[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.
____________________