[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13227-13232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5876, STOP CHILD ABUSE IN 
               RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS ACT OF 2008

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1276 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1276

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5876) to require certain standards and 
     enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in 
     residential programs, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and 
     Labor now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 
     10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a

[[Page 13228]]

     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 5876 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1276.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  House Resolution 1276 provides for consideration of H.R. 5876, the 
Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008, under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The rule makes in order two amendments that were submitted for 
consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report, including 
a bipartisan manager's amendment. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule 
XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  The bill before us today, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential 
Programs for Teens Act, responds to an urgent need to protect our 
Nation's vulnerable children. An estimated 20 to 30,000 U.S. teenagers 
attend private residential programs, including therapeutic boarding 
schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavioral modification 
facilities. These residential facilities are intended to help treat 
children with behavioral, emotional or mental health problems.
  However, many of these facilities are loosely regulated, if they are 
even regulated at all. As a result, some of the very facilities that 
are supposed to be providing a safe environment for our Nation's 
vulnerable children have, instead, provided us with some of the most 
shocking accounts of child abuse and neglect we have ever been witness 
to.
  A comprehensive report by the Government Accountability Office 
recently uncovered thousands of allegations of child abuse and neglect 
at private residential programs for teens. Tragically, in a number of 
these cases, this abuse and neglect led to the child's death.
  I won't describe the horrifying stories, but I will say that they go 
far beyond simple maltreatment. The stories are deplorable. They are 
inexcusable, and they are inhumane.
  This bill, H.R. 5876, will keep children safe by imposing new 
national standards for residential treatment programs. These standards 
include prohibitions on denying children food, water, clothing, shelter 
or medical care for any reason, including as a form of punishment.
  The bill upholds core moral values by specifically prohibiting 
programs from engaging in practices that physically, sexually or 
mentally abuse or torment children in their care.
  It requires programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes 
child abuse and neglect and how to report it, and it requires programs 
to have emergency medical care plans in place.
  The bill also includes several other provisions, such as requiring 
programs to disclose to parents the qualifications of staff, notifying 
parents of substantiated reports of abuse, and providing grant money to 
States if they develop their own standards that are at least as strong 
as the national ones.
  On a personal note, I would like to say that my wife, Kathie, and I 
are proud parents of three children, two of which we adopted from 
foster care. I can tell you from my own personal experience that 
nothing is more important to a child's life than having a secure home.
  No child should ever be subject to abuse or neglect, especially when 
in the care of those who are supposed to be providing treatment.
  I commend Chairman Miller for his tireless efforts on behalf of our 
Nation's children. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this commonsense legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time I would like to 
thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), for 
the time and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, when families send their children to private 
residential treatment facilities, they expect their children to receive 
proper treatment for their emotional and behavioral problems. 
Unfortunately, some of these treatment facilities have not provided the 
treatment these children need.
  Instead, we have heard reports of abuse, neglect and even death. The 
Government Accountability Office recently looked into these reports of 
child abuse.
  While researching the reports, the GAO found that the current 
patchwork of Federal legislation and oversight addressing youth well-
being have led to a substantial disparity in protecting the well-being 
and civil rights of some of the Nation's most vulnerable youth. The 
safety and well-being of these vulnerable children is of great 
importance, and we must do all we can to stop child abuse and neglect 
at residential treatment facilities.
  For that reason I am pleased that the underlying legislation, the 
Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, seeks to help 
remedy the issues addressed in the GAO report. The legislation seeks to 
ensure effective regulation, monitoring and enforcement of residential 
treatment programs by the States, with the Federal Government playing 
an oversight role.
  I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for 
working to bridge their differences on this legislation. I think they 
should be commended for coming up with a compromise acceptable to both 
sides of the aisle.
  Unfortunately, unlike the Education and Labor Committee, compromise 
and bipartisanship are concepts that do not make it past the door of 
the majority in the Rules Committee, because the majority there has 
blocked all Republican amendments. The majority might call this a 
structured rule, but for members on the minority side of the aisle, 
this might as well be the 55th closed rule in this Congress.
  Not only does this rule completely undermine the spirit of 
bipartisanship that Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon worked so 
hard to achieve, it also stands in stark contrast to how the new 
majority promised they would run the House of Representatives.
  Before the new majority took over control of the House, they laid out 
their promises for a more civil, more open, more transparent House in a 
document they entitled ``The New Direction for America.''
  The document provides clear guidelines for how legislation should 
move through the House. One of the promises made in the document is, 
and I quote,

[[Page 13229]]

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that 
allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment 
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, 
including a substitute.
  Yet here we are today with a process that completely shuts out the 
minority from offering any amendments. Obviously the majority left 
their campaign promises on the campaign trail.
  I would ask all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule 
which completely contradicts the majority's rhetoric about running the 
most open, honest, and transparent Congress in history.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to address a separate issue. 
Last week we received the desperate plea of a father in Cuba. The 
father's name, Pedro Andres Ferrera, concerns his 21-year-old son, 
Yuselin Ferrera, who at this time, as we speak, is being tortured in 
the psychiatric hospital in Sagua la Grande, Cuba, the San Luis 
psychiatric hospital.
  His crime--a bracelet like the one I am wearing, that has the word 
``change'' in it. This young man, 21 years old, supports freedom and 
democracy. For that crime, at this moment, he is in the San Luis 
psychiatric hospital in Sagua la Grande, Cuba, being tortured.
  His father's plea, which is really extraordinary, describes 
continuous interrogations that the young man is being subjected to, 
with the objective of changing his way of thinking so that he will 
renounce, give up his probative democracy beliefs.
  His father, in his desperation, said that he makes responsible for 
the consequences that may ensue to his son the Cuban dictatorship and, 
specifically, its state security apparatus.
  I, at this time, join with Pedro Andres Ferrera, the father of that 
young man, 21-year-old Yuselin Ferrera, to also make responsible 
publicly the jailers, so-called doctors, torturers of the young man, 
Yuselin Ferrera. Let them not think even for one instant that we will 
forget this crime. Let them not think even for one moment that this 
crime against humanity will be subject to any sort of statute of 
limitations. There will be justice for criminals such as those so-
called doctors in the psychiatric hospital torturing that 21-year-old 
man simply for supporting a peaceful campaign of change within the 
totalitarian state of Cuba.

                              {time}  0930

  I ask my friend, my dear friend, also a strong supporter of freedom 
wherever there is injustice anywhere in the world, Dennis Cardoza, to 
join me in a bipartisan spirit also denouncing those torturers and 
putting them on notice that we will not forget their crimes against 
that young man.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, and returning to the subject of the 
legislation, I see that Chairman Miller is here, and I thank him again, 
along with Ranking Member McKeon, for their important work and 
especially in making possible this bipartisan legislation that is 
coming to the floor today, the underlying legislation that we bring to 
the floor today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that my 
colleague from Florida has been a true champion on behalf of the pro-
democracy forces in Cuba; that certainly I join him in denouncing any 
of the horrible acts that he described today, and I praise the emotion 
and spirit with which he brings his fight towards democracy in Cuba to 
the floor. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  But I will tell you, however much I praise his efforts there, with 
regard to the seven amendments that he talked about, the seven 
Republican amendments submitted in the Rules Committee, they were 
disposed of in I believe a very fair and equitable manner.
  Two were withdrawn by the authors. One was addressed in the manager's 
amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) was 
addressed in the manager's amendment. Two amendments amended portions 
of the bill that were deleted by the manager's amendment and thus are 
moot; and two dealt with earmarks that are not in the bill. So frankly, 
all of the amendments were dealt with in a fair and evenhanded manner. 
I believe this truly is a bipartisan bill.
  It is with that spirit, Madam Speaker, that I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the chairman of the Healthy 
Families Subcommittee and a champion for children.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee 
and I stand in support of the rule. I want to say thank you to Chairman 
Miller and the committee staff for working with me on this important 
legislation, and for Mr. Miller's personal leadership on this issue 
over the years.
  When we started working on this issue in committee, I became outraged 
over the testimony that I was hearing. You see, children in this 
country are dying. In fact, the Government Accountability Office report 
found thousands of cases of abuse and neglect at residential programs 
for teens. The abuses include staff members forcing children to remain 
in so-called ``stress'' positions for hours at a time and to undergo 
extreme physical exertion without food, water or rest.
  Sadly, in a number of cases this abuse has led to the deaths of 
children at the hands of the very people entrusted with their care.
  These are basic human rights being denied to our children, children 
who are already struggling to find their way in this world, children 
who might suffer from mental disorders or other conditions that make 
daily living in society much more challenging than for other kids their 
own age, children whose parents love them and want the best for them 
and need help in addressing the needs of these vulnerable youth.
  Parents, often desperate for help, feeling vulnerable as well, are 
sending their children to facilities that are sold as safe and 
responsible facilities.
  The GAO's investigative work is showing that a number of programs use 
deceptive marketing practices to appeal to parents. In fact, it 
uncovered deception, fraud, and conflicts of interest. In one scheme, a 
husband owns a referral service and the wife owned a residential 
treatment facility. It was revealed that her location received more 
referrals from her husband's service than any other providers.
  Parents are sold a bill of goods about the facilities and are enticed 
by advertising schemes portraying these programs as safe, with a 
professional staff, and high-quality environments for their children.
  Yet it is too often not true, and tragically, at times, the end 
result is the death of a child.
  That's why it is absolutely crucial that we make sure that children 
are kept safe when they are in these facilities by setting minimum 
safety standards. Minimum; why are we even setting them at minimum?
  You know, it seems like every week I am up here on the floor talking 
about how we need to protect our children. That's why it is absolutely 
crucial that we establish standards and stop ``boot camps'' from using 
the kind of deceptive marketing that has drawn in so many parents.
  I am pleased that the bill contains some aspects to address all 
deceptive marketing tactics employed by some owners or operators of 
residential treatment facilities.
  One section requires that all printed material from the facility 
include a link to a Web site that has a database about past incidents 
and violations. We do that with our college students so parents can 
actually look to see how safe that particular college is. And yet we 
are having a hard time trying to do this for children who need our help 
immensely, and the parents. The parents are facing difficult choices to 
do whatever they can to help their child. And yet they are given false 
information.
  Another section specifies that a new Web site include not just the 
name and location of each facility, but also the owner and operator of 
the facility so the parents can watch out for the bad operators.
  Furthermore, even though we did not include language requiring all 
promotional and informational materials

[[Page 13230]]

distributed by the facilities be subject to appropriate guidelines, 
such as those specified by the Federal Trade Commission Act due to 
jurisdictional issues, we will continue to monitor the deceptive 
marketing practices on these programs.
  Madam Speaker, we need minimum safety standards for these public and 
private residential treatment facilities. It is past time to bring 
these programs to a level of basic safety which protects children and 
prevents further abuse from happening.
  I promise--and I am positive that Chairman Miller will, too--we will 
continue to work on this. But as with a lot of things that come through 
our committee, we have to work with both sides so we can get a bill 
through and passed and on its way to the President. But I have to say 
in cases like this, I wish we could have gone further to protect the 
children, to protect the parents. I urge passage of this rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend if he has 
any additional speakers on the rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker at this 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee and a true champion for children in this House.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I want to thank the Rules Committee for reporting this 
rule to the floor and I want to thank Mr. Cardoza for managing this 
legislation. He has spent his entire public life being concerned about 
children at risk. And clearly the children we seek to protect in this 
bill are at serious risk.
  I also want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) 
for all of her effort on this legislation. She, too, has spent her 
entire time in Congress trying to make sure that our children are safe 
in whatever setting we have responsibility for, whether it is in high 
schools or colleges or in this case residential programs.
  This legislation is designed to address in a reasonable manner a very 
serious problem that has come to the attention of the Education and 
Labor Committee this last year when we started looking at the abuse and 
neglect in teenage residential programs. Tragically, a number of these 
cases have resulted in the death of a child.
  This legislation will help ensure that children are safe no matter 
what setting they are in. It will also provide parents with the 
information they need to make safe choices on behalf of their children.
  The rule we are considering today is a fair one. It makes in order 
the Miller-McKeon manager's amendment and one other amendment offered 
by Ms. Shea-Porter, a member of the Education and Labor Committee. Mr. 
McKeon and his staff have worked alongside our staff to make sure that 
we could do this is in bipartisan fashion, and the manager's amendment 
reflects the changes to be made to improve the legislation since it 
left the committee.
  Of the 10 amendments originally submitted to the Rules Committee, our 
bipartisan compromise incorporates and makes unnecessary seven of those 
amendments. It would be disingenuous for anyone to come to the floor 
and oppose this rule since it takes into consideration those concerns.
  I want to thank Mr. McKeon for working on this legislation so that we 
would have a bill with few amendments but we would address the concerns 
of the Members. In the course of crafting the manager's amendment, we 
worked with several Members on provisions that are now reflected in the 
compromise. Representatives Cuellar, Rothman and Matheson each made 
valuable improvements to the manager's amendment, and we thank them for 
their input.
  Mr. Bishop of Utah submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee 
which we believed raised legitimate concerns, and we made a number of 
changes in the manager's amendment to, we believe, fully address his 
concerns. Two other amendments on the other side of the aisle were made 
moot by the bipartisan agreement, and yet they were not withdrawn.
  This should not be a partisan issue. The GAO has found thousands of 
documented cases and allegations of child abuse and neglected 
children--stretching back decades--in teen residential programs.
  In hearings before our committee, we heard horrific stories about the 
way children in these programs were treated by uncaring, untrained, and 
abusive staff members. For example, children were forced to eat food to 
which they were known to be allergic. They were required to remain in 
so-called ``stress'' positions for hours, and to keep hiking even 
though it became clear they needed immediate medical attention.
  Madam Speaker, the time for Congress to act is long past due. The 
weak patchwork of State laws and regulations governing teen residential 
programs have permitted these abuses to continue for far too long. We 
must act to prevent children from being put at risk. This bill will 
help keep children safe and help parents get information they need to 
make sound choices about the care of their children. I hope that we can 
adopt this rule.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say this. I have been involved in this 
issue for almost 30 years. These abusive programs of children in 
wilderness camps and boot camps and whatever they call themselves, 
wagon trains to the future, have gone on for many years. There are 
many, many programs that take care of children in residential settings, 
very troubled children, and these programs offer specialized care to 
those children and treatment of those children, and many parents have 
written to Members of Congress and my friends and others who have sent 
their children to these programs, have experienced some success with 
the care of those children to get rid of addictive behavior and abusive 
behavior on behalf of those children.
  But yet within this industry, there is a group of homes that continue 
to travel from State to State without awareness by the State or not 
caring by the State, or falling through the regulations, no Federal 
regulations, no State regulations, and those are the programs that have 
abused these children.
  We have worked with professional associations. We have worked with 
trade associations. We have worked with individuals who run homes of 
high reputation to develop a set of regulations that make sure that 
parents will be aware of the placement of their children, the care they 
are likely to receive, and the skills and the training of the people 
who take care of them, because that is not true today.
  As we found out in a GAO report, as Mrs. McCarthy pointed out, there 
are deceptive practices of people who have huge financial interest in 
the outcome of referring a family to those homes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
  And that is what this is about. That is where we saw this incredibly 
abusive behavior, and in a number of instances, simply lethal, to these 
children. The children died in the care in which their parents had 
placed them because the parents were not aware of how poorly run these 
facilities were. In a couple of cases, referrals for criminal 
proceedings against those individuals have been made.
  Why is this bill important, because these children are out-of-home 
placements, and we have to understand the responsibility of those 
individuals who represent themselves that they can provide treatment 
and they can provide care. If that's not true, the parents ought to 
know it. This is simple awareness by parents of the care their children 
are going to receive.
  It is hard to believe that you could put your child into a program 
and the child could die of dehydration or die of simple neglect because 
people refuse to call medical personnel to the care of these children 
because they said that the children were faking. No, they weren't 
faking, they were dying. They

[[Page 13231]]

were dying, and people stood around and said they were faking it, don't 
touch them, don't go near them, and they died on the trail. They needed 
water. No, they were faking, and they pushed them on to hike out in the 
desert in the heat, and they died of dehydration.
  Children standing in stress positions that look more like Guantanamo 
Bay than look like a care facility for American children. Children 
standing in a stress position with their hands out with a hood around 
their neck and a hangman's noose for hours while others children 
watched and participated in the treatment of those children. That's not 
the care of children. There is no professional organization that 
recognizes that kind of care for the treatment of children. And yet 
those homes blemish the reputation of facilities and organizations that 
are trying to care for very difficult children.
  And as Carolyn McCarthy said, these parents are at their wit's end. 
They have tried almost everything. We need to make sure that the next 
thing they try is safe and well-organized for the care of their 
children.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I assume from my 
friend that he has no further speakers on the rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I am the final speaker on my side of the aisle.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, back on April 24 
of 2006, just over 2 years ago, Speaker  Nancy Pelosi issued the 
following statement, which I quote:
  ``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people 
can no longer afford the Republican Rubber stamp Congress and its 
failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. 
Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular 
gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when 
President Bush first came into office.''
  Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying 
$2.91 today for a gallon of gasoline. When Americans are paying over $4 
for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of 
gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance 
on unstable foreign sources of oil.
  So today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that this House can immediately consider solutions to rising energy 
costs. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the 
rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, Expanding American 
Refinery Capacity on Closed Military Installations, introduced by 
Representative Pitts.
  This legislation would significantly reduce the cost of gasoline by 
streamlining the refinery application process. It will also require the 
President to open at least three closed military installations for the 
purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and in 
favor of taking action to confront that problem.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, in closing, I'd like to remind my friend 
and colleague from Florida that it has been the other body, the 
Republicans in the other body and the White House who have stymied the 
Democratic efforts to actually reduce gas prices and provide 
alternative energy for this country. Certainly, it is a problem, and 
certainly, the American people are very frustrated at paying $4 or 
more, in my State it's much more for a gallon of gas. But had we at 
least moved in a new direction, we could be heading in that direction. 
But we have been totally stymied by the White House and the Senate on 
these questions.
  Madam Speaker, today's bill deals with children, and there is an 
urgent problem in many residential treatment facilities that have gone 
unchecked for far too long and must be addressed. H.R. 5876 will go a 
long way towards ensuring the safety of our Nation's children who 
depend on these treatment facilities.
  Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense legislation to protect our kids in these treatment 
facilities.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1276 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2279) to expedite the 
     construction of new refining capacity on closed military 
     installations in the United States. All points of order 
     against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and any amendment thereto to find passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the 
     chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or 
     Representative Skelton of Missouri, which shall be considered 
     as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-llinois) said: ``The 
     previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New 
     York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to 
     him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 1091th Congress, 
     (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule 
     using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''

[[Page 13232]]

       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.

                          ____________________