[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.
____________________