Dennis Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA

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

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

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1276.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 1276 provides for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order two amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report, including a bipartisan manager's amendment. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The bill before us today, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, responds to an urgent need to protect our Nation's vulnerable children. An estimated 20 to 30,000 U.S. teenagers attend private residential programs, including therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavioral modification facilities. These residential facilities are intended to help treat children with behavioral, emotional or mental health problems. However, many of these facilities are loosely regulated, if they are even regulated at all. As a result, some of the very facilities that are supposed to be providing a safe environment for our Nation's vulnerable children have, instead, provided us with some of the most shocking accounts of child abuse and neglect we have ever been witness to. A comprehensive report by the Government Accountability Office recently uncovered thousands of allegations of child abuse and neglect at private residential programs for teens. Tragically, in a number of these cases, this abuse and neglect led to the child's death. I won't describe the horrifying stories, but I will say that they go far beyond simple maltreatment. The stories are deplorable. They are inexcusable, and they are inhumane. This bill, H.R. 5876, will keep children safe by imposing new national standards for residential treatment programs. These standards include prohibitions on denying children food, water, clothing, shelter or medical care for any reason, including as a form of punishment. The bill upholds core moral values by specifically prohibiting programs from engaging in practices that physically, sexually or mentally abuse or torment children in their care. It requires programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it, and it requires programs to have emergency medical care plans in place. The bill also includes several other provisions, such as requiring programs to disclose to parents the qualifications of staff, notifying parents of substantiated reports of abuse, and providing grant money to States if they develop their own standards that are at least as strong as the national ones. On a personal note, I would like to say that my wife, Kathie, and I are proud parents of three children, two of which we adopted from foster care. I can tell you from my own personal experience that nothing is more important to a child's life than having a secure home. No child should ever be subject to abuse or neglect, especially when in the care of those who are supposed to be providing treatment. I commend Chairman Miller for his tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's children. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Florida has been a true champion on behalf of the pro- democracy forces in Cuba; that certainly I join him in denouncing any of the horrible acts that he described today, and I praise the emotion and spirit with which he brings his fight towards democracy in Cuba to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. But I will tell you, however much I praise his efforts there, with regard to the seven amendments that he talked about, the seven Republican amendments submitted in the Rules Committee, they were disposed of in I believe a very fair and equitable manner. Two were withdrawn by the authors. One was addressed in the manager's amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) was addressed in the manager's amendment. Two amendments amended portions of the bill that were deleted by the manager's amendment and thus are moot; and two dealt with earmarks that are not in the bill. So frankly, all of the amendments were dealt with in a fair and evenhanded manner. I believe this truly is a bipartisan bill. It is with that spirit, Madam Speaker, that I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the chairman of the Healthy Families Subcommittee and a champion for children.

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

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a true champion for children in this House.

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

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

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, in closing, I'd like to remind my friend and colleague from Florida that it has been the other body, the Republicans in the other body and the White House who have stymied the Democratic efforts to actually reduce gas prices and provide alternative energy for this country. Certainly, it is a problem, and certainly, the American people are very frustrated at paying $4 or more, in my State it's much more for a gallon of gas. But had we at least moved in a new direction, we could be heading in that direction. But we have been totally stymied by the White House and the Senate on these questions. Madam Speaker, today's bill deals with children, and there is an urgent problem in many residential treatment facilities that have gone unchecked for far too long and must be addressed. H.R. 5876 will go a long way towards ensuring the safety of our Nation's children who depend on these treatment facilities. Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation to protect our kids in these treatment facilities. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1276 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2279) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed military installations in the United States. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to find passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or Representative Skelton of Missouri, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-llinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 1091th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to respond to Mr. Dreier's remarks.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1218.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1218 provides for the further consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, under a structured rule, without further general debate. The rule makes in order 58 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration under this rule. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the committee report and amendments en bloc except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 5658, the text of H.R. 6048, as passed by the House, shall be added at the end of H.R. 5658. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, relating to any measure pertaining to agricultural programs. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to finish consideration of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. General debate on this measure concluded last night. This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the Rules Committee has ample time to consider amendments submitted to the committee. This year, 121 amendments were submitted for consideration. As my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said on the floor yesterday, the defense authorization bill is one of the most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation this House considers each year. I salute the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, and Ranking Member Hunter for their hard work and cooperative effort in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Their bill passed the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 61-0, a testament to their bipartisan efforts and desire to ensure our Armed Forces have all the tools they need to maintain our national security and to provide our servicemembers in harm's way with the best gear and force protection possible. America has the finest military in the world, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies in Iraq have depleted our great military, put a tremendous strain on our troops, and dropped the Army's readiness to unprecedented levels. H.R. 5658 takes us in a new direction. It will help restore our Nation's military readiness and protect our troops in harm's way. This bill supports our troops and their families by giving the military a pay raise larger than was requested by the President and prohibiting TRICARE fee increases. It focuses on the war in Afghanistan. It also includes Iraq policy provisions that ban permanent bases in Iraq and require the Iraqi Government to pay its fair share of reconstruction costs. In the spirit of maintaining the committee agreement and the overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill and to further ensure that our military is fully prepared and our troops get the benefits they deserve, the Rules Committee has made in order 58 amendments for consideration on the floor today. These are amendments that the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee determined would not disrupt the bill's carefully negotiated content and warranted further consideration. In addition, this rule also allows the Speaker to bring up under suspension of the rules any measure pertaining to agricultural programs. As we all know and we heard on the floor yesterday, an unintentional clerical error occurred prior to the enrollment of the farm bill. As a result, the President did not receive the full bill. The distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, has been working to remedy this situation so the President may receive the full bill for his consideration. As a result, if a resolution is reached, and I do not know the status of the negotiations between Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Boehner, the resulting end product will be brought to the floor without further delay so that we may complete nearly 2 years of effort and deliver once and for all on the promises we made long ago to America's farmers and ranchers. In the meantime I must remind our colleagues that the current farm bill extension is set to expire unless we act today. Whether a resolution is reached in the coming days or how we resolve this clerical error, we must, Mr. Speaker, extend the current farm bill and this rule will simply allow that to occur. Much will be made of this rule by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I will remind them that any farm bill measure that may come before the House today will come up under suspension of the rules. That means that two-thirds of the House must support any suspension bill in order for it to pass the House. That further means that there will be no political gamesmanship and we must have a strong bipartisan vote in order to pass any bill that reaches the floor. The farm bill conference report has overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed this House with 318 votes. It passed the Senate with 81 votes. It represents the tireless effort of many Members, including myself, and is far too important to fail, Mr. Speaker, especially in light of what was an unintended clerical error. This rule ensures swift passage of a bipartisan defense bill and a remedy to our already passed bipartisan farm bill, and I demand that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would just like to say to my friend and the gentleman from Washington State that his claim that it was never brought before the House is simply not the facts. I was on the floor. I heard Mr. Peterson announce to the floor that in fact there had been an error yesterday during the debate for the override. In fact, Mr. Peterson said that he had been discussing with Mr. Goodlatte the situation and how to remedy it. In fact, Mr. Hoyer acknowledged it on the floor. There has been no glossing over this. Mr. Hoyer readily acknowledged on the floor last night that there was a clerical error about this. Certainly we are concerned about how to remedy this. That is why we are bringing this rule to the floor. We are also concerned that the farm bill expires. We have brought a resolution to the floor that allows for a bipartisan compromise that would fix that situation. We are trying to solve problems here today. We are trying to do right by our military, we are trying to do right by our farmers, and we are doing it in a manner that would require, with regard to the farmers, at least, a two-thirds vote of this House to resolve the problem. So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we are doing everything possible to remedy this situation, and we are doing it in a bipartisan manner. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee, a leader in the farm bill debate, and a great friend.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments we just heard from our distinguished former chairman of the committee, while a lot of us have sympathy for the amendment that the gentleman put forward, it is my understanding that no defense contractor currently can meet the requirements of that 85 percent. So that is an issue that is bigger than just simply this bill. It probably needs to be dealt with in the Armed Services Committee so they can decide the proper course of action, and it was not ruled in order for that reason. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a gentleman who worked tirelessly on the farm bill and who has worked tirelessly on behalf of defense matters, my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the gentleman from Arizona, I would certainly like to say he's certainly been bipartisan in his offering of striking of earmarks. He's offered them in the past on both sides, and I will acknowledge that the gentleman has talked to the majority leader and it will be under discussion. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Maryland for giving us an incredibly articulate, accurate, and statesmanlike presentation. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.