Expressing concern regarding the suicide plane attack on Internal Revenue Service employees in Austin, Texas.

First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, for his leadership on this legislation.

The hearing which was held at the Education and Labor Committee was one of the most stunning, amazing, eye-opening events, I think, of this Congress. The bipartisanship which came together after that hearing to craft this legislation, again, I think is a testament to your leadership and the bipartisanship that you have created on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1998, The Hartford Courant won a Pulitzer Prize for a four-part investigation of seclusion and restraint all across the country. The name of the series was ``A Nationwide Pattern of Death,'' which I'd like to offer a copy of for the Record, and which, again, in chapter and verse, laid out the shocking, uneven application of this type of force against America's schoolchildren. In Connecticut, it actually resulted in action in terms of legislation which was put into place. Many of the minimum standards which are included in the legislation we're voting on today were incorporated into that measure. But, clearly, as a Nation, we have much more work to be done.

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

A Nationwide Pattern of Death

(By Eric Weiss)

Roshelle Clayborne pleaded for her life.

Slammed face-down on the floor, Clayborne's arms were

yanked across her chest, her wrists gripped from behind by a

mental health aide.

I can't breathe, the 16-year-old gasped.

Her last words were ignored.

A syringe delivered 50 milligrams of Thorazine into her

body and, with eight staffers watching, Clayborne became,

suddenly, still. Blood trickled from the corner of her mouth

as she lost control of her bodily functions. Her limp body

was rolled into a blanket and dumped in an 8-by-10-foot room

used to seclude dangerous patients at the Laurel Ridge

Residential Treatment Center in San Antonio, Texas.

The door clicked behind her.

No one watched her die.

But Roshelle Clayborne is not alone. Across the country,

hundreds of patients have died after being restrained in

psychiatric and mental retardation facilities, many of them

in strikingly similar circumstances, a Courant investigation

has found.

Those who died were disproportionately young. They entered

our health care system as troubled children. They left in

coffins.

All of them died at the hands of those who are supposed to

protect, in places intended to give sanctuary.

If Roshelle Clayborne's death last summer was not an

isolated incident, neither were the recent deaths of

Connecticut's Andrew McClain or Robert Rollins.

A 50-state survey by The Courant, the first of its kind

ever conducted, has confirmed 142 deaths during or shortly

after restraint or seclusion in the past decade. The survey

focused on mental health and mental retardation facilities

and group homes nationwide.

But because many of these cases go unreported, the actual

number of deaths during or after restraint is many times

higher.

Between 50 and 150 such deaths occur every year across the

country, according to a statistical estimate commissioned by

The Courant and conducted by a research specialist at the

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

That's one to three deaths every week, 500 to 1,500 in the

past decade, the study shows.

``It's going on all around the country,'' said Dr. Jack

Zusman, a psychiatrist and author of a book on restraint

policy.

The nationwide trail of death leads from a 6-year-old boy

in California to a 45-year-old mother of four in Utah, from a

private treatment center in the deserts of Arizona to a

public psychiatric hospital in the pastures of Wisconsin.

In some cases, patients died in ways and for reasons that

defy common sense: a towel wrapped around the mouth of a 16-

year-old boy; a 15-year-old girl wrestled to the ground after

she wouldn't give up a family photograph.

Many of the actions would land a parent in jail, yet

staffers and facilities were rarely punished.

``I raised my child for 17 years and I never had to

restrain her, so I don't know what gave them the right to do

it,'' said Barbara Young, whose daughter Kelly died in the

Brisbane Child Treatment Center in New Jersey.

The pattern revealed by The Courant has gone either

unobserved or willfully ignored by regulators, by health

officials, by the legal system.

The federal government--which closely monitors the size of

eggs--does not collect data on how many patients are killed

by a procedure that is used every day in psychiatric and

mental retardation facilities across the country.

Neither do state regulators, academics or accreditation

agencies.

``Right now we don't have those numbers,'' said Ken August

of the California Department of Health Services, ``and we

don't have a way to get at them.''

The regulators don't ask, and the hospitals don't tell.

As more patients with mental disabilities are moved from

public institutions into smaller, mostly private facilities,

the need for stronger oversight and uniform standards is

greater than ever.

``Patients increasingly are not in hospitals but in

contract facilities where no one has the vaguest idea of what

is going on,'' said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a nationally

prominent psychiatrist, author and critic of the mental

health care system.

Because nobody is tracking these tragedies, many restraint-

related deaths go unreported not only to the government, but

sometimes to the families themselves.

``There is always some reticence on reporting problems

because of the litigious nature of society,'' acknowledged

Dr. Donald M. Nielsen, a senior vice president of the

American Hospital Association. ``I think the question is not

one of reporting, but making sure there are systems in place

to prevent these deaths.''

Typically, though, hospitals dismiss restraint-related

deaths as unfortunate flukes, not as a systemic issue. After

all, they say, these patients are troubled, ill and sometimes

violent.

The facility where Roshelle Clayborne died insists her

death had nothing to do with the restraint. Officials there

say it was a heart condition that killed the 16-year-old on

Aug. 18, 1997.

Bexar County Medical Examiner Vincent DiMaio ruled that

Clayborne died of natural causes, saying that restraint use

was a separate ``clinical issue.''

But that, too, is typical in restraint cases. Medical

examiners rarely connect the circumstances of the restraint

to the physical cause of death, making these cases impossible

to track through death certificates.

The explanations don't wash with Clayborne's grandmother.

``I'll picture her lying on that floor until the day I

die,'' Charlene Miles said. ``Roshelle had her share of

problems, but good God, no one deserves to die like that.''

With nobody tracking, nobody telling, nobody watching, the

same deadly errors are allowed to occur again and again.

Of the 142 restraint-related deaths confirmed by The

Courant's investigation:

Twenty-three people died after being restrained in face-

down floor holds.

Another 20 died after they were tied up in leather wrist

and ankle cuffs or vests, and ignored for hours.

Causes of death could be confirmed in 125 cases. Of those

patients, 33 percent died of asphyxia, another 26 percent

died of cardiac-related causes.

Ages could be confirmed in 114 cases. More than 26 percent

of those were children--nearly twice the proportion they

constitute in mental health institutions.

Many of the victims were so mentally or physically impaired

they could not fend for themselves. Others had to be

restrained after they erupted violently, without warning and

for little reason.

Caring for these patients is a difficult and dangerous job,

even for the best-trained workers. Staffers can suddenly find

themselves the target of a thrown chair, a punch, a bite from

an HIV-positive patient.

Yet the great tragedy is that many of the deaths could have

been prevented by setting

standards that are neither costly nor difficult: better

training in restraint use; constant or frequent monitoring of

patients in restraints; the banning of dangerous techniques

such as face-down floor holds; CPR training for all direct-

care workers.

``When you look at the statistics and realize there's a

pattern, you need to start finding out why,'' said Dr. Rod

Munoz, president of the American Psychiatric Association,

when told of The Courant's findings. ``We have to take

action.''

Mental health providers, who treat more than 9 million

patients a year at an annual cost of more than $30 billion,

judge themselves by the humanity of their care. So the misuse

of restraints--and the contributing factors, such as poor

training and staffing--offers a disturbing window into the

overall quality of the nation's mental health system.

For their part, health care officials say restraints are

used less frequently and more compassionately than ever

before.

``When it comes to restraints, the public has a picture of

medieval things, chains and dungeons,'' said Dr. Kenneth

Marcus, psychiatrist in chief at Connecticut Valley Hospital

in Middletown. ``But it really isn't. Restraints are used to

physically stabilize patients, to prevent them from being

assaultive or hurting themselves.''

But in case after case reviewed by The Courant, court and

medical documents show that restraints are still used far too

often and for all the wrong reasons: for discipline, for

punishment, for the convenience of staff.

``As a nation we get all up in arms reading about human

rights issues on the other side of the world, but there are

some basic human rights issues that need attention right here

at our back door,'' said Jean Allen, the adoptive mother of

Tristan Sovern, a North Carolina teen who died after aides

wrapped a towel and bed sheet around his head.

Others have a simple explanation for the lack of attention

paid to deaths in mental health facilities.

``These are the most devalued, disenfranchised people that

you can imagine,'' said Ron Honberg, director of legal

affairs for the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. ``They

are so out of sight, so out of mind, so devoid of rights,

really. Who cares about them anyway?''

Few seemed to care much about Roshelle Clayborne at Laurel

Ridge, where she was known as a ``hell raiser.''

But Clayborne had made one close friendship--with her

roommate, Lisa Allen. Allen remembers showing Clayborne how

to throw a football during afternoon recess on that summer

afternoon in 1997.

``She just couldn't seem to get it right and she was

getting more and more frustrated. But I told her it was OK,

we'd try again tomorrow,'' said Allen, who has since rejoined

her family in Indiana.

Within three hours, Clayborne was dead.

She had attacked staff members with pencils. And staffers

had a routine for hell raisers.

``This is the way we do it with Roshelle,'' a worker later

told state regulators. ``Boom, boom, boom: [medications] and

restraints and seclusion.''

After she was restrained, Roshelle Clayborne lay in her own

waste and vomit for five minutes before anyone noticed she

hadn't moved. Three staffers tried in vain to find a pulse.

Two went looking for a ventilation mask and oxygen bag,

emergency equipment they never found.

During all this time, no one started CPR.

``It wouldn't have worked anyway,'' Vanessa Lewis, the

licensed vocational nurse on duty, later declared to state

regulators.

By the time a registered nurse arrived and began CPR, it

was too late. Clayborne never revived.

In their final report on Clayborne's death, Texas state

regulators cited Laurel Ridge for five serious violations and

found staff failed to protect her health and safety during

the restraint. They recommended Laurel Ridge be closed.

Instead, the state placed Laurel Ridge on a one-year

probation in February and the center remains open for

business. In a prepared statement, Laurel Ridge said it has

complied with the state's concerns--and it pointed out the

difficulty in treating someone with Clayborne's background.

``Roshelle Clayborne, a ward of the state, had a very

troubled and extensive psychiatric history, which is why

Laurel Ridge was chosen to treat her,'' the statement said.

``Roshelle's death was a tragic event and we empathize with

the family.''

With no criminal prosecution and little regulatory action,

the Clayborne family is now suing in civil court. The Austin

chapter of the NAACP and the private watchdog group Citizens

Human Rights Commission of Texas are asking for a federal

civil rights investigation into the death of Clayborne.

Medications and restraint and seclusion.

Clayborne's friend, Lisa Allen, knew the routine well, too.

For six years, Allen, now 18, lived in mental health

facilities in Indiana and Texas, where her explosive

personality would often boil over and land her in trouble.

By her own estimate, Allen was restrained ``thousands'' of

times and she bears the scars to prove it: a mark on her knee

from a rug burn when she was restrained on a carpet; the loss

of part of a birthmark on her forehead when she was slammed

against a concrete wall.

Exactly two weeks after Roshelle Clayborne's death, Lisa

Allen found herself in the same position as her friend.

The same aide had pinned her arms across her chest.

Thorazine was pumped into her system. She was deposited in

the seclusion room.

``It felt like my lungs were being squished together,''

Allen said.

But Lisa Allen was one of the lucky ones.

She survived.

The fact of the matter is that today, 19 States have no laws or regulations related to the use of seclusion or restraints in school. Seven States place some restrictions on restraint, but do not regulate seclusions. That's within the 31 that was referred to by Mr. Kline. Seventeen States require that selected staff receive training before being permitted to restrain children. The rest do not. Thirteen States require schools to obtain consent prior to foreseeable or nonemergency physical restraints, while 19 require parents to be notified afterwards. Only two States require annual reporting on the use of restraints. Eight States specifically prohibit the use of prone restraints or restraints that impede a child's ability to breathe.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as a government, as a Nation that provides massive amounts of education dollars across the country, we would never countenance racial discrimination or gender discrimination by any institutions that receive those funds.

I don't think it's too much to say that we should not allow these types of practices which, in some instances, result in, as the chairman said, actual deaths and traumatic lifelong injuries, to be countenanced by the American taxpayer. This measure establishes minimum standards. It establishes transparency. It gives us as a country the opportunity to allow States to take leadership in terms of implementing their own rules and regulations. But it says as a Nation we are not going to tolerate this type of behavior, of which schools themselves are mandated reporters. If it was happening in a child's home, and as a teacher became aware of it, they would be required by law to report it to child protection agencies as a result of Federal law. We can do at least as much for the school environment which children go to every day in this country.

I urge a strong, powerful bipartisan vote in support of this legislation so that we can raise our children to a new level as they go to school every day.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1126, I call up the bill (H.R. 4247) to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4247.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation that will make our classrooms safer for our children and our teachers. But first I would like to tell the story of Cedric. This is a picture of Cedric, who was a young man from Killeen, Texas, who died in his classroom when he was just 14 years of age.

Cedric was living with a foster family after an early childhood filled with abuse. Among other things, his biological family had neglected him by denying him food. Despite knowing this, on the morning he died, Cedric's teacher punished him for refusing to do his work by delaying his lunch for hours. When Cedric tried to leave his classroom to find food, his teacher put him face down in restraint and sat on him in front of his classmates. He repeatedly cried out that he could not breathe. He died minutes later on the classroom floor.

Now I would like to tell you the story of Paige. Paige was a bright, energetic, and happy young girl who started a new school in Cupertino, California. But Paige, who has Asperger's Syndrome, came home from her school the first week with bruises complaining that her teacher hurt her.

Paige's parents confronted the teacher, who denied causing the bruising. She did admit to restraining Paige for simply wiggling a loose tooth. Her parents were shocked to learn later that the teacher had lied and that she had actually held Paige face down and sat on her. Sitting on a 7-year-old for wiggling a loose tooth. Paige barely weighed 40 pounds.

Over the course of many months, Paige was repeatedly abused and injured during restraint incidents until her parents finally pulled her out of the school. She survived, but she still bears the emotional scars of this abuse.

Cedric's and Paige's stories are not isolated incidents in America's schools today. Last May, the Government Accountability Office told our committee about the shocking wave of abuse of children in our public and private schools. This abuse was happening at the hands of untrained school staff who were misusing restraint and seclusion.

Hundreds of students across the U.S. have been victims of this abuse. These victims include students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Many of these victims were children as young as 3 and 4 years of age. In some cases, children died.

Restraint and seclusion are complicated practices. They are emergency interventions that should be used only as a last resort and only by trained professionals. But GAO found that too often these techniques are being used in schools under the guise of discipline or convenience.

Last year, in my home State of California, there were more than 14,300 cases of seclusion, restraint, and other ``emergency interventions.'' We don't know how many of these cases were actual emergencies.

We have Federal laws in place to prevent these types of abuses from happening in hospitals and other community-based facilities that receive Federal funding, but currently there are no Federal laws on the books to protect children from these abuses in the schools, where they spend most of their time.

Without a Federal standard, State policies and oversight, they vary widely, leaving children vulnerable. Of the 31 States that have established some law or regulation, many are not comprehensive in approach and several only address restraint or address seclusion, not necessarily both.

For example, in one State there are rules only for children enrolled in pre-K. In another, only children with autism are protected. In yet another example, only residential schools are covered. Many States allow restraints or seclusion in nonemergency situations, simply to protect property or to maintain order. No child should be subject to these extreme interventions for simple noncompliance, like the 7-year- old who died after being restrained for blowing bubbles in her milk.

Mr. Speaker, when these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual victim who suffers. It hurts their classmates who witness these traumatizing events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and staff who are trying to give students a quality education. It's a nightmare for everyone involved. We are here today to try and end this nightmare. We are here today to make sure that no other children suffer the same fate as Cedric and Paige. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will ensure that all children are safe and protected in schools.

This bill takes a balanced approach to addressing a very serious problem. For the first time, it will establish minimum safety standards for schools, similar to Federal protections in place for children in other facilities. Under this legislation, physical restraint and seclusion can only be used to stop imminent danger of injury. The bill prohibits mechanical restraints, such as strapping children to their chairs or duct-taping parts of their bodies, and any restraint that restricts their breathing. It also prohibits chemical restraints, using medication to control behavior without a doctor's prescription. The bill also will require students to notify parents after a restraint or seclusion incident so that parents don't learn about these abuses from whistle-blowing teachers or from their own children's bruises.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that teachers play the single most important role in helping students grow, thrive, and succeed. Teachers support this bill because it focuses on keeping both students and staff safe, giving teachers the support they need do their jobs. It asks States to ensure that enough personnel are properly trained to keep both students and staff safe and encourages the schools to implement positive approaches to managing these behavioral issues.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud that we worked on this legislation in a bipartisan way. I want to thank Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers for her leadership, her diligence, her persuasion, and her hard work in fashioning this legislation. I would also like to thank the National Disability Rights Network for bringing this abuse to our attention; the National School Boards Association; and more than a hundred other organizations for their support.

Everyone in this Chamber can agree that nothing is more important than keeping our children safe. It's time to try to end this abuse. I believe that this legislation will go a long way in setting the standard and showing States the way, and hopefully in the next 2 years the States will develop their own standards that at least meet these minimum standards of not depriving these children of the cushion of safety that they are entitled to and that their parents and family expect when they go to school on a daily basis.

So I would like to once again remind us of what happened to Cedric and to Paige at their age; their vulnerabilities, their history, and what happened to them one day when they went to school.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I thank the gentlewoman from Washington. I don't believe she was in the Chamber at that time, but I want to again thank her, while she is here, for all of her work and all of her effort to bring this bill to the floor. I enjoyed working with her.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

If I might just yield to myself to respond to the inquiry. We have Mr. Langevin who is waiting to speak, and I think Mrs. McCarthy is on her way.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the argument against this legislation is that somehow 31 States have taken care of this problem and that we all share the concern. The facts are that 31 States have not taken care of this problem. As we pointed out, in a number of States, it only goes to one particular population in that school, in that setting, or to an age bracket, or to just reporting, what have you. These are not laws that are designed to protect these children in this situation.

Illinois has been cited. Illinois is very close to what you would like to see have happen, and they have spent a lot of effort trying to do that.

But in my own State, we talk about the 14,000. When you ask the person responsible for this, they say, We don't use the data. So is that sufficient for Members of Congress? California has ``addressed the problem''? Yes, they collect data that they refuse to characterize or do anything else with.

Paige could have been in that data. She could have been one of those 14,000.

So I think we have to understand. I appreciate there is a difference here about the approach. But as Mr. Courtney pointed out, in 1998 we had a national discussion, an expose of many of the same behaviors that are going on today, it is 12 years later, and children are still being abused, dramatically abused. Restraint and seclusion is being dramatically misused. It is being used by people who don't know what to do in that situation. They have not been trained.

I find it interesting that the school boards who have to live with this problem on an everyday basis support this legislation. The classroom teachers who have to live with this on an everyday basis support this legislation. People who are on the front lines want this legislation passed because it will bring them greater understanding, greater knowledge, greater skill, and greater training to deal in these situations. An understanding, yes, there are situations where, in an emergency case, where there is a danger to the individual student or to others, that this may be proper. But it also takes training to understand that and how you use it.

I refuse to believe that was the 14,000 incidents in California, that each one of those was an emergency, dangerous

situation. They may say it is an emergency, but in California they don't describe what an emergency is. So compliance with current law all across this country is not a big deal. It is not doing much for the families of these children. It is not doing much to protect these children.

That is why we move. We move with some minimum standards about taping children, mechanical restraints of children, about secluding very young children in darkness for hours at a time, maybe repeatedly for days on end. You should not be able to do that.

We have other investigations in the committee where the simple withdrawal of water has killed children because of dehydration. So we ought not to withdraw water here. We ought to not withdraw food as a means of punishment. We ought not deny them the use of the bathroom facilities. We ought not have them in a situation where they are soiling themselves in front of their classmates, where they are humiliated, where circles are drawn around their chair and they sit in the classroom tied down by duct tape, while they are humiliated and pointed at by the teacher. These are 4- and 5- and 6-year-old kids. None of us would stand for this with our children or our grandchildren, not for a minute. But many of these parents are never notified that this is happening to their children. Many of the grandparents are never notified that this is happening to a child that they were caring for. Many of the foster parents are never notified that their children are in danger, in peril. Think about it. Just put the vision of your child, your grandchild, your next-door neighbor child in this picture.

And you want to say, We have addressed it; the States have addressed it; there is no role for the Federal Government. Well, who the hell is going to step in and protect these children? They can't do it themselves.

This may not be perfect, but we ought to take this step to put us on record that we are prepared to do something to end this practice, this abuse, this torture, of very young children, in many instances children with disabilities, children who are unable to communicate in an effective fashion. Just think about that. Think about your family. You don't have to take this to the abstract. These children cannot defend themselves against this practice, and their parents can't speak for them if they don't know. These children can't control themselves if they are denied the use of a bathroom facility.

That is what this legislation is about. It is about whether or not we are going to take this step, whether or not this step is important, and I do not believe that you can nullify this by suggesting that somehow because 31 States have done something, that this problem need not be addressed, need not have our attention. We cannot do this to these children and these families.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The manager's amendment makes minor technical corrections and clarifications. It renames the bill Keeping All Students Safe Act. The amendment adds clarifying language to the definition of ``chemical restraint'' to exclude medications prescribed and administered by qualified health professionals acting under State law. It fixes the definition of ``school'' to include all schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the local educational agency. It clarifies language describing ``State-approved crisis intervention training program,'' and the amendment requires States to consult with private school officials on determining that a sufficient number of personnel are trained to meet the needs of the student population.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment. Obviously, I am a very strong believer in this legislation and the terrible situation that we are trying to rectify, and I would hope and I think with the gentleman's language we can hopefully be assured that these grants would be based upon a healthy competition and would be based upon the request of the States for technical assistance and for other assistance in dealing with this legislation. So I support the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4247, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that the incidents uncovered by the GAO are unacceptable. No child should be put in physical danger by the use of seclusion or restraints in school. The tragic stories just related by the chairman of Cedric and Paige are unacceptable everywhere.

In each of the cases reviewed by the GAO, there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. In other words, everyone agrees that what happened is simply wrong. We do not need a change in Federal law for such behavior to be condemned. Sometimes the most powerful tool we have as elected officials is the bully pulpit, and Chairman Miller and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers have certainly availed themselves of it. They have worked hard to call national attention to the misuse of seclusion and restraints in our schools.

States clearly recognize the need to proactively limit the use of these disciplinary tools. Today, 31 States have policies and procedures in place to govern when and how seclusion or restraint techniques may or may not be used. Another 15 States will have such protections in place in the near future. Many, many independent school districts and school boards have such procedures in place.

The question today is: Who is best equipped to create and enforce those

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

I will include the letter from the Council of the Great City Schools in the Record, along with letters from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council for American Private Education, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

American Association of School

Administrators,

Arlington, VA, March 2, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The American Association of School

Administrators, representing more than 13,000 school

administrators and local educational leaders, would like to

express serious concerns with HR 4247, the Preventing Harmful

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act, which is expected to

be considered in the next few days. We ask that the voices of

rank-and-file teachers, principals, superintendents and

school board members be heard and that HR 4247, as reported

from Committee, be defeated.

The need to establish these particular federal regulations

for seclusion and restraint has not been established by

objective, carefully gathered and analyzed data. For example,

the report by the National Disability Rights Network upon

which HR 4247 partially relies mixes data from regular public

schools with data from schools for children with serious

behavioral disorders and institutions for students who are

regularly violent. Further, the incidents took place over an

unknown period of time--perhaps a decade or more. It seems to

us that most of those cases took place in settings serving

either the small percentage of students with serious behavior

disorders or the even smaller percentage of students who are

a violent danger to themselves or others. Finally, the NDN

report counts incidents of seclusion and restraint without

noting whether those events took place over a decade or some

other time period.

The Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of

Education is preparing to gather more objective information

this coming school year. We urge the House to await

objective, uniformly reported and analyzed data from OCR

before acting. Based on experience, we are sure that a

student in a regular public school is extremely unlikely to

be physically harmed, secluded in a windowless room, taped to

a chair or handcuffed to a fence by a teacher or

administrator. Just how unlikely such events are is unknown

because objective, uniformly gathered and analyzed data

simply are not available.

In addition, the report recently released by the U.S.

Department of Education states that 31 states currently have

policies in place to oversee the use of seclusion and

restraint and 15 states are in the process of adopting

policies and protections. Given this massive state action,

AASA questions the need for federal involvement on this

issue.

Reviews of HR 4247 by state-based teacher, administrator

and school board associations have identified a number of

serious flaws, which they have raised to their congressional

delegations, but so far their voices have not been included

in the discussions.

HR 4247 includes a prohibition against including seclusion

and restraint in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or

behavioral plan. The IEP and behavioral plans are the

communication platform for parents and school staff to

discuss the students' needs and corresponding school

interventions. Prohibiting the inclusion of seclusion and

restraint in the IEP or behavioral plans where past behavior

clearly indicates a need will only lead to further conflicts

and misunderstandings between parents and school staff.

The Protection and Advocacy agencies are given broad

undefined authority to enforce the new law. P&A agencies have

long monitored and investigated on behalf of disabled

students, but enforcement is new. Enforcement of federal law

has been the sole responsibility of state or federal

agencies. A bigger problem for school systems is that the

meaning of enforcement is undefined. For example, does the

enforcement authority permit P&A staff to enter schools

without checking in with appropriate school personnel? Arrest

authority? Authority to change school policy on the spot?

HR 4247's prohibition against mechanical restraints is too

broad and could prevent appropriate use of restraints in

emergency situations where students must be restrained to

protect themselves and others.

This legislation applies to both the special education and

regular education populations, and thus raises mandate

training and reporting costs for school districts. These

increased fiscal and operational burdens are accompanied by

minuscule authorization and few prospects for an

appropriation. A huge, new, unfunded mandate is difficult to

justify at a time when schools are cutting teaching staff and

stretching resources to balance budgets.

HR 4247 also prescribes a debriefing session for school

personnel and parents within 72 hours of the use of seclusion

or restraint, to address documentation of the antecedents to

the restraint or seclusion and prevention planning (although

it cannot involve the IEP). School staff are already over-

committed in their daily schedules. Imposing short, mandatory

timelines for extensive meetings will likely result in the

cancellation of other instructional commitments or missed

timelines and new litigation.

Finally, the tone of HR 4247 is relentlessly negative

toward teachers and administrators. This tone indicting all

teachers and administrators is unwarranted by plain

observation, is unsupported by any credible data and should

be eliminated. AASA is certain that every member of the House

knows at least one teacher or administrator who has dedicated

his or her professional life to the education and development

of children and who has never restrained or secluded a single

student, even if his or her career spanned over 40 years.

Thank you for your consideration. If there are any

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me for further

discussion of this important issue.

Yours truly,

Dan Domenech,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, I would like to yield myself a minute.

My friend from Illinois was just here. I'm sorry that he left. He underscored for me one of the many problems with this legislation. It turns out that Illinois is one of those States that actually has a very strong seclusion and restraint law. They passed it in 2001. It went into effect in 2002; and in 2006, there was an incident, one of those reported by the GAO, where a teacher restricted a child inappropriately. The teacher was prosecuted, found guilty, and yet I find it interesting that even today, or the last look that we had at this, she still has a teacher's certificate to be a substitute teacher in Illinois, something which this bill doesn't address either. We need to get these teachers out of the teaching business.

It just makes a point that when you pass a law, it doesn't automatically keep kids safe. You have got to enforce that law. You've got to educate folks, and you've got to have people locally take an active interest.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

I will be yielding to Mr. Souder momentarily, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I wanted to touch on a couple of things that we have talked about in the course of this debate that I find to be interesting. We have heard an appeal from one of the Members here on the floor, I think it was the gentleman from Illinois, who said he was applauding this evidence-based approach. And yet we have heard other Members say we have insufficient data. I must admit that I fall in the latter category. We really don't know the extent of the situation.

We have heard the numbers quoted. California, for example, is quoted as having 14,000 incidents. We really don't know what is in those 14,000. These include emergency interventions. So we don't know if that's the case of a teacher breaking up a fight or stopping an argument. It is certainly not 14,000 cases of taping children to their chairs, and I don't think anybody in this body believes that is the case.

But the point is we don't know. We don't know, and yet we are using numbers as though they were gospel.

Look, on this issue let's start with what we agree on. We agree students and teachers should be safe at school. We agree children with disabilities are especially vulnerable because they may struggle with behavioral and communication problems that are difficult for teachers to control. As a result, children with disabilities have been more likely to be restrained or placed in seclusion when, in many cases, positive behavioral interventions could be much more successful and pose a lower risk to students.

We also agree that teachers must be able to protect students with serious behavioral problems from injuring themselves or their classmates or their teachers.

The only real disagreement, outside some dispute over the data and the evidence and the GAO report, and I find the GAO report particularly interesting because it cited 10 incidents of really egregious behavior in seclusion and restraint. Of course, one of those incidents was 18 years ago, two were 12 years ago, and the most recent was 4 years ago. It just seems to me, when we are going to enact this kind of legislation, this sort of Federal overreach, in my judgment, we ought to have better data.

So our only real disagreement is who should address the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. I believe States and local school districts have an obligation to keep their classrooms safe. I have seen real progress from the 46 States that have or will soon have their own policies to train teachers on how to handle difficult behavior and to ensure seclusion or restraints are only used to protect children from harming themselves or others.

I believe the Federal Government has historically limited its reach into private schools, and it would be a mistake to start applying new Federal mandates to independent schools that do not receive taxpayer funding. I also believe that we do not protect schools by empowering trial lawyers.

For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose H.R. 4247. Through hearings and public outreach, Members of Congress have successfully spurred a national dialogue about the dangers of these strategies for controlling student behavior. That dialogue is a positive step, as is the action it has prompted at the State and local level. Let's not discard the work of these States and districts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with the chairman. This is a technical amendment. It changes the short title of the bill and some other technical and clarifying changes to the bill. While I still cannot support the underlying bill, we have no objection to this. I will vote for it and encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Louisiana for their important comments. The recent suicide attack in my hometown of Austin, Texas, on an IRS building was a horrible tragedy. I authored this resolution to honor those who were victims, to recognize the courage that was displayed by so many that day, and to condemn such cowardly acts of violence.

Seeing that building aflame after this premeditated suicide attack which was, in the words of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell, ``perpetrated in rage without any regard for the sanctity of human life,'' I was just amazed that not more of our neighbors were harmed. In large measure, this was the result of the valor and professionalism amidst the flames and the chaos of the Federal workers, others who came upon the scene, and our local first responders.

Leaders of these well-trained professionals who rose to the call of duty that day include our Austin Police Chief, Art Acevedo; our Fire Chief, Rhoda Mae Kerr; our EMS Director, Ernie Rodriguez; and Travis County HAZMAT Chief, Gary Warren who, with the Westlake Fire Department, was fortunately near the site of the attack and raced into action. And I know

that the neighboring Grace Covenant Church has already offered support and solace for many following the attack.

This resolution also recognizes Robin De Haven. Robin, an Iraqi veteran and a technician with Binswanger Glass, was driving by and was one of the first to rush to the scene as he saw the attack. Without a moment's hesitation, he stopped his truck, got out his ladder, and despite the fire, the heat, the smoke and the chaos, he rescued employees from the second floor of the building.

As the saying goes, ``it's easy to be brave from a distance,'' but Robin showed his bravery close up, very close up, and in doing so, he helped many people escape injury. Last week he became the first Austinite to receive a ``challenge coin,'' recognizing his quick thinking and courage from all three of the city's public safety organizations.

There is the spirit and courage of the Austin IRS employees, whose calm and orderly evacuation saved lives. They were recognized by the prompt visit of IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and Colleen Kelley, the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, who heard firsthand what these employees experienced.

Frankly, all in the building that day were heroes, and we cannot know the names of all who acted with courage. But a few stories that were shared with me by the employees I think are typical: Alfredo Valdespino, who guided employees out of the building and then ran back inside to offer more help. Also returning to help a missing colleague was Richard Lee. David Irving carried a disabled coworker down the stairs and out of the building on his back. Armando Valdez, Jr., and Deborah Fleming yelled to other employees, ``Follow my voice,'' as they guided them away from falling through the gaping holes in the floor. Andrew Jacobson and Morgan Johnson broke out a window and allowed employees to climb out through Robin De Haven's ladder.

That tragic day, even as work continued at the scene, however, after this deadly assault on Federal employees, a Facebook page was created that lauded the killer. This response to violence is deplorable. Intense debate as we have here on this floor about our Tax Code is appropriate. That's what we do here in Congress and in gatherings across the country. There are many tax provisions that I have personally criticized in the strongest terms, and at times I have also criticized the way the IRS has administered the Tax Code. But to demonize and harm public servants who are serving our country at the IRS while praising a murderer or anyone else who would do them harm is outrageous.

Nor is such misconduct unique to this tragedy. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of threats against IRS employees are on the rise. Just this week, the Austin American-Statesman reported about another local agent's necessary care in opening mail filled with razor blades and pushpins, about last year's phony anthrax attack on another Austin IRS building and an earlier plot to blow up another Austin IRS building. Each year, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which oversees the IRS, investigates more than 900 threats against IRS employees, including violence.

Let me be clear: I'm not here today to glorify the IRS. I'm here to condemn unequivocally through this resolution those who would glorify violence against our public employees who are properly conducting their duties in service to our Nation.

There are many who will long bear the emotional scars from this attack, and some still cope with the physical burdens. I want especially to recognize Shane Hill, a 5-year investigator with the Texas State Comptroller's office who happened to be in the building that day and now with his family faces a very long physical recovery.

Vernon Hunter has been mentioned. Known by his friends as Vern, he lost his life in this senseless attack. At his funeral last Friday, he was described as the type of man who always woke up with a smile, always wanted to help others, and as a Texan, never left home without his cowboy hat. Coming from a family dedicated to uniformed service, he served in the U.S. Army for over two decades, which included two tours of duty in Vietnam. His four brothers and a son all served in the United States military, as does his son-in-law today who is actively serving in the United States Navy. After retiring from the Army, he continued that service to his country for almost three decades with the Internal Revenue Service, where his wife Valerie has also worked.

The gentleman from Georgia is a particularly appropriate person to present this resolution today because after living through a life of segregation in South Carolina, Vern was present that day, John Lewis, when you along with Dr. Martin Luther King spoke down The Mall here in the famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech and the celebration at the Lincoln Memorial. His dream, he saw in his service to his country through the Army and through the Internal Revenue Service, was a dream rooted in freedom and justice; and 45 years after that speech, Vernon was able to witness America's progress when he himself served as a delegate for President Obama.

Dr. Martin Luther King once said: ``The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important.'' Because Vern Hunter cared enough to make a difference, Austin and this Nation that he loved so much and served his whole life was made better. In a remarkable statement at a moment of such great pain, the Hunter family expressed its personal forgiveness of the suicide attacker and expressed sympathy for the attacker's family. These moving words of peace reflect the power of their own faith and the strength of spirit, both of the Hunter family and the Greater Mount Zion Baptist Church family, led by Reverend Gaylon Clark. Vern, his life and his family are a testament about what is best in our country. In him, we have lost a true American hero.

Today I respectfully ask that my colleagues join in adopting this resolution to honor him, the other victims, the employees, and the rescuers and to renounce violence against those who are serving our country.

I thank both gentlemen. I want to applaud the remarks of my colleague Mr. McCaul, both the remarks that he made here today and the remarks that he made on the afternoon of this tragedy, under what I know was a very stressful situation.

I believe that we share a common purpose here. No one was looking to see which party, a member of the IRS was that day, or what part of the City of Austin. It affected our entire community. I had not used the term earlier, but I must say I also agree with his conclusion that like the much larger-scale tragedy in Oklahoma City, this was an act of domestic terrorism. But let's not quibble over the terms; it was the harm that was done and the promotion of that harm and violence. There is nothing noble about terror. Any expression to the contrary deserves our condemnation.

As I read the statement that the pilot put up on his website, which was a rather confusing diatribe, I noticed particularly his quotation, ``violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer,'' and in response almost immediately, some folks set up a Facebook page and called themselves ``fans'' of this suicide attacker. Sporting a ``Don't Tread on Me'' flag, the so-called ``fan page'' to the murderer misappropriated Thomas Jefferson's famous words that ``the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'' This resolution soundly rejects, in a bipartisan manner, such appalling tributes.

The patriots were working in the building that day, not working to kill public servants. The heroes were people like Vern Hunter who were doing their job on behalf of their country, not trying to destroy their fellow human beings.

I believe we must turn down the volume on hate if we are to avoid reoccurrence of such baseless terror attacks. In our country, there is room for wide and vigorous political discourse and disagreement--our democracy thrives on it--but there is no room for violence or the dangerous incitement to violence. We get change through the ballot box, not by bullets, not by suicide airplane attacks. Let us speak today with one strong, unequivocal voice renouncing this attack. We reject the path of hate, and we reject the call to violence.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Kline, and our chairman, Mr. Miller.

This is one of these bills you kind of go, Well, how could you possibly favor tying kids up and putting tape across them or letting people abuse them? That isn't what this is really about. I am going to make four basic points, which I know we have been making all afternoon, but there is no harm with repetition because they are important.

One, there is no reliable data on how much use there is of these techniques. We've heard all sorts of individual horror stories that my sociology prof used to call ``my Aunt Annie stories.'' We have some real cases of abuse that need to be addressed. We have others of a wide variety. I, for example, would abhor most of them. I don't find being made to stand in a corner quite the same as some others might, but I think there is a wide range. We need to know how many of these are serious, how many of these justify intervention, and how many of them are things where there is a difference of opinion. It also fails to acknowledge in this bill that 31 States have had this, and this is a one-size-fits-all, and that many other States who don't have it are doing it. This is the ultimate arrogance.

We are saying that basically State legislators believe that their kids should be tied up, mouths taped, they should be abused, and they're too ignorant to fix this. Since when do we get to always determine the speed and kind of satisfactory level of intervention that a State does, particularly since we don't have the data to prove our case?

Thirdly, it doesn't exempt private schools. Even though there is no direct funding from the Federal Government, we have to have some kind of a clause or a hook that the Federal Government is going in and taking over this since they would be covered by State law on human rights or student rights cases. Private schools generally don't even get direct funding or indirect funding, although some do. And about half of the private, independent schools would fall under that hook, and the danger, of course, is that it could be broader.

Lastly, the bill fails to clarify or delete language that may open States and school districts up to additional litigation. In other words, adverse behavioral interventions that compromise health and safety is undefined and would have to be litigated.

But I want to come back to a basic thing. Number one is, What is the constitutional justification? We have this debate in education a lot that things are reserved to the States that aren't given to the Federal Government. Now we're going to a second degree in the education. Now maybe this comes under the clause that says, If States don't move as fast as we would like them to, then we can intervene and take over their jurisdiction. Maybe it comes under the clause that as we get emotionally upset about something, and we're emotionally moved about a case we saw on TV, therefore the Federal Government and Congress have a right to take it over.

It is truly tragic in thinking that we're the only ones to address this. We had a clause, after the Republicans had first taken over Congress, that we were trying to put in and had in, briefly, that says, Put the constitutional justification of why this is uniquely the problem of the Federal Government and how the Constitution, in effect, justifies that intervention. And generally speaking, what we saw was, Promote the general welfare. Promote the general welfare. Promote the general welfare. Promote the general welfare.

Now, Thomas Jefferson said that this clause, in a letter which I believe was to Madison, was the most pernicious, I believe was the word he used, clause in the Constitution and it would be abused by future generations to justify Federal intervention wherever they felt they wanted to intervene and that ultimately, unless that ``promote the general welfare'' was restrained by Congress itself and by the courts, that Congress would intervene on a regular basis, and ultimately everything that is reserved for the States would be at the Federal level.

I believe there are times, such as in civil rights cases, where there were

clear, systemic, systematic, multigenerational interventions that we needed to get in; that many times those who were more States' rights- oriented defended their positions based on States' rights.

But what we're looking at today is insufficient data. We're looking at the States actually addressing it. Thirty-one States have addressed it. A number of others--the bulk of the rest of them actually have laws up at this time. And I see no reason, no compelling evidence of why we need to do this as opposed to the State legislators. I see no compelling constitutional justification for it. And I believe that Thomas Jefferson, were he here, would call this a pernicious use of promoting the general welfare even though the end-all in the hearts of the people who are doing this are motivated for the right reasons. They care about the safety of the kids. They're worried about whether kids are going to be harmed in the schools, and we all are, and so, quite frankly, are State representatives and State senators.