against the rule. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. cardoza: thank you, madam speaker. i'd 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 2/3 vote requirement for same-day rules. furthermore, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule that 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 it's been done routinely by both republican and democratic -- i will not yield. i'll give you time at the end. . by oath democratic and republican congresses. the waiver is to allow maximum waiver -- maximum flexibility in bringing bills to the floor

quickly, for the highway transit programs to provide jobs in this time or to extend vital social safety net programs, such as unemployment insurance or cobra, programs from the senate and the filibuster that preceded the debates over there allowed these programs to expire at the end of of february, putting 200,000 workers off the job until we get this bill passed. we aren't sure what form these measures will take yet, but it is essential 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% unemployment. my constituents last night at a town hall meeting, they're demanding answers and jobs. think want -- they want it today, not next week, they want it now. and all the obfuscation, all the delaying tactics, all the

challenges to getting people back to work are not very well tolerated by them these days. every day counts in america right now. we have to put 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. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: will both gentlemen suspend for a minute. the gentleman from california, are you reserving your time or yielding -- mr. cardoza: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from california for questions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: let me first say, as the gentleman knows in my remarks i made from this well moments ago, i recognized that this is a process that has been utilized under both political parties.

i completely concur with that and said it happened. the important distinction to make is the five instances my friend mentioned when we were in the majority, this was all done in the september to december time frame at basically the -- in the waning days of a congress or at least a session congress and that played a big role, recognizing that that needed to happen. second -- mr. cardoza: reclaiming my time. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. cardoza: in response to the statement of the gentleman, i would say that, yes, these are used for extraordinary situations, like when 200,000 people are put out of work because of the senate filibuster for no particularly good reason. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognize. mr. dreier: let me say, i'd like to engage in a colloquy with my friend if i might, i'd be more than happy to yield to him whatever time he needs under our time. i know he has to deal with the time constraints. let me say at the outset, the motion of saying 200,000 -- the notion of saying that 200,000 people are out of work because of the action of the senate, that's not right. the gentleman is right, job creation and economic growth is what the american people are talking about. i, too, last night held a telephone town hall meeting, i was listening and talking with thousands of people in southern california. our unemployment rate is not quite as high as the gentleman faces in the san joaquin valley, but part of the area i represent, in suburban los angeles has a 14.2% unemployment rate system of very serious issue. we need to work together in a bipartisan way and i consistently stood in this well

saying that what we should be doing in a bipartisan way is utilizing the john f. kennedy, a great democratic president, and ronald reagan model to get our economy back on track. we know what it will take. it's not a dramatic increase in federal spending, it is encouraging through incentives, private sector job creation and economic growth. this procedure is virtually unprecedented at this early point in the congress. and i will say, madam speaker, that last week, last week, i would have thought that the majority would have learned its lesson as it imposed martial law rule at the end of last week and then had to come back and my friend was in fact managing in what was a very unfortunate circumstance for the institution the idea of pulling back on the mcdermott amendment that was considered, that clearly democrats and republicans alike recognized would have jeopardized the

security of the courageous men and women owho serve in our intelligence field around the world. so i'd be happy to yield to my friend if he'd like to respond to any of my comments. mr. cardoza: madam speaker, i would just raise, it's my belief that the senate voted 78 to some teen number, i'm not sure what the final -- mr. dreier: 19. it was 19. mr. cardoza: 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 far long time. the gentleman is correct, both his district and my district are suffering from lack of jobs, too high unemployment. but when you get constant slowing down of the process in the senate, to the point where he 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 the 200,000

people have been put out of work because of lack of -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: what he's talking about is people not receiving these benefits. this was done -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california on this side, in the well, controls the time. mr. dreier: let me just say that everyone acknowledges that we want to make sure people who are struggling to find a job today and aren't able to find a job is able to receive those benefits. no one wants to deny that. our colleague in the in the other body who was raising concerns with spending issues and offsets and pay-as-you-go, which i know my friend is ready to champion, led to this issue. the question is, what do we do to get the economy back on track? we have seen a massive increase in spending in a wide range of area and guess what? we still have an unemployment

rate around 20% in my friend's district, 14% plus in part of the area i represent. that's why i believe we should be utilizing this bipartisan john f. kennedy-ronald reagan model. that's what we should do to address the shared concern that we have. but in saying this, madam speaker, i point to the fact that we should not be imposing martial law, undermining the ability for us to do what my friend says should be done, working not a bipartisan way. when you at this early point in the congress, in this session of congress, impose martial law rule, you undermine the ability for us to work together in a bipartisan way and i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. cardoza: thank you, madam speaker. i would just respond by saying i'd love to work in a bipartisan way but you need partners in a bipartisan process. frankly, we've seen more

pushback and diversion and confusion of the details and 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 oftentimes allow there to be significant delays in very needed legislation to come to the aid of our constituents. so i would say that yes, it's today or tomorrow, we need to bring up a bill that deals with the unemployment benefits for my constituents and mr. dreier's and the rest of the nation's as well. we need to put 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 just had a filibuster in the senate while folks no longer get their unemployment

benefits and suffering the process, i don't think that's what the american people sent us here to do. i believe we must pass this rule, we must move the jobs bill, as soon as humanly possible. we need to also deal with the education bill 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: 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 and 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 on to 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 and every time they can't get their act together they blame it on the republicans. they are totally in charge of this congress, totally in charge of the executive branch, and yet every day we hear it's 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 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've 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. they 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 and i would like to submit that chart for the record, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. we, again, have -- we have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support the underlying bill here. i have great respect for my colleagues on the education committee and some not on the education committee who will support this bill. and i know that they have the best intentions. but sometimes good intentions can have insidious results. and one of the ind sids you results that will -- one of the insidious results that will come from this bill is to take

away from states the right they have to regulate education. that is given to them by the constitution. and i don't think that we should be approving the underlying bill and we certainly should not be voting for a rule that violates even the promises that the majority made, which sounded so good to the american people and which helped them win the majority in 2006 and gain seats in 2008 and every promise has been violated. so i ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on the underlying bill, although i know i have colleagues who will vote for the bill and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. cardoza: thank you, madam speaker. i am the last speaker on this side of the aisle. i'd inquire from the gentlelady if she's prepared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: we have no further speakers and i can yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. cardoza: thank you, madam speaker. 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 undercly lying bill and the question of the need to bring jobs to the united states of america. the minority may have you believe that we have totally clamped down on this process and not allow them to bring up dissenting views on this bill. in fact, nothing can 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, and 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, to lock them in closets, deny them water, deny them access without parental notification. thatess the purpose of this underlying bill, to -- that's the purpose of this underlying bill, to improve the situation that our children are exposed to in the classroom. just a few years ago, 33,000 students 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's 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's gone unchecked for far too long and must be addressed. h.r. 4247 will go a long way to ensuring the safety of our nation's children. i ask all members support this commonsense legislation. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. ms. foxx: madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: for that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been ordered. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, house

resolution 1127, expressing concern for the plane attack on internal revenue service employees in austin, texas. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1127, resolution expressing concern regarding the suicide plane attack on internal revenue service employees in austin, texas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, and the gentleman from louisiana, mr. buice knee, will each control -- mr. boustany, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill house resolution 1127. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, on the day of --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will kindly suspend. could we please have quiet in the chamber? the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, on february 18, just a few days ago, the family suffered a terrible tragedy. i rise today to express my deepest sympathies to the families of vernon hunter, shane hill and employees at the i.r.s. in austin, texas. we as a nation and the people are better, much better than this. we should be better to each other. this type of attack is just wrong, and we must not tolerate violence against our public servants. i understand that people may not like to pay their taxes, but we cannot take our anger on

i.r.s. employees. they do not deserve this. the people who work at the internal revenue service are mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who work hard each and every day. they do their jobs and they do them well. they perform a public service that benefit the entire nation. this congress is committed to the safety of each and every person who serves this nation. i want to thank the i.r.s. commissioner for the steps he's taken to enhance security at all i.r.s. sites around the country. we will continue to make sure that the internal revenue service has the resources to improve security at its offices. i was moved by the many stories of people who reach out and help each other during this terrible tragedy.

each face i could os and violence, people reached out and helped each other. first responders, emergency personnel, employees and other citizens showed great courage and compassion to minimize the loss of life. i thank them all and honor them today. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. boustany: madam speaker, like all my colleagues here in the house of representatives, i was shocked and horrified by the tragedy that occurred at the i.r.s. office in austin, texas, on february 18. i especially want to offer my condolences to the family of vernon hunter who loss his life in this senseless attack.

mr. hunter dedicated his life to serving his country, including 20 years in the u.s. army and two tours in vietnam. i stand with my colleagues today to honor his service and his memory. we should also recognize the courage and heroism of those men and women, including i.r.s. employees, first responders and others who responded to the attack to ensure that our country did not suffer even greater losses. i would like to associate myself with the words of president obama to the employees of the i.r.s. when he said, and i quote, i am thankful for your dedication, courage and professionalism as we rebuild in austin. and as you continue your work, we will do what is needed to ensure your safety. we are grateful for your service to this country, and may god bless you and the united states of america. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and my friend, a member on the ways and means committee and the sponsor of the resolution, the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman from georgia and the gentleman from louisiana for their important comments. the recent suicide attack in my hometown of austin, texas, on the i.r.s. building was a horrible tragedy. i authored this resolution to honor those who were victims, to recognize the courage displayed by so many that day, and to condemn such cowardly acts of violence. seeing that building aflame after this premeditated suicide attack, which was in the words of our austin mayor .

armando valdez junior and debra fleming yelled to other employees, follow my voice as they guided them away from the gaping holes in the floor. andrew jay sobson and morgan johnson bloke a window and allowed people to climb out to robin dehaven's ladder. even as work continued at the scene after this deadly assault, a facebook page was create ated that lauded the killer. this response to violence was

deplorable. intense debate as we have here on the floor about our tax code is appropriate. that's what we do here in congress. in gathers across the country. the many tax provisions which i have personally criticized in the strongest terms and at time i'm also criticized the way the i.r.s. administered the tax code but to demonize and harm public servants who are serving our country at the i.r.s. while praising a murderer or anyone else who would do them harm is outrageous. nor is such misconduct unique to this tragedy. a -- according to "the wall street journal," the number of threats against i.r.s. employees are on the rise. just this week, the "austin american statesman" reported about another agent -- agent's necessary care in opening mail, filled with ray czar blades and push pins, about last year's phony anthrax attack on an

austin i.r.s. building and a phony plot to blow up another austin i.r.s. building. each year, the administration that oversees the i.r.s. investigates more than 900 threats against i.r.s. employees, including violence. i'm not here today to glorify the i.r.s. i'm here to condemn unequivocally through this resolution those who would glorify violence fens our -- against our public employees who are conducting their duties in service to our nation. there are many who will long bear the emotional scars from this attack and some still cope with the physical burdens. i want especially to recognize shane hill a five-year investigator with the texas state comptroller's office who happened to be in the building that day and now with his family faces a long physical recovery. vernon hunter has been mentioned, known by his friends as vern, he lost his life in this senseless attack.

at his funeral last friday, he was described as the type of man who always woke up with a smile, all wanted to help others, and as a texan, never left home without his cowboy hat. coming from a family dedicated to uniformed service, he served in our u.s. army for over two decades which included two tours of duty in vietnam. his four brothers and a son all served in the united states military. as does his son-in-law today who is actively serving in the united states navy. after retiring from the army he continued that eservice to his country for almost three decades with the internal revenue service, where his wife valerie has also worked. the gentleman from georgia is a particularly appropriate person to present this resolution today. after living thru a life of segregation -- in south carolina, vern was present that day, john lewis, when you along

with dr. martin luther king spoke down the mall here in the famous "i have a dream" speech and the celebration at the lincoln memorial. his dream, he saw in his service to his country through the army and through the internal revenue service was a dream rooted in freedom and justice and 45 years after that speech, vernon was able to witness america's progress when he himself served as a delegate for president obama. dr. martin luther king once said the quality, not the longevity of one's life is what is important. because vern hunter cared enough to make a difference, austin and this nation that he loves so much and served his whole life was made better. in a remarkable statement, at a moment of such great pain, the hunter family expressed its personal forgiveness of the suicide attacker and expressed sympathy for the attacker's family.

these moving words of peace reflect the power of their own faith and the strength of spirit both of the hunter family and the greater mount zion baptist family led by reverend clark. vern, his life, and his family are a testament ability what is best in our country. in him, we've lost a true american hero. today i respectfully ask that my colleagues join in adopting this resolution to honor him, the other victims, the employees, and the rescuers to renounce violence against those who are serving our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> i'd like to recognize such time as he may consume mr. mccaul, in his district this tragedy occurred. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from

austin, mr. doggett, for introducing this resolution. we share austin and we share in our grief and share in these tragic events that occurred on february 18. i was in austin and i was driving and i saw a bunch of smoke coming out of some federal buildings where i used to work with the joint terrorism task force and the f.b.i. right next door to the i.r.s. building. called the police chief that day and i said, what happened? the police chief said that a plane had flown into the federal building. and he said, i said, do you know, was it an accident? he said, no, congressman, it was intentional. and at that point in time we knew this was not just some accidental mishap, airplane

getting off course, mechanical problems, but rather an intentional act of violence. what i saw at the scene was quite astounding. i'm sure she gentleman from austin saw it as well. the airplane was a rather small aircraft, yet the damage that was done was massive. almost bringing the entire federal building down. it was in flames that fateful day, the -- it reminded me a bit of ooklahoma city -- of oklahoma city, it looked like it -- a smaller version of 9/11, as the flames went up, as the glass blew out, a technician by the name of robin dehaven, probably one of the great heros that day, removed glass from the back side of the building and saved five employees of the i.r.s.

our thoughts and prayers go to the hunter family. vernon hunter served his country and served in the i.r.s. he also served in the united states army for 20 years. his office was right above where the airplane crashed into that building. the plane literally skipped off the top of a car, went into the first floor of the building in an intentional act to kill people. i was asked the question at the press conference with the police chief and the fire department, well, congressman, was this an act of terrorism? well, i guess all how you define act of terrorism. what i said was, any time someone flies an airplane intention loyal into a federal building to kill people, i think that is an act of terror. if you ask the federal employees that day what they thought, they certainly thought it was an act of terror as well.

we need to stop this in this country. we need to stop this. the heroism on the part of the austin police department, fire department, f.b.i., the first responders in responding to this tragic scene and saving so many lives, when we saw this massdzive destruction, the great miracle that day was that more people were not killed. those first responders saved countless lives and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their great, great service, service to -- not only to the city of austin but to the american people, so with that, i thank the gentleman from austin for introducing this resolution, it's very timely we do share that city together. we work well together. and i think again we share the grief of loss, we share the

tragic event, and we also share the belief that this was really an intentional act, an act of terror that we need to stop in this country. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i'd like to inquire of dr. boustany, do you have more speakers? mr. boustany: we have no speakers on our side speaking -- seeking time. if my friend is prepared to close, i'm happy to yield back. mr. lewis: thank you, dr. boustany. i understand that you do not have any other speakers, there being no more speakers, madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana -- does the gentlelady from louisiana reserve or yield his

time? mr. boustany: we'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: i thank my colleagues for the remark he is made today and on the afternoon of the tragedy. i believe we share a common purpose here. no one was looking to see which party a member of the i.r.s. that day or what part of the city of austin, it affected our entire community. i have not used the term earlier, but i must say also agree with his conclusion that like the much larger scale tragedy in oklahoma city, this was an act of domestic terrorism. but let's not quibble over the terms, it is the harm that was done and the promotion of that harm and violence. there was nothing noble about terror. any expression to the contrary deserve ours condemnation. violence is clearly, as i read

the statement that the ipilot put up on his website, which was -- that the pilot put up on his website, which was a confusing diatribe, he said, quote, violence is not only the answer, it is the only answer. in response, almost immediately, some folks set up a facebook page and called themselves fans of this suicide attacker, sporting a don't tread on me flag, the so-called fan page to the murderer misappropriated thomas jefferson's famous words that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. this resolution soundly rejects in a bipartisan manner such a -- such appalling tributes. the patriots were working in the building that day, not working to kill public servants. the heroes were people like vern hunter who were doing their job on behalf of their

country, not trying to destroy their fellow human beings. i believe that we must turn down the volume on hate. if we are to avoid reoccurrences of such baseless terror attacks. in our country, there is room for wide and vigorous political discourse and disagreement. our democracy thrives on it but there's no roomroom for violence or the dangerous incitement to violence. we get change through the ballot box not by bullets, not by suicide airplane attacks. let us speak today with one strong, unequivocal voice, renouncing this attack, we reject the call to hate and we reject the call to violence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1127. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. doggett: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. doggett: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. the votes will be taken in the following order. the adoption of h.r. -- resolution -- excuse me -- the adoption of house resolution 1126 by the yeas and nays, the motion to suspend the rules on resolution 747 by the yeas and

nays, the motion to suspend the rules on house resolution 1096 de novo. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 1126 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. house calendar number 168, house resolution 1126, resolution 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. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device.

responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. carter: mr. speaker, the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, submitted a letter to the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, that states i request leave of absence from my duties and responsibilities as chairman of the committee on ways and means until such time as the committee on standards completes its findings on the review currently underway. this morning that letter to the speaker was read into the proceedings and at that time the speaker pro tempore, ms.

schakowsky, accepted the letter stated the resignation is accepted. i have a parliamentary inquiry regarding the nature of the resignation. under this morning's procedure is mr. rangel, the chairman of the committee on ways and means? the speaker pro tempore: this morning the house accepted the resignation of the gentleman from new york as chair of the committee on ways and means. resigned from chairmanship of the committee on ways and means. mr. carter: does that mean the answer he is not the chairman? the speaker pro tempore: that is correct. mr. carter: thank you. further parliamentary inquiry. under house rule 10 clause 5-c, which states in the absence of a member serving as chair, the member next in rank and so on as off as the case shall happen shall act as chair. mr. speaker, under the rules of the house, who is currently the chair of the committee on ways and means? the speaker pro tempore: in the case to which the inquiry

alludes, the member of the committee next in rank is the gentleman from california, mr. stark. currently he acts as chair. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. under house resolution 24 the gentleman from california, mr. stark, ranks next after mr. rangel in the resolution electing the members of the committee. under that resolution and by operation of the house, rule 10, clause 5-c, mr. stark is currently the chairman of the ways and means as i understand the answer, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is acting chair. clause 5-c of rule 10 contemplates that the house will again establish an elected chair by adopting a resolution which typically is produced by direction of the majority party caucus. mr. carter: further parliamentary inquiry. in light of mr. rangel's letter

to the speaker which states in relevant part that he requests the leave of absence, does the reinstating of the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, to the chairman of the committee on ways and means require as a necessary action the adopting of a resolution by the full house of representatives electing him as chair? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is stating a hypothetical. the chair will not comment. mr. carter: final parliamentary inquiry. under house rule 10, clause 5 does mr. stark assume the chairmanship of the committee on ways and means immediately and without any further vote or ratification of the house of representatives? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is acting chair. mr. stark is acting chair. as i stated before, clause 5-c of rule 10 contemplates that the house will again establish an elected chair by adopting a resolution which typically is produced by direction of the majority party caucus. mr. carter: i thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> pursuant to lution 1126, i call up h.r. 4247 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 243, h.r. 4247, a bill to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1126, the bill is considered as read. the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part a of house report 111-425, if offered, by the gentleman from california, mr. george miller, or his dess egg knee which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent. the amendment printed in part b

of house report 111-425, if offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, or his designee, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from california, mr. george miller, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 4247. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: mr. speaker, 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'd like to tell the story of cedric. this is a picture of cedric who was a young man from 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 by logical family had neglected him by denying him food. despite knowing this on the morning he died, cedric's teacher punished him by 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 a 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'd like to tell you the story of page.

-- paige. paige was a bright energetic happy young girl who started a new school in coopertino, california. but page has as perfectinger's syndrome and came home from her school first week with bruises complaining that her teacher hurt her. paige's parents confronted the teacher who denied causing the bruising. she did admit for restraining paige for wriggling a loose tooth. her parents were shocked to learn later that the teacher had lied and she 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 general

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 are misusing restraint and seclusion. hundreds of students across the u.s. who 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. there are emergency intervention that is should be used only as a last resort and only by trained professionals. the g.a.o. found that too off 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 and restraint and other, quote, 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 vary wildly. leaving children vulnerable. of the 31 states that have established some law, many are not comprehensive in approach and several only address restraint or address seclusion not necessarily both. for example, in one state the rules only for children enrolled in pre-k. in another only for children with autism are protected. and yet another example only residential schools are covered. many states allow restraint 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. . madam speaker, when these abuses occur, it isn't just the individual victims who suffers. it hurts the classmates who witnesses these events. it undermines the vast majority of teachers, staff who are trying to give the students a quality education. it's a nightmare for everyone involved. we are here today to try to end this nightmare. we're here today to make sure that no other child suffers this same fate as cedric and page. 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 -- 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 danger of injury. it prohibits strapping children to chairs or duct taping parts of their body or any restraint that restricts their breathing. it prohibits chemical restraint, using medication to control behavior without a doctor's prescription. the bill will also 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. madam speaker, we all agree that teachers play a 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 to do their jobs. it asks the states to ensure that enough school personnel are properly trained to keep both students and staff safe,

encourages schools to implement positive approaches to managing behavioral issues. madam 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 diligence, persuasion and hard work in fashioning this legislation. i'd also like to thank the national disability rights network for bringing this abuse to the attention, the national school board association, and more than a hundred other organizations for their support. nothing is more important than keeping our children safe. it's time to end this abuse. i believe this legislation will go a long way in setting the standard and showing the states the way and hopefully in the next two 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, that their parents and family expect when they go to school on a daily basis.

so i would like to just once again remind of us what happened to cedric and to paige at their age, their vulnerabilities and their history and what happened to them one day when they went to school. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 4247, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: let me begin by stating unequivocally that the incidents uncovered by the g.a.o. are unacceptable. no child should be put in physical danger by the use of seclusion and restraints in school, and the tragic stories just related by the chairman of cedric and paige are unacceptable everywhere. in each of the cases reviewed by the g.a.o., there was a criminal conviction, a fining 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 worked hard to call national attention to the misuse of seclusion and restraints in our schools. states clearly recognize the pro activeactively regulate these procedures. they have policies in place to -- recognize the proactive regulate these procedures. 15 states will have such protections in place in the near future, and 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, and i quote, every injury to a student in school is a matter of serious concern.

but all such ins dents are not necessarily -- incidents are not necessarily matters of 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 request unanimous consent to include the letter of the council of the great city schools in the record as well as the american association of school administrators, the council of public education, the association of christian schools, the association of christian schools international. taken together, the concerns raised by these groups paint a picture of premature legislating and federal overreach. in essence, attempting to solve a problem we do not fully understand in a way that could actually make it more difficult

for teachers to keep their classrooms safe. i must say that i'm concerned that h.r. 4247 would extend this new mandate into private schools. historically, private schools have been not attached to public school laws. they are entitled to services, but no direct funding on the individuals with disabilities education act and other laws. yet, under h.r. 4247 schools whose students receive services would be subject to the same prescriptive rules on the use of seclusion and restraints despite the fact that these private schools receive no federal funding. this is a major departure from longstanding federal education policy. one explains it this way. quote, a religious school receiving math and reading instruction under title 1 of the elementary and secondary education act would be subject to all the provisions of this bill as would a school receiving a single piece of

instructional material or professional development for a single teacher under any other esea title. closed quote. another likely consequence of h.r. 4247 is increased litigation. the bill's vague and overly broad language is an invitation to trial lawyers who will eagerly take every opportunity to sue school districts who grabble with confusing and stringent new requirements. h.r. 4247 creates a clifmente of legal dispute by ex-- climate of legal dispute by extending state-based trial lawyers, a clear recognition that seclusion and restraint should become litigation magnets. and schools will stop addressing safety issues entirely out of the fear they could be sued. instead, schools could result to law enforcement to manage physically disruptive students. that means more students in police handcuffs. mr. speaker, it's clear that teachers and school leaders need guidance on how to keep classrooms safe.

seclusion and restraint is not the first choice to enforce positive behavior. if they must be used they must be used safely. it is true that the states, not the federal government, should take the lead in implementing these policies. h.r. 4247 is a bill of good intentions but at the end of the day it's not the most direct and effective way to keep our classrooms safe. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield -- are you going to yield? then i yield to mr. courtney and then you are going to yield to miss mcmorris -- mrs. mcmorris. i yield to the gentleman from connecticut for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. mr. courtney: i want to thank the chairman of the education and labor committee. 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. and 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've created on that committee. mr. speaker, back in 1998 the hartford current won a pulitzer prize for a four-part investigation of seclusion and restraint all across the country. the name of the series was called "a nationwide pattern of death," which i'd like to offer a copy of that series for the record which, again, in chapter and verse laid out of 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. the fact of the matter is that today 19 states have no a plus

or regulations related to the use of seclusion or restraints in schools. seven states place some restrictions on restraints but do not regulate exclusions and that's within the 31 which was referred by mr. kline. 17 states require that selective staff receive training before permitting to restrain children. the rest do not. 13 states require -- 19 require parents to be notified afterwards. only two states require annual reporting on the use of restraints. eight states prohibit the use of restraints or one that would impede the child's ability to breathe. i would argue, mr. speaker, that as a government, as a nation who provides massive amounts of education dollars across the country, we would never countenance racial discrimination, gender discrimination by institutions who receive those funds. i don't think it's too much to say that we allow these type of practices -- 30 seconds.

mr. miller: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. courtney: which would result in some instances, as the chairman said, in actual deaths and traumatic life-long injuries to be countenance 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 which schools themselves are mandated reporting. if it's happening in a child's home and 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 could do at least as much of the school environment which children do every day in this country. i want a strong bipartisan vote in support of this legislation so we can raise our children to a new level as they go to school every day. and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4247, the keeping all children safe act. and i urge my colleagues to support it as well. when is it appropriate to lock up or tie up a child or handcuff a child to a desk? common sense tells us these extreme measures should not ever be used against children with autism or downsyndrome or other learning disabilities. yet, the truth is there are thousands of incidents reported involving the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint, reports by the national disability rights network, g.a.o. and others reveal our children are at risk for serious injury and even death in the school setting.

the bill we're considering today outlines a minimum standards that must be included in guidelines issued by the department of education. states then have the flexibility to determine how best to proceed. for the 10 states that already have comprehensive policies, they need to show what they've done. for the other states, the law would put in motion a review of current practices and a chance to put in place adequate guidelines. i'd like to emphasize that these are guidelines. these are standards like parents should be notified, that seclusion and restraint should only be used as a last resort, that training needs to be given to staff, i believe, more often than not, staff don't even know how to respond. i'd like to also emphasize that there is no private cause of action. this bill is not opening up all these lawsuits. my husband, brian and i send

our son -- i know to the school personnel have done an outstanding job to keeping him safe. students have been traumatized, injured and even died in the classroom. ignorance is not bliss for the children who've been harmed. and many times parents are not aware of these practices. more than anything, i want teachers and school administrators to have the support for children who become anxious and unruly. if they better understand the situation, they'll know there are more positive choices to teach children rather than using harmful techniques such as restraint and seclusion. under the children's health act, current law includes these kinds of protection for children in public, hospitals, medical and residential facilities and this bill would add the same protection for our children in schools. there are some that believe this is an unplus dented expansion of federal authority, but i disagree.

the federal government is involved in the schools. the federal government is the one that mandated that every child should have access to an education including those with special needs. when we enacted the individuals with disabilities education act, we committed to ensuring that children with special needs have access to free, appropriate public education this bill ensures those children as well as all students are safe. i urge my colleagues to protect our children by supporting the keeping all students safe act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> i yield myself 10 oseconds. i thank mrs. mcmorris rodgers, i don't believe she was in the chamber at the time but i want to thank her again for all her work and effort to bring this bill to the floor and i'm enjoyed working with her. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sires: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4247, the keeping all students safe act. i would reich like to thank chairman miller as well as the members and staff of the education and labor committee for their leadership on this crucial piece of legislation. last year, chairman miller requested that the g.a.o. investigate allegations of abuse in schools. the g.a.o. report revealed many cases of abuse and harmful restraints and most of these cases involved children with disabilities. additionally, the g.a.o. report found that no federal agency collects comprehensive information on these practices that occur in our schools. without consistent data collection, it's impossible to calculate an accurate number of children, families, and schools that have been affected by these harmful practices.

one instance of harmful restraint of a child is one too many. unfortunately, there have been hundreds of allegations and some children have even dismede unlike federally funded institutions such as hospitals, schools have no federal laws that address minimum safety standards in school. instead, state laws and regulations vary tremendously. indeed, new jersey is one of the 19 states with no laws or regulations related to seclusion or restraint in school. it is imperative that we protect our children and provide them with a safe place to grow and develop. as a former teacher, i know that teachers and other school employees have the best interest of the children at heart this legislation can address the problems of restraint and ensure the safety of both children and school professionals this bill will provide grants for professional development training and also give states and local districts the flexibility to determine training needs. our children deserve to learn in a secure, protected

environment and a federal solution to this problem is long overcue. i urge my colleagues to -- is long overdue. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you. no one wants children to be in danger in this country, especial those in public institutions designed to serve them. teachers, principals and other school personnel have a responsibility to ensure the environment is maintained at all times. in many cases, it's vitally important, though that teachers and classroom aides use interventions and supports that are both physically and emotionally safe for the child. what the bill before us fails to recognize is that 31 states currently have laws and regulations in states that govern the use of seclusion and

restraints in schools. an additional 11 have policies and guidelines in place and in some cases, school districts may also have their own guidelines governing the use of such practices in the classroom. in addition, the federal government has no reliable data on the prevalent use of harmful seclusion and restraint techniques in public and private schools and whether they result in child abuse. it's 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. our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they assembled the u.s. constitutions and the protections it guarantees, specifically the 10th amendment. the authors of this amendment, ratified in 1791, remembered what it was like to be under the thumb of a distant,

all-powerful government and understood that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. since the u.s. constitution was first ratified, the federal government has slowly, steadily, and insidiously eroded the notion of states' rights and our individual liberties. what we need to focus on as the distinguished ranking member talked about earlier is the strong punishment of those who do wrong but not to create costs to the local units of government who must comply with federal rules and regulations and in addition giving the federal government authority it should not have. this bill is not needed. the state and localities can handle these situations. they will look after the children. they are the people closest to the children they are serving. they'll do it, if they don't do

it, the community will be up in arms and will require them to do that and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. hear, a for three minute -- mr. heir, for three minutes. -- mr. hare for three minutes. mr. hare: i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this important piece of legislation. i want to begin by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill, chairman miller. because of his commitment to protecting children from abuse, our schools are safe havens once again. restraint and seclusion in schools is often unregulated and is too frequently used for

behaviors that do not pose danger to the children or to their -- or to others. these emergency interventions are also disproportionately used on some of our most vulnerable students, children with disabilities. today, advocates including my constituent holly roose, are here to petition for this holly's son was diagnosed with the most common cause of inherited mental problems at world. she was concerned that he had been restrained at school because he seemed to exhibit aggressive behavior after a seizure. he's a real-life example of the importance of adopting minimum standards for the use of restraint in our schools. i'm pleased this also supports an evidence-based approach designed to create a positive

climate that supports academic achievement. my state of illinois has effectively reduced the majority of behaviors which re -- resulted in the use of seclusion or restraint by implementing this approach throughout the school system this bill ensure ours school are safer and more effective learning environmentsism urge all my colleagues to vote for h.r. 4247. i thank you mr. speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from minnesota for yielding and i appreciate the stance he's taking on this resolution, this bill h.r. 4247. first, mr. speaker, i'd like to say a couple of words about the 10th amendment and those rights that are reserves for the states or to the people respectively. what are the states doing wrong? how is it that the states that now 31 of them have some type

of controlling legislation, 15 states are taking a look at this, that adds up to 46 states that could potentially have this resolved, each in their own fashion. what is the crisis that requires uncle sam to step in and ignore the direct guidance in the 10th amendment of the constitution itself. so i'm going to stand on the states' rights side and if i were in one of these states and this legislation were to pass, my response would be to the federal government, keep your money. we don't need these strings attached because it's one thing after another after another after another and pretty soon it's a national curriculum with federal mandates and imposing cultural impositions at the school level in every school, every accredited district in the country. one of the cases in point will be, this is about keeping our students safe, if this is about keeping all students safe act, which is the title of it, then we ought to take a look at the president's czar. the president has appointed a

safe and drug free schools czar. his name is kevin jennings. i don't know what kevin jennings says about this particular bill but if he's appointed to this task, i would think he'd be the person who testified before the hearings. i suspect that the president of the united states isn't interested in having kevin jennings come before the cameras here in the united states congress because he's made a to tallity of his life about promoting homosexuality within the schools and much of it at the elementary school level. he's written the foreword in a book called queering elementary education which aims to indoctrinate elementary students with homosexuality. additionally, kevin jennings has written several other books, "mama's boy, teacher's son," where he writes about his use of illegal and illicit drugs. if there's going to be -- if

he's in charge of safe and dwug-free schools, he should offer something safety for kids. but he has another ageneral dark the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. he's spoken in a favorable way about harry haye, who is on the cover of nambla magazine, the north american man-boy love association magazine he said of harry haye he's always inspired by him. some of these things, mr. speaker, i'm not going to say into the record. if i did, i expect that somebody on my side of the aisle would move to take my words down. this is the safe and drug-free schools czar who has crossed the line over and over again, made it clear he's advocating for homosexuality in our schools, much of it in the elementary schools. this is the man the president

oappointed as the safe and drug free schools czar. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. hines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: i rise in support of h.r. 4247, the keeping all american students safe act. children with autism, many of whom are nonverbal and have other challenges, arest plerble -- especially vulnerable to problems at school with staff who are at times ill-prepared to deal with unique behavioral issues. i sat with a constituent from greenwich whose autistic daughter suffered terribly in school and who founded a group whose goal is to prevent other students from suffering these same abuses. the g.a.o. study included stories which shock the conscience. a 7-year-old who died after being held face down for hours

by school staff and 5-year-olds allegedly being tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms and bloody noses. these could have been your children or mine. this legislation is an important step toward ending inhumane treatment of children with autism and other disabilities, who like all students should be able to trust their educators and feel completely safe in their school environments. there are, of course, rare and extreme emergencies where it may be necessary to physically intervene but we affirm today, mr. speaker that any behavioral intervention must be consistent with a child's right to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse. with the help of this bill, teachers and school personnel will be trained regularly and parents kept informed on the policies which keep our schools orderly and safe and on the alternatives available to traditional forms of restraint and seclusion.

i'm grateful to my friends in the autism advocacy community, including autism speaks and the greenwich-based friends of autistic people for their tireless work on this issue. children with autism deserve the same rights available to all children. a free and appropriate education, safety, and dignity. this bill is a step in the right direction and i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: before i yield to the gentleman from texas, i'd like to yield myself a minute because my friend from illinois was just here, i'm sorry he left, and it underscored for me one of the many problems with this legislation. it turns out that illinois is one of those states that has actually very strong seclusion and restraint laws, they passed it in 2001 and it went into effect in 2002 and in 2006 there was an incident, one of those reported by the g.a.o., where a teacher restricted a child inappropriately.

the teacher was prosecuted, found guilty, and 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 teach for the illinois, something which this bill doesn't address either. we need to get these teachers out of the teaching business and this makes the point that when you pass a law, it doesn't automatically keep kids safe. you've 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 three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. true of the examples been given here today of children that lost their lives, children who have suffered is untenable. there is nobody in this body that i can imagine would think that that was appropriate. of course it's not. our hearts go out to the

families. all of us who have raised children have children go through school. you know, i have a great fear of something like that. but there was a fear that our founders had. there was a fear of coming together for the constitutional convention because they were afraid that it would allow for a constitution that would set in motion a federal government that would continue to take away the powers of the people and the local government and the state government. so the only way they were ever to come together on this constitution was to assure the people there that if they would pass a constitution they would put together 10 amendments to make sure that the federal government would never do the very things we're doing here. there is no state that would put up with this knowingly. these states, every state would

say, this is ridiculous. of course we don't want children killed in school. well, what gets me is during my first two years here when we were in the majority in this body, i was one of the few republicans that said no child left behind is not appropriate. and i was joined by many across the aisle who said, the federal government should never have a program like no child left behind. you don't know more here in washington than people novak in the school districts. and i appreciated the -- than people know back in the school districts. you should not be mandating back to the states and the local governments and local school boards because they are competent. and i know it's not the intent of this bill, but the underlying message is you people back in your states, local school boards and local governments are a bunch of

morons. you can't figure out that sitting on a precious little child and killing them is inappropriate so the big, smart federal government has to come in and let you know that's not appropriate. we don't need that. we didn't need no child left behind as a mandate rammed down the throats of the states and local governments. we don't need this. we need lodgeic and -- we need logic and reason and we need proper schooling. it doesn't come on the top of a fisted mandate from washington. we need to encourage the states to do the right thing, but under the 10th amendment, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states. we dog gone sure ought to -- we doggone sure ought to respect that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you.

thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership on this measure. i rise today in support of h.r. 4247, the keeping all students safe act. this bill is aimed at restricting some of the most abusive practices still employed in certain schools around the country. neglect restraint and abusive seclusion. last spring the education and labor committee heard testimony from the government accountability office, which investigated use of these practices in schools. what the g.a.o. found was stunning. there were many instances of serious injury and abuse and even some accounts of death. even more troubling to me as a strong supporter of disability rights and special education was that many of the victims were students with intellectual disabilities. this bill is meant to protect our most vulnerable students against the worst kinds of abuse. the committee heard about a 4-year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism who was restrained in a chair with leather straps for being incooperative at school. she was determined to have

proast traumatic -- posttraumatic disorder. at a school in my state of new york, a 9-year-old child with a learning disability was put in a time-out room for hours for slouching and hand waving. his hands became blistered when he tried to get out of the room described as smelling of urine. a 14-year-old boy because he didn't stay seated in class was restrained by the teacher. the 230-pound teacher lay on top of him, restricting his breathing and ultimately suffocating him. at the time the committee heard this testimony, the teacher was still teaching in the suburbs of washington, d.c. this is the kind of restraint and seclusion we are saying cannot be used. we cannot allow this neglect and abuse of our nation's children to continue one more day. please support this bill to keep our students and our schools safe. thank you, mr. chair, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. can i inquire as to the amount

of time remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 17 minutes -- 13 minutes left. and the gentleman from california has 12 minutes left. mr. miller: if i might, i yield myself -- respond to the inquiry. we have mr. langevin, who is waiting to speak. and mrs. mccarthy was i think going to be on her way or whatever. she comes, she's here. mr. kline: i'll be yielding to mr. souder and then i'll close. thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i am very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. souder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. souder: i thank our distinguished ranking member, mr. kline, and our chairman, mr. miller. this is one of these bills you kind of go, well, how could you possibly favor like tying kids up and putting tape across them or letting people abuse them?

that isn't what this is really about. i'm going to make four basic points which i know we've been making all afternoon, but there's no harm with repetition because they're important. one, there's no reliable data on how much use there is of these techniques. we heard from all sorts of individual horror stories that my sociology prof used to call aunt annie stories. we heard some with a wide variety -- i don't think standing in the corner the same way as some might. we need to know how many of these are serious, how many of these are justified for intervention and how many there are with different opinion. 31 states have had this, and this is a one-size-fits-all and many states that don't have it are doing it. this is the ultimate arrogance. we are saying that basically state legislators believe that

their kids should be tied, mouths taped and they are too ignoreant to fix this. since when -- ignoreant to fix this. since when do we get to determine the speed and the kind of satisfactory level of intervention that a state does? particularly since we don't have the data to prove our case? thirdly, it doesn't exempt private schools even though there's no direct funding from the federal government, we have to have some kind of a clause in which our hook that the federal government is going in and taking over this since they would be covered by state law on human rights or student rights cases. private schools generally don't even get direct funding or indirect funding, although some do, and this would make about half of the private independent schools would fall under that hook and the danger, of course, is it could be broader. the bail fails to clarify or delete language that would hold school districts up to litigation. it is undefined and would have

to be litigated. i want to come back to a basic thing. number one is, what is the constitutional justification? we have this debate in education a lot. that things are reserved to the states that aren't given to the federal government. now we're going to a second degree in the education. now, maybe this comes under the clause that says if states don't move as fast as we'd like them to then we can intervene and take over their jurisdiction, that maybe it comes under the clauses, we get emotionally upset about and we are emotionally moved about a case we see on tv therefore the federal government and congress has a right to take it over. it's truly tragic but thinking we are the only ones to address this. we had a clause after the republicans had first taken over congress that we were trying to put in and had in briefly that says, put the constitutional justification of why this is uniquely the problem of the federal government and how the constitution in effect justifies that intervention. and generally speaking what we

saw was promote the general welfare, promote the general welfare, promote the general welfare. now, thomas jefferson said this clause, i believe in a letter to madison, was the most pernicious clause in the constitution and would be abused by future generations to justify federal intervention wherever they felt they wanted to intervene and that ultimately unless that promote the general welfare was restrained by congress itself and by the courts that congress would intervene on a regular basis and ultimately everything that is reserved by the states would be at the federal level. i believe there are times such as in civil rights cases where there were clear, systemic, systematic, multigenerational interventions that we need to get in, that many times they defended their case based on states' rights. but what we're looking at today is insufficient data. we are looking at the states

addressing it. 31 states have addressed it. the bulk of the rest of them are actually have laws up at this time. and i see no reason, no compelling evidence of why we need to do this as opposed to the state legislators. i see no compelling constitutional justification for it. and i believe that thomas jefferson, were he here, would call this a pernicious use of promoting the general welfare even though the end goal and the hearts of the people doing this are motivated for the right reason. they're worried about whether kids will be harmed in the schools and we all are and so, quite frankly, are state representatives and state senators. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4247, the keeping all students safe act. as a co-sponsor, i'm certainly pleased that for the first time this bipartisan legislation will protect all children in schools from harmful uses of restraint and seclusion. the need for this legislation was highlighted by a recent g.a.o. report that found hundreds of cases of schoolchildren being abused as a result of inappropriate uses of restraint and seclusion. often involving untrained staff. now, one of these cases included a locked isolation room in a school basement in a school in rhode island, my home state. this room was used to restrict a student who was deemed overly aggressive and another who showed undesired behavior. well, this bill would have the proper guidance to assure that our schools and educators are treating children appropriately. i've been a strong advocate in congress to educate colleagues on the value that individuals with developmental disabilities can bring to society with the

right system of support. the bill that's before us today represents an important step in ensuring that these children are treated fairly and given the opportunities that they deserve to succeed in school. i look forward to our continuing work together on our work to make sure that children with developmental disabilities receive the care they need to reach their full potential. i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: can i verify, mr. chairman, are you ready to close and me ready to -- mr. miller: my understanding is i have no further speakers. mr. kline: i think i'm in the same boat so i'll close. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of our time. i wanted to touch on a couple of things that we've talked about in the course of this debate that i find to be interesting. we've 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 others have said we have insufficient data. i fall to the latter category. we really don't know the extent of the situation. we've heard the numbers quoted. california, for example, is quoted having 14,000 incidents. we really don't know what's in that 14,000 at all. these include emergency interventions. so we don't know if that's the case of a teacher breaking up a fight, a teacher stopping an argument. it's certainly not 14,000 cases of taping children to their chairs. and i don't think anybody in this body believes that that's the case. the point is we don't know. we don't know. and yet, we are using numbers as though they were gospel. on this issue, let's start with be 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 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 need to be able to protect students with serious behavioral problems, from injurying themselves or their classmates or their teachers. the only real disagreement outside some dispute over the data and the evidence and the g.a.o. report, by the way, the g.a.o. report i find particularly interesting because it cited 10 incidents of really egregious behavior, one of those was 18 years ago,

two were 12 years ago, the most recent is four years ago. it seems to me when we're going to enact this kind of legislation this sort of federal overreach in my judgment, we ought to have better data. so our 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've seen great progress from the 46 states that have or will soon have their own policies to train teachers on thousand handle difficult behavior and ensure that seclusion and restraints are only used to protect children from harming themselveses or others. i believe the federal government has historically limited its reach to private schools and it would be a mistake to start applying new federal mandates to independent schools that supply -- that have taxpayer funding. i also believe we do not help

things by empowering trial lawyers. for all these reasons, i continue to oppose h.r. 4247. we have spurred a national dialogue about the dangers of these strategies for controlling student behavior. that dialogue is a positive step, as is the action prompted at the state and local level. let's not disregard the work of the state and local leaders. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the argument against this legislation is that somehow 31 states have taken care of this problem and we all share the concern. the facts are that 31 sates -- states have not taken care of this problem. a number of states, it only gos 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 designed to protect these children in this situation.

illinois abcited, illinois is close to what you would like to see have happen. they spent a lot of effort to do that. in my own state we talk about the 14,000. we ask the person responsible for, they said we don't use the data. is that sufficient for the members of congress? california has, quote, addressed the problem? yes, they collect data theyry fuse 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's a difference here about the approach. but does mr. -- but as mr. courtney pointed out in 1998 we had a national discussion -- an expose of many of the same behaviors going on today, it's 12 years later. and children are still being abused.

dramatically abused. restraint and seclusion is being dramatically misused. it's being used by people who don't -- 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 frontlines want this legislation passed because it will bring them greater understanding, greater knowledge, greater skills and greater training to deal with these situations. understanding, yes, there are situations where in an emergency case, where there's 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 of those was an emergency dangerous situation. they may say it's 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's not doing much for the families of these children, it's not doing much to protect these children. that's why we move. we move to minimum standards about taping children, mechanical restraint about children, about secluding young children in darkness for hours at a time, maybe repeatedly for days on end. should not be able to do that. do we understand, we've had other investigations where the simple withdrawal of water has killed children because of dehydration. so we ought not to withdraw water here. we ought not to 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're soiling themselves in front of their

classmates, where they're humiliated, where circles are drawn around their chair and they sid in the classroom, tied down by duct tape. while they're pointed out by the teacher. these are 4, 5, 6-year-old kids. none of us would stand for this with our children or grarne, -- grandchildren, not for a many. 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 they're 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. you want to say, we've addressed it, the states have addressed it, there's no role for the federal government. who 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're prepared to do something to end this practice. this abuse. this torture. of very young children. in many instances, children with disability, children who aren't able 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. their parents can't speak for them if they don't know. these children can't control themselveses if they're denied the use of a bathroom facility. that's what this legislation is about. it's about whether or not we're going to take this step, whether or not this step is important, and i do not believe 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. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill as amended has expired. mr. miller: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in house report 111-425, offered by mr. george mill over california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1126, the gentleman from california, mr. george miller and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself two minutes. the manager's amendment makes minor technical corrections and renames the bill. i adds clarifying -- it adds clarifying language about chemical restraint, it fixes the definition of school to

include all schools and programs under the lol call -- local education agency it clarifies crises intervention training program and requires states to consult with private school officials no determining that a sufficient number of personnel are trained to meet the needs of the student population. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. cline: i rise to claim time in opposition -- mr. kline, i rise to claim time in opposition, though i will not oppose the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: this is just a technical amendment, so while i still cannot support the underlying bill, we have no objection to this. i'll vote for it and encourage my colleagues to vote for it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is on the amendment by the gentleman from california, mr. miller. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk printed in part b of the report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in part b of house report 111-425, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1126, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is noncontroversial, it creates a new discretionary grant program to assist state education agencies in meeting regulations established in the bill,

collecting and analyzing data and implementing a school-wide positive behavior support approach this grant program is to be funded out of the authorization provided in the bill for such sums as necessary. while state agencies will have to apply for these grants, it's unclear if the grants will be awarded on a competitive basis or merit based approach. we have seen in that the past when these grant programs are established when it's stipulated they should be competitive or merit based, often times later, members of congress will earmark funds directly and some of these accounts we have for merit-based grant programs are completely earmarks just a few years later, so individuals or organizations, nonprofit organizations or state agencies can't even compete for them because all the money has been earmarked. we need look no further than the fema national predisaster

mitigation program, it was a competitive grant program designed to quote, save lives and reduce property damage by providing for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition and structures on the floodplain. this was going to be a competitive grant program. the fiscal 2010 homeland security appropriation bill appropriated $100 million for this program, almost $25 million was earmarked for projects in mebs' home districts, leaving fewer funds available for localities that wished to apply for funding. a grant program to establish the emergency operation center established by congress in the 2008 homeland security appropriation bill, 60% of the funds in that grant program were earmarked. again, these are grant programs typically set up to be competitively bid on for people -- or for the agencies to assess on a merit-based basis, yet their earmark.

this amendment would say none of the funds available or authorized by this legislation would be available to be earmarked and with that,ry reserve the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: does anyone claim time in opposition? >> mr. miller: i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment though i do not oppose the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i support this amendment. i'm a strong believer in this legislation and the terrible situation we're trying to rectify. i would hope that these, and i think with the gentleman's language, we can hopefully be assured that these grants would be based on a healthy competition and based upon the request of the states for technical assistance and for other assistance in dealing with this legislation. i support the amendment of the gentleman from arizona. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment. i think it's important we do this on this legislation and all programs like this that are thoffersed by congress and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- mr. flake: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

the house will be in order. move your conversations out of the chambers. the speaker pro tempore: please be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: please remove your conversations. purr superintendent to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are

ordered. or on which the votes incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later in the week. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1079 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1079, resolution congratulating the national football league champion new orleans saint saints for winning super bowl

xliv and for bringing new orleans its first lombardi trophy in franchise history. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. melancon, and the gentleman from louisiana, mr. crow, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. melancon. sorry. mr. melancon: mr. speaker, thank you. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. melancon: mr. speaker, on behalf of the committee on oversight and government reform, i'm proud to present house resolution 1079 for consideration. this resolution congratulates the national football league champion new orleans saints for winning super bowl xliv and for bringing -- for bringing new orleans its first lombardi

trophy in history. house resolution 1079 was introduced by joseph crow of louisiana on february 9, 2010, and enjoys the support of over 70 members of congress. mr. speaker, on february 7, 2010, after a hard-fought dramatic game, the new orleans saints playing in their first ever championship game defeated the naacp colts by a score of 31-17 to win super bowl xliv. the victory is a first championship in the saints' 43-year history and captured truly remarkable season for the fran chiles. the saints finished the regular season with a franchise best 13 wins and three losses. during the 2009 season, they led the national football league in average points per game and yards per game. furthermore the 2009-2010 saints set franchise records for most points and most touchdowns in a season as well as most interceptions returned for a touchdown in a single game. still it was during the super bowl that the saints truly

distinguished themselves as the best team in the nfl. despite facing the formidable opponent in the indianapolis colts led by a new orleans native, payton manning, and four-time -- and the saints relied on head coach payton's aggressive plan and drew brees to win the game. brees, who was named super bowl m.v.p., passed for 288 yards, threw two touchdown passes and tied a super bowl record with 32 pass completions. . the saints also successfully executed a risky onside kick to start the second half of the game, 74-yard interception for a touchdown and ensured the victory. the new orleans saints' success stands as a testament to what

can be achieved through hard work, dedication and never say never spirit. the saintso motto through the season was finish strong. and they certainly did. the saints commitment to team work and achievement of excellence is inspiring and commendable. their victory helped raise the spirits of new orleans and the state of louisiana in the midst of reconstruction efforts following hurricanes katrina and subsequent hurricanes since. the northerly saints' achievements deserve our praise and i applaud the players, coaches and management and all those who head accomplish this historic event. let's commend this year's super bowl champions through the passage of house resolution 1079, which congratulates the new orleans saints on winning super bowl xliv and bringing new

orleans its first lombardi trophy in nfl history. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. cao: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cao: i rise today in support of house resolution 1079, congratulating the national football league champions new orleans saints for winning super bowl xliv and bringing new orleans its first lombardi trophy. as a representative for or leans and i'm honored to con great them on their historic season. i want to thank the original 22 co-sponsors and 75 co-sponsors of the resolution for joining me to congratulate and support the saints. i would like to thank my colleagues in the entire louisiana delegation for their dedication to the recovery of south louisiana.

we have cooperated in congress to rebuild our region and i hope to continue working with them in the future. the saints' motto has been finish strong and they did that very thing with a 31-17 victory over the indianapolis colts in super bowl xliv. the saints' super victory not only shows the dedication and hard work of the organization, coaches and players, but also represents a beacon of hope for the city of new orleans and the catalyst for recovery throughout louisiana. house resolution 1079 emphasizes the positive influence that the saints have had on people in new orleans and the gulf coast region. i introduced house resolution 1079 to congratulate the saints because for the past five years, the saints have symbolized the city of new orleans through their pride, resilience, traditions, suffering, faith, loyalty and hope. this resolution thanks the

owners for their investment in the future of the saints and their dedication and commitment to a strong and united new orleans. this resolution also congratulates the senior vice president of stadiums and arenas for helping the saints return to new orleans by playing a role in the rebuilding of the superdome after hurricane katrina. house resolution 1079 brings attention to the individuals who made this season a success. i want to specifically thank the head coach for his love and commitment to the people and the city of new orleans and to congratulate him in being the lone head coach in saints' history to open a season with 13 straight wins and holding the all-time winning percentage record for a saints' head coach. this resolution also highlights statistics from the saints'

regular season and super bowl xliv such as drew brees completing 70.6% of his passes during the regular season, which is an nfl record. most interceptions, returning yardage with 376 yards. the saints' leading the league in 2009 with 31.9 points per game and 408 yards per game. 2009 saints' surpassed the team's record in most points and most touchdowns, longest winning record, most interception between yards and most interceptions returned for a touchdown in a game. other statistics from super bowl xliv were drew brees setting the super record with 32-pass completions and receiving yards with 83. the team rushing for a total of

51 yards on 18 carriers and hartly, three field goals of over 40 yards. for the past several months, i have been reading statements on the house floor about the importance of the saints and their positive impact on new orleans and i want to continue that tradition with a few statements for my district. ms. loretta brehm writes, the organization ex emapplyfies, professionalism and never give up attitude. they have brought together all parts of our community regardless of race, religion and economic status. they have given their generous spirit and positive action. if we can get their success, there are no limits. misle lisa smith rights -- melissa smith writes, the team took a chance on new orleans.

let's return the team to new orleans and the team provided an avenue for all of us to come home and gave us the faith we needed to overcome certain odds. the citizens of new orleans remarked on the resurgence of the team. the new orleans saints gave the city hope during a time when we didn't have this hope in ourselves. they provided people with plans that depends on discipline, dedication and determination. we may be tired and poor right now, but we are contenders. we are new orleans. we are america. thank you. and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. melancon: i yield to my friend, mr. carson, from indiana to express his gratitude for the

new orleans saints winning. i think that's what he wants to say. >> mr. speaker, i come here today as a proud american, a proud hoosier and most importantly a proud colts fan but i also come doning a new orleans saints' tie given to me by my friend and colleague, based on an agreement that was made between the both of us. indianapolis colts indeed are a legend dear team and are iconic but i must acknowledge their great ability on the football field in winning the super bowl. i commend the new orleans saints as well as the residents of louisiana for their resilience, time of great trial and tell them to keep up the great work. who dat. go colts.

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cao. mr. cao: i would like to yield one minute to my good friend from indiana, mr. don burton. we entered into a little bet and the bet was five pounds of steaks, indiana steaks for five pounds of louisiana shrimp. and i must say the steaks were very, very delicious. mr. burton: this may take more than one minute, but let me just say i have been in congress a long time and this truly is one of the most humbling moments of my career. i was so confident that the indianapolis colts were going to beat the saints, you wagered five pounds of shrimp for five pounds of steaks and i was confident i was going to be eating shrimp, i invited my friends and bought a bunch of

shrimp sauce and now i have enough sauce for five pounds of shrimp, but no shrimp. what adds insult to injury, would your quarterback, drew brees, went to purdue university in indiana. it's almost unwholly to do that to us. and the fellow that intercepted the pass that won the game for you went to indiana university. i don't understand this. the gods weren't looking on us favorably that day. in all seriousness, i hope you don't choke on that steak you got from me. i hope you enjoy it. and i think this is a great time -- give me one more minute. this is a great time for new orleans. they have had tough times over the past several years. and i think drew brees and that team really does them proud. and if any team was going to win

the super bowl, other than the colts, i'm glad it was the new orleans saints. we will be back next year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. melancon: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: 16 minutes. mr. melancon: we won't go that long. let me start by saying, in new orleans, we have what's known as the who dats, the people who have been loyal since day one. we have in new orleans, the renew dats, which is a group that wasn't sure every year and the saints had to try and prove themselves. we now have a group of people in new orleans, louisiana and in the south and nation called the new dats who have become blivers in the saints. my -- believers in the saints.

my mother in law has been a fan and it took her until super bowl sunday morning to reconcile how she handled the daughters, particularly the one who lives in louisiana, my wife and new orleans saints, baltimore colts and peyton manning. she called her daughter and said, i figured it out. peyton has a super bowl ring so i will pull for the new orleans saints today and my wife said, it looks like we're going to win it. with that, new orleans has seen a historic occasion. it was euphoric in its mood. it is in a new time, if you would, because of the excitement, the love of the franchise. the team, players, the coaches and the people that have made this a great and wonderful year. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and

yield to my friend, mr. cao. mr. cao: i would like to yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from the state of louisiana, mr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i thank my friend, mr. cao, for proposing this resolution and having this debate today and certainly other members from our delegation. let me just say in response to our good friend from indiana, mr. burton, that there's another hour that goes along with this as well and that is peyton manning, the quarterback for the colts, is the son of archie manning who was the president of the saints from the very beginning of its fan franchise. so we have ironies boiling over. i would like to congratulate the new orleans saints, the franchise's first super bowl.

they won by 31-17 on february 7, 2010. the saints are an inspiration to all of us on and off the field. after not playing a single game in their home stadium in 2005 after hurricane kn