Providing for the 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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker at this time.

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.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I am the final speaker on my side of the aisle.

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.''

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs For Teens Act of 2008. Last year, a 17-year-old boy in a Maryland residential program for teens became unresponsive after he was physically restrained by staff members. According to the press reports, prosecutors alleged that the staff members waited 41 minutes to call 911 because they thought the boy was faking. The boy died. A 15-year-old boy in a wilderness camp in Colorado died in May 2007 from a staph infection. According to the press reports, State authorities said the boy showed observable signs of infection that were neglected by the camp staff members.

Tragically, these recent deaths are not isolated cases. The Government Accountability Office has thousands of cases and allegations of child abuse and neglect stretching back decades in teen residential programs, including boot camps, wilderness camps and therapeutic boarding schools.

The Education and Labor Committee has closely examined a number of these neglect and abuse cases, including cases that resulted in the death of a child. We have heard stories about program staff members forcing children to remain in so-called stress positions for hours at a time, to stand with bags over their heads and nooses around their necks in mock hangings, to eat foods to which they were allergic, even as they got sick, or to eat their own vomit. We have heard from parents of children who died preventible deaths at the hands of untrained, uncaring staff members.

Bob Bacon testified that program staff members mocked his son, Aaron, when the 16-year-old boy asked for medical help, calling him a faker. For weeks, the staff deprived Aaron of adequate food and water even though his weight loss became frighteningly apparent. When Bob and his wife Sally went to the mortuary to see their son, they found scars of abuse and dried skin stretched taut over Aaron's bones.

Cynthia Harvey told the Education and Labor Committee that program staff members waited 45 minutes before summoning appropriate medical care for her daughter, Erica, who had collapsed and was having difficulty breathing.

Paul Lewis testified that program staff members ignored his son Ryan's obvious signs of emotional distress, denying him psychiatric care that could have saved his life.

In addition to wrenching stories like these parents told, the Education and Labor Committee has also heard from adults who attended these programs as teens. They too were victims of physical and emotional abuse and witnessed other children being abused.

Madam Chairman, these abuses have been allowed to continue unchecked because of the weak patchwork of State and Federal regulations governing teen residential programs.

An exhaustive 18-month study by the Government Accountability Office showed that State licensing programs may exclude certain types of teen residential programs, and thus place children at higher risk of abuse and neglect. In some States, inconsistent licensing enables programs to define themselves out of the licensing altogether. According to the GAO, in Texas a program that calls itself a residential treatment center would be required to obtain a license; but if that same program were simply called a boarding school, it would not require a license. Even when licensing exists, GAO found that there may not be minimum standards to effectively prevent child abuse and neglect.

Parents often send their children to these programs when they feel they have exhausted all their alternatives. Their children may be abusing drugs or alcohol, attempting to run away--or physically harm themselves--or otherwise acting out. Parents turn to these programs because of the promise that staff members will help their children straighten their lives out. And surely there are many cases in which programs do provide families with the help they need. In far too many cases, however, the very people entrusted with the safety, health, and welfare of these children are the ones who violate the trust in some of the most awful ways imaginable.

We have learned a great deal from the Government Accountability Office about programs' irresponsible operating practices that put kids at risk and about the deceitful marketing practices that programs use to lure parents desperate for help for their children. The Government Accountability Office also found examples of the shady network that programs sometimes relied on, such as referral service providers that claim to offer independent services to parents but that actually have close financial or personal ties to the very programs that they are ``independently recommending.''

We know that there are many programs and people around the country who are committed to helping improve the lives of young people and who do good work every day. But, unfortunately, it has become extremely difficult for parents to tell the good programs from the bad. And I would remind you again that very often these parents seek nothing but the best for their children, children who are extremely difficult to handle, who have failed in other efforts and other programs to deal with their problems. So these parents have exhausted most of their options, and then they run into some of these programs which then endanger their child even though the parent is seeking the best for their child.

The legislation before us today, H.R. 5876, would help keep children safe in residential programs and help ensure that parents have information they need to make safer choices for their kids. The legislation requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish minimum standards for private programs to enforce those standards.

With children's health and safety at risk, this Federal rule is a necessary recognition that we are dealing with an emergency and we cannot wait for the States to act. These abuses have been going on for years. States have had time to act and in many instances they have failed to do so.

Ultimately, however, States will be primarily responsible for carrying out the work of this bill. The legislation calls for States within 3 years to take up the role of setting standards and enforcing them on all programs, both public and private.

The Health and Human Services Administration and the State standards would include prohibitions on physical, sexual, and mental abuse of children. The standards would require that programs provide children with adequate food, water, and medical care. They would require that programs have plans in place to handle medical emergencies. They would also include new training requirements for program staff members, including training on how to identify and report child abuse.

The legislation requires Health and Human Services to set up a toll- free hotline for people to call to report abuse in these programs.

As you can see, Madam Chair, these are minimum requirements for the health and the safety of the children that have been placed in this care.

It also requires Health and Human Services to create a Web site with information about each program so that parents can look and see if substantiated cases of abuse have occurred at a program that they are considering for their children.

Finally, the legislation helps prevent programs from using deceptive marketing tactics to target parents. Among other things, it requires programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members, and requires programs to notify parents of substantiated reports of child abuse or violations of health and safety laws.

The legislation has the strong support of the American Association of Residential Centers. One of the association board members, Dr. Christopher Bellonci, testified in support of the legislation earlier this year. He said, and I quote, ``The goal of this legislation is to ensure that children are not abused in these treatment settings, not to limit access to appropriate, regulated, and licensed residential care for children who are in need of these services. All of us working in licensed residential centers should support this goal.''

Madam Chairman, we have a responsibility to keep children safe no matter what setting they are in, and today we

are taking an important step towards finally ending the horrific abuses that have gone on far too long in residential programs for teens.

I want to thank Congresswoman McCarthy of our committee for her hard work on this legislation, and I want to thank Congressman McKeon for his effort. And we will be offering a manager's amendment later that I think will help make this bill bipartisan and helps deal with some of the concerns that people had with the legislation. So I want to thank Congressman McKeon and his staff.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer a motion which will ensure that parents of children in residential treatment facilities have control over any medication being prescribed to their child. While the bill as currently written would require a parent or a legal guardian to disclose to the facility any prescription drugs that their child is currently taking, the facility would not be required to receive parental consent for the child to be issued a prescription for any new medications.

As a mother and also as a foster mother, I strongly believe in the importance of the role of the parent or the legal guardian in a child's life. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to matters as serious as the health and well-being of a child.

Prescription drugs, such as medication to treat psychiatric conditions, can have a major impact on the mind and the body of an adult, let alone on the young mind and the young body of a child. Such a critical decision should only be made by a qualified medical doctor with the expressed consent of a parent or legal guardian. This is only common sense, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would allow residential treatment facilities to impose their will on children without affording those children the protection and guidance of their closest family. Whether the parent, whose intimate relationship and familiarity with their child is critical in choosing a treatment path, feels that it is in their child's best interest or not, any medication could be prescribed. For example, in its present form, this bill would allow a treatment facility to prescribe contraception to a child, who when properly informed and guided by a parent may have chosen to carry the baby to term, either raising it as their own or contacting an adoption agency, not terminating its life.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect children who are in a very vulnerable situation away from their families in a residential treatment facility where they are supposed to be receiving help for a very difficult problem. The parents and the guardians who have raised and cared for these children, who know and understand their children and their medical histories best, should know about any new or changed medications to exercise their role as primary medical decision makers for their children. The right of consent should be explicitly stated in this legislation meant to protect these vulnerable youth.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I saw firsthand as a foster mother, there were too many children of color, minority children, who were overly prescribed for prescription drugs at a younger and younger age. This is a very disturbing issue and expressly underscores why parents or their guardians should have a say to actually give consent whether these children are given prescription drugs.

That being said, my motion, Mr. Speaker, does not infringe in any way on the role of the medical facility at a treatment facility. The expertise of the staff and the physicians would still be fully utilized in the diagnosis and, upon parental consent, the dispensing of prescription medication.

Moreover, my motion would not require parental notification for nonprescription drugs. A child in a residential treatment facility would not be hindered in obtaining any over-the-counter medication, such as aspirin. Only prescription drugs, which can have such far- reaching effects on a patient, would be applicable to the terms of this motion.

The prescription drugs often used in these facilities, especially the mental

health drugs, have very serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. These side effects for children, for children, Mr. Speaker, include suicide, homicide, psychosis, heart problems, tics, movement disorders, diabetes, even obesity.

Mr. Speaker, a parent is one of the most powerful influences in a child's life. I think this body agrees on that. In the case of a child in a residential treatment facility, with a very small voice and no ability to protect himself or herself, it is imperative that a parent or a legal guardian be given proper authority over the course of the treatment recommended by the treatment facility.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer a motion which will ensure that parents of children in residential treatment facilities have control over any medication being prescribed to their child. While the bill, as currently written, would require a parent or legal guardian to disclose to the facility any prescription drugs their child is currently taking, the facility would not be required to receive parental consent for the child to be issued a prescription for any new medication.

This issue is very real for me. As a mother and a foster mother who has cared for children in similar situations, I strongly believe in the importance of the role of the parent or legal guardian in a child's life. This is especially true when it comes to matters as serious as the health and well-being of that child. Prescription drugs, such as medication to treat psychiatric conditions can have a major impact on the mind and body of an adult, let alone the young mind and body of a child. Our professionals deal with this on a regular basis in mental health facilities all across the nation. Especially tragic is the statistically high number of children of color who are placed on prescription psychotropic drugs, often with severe misgivings from parents or guardians. Such a critical decision should only be made by a qualified medical doctor and only after the expressed consent of a parent or legal guardian is given.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would allow staff in residential treatment facilities to impose their will on children, without affording those children the protection and guidance of their closest family. Whether the parent, whose intimate relationship and familiarity with their child is critical in choosing a treatment path, feels it is in their child's best interest or not, any medication could be prescribed.

That is a historic leap in loss of parental rights over their children. Parents remain legally and financially liable for their children's mental and physical welfare yet this bill has government stripping parents of their right to consent to medical treatment via prescription drugs for their children. This bill says parents are good enough to pay the bill, but they can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their child's health. That is insulting, demeaning, and wrong.

The purpose of this amendment is to protect children who are in a very vulnerable situation away from their families in a residential treatment facility where they are supposed to be receiving help for very difficult problems. The parents and guardians that have raised and cared for these children, who know and understand their children and their medical histories best, should know about any new or changed medications to exercise their role as primary medical decision makers for their offspring. The right of consent should be explicitly stated in this legislation meant to protect these vulnerable youth.

That being said, this motion does not infringe on the role of the medical faculty at a treatment facility. The expertise of the staff and physicians would still be fully utilized in the diagnosis, and upon parental consent, the dispensing of prescription medication. Moreover, this motion would not require parental notification for non- prescription medication. A child in a residential treatment facility would not be hindered in obtaining any over-the-counter (OTC) medication such as aspirin. Only prescription drugs, which can have such far-reaching effects on the patient, would be applicable to the terms of this motion.

The prescription drugs often used in these facilities, especially the mental health drugs, have extremely serious, and sometimes fatal side effects. These include suicide, homicide, psychosis, heart problems, tics and movement disorders, diabetes and obesity.

Mr. Speaker, Members understand, a parent is one of the most powerful influences in a child's life. In the case of a child in a residential treatment facility, it is imperative that his or her parent or legal guardian be given proper authority over the course of treatment recommended by the treatment facility.

I believe this is an important addition to this bill and I urge my colleages to support the addition of this language.

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, ``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.

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.

I would ask my friend if he has any additional speakers on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I assume from my friend that he has no further speakers on the rule.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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 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.