[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 194 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8735-S8742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2014. A bill to reform the United States Postal Service, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Postal 
Investment Act of 2011 which lays out many ideas to help strengthen the 
United States Postal Service through investment and innovation.
  For many years, I have been an advocate for the Postal Service, its 
workers, and importantly, postal customers. The Postal Service 
represents a multi-billion dollar industry on which all Americans rely 
for delivery of mail and packages. Unfortunately, in recent years, the 
downturn in the overall economy has negatively impacted the postal 
business, exacerbating a decline in the mail because of electronic 
diversion.
  The 21st Century Postal Service Act, S. 1789, passed in November by 
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, contains many 
needed postal reforms and sensible compromises. Unfortunately, that 
bill also contained an unrelated measure reducing benefits for disabled 
and injured federal workers. As Chairman of the Federal Workforce 
Subcommittee, this issue concerned me enough that I had to vote against 
reporting the bill to the full Senate. However, I did think the bill 
contained important provisions that will help the Postal Service and I 
look forward to further debate. I am introducing the Postal Investment 
Act to add to that conversation. While this bill is not a comprehensive 
approach that can rescue the Postal Service on its own, it represents 
several new ideas that have not yet been debated.
  Since 2006, we have required the Postal Service to pay roughly $5 
billion per year in to an account to prefund its retiree health benefit 
liability. This is a payment that no other agency, and few private 
sector companies, must make. While prefunding this liability was a 
worthy goal, and it addressed an accounting problem in the Postal 
Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, it is crippling the Postal 
Service financially. The core of the Postal Investment Act would 
restructure the retirement health benefit prefunding requirement and 
allow for the funds set aside against the future liability to be 
invested in a diverse mix of government and non-government securities, 
instead of only in government securities as is now the case.
  There are promising precedents for investing funds in this way in the 
Federal Government. In 2001, we passed the Railroad Retirement and 
Survivors' Improvement Act, which created a trust fund to invest 
railroad employee retirement assets in non-government securities. 
Assets of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation also are invested in 
a diversified manner. Even in the turbulent economic times of the past 
few years, these funds have seen healthy returns on average, at a much 
higher rate than government securities alone.
  I want to emphasize that the funds invested are there to cover a 
future liability to provide benefits to workers, some of whom have not 
been hired yet. Because of the long time horizon and significant assets 
of this fund, I believe that diversifying its investment would mean 
positive growth for the fund over time, and would bring it in line with 
many private sector retirement accounts. If we want the Postal Service 
to act more like a business, we could start by allowing it similar 
flexibility.
  In addition to investing the fund, my bill would also suspend 
payments to the prefunding account in any years in which the Postal 
Service does not have the profits to invest. Unfortunately, under 
current law, the fund which was set up to insure against future default 
of the Postal Service is the very thing putting the Postal Service on 
the brink of default. I believe this new approach is a responsible way 
forward, which also recognizes the legitimate goal of prefunding this 
liability over a longer term.
  Just as importantly, the Postal Service needs more flexibility in its 
business model to innovate. My bill contains several provisions to 
accelerate innovation in the Postal Service's products. Many of these 
are based on recommendations provided to Congress in a Postal 
Regulatory Commission, PRC, report released earlier this year. The bill 
would allow for pricing flexibilities for increased premium services 
subject to performance requirements. It would also explicitly allow the 
Postal Service, through the PRC, to create new classes of mail to meet 
evolving customer demands. For instance, there may be a market for a 
product with the speed of first class mail, but with none of the 
additional services that are part of first class. The bill also 
encourages the further development of experimental products to find new 
sources of revenue.
  In order to create more accountability for product innovation, the 
bill would require the Postmaster General to designate a Chief Product 
Innovation officer to come up with new ideas and keep the public better 
informed of what the Postal Service is doing to find new products and 
services. My bill would also require more focus on retaining revenues 
for existing products by reducing uncollected postage.
  Finally, my bill contains several provisions related to the postal 
workforce. Like several other proposals introduced already, the bill 
would allow the Postal Service access to excess payments it has made 
over the years to the Federal Employee Retirement System. It would use 
those funds first to offer voluntary retirement incentives to employees 
to help right-size the workforce.

[[Page S8736]]

  The bill also contains a provision which was developed after we were 
informed that postal workers may not be taking full advantage of the 
benefits of Medicare after they reach the age of eligibility. The 21st 
Century Postal Service Act originally contained a provision which would 
have shifted costs from the Postal Service to the Medicare program and 
postal retirees by requiring eligible retirees to sign up for Medicare 
Parts A and B, and reducing the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
package available to them. Instead, my bill would ask the Postal 
Service to work with the Office of Personnel Management and the Center 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services to educate the postal workforce 
about how the Medicare program can work to enhance their existing 
health benefits.
  To address concerns that have been expressed about how the Postal 
Service works with its employee unions and management organizations on 
collective bargaining and consultation rights, the Postal Innovation 
Act offers ways to strengthen these relationships. It contains a 
provision clarifying arbitrators' broad authority to consider the 
factors he or she deems relevant should collective bargaining with a 
union fail. It also contains a provision clarifying the consultation 
process for managers, supervisors, and postmasters. In the case of 
labor and management agreeing to any future workforce reductions, the 
bill also clarifies that the process would be subject to existing 
procedures for other Federal employees.
  Additionally, as the postal workforce has begun making concessions on 
pay and benefits and other contributions to the organization's 
solvency, this bill contains a provision intended to ensure that those 
at the very top of the Postal Service share in the sacrifice. This 
provision is modeled on an amendment drafted by Senator Tester that was 
discussed but never settled on during Committee consideration of postal 
reform legislation. Currently, the Postmaster General and several other 
top executives at the Postal Service make more than $200,000 per year, 
in addition to bonuses, deferred compensation, and other benefits. I 
believe that running the Postal Service is public service, and the 
Postal Service simply cannot afford to treat the top management like 
corporate executives, especially when postal employees and so many 
other Americans face pay freezes. As important as his duties are, I 
believe it is wrong for the Postmaster General to be paid more than the 
Secretary of Defense. My bill would tie the top pay at the Postal 
Service to the Executive Level schedule used to determine pay for 
Federal executives.
  I believe that the provisions I have outlined in this bill will serve 
as important ideas as we move forward with comprehensive postal reform. 
It is my sincere hope that we can work out our differences on the 21st 
Century Postal Service Act, which would be a workable proposal to 
address the future of the Postal Service without its flawed workforce 
provisions.
  As we continue this debate, I hope to offer these ideas as ways to 
further strengthen the Postal Service and show my commitment to 
preserving that service for all Americans well into the future. I ask 
my colleagues to consider the proposals I have put forward and work 
with me and all members who have their own proposals to help enact 
lasting improvements for the United States Postal Service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2016. A bill to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the 
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, and the Child Nutrition 
Act of 1966 to increase access to healthy food for families, to amend 
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act and the Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to increase access to credit for small 
and new farmers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the last 10 months, I have been 
working with a diverse group of people in my State on ways to get 
healthier food and more local agricultural products to consumers 
throughout the country. Our group included folks from every part of the 
State, from gleaners to cattle ranchers to pear growers. Today, I am 
introducing legislation based on my discussions with that agricultural 
advisory group. What we came up with is a series of proposals that I 
believe will create agricultural jobs, increase access to healthy 
locally grown fruits and vegetables and reduce paperwork for small 
farmers while improving access to Federal loans.
  This legislation, the Fresh Regional Eating for Schools and Health 
Act, or FRESH, will provide healthier choices for recipients of Federal 
programs, push the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA's, technology 
agenda forward, increase flexibility for State and local stakeholders, 
and provide better tools for small and beginning farmers.
  For too long, the Federal Government has pushed one size fits all 
solutions when it comes to nutrition and school lunches. That is why 
this bill allows States to put forward innovative approaches to 
increase nutrition outcomes for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, SNAP, beneficiaries. Let me make it clear: under this waiver, 
no benefits will be reduced, and eligibility requirements will not be 
changed. But States will be allowed to provide incentives for eating 
healthy for SNAP recipients, and help those folks meet the nutritional 
guidelines the Federal Government has put out.
  Another area where flexibility is needed is in the school lunch 
program. Right now, over $1 billion goes to Oregon schools to purchase 
food for school lunches from a USDA commodity warehouse. Meanwhile, I 
have heard time and time again from school lunch administrators in 
Oregon that they would prefer to use that money locally to purchase the 
healthy fruits and vegetables that are so plentiful in our State. This 
bill would give them the flexibility to use half of what they now get 
from USDA to buy local agriculture products. This approach not only 
enables schools to buy healthier food for their students but also helps 
keep that money in their local economy and support the family farmers 
down the road.
  This bill also moves USDA nutrition programs into the 21st century 
when it comes to technology. It would push USDA to allow using 
smartphones and tablet technology to accept SNAP benefits, just as they 
can accept debit and credit cards today. This will open up access for 
SNAP beneficiaries to roadside food stands and farmers markets, and 
encourage innovation within the agency. SNAP recipients would also be 
allowed to use online grocery stores to purchase foods--a hugely 
helpful option for busy moms or elderly folks for whom a grocery store 
is just too hard to get to. For the WIC program, state agencies will be 
allowed to use technologies like videoconferencing to keep costs low 
when it comes to training and certification, particularly for stores in 
rural areas.
  Folks will also get a better sense of how the over $70 billion a year 
taxpayers fund SNAP with is being spent if this bill passes. It 
requires companies that take in over $1 million a year from the SNAP 
program to provide the Federal Government with a receipt of just what 
they have provided.
  For small farmers, this bill suspends the 15-year limit for farmers 
to use FSA-guaranteed operating loans and the 7-year limit for them to 
use FSA direct operating loans. By suspending these time limits 
indefinitely, farmers will have more access to these critical capital 
tools. It includes creation of a streamlined micro-loan program that 
will allow small farmers who just need a quick loan to repair their 
truck or buy some feed to borrow up to $5,000 on an expedited basis and 
with reduced paperwork.
  For beginning farmers, this legislation provides an alternative to 
the requirement that they need three years of farm management 
experience to get direct loans to buy farm lands. Instead, it allows 
the completion of college degrees related to business and agriculture 
to be considered a substitute for hands-on experience. For example, 
Horticulture or Agricultural Business Management degrees would be 
acceptable as an alternative. This will give young folks more 
opportunities to get the capital needed to start a farm.
  I am really proud of the efforts the Oregonians on my agricultural 
advisory committee made in helping provide common sense solutions for 
nutrition and farming programs. I want to thank them for helping to 
create these

[[Page S8737]]

proposals, and I am going to work hard with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle as we move to the next farm bill to include these ideas.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 2017. A bill to secure the Federal voting rights of persons when 
released from incarceration; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Democracy Restoration Act. The Democracy Restoration Act, or DRA, had 
been introduced in previous Congresses by former Senator Russ Feingold 
of Wisconsin and I am proud to follow his example. I want to thank 
Senator Durbin for joining me as an original co-sponsor of this 
legislation.
  As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the 
``unfinished business'' of America. The Democracy Restoration Act would 
restore voting rights in federal elections to approximately 5 million 
Americans who have been released from prison and are back living in 
their communities.
  After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the states ratified the 
Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the 
United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United 
States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition 
of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 
appropriate legislation.''
  Unfortunately, many states passed laws during the Jim Crow period 
after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to 
vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and 
disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied 
to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime 
disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated 
into their communities as law-abiding citizens.
  It took Congress and the states nearly another century to eliminate 
the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 
1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the 
United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or 
Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not 
be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of 
failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''
  Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
which swept away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied 
African-Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to 
vote. For example, the Act outlawed the use of literacy or history 
tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting 
their ballot. The act specifically prohibits states from imposing any 
``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, 
practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any 
citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' 
Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Act in 2006, which was signed 
into law by President George W. Bush.
  In 2011, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the 
legacy of Jim Crow laws and state disenfranchisement statutes lead to 
unfairness in Federal elections. First, state laws governing the 
restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such 
that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, 
while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote 
permanently. Second, these state disenfranchisement laws have a 
disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this 
patchwork of state laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for 
eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair 
disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely 
on where an individual lives.
  In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on 
parole. In 10 States, a conviction can result in life-time 
disenfranchisement. Several States requires prisoners to seek 
discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon 
board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the 
right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States 
are slowly moving or repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting 
for ex-prisoners. But studies show that a growing number of African-
American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in 
their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a 
disproportionate impact on minorities. Congress recently addressed part 
of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce 
the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine 
convictions. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress 
should take stronger action now to remedy this problem.
  The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their 
release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving federal 
funds notify people about their right to vote in federal elections when 
they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a 
misdemeanor. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice and 
individuals harmed by violation of this Act to sue to enforce its 
provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a 
grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit 
before an election.
  The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to federal elections, 
and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting 
qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with 
Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights 
statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large 
coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and 
reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law 
enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to 
thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work on 
this legislation.
  This legislation is ultimately designed to reduce recidivism rates 
and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are 
released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes 
as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With 
these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come 
the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.
  In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into 
law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in 
Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by 
providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug 
treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing 
ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have 
struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act 
on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their 
crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our 
society.''
  The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of 
the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce 
recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and 
make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                                December 16, 2011.
       Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, 
     a coalition of civil rights, social and criminal justice, and 
     other legal and advocacy organizations, are writing to urge 
     your support and co-sponsorship of the Democracy Restoration 
     Act of 2011, a bill that seeks to restore voting rights in 
     federal elections to people who are out of prison and living 
     in the community. The current patchwork of laws that 
     disfranchise people with criminal records has created an 
     inconsistent and unfair federal electoral process, 
     perpetuating entrenched racial discrimination. As 
     organizations dedicated to promoting democracy and justice as 
     well as equal rights for all Americans, we strongly support 
     passage of this legislation.
       Currently, 5.3 million American citizens are denied the 
     right to vote because they have a criminal conviction in 
     their past. Four million of these people are out of prison, 
     living in the community, paying taxes and raising families; 
     yet they remain disfranchised for years, often decades, and 
     sometimes for life. The United States is one of the few 
     western democratic nations that

[[Page S8738]]

     excludes such large numbers of people from the democratic 
     process. Congressional action is needed to restore voting 
     rights in federal elections to the millions of Americans who 
     have been released from incarceration, but continue to be 
     denied their ability to fully participate in civic life. 
     Fortunately, Senator Ben Cardin and Representative John 
     Conyers are lead sponsors of the Democracy Restoration Act of 
     2011, which is intended to address these injustices.
       Criminal disfranchisement laws are rooted in the Jim Crow 
     era. They were enacted alongside poll taxes and literacy 
     tests and were intended to keep African Americans from 
     voting. By 1900, 38 states denied voting rights to people 
     with criminal convictions, most of which disfranchised people 
     until they received a pardon. The intended effects of these 
     laws continue to this day. Nationwide 1-3% of African-
     American men have lost the right to vote. If current 
     incarceration rates continue, three in ten of the next 
     generation of African American men will lose the right to 
     vote at some point in their lifetimes. This racial disparity 
     also impacts the families of those who are disfranchised and 
     the communities in which they reside by diminishing their 
     collective political voice.
       In this country, voting is a national symbol of political 
     equality and full citizenship. When a citizen is denied this 
     right and responsibility, his or her standing as a full and 
     equal member of our society is called into question. The 
     responsibilities of citizenship--working, paying taxes and 
     contributing to one's community-- are duties conferred upon 
     those reentering society. To further punish individuals who 
     are back in the community by denying them a right of 
     citizenship counters the expectation that citizens have 
     rehabilitated themselves after a conviction. The United 
     States should not be a country where the effects of past 
     mistakes have countless consequences--and no opportunity for 
     redress.
       Passage of the Democracy Restoration Act of 2011 will 
     ensure that all Americans living in their communities will 
     have the opportunity to participate in our electoral process. 
     A strong, vibrant democracy requires the broadest possible 
     base of voter participation, and allowing all persons who 
     have completed their prison time to vote is the best way to 
     ensure the greatest level of participation.
       We urge you to support the passage of the Democracy 
     Restoration Act of 2011.
       If you have any questions, please contact Deborah J. Vagins 
     of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office or Nicole Austin-
     Hillery of the Brennan Center for Justice.
           Sincerely,
         American Civil Liberties Union; APIA Vote; Brennan Center 
           for Justice; Center for the Study of the American 
           Electorate; CitiWide Harm Reduction; Commission on 
           Social Action of Reform Judaism; Crossroad Bible 
           Institute; Demos; Desiree Alliance; Drug Policy 
           Alliance; Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii; Fair Elections 
           Legal Network; The Fortune Society's David Rothenberg 
           Center for Public Policy; Illinois Consortium on Drug 
           Policy; International CURE; Law Enforcement Against 
           Prohibition; Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under 
           Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
           Rights; Maryland CURE; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and 
           Educational Fund, Inc.; New Mexico Women's Justice 
           Project; A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & 
           Healing); North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition; 
           NORML; The Office of Social Justice, Christian Reformed 
           Church of North America (CRCNA); ProjectVote; Queers 
           for Economic Justice; South Asian Americans Leading 
           Together (SAALT); State Rep. Edward J. Orlett (Ret) -
           Ohio; StoptheDrugWar.org; The Sentencing Project; Women 
           With A Vision, Inc.
                                  ____

                                                 December 16, 2011
       Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned religious 
     organizations, reflecting diverse faith traditions, in one 
     voice write to urge you to support and co-sponsor the 
     Democracy Restoration Act, a bill which seeks to restore 
     federal voting rights to millions of Americans living and 
     working in our communities who have been disenfranchised 
     because of a criminal conviction in their past. As people of 
     faith, we believe all people are created in God's image. We 
     are deeply concerned that state disenfranchisement laws 
     continue to deprive our neighbors of their fundamental right 
     to vote and relegate them to second-class citizenship.
       From Joseph saving untold numbers from famine, to Peter 
     being the rock upon which Christ's church was built, our 
     scriptures bear powerful witness of the great achievements 
     that can be made by persons who have spent time in prison. It 
     is consistent with the best of our democratic values and our 
     moral heritage to encourage former prisoners to participate 
     constructively with their communities in ways such as voting.
       Accordingly, we join the many Americans who believe that 
     continuing to deny the franchise to millions of our fellow 
     citizens who have rejoined our communities is unwise and 
     unjust. Our support for the Democracy Restoration Act rests 
     squarely on our obligation to be merciful and forgiving, our 
     commitment to treat others with the respect and dignity that 
     God's children deserve, and our steadfast belief in the human 
     capacity for redemption.
       We applaud your efforts to restore the franchise to persons 
     who have been released from prison, and we urge you to pass 
     the Democracy Restoration Act.
           Yours truly,
         The Aleph Institute, an organization for Jewish renewal; 
           Christian Reformed Church of North America; Crossroad 
           Bible Institute; Evangelicals for Social Action; The 
           Institute for Prison Ministries at the Billy Graham 
           Center; Masjid An-Nur, an Islamic center in 
           Minneapolis, MN; Mennonite Central Committee; National 
           Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; 
           National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; 
           NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 
           Presbyterian Church USA, Office of Public Witness, 
           Washington, DC; Progressive National Baptist 
           Convention, Inc.; Restorative Justice Ministries 
           Network of North America; Sojourners, a Christian 
           ministry based in Washington, DC; United Church of 
           Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; The United 
           Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 
           Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
                                  ____

                                                 December 16, 2011
       Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned law 
     enforcement and criminal justice leaders, urge you to support 
     and co-sponsor the Democracy Restoration Act, a bill which 
     seeks to restore federal voting rights to the nearly four 
     million Americans living, working and paying taxes in our 
     communities who have been disenfranchised because of a 
     criminal conviction in their past. We support the restoration 
     of voting rights because continuing to disenfranchise 
     individuals after release from prison is ineffective law 
     enforcement policy and violates core principles of democracy 
     and equality.
       There is no credible evidence that denying voting rights to 
     people after release from prison does anything to reduce 
     crime. In our judgment, just the opposite is true. Every year 
     over 600,000 people leave prison. We must find new and 
     effective ways to foster reintegration back into the 
     community and prevent recidivism. We believe that bringing 
     people into the political process makes them stakeholders in 
     the community and helps steer former offenders away from 
     future crimes.
       The hallmark of a democratic government is that it reflects 
     the views of the governed, views that are most readily 
     expressed through the ballot box. As law enforcement and 
     criminal justice officials, we are deeply committed to 
     securing our system of American democracy. Carving a segment 
     of the community out of the democratic process is 
     inconsistent with America's best traditions and highest 
     values.
       People who commit crimes must and will serve all terms of 
     their sentence. But once the criminal justice system has 
     determined that they are ready to return to the community, 
     they should receive both the rights and responsibilities that 
     come with the status of being a citizen. Restoring the right 
     to vote is simply good law enforcement policy.
       To protect basic public safety and strengthen the core of 
     our democracy, we urge you to use your leadership to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
         American Correctional Association; Association of 
           Paroling Authorities International; American Probation 
           and Parole Association; James H. Austen; Blacks in Law 
           Enforcement of America; Correctional Association of New 
           York; Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings 
           County, New York; International Community Corrections 
           Association; Doug Jones; Peg Lautenschlager; Jorge 
           Montes, Principal at Montes & Associates; Oklahoma 
           Department of Corrections; Police Foundation; 
           Providence Police Department; Rhode Island Department 
           of Corrections.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2019. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to prescribe regulations to reduce helicopter noise 
pollution in certain residential areas, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Los Angeles 
Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011, which is cosponsored 
by Senator Boxer.
  This legislation is very simple. It directs the Federal Aviation 
Administration to develop and enforce regulations to control helicopter 
noise and improve helicopter safety above Los Angeles.
  FAA must complete the regulations within three years, in consultation 
with the local community, and it must include an exemption for public 
safety aircraft.
  The bill is a companion to legislation with the same name introduced 
by Representative Berman.
  This legislation is long overdue.
  Under current law, helicopter pilots can and do fly practically 
wherever they want above Los Angeles, and no agency limits their 
activity.

[[Page S8739]]

  The Federal Aviation Administration controls our Nation's airspace 
exclusively, but it imposes no restrictions on helicopter flight paths, 
elevation, or hovering.
  If a helicopter wants to hover over a home in Los Angeles for an 
hour, it can.
  One neighborhood leader told the New York Times this summer that he 
was afraid of complaining too loudly about the noise helicopters create 
because he feared helicopter operators would retaliate, legally, by 
parking over his house.
  City officials and State agencies permit the location of helicopter 
landing pads, but they have absolutely no power to govern what the 
chopper does once it takes off. They can do nothing to discourage 
tourist pilots from flying low and banking hard for the promise of a 
tip.
  Bottom Line: This is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated 
industry.
  This reality is increasingly frustrating to Los Angeles residents who 
are experiencing what many people say is the most intense period of 
helicopter use in memory.
  Every day brings a steady swarm of helicopters buzzing above Southern 
California's bedroom communities in what many officials say are greater 
numbers than ever before.
  There are media helicopters, traffic helicopters, tour helicopters, 
paparazzi and film crew helicopters, corporate helicopters and private 
commuter helicopters.
  Downtown L.A. has a helicopter parking lot in the clouds; helipads 
lie atop nearly every skyscraper.
  But the city's residents may have finally reached their breaking 
point in July, after two consecutive weekends of extreme helicopter 
noise.
  First, the helicopters hovered for hours on end as Prince William and 
his new bride, Kate, settled into Hancock Park, a Los Angeles 
community.
  Then, a week later, the helicopters monitoring the impact of closing 
Interstate 405 were even worse.
  Los Angeles resident Sue Rosen told the New York Times that there 
were, at any given time, at least five helicopters hovering over her 
house watching the 405. ``The noise was nerve-wracking,'' she said. 
``The house was vibrating.''
  The same week, a helicopter thumped loudly above the Hollywood Bowl 
at the exact moment Gustavo Dudamel was leading the Los Angeles 
Philharmonic through the adagio in the overture to Mozart's ``Abduction 
From the Seraglio.''
  Although the Hollywood Bowl has worked aggressively with helicopter 
operators to establish a voluntary no-fly zone during concert nights, 
they have no power to enforce it, and pilots ignore it.
  Noise from helicopters above the Hollywood bowl has been so loud some 
years that the Symphony had to stop playing.
  As one pilot explained: the Hollywood Bowl managers ``are always 
calling the towers telling them to get us away. But they can't do 
anything.'' Only FAA can act.
  Only the FAA has the authority to improve the lives of millions of 
Californians bothered by helicopters by establishing common sense rules 
that increase safety and reduce noise.
  But to date, FAA leaders have ignored this problem. In fact, FAA has 
not even tracked noise and annoyance complaints.
  This bill directs the FAA to take this matter seriously.
  FAA would be required to bring about safer, more pleasant skies above 
Los Angeles in cooperation with the local communities.
  The air above our cities is a common Federal resource that only 
Congress has the power to protect, and today the air above Los Angeles 
is polluted with helicopter noise.
  This is therefore a very important bill for the quality of life in 
America's second largest city.
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and work with us 
to enact it as part of FAA reauthorization.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2019

       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 ``Los Angeles Residential 
     Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS TO REDUCE HELICOPTER NOISE POLLUTION IN 
                   CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

       (a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations 
     for helicopter operations in Los Angeles County, California, 
     that include requirements relating to the flight paths and 
     altitudes associated with such operations to reduce 
     helicopter noise pollution in residential areas, increase 
     safety, and minimize commercial aircraft delays.
       (b) Exemptions.--In prescribing regulations under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall exempt helicopter 
     operations related to emergency, law enforcement, or military 
     activities from the requirements described in that 
     subsection.
       (c) Consultations.--In prescribing regulations under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall make reasonable 
     efforts to consult with local communities and local 
     helicopter operators in order to develop regulations that 
     meet the needs of local communities, helicopter operators, 
     and the Federal Aviation Administration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN.
  S. 2020. A bill to protect all school children against harmful and 
life-threatening seclusion and restraint practices; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my career in public service I 
have been committed to ensuring that children in this country receive a 
quality education. I believe that each child should be educated in a 
supportive, caring, stimulating environment in which they are treated 
as an individual and provided with the tools they need to succeed. I 
also believe no child should be subjected to abusive disciplinary 
strategies or violent behavioral interventions while in school and no 
child should be secluded or unnecessarily restrained. I have fought to 
ensure that all children be treated fairly in schools in this country, 
and as a result I am pleased to introduce today the Keeping All 
Students Safe Act. This important legislation will protect school 
children against ineffective harmful and life-threatening seclusion and 
restraint practices.
  In 2009 the Government Accountability Office conducted a study on 
seclusion and restraint in schools. This study revealed that although 
the Children's Health Act of 2000 amended Title V of the Public Health 
Service Act and regulated the use of seclusion and restraint on 
residents and children in hospital facilities that receive Federal 
funds, there was no Federal law restricting the use of seclusion and 
restraint in schools. In a hearing on May 19, 2009 parents of children 
who were injured or killed as a result of the use of seclusion and 
restraint in schools testified before the House Committee on Education 
and Labor. This testimony from parents highlighted the very real need 
for this legislation. The Keeping All Students Safe Act addresses many 
of the concerns raised at that hearing and by the G.A.O. study. The act 
specifically prohibits seclusion, the use of locked or barred rooms 
where children are left unattended, without supervision. The act also 
prohibits mechanical and chemical restraints, physical restraints that 
are life-threatening, including those that restrict breathing, and 
aversive behavioral interventions that compromise a student's health 
and safety.
  The G.A.O. study also revealed that restraint and seclusion-related 
fatalities and injuries most often involve children with disabilities. 
This vulnerable population must especially be protected from this type 
of abuse, and this legislation seeks to do just that. The Keeping All 
Students Safe Act prohibits the use of all types of restraint and 
seclusion in all schools receiving Federal financial assistance, and 
prevents the use of this type of intervention from being included in 
any child's individualized education plan. This prohibition is included 
in the act because we know that planning for the use of restraint or 
seclusion has been shown to actually increase their use.
  Although the act does allow for the use of restraint in emergency 
situations to prevent serious bodily injury to the student, other 
students in the classroom, or staff, it also requires

[[Page S8740]]

staff to be trained and certified by a State-approved crisis 
intervention training program as to how to approach these types of 
emergency situations. This will help to ensure that in the rare 
instances where restraint is necessary to prevent serious bodily 
injury, all techniques will be administered appropriately and 
unnecessary injury can be avoided.
  Another issue uncovered by the G.A.O. study was that no web site, 
Federal agency, or other entity currently collects comprehensive data 
related to the use of restraint and seclusion in our Nation's schools. 
This Act will remedy this situation, as it requires each State 
educational agency to prepare and submit a report documenting, among 
other information, any instances in which physical restraint was 
imposed upon a student. This will allow us to track the use of 
restraint and to determine if our efforts to decrease it are being 
successful.
  Support for this Act comes from many sectors of the education 
community. Organizations such as Easter Seals, United Cerebral Palsy, 
The Arc of the United States, the National Disabilities Rights Network 
and the Council of Parent and Attorney Advocates all support this 
legislation. In addition, in the House, our colleague, Representative 
George Miller, introduced in April a companion bill with bi-partisan 
support.
  This act is an important step towards protecting all children within 
our Nation's schools from the use of restraint and seclusion. No child 
should be subjected to physical restraint or seclusion as a 
disciplinary technique or behavior intervention strategy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2020

       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 ``Keeping All Students Safe 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Applicable program.--The term ``applicable program'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 400(c)(1) of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221(c)(1)).
       (2) 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, or other qualified 
     health professional acting under the scope of the 
     professional's authority under State law, for the standard 
     treatment of a student's medical or psychiatric condition; 
     and
       (B) administered as prescribed by the licensed physician or 
     other qualified health professional acting under the scope of 
     the professional's authority under State law.
       (3) ESEA definitions.--The terms--
       (A) ``Department'', ``educational service agency'', 
     ``elementary school'', ``local educational agency'', 
     ``parent'', ``secondary school'', ``State'', and ``State 
     educational agency'' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801); and
       (B) ``school resource officer'' and ``school personnel'' 
     have the meanings given such terms in section 4151 of such 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 7161).
       (4) Federal financial assistance.--The term ``Federal 
     financial assistance'' means any grant, loan, contract (other 
     than a procurement contract or a contract of insurance or 
     guaranty), or any other arrangement by which the Department 
     provides or otherwise makes available assistance in the form 
     of--
       (A) funds;
       (B) services of Federal personnel; or
       (C) real and personal property or any interest in or use of 
     such property, including--
       (i) transfers or leases of such property for less than fair 
     market value or for reduced consideration; and
       (ii) proceeds from a subsequent transfer or lease of such 
     property if the Federal share of its fair market value is not 
     returned to the Federal Government.
       (5) Free appropriate public education.--For those students 
     eligible for special education and related services under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.), the term ``free appropriate public education'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 602 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1401).
       (6) Mechanical restraint.--The term ``mechanical 
     restraint''--
       (A) 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''; and
       (B) does not mean devices used by trained school personnel, 
     or used by a student, for the specific and approved 
     therapeutic or safety purposes for which such devices were 
     designed and, if applicable, prescribed, including--
       (i) restraints for medical immobilization;
       (ii) adaptive devices or mechanical supports used to allow 
     greater freedom of mobility than would be possible without 
     the use of such devices or mechanical supports; or
       (iii) vehicle safety restraints when used as intended 
     during the transport of a student in a moving vehicle.
       (7) Physical escort.--The term ``physical escort'' means 
     the temporary touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm, 
     shoulder, waist, hip, or back for the purpose of inducing a 
     student to move to a safe location.
       (8) Physical restraint.--The term ``physical restraint'' 
     means a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the 
     ability of an individual to move the individual's arms, legs, 
     body, or head freely. Such term does not include a physical 
     escort, mechanical restraint, or chemical restraint.
       (9) Positive behavioral interventions and supports.--The 
     term ``positive behavioral interventions and supports''
       (A) means a school-wide systematic approach to embed 
     evidence-based practices and data-driven decisionmaking to 
     improve school climate and culture 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; and
       (B) encompasses a range of systemic and individualized 
     positive strategies to reinforce desired behaviors, diminish 
     reoccurrence of challenging behaviors, and teach appropriate 
     behaviors to students.
       (10) Protection and advocacy system.--The term ``protection 
     and advocacy system'' means a protection and advocacy system 
     established under subtitle C of title I of the Developmental 
     Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 15041 et seq.).
       (11) Seclusion.--The term ``seclusion'' means the isolation 
     of a student in a room, enclosure, or space that is--
       (A) locked; or
       (B) unlocked and the student is prevented from leaving.
       (12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education, and, where appropriate, the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Defense.
       (13) Serious bodily injury.--The term ``serious bodily 
     injury'' has the meaning given the term in section 1365(h) of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       (14) State-approved crisis intervention training program.--
     The term ``State-approved crisis intervention training 
     program'' means a training program approved by a State that, 
     at a minimum, provides training in evidence-based practices 
     shown to be effective--
       (A) in the prevention of the use of physical restraint;
       (B) in keeping both school personnel and students safe in 
     imposing physical restraint in a manner consistent with this 
     Act;
       (C) in the use of data-based decisionmaking and evidence-
     based positive behavioral interventions and supports, safe 
     physical escort, conflict prevention, behavioral antecedents, 
     functional behavioral assessments, de-escalation of 
     challenging behaviors, and conflict management;
       (D) in first aid, including the signs of medical distress, 
     and cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and
       (E) certification for school personnel in the practices and 
     skills described in subparagraphs (A) through (D), which 
     shall be required to be renewed on a periodic basis.
       (15) Student.--The term ``student'' means a student who--
       (A) is enrolled in a public school;
       (B) is enrolled in a private school and is receiving a free 
     appropriate public education at the school under subparagraph 
     (B) or (C) of section 612(a)(10) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(B), (C));
       (C) is enrolled in a Head Start or Early Head Start program 
     supported under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831); or
       (D) receives services under section 619 or part C of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419, 
     1431 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to promote the development of effective intervention 
     and prevention practices that do not use restraints and 
     seclusion;
       (2) to protect all students from physical or mental abuse, 
     aversive behavioral interventions that compromise health and 
     safety, and any restraint imposed for purposes of coercion, 
     discipline or convenience, or as a substitute for appropriate 
     educational or positive behavioral interventions and 
     supports;
       (3) to ensure that staff are safe from the harm that can 
     occur from inexpertly using restraints; and
       (4) to ensure the safety of all students and school 
     personnel and promote positive school culture and climate.

     SEC. 4. MINIMUM STANDARDS; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Each State and local educational agency receiving Federal 
     financial assistance shall have in place policies that are 
     consistent with the following:
       (1) Prohibition of certain action.--School personnel, 
     contractors, and resource officers are prohibited from 
     imposing on any student--

[[Page S8741]]

       (A) seclusion;
       (B) mechanical restraint;
       (C) chemical restraint;
       (D) aversive behavioral interventions that compromise 
     health and safety;
       (E) physical restraint that is life-threatening, including 
     physical restraint that restricts breathing; and
       (F) physical restraint if contraindicated based on the 
     student's disability, health care needs, or medical or 
     psychiatric condition, as documented in a health care 
     directive or medical management plan, a behavior intervention 
     plan, an individualized education program or an 
     individualized family service plan (as defined in section 602 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1401)), or plan developed pursuant to section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), or other relevant 
     record made available to the State or local educational 
     agency.
       (2) Physical restraint.--
       (A) In general.--Physical restraint may only be implemented 
     if--
       (i) the student's behavior poses an immediate danger of 
     serious bodily injury to self or others;
       (ii) the physical restraint does not interfere with the 
     student's ability to communicate in the student's primary 
     language or mode of communication; and
       (iii) less restrictive interventions have been ineffective 
     in stopping the immediate danger of serious bodily injury to 
     the student or others, except in a case of a rare and clearly 
     unavoidable emergency circumstance posing immediate danger of 
     serious bodily injury.
       (B) Least amount of force necessary.--When implementing a 
     physical restraint, staff shall use only the amount of force 
     necessary to protect the student or others from the 
     threatened injury.
       (C) End of physical restraint.--The use of physical 
     restraint shall end when--
       (i) a medical condition occurs putting the student at risk 
     of harm;
       (ii) the student's behavior no longer poses an immediate 
     danger of serious bodily injury to the student or others; or
       (iii) less restrictive interventions would be effective in 
     stopping such immediate danger of serious bodily injury.
       (D) Qualifications of individuals engaging in physical 
     restraint.--School personnel imposing physical restraint in 
     accordance with this subsection shall--
       (i) be trained and certified by a State-approved crisis 
     intervention training program, except in the case of rare and 
     clearly unavoidable emergency circumstances when school 
     personnel trained and certified are not immediately available 
     due to the unforeseeable nature of the emergency 
     circumstance;
       (ii) engage in continuous face-to-face monitoring of the 
     student; and
       (iii) be trained in State and school policies and 
     procedures regarding restraint and seclusion.
       (E) Prohibition on use of physical restraint as planned 
     intervention.--The use of physical restraints as a planned 
     intervention shall not be written into a student's education 
     plan, individual safety plan, plan developed pursuant to 
     section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     794), individualized education program or individualized 
     family service plan (as defined in section 602 of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1401)), or any other planning document for an individual 
     student.
       (3) Other policies.--
       (A) In general.--The State or local educational agency, and 
     each school and educational program served by the State or 
     local educational agency shall--
       (i) establish policies and procedures that ensure school 
     personnel and parents, including private school personnel and 
     parents, are aware of the State, local educational agency, 
     and school's policies and procedures regarding seclusion and 
     restraint;
       (ii) establish policies and procedures to keep all 
     students, including students with the most complex and 
     intensive behavioral needs, and school personnel safe;
       (iii) establish policies and procedures for planning for 
     the appropriate use of restraint in crisis situations in 
     accordance with this Act by a team of professionals trained 
     in accordance with a State-approved crisis intervention 
     training program; and
       (iv) establish policies and procedures to be followed after 
     each incident involving the imposition of physical restraint 
     upon a student, including--

       (I) procedures to provide to the parent of the student, 
     with respect to each such incident--

       (aa) a verbal or electronic communication on the same day 
     as each such incident; and
       (bb) within 24 hours of each such incident, written 
     notification; and

       (II) after the imposition of physical restraint upon a 
     student, procedures to ensure that all school personnel in 
     the proximity of the student immediately before and during 
     the time of the restraint, the parent, the student, 
     appropriate supervisory and administrative staff, and 
     appropriate IEP team members, participate in a debriefing 
     session.

       (B) Debriefing session.--
       (i) In general.--The debriefing session described in 
     subparagraph (A)(iv)(II) shall occur as soon as practicable, 
     but not later than 5 school days following the imposition of 
     physical restraint unless it is delayed by written mutual 
     agreement of the parent and school. Parents shall retain 
     their full legal rights for children under the age of 
     majority concerning participation in the debriefing or other 
     matters.
       (ii) Content of session.--The debriefing session described 
     in subparagraph (A)(iv)(II) shall include--

       (I) identification of antecedents to the physical 
     restraint;
       (II) consideration of relevant information in the student's 
     records, and such information from teachers, other 
     professionals, the parent, and student;
       (III) planning to prevent and reduce reoccurrence of the 
     use of physical restraint, including consideration of the 
     results of any functional behavioral assessments, whether 
     positive behavior plans were implemented with fidelity, 
     recommendations of appropriate positive behavioral 
     interventions and supports to assist personnel responsible 
     for the student's educational plan, the individualized 
     education program for the student, if applicable, and plans 
     providing for reasonable accommodations under section 504 of 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794);
       (IV) a plan to have a functional behavioral assessment 
     conducted, reviewed, or revised by qualified professionals, 
     the parent, and the student; and
       (V) for any student not identified as eligible to receive 
     accommodations under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) or services under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), evidence 
     of such a referral or documentation of the basis for 
     declining to refer the student.

       (iii) Communication by the student.--When a student attends 
     a debriefing session described in subparagraph (A)(iv)(II), 
     information communicated by the student may not be used 
     against the student in any disciplinary, criminal, or civil 
     investigation or proceeding.
       (4) Notification in writing on death or bodily injury.--In 
     a case in which serious bodily injury or death of a student 
     occurs in conjunction with the use of physical restraint or 
     any intervention used to control behavior, there are 
     procedures to notify, in writing, within 24 hours after such 
     injury or death occurs--
       (A) the State educational agency and local educational 
     agency;
       (B) local law enforcement; and
       (C) a protection and advocacy system, in the case of a 
     student who is eligible for services from the protection and 
     advocacy system.
       (5) Prohibition against retaliation.--The State or local 
     educational agency, each school and educational program 
     served by the State or local educational agency, and school 
     personnel of such school or program shall not retaliate 
     against any person for having--
       (A) reported a violation of this section or Federal or 
     State regulations or policies promulgated to carry out this 
     section; or
       (B) provided information regarding a violation of this 
     section or Federal or State regulations or policies 
     promulgated to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. INTERACTION.

       (a) Rule of Construction.--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 
     (including regulations) or to restrict or limit stronger 
     restrictions on the use of restraint, seclusion, or aversives 
     in Federal or State law (including regulations) or in State 
     policies.
       (b) Denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education.--Failure 
     to meet the minimum standards of this Act as applied to an 
     individual child eligible for accommodations developed 
     pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 794) or for education or related services under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.) shall constitute a denial of a free appropriate 
     public education.

     SEC. 6. REPORT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--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 
     following information:
       (1) The total number of incidents in which physical 
     restraint was imposed upon a student in the preceding full 
     academic year.
       (2) The information described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     disaggregated--
       (A) by the total number of incidents in which physical 
     restraint was imposed upon a student--
       (i) that resulted in injury to students or school 
     personnel, or both;
       (ii) that resulted in death; and
       (iii) in which the school personnel imposing physical 
     restraint were not trained and certified as described in 
     section 4(2)(D)(i); and
       (B) by the demographic characteristics of all students upon 
     whom physical restraint was imposed, including--
       (i) the subcategories 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));
       (ii) age; and

[[Page S8742]]

       (iii) disability category.
       (b) Unduplicated Count; Exception.--The disaggregation 
     required under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) be carried out in a manner to ensure an unduplicated 
     count of the total number of incidents in the preceding full 
     academic year in which physical restraint was imposed upon a 
     student; and
       (2) not be required in a case in which the number of 
     students in a category would reveal personally identifiable 
     information about an individual student.

     SEC. 7. GRANT AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--From the amount appropriated under section 
     9, the Secretary may award grants to State educational 
     agencies to assist in--
       (1) establishing, implementing, and enforcing the policies 
     and procedures to meet the minimum standards described in 
     this Act;
       (2) improving State and local capacity to collect and 
     analyze data related to physical restraint; and
       (3) improving school climate and culture by implementing 
     school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports.
       (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.
       (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 State educational agency receiving grant 
     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 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 
     evidence-based strategies, policies, and procedures to reduce 
     and prevent physical restraint in schools, consistent with 
     the minimum standards described in this Act.
       (2) Providing professional development, training, and 
     certification for school personnel to meet such standards.
       (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 1 or more of the following:
       (1) Developing and implementing a high-quality professional 
     development and training program to implement evidence-based 
     systematic approaches to school-wide positive behavioral 
     interventions and 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 
     behavioral interventions and supports, including technical 
     assistance for data-driven decisionmaking related to positive 
     behavioral interventions and supports in the classroom.
       (3) Researching, evaluating, and disseminating high-quality 
     evidence-based programs and activities that implement school-
     wide positive behavioral interventions and supports with 
     fidelity.
       (4) Supporting other local positive behavioral 
     interventions and supports 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 in the schools located in the 
     State, consistent with the minimum standards; and
       (2) submit to the Secretary a report on such progress.

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Use of Remedies.--If a State educational agency fails 
     to comply with the requirements under this Act, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) withhold, in whole or in part, further payments under 
     an applicable program in accordance with section 455 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234d);
       (2) require a State or local 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;
       (3) issue a complaint to compel compliance of the State or 
     local 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); or
       (4) refer the State to the Department of Justice or 
     Department of Education Office of Civil Rights for an 
     investigation.
       (b) Cessation of Withholding of Funds.--Whenever the 
     Secretary determines (whether by certification or other 
     appropriate evidence) that a State or local educational 
     agency that is subject to the withholding of payments under 
     subsection (a)(1) 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 subsection.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act for fiscal year 2012 and each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

                          ____________________