Floor Statements

I yield to your next speaker.

I now would like to yield time to the minority leader from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I would now like to yield time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield time to the dean of the Michigan delegation, Mr. Conyers.

I will now take the opportunity to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have remaining?

We have 11 speakers, so I would ask if you would limit your remarks. I want to have an opportunity for everyone who wants to speak to speak.

Now I would yield time to my colleague and one of Don's very dear colleagues from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Now I would like to yield to a gentleman also from New Jersey, one of Mr. Payne's very close colleagues, Mr. Rothman.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I now would like to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

I would now like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

I now would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Madam Speaker, I would yield now to my colleague and friend from Memphis, a fellow Tennessean, Mr. Cohen.

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

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, H.R. 2117. This bipartisan legislation will prevent the Department of Education from defining a

college credit hour, something that is best left to our institutions of higher learning and their accrediting agencies. It will also block a cumbersome new rule that will require States to use Federally set, one- size-fits-all criteria to regulate higher education. If these two rules were allowed to go into effect, it would create tremendous new burdens and additional cost for students.

The exploding cost of higher education is already putting the opportunity of a college education and diploma out of reach for too many Americans. Last year, tuition and fees at public, 4-year schools increased by 8.3 percent. More regulations will lead to more administrative staff, and ultimately larger tuition bills. And I might add, the fact that one institution or several institutions break the law--we have laws against robbing banks, and people do that. There are unscrupulous people out there. But this is putting a burdensome regulation on the folks that are following the rules.

The average debt of a college graduate today is approximately $22,000. When I went to medical school, I started in 1967 and graduated in 3 years in 1970. My father was a factory worker. I was able to work in medical school and graduate with no debt from college and medical school. That's unheard of today. Today, students are so far in debt that they'll spend much of their working life paying off these exorbitant loans that they have.

There is much that we can do to improve access to higher education and lower costs. Issuing new regulations, however, takes us in the opposite direction. I've taken hundreds of hours of college credit, and not one of them has been approved by the Federal Government, and yet I am a board certified physician. I think this goes way too far. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career and work of Dr. Paul Stanton, president of East Tennessee State University for the past fifteen years. Dr. Stanton first came to ETSU in 1985, as director of the Division of Peripheral Vascular Surgery for the Veterans Administration Medical Center and ETSU's James H. Quillen College of Medicine. Over the next twelve years he devoted himself to ETSU, and for his dedication and hard work, he was named president in 1997. Under Dr. Stanton's leadership, ETSU markedly increased its percentage of residential students, built two large new dorms, and celebrated its centennial anniversary. Under his stewardship Princeton Review has named ETSE as one of America's best value colleges, and one of the top schools in the Southeast. Speaking as a physician, his most important achievement may have been the construction and completion of the Bill Gatton College of Pharmacy. During Dr. Stanton's tenure, the Quillen College of Medicine has consistently been named as one of the top rural medical schools in the country, educating the next generation of physicians who more often than not stay and practice in East Tennessee, in addition to serving similar rural communities around the country.

Through his sound leadership, Dr. Stanton, has strengthened the foundation of an important educational institution in East Tennessee. My daughter Whitney is a proud alumna of this distinguished public university.

Along with providing transformative leadership for one of East Tennessee's most important academic institutions, Dr. Paul Stanton has long been a devoted and caring physician, family man, grandfather, teacher, scientist, mentor, true gentleman and a fellow Methodist. Throughout it all his beautiful and terrific wife Nancy has supported him and undertaken a great deal of community involvement herself. Though I know he will miss ETSU, I am sure Dr. Stanton will find a way to keep himself busy between golf, grandchildren, and continued service to the community.

I thank Dr. Stanton for his service and wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring recognition to a special lady who hails from the same section of Appalachia as I do. Elizabeth Joanne Shupe was born February 11, 1932, in Russell County, Virginia, just across the border from northeast Tennessee. Through her life she has observed the transformation of this beautiful area we call home.

The proud mother of four children, Mrs. Shupe worked remarkably hard to support her family after the death of her second husband. Later in her career she found her calling as a nurse, putting herself through school while raising a son on her own. She kept nursing until just a few years ago at the age of 75.

Since retirement she has kept active, campaigning for her son (and city alderman) Jantry Shupe, teaching ceramic painting at an assisted living community, or pursuing her hobby of taking photographs with celebrities. Mrs. Shupe's vibrant spirit continues to shine as it has her entire life.

As of February 11, Mrs. Shupe is now 80 years young, and I am proud to honor her on the occasion of this milestone birthday.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as a young man, I swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States when I was sworn into the United States military. Literally, millions of young men and women have sworn that oath, shed blood, precious blood, to protect the individual liberties and freedoms that we take for granted in this Nation. And now, no longer, due to the actions of this President, can we take those for granted.

I want to associate my remarks tonight with my colleagues who've so eloquently spoken. Once again, it tells us why government should be out of these individual decisions that we make. We passed almost 2 years ago, and Mr. Lungren remembers this very well, on this House floor we debated this health care bill that now mandates not only what we should buy, an essential benefits package, but what's in it and how it's administered. How ridiculous that is. Individuals have that right and should maintain that right and that freedom to do that.

Our government was established to protect rights of conscience for all Americans, not just some Americans, but all Americans. Neither the HHS nor any other government Department should have the power to force people to violate their conscience. Since 1973, health care and coverage providers--and I am a physician, I am an obstetrician and gynecologist--were granted protections in the law to follow their conscience. This rule that was passed and will be the law of the land cancels those protections. Cancels those protections.

This HHS rule will force individuals and organizations to violate deeply held moral convictions with no opportunity to opt out, no opportunity to opt out. Protection of the rights of conscience is a fundamental American principle, a fundamental liberty, not a marginal consideration to be subordinated or ignored because of Federal mandates. It's guaranteed in this book right here, the Constitution. The freedom of religion is the first one mentioned in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The HHS rule gives people and me, a provider, an impossible choice: either break the law, or violate your beliefs. This rule is causing buyer's remorse in someone who previously supported the health care reform bill.

Former Representative Kathy Dahlkemper recently said:

I would never have voted for the final version of the bill

if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic

hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for

contraception.

Christians cannot distinguish between purely religious activities and provisions of health care. Because of this rule and because of this President, many may have no choice but to stop providing coverage for their employees. And providers like myself and others with conscience clauses may have to stop providing care.

This is not a choice that any of us should have to make. It's a freedom guaranteed by over 200 years of bloodshed for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot stand by and let this happen.

I appreciate very much the gentleman holding this Special Order tonight.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues for being here tonight. And one of the things in the Health Caucus we are so blessed with are three new additions of registered nurses, psychologists, dentists. We really cover the whole spectrum of health care in, I think, 21 or 22 members of the Health Caucus now, 15 physicians. And this is the first time probably in years that the House has had this kind of support from the health care community around the Nation.

This weekend I had an opportunity to talk to my wife a little bit about what my purpose was here in this House. I'm a veteran, as you are. I served as a practicing physician, as almost, I think, every one of the Doctors Caucus on the Republican side has been out for years, decades, myself 31 years of private medical practice.

Medicare came along in 1965 when I was a college student. And the reason it came along at that point was because half of our citizens, when they retired, didn't have access to any health care coverage. So there was a problem noted. And at that point in time, that plan started as a $3 million program, really a skeleton program in the Federal Government.

The government estimators--there was no Congressional Budget Office then--but they estimated that in 25 years this would be a $12 billion to $15 billion program. The actual number was $110 billion. Today it's over $500 billion, and a very important program because you and I, Dr. Fleming, have seen incredible advances.

I could sit here the rest of the night and talk about the last 30- plus years of medical advances that have been applied to our patients, and medications, surgical procedures that have improved the quality of life of every American citizen.

One of the strange things that happened when I was a very young doctor, 31 years old in Johnson City, Tennessee, I noticed that 30- something years later my 40-year-old patients were in their seventies, and they were on Medicare. And I have had a chance to follow them throughout, really, most of their adult lives and see the care that they got.

And one of the things I think that our Health Caucus and our Physicians Caucus is absolutely committed to is saving Medicare. It's a great program, but it is not sustainable.

One of the frustrations I've had here on this House floor is how can you solve a problem you can't even talk about. When you're demagogued and told that you're going to dump Grandma off a cliff, and you're going to do this, that's not solving problems, that's throwing bombs.

I think this group of men and women are here to solve these problems. Otherwise, I don't really have a purpose here in this Congress. And so I'm going to commit myself, as I think our entire Health Caucus is, to saving this vital program for our seniors.

It's been pointed out, pick your number; the estimators have been wrong before. But what if they're right? What if they're even close to being right? We've got to start solving the problem today and not wait.

The President's plan is to simply do nothing. Well, what are we talking about doing? What are we planning on doing?

Before I get to that, I want to mention IPAB a little bit. This is hard to explain in a minute or two on a TV interview we might do. But the Independent Payment Advisory Board takes health care decisions away from where the health care decisions ought to be made; and those health care decisions ought to be made between a physician, the patient, and that patient's family, not between the insurance company and not between, certainly, a bunch of bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C.

Quite frankly, I don't want a Republican President putting them on there, and I don't want a Democratic President putting them on there. I want those decisions made in the examining room and the doctor's office, between the family and the patient and the doctor.

Now, the IPAB, as Dr. Harris a moment ago mentioned, are 15 bureaucrats appointed. Look, we have 224 cosponsors to repeal this bill, from Barney Frank to Phil Roe. There's a lot of room in that camp to fill in, so all the Congressmen can be on this because it is a bad idea.

My colleagues over here on the other side of the aisle, quite frankly, did not have this in the House version of the bill, as you'll recall. That came in the Senate version of the bill. So we need their support, in a bipartisan way, to repeal this.

And why do we want to repeal it? We want to repeal it because it is based not on quality of care and not on access of care. It is based strictly on costs, and to squeeze more money out for the Affordable Care Act, that's why our seniors need to get involved in helping us get the Affordable Care Act, or the so-called ObamaCare plan, overturned because they are interlocked, and the money will come out of Medicare.

So we have a bureau up here, a board that says you've spent this much money, and if you spend more, then it's going to come out of the providers. That's hospitals, doctors and other health care providers, meaning that you will decrease access because they won't be able to see their doctor. And when you decrease access, you decrease quality of care, and no one in this country wants it.

Has it been done anywhere else in the world? Absolutely. It's done in England right now. And we can go on with the horror stories of rationing of care, because that is ultimately what happens. And who gets rationed? Is it based on a certain age? Is it based on a certain disease?

I don't think any physician in the world, I know morally I can't, and ethically I can't do that. If a patient comes in, we have that conversation with the family, we put out a treatment plan, and we execute that plan.

Now, how do we save it? I know we're going to talk about that in a little bit, but I want to point this out since I am on Medicare.

I got on Medicare last year. The day before I turned 65 years of age I had a health care plan. And in this health care plan was a hospitalization. It had a drug benefit; it also had the ability for me to go see my doctor. So it was a health care plan.

Medicare has part A, part B, part C, part D. The only reason it's chopped up in parts like that is because politicians put it together, not an access, not a way to see your doctor.

What I think should happen to you when you're 65 is you should have a health care plan. It has prescription drug benefits, hospitalization, doctor benefits, and testing benefits like any other.

And so what will we do, and how do we plan on doing this? It's not hard at all. The premium support that we're talking about is, just act like the Federal Government, the day before, when your business, your employer paid that part of the premium, the Federal Government will pay that premium, and the other part will be paid by you, as an individual. And higher-income seniors like us right here are going to get a bigger piece of that. And lower-income seniors are going to have a small piece to pay.

Or if you want to stay on traditional Medicare, you're allowed to stay on traditional Medicare. In doing this, we can save this very vital program for our seniors. And I'm willing to sit down, as anybody in this caucus is, to talk to our seniors about how we're going to help save this.

I want to thank you, Dr. Fleming, tonight for holding this Special Order, and my colleagues for coming down here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to first start out by thanking my friend and colleague, Congressman Smith, for being one of the most steadfast leaders in this Nation, not tonight, not for this 1 hour of Special Order tonight, but for decades, Chris, for standing up for life and what's right, and I am proud to associate with you.

Today, as we went out on The Mall here, for those of you all who didn't see it on television, it was a cold, rainy day--and it was very cold last year and clear--but it didn't dampen the spirits of literally thousands and thousands of people who came from all over the Nation, and as Congresswoman Buerkle just said, the scores of young people who are here to celebrate life.

Life, as has been mentioned, is a precious gift from God. And not only is abortion wrong both morally and ethically, it's a really bad idea. And I know from my practice of medicine, I'm an OB/GYN doctor, as Congressman Smith mentioned, and in the group that I belong to and in the years that I was there, we delivered over 25,000 babies, myself almost 5,000 babies.

What I got to see during that time, it's been an amazing transition. When Roe v. Wade was passed, we didn't have access to ultrasound; and as ultrasound came along from just a little gray blur that you were able to see to now in 3-D and 4-D ultrasound that you're able to visualize the fingers, the hands and the movement, to see this little person very early on. We can identify a heartbeat at 28 days post- conception. And I will defy anyone to tell me that that is not a living, breathing, in utero human being. It's a person that's there that just hasn't been there quite long enough yet.

And I remember in my practice when I first began in 1977, at 32 weeks, half of the children died of prematurity at that point. Now, those children live the same as a term birth. And we're seeing that number pushed further and further and further back with children younger and younger.

We tend to think of this in our own time. Think about 50 or 100 years from now. Who knows what the technology will provide? Because it is a precious gift from God that we're protecting.

I sadly stand here and tell you that 19,500 women in Tennessee in 2008 had an abortion. That's just in one State. The rate is going down, and across the Nation it's going down, but it's far, far too many. And we've just heard a number, 54 million, that boggles my mind about how many people that is. And I can tell you, having had the opportunity to live in the community I have for 35 years and to watch young babies that I have delivered grow up to be teachers, coaches, doctors, and friends of mine--many of them are close, personal friends that I have delivered. I've watched them now take their children to soccer matches and to school plays and learn to play musical instruments and to add to this Nation and to add to the culture of this Nation. I can't imagine what this world would be like without them here.

And one of the great privileges that I've had in my life was a person that I know very well at home came to me and he said, Dr. Roe, do you remember that boy you delivered of mine 20 years ago? I said, Yeah, I do. He said, You also had the privilege of nominating him to the military academy to Annapolis. And I stand here with great pride, and I'm probably one of the few people that's been able to do that. And what if his mother had made a different decision? This young leader in this country, these are the future leaders of our Nation.

I want to finish by saying I think, to me, personally, one of the most heinous procedures that could ever be performed on a human being is a third-trimester abortion. There is absolutely no medical reason--I stand here tonight and will challenge anybody in this Nation of over 300 million people to debate me on this issue. There is no medical indication other than termination of the child's life. There is no reason to do that for any other.

I have made this challenge before, and I will make it again here tonight. I have yet to be taken up on that. I don't see any difference in that and why wait until a baby is born and do something. It's called murder then.

I want to thank Chris again, Congressman Smith, for being so steadfast in his 30-plus years. You are changing hearts and changing minds. And it is a true privilege to stand here tonight with my colleagues and to be for life. I can't imagine being otherwise.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act with the support of both sides of the aisle. The economy is struggling--perhaps getting better, but struggling.

The President asked for a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday. We agree with that, a 1-year extension. Extend and reform the unemployment insurance plan benefits; we agree with that. A 2-year extension of the so-called doc fix. I'm a physician. I have been here now for 3 years. In the 3 years I have been here, Mr. Speaker, we've had six temporary extensions. This will be number seven. For access to care for patients, we must get a permanent fix for SGR or no patients are going to have access. And I have spoken to numerous colleagues who totally disagree with this 60-day extension. The true shovel-ready project, which is the Keystone pipeline, will give us access to energy in this continent with one of our best neighbors, Canada.

All of these issues that we've talked about are paid for with spending cuts, not tax increases and not deficit spending. The Senate, however, passed only a 60-day extension; the House, 1 year. Sixty days versus 1 year.

The distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Senator Bob Corker, just said, ``Senator Reid should stop this political gamesmanship, call the Senate back into session, and follow the `regular order,' '' which means both sides of the aisle, the House and the Senate, produce a conference bill ``to produce better legislation that reflects the will of the House and Senate.''

Like most Americans, we should be at work this week to finish the business they elected us to do. Please support this amendment.

I thank you, Dr. Fleming, and I appreciate you hosting this hour tonight and a chance for us to discuss in detail the health care of this Nation.

You know, about 4 or 5 years ago I made a decision, after 31 years of practice, to think about running for Congress. And one of the reasons was I knew that the health care issue was going to be huge in the debate in this Nation's future. And, boy, has that turned out to be prophetic.

Secondly, the thing that I noticed in my patients when I practiced, the single biggest factor for both Medicare patients and my other private patients and patients without health insurance, was it was too expensive; it cost too much money to go see the doctor and go to the hospital. If it were more affordable, more of us would have health care coverage.

Thirdly, we had a group of patients in my practice that couldn't afford expensive health insurance premiums.

They both worked. Let's say it was a carpenter, perhaps his wife worked at a local diner or at a local retailer that may not provide health insurance coverage, and they make $35,000 or $40,000 a year, but they could not afford $1,000 a month for health insurance coverage. And, lastly, we have a liability crisis in this country.

The other thing that we're going to get into a little later in this discussion today--and this is the absolute sacrosanct in health care-- is that health care decisions--and I'm going to say this a couple of times--health care decisions should be made between a patient and the doctor and that patient's family. It should not be made by an insurance company, and it should not be made by the Federal Government. And we're going to talk a little bit later about the Independent Payment Advisory Board that will be making those decisions in the future.

Do we need health care reform in America? Absolutely. Do we need this type of health care reform? Absolutely not. It's a disaster. And we'll go into that a little later about what my major concern is for my patients that I left in Johnson City, Tennessee, which was how are they going to access a Dr. John Fleming, how are they going to access a Dr. Scott DesJarlais, who are family practice primary care physicians. And the group I have at home that I'm in that I left to come here had over 80 primary care providers. How are they going to access those?

Well, let's go look at where we were in the sixties when I was a young college student, which was that we had a group of people, my grandparents and so forth, who would be retiring. And at that point in time, because their insurance was tied to their employment--if they had health insurance coverage--there was no way for them to get any coverage. They couldn't buy it; there was no way it could be provided for. So the Federal Government then got involved in this by forming Medicaid and Medicare in 1965.

Our Medicare program in 1965 was a $3 billion program. There was no Congressional Budget Office at that time, but the estimates were that in 25 years--so in 1990--this program was going to be a $15 billion program. The actual number was $110 billion. They missed it by seven times. And in your initial graph right here, if you had placed in that graph, Dr. Fleming, interest on the national debt--the one you showed with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--by 2020 or 2022, even at current interest rates, it will absorb the entire Federal budget. And that is why we're having this discussion today, to save Medicare.

I want to mention just briefly, because we'll kick this off later, in the current health care bill there have been many changes to Medicare. There are increased taxes on medical devices. The President said the other day--and we're going to talk about it next week, I think, and debate the payroll tax--about how he was a tax cutter. Well, I would suggest that the President read his own health care bill because there are massive tax increases in that bill.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a bureaucratically appointed board, 15 people appointed by the President--and I don't want a Republican President appointing them and I don't want a Democrat President appointing them--approved by the Senate to do what? To look at this Medicare, as we've pointed out, with millions of Medicare recipients each day and--as Dr. Fleming pointed out--$500 billion to $550 billion less going into the system. More people going in, people living longer--much longer, which is a very good thing--we're looking at a catastrophe for our Medicare program if we don't make some proactive changes now.

And how can you talk about how can you fix a system that everybody in this Chamber knows is broken--all 435 of us know it--if you can't even discuss it, if you're accused of dumping Grandma off a cliff if you even talk about a system that--I personally am on Medicare. Right now I'm a Medicare recipient, so I have a vested interest in seeing that this program works for current seniors.

I was at Furman University Monday night speaking to a group of college students on health care. It was a privilege to be there. It's a great college. A big turnout of young people. And it was embarrassing for me to look at those young people who are just beginning their careers and to think that we're going to not leave them the same access to care that I have available to me right now.

If you look at these numbers, Dr. Fleming, you see that it is not sustainable, so we have to have this conversation. I want to thank you for holding this 1-hour.

I see we have numerous other colleagues here tonight.

Dr. Fleming, thank you. I was just looking here, over 200 years of experience. What a diverse group. We have nursing, dentistry, family practice, OB-GYN, surgery, and so on. I think one of the greatest frustrations I had when I came to Congress, and Dr. Gingrey has been here longer than you and I have, and one of the things that I noticed in the health care debate that we had, now going on 3 years ago, was this: with nine physicians, M.D.s in the U.S. Congress, in the 111th Congress, not a single one of us was consulted about this health care bill. This was done on a completely partisan basis.

I have to kind of chuckle. I have never seen a Republican or a Democrat heart attack in my life. I have never personally operated on a Republican or a Democrat cancer in my life. These are people problems, as Congresswoman Buerkle said a moment ago. These are people problems that affect all of us in this country.

What we wanted to do, as I stated when we started, was to make the cost of care go down. This is not going to do this. Look, this is very simple. When we talked about the IPAB, and I think we'll have to use a different time to discuss the Independent Payment Advisory Board because it is so detailed, but just very briefly, this is how this works.

Several of us have pointed out that $575 billion was taken out. Three million seniors a year going into Medicare, reaching Medicare age, and this group, this group of bureaucrats up here appointed, and I don't want them appointed by a Republican or a Democrat. I think Congress ought to be accountable, and we ought to be accountable to the American people about what happens to Medicare, not push it off to some bureaucrats that are going

to make these decisions, and then we say, oh, I'm sorry, we can't do anything when care is denied because when you have $575 billion less, and 3 million more people added per year, that's 30-something million people in 10 years, you know what that leads to, Mr. Fleming.

It leads to a rationing of care. Decreased access. And if you have decreased access to your primary care provider, it means decreased quality of your care and the cost is going up. That's what's going to happen with this plan. That's why it's imperative, not just Medicare, but that we overturn the Affordable Care Act because it's not good medicine for patients.

If we simply had been included in the debate, this would not be a plan that you had to run through and get rid of the 1099 form, the IPAB. It's a bipartisan bill now with 214 bipartisan cosponsors. Those folks realize it's a bad idea. I could go on and on and on.

One of the good parts of the Affordable Care Act, let's point it out, it costs more money, but allowing a 26-year-old to stay on their parents' health care plan, that's a great idea unless your parents are not paying the bill. Currently, if a young person, 22 or 23 years old, gets health care, they'll pay one-sixth what I do. Now what happens with this, it has to be a three-to-one ratio, so their health insurance plan costs double.

We could go on and on about the inconsistencies. I think the previous Speaker, the current minority leader, had it right when she said let's pass it and then find out what's in it. Well, I read it, as most of us physicians did, and we found out all of the things that were in there that were not good for our patients. We're just now discovering it's going to be more costly for businesses out there, and we need to have an entire hour on that.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Workforce Democracy and Protection Act.

Our country is in the middle of a jobs crisis. The national unemployment rate is hovering at 9 percent. In Tennessee, where I live, it's higher than that. Millions of American families are struggling to make ends meet. Amidst this economic uncertainty, the House has passed over 20 jobs bills that would help spur our economy that are sitting over on the Senate side, right down the hallway here, not voted on. Sadly, the Senate isn't the only roadblock to economic recovery. That's why we're here today--to rein in a National Labor Relations Board that has run amok.

I grew up in a union household. My father was a member of the United Rubber Workers Union. And I know about this. I lived with it, grew up with it.

In June, what problem were we trying to fix? Currently, elections are held, as the chairman said, within 31 days. And unions win almost 70 percent of the elections held. So let's say the 1st of October of this year you wanted to have an election. By the end of that month you could vote on whether a worker wanted to be in the union or not. A very fair process. If this rule goes into effect, as he said, 7 days for an employer to find representation to go through over 400 pages of rules just on this very complicated subject.

It gets worse. As little as 10 days to vote. So a worker would have to make their mind up, in some cases, it could be as quick as 10 days. Imagine voting on the President of the United States in 10 days.

And it gets worse. Workers would then be required by law to hand over personal information. What we want to do is to allow the employee to decide what information is given to the union about how they want to get contacted.

Mr. Chairman, this just isn't right, nor is the National Labor Relations Board's decision to redefine how a bargaining unit is determined. Instead of creating jobs, employers will be forced to negotiate with a multitude of small bargaining unions, which will raise labor costs and destroy the possibility of advancement opportunities. Something must be done to restore the fairness to the union election process. And that's why I'm a proud cosponsor of this legislation.

The bill simply does this. It gives 14 days to pass before a preelection hearing is held. This hearing will allow both sides to raise any relevant or material issues in a non-adversarial environment. It would protect the worker's right to make an informed choice by requiring an election take place in not less than 35 days. We owe it to our constituents to let them hear both sides of the story and make up their own minds. A worker's privacy should also be protected, allowing the unions access to only what the employee decides is their contact information. This bill also restores longstanding rules for defining what a bargaining unit is. It's over three decades of rules.

Mr. Chairman, there's only one way I can describe this bill--it's common sense. I respect the right of the workers to form unions. That's their right under the law. But I believe that the union election should follow a process that is balanced and protects the rights of employees and employers, not just the unions.

I urge support of this bill.

Dr. Foxx, I thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. Our country is in the middle of a jobs crisis, no question. Both sides understand that. The national unemployment rate has hovered around 9 percent for the longest time in my lifetime, and in Tennessee it's even higher, 9.8 percent. Millions of American families are struggling as we speak.

Amidst all of this uncertainty, the House, with bipartisan support, has passed 22 jobs bills. Right down this hallway here this week the U.S. Senate worked so hard they voted two times on two Federal judges. That's all the work that took place with 22, many of them bipartisan bills, passed, Mr. Speaker.

I think right now we've seen in this country, to hold up jobs, the delay of the Keystone pipeline, which would essentially, over time, provide us as much oil from Canada as we're getting from OPEC right now. 1.3 million barrels a day would essentially relieve us and help our national security and create thousands of jobs.

So why are we here today? What happens currently?

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a union household. My father was a union worker at that time for the United Rubber Workers Union. He worked in a factory and he made shoe heels. And the union, we have a right in this country, employees have a right to organize and to vote in a union or not.

So what's happening right now? Well, currently in 2010, 92 percent of the initial union elections were held under a voluntary election agreement of when they had an election, 92 percent. Only 8 percent went to the NLRB election official, at which time then they had to sit down together--that's what happens--to agree on the rules of the election. And as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) pointed out, the NLRB is supposed to be a fair arbiter--like you're playing a basketball game and you go to someone's home gym; you expect the referees there to carry out a fair game for both sides--so that both sides have a chance to give their side of the story.

So in June of this year, what's happened? The NLRB issued a rule that would say that an employer has 7 days to find an attorney to present their side of the case. And remember, in this, just the description of this, there are over 400 pages of rules that you have to go through or information that the lawyer has to go through and has 7 days to get that done, and an employee would have just 10 days to decide whether they want a union or not. And they have that right.

Today, almost 70 percent of the elections held, the union wins. And what's the average time of the election? Thirty-one days. So that means if you want to vote on the 1st of October of 2011, the average time, by the end of that month, 70 percent, almost three out of four, would be picked, yes, we want a union.

So what happens after this, after these 10 days?

The second thing that the union wants is the amount of information that's required that an employee give up. What would that be? Well, that would be personal information, including your work schedule, your home address, phone numbers, etc. Right now, what we want and what this bill says is that the employees get to decide with regard to just their names and what other ways they want to get contacted. I think that's fair. I think that's right. Let the employees decide.

Mr. Speaker, also what my colleague from California spoke of is the bargaining unit. For over two decades, the NLRB has used a standard to define what a ``bargaining unit'' is. This is a new definition. We have done this for almost 30 years in this country, and we want this to change. As I understand the law, it's against the law for an employer right now--and it has been for over three decades--to threaten a worker.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

This bill would give the employer 14 days on a preelection hearing to find representation. It would allow the workers 35 days to get the information that they need to make an informed decision to vote in a secret ballot so that they can decide and so that the employer or the union cannot intimidate these workers. It would allow the employees, the workers--not the union--to decide what information they want to give up.

This is a commonsense bill. This just basically redefines what has been going on for over three decades. I respect the right of anyone to belong to a union if he wants to--as I said, I lived in a union household. Yet I believe this will allow both sides a free and fair way to decide whether they want to.

Madam Speaker, this week we will take what I believe is one of the most important votes we will ever cast in the U.S. Congress on adding a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

With our national debt approaching $15 trillion--more than $47,900 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation--it's time to get serious about spending. That's why we must succeed where other Congresses have failed and send this amendment to the States for ratification. According to the CBO, the budget submitted by the President earlier this year would, at no time over the next 10 years, bring the annual deficit below $748 billion.

This balanced budget amendment would require Washington to live within its means just exactly like families do, cities, counties, States do every day. It simply says that spending cannot exceed revenues unless three-fifths of each Chamber approves.

Forty-eight States, including my home State of Tennessee, already have a balanced budget amendment. This is just common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the principles that it represents: Spend less than you take in.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important legislation which will deliver greater benefits to deserving veterans in Tennessee and across this Nation.

Under Senate 894, veterans will receive a cost-of-living increase for the first time in 2 years. This adjustment is equal to the 3.6 percent annual increase that will be provided to Social Security recipients. This will provide much-needed assistance to service-disabled veterans who are receiving VA disability benefits and their families. This bill is necessary to ensure the well-being of those who have honorably served our country and protect our freedoms.

In these tough economic times, millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet, including many veterans. This bill represents an opportunity to take care of those who have given so much to take care of us and to help them through these hard times. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And as a veteran who has recently returned from Afghanistan, I can't say enough about what our troops in the field are doing now. It is no greater honor than to provide this benefit increase for them that they so richly deserve. I strongly support this. I thank Mr. Filner for his support and the chairman for his support as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273. This bipartisan bill will protect the beneficial use of coal ash while also providing for consistent State regulatory authority to store and regulate coal ash under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

My home State of Tennessee has seen the problems coal ash can cause. In December of 2008, TVA's coal-fired plant in Kingston, Tennessee, had the largest coal-related spill in U.S. history. This terrible disaster resulted in some 1.1 billion gallons of ash flooding parts of the Tennessee Valley. So there's no question we must have proper oversight. And, Madam Chair, I visited that site previously.

With that being said, the reality is coal ash is abundant and can be economical and versatile. The use of coal ash keeps electric costs low for the consumer and provides low-cost, yet durable, construction materials. From 1999 to 2009, 519 million tons of coal ash were recycled--38 percent of all ash produced. Reusing ash decreases greenhouse emissions and also helps prevent spills that can result from its storage.

The bill we're considering today ensures the safe management and disposal of coal ash by ensuring existing regulatory standards are enforced without interfering with State regulations and storage standards. This will help prevent future disasters like the one in Kingston because it encourages investment in recycling and reuse of ash in a way that benefits contractors, consumers, and American job creators.

The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act is a bipartisan solution to the challenges that arise from coal ash. It safeguards the consumer and the environment without hurting the economy. It is imperative that we pass this bill, because if we do not, the administration's proposed regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will move forward to classify coal ash as hazardous, increasing costs for the coal-fired plants, which would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and drive up electricity costs.

American job creators cannot afford another regulatory burden. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Walz, for his leadership on this very important issue which is long overdue. I think both sides of the aisle feel this is an injustice. It's gone on far too long. When you take the oath to uphold the Constitution, you put on the service uniform of our country, you serve your obligation and are honorably discharged. You are a veteran. You're as much a veteran as I am, who served on active duty.

Just a few hours ago, Congressman Walz and others who he mentioned were in Landstuhl, Germany, before we flew home, and saw National Guardsmen, who may not be able to be called veterans, flying planes home to bring our wounded warriors home.

I knew that this legislation was coming up tonight, and I felt compelled, after meeting these young men and women who are doing an incredible job to protect our wounded warriors and protect our country, they be offered this status of veterans. This bill rights a long- standing wrong. I urge very strong support of this much-needed legislation.