is noncontroversial in nature. Section 7 of the bill 
would create a new discretionary grant program to assist State 
education agencies in meeting the regulations established in the bill, 
collecting and analyzing data, and implementing the schoolwide positive 
behavior support approach. This grant program is to be funded out of 
the authorization provided in the bill for such sums as necessary.
  While State agencies will have to apply for these grants, it is 
unclear if the grants will be awarded on a competitive basis or a 
merit-based approach.
  We have seen in the past, unfortunately, when these grant programs 
have been established, even if it is stipulated that they should be 
competitive or merit based, oftentimes later Members of Congress will 
come in and earmark funds directly, and some of these accounts we have 
for competitive grant programs, merit-based grant programs are 
completely earmarked just a few years later, so organizations and 
individuals, nonprofit agencies or State agencies can't even compete 
for them because all of that money has been earmarked.
  We need to look no further than FEMA's National Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation Program. It was a competitive grant program designed to 
``save lives and reduce property damage by providing for hazard 
mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of 
the floodplain.'' Again, this was going to be a competitive grant 
program. The fiscal 2010 Homeland Security appropriation bill 
appropriated $100 million for this program. Almost $25 million of that 
was earmarked for projects in Members' home districts, leaving fewer 
funds available for localities that wished to legitimately apply for 
the funding.
  A grant program to establish the Emergency Operation Center 
established by Congress in the fiscal 2008 Homeland appropriation 
spending bill,

[[Page H1063]]

60 percent of the funds in that grant program were earmarked.
  Again, these are grant programs that are typically set up to be 
competitively bid on for the agencies to assess on a merit-based basis, 
and yet they are earmarked.
  So this amendment would simply say none of the funds available or 
authorized by this legislation would be available to be earmarked.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the 
time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, although I do not 
oppose the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I support this 
amendment. Obviously, I am a very strong believer in this legislation 
and the terrible situation that we are trying to rectify, and I would 
hope and I think with the gentleman's language we can hopefully be 
assured that these grants would be based upon a healthy competition and 
would be based upon the request of the States for technical assistance 
and for other assistance in dealing with this legislation. So I support 
the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment. I 
think it is important that we do this on this legislation and all 
programs like this that are authorized by the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 391, 
nays 24, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               YEAS--391

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--24

     Brown, Corrine
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Edwards (MD)
     Fudge
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Moore (WI)
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Rush
     Scott (GA)
     Waters
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barrett (SC)
     Campbell
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Deal (GA)
     Fallin
     Garamendi
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Massa
     Radanovich
     Sullivan
     Turner
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1615

  Messrs. KUCINICH and DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas, Messrs. WATT and SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. 
KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Ms. LEE of California, 
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Messrs. COHEN, LEWIS of 
Georgia, and HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. SHERMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1126, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 4247 will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution 1127.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262, 
nays 153, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               YEAS--262

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer

[[Page H1064]]


     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--153

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barrett (SC)
     Campbell
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Deal (GA)
     Fallin
     Garamendi
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Massa
     Radanovich
     Sullivan
     Turner
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson) (during the vote). There is 
1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1632

  Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``yea'' to nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________