PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 8, 2009
Josh Miller Helping Everyone Access Responsive Treatment in Schools Act of 2009 or the Josh Miller HEARTS Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to direct the Secretary of Education to award matching grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to: (1) purchase automated external defibrillators (AEDs) for use in their schools; and/or (2) provide training to meet the grant requirement that at least five adult employees or volunteers at each school where an AED is to be used successfully complete training in its use and in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Requires LEA grant applicants also to demonstrate that: (1) the AEDs are integrated into the schools' emergency response procedures; and (2) emergency services personnel are notified of their locations.
Gives grant priority to schools that: (1) lack an AED; (2) typically have a significant number of students, staff, and visitors present during the day; (3) generally have a longer wait for emergency medical services than other public facilities in the community; and (4) have not received funds under the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act.
People & committees
Sen. Voinovich, George V. [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Nov 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1197 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1197 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1197 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1197 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.