Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4247) to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other purposes.

First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, for his leadership on this legislation.

The hearing which was held at the Education and Labor Committee was one of the most stunning, amazing, eye-opening events, I think, of this Congress. The bipartisanship which came together after that hearing to craft this legislation, again, I think is a testament to your leadership and the bipartisanship that you have created on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1998, The Hartford Courant won a Pulitzer Prize for a four-part investigation of seclusion and restraint all across the country. The name of the series was ``A Nationwide Pattern of Death,'' which I'd like to offer a copy of for the Record, and which, again, in chapter and verse, laid out the shocking, uneven application of this type of force against America's schoolchildren. In Connecticut, it actually resulted in action in terms of legislation which was put into place. Many of the minimum standards which are included in the legislation we're voting on today were incorporated into that measure. But, clearly, as a Nation, we have much more work to be done.

[From the Hartford Courant, Oct. 11, 1998]

A Nationwide Pattern of Death

(By Eric Weiss)

Roshelle Clayborne pleaded for her life.

Slammed face-down on the floor, Clayborne's arms were

yanked across her chest, her wrists gripped from behind by a

mental health aide.

I can't breathe, the 16-year-old gasped.

Her last words were ignored.

A syringe delivered 50 milligrams of Thorazine into her

body and, with eight staffers watching, Clayborne became,

suddenly, still. Blood trickled from the corner of her mouth

as she lost control of her bodily functions. Her limp body

was rolled into a blanket and dumped in an 8-by-10-foot room

used to seclude dangerous patients at the Laurel Ridge

Residential Treatment Center in San Antonio, Texas.

The door clicked behind her.

No one watched her die.

But Roshelle Clayborne is not alone. Across the country,

hundreds of patients have died after being restrained in

psychiatric and mental retardation facilities, many of them

in strikingly similar circumstances, a Courant investigation

has found.

Those who died were disproportionately young. They entered

our health care system as troubled children. They left in

coffins.

All of them died at the hands of those who are supposed to

protect, in places intended to give sanctuary.

If Roshelle Clayborne's death last summer was not an

isolated incident, neither were the recent deaths of

Connecticut's Andrew McClain or Robert Rollins.

A 50-state survey by The Courant, the first of its kind

ever conducted, has confirmed 142 deaths during or shortly

after restraint or seclusion in the past decade. The survey

focused on mental health and mental retardation facilities

and group homes nationwide.

But because many of these cases go unreported, the actual

number of deaths during or after restraint is many times

higher.

Between 50 and 150 such deaths occur every year across the

country, according to a statistical estimate commissioned by

The Courant and conducted by a research specialist at the

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

That's one to three deaths every week, 500 to 1,500 in the

past decade, the study shows.

``It's going on all around the country,'' said Dr. Jack

Zusman, a psychiatrist and author of a book on restraint

policy.

The nationwide trail of death leads from a 6-year-old boy

in California to a 45-year-old mother of four in Utah, from a

private treatment center in the deserts of Arizona to a

public psychiatric hospital in the pastures of Wisconsin.

In some cases, patients died in ways and for reasons that

defy common sense: a towel wrapped around the mouth of a 16-

year-old boy; a 15-year-old girl wrestled to the ground after

she wouldn't give up a family photograph.

Many of the actions would land a parent in jail, yet

staffers and facilities were rarely punished.

``I raised my child for 17 years and I never had to

restrain her, so I don't know what gave them the right to do

it,'' said Barbara Young, whose daughter Kelly died in the

Brisbane Child Treatment Center in New Jersey.

The pattern revealed by The Courant has gone either

unobserved or willfully ignored by regulators, by health

officials, by the legal system.

The federal government--which closely monitors the size of

eggs--does not collect data on how many patients are killed

by a procedure that is used every day in psychiatric and

mental retardation facilities across the country.

Neither do state regulators, academics or accreditation

agencies.

``Right now we don't have those numbers,'' said Ken August

of the California Department of Health Services, ``and we

don't have a way to get at them.''

The regulators don't ask, and the hospitals don't tell.

As more patients with mental disabilities are moved from

public institutions into smaller, mostly private facilities,

the need for stronger oversight and uniform standards is

greater than ever.

``Patients increasingly are not in hospitals but in

contract facilities where no one has the vaguest idea of what

is going on,'' said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a nationally

prominent psychiatrist, author and critic of the mental

health care system.

Because nobody is tracking these tragedies, many restraint-

related deaths go unreported not only to the government, but

sometimes to the families themselves.

``There is always some reticence on reporting problems

because of the litigious nature of society,'' acknowledged

Dr. Donald M. Nielsen, a senior vice president of the

American Hospital Association. ``I think the question is not

one of reporting, but making sure there are systems in place

to prevent these deaths.''

Typically, though, hospitals dismiss restraint-related

deaths as unfortunate flukes, not as a systemic issue. After

all, they say, these patients are troubled, ill and sometimes

violent.

The facility where Roshelle Clayborne died insists her

death had nothing to do with the restraint. Officials there

say it was a heart condition that killed the 16-year-old on

Aug. 18, 1997.

Bexar County Medical Examiner Vincent DiMaio ruled that

Clayborne died of natural causes, saying that restraint use

was a separate ``clinical issue.''

But that, too, is typical in restraint cases. Medical

examiners rarely connect the circumstances of the restraint

to the physical cause of death, making these cases impossible

to track through death certificates.

The explanations don't wash with Clayborne's grandmother.

``I'll picture her lying on that floor until the day I

die,'' Charlene Miles said. ``Roshelle had her share of

problems, but good God, no one deserves to die like that.''

With nobody tracking, nobody telling, nobody watching, the

same deadly errors are allowed to occur again and again.

Of the 142 restraint-related deaths confirmed by The

Courant's investigation:

Twenty-three people died after being restrained in face-

down floor holds.

Another 20 died after they were tied up in leather wrist

and ankle cuffs or vests, and ignored for hours.

Causes of death could be confirmed in 125 cases. Of those

patients, 33 percent died of asphyxia, another 26 percent

died of cardiac-related causes.

Ages could be confirmed in 114 cases. More than 26 percent

of those were children--nearly twice the proportion they

constitute in mental health institutions.

Many of the victims were so mentally or physically impaired

they could not fend for themselves. Others had to be

restrained after they erupted violently, without warning and

for little reason.

Caring for these patients is a difficult and dangerous job,

even for the best-trained workers. Staffers can suddenly find

themselves the target of a thrown chair, a punch, a bite from

an HIV-positive patient.

Yet the great tragedy is that many of the deaths could have

been prevented by setting

standards that are neither costly nor difficult: better

training in restraint use; constant or frequent monitoring of

patients in restraints; the banning of dangerous techniques

such as face-down floor holds; CPR training for all direct-

care workers.

``When you look at the statistics and realize there's a

pattern, you need to start finding out why,'' said Dr. Rod

Munoz, president of the American Psychiatric Association,

when told of The Courant's findings. ``We have to take

action.''

Mental health providers, who treat more than 9 million

patients a year at an annual cost of more than $30 billion,

judge themselves by the humanity of their care. So the misuse

of restraints--and the contributing factors, such as poor

training and staffing--offers a disturbing window into the

overall quality of the nation's mental health system.

For their part, health care officials say restraints are

used less frequently and more compassionately than ever

before.

``When it comes to restraints, the public has a picture of

medieval things, chains and dungeons,'' said Dr. Kenneth

Marcus, psychiatrist in chief at Connecticut Valley Hospital

in Middletown. ``But it really isn't. Restraints are used to

physically stabilize patients, to prevent them from being

assaultive or hurting themselves.''

But in case after case reviewed by The Courant, court and

medical documents show that restraints are still used far too

often and for all the wrong reasons: for discipline, for

punishment, for the convenience of staff.

``As a nation we get all up in arms reading about human

rights issues on the other side of the world, but there are

some basic human rights issues that need attention right here

at our back door,'' said Jean Allen, the adoptive mother of

Tristan Sovern, a North Carolina teen who died after aides

wrapped a towel and bed sheet around his head.

Others have a simple explanation for the lack of attention

paid to deaths in mental health facilities.

``These are the most devalued, disenfranchised people that

you can imagine,'' said Ron Honberg, director of legal

affairs for the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. ``They

are so out of sight, so out of mind, so devoid of rights,

really. Who cares about them anyway?''

Few seemed to care much about Roshelle Clayborne at Laurel

Ridge, where she was known as a ``hell raiser.''

But Clayborne had made one close friendship--with her

roommate, Lisa Allen. Allen remembers showing Clayborne how

to throw a football during afternoon recess on that summer

afternoon in 1997.

``She just couldn't seem to get it right and she was

getting more and more frustrated. But I told her it was OK,

we'd try again tomorrow,'' said Allen, who has since rejoined

her family in Indiana.

Within three hours, Clayborne was dead.

She had attacked staff members with pencils. And staffers

had a routine for hell raisers.

``This is the way we do it with Roshelle,'' a worker later

told state regulators. ``Boom, boom, boom: [medications] and

restraints and seclusion.''

After she was restrained, Roshelle Clayborne lay in her own

waste and vomit for five minutes before anyone noticed she

hadn't moved. Three staffers tried in vain to find a pulse.

Two went looking for a ventilation mask and oxygen bag,

emergency equipment they never found.

During all this time, no one started CPR.

``It wouldn't have worked anyway,'' Vanessa Lewis, the

licensed vocational nurse on duty, later declared to state

regulators.

By the time a registered nurse arrived and began CPR, it

was too late. Clayborne never revived.

In their final report on Clayborne's death, Texas state

regulators cited Laurel Ridge for five serious violations and

found staff failed to protect her health and safety during

the restraint. They recommended Laurel Ridge be closed.

Instead, the state placed Laurel Ridge on a one-year

probation in February and the center remains open for

business. In a prepared statement, Laurel Ridge said it has

complied with the state's concerns--and it pointed out the

difficulty in treating someone with Clayborne's background.

``Roshelle Clayborne, a ward of the state, had a very

troubled and extensive psychiatric history, which is why

Laurel Ridge was chosen to treat her,'' the statement said.

``Roshelle's death was a tragic event and we empathize with

the family.''

With no criminal prosecution and little regulatory action,

the Clayborne family is now suing in civil court. The Austin

chapter of the NAACP and the private watchdog group Citizens

Human Rights Commission of Texas are asking for a federal

civil rights investigation into the death of Clayborne.

Medications and restraint and seclusion.

Clayborne's friend, Lisa Allen, knew the routine well, too.

For six years, Allen, now 18, lived in mental health

facilities in Indiana and Texas, where her explosive

personality would often boil over and land her in trouble.

By her own estimate, Allen was restrained ``thousands'' of

times and she bears the scars to prove it: a mark on her knee

from a rug burn when she was restrained on a carpet; the loss

of part of a birthmark on her forehead when she was slammed

against a concrete wall.

Exactly two weeks after Roshelle Clayborne's death, Lisa

Allen found herself in the same position as her friend.

The same aide had pinned her arms across her chest.

Thorazine was pumped into her system. She was deposited in

the seclusion room.

``It felt like my lungs were being squished together,''

Allen said.

But Lisa Allen was one of the lucky ones.

She survived.

The fact of the matter is that today, 19 States have no laws or regulations related to the use of seclusion or restraints in school. Seven States place some restrictions on restraint, but do not regulate seclusions. That's within the 31 that was referred to by Mr. Kline. Seventeen States require that selected staff receive training before being permitted to restrain children. The rest do not. Thirteen States require schools to obtain consent prior to foreseeable or nonemergency physical restraints, while 19 require parents to be notified afterwards. Only two States require annual reporting on the use of restraints. Eight States specifically prohibit the use of prone restraints or restraints that impede a child's ability to breathe.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as a government, as a Nation that provides massive amounts of education dollars across the country, we would never countenance racial discrimination or gender discrimination by any institutions that receive those funds.

I don't think it's too much to say that we should not allow these types of practices which, in some instances, result in, as the chairman said, actual deaths and traumatic lifelong injuries, to be countenanced by the American taxpayer. This measure establishes minimum standards. It establishes transparency. It gives us as a country the opportunity to allow States to take leadership in terms of implementing their own rules and regulations. But it says as a Nation we are not going to tolerate this type of behavior, of which schools themselves are mandated reporters. If it was happening in a child's home, and as a teacher became aware of it, they would be required by law to report it to child protection agencies as a result of Federal law. We can do at least as much for the school environment which children go to every day in this country.

I urge a strong, powerful bipartisan vote in support of this legislation so that we can raise our children to a new level as they go to school every day.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1126, I call up the bill (H.R. 4247) to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4247.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation that will make our classrooms safer for our children and our teachers. But first I would like to tell the story of Cedric. This is a picture of Cedric, who was a young man from Killeen, Texas, who died in his classroom when he was just 14 years of age.

Cedric was living with a foster family after an early childhood filled with abuse. Among other things, his biological family had neglected him by denying him food. Despite knowing this, on the morning he died, Cedric's teacher punished him for refusing to do his work by delaying his lunch for hours. When Cedric tried to leave his classroom to find food, his teacher put him face down in restraint and sat on him in front of his classmates. He repeatedly cried out that he could not breathe. He died minutes later on the classroom floor.

Now I would like to tell you the story of Paige. Paige was a bright, energetic, and happy young girl who started a new school in Cupertino, California. But Paige, who has Asperger's Syndrome, came home from her school the first week with bruises complaining that her teacher hurt her.

Paige's parents confronted the teacher, who denied causing the bruising. She did admit to restraining Paige for simply wiggling a loose tooth. Her parents were shocked to learn later that the teacher had lied and that she had actually held Paige face down and sat on her. Sitting on a 7-year-old for wiggling a loose tooth. Paige barely weighed 40 pounds.

Over the course of many months, Paige was repeatedly abused and injured during restraint incidents until her parents finally pulled her out of the school. She survived, but she still bears the emotional scars of this abuse.

Cedric's and Paige's stories are not isolated incidents in America's schools today. Last May, the Government Accountability Office told our committee about the shocking wave of abuse of children in our public and private schools. This abuse was happening at the hands of untrained school staff who were misusing restraint and seclusion.

Hundreds of students across the U.S. have been victims of this abuse. These victims include students with disabilities and students without disabilities. Many of these victims were children as young as 3 and 4 years of age. In some cases, children died.

Restraint and seclusion are complicated practices. They are emergency interventions that should be used only as a last resort and only by trained professionals. But GAO found that too often these techniques are being used in schools under the guise of discipline or convenience.

Last year, in my home State of California, there were more than 14,300 cases of seclusion, restraint, and other ``emergency interventions.'' We don't know how many of these cases were actual emergencies.

We have Federal laws in place to prevent these types of abuses from happening in hospitals and other community-based facilities that receive Federal funding, but currently there are no Federal laws on the books to protect children from these abuses in the schools, where they spend most of their time.

Without a Federal standard, State policies and oversight, they vary widely, leaving children vulnerable. Of the 31 States that have established some law or regulation, many are not comprehensive in approach and several only address restraint or address seclusion, not necessarily both.

For example, in one State there are rules only for children enrolled in pre-K. In another, only children with autism are protected. In yet another example, only residential schools are covered. Many States allow restraints or seclusion in nonemergency situations, simply to protect property or to maintain order. No child should be subject to these extreme interventions for simple noncompliance, like the 7-year- old who died after being restrained for blowing bubbles in her milk.

Mr. Speaker, when these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual victim who suffers. It hurts their classmates who witness these traumatizing events. It undermines the vast majority of teachers and staff who are trying to give students a quality education. It's a nightmare for everyone involved. We are here today to try and end this nightmare. We are here today to make sure that no other children suffer the same fate as Cedric and Paige. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will ensure that all children are safe and protected in schools.

This bill takes a balanced approach to addressing a very serious problem. For the first time, it will establish minimum safety standards for schools, similar to Federal protections in place for children in other facilities. Under this legislation, physical restraint and seclusion can only be used to stop imminent danger of injury. The bill prohibits mechanical restraints, such as strapping children to their chairs or duct-taping parts of their bodies, and any restraint that restricts their breathing. It also prohibits chemical restraints, using medication to control behavior without a doctor's prescription. The bill also will require students to notify parents after a restraint or seclusion incident so that parents don't learn about these abuses from whistle-blowing teachers or from their own children's bruises.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that teachers play the single most important role in helping students grow, thrive, and succeed. Teachers support this bill because it focuses on keeping both students and staff safe, giving teachers the support they need do their jobs. It asks States to ensure that enough personnel are properly trained to keep both students and staff safe and encourages the schools to implement positive approaches to managing these behavioral issues.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud that we worked on this legislation in a bipartisan way. I want to thank Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers for her leadership, her diligence, her persuasion, and her hard work in fashioning this legislation. I would also like to thank the National Disability Rights Network for bringing this abuse to our attention; the National School Boards Association; and more than a hundred other organizations for their support.

Everyone in this Chamber can agree that nothing is more important than keeping our children safe. It's time to try to end this abuse. I believe that this legislation will go a long way in setting the standard and showing States the way, and hopefully in the next 2 years the States will develop their own standards that at least meet these minimum standards of not depriving these children of the cushion of safety that they are entitled to and that their parents and family expect when they go to school on a daily basis.

So I would like to once again remind us of what happened to Cedric and to Paige at their age; their vulnerabilities, their history, and what happened to them one day when they went to school.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I thank the gentlewoman from Washington. I don't believe she was in the Chamber at that time, but I want to again thank her, while she is here, for all of her work and all of her effort to bring this bill to the floor. I enjoyed working with her.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

If I might just yield to myself to respond to the inquiry. We have Mr. Langevin who is waiting to speak, and I think Mrs. McCarthy is on her way.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the argument against this legislation is that somehow 31 States have taken care of this problem and that we all share the concern. The facts are that 31 States have not taken care of this problem. As we pointed out, in a number of States, it only goes to one particular population in that school, in that setting, or to an age bracket, or to just reporting, what have you. These are not laws that are designed to protect these children in this situation.

Illinois has been cited. Illinois is very close to what you would like to see have happen, and they have spent a lot of effort trying to do that.

But in my own State, we talk about the 14,000. When you ask the person responsible for this, they say, We don't use the data. So is that sufficient for Members of Congress? California has ``addressed the problem''? Yes, they collect data that they refuse to characterize or do anything else with.

Paige could have been in that data. She could have been one of those 14,000.

So I think we have to understand. I appreciate there is a difference here about the approach. But as Mr. Courtney pointed out, in 1998 we had a national discussion, an expose of many of the same behaviors that are going on today, it is 12 years later, and children are still being abused, dramatically abused. Restraint and seclusion is being dramatically misused. It is being used by people who don't know what to do in that situation. They have not been trained.

I find it interesting that the school boards who have to live with this problem on an everyday basis support this legislation. The classroom teachers who have to live with this on an everyday basis support this legislation. People who are on the front lines want this legislation passed because it will bring them greater understanding, greater knowledge, greater skill, and greater training to deal in these situations. An understanding, yes, there are situations where, in an emergency case, where there is a danger to the individual student or to others, that this may be proper. But it also takes training to understand that and how you use it.

I refuse to believe that was the 14,000 incidents in California, that each one of those was an emergency, dangerous

situation. They may say it is an emergency, but in California they don't describe what an emergency is. So compliance with current law all across this country is not a big deal. It is not doing much for the families of these children. It is not doing much to protect these children.

That is why we move. We move with some minimum standards about taping children, mechanical restraints of children, about secluding very young children in darkness for hours at a time, maybe repeatedly for days on end. You should not be able to do that.

We have other investigations in the committee where the simple withdrawal of water has killed children because of dehydration. So we ought not to withdraw water here. We ought to not withdraw food as a means of punishment. We ought not deny them the use of the bathroom facilities. We ought not have them in a situation where they are soiling themselves in front of their classmates, where they are humiliated, where circles are drawn around their chair and they sit in the classroom tied down by duct tape, while they are humiliated and pointed at by the teacher. These are 4- and 5- and 6-year-old kids. None of us would stand for this with our children or our grandchildren, not for a minute. But many of these parents are never notified that this is happening to their children. Many of the grandparents are never notified that this is happening to a child that they were caring for. Many of the foster parents are never notified that their children are in danger, in peril. Think about it. Just put the vision of your child, your grandchild, your next-door neighbor child in this picture.

And you want to say, We have addressed it; the States have addressed it; there is no role for the Federal Government. Well, who the hell is going to step in and protect these children? They can't do it themselves.

This may not be perfect, but we ought to take this step to put us on record that we are prepared to do something to end this practice, this abuse, this torture, of very young children, in many instances children with disabilities, children who are unable to communicate in an effective fashion. Just think about that. Think about your family. You don't have to take this to the abstract. These children cannot defend themselves against this practice, and their parents can't speak for them if they don't know. These children can't control themselves if they are denied the use of a bathroom facility.

That is what this legislation is about. It is about whether or not we are going to take this step, whether or not this step is important, and I do not believe that you can nullify this by suggesting that somehow because 31 States have done something, that this problem need not be addressed, need not have our attention. We cannot do this to these children and these families.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The manager's amendment makes minor technical corrections and clarifications. It renames the bill Keeping All Students Safe Act. The amendment adds clarifying language to the definition of ``chemical restraint'' to exclude medications prescribed and administered by qualified health professionals acting under State law. It fixes the definition of ``school'' to include all schools and programs under the jurisdiction of the local educational agency. It clarifies language describing ``State-approved crisis intervention training program,'' and the amendment requires States to consult with private school officials on determining that a sufficient number of personnel are trained to meet the needs of the student population.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment. Obviously, I am a very strong believer in this legislation and the terrible situation that we are trying to rectify, and I would hope and I think with the gentleman's language we can hopefully be assured that these grants would be based upon a healthy competition and would be based upon the request of the States for technical assistance and for other assistance in dealing with this legislation. So I support the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1126.

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.

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.

I yield the gentleman from California 2 additional minutes.

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.

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.

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.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California for questions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4247, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that the incidents uncovered by the GAO are unacceptable. No child should be put in physical danger by the use of seclusion or restraints in school. The tragic stories just related by the chairman of Cedric and Paige are unacceptable everywhere.

In each of the cases reviewed by the GAO, there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. In other words, everyone agrees that what happened is simply wrong. We do not need a change in Federal law for such behavior to be condemned. Sometimes the most powerful tool we have as elected officials is the bully pulpit, and Chairman Miller and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers have certainly availed themselves of it. They have worked hard to call national attention to the misuse of seclusion and restraints in our schools.

States clearly recognize the need to proactively limit the use of these disciplinary tools. Today, 31 States have policies and procedures in place to govern when and how seclusion or restraint techniques may or may not be used. Another 15 States will have such protections in place in the near future. Many, many independent school districts and school boards have such procedures in place.

The question today is: Who is best equipped to create and enforce those

policies? To answer that question, I would point to a letter from the Council of the Great City Schools, which States, ``Every injury to a student in school is a matter of serious concern, but all such incidents are not necessarily matters of Federal law.'' In fact, until recently, the U.S. Department of Education was not even collecting data on the use of seclusion and restraint tactics in schools. The Department has no experience or expertise regulating in this area. Yet, H.R. 4247 would establish a new, one-size-fits-all Federal framework that overrules the work of these States.

I will include the letter from the Council of the Great City Schools in the Record, along with letters from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council for American Private Education, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

American Association of School

Administrators,

Arlington, VA, March 2, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The American Association of School

Administrators, representing more than 13,000 school

administrators and local educational leaders, would like to

express serious concerns with HR 4247, the Preventing Harmful

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act, which is expected to

be considered in the next few days. We ask that the voices of

rank-and-file teachers, principals, superintendents and

school board members be heard and that HR 4247, as reported

from Committee, be defeated.

The need to establish these particular federal regulations

for seclusion and restraint has not been established by

objective, carefully gathered and analyzed data. For example,

the report by the National Disability Rights Network upon

which HR 4247 partially relies mixes data from regular public

schools with data from schools for children with serious

behavioral disorders and institutions for students who are

regularly violent. Further, the incidents took place over an

unknown period of time--perhaps a decade or more. It seems to

us that most of those cases took place in settings serving

either the small percentage of students with serious behavior

disorders or the even smaller percentage of students who are

a violent danger to themselves or others. Finally, the NDN

report counts incidents of seclusion and restraint without

noting whether those events took place over a decade or some

other time period.

The Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of

Education is preparing to gather more objective information

this coming school year. We urge the House to await

objective, uniformly reported and analyzed data from OCR

before acting. Based on experience, we are sure that a

student in a regular public school is extremely unlikely to

be physically harmed, secluded in a windowless room, taped to

a chair or handcuffed to a fence by a teacher or

administrator. Just how unlikely such events are is unknown

because objective, uniformly gathered and analyzed data

simply are not available.

In addition, the report recently released by the U.S.

Department of Education states that 31 states currently have

policies in place to oversee the use of seclusion and

restraint and 15 states are in the process of adopting

policies and protections. Given this massive state action,

AASA questions the need for federal involvement on this

issue.

Reviews of HR 4247 by state-based teacher, administrator

and school board associations have identified a number of

serious flaws, which they have raised to their congressional

delegations, but so far their voices have not been included

in the discussions.

HR 4247 includes a prohibition against including seclusion

and restraint in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or

behavioral plan. The IEP and behavioral plans are the

communication platform for parents and school staff to

discuss the students' needs and corresponding school

interventions. Prohibiting the inclusion of seclusion and

restraint in the IEP or behavioral plans where past behavior

clearly indicates a need will only lead to further conflicts

and misunderstandings between parents and school staff.

The Protection and Advocacy agencies are given broad

undefined authority to enforce the new law. P&A agencies have

long monitored and investigated on behalf of disabled

students, but enforcement is new. Enforcement of federal law

has been the sole responsibility of state or federal

agencies. A bigger problem for school systems is that the

meaning of enforcement is undefined. For example, does the

enforcement authority permit P&A staff to enter schools

without checking in with appropriate school personnel? Arrest

authority? Authority to change school policy on the spot?

HR 4247's prohibition against mechanical restraints is too

broad and could prevent appropriate use of restraints in

emergency situations where students must be restrained to

protect themselves and others.

This legislation applies to both the special education and

regular education populations, and thus raises mandate

training and reporting costs for school districts. These

increased fiscal and operational burdens are accompanied by

minuscule authorization and few prospects for an

appropriation. A huge, new, unfunded mandate is difficult to

justify at a time when schools are cutting teaching staff and

stretching resources to balance budgets.

HR 4247 also prescribes a debriefing session for school

personnel and parents within 72 hours of the use of seclusion

or restraint, to address documentation of the antecedents to

the restraint or seclusion and prevention planning (although

it cannot involve the IEP). School staff are already over-

committed in their daily schedules. Imposing short, mandatory

timelines for extensive meetings will likely result in the

cancellation of other instructional commitments or missed

timelines and new litigation.

Finally, the tone of HR 4247 is relentlessly negative

toward teachers and administrators. This tone indicting all

teachers and administrators is unwarranted by plain

observation, is unsupported by any credible data and should

be eliminated. AASA is certain that every member of the House

knows at least one teacher or administrator who has dedicated

his or her professional life to the education and development

of children and who has never restrained or secluded a single

student, even if his or her career spanned over 40 years.

Thank you for your consideration. If there are any

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me for further

discussion of this important issue.

Yours truly,

Dan Domenech,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, I would like to yield myself a minute.

My friend from Illinois was just here. I'm sorry that he left. He underscored for me one of the many problems with this legislation. It turns out that Illinois is one of those States that actually has a very strong seclusion and restraint law. They passed it in 2001. It went into effect in 2002; and in 2006, there was an incident, one of those reported by the GAO, where a teacher restricted a child inappropriately. The teacher was prosecuted, found guilty, and yet I find it interesting that even today, or the last look that we had at this, she still has a teacher's certificate to be a substitute teacher in Illinois, something which this bill doesn't address either. We need to get these teachers out of the teaching business.

It just makes a point that when you pass a law, it doesn't automatically keep kids safe. You have got to enforce that law. You've got to educate folks, and you've got to have people locally take an active interest.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

I will be yielding to Mr. Souder momentarily, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I wanted to touch on a couple of things that we have talked about in the course of this debate that I find to be interesting. We have heard an appeal from one of the Members here on the floor, I think it was the gentleman from Illinois, who said he was applauding this evidence-based approach. And yet we have heard other Members say we have insufficient data. I must admit that I fall in the latter category. We really don't know the extent of the situation.

We have heard the numbers quoted. California, for example, is quoted as having 14,000 incidents. We really don't know what is in those 14,000. These include emergency interventions. So we don't know if that's the case of a teacher breaking up a fight or stopping an argument. It is certainly not 14,000 cases of taping children to their chairs, and I don't think anybody in this body believes that is the case.

But the point is we don't know. We don't know, and yet we are using numbers as though they were gospel.

Look, on this issue let's start with what we agree on. We agree students and teachers should be safe at school. We agree children with disabilities are especially vulnerable because they may struggle with behavioral and communication problems that are difficult for teachers to control. As a result, children with disabilities have been more likely to be restrained or placed in seclusion when, in many cases, positive behavioral interventions could be much more successful and pose a lower risk to students.

We also agree that teachers must be able to protect students with serious behavioral problems from injuring themselves or their classmates or their teachers.

The only real disagreement, outside some dispute over the data and the evidence and the GAO report, and I find the GAO report particularly interesting because it cited 10 incidents of really egregious behavior in seclusion and restraint. Of course, one of those incidents was 18 years ago, two were 12 years ago, and the most recent was 4 years ago. It just seems to me, when we are going to enact this kind of legislation, this sort of Federal overreach, in my judgment, we ought to have better data.

So our only real disagreement is who should address the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. I believe States and local school districts have an obligation to keep their classrooms safe. I have seen real progress from the 46 States that have or will soon have their own policies to train teachers on how to handle difficult behavior and to ensure seclusion or restraints are only used to protect children from harming themselves or others.

I believe the Federal Government has historically limited its reach into private schools, and it would be a mistake to start applying new Federal mandates to independent schools that do not receive taxpayer funding. I also believe that we do not protect schools by empowering trial lawyers.

For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose H.R. 4247. Through hearings and public outreach, Members of Congress have successfully spurred a national dialogue about the dangers of these strategies for controlling student behavior. That dialogue is a positive step, as is the action it has prompted at the State and local level. Let's not discard the work of these States and districts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with the chairman. This is a technical amendment. It changes the short title of the bill and some other technical and clarifying changes to the bill. While I still cannot support the underlying bill, we have no objection to this. I will vote for it and encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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.)

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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]

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