Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career and service of Dr. Walt L. Hanline upon his retirement as the Superintendent of the Ceres Unified School District.

Throughout his 35-year career, Dr. Hanline has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to the development of the highest standards for the education of all children, modeling through his daily interactions with staff and the community his passion for doing what is right, including the creation of smaller learning communities for Ceres students through an unprecedented school facility building project valued at over $166 million and resulting in five new elementary schools and a new high school campus. His dedication to the highest level of integrity and service resulted in his distinguished recognition as the 2007 State Superintendent of the Year by the Association of California School Administrators for his positive influences and successes in education, in proving that all students can succeed when high standards are set. In addition, Dr. Hanline's commitment to the community in which he serves, is evidenced by his award as the 2008 Citizen of the Year by the Ceres Chamber of Commerce, as a result of his successes in building positive working relationships between the City of Ceres and the Ceres Unified School District, co-founding the CUSD Foundation to provide supplemental educational opportunities to Ceres students and teachers, and actively serving in the Ceres community through the Ceres Community Collaborative. He has served as a mentor to future educational leaders through his position as adjunct professor at the California State University, Stanislaus, presenting at numerous education summits and workshops throughout the United States.

Dr. Hanline has dedicated himself for over 35 years to education, as a teacher, a principal, and a superintendent, serving the past 9 years as superintendent of the Ceres Unified School District. He has shown himself to be a leader who has vision and determination to achieve the goals he sets for both the District and the community for which he serves. It is my distinguished pleasure to recognize Dr. Walt Hanline for his achievements and to honor him as my friend. I wish both he and his wife, Edith, the best as they embark on this new chapter in their lives.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, while unemployment is still at a record high in my district, the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act is an important opportunity for us to invest in creating a brighter, more resilient economic future.

Manufacturing is leading the early stages of the recovery in California. In fact, I am told that next year could bring the first annual increase in California manufacturing employment in a decade.

Madam Chair, now is the time for us to support the manufacturing sector in our country. Energy costs are rising and consumer demand is up for sustainable products. Sustainability will be a key element for keeping our manufacturing sector competitive. Even now, manufacturers are trying to find ways to incorporate emerging sustainable technologies into their businesses.

My amendment will help manufacturers respond quickly and effectively to the demand for more sustainable practices by instructing the NIST Director to carry out a green manufacturing and construction initiative that gives manufacturers the information they need to make sound, science-based sustainable investments.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment. I understand that my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) does have some concerns, and I anticipate that he might want to engage in a colloquy, and I stand ready to do that with the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Chair, while unemployment is still at a record high in my district, the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act is an important opportunity for us to invest in creating a brighter, more resilient economic future.

The University of California, Merced campus in my district has received millions of Research and Development dollars that are being used to develop new technologies and to train a new generation of scientists, engineers, and teachers.

As this new technology is developed, it is also in our nation's best interests to make sure that we find ways to make it profitable for our businesses to implement.

Last month, the University of the Pacific published its California Business Forecast report.

And, with the notable exception of Toyota's NUMMI plant closure, manufacturing is leading the early stages of the economic recovery in California.

In fact, next year could bring the first annual increase in California manufacturing employment in a decade.

Madam Chair, now is the time to support the manufacturing sector in our country.

Energy costs are rising and consumer demand is up for sustainable products.

Sustainability will be one important element for keeping our manufacturing sector competitive.

Even now, manufacturers are trying to find ways to incorporate emerging sustainable technology into their business practices.

The Sun Chips plant in my district in the City of Modesto is a leader in utilizing sustainable technology.

It is cutting back on its environmental impact by using a solar collector field to produce thermal energy to make its snacks.

My amendment will help other companies embrace similar sustainability goals and make a profit because of it.

It will help other manufacturers respond quickly and effectively to the demand for more sustainable practices by instructing the National Institute of Standards and Technology Director to carry out a green manufacturing and construction initiative that gives manufacturers the information they need to make sound, science-based sustainable investments.

There are more than 335,000 manufacturing plants in the United States, and my amendment will give them the information they need to adopt the best sustainable practices and to be technologically competitive in the twenty-first century.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense amendment.

Madam Chair, yes, that interpretation is correct, and I thank the gentleman for his colloquy.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the late Linda Padilla Macedo. Linda passed away peacefully on April 21, 2010. She is survived by her husband, Dan Macedo; her daughters Rebecca and Stephanie; her parents Joseph and Joanna Padilla; her sister Theresa Soares and brother-in-law Steven Soares; her brother-in-law Don Leatherman; her sister-in-law Nanette Barce-Padilla; her brother-in-law and sister-in-law Pamela and Tom Friedman; and numerous nieces and nephews.

Linda and her husband Dan were partners in the family dairy business, which had been in operation for 65 years until 2007, when Dan and Linda retired to Sonora. She earned her bachelor of arts and masters degrees from Fresno State University. Linda was a founding member and held many offices including president of the Merced Chapter of California Women for Agriculture and went on to become State president of CWA. She served as chairman of the USDA Farm Services Agency State Committee and the Ag Awareness and Literacy Foundation. She also served on the Merced County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, National Dairy Promotion & Research Board, Merced County Agricultural Preservation Strategy Committee, California Department of Conservation Council for the Preservation of Habitat and Natural Resources, County UC Merced Planning and Advisory Committee, American Agri Women and the Common Threads Committee. Linda donated her knowledge, talents and time in support of her daughters as they grew up, serving as a member of the Our Lady of Mercy Boosters Club and project leader for Lancers 4-H.

The volunteer activity closest to her heart was the founding of the Merced County Farmlands and Open Space Trust and the Central Valley Farmland Trust, which she served as the president and on the board of directors. Linda served her community selflessly and through her time and commitment helped to educate the community about the importance

of agriculture and the protection of our farmland.

Madam Speaker, the recognition that I am offering today before the House of Representatives for Linda Padilla Maced is small compared to the contributions and impact she had on the lives of so many. She was truly an invaluable member of our community, an exemplary advocate for agriculture, and an outstanding human being.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that I rise today to honor Cornelius John ``C.J'' Groves. C.J. is not only an engaged member of our community in Merced County, California, but a respected and influential educator.

C.J. Groves was born in Casper, Wyoming on May 26, 1920. His family moved in 1924 to Petaluma, California, where they settled. He attended local public schools and graduated in mid-year from Petaluma High School in 1938. After graduation, he enrolled at San Jose State, but was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1941 during his junior year. While in the service, he boxed as a light heavyweight and won all the tournaments that he entered. He retired undefeated. His ability to articulate made him an obvious candidate for Officers Candidate School where he graduated as a second lieutenant and was assigned to the Medical Administrative Corps. He was then sent to the Philippines for active duty. After the war ended, he was shipped to Japan until March 1946. He was discharged as a first lieutenant and ended his military career as a captain in the reserve.

After the service, C.J. continued his studies at San Jose State and graduated in June 1947 with a degree in English and a minor in history. He then attended Stanford University, where he completed the credential program. He began teaching at Merced High School in 1948. He continued his own education during his career and ultimately received a masters degree from Chapman University. In 1958, he helped open the new campus for Atwater High School as Vice Principal and Dean of Boys. He served in that capacity until 1974 when he was named Principal of Atwater High School. He continued to lead the school with distinction until 1981 when he retired.

His commitment to education has garnered the life-long respect and admiration of the

countless students who were fortunate to have gone to both Atwater and Merced High Schools during his long tenure with the Merced Union High School District. His distinguished career in education has also been a source of inspiration and encouragement to all of those who have served with him as faculty and staff.

C.J. currently resides in Merced, where he has enjoyed his retirement years. He was an active member of his duck club for many years, a member of the Elks, and is a 32nd degree Mason. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor and privilege to join my community in honoring Mr. C.J. Groves on his 90th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record a letter sent to me by the Physician Insurers Association (PIAA) expressing their concerns that multiple provisions of H.R. 3590 could potentially create new causes of action for medical liability claims despite the assurances I received from the committees and others that there would be no impact.

Mr. Speaker, the House-passed H.R. 3962 prevented these causes of action from being created by adding Section 261. Section 261 stated that the development, recognition, or implementation of any guideline or other standard shall not be construed to establish the standard of care or the duty of care owed by healthcare providers to their patients in any malpractice action or claim.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, it was the legislative intent of Congress to insert Section 261 or similar language in any Conference Committee bill to prevent new causes of action. It was not and never has been the intent of this legislation to create any new causes of action or claims premised on the development of guidelines or other standards.

Physician Insurers

Association of America,

Rockville, MD, March 9, 2010.

Hon. Dennis Cardoza,

Longworth Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Cardoza: On behalf of the 60 domestic

primary medical professional liability insurance company

members of the Physician Insurers Association of America

(PIAA), I am writing regarding the healthcare reform

legislation passed by the Senate. Specifically, I would like

to share our concerns about the legislation creating new

causes of action for medical liability claims.

The PIAA is the only trade association in the nation

dedicated solely to the medical professional liability

insurance industry. Our members are physician and other

healthcare provider owned or operated professional liability

insurers which provide indemnification for over 60% of

America's doctors, as well as dentists, hospitals and other

healthcare providers. Our member insurance companies were

formed by state medical, dental and hospital associations

over the past 30 years, to include 4 which are domiciled in

California. They were formed with the specific goals of

lowering insurance costs for providers and helping patients

through sound underwriting and patient safety practices. In

this regard, we are uniquely qualified to offer our

perspective on medical liability issues.

As approved by the Senate, H.R. 3590 contains at least 14

provisions which could create new causes of action for

medical liability claims. These include:

Section 2701 (adult health quality measures).

Section 2702 (payment adjustments for health care acquired

conditions).

Section 3001 (Hospital Value-Based Purchase Program).

Section 3002 (improvements to the Physician Quality

Reporting Initiative).

Section 3003 (improvements to the Physician Feedback

Program).

Section 3007 (value based payment modifier under physician

fee schedule).

Section 3008 (payment adjustment for conditions acquired in

hospitals).

Section 3013 (quality measure development).

Section 3014 (quality measurement).

Section 3021 (Establishment of Center for Medicare and

Medicaid Innovation).

Section 3025 (hospital readmission reduction program).

Section 3501 (health care delivery system research, quality

improvement).

Section 4003 (Task Force on Clinical and Preventive

Services).

Section 4301 (research to optimize deliver of public health

services).

Sufficient questions were raised about these sections of

H.R. 3590 that a provision was added to the bill

commissioning a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study

to see if these sections did indeed result in new avenues for

medical liability claims to be filed. Quite simply, such a

study is unnecessary and possibly harmful. If Congress

intends to create multiple new avenues for the filing of

medical liability claims, it does not need to commission the

study. If, as we have been told, it does not intend to

substantially increase medical liability litigation, a study

will only needlessly create an opening for such cases to be

filed until Congress finds the opportunity to correct the

issue.

Congress should not wait for a study to be conducted--it

should clearly state its intent in the legislation to not

create new medical liability causes of action which could

dramatically increase medical liability insurance premiums

and potentially decrease access to healthcare providers in

the process. The PIAA recommends the following legislation

language to address this issue:

Sec. XXXX--Construction Regarding Standard of Care

The development, recognition, or implementation of any

guideline or other standard under any provision of this Act

shall not be construed to establish the standard of care or

duty of care owed by healthcare providers to their patients

in any medical malpractice action or claim (as defined in

section 431(7) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of

1986 (42 U.S.C.10 11151(7)).

From the very beginning of the healthcare reform debate,

there has been broad consensus that medical liability reform

was a necessary component in making our healthcare system

more efficient and effective. While the exact nature of that

reform has been the source of some disagreement, no one has

been suggesting that our medical system will be improved by

having new opportunities for even more medical liability

claims to be filed. Congress should ensure such opportunities

are not created by healthcare reform legislation.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this

critically important issue. Should you have any questions

about these proposals, or need additional information, please

do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to working

with you on this most important issue.

Sincerely,

Lawrence E. Smarr,

President.

Madam Speaker, Congressman Costa and I rise today to honor the life of our dear friend, Mr. Otto Ignacio Coelho, Sr., a long time resident of Hilmar, California. Mr. Coelho passed away at the age of 92. Mr. Coelho was a strong leader of the community and served on numerous Portuguese organizations. Although a native of Tulare, California, he made Hilmar his home. He was one of six children born to Pauline and Pedro Coelho who immigrated to the United States from Terceira, the Azores in Portugal.

Otto was raised on the family dairy until his family moved to Monterey. His father was a fisherman and Otto worked for a time selling the fish his father and brother caught. Otto eventually returned to the Central Valley and the dairy industry. On September 3, 1938, Otto married the love of his life, Alice Branco, whom he had known since childhood. Otto was involved in the dairy industry until the 1960s, after which time he did custom farming and later was active in farm equipment sales for N&S Tractor Company.

After retirement, Otto became even more involved in the Pentecost celebrations he had loved since a child. He was a member of the Dos Palos DES Stevinson Pentecost Association, Nossa Senhora do Rosario of Hilmar, and Our Lady of Fatima Los Banos. He greatly enjoyed making the rounds to collect for Festa celebrations throughout the valley, and proudly kept his route books. He was a member of the SES. Otto was also deeply devoted to his Catholic faith, and was a long-time member and officer of the YMI at Holy Rosary St. Mary's Catholic Church in Hilmar, where he lived since 1965. He also belonged to the Knights of Columbus and was active in Casa da Azores in Hilmar.

Otto and Alice raised four children, Otto Jr. (Claudette) of Madera, Gilbert (Carol) of Firebaugh, Tony (Phyllis) of Delaware, and Susan Mattos of Newman. He is also survived by 15 grandchildren, 24 great- grandchildren and one great-great-grandson. He is also survived by his sisters, Mercedes Martins of Watsonville, Nira Jean Perry (Joe) of Hollister, and Lee Coelho (Nancy) of Lemoore.

Otto Coelho was a pillar of our community. His strong sense of faith, family, and community speak volumes for generations to come. It is our honor to recognize Otto Coelho and to honor his legacy at this time. We extend our deepest sympathy to his family on their loss.

Mr. Speaker, my wife has been a family doctor for 20 years and comes home every single night telling me stories about her patients who have paid their premiums, but when they get sick and need coverage, they're denied the care by the same companies who are trying to kill this legislation here today. I have heard her on the phone fighting those very insurance company executives to let her practice medicine the way she was trained at the University of California at Davis Medical School.

What a concept, to have your doctor write your prescription, not someone on the other end of an insurance company authorization line.

This is not socialized medicine. Far from it. We are making sure that the doctor is making the decision, not the insurance company.

Mr. Speaker, my brother runs a company, a business, a small business that has been in my family for 50 years. Two weeks ago he was told his premiums are going up by 75 percent. To add insult to injury, on that very day, my sister-in-law had had knee replacement surgery and the doctor thought she needed a few extra days in the hospital because they were afraid that she might get blood clots. She was told by her insurance company they couldn't have that time initially because it was too expensive.

There was a little girl in my hometown who had leukemia. The insurance company told her she couldn't go to the hospital with the best success rate to fix her disease. She had to go to the hospital with a much lesser success rate because it was cheaper there. Her parents called me and I tried desperately to help get her to the other hospital. I failed. She died.

That is what is happening in America right now. That is what we have to deal with today. That is what the American people want fixed, and that is precisely what this reform is all about.

Mr. Speaker, when I was 22 years old, I was an intern here in this very Capitol. Mr. Kennedy was holding hearings on health care reform for all Americans. I listened to the very same arguments by the people trying to kill this bill here today back then. They're the same people that were fighting health care. They don't care about patients. All they care about is the bottom-line profits for the insurance companies.

We have waited for this day far too long already. If we don't take a stand and do the right thing here today, the very same debate will be taking place in another 30 years.

So I'm going to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am going to vote for it proudly because the reform is so desperately needed, and it's also desperately long overdue.

Few regions in the Nation are suffering more from the recession than the San Joaquin Valley of California. The three biggest cities in my district--Merced, Stockton, and Modesto--have some of the highest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the country. As I've said before, my district has been economically ravaged at the level equal to the devastation that we have seen oftentimes in the aftermath of hurricanes.

Twelve days ago, the Democratic Congress passed the HIRE Act to help create jobs, strengthen our economy, and to bring help to the communities like mine that need it. It provides tax incentives and credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and to help small businesses invest and expand. This commonsense legislation will help countless unemployed Americans back onto company payrolls. It's high time for the Senate to finally pass this bill and send it to President Obama. Nowhere is this bill more necessary than in the San Joaquin Valley. We needed help last week, and we needed it a year ago. Economic relief for my constituents remain long overdue. It's time to stop playing political games and start providing it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ray Souza as he is completing his term as President of the Western United Dairymen.

Mr. Souza is respected throughout California as one of the foremost experts on dairy policy and is a passionate advocate for California dairy producers. He is a well-known and respected leader in his local community, the California dairy industry, and in national organizations. He is the owner and operator of Mel-Delin Dairy in Turlock, California, a family dairy established by his grandfather in 1930. He started as a teenager with a 4-H cow that he purchased at an auction and has been making their living on milking cows ever since.

Mr. Souza takes an active role in his local community. He is a member of numerous community organizations including the Turlock Chamber of Commerce, Stanislaus County Farm Bureau and many others. Mr. Souza was recognized as the Chamber's Ag Leader of the year in 1994. Mr. Souza was appointed to the Stanislaus County Fair Board in 1996, a position he still holds.

Mr. Souza has been a member of the Western United Dairymen since its inception in 1984. He has served on the board of directors for over 10 years and is currently completing his second term as President. In this capacity he has testified before Congress on issues related to the dairy industry and advises members of Congress on real world impacts of dairy policy decisions. The quality of leadership that Mr. Souza has provided to the Western United Dairymen has been critical to the success and growth of the organization.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring my good friend, Mr. Ray Souza, for his leadership, dedication, and outstanding service to Western United Dairymen.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

call up House Resolution 1113 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 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 and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for further consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule modifies amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 111-419 by striking the matter proposed to be inserted as section 506.

Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act provides much-needed policy guidance for the 16 agencies that comprise the intelligence community. At the same time, this bill improves accountability and helps to prevent the often disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and misinformation to Congress can have on national security. This bill is vitally important because it recognizes the fundamental reality that solid intelligence is our Nation's first line of defense against terrorists.

This Congress has not reauthorized the intelligence bill in 4 years. The funding in this bill provides our intelligence agencies with tools, resources, and authorities they need to keep us safe. For example, it increases funding for human intelligence collection and counterintelligence activities; it makes significant investments in cybersecurity safety while also improving language capabilities in the intelligence community. Furthermore, it fully authorizes the President's budget request for the intelligence community programs and operations.

The rule we are debating this morning is the second rule the House has considered. Yesterday we heard impassioned arguments from both sides of the aisle regarding an amendment from Mr. McDermott on actions of the intelligence officers in the field and their criminal liability. Today, we are moving ahead with the authorization bill without that language because it's important to keep this bill moving forward.

The President has issued guidelines on this subject, and it deserves to be considered by this body. However, we are 4 years overdue on reauthorization, and our intelligence community cannot wait any longer.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can continue the business of protecting America's families. No American should ever face harm because this body could not do its job, and this bill needs to move forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague from California that we must get this legislation done. I agreed with him. He agreed with me. This is very important legislation. It's critical to the country.

Then he said, well, there is no real rush because you are doing a martial law rule. I submit to you that we need to get this done. It's very important for the country, and we have taken a long time. And I would also submit that the majority of the Congress people speaking to us all, Republicans and Democrats, as I said in my opening statement, felt that that amendment wasn't appropriately included in the manager's amendment. We agreed. That's why we are here today striking it out.

I realize that the gentleman is saying, well, it should have never been in there to begin with, and that may be true, but the reality is we are fixing and correcting that error today. That is why we are here, and I appreciate the gentleman's statement.

I yield to the gentleman.

The gentleman is correct, and there are other measures, like the jobs bill, which is critically important, critically important to our home State.

Like my district, it has got 20 percent unemployment. So there are other pressing matters that we have to get to, and that's exactly the kind of point that I was making.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that I am pleased we are removing the language today.

I want to remind my colleagues that, in this bill, we are helping to prevent the disastrous consequences that faulty intelligence and misinformed Congresses can have on national security. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Mehdi Morshed, who has been one of California's leading transportation policy experts and innovators for over 40 years.

Mr. Morshed served as a member of the California High Speed Rail Commission from 1994 to 1996 and was the first person to be appointed to the board of the newly created California High Speed Rail Authority in 1997. He was appointed by the board to be the first Executive Director of the Authority in 1998 and has served in that position since.

Mr. Morshed has been instrumental in guiding the development of the California High Speed Rail Project from its inception and has been an advocate nationwide. The project has evolved from a planning concept to a fully developed project with an 800-mile system that has won political, community, and finally voter support and is poised for implementation in the near future.

Prior to becoming the Executive Director, Mr. Morshed served as the principal policy person on transportation issues for the California State Senate for more than 20 years. Prior to that, he worked for the California Department of Transportation in various capacities, including planning, design and construction of bridges. He was a member of the design engineering team for San Diego's Coronado Bridge.

While with the California Senate, Mr. Morshed was responsible for the development and enactment of a wide range of transportation laws, policies and programs. He helped guide the creation of the State's principal transportation institutions including the High Speed Rail Authority, the California Transportation Commission and various local and regional commissions, transportation districts and other agencies.

Educated at the University of Washington, Seattle, as a civil engineer, he received a master's degree in transportation engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Mr. Mehdi Morshed for his efforts and dedication to the transportation systems in California.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that I rise today to honor the late Judge J. Augustus ``Augie'' Accurso. Augie was not only an engaged member of our community in Stanislaus County, California, but he was a beloved father and grandfather. He was a very special and well respected man to many people, known for his gift of conversation, sense of humor and positive approach to life. At the age of 79, Augie Accurso passed away on Sunday, February 7, 2010.

The Queens Village, N.Y., native had several other jobs before settling into law. He went to barber school and worked as a pharmacist, which his colleagues said ensured he would carefully scrutinize chemical evidence. Judge Accurso started out in the Stanislaus County district attorney's office in 1969, then after a little more than a year went into private practice. He was then selected by the county Board of Supervisors to become a Justice Court judge in Turlock. In 1977, the Board of Supervisors abolished the Justice Court, the board appointed him to the Municipal Court bench.

Judge Accurso served on the bench for two decades, and during his 20- year career as a judge, he served at every judicial level in the state shy of the Supreme Court. He served on the Justice Court, the Municipal Court, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal. During his tenure, he also served as dean of the Judges College, an ongoing curriculum to help judges keep abreast of judicial procedures and rules.

Judge Accurso was also an active alumnus of the Theta Chi Fraternity. Judge Accurso pledged, and was initiated, Theta Chi while attending San Jose State. This was a relationship that he held proudly throughout his life as he encouraged and nurtured the chapter that formed at CSU Stanislaus in the late 70s. Judge Accurso was very influential in the lives of the members of the Eta Tau Chapter of Theta Chi at California State University Stanislaus, and was like a father to many of them.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor and privilege to join my community in honoring the memory of Augie Accurso. He will be greatly missed by all.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 908 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the 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 908.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 908 provides for consideration of H.R. 2781, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River in Oregon as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute, recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended. Finally, the rule provides for

one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 2781, would add two segments of the Molalla River totaling 21.3 miles in northwestern Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The two segments, 15.1 miles on the main stem of the Molalla River, and 6.2 of the Table Rock Fork, would be designated as a recreational river.

The Molalla rises in the Cascade Range, east of Salem. From its headwaters above the Table Rock Wilderness Area, the river flows through cedar, hemlock and old-growth Douglas fir forests, and basalt rock canyons until it meets the Willamette River near Canby. The Molalla River is an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker and both golden and bald eagles. It is also within an hour's drive of the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas and provides significant recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, canoeing, kayaking, white-water rafting, mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming and diving, all wonderful, great traditional American recreational activities.

These opportunities and a 20-mile hiking, mountain biking area and equestrian trail system draw over 65,000 visitors annually. I would add that the Molalla River also served as both a trail for indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon. The river is also where the cities of Molalla and Canby derive their drinking water.

In earlier planning analyses, the Bureau of Land Management determined that most of the river and the Table Rock Fork should be considered for designation as wild and scenic rivers. In testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, BLM stated, ``the designation called for in H.R. 2781 would be largely consistent with management currently in place, and would cause few changes to BLM's current administration.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) for bringing this legislation to the floor today so we can ensure America's beauty and natural wonderment is preserved both now and for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

In response to the gentleman from Utah, I would say the

following. Two of the amendments that the gentleman offered to the Rules Committee on H.R. 2781--one amendment was nothing more than political talking points with zero substance. The second, the other amendment, was both nongermane and a violation of PAYGO under the House rules.

Further, I would add in response to the questions with regard to the Obama administration that, on November 13, the Obama administration reiterated in a letter to Chairman Grijalva, stating, ``There are no timber contracts within the Federal lands proposed for designation under H.R. 2781.'' I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the department indicating that to the chairman.

Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, November 13, 2009.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public

Lands, House Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the

Bureau of Land Management to questions submitted following

the Subcommittee's Thursday, October 1, 2009, hearing on,

H.R. 2781, ``Molalla River: National Wild and Scenic River

System.''

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to

the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and public

Lands.''

Sincerely,

Christopher P. Salotti,

Legislative Counsel, Office of

Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

Enclosure.

Questions for Robert Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management,

Department of the Interior.

Questions from Representative Grijalva:

1. How does BLM usually manage private land within wild and

scenic river corridors?

Answer. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Federal

government has no authority to manage private lands within

wild and scenic river corridors.

2. Are there any timber contracts within the corridor of

the proposed designation for the Molalla?

Answer. The BLM in Oregon informs me that there are no

timber contracts within the Federal lands proposed for

designation under H.R. 2781, which designates segments of the

Molalla River in Oregon as components of the National Wild

and Scenic River System.

Third, with regard to Mr. Schrader's comments, the gentleman said that we should have heeded Mr. Schrader's comments. Well, guess what. Representative Schrader, who represents this area, expressed a concern, as the gentleman indicated, about this issue at the Natural Resources Committee hearing in October. He also states in a letter to us, that I will have inserted in the Record, that since that time he has investigated this concern with the agencies on the ground and wrote the committee on November 10 to say that he was totally satisfied that the bill will not remove trees from the timber stock because there are no timber contracts planned in the area, and there are none now, and there are none planned. So I would like to submit for the Record Mr. Schrader's letter.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, November 10, 2009.

Hon. Nick Rahall

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to express my support for the

committee's amendments to my bill, H.R. 2781, to designate

segments of the Molalla River in Oregon as components of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

At the October 28th markup of H.R. 2781, mention was made

of a statement in my testimony regarding 420 acres of timber

management, or ``matrix,'' lands that will be within the

river corridor when my bill is enacted. Since the October 1st

hearing before the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

Subcommittee at which I testified, I have consulted both the

Bureau of Land Management and committee staff about those

matrix lands. I am satisfied that this designation will not

remove trees from the timber stock: there are no timber

contracts in that area, and no timber sales are planned.

I reserve the right to offset logging acreage in future

bills I might introduce, but I see no need to add such

language to H.R. 2781 at this time. Thank you for your

support of this legislation which has overwhelming support

within my district and thank you for all your work you do as

Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Sincerely,

Kurt Schrader,

Member of Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, as part of the course of debate, the gentlewoman from North Carolina indicated that they have been very supportive of the environment, and she has indicated that they are getting a bad rap, as it were, for not being supportive of the environment. I would like to ask the gentlelady how many wild and scenic bills have they supported on the floor this session of Congress. I know we have had a number, and I don't recall a one that they have supported.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, in the 7 years that I have been here and the years that I have watched this Congress beforehand, I sometimes watch the floor and I can't believe what I'm hearing. I can't believe my ears. Today what I'm hearing on the floor really takes the cake.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina in her statement just now indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can't believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's State that we passed that civil rights legislation.

John Lewis, a Member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn't part of getting that legislation passed.

I sometimes cannot believe what I hear on this House floor. And I will tell

you today that I will stand by these statements, and I am very proud of what my party has done to advance civil rights legislation in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman's statement where she talked at great length about the fact that the House is being closed down, that the debate is being stifled. And I would like to remind the House of an earlier statement that I made that there were only two amendments submitted to the Rules Committee on H.R. 2781.

One of the amendments was nothing more than a change of the title which consisted of political talking points, added zero substance to the bill. The other amendment was both nongermane and a violation of the PAYGO requirements of this House, two of the most important rules that are part of the conducting of debates in this House.

So the gentlewoman is advocating that we break the House rules and agree to an amendment that is really de minimis to the grander aspect of what we're trying to do here.

The local community has asked for this designation, the local Congressman. In fact, you've heard today that three Members of Congress from Oregon all advocate for this bill. I'm sure there are more. The reality is that the local folks have determined that this is the best way to create economic development, and the 420 acres that are being so grandly discussed by the other

side as reason to oppose this bill, that are going to cause economic devastation for both this area and the country--well, the local folks don't believe it, and neither does anybody else.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman from Oregon 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard quite a debate today. The debate was about designating a wild and scenic river in Oregon. But it has gone far, far afield from there. We've heard about the deficit. We've heard about jobs. We've heard about the Civil Rights Act and who was responsible for passing the legislation that did that historic. We've heard quite a lot that doesn't have anything to do with the reason we are here today, and that, Mr. Speaker, is designating the Molalla River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which will help ensure that social, cultural, and economic benefits of the area will be preserved.

For several years, an alliance of over 45 organizations has been dedicated to river restoration efforts and protecting the area from destructive acts. And the local community around the Molalla has asked for this designation. It is now up to Congress to act on behalf of the citizens and the communities at hand to preserve the river's historic, scenic, and recreational values; to protect the river's water quality and its free-flowing character; and ensure that Americans and Oregonians can enjoy the original character of this river for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good bill. The bill deserves strong support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I ask for that support. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my district in California has been especially hard hit by the current economic crisis. Even if nationwide indicators begin to reveal a healthier national economy in the coming months, it is clear that my district and others in California's Central Valley region will suffer from severe economic underdevelopment for years to come. The 18th Congressional District's struggling economy is the reason I continue to try to use every available opportunity to push for amendments and legislation that will spur job creation and economic development and provide relief to the hardest-hit communities in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics ranks the metro area of Merced, Modesto, and Stockton with some of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. All three are above 15 percent, and all three well above the national unemployment rate of 10.2 percent.

My amendment simply provides a little more direction during the grant writing process by including unemployment rates in the criteria used to evaluate these various grant applications. This will provide a little extra help to communities like Los Banos and Merced to maintain and improve their fire protection services. These and many other cities in my district and across the country have critical needs that they cannot meet under the current financial stress that they are having. Instead of hiring additional personnel and boosting employment, they are forced to lay off valuable employees and risk the safety of their communities.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will respond to my friend and colleague that we have taken and watered this language down so that it applies to all areas. Severe unemployment is only one of many criteria that can be considered and only when the situation is a desperate situation.

We talked about our area in central California being the Katrina of California where we have such devastating consequences that we may not be able to meet some of our fire needs in our communities as they just collapsed financially. So if we find situations where we're not meeting the fire protection needs of those communities, we think that it's very important. This has just become one of many criteria in evaluating these grants. Not the sole criteria, not the most important criteria, but certainly to allow those individuals who are making the decisions to just take this into consideration. That's the purpose of my amendment.

The communities of Merced and Los Banos, in particular, have contacted my office, indicating that this is something they feel is a necessary imperative. But I can imagine cities across the country-- Miami, Detroit, other places--where they may find themselves in similar kinds of economic situations. It might be your State by the time this bill becomes law.

So I would just say that I think it's something that is important for everyone to have as a capability to be taken into consideration. It's not something that will override the other considerations that the gentleman has outlined.

I yield back the balance of my time.