Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.