[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1037-H1043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4247, PREVENTING HARMFUL RESTRAINT 
                      AND SECLUSION IN SCHOOLS ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1126

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4247) to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and 
     seclusion in schools, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor; (2) the amendment printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative George Miller of 
     California or his designee, which shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question; (3) the amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake 
     of Arizona or his designee, which shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question; and (4) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

[[Page H1038]]

       Sec. 2.  All points of order against amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of an amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, the Chair may postpone the question of adoption 
     as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of March 4, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 5.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of March 4, 2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1126.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools 
Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  The rule makes in order the two amendments that were submitted for 
consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report--a 
manager's amendment by Chairman Miller and an amendment by 
Representative Flake.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI, and provides one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
  The rule authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
suspend the rules through the legislative day of Thursday, March 4, 
2010. The Speaker shall consult with the minority leader on the 
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this rule.
  The rule also provides for same-day consideration of any resolution 
reported from the Rules Committee through the legislative day of 
Thursday, March 4, 2010.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, the Preventing Harmful 
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act, responds to a shocking and 
urgent need to protect our children in their schools.
  Last year, the Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing where 
they were told horrifying accounts of young, innocent children who were 
subjected to abusive uses of restraint and seclusion in their 
classrooms, and they were told of some who died as a result of this 
abuse.
  These were, unfortunately, not isolated incidents. The committee also 
heard from the Government Accountability Office's managing director of 
Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, who testified that the GAO 
found ``hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use 
of these methods on schoolchildren.'' In Texas and in California alone, 
the GAO found there were over 33,000 reported incidents of restraint or 
seclusion during the school year of 2007-2008.
  Madam Speaker, this is deplorable and inexcusable, and it is simply 
not humane. Even worse, parents may have no idea what is taking place 
in their children's classrooms. Sometimes the only signs parents may 
ever see are slow but stark behavioral changes in their children, at 
which point the children have been afflicted with deep psychological 
issues and damage.
  I shudder at the thought that, while innocent children are supposed 
to be learning about reading, writing and arithmetic, they may be 
subjected to unspeakable abuse while they are at the hands of their 
trusted educators. It is abuse which will affect their lives forever. 
Our Nation's youth already have to overcome many obstacles in their 
lives, and they should not be subjected to such scars which may never 
ever heal.
  If that weren't bad enough, consider the countless children with 
disabilities or special needs who are disproportionately restrained or 
secluded at school at far greater rates. Further, many of these 
children have no means whatsoever of communicating with their parents.
  Madam Speaker, no child should ever be subjected to abuse or neglect, 
especially when in the care of those we are supposed to trust the most.
  Despite what you may have heard from the other side of the aisle, the 
bill before us today is not about Federal control or about setting up a 
one-size-fits-all Federal mandate. It is about establishing flexible 
guidelines for States in order to help them raise the bar and to solve 
a problem that they simply have failed to adequately address on their 
own. There are 19 States which currently don't have any laws addressing 
seclusion or restraint in schools. No laws at all. In the 31 States 
which do, their laws are all over the map. In fact, some of them set 
guidelines so low they might as well not have any rules at all.
  Madam Speaker, this bill, H.R. 4247, will remedy that problem once 
and for all. It will require States to meet minimum safety standards to 
prevent abuse by restraint and seclusion in schools across the country, 
similar to the protections already in place in medical- and community-
based facilities.
  H.R. 4247 specifically prohibits the use of mechanical, chemical, or 
physical restraints or any other restraint that restricts breathing, 
and it prohibits abusive behavioral interventions that compromise the 
health and safety of the children. The bill does, however, allow for 
the temporary restraint or seclusion of a child under certain 
circumstances if the child possesses an imminent danger to himself or 
to others in the classroom.
  The Secretary of Education will issue regulations establishing such 
standards, and the States will have 2 years to have their own policies 
in place to meet or to exceed these regulations.
  In closing, I would like to commend the Committee on Education and 
Labor for its continued efforts on behalf of our Nation's children. I 
strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time.
  I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule for many 
reasons which I will outline in my comments, but I certainly want to 
share with the gentleman from California and with the sponsors of this 
bill the feeling that all of us want to see that our children are 
protected, that all children are protected, particularly when they are 
in State-sponsored institutions, such as public schools or other such 
institutions. Nobody wants our children to be at any risk, and we want 
to make sure that the people who are looking after them take the proper 
precautions when they are dealing with them, especially in a physical 
way.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule on H.R. 4247, the 
Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.
  Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they assembled 
the U.S. Constitution and the protections it guarantees, specifically 
in the Tenth Amendment. The authors of this amendment, an amendment 
ratified in 1791, remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of 
a distant, all-powerful government, and they understood that a one-
size-fits-all approach does not work.
  Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the Federal 
Government has slowly, steadily and corrosively eroded the notion of 
States' rights and of our individual liberties. Nowhere in the 
Constitution does it empower the Federal Government to override States' 
rights.
  When it comes to the education of our Nation's children, we can all 
agree

[[Page H1039]]

again that students should be able to learn in a safe, productive, and 
positive environment. Teachers, principals, and other school personnel 
have a responsibility to ensure that the environment is maintained at 
all times. In many cases, it is vitally important that teachers and 
classroom aides use interventions and supports that are both physically 
and emotionally safe for the children.
  What the bill before us fails to recognize is that 31 States 
currently have laws and regulations in place which govern the use of 
seclusion and restraints in schools. An additional 11 States have 
policies and guidelines in place. In some cases, school districts may 
also have their own guidelines governing the use of such practices in 
the classroom.
  Furthermore, the Federal Government has no reliable data on the 
prevalent use of harmful seclusion and restraint techniques in public 
and private schools and on whether they result in child abuse, no 
matter the hyperbole used by people on the other side.
  Last year, the U.S. Department of Education recognized this fact, and 
through the Office of Civil Rights issued a draft regulation requiring 
State and local educational agencies to collect data on the use of 
seclusion and restraints in schools. Moreover, last August, Secretary 
of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to each chief State school 
officer, urging the officers to review their current policies and 
guidelines regarding the use of restraints and seclusion in schools to 
ensure every student is safe and protected.
  However, instead of waiting until the Department of Education 
completes its review to see how widespread the problem of harmful 
seclusion and restraint techniques is, the bill establishes a Federal 
one-size-fits-all mandate to a problem for which there is not yet a 
thorough understanding and which would otherwise be handled at the 
State level.
  We know increased Federal regulations do not equal results, 
especially when it comes to public education. Despite Washington's 
spending hundreds of billions in Federal dollars since 1965 on public 
education, the achievement gap has not closed, and test scores have not 
improved.

                              {time}  1245

  Instead, we should be focusing on enforcement of current State 
procedures addressing seclusion and restraint of students. It is my 
belief that State and local governments can identify student needs and 
determine the most appropriate regulations better and more efficiently 
than the Federal Government.
  At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new majority came to 
power full of promises for a bipartisan working relationship and a 
landmark pledge to create the ``most honest, most open, and most 
ethical Congress in history.''
  On page 24 of Speaker Pelosi's ``New Direction for America'' document 
issued in the 109th Congress, she calls for regular order for 
legislation.
  ``Bills should be developed following full hearings in open 
subcommittee and committee markups with appropriate referrals to other 
committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill 
prior to consideration at the subcommittee level.
  ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that 
allows open, full, and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment 
process that offers the minority the right to offer its alternatives, 
including a substitute.
  ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and 
conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing 
floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be 
considered the following day.
  ``Floor votes should be completed within 15 minutes, with the 
customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' ability to reach 
the House Chamber to cast their votes. No votes shall be held open in 
order to manipulate the outcome.
  ``House-Senate conference committees should hold regular meetings (at 
least weekly) of all conference committee members. All duly-appointed 
conferees should be informed of the schedule of conference committee 
activities in a timely manner and given ample opportunity for input and 
debate as decisions are made toward final bill language.
  ``The suspension calendar should be restricted to noncontroversial 
legislation, with minority-authored legislation scheduled in relation 
to the party ratio in the House.''
  Those were all the things that the majority promised us before taking 
over in the 110th Congress. And what do we get? We get this rule, which 
provides blanket martial law through Thursday.
  This practice diminishes democracy. When major legislation is being 
considered that would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt 
or affect Americans in other ways, Members of Congress should have the 
opportunity to study the legislation for more than a couple of hours 
and know what they are voting on.
  This rule is a structured rule and makes in order two amendments, one 
from Chairman Miller and one from Representative Flake of Arizona. 
Chairman Miller's amendment, among other things, would change the title 
of the bill from ``Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in 
Schools Act'' to the ``Keeping All Students Safe Act.'' That is a 
promise that no Congress can fulfill.
  Madam Speaker, we have a lot of problems with this bill and we have a 
lot of problems with this rule, and, again, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady from North Carolina states 
that we have no statistics to back up the point of why we are bringing 
this bill to the floor today. In just Texas and California, there were 
33,000 cases reported to the committee in one year. If that is not a 
statistic that can make your hair curl, I don't know what is. Even 
Ranking Member Kline said that we are in urgent need of further 
statistics, because he does believe that this is a serious question.
  But just to make the point, to make the case even stronger, the 
gentlelady's State, North Carolina, the reason why we need this bill, 
she says some States have rules that already deal with this problem. 
Let me read you a little bit about what North Carolina's law says.
  It says it allows for seclusion and restraint to maintain order or 
calm or comfort in the classroom and does not require that there be 
imminent danger or an emergency, and people can use it for discipline 
and to write it into IEP, or individualized education programs.
  That is exactly why we need this, because some States, like her home 
State, don't understand that this shouldn't be the way we deal with 
children, children with special needs or other challenges. It shouldn't 
be the standard operating procedure in our schools.
  Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), the Chair of the committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my 
colleague from California and the Rules Committee for reporting this 
rule that will allow us for the first time to have Federal guidelines 
for the protection of children while they are in school. It is 
important that we strive to keep all children safe while they are in 
school. I am honored to have worked with and thank her so much for her 
cooperation, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who was so 
instrumental in bringing this bill together and bringing all various 
parts of the discussion on this legislation together to help us draft 
the legislation.
  Not everybody agrees with it, but we have had wonderful cooperation 
and support from many parts of the educational community, recognizing 
the danger for the actions to continue that have put so many children 
in danger and have harmed so many children, without having an accurate 
reporting system, without having the proper training of teachers.
  Teachers are very often put in a very, very difficult position with 
respect to what to do, but we cannot have children being taped to their 
chairs, children having duct tape put around their mouth, children 
being locked into dark closets or even smaller spaces for multiple 
hours of the day, for multiple days of the week, so they can establish 
the comfort in the classroom. That is not the right treatment of that 
child. And if you are doing it over and over

[[Page H1040]]

and over again and you are not changing the behavior, you are not 
getting the outcomes, you might want to rethink that policy. But, 
tragically, that is not happening in too many areas.
  Yes, there are some State regulations in this area, but they are very 
incomplete. They are spotty. Some only address one school population, 
one particular disability maybe, or a particular age group, but not 
others. But we cannot have, and as the GAO tragically made so graphic 
to our committee, you cannot have very young children treated in this 
way. We were presented with the most graphic case of students who died 
while they were placed in seclusion, while they were placed in improper 
uses of restraint.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman from California 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We met with the parents and the 
caregivers of those children. And here is the final touch, that in many 
instances, these children were treated this way over and over and over 
again, and their parents, guardians were never notified.
  In many instances, the first time they realized what was going on is 
when the child, in a very traumatic way, refused to go back to school, 
was frightened to go back to school. Some of these children never have 
really been able to return to a regular school setting. They have lost 
trust in people in those settings. Or a teacher might venture out and 
quietly tell a parent that something is wrong in your child's classroom 
or the way your child is being behaviored.
  That is not the kind of notification that parents are entitled to, 
and it is not the kind of notification that people believe gives them 
the authority to engage in this abusive behavior.
  Also, we know that in a number of instances, medications were used 
without the involvement of a doctor, without the okay of the parent, 
without checking with the authorities prior to that.
  We do recognize that in particular cases a child may be a threat to 
him- or herself, may be a threat to another student or to a teacher or 
to other school personnel, and we do allow them to take actions in that 
particular case.
  But the idea that this ad hoc theory of locking kids in closets while 
they soil themselves, while they are denied food, while they are denied 
water, let's look at what this bill does. It says you can't deny water; 
you can't deny food; you can't deny them access to bathroom facilities. 
That is kind of basic, isn't it, in the treatment of a child? And think 
of what happens to a child when that is done. We are not always talking 
somehow about a worldly teenager here. We are talking about, in many 
instances, very young children, children in many, many instances with 
disabilities who may not be able to communicate clearly.
  We cannot allow us to proceed against those children without a policy 
being in place that protects the children and notifies the parents.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman and the Rules Committee for 
reporting this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the American people get it. Last June 24, 
we, at 3 o'clock in the morning up in the Rules Committee, had dropped 
into our laps a 300-page amendment that no one had read just as the 
motion was being offered to move that so-called cap-and-trade 
legislation to the floor of the House.
  Up until that time, being on the Rules Committee as I am, whenever I 
would talk about process in this institution, Members' eyes would glaze 
over, and I know that the American people would have their eyes glaze 
over, and I have even had colleagues of mine from both sides of the 
aisle say, Why do you talk about process?
  Well, Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned from being on 
the Rules Committee for more than a couple of years is that process is 
substance. The utilization of process plays a very critical role in 
determining the outcome of legislation.
  The American people concluded after June 24, when the next day our 
distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boehner, 
stood here taking his 1-minute and went for an hour going through that 
300-page amendment, the American people got the message and they said, 
You guys don't even take time to look at the legislation before you 
vote on it. Again, this happened at 3 o'clock in the morning, and 
within a matter of hours we had that measure on the House floor.
  Well, Madam Speaker, why am I going through this? Because in the 
rule, and I understand that my friend from Grandfather Community has 
talked about this, but the fact is, in this rule, we have what is 
described affectionately from Members of both sides of the aisle as 
martial law rule.
  What it means is, in this rule, any Member who votes for this rule is 
voting to give the majority the authority to, without any kind of 
consideration, move directly to the floor of the House with 
legislation. We don't know what that consists of.
  In a colloquy I had with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Rules last night, she said that it was going to be focusing on the jobs 
issue. But guess what, Madam Speaker? In this rule, there is no clear 
definition as to what legislation is going to be considered.
  Now, this is a structure that is utilized by both sides of the aisle. 
I will plead guilty. We have used this kind of expedited procedure in 
the past when we were in the majority. But, Madam Speaker, it is almost 
always done only at the end of a session when there are very, very 
important time constraints that need to be addressed, and Members on 
both sides of the aisle usually end up agreeing to it.
  Madam Speaker, I know that I speak for not only my Republican 
colleagues but the American people, Democrat, Republican, Independent, 
when I say that the notion of imposing a martial law rule, in what is 
now the third month of the second session of the 111th Congress, is a 
nonstarter. We should not be utilizing this kind of procedure at this 
point.
  So, Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against 
this rule and bring back a structure that does in fact strike martial 
law, which is not what Americans, regardless of political party, want 
us to be utilizing in dealing with this very important issue.
  There is bipartisan support for the underlying legislation, but there 
is very, very strong opposition, I hope, from both Democrats as well as 
Republicans because of the fact that the American people do not want 
us, especially at this time when we are focusing on very, very 
important legislation, to deal with job creation and economic growth 
utilizing martial law rule.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that in the 
109th Congress, the Republican Rules Committee, chaired by the 
gentleman who just spoke, my colleague from California, reported 21 
rules that waived the two-thirds vote requirement for same day rules. 
Furthermore, five of those rules waived this requirement against any 
rule that was reported from the committee.

                              {time}  1300

  So I find it a bit ironic that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are so outraged by this procedure that's been done routinely by 
both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Congresses.
  The blanket waiver is to allow maximum flexibility in bringing 
legislation to the floor quickly--legislation to support the Federal 
highway transit programs, which provide much-needed jobs during these 
difficult times; or, legislation to extend vital social safety-net 
programs such as unemployment insurance and COBRA, programs which, 
thanks to the Senate and the filibuster that preceded the debates over 
there, allowed these programs to expire at the end of February, putting 
200,000 workers off the job until we get this bill passed. We aren't 
sure what form all these measures are going to take yet, but it is 
essential that we have maximum flexibility to respond to whatever 
legislative vehicles can best address these matters.

[[Page H1041]]

  I want to point out that these are very, very difficult times. In my 
own district, we have 20 percent unemployment. Last night, I had a town 
hall meeting with my constituents. They're demanding answers and jobs. 
They want it today. They don't want it next week; they want it now. And 
all of the obfuscation, all of the delay tactics, all of the challenges 
to getting people back to work are not very tolerated by them these 
days.
  Every day counts in America right now. We have to put our people back 
to work. I would suggest that we should be figuring out together how to 
expedite these processes rather than standing on parliamentary 
procedure tactics to say, No, let's wait some more. Let's put these 
bills off.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California for questions.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me first say that, as the gentleman knows, in my remarks that I 
made from this well just moments ago, I recognized that this is a 
process that has been utilized under both political parties. So I 
completely concur with that, and I said that that happened. The 
important distinction to make is that the five instances that my friend 
mentioned when we were in the majority, this was all done in the 
September-to-December timeframe, basically in the waning days of a 
Congress, or at least a session of Congress. And that played a big 
role, recognizing that that needed to happen.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, in response to the 
statement of the gentleman, I would just say that, yes, these are used 
for extraordinary situations, like when 200,000 people are put out of 
work because of a Senate filibuster for no particularly good reason.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
  Let me say I'd like to engage in a colloquy with my friend, if I 
might. And I'll be more than happy to yield to him whatever time he 
needs under our time, because I know he has to deal with these time 
constraints.
  Let me say, Madam Speaker, at the outset, the notion of saying 
200,000 people have been thrown out of work because of the actions 
taking place in the Senate is not right. This had to do with an issue 
of spending. But let's not get into that. Let's focus on what it is the 
American people want us to do.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right: Job creation and 
economic growth is what the American people are talking about. I, too, 
last night held a telephone town hall meeting and was listening and 
talking with thousands of people in southern California. Our 
unemployment rate is not quite as high as the gentleman faces in the 
San Joaquin Valley. The part of the area I represent, the Inland 
Empire, just in suburban Los Angeles, has a 14.2 percent unemployment 
rate. It's a very serious issue.
  We need to work together in a bipartisan way. And I consistently 
stood in this well saying that what we should be doing in a bipartisan 
way is utilizing the John F. Kennedy, a great Democratic President, and 
Ronald Reagan model to get our economy back on track. We know what it 
will take. It's not a dramatic increase in Federal spending. It is 
encouraging, through incentives, private-sector job creation and 
economic growth.
  This procedure is virtually unprecedented at this early point in the 
Congress. And I will say, Madam Speaker, that last week, last week, I 
would have thought that the majority would have learned its lesson as 
it imposed martial law rule at the end of last week, and then had to 
come back, and my friend was in fact managing in what was a very 
unfortunate circumstance for the institution, the idea of pulling back 
on the McDermott amendment that was considered that clearly, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, recognized would have jeopardized the security 
of the courageous men and women who serve in our intelligence field 
around the world.
  So I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he'd like to respond to any 
of my comments.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Well, in response, Madam Speaker, I would just raise 
that it's my belief that the Senate voted 78 to some teen number. I'm 
not sure what the final tally was.
  Mr. DREIER. It was 19.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Nineteen, on behalf of the package, the jobs bill that 
we're contemplating bringing up tomorrow. Now, this illustrates the 
point that we've been frustrated for a long time. The gentleman is 
correct that both his district and my district are suffering from lack 
of jobs, too high unemployment. But when you get a constant slowing 
down of the process in the Senate to the point where we can't 
accomplish what the American people want us to accomplish in this 
Congress, then you will have this kind of situation where we get into a 
situation where 200,000 people have been put out of work because of 
lack of action by the other body.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, the gentleman is 
not talking about people being put out of work; what he's talking about 
is people who are not receiving these benefits.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say that everyone acknowledges that we 
want to make sure that people who are struggling to find a job today 
and are unable to find a job are able to receive those benefits. No one 
wants to deny that. Our colleague in the other body who was raising 
concern about the spending issue and offsets and pay-as-you-go, which 
is something that I know my friend has regularly championed, is what 
led to this issue.
  The question is: What is it that we do to get the economy back on 
track? We've seen a massive increase in spending in a wide range of 
areas. And guess what? We still have an unemployment rate at right 
around just under 10 percent nationally, 20 percent in my friend's 
district, and 14 percent-plus in part of the area that I represent. 
That's why I believe we should be utilizing this bipartisan John F. 
Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model. That's what we should do to address the 
shared concern that we have. But in saying this, Madam Speaker, I point 
to the fact that we should not be imposing martial law, undermining the 
ability for us to do what my friend said should be done, and that is 
working together in a bipartisan way. Because when you at this early 
point in the Congress, in this session of Congress, impose martial law 
rule, you undermine the ability for us to work together in a bipartisan 
way.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I will just respond by saying that I'd love to work in a 
bipartisan way. But you need partners in a bipartisan process. Frankly, 
we've seen more push-back and diversion and obfuscation of the details 
and the merits of this legislation. A bill that passes 78-19, as the 
gentleman indicated, is one where there is significant agreement. Yet, 
the rules of the Senate often times allow there to be significant 
delays in very needed legislation to come to the aid of our 
constituents.
  And so I would say that, yes, today or tomorrow we need to bring up a 
bill that deals with the unemployment benefit for my constituents and 
Mr. Dreier's and the rest of the Nation's as well. We need to put those 
transit workers back to work. We need to take care of the business 
before us. And when we constantly see the generally unfeeling situation 
where we're just going to have a filibuster in the Senate while folks 
will no longer get their unemployment benefits and suffer in the 
process, I don't think that's what the American people sent us here to 
do.
  I believe that we must pass this rule. We must move the jobs bill as 
soon as humanly possible. And we need to also deal with the education 
bill that we brought up before the House and is the main purpose for 
why we're here today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the reason that the folks on the other side of the 
aisle are pushing through this martial law rule, same-day rule, is 
because they have problems in their own caucus. As the gentleman says, 
they're still contemplating what it is they want to do. Unfortunately, 
when the Democrats maybe get together and decide what it is they want 
to do, then they're just

[[Page H1042]]

going to spring a bill on us and not even give us a day to read the 
bill. They just want to bring it onto the floor immediately and then be 
able to deal with it because, again, they don't know what they want to 
do. They have dissension in their own caucus.
  Every time they can't get their act together, they blame it on the 
Republicans. They're totally in charge of this Congress, totally in 
charge of the executive branch, and yet every day we hear its the 
Republicans' fault that we can't get these things done. You all won't 
be bipartisan. We're very happy to be bipartisan. We're very happy to 
sit down and talk about what needs to be done. The American people are 
telling us every day. We're listening to what the American people are 
saying. It's obvious that the folks on the other side are not.
  This bill, Madam Speaker, authorizes such sums as may be necessary 
for fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to establish grants to States to 
help some of their costs. ``Such sums'' is a blank check. We have the 
worst fiscal crisis we have had in this country in a long, long time. 
Again, we hear about it all the time on the other side of the aisle. 
But do they do anything to try to work on that fiscal crisis? No. They 
make it worse by continuing to authorize ``such sums.'' And we have 
bills like this every day that continue to authorize more spending, 
more spending, more spending.
  I will be submitting, Madam Speaker, a chart that shows how much 
money on other bills, such as No Child Left Behind, has been 
authorized, and then how much is actually spent, because we have a 
history of that. And we know that when you put out bills that say 
``such sums,'' with an estimate of what will be spent, that we always 
go over in that spending. I will submit that chart for the Record, 
Madam Speaker.

                 Title I, No Child Left Behind Funding

                        [In million of dollars]

FY2001............................................................8,763
FY2002...........................................................10,350
FY2003...........................................................11,689
FY2004...........................................................12,342
FY2005...........................................................12,740
FY2006...........................................................12,713
FY2007...........................................................12,838
FY2008...........................................................13,899
FY2009*..........................................................14,492
    Total Funding...............................................109,826

* Excludes economic stimulus funding under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act.

                   Total No Child Left Behind Funding

                        [In millions of dollars]

FY2001...........................................................17,382
FY2002...........................................................22,013
FY2003...........................................................23,625
FY2004...........................................................24,309
FY2005...........................................................24,350
FY2006...........................................................23,333
FY2007...........................................................23,487
FY2008...........................................................24,417
FY2009*..........................................................24,954
    Total Funding...............................................207,870

* Excludes economic stimulus funding under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act.
  We, again, have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support the 
underlying bill here. I have great respect for my colleagues on the 
Education Committee and some not on the Education Committee who will 
support this bill. I know that they have the best intentions. But 
sometimes good intentions can have insidious results. One of the 
insidious results that will come from this bill is to take away from 
the States the right they have to regulate education. That is given to 
them by the Constitution.
  I don't think that we should be approving the underlying bill, and we 
certainly should not be voting for a rule that violates even the 
promises that the majority made, which sounded so good to the American 
people and which helped them win the majority in 2006 and gain seats in 
2008. And every promise has been violated.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill, although I know that I have colleagues who will vote 
for the bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for engaging with me today and my colleague from California in the 
discussion that we've had on both the underlying bill and the question 
of the need to bring jobs to the United States of America.
  The minority would have you believe that we have totally clamped down 
on this process and would not allow them to bring up dissenting views 
on this bill. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In 
fact, the Rules Committee granted the minority the opportunity to 
submit a substitute. They chose not to.

                              {time}  1315

  We made in order both amendments that were submitted to the 
committee. So basically everything that was offered as a suggestion to 
improve the bill has been incorporated to this point.
  The gentlelady chose not to respond when I pointed out that 19 States 
have no restrictions whatsoever on using child restraints. And her own 
State allows for seclusion and restraint to maintain order, and does 
not require that there be imminent danger or even an emergency in order 
to duct tape children to seats, to lock them in closets, deny them 
food, deny them water, deny them access, without parental notification. 
That is the purpose of this underlying bill, to improve the situation 
that children are exposed to in our classrooms.
  Just a few years ago, 33,000 children in just the two States of Texas 
and California were exposed to this kind of situation, or at least 
allegedly so. I would say that we need these guidelines, that we need 
to intervene, and we need to provide the States with the opportunity to 
understand what is happening. And we need to compile the statistics, 
all of which is included in the bill.
  Madam Speaker, there is an urgent problem in many of the schools 
across the country that has gone unchecked for far too long and must be 
addressed. H.R. 4247 will go a long way towards ensuring the safety of 
our Nation's children. Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this commonsense legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the rule and on the previous question.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this rule, as well as to the underlying legislation, H.R. 
4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act. As 
a former Marietta, Georgia School Board Member and as a grandfather 
with grandchildren in both public and private schools, I believe that 
it is critically important that students can feel safe in schools.
  However, this legislation is not the right way to address this 
important matter. H.R. 4247 represents a ``Washington knows best'' 
solution and a one-size-fits-all approach to educational decisions 
where there is not precedence for federal action. Currently, there are 
31 states that have actively taken a role in enacting policies that 
address the restraint and seclusion of students. Furthermore, 15 
additional states--including my home State of Georgia--are planning on 
addressing this issue this year.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 4247 is a gross infringement on states' rights 
under the 10th amendment to the Constitution. This legislation tells 
our states that the work they do to keep our children safe is woefully 
inadequate and leaves them no flexibility to meet the individual needs 
of their students.
  Additionally, I have grave concerns about the scope of this 
legislation as it relates to private schools. On page 9 of the bill, 
H.R. 4247 specifically defines a school subjected to this legislation 
as ``public or private'' and ``receives . . . support in any form from 
. . . the Department of Education.''
  Madam Speaker, this clearly undermines the longstanding policy that 
limits federal intrusion into private schools. If this legislation 
passes, I fear that private schools will begin to limit services that 
their students are entitled to receive under federal law as a way to 
avoid being subjected to the law. Therefore, the federal safety 
standards afforded to children under H.R. 4247 will come at the 
sacrifice of the educational experience for those students who choose 
to be in private schools.
  Make no mistake; the 10 cases that our colleagues on the Education 
and Labor Committee examined in their May 2009 hearing on this issue 
are absolutely tragic. My condolences go out to all of the victims of 
these horrific acts. There is no doubt that mechanisms should be put in 
place to protect the safety of both our students and faculty so that 
tragedies like the ones that have already occurred can be avoided in 
the future.
  However Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is the job of this body or 
the federal government as a whole to tackle this issue when we leave 
educational decisions primarily to the states. Instead of passing H.R. 
4247, we should be encouraging the 19 states that do not have existing 
policies on student restraint and seclusion to act as quickly and as 
swiftly as possible so that all states can keep their students safe in 
schools.

[[Page H1043]]

  Madam Speaker, for the sake of the 10th amendment and states' rights, 
I ask that all of my colleagues oppose this rule, and I urge the defeat 
of the underlying legislation, H.R. 4247.
  Mr. CORDOZA. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________