Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Molly Salmi for her 25 years of dedicated service to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce--and the American people.

Molly Salmi, who joined the Committee as a Staff Assistant, has continued to advance through the ranks to her current position as Deputy Director of Workforce Policy thanks to her unparalleled professionalism and extensive knowledge of the policies that affect literally every working American.

Molly personifies the best qualities of public service--demonstrating tireless enthusiasm and an unyielding commitment to sound public policy. Beyond her contributions to policy, Molly has invested in the lives of countless young staffers and interns, offering advice, guidance, and direction, while setting an example of decorum and grace.

Molly's great work through the years has earned her the respect of seven separate Committee Chairmen--Republicans and Democrats alike--as well as her colleagues on both sides of the aisle, which is no small feat in a world too often mired in partisan posturing.

For all of the above--and so much more--Molly is more than a trusted colleague: she is an invaluable member of our committee family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dianna Ruskowsky for her 25 years of dedicated service to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce--and the American people.

In a career spanning the terms of seven Committee Chairmen, Dianna Ruskowsky has distinguished herself as an exemplary steward of Committee resources and a true expert of her craft. She is routinely sought out for guidance and assistance from her colleagues on both sides of the aisle--from fellow Committees to House Leadership offices.

Dianna's contributions take place behind the scenes, but her work does not go unnoticed. Her guidance and advice ensures everyone from our interns to our Staff Director has the knowledge they need to make wise decisions and adhere to the letter of the law.

Dianna's attention to detail and dedication to the successful operation of the Committee are without equal. The American people can rest assured every penny of their tax dollars that flows through the Committee is accounted for and invested in the most efficient manner.

Perhaps even more admirable is Dianna's own investment in the lives of the many young staffers she has taken under her wing over the years. Dianna routinely goes out of her way to help new staff members feel welcome and at home in our Committee family.

Our Committee could--quite literally--not run without Dianna's service, and we continue to be grateful for all she does.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, to direct the Secretary of Education to convene the Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to conduct a study on improvements to postsecondary education transparency at the Federal level, and for other purposes.

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

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

I rise today in strong support of the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, also known as the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

After many weeks of delay, I'm pleased we finally have a bipartisan agreement to address the student loan interest rate problem. My colleagues and I have been fighting for months for a long-term, market- based solution that will serve students and taxpayers, and the legislation before us today will do just that.

As you can see in this chart, much like the Smarter Solutions for Students Act approved by the House back in May, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act will tie student loan interest rates to the market, taking away the uncertainty that comes with allowing Congress to arbitrarily set rates.

Similarly, both bills provide a permanent fix to the interest rate problem, granting students the certainty they need to make smart, fiscally responsible investments in their education.

And most importantly, this legislation, like its predecessor, doesn't unfairly penalize taxpayers. Unlike some half-baked proposals that would put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars to pay for artificially low student loan interest rates, both the House-passed Smarter Solutions for Students Act and the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act will generate a small amount of savings over 10 years.

Reports confirm the similarities between the House bill and its Senate companion. MSNBC has said the House bill is ``very similar'' to the Senate proposal. The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently noted the Senate compromise ``closely resembles'' the House-passed Smarter Solutions for Students Act, and the Associated Press called the differences between the two proposals ``relatively small.''

While I'm happy with the legislation we will consider today, I'm disappointed it took us so long to get to this point. Students and their families got roped into an all-too-tumultuous debate and were forced to deal with the fallout when Congress was unable to reach an agreement to prevent subsidized Stafford loan interest rates from doubling on July 1.

By getting politicians out of the business of setting student loan interest rates, the measure we consider today will protect students from future uncertainty. I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for finally recognizing this long-term, market-based proposal for what it is: a win for students and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

I yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I'm prepared to close.

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

It's always interesting to listen to the debate here on the floor. No matter how hard we try to use the word ``bipartisan,'' we get into these partisan squabbles: the Republican bill was bad and this bill is good, and that bill is--look, we needed to change the status quo, and that's always hard to do.

We had some pretty simple goals here that we were trying to reach. We wanted to get out of the partisan political squabble that was occurring in this city every year as we tried to figure out, through some alchemy, what the student loan interest rate ought to be. The answer has been in front of us for a long time: the market is the best determiner of that.

So we wanted to put together legislation that would get us out of this political squabble, let the market do this in a way that was fair to students and fair to taxpayers. Let the market do it based on the 10-year Treasury, which is the best indicator of what it costs the Federal Government to borrow money; do it so that it was as close to budget neutral as we could get it.

The President of the United States had a proposal that did those things. At the end of 10 years, I think the President's budget saved the taxpayer about $3 billion. The House bill that we've been discussing saved the taxpayers about $3.5 billion, And this bipartisan Senate bill, just under $1 billion saved. That's budget neutral in this city, in a 10-year window, from the Congressional Budget Office. We're trying to get that.

It was a bizarre circumstance, Mr. Speaker, that I and House Republicans were working with the White House and the Department of Education trying to convince our Senate colleagues, Senate Democratic leadership that the answer was there in front of them, all they had to do was pick it up and pass it. We can get it done in this House. We can answer the questions of parents and students and put some certainty in this. I am very, very pleased that the Senate was able to put together that bipartisan--

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I will pick up on that note because we could not have done this without the hard work of some really instrumental people.

Certainly, I'd like to take a moment to recognize and thank the committee staff, as my colleague has done, for their hard work on this important issue, both sides of the aisle.

First, I would like to thank the majority staff director, Juliane Sullivan; our education policy director, James Bergeron; and professional staff member Brian Melnyk; and of course Amy Jones, sitting next to me here today, who started working to solve this problem more than a year ago. That's the frustrating thing here, Mr. Speaker. This problem didn't arise in April or May. We've known for more than a year, with certainty, that we had to address this issue. So I thank Amy for her passion in all higher education work. I know she's just resting up so that we can start into reauthorization of the Higher Education Act as we go forward.

Certainly I'd like to thank Virginia Foxx, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, who helped craft the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. Again, I would remind my colleagues, this was a bipartisan bill. It came out of the committee bipartisan, came off the floor with a bipartisan vote, and Ms. Foxx deserves a lot of credit for her hard work.

In closing, I remind my colleagues, the legislation before us today is a victory for students, families, and taxpayers. It deserves our robust support.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in support of this amendment. As chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, as a retired Marine colonel, I have a unique and fortunate position to ensure the young men and women enlisting in our Armed Forces have the best education in preparation for the defense of our Nation.

Currently, students who earn a high school diploma from charter schools, home schools, hybrid schools, and other means of modern education are required to score significantly higher on the Armed Forces qualification test than others just to qualify to enter the military.

This policy, Mr. Chairman, is in direct contravention of congressional intent established in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

Last month, my colleagues unanimously supported my amendment to the FY 14 National Defense Authorization Act to reverse the DOD's discriminatory policy and ensure equal treatment for all students who desire to enter military service. The bipartisan Kline-Polis-Paulsen amendment prohibits funds from being used by the Department of Defense to enforce any policy that continues to not equally treat education credentials for enlistment.

This amendment stops DOD from giving a lower enlistment priority to students who attend home schools and charter schools and makes congressional intent clear that all students should be given the same opportunities to enlist in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the dream of military service for all patriotic Americans who simply want the chance to be able to raise their hand and pledge to defend our Nation without unnecessary burdens.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I thank the gentleman.

I thank my colleague and friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I think that congressional intent has been absolutely clear and is, in fact, in law. It is astonishing to me that we have to be down here on the floor this evening with this amendment to bar funds from the Department because they are just failing to comply with congressional intent in the law.

I appreciate the support of my colleagues. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Secretary of Education to conduct a study to examine underperforming school districts, whether equal educational opportunities are being afforded to students in those school districts, and the impact of closing these school districts.

Mr. Chairman, as the amendment clearly states, this is a State activity in which the Federal Government has no role and should not be involved. We do not need recommendations from the U.S. Department of Education on how States are to protect the constitutional rights of students. This is the law of the land today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the Student Success Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

When No Child Left Behind was signed into law more than a decade ago, it was heralded as groundbreaking, and certainly in many ways it was. The expanded use of data helped superintendents, principals, and teachers pay more attention to the students with the greatest need. Parents now have more access to important information about the quality of teachers and schools, and some student achievement gaps have narrowed.

However, hindsight is 20/20, and we can now clearly identify the law's weaknesses:

The Adequate Yearly Progress accountability metric is a one-size- fits-all mandate that fails to provide schools any meaningful information about their performance;

The law's Highly Qualified Teacher requirements value credentials over an educator's ability to motivate students in the classroom;

Strict mandates and funding restrictions stunt the development of innovative local education programs.

The Student Success Act will correct the mistakes of the past and provide States and school districts the flexibility they need to put more children on the path to a brighter future.

Flexibility, Mr. Chairman, I might say, has been begged for, demanded, year after year since this law passed. Superintendent after superintendent and principal after principal has said to me: I don't need money here, but I've got it. I need the money over here, and I can't spend it. If I just had more flexibility, we could take care of making sure that all these kids get the education that they deserve.

The substitute offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply continues the same failed policies we're seeking to correct and encourages greater Federal intrusion in classrooms. No matter what you call it, AYP, or any other rigid Federal accountability system is still the wrong approach. Replacing the existing law's 100 percent proficiency target with a menu of equally unrealistic goals is not the answer.

Enshrining the unprecedented control over schools assumed by the Obama administration, rather than supporting the innovation occurring at the State and local level, is not the answer.

This substitute also fails to meaningfully consolidate programs or give States and school districts greater freedom to use Federal funds. It includes outrageous and unrealistic authorization levels that Congress and the administration will never come close to meeting. I welcome meaningful contributions from my colleagues across the aisle. But a substitute that doubles down on the status quo is not what students, parents, or educators deserve.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill that will empower the Nation's parents, teachers, principals, and school administrators to deliver the educational system our students need, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

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

Mr. Chairman, we apparently agree on both sides of the aisle that parents should be making decisions; parents should be in charge; parents need information.

We believe in the underlying bill that we are giving parents the information they need, the control they need, the choices they need, giving their children the best chance to succeed.

I think we agree on both sides of the aisle that the status quo is not working. In fact, the administration is engaged in instituting its own education policy through its conditional waiver scheme. It's moved so far down the line, Mr. Chairman, that they've even offered waivers to the waivers. And yet it's been 12 years since this body, or the Senate, or the United States Congress has passed an education law--12 years.

It is time for the Congress, the House, and the Senate to step up and do its job and write new law and get the administration out of the business of writing education policy.

I would hope that Republicans and Democrats would recognize that it is not the role of the administration, of the Department of Education, of the Secretary, or the President to write education policy-- Republican or Democrat in the White House. It's our job to do it. It's time to do it.

I don't believe the substitute amendment is the right thing, and I oppose it. I'm asking my colleagues to oppose it. I believe the underlying bill moves us in the right direction and gives children a better opportunity. So I'm going to encourage my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment, despite the passion that surrounds it, and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, what States and school districts are asking for and have been asking for and clamoring for is more flexibility and less Federal mandates so they can address the individual needs of their students. We should not tie the hands of school officials and predetermine how they can best help their students and staff. Instead, this motion will force them to jump through hoops and meet burdensome requirements.

This motion is full of requirements. Some might be good, most will be burdensome, but at the heart, this is a motion that says my Democratic colleagues do not believe our school leaders and teachers have the best intentions for their kids, they do not trust them to know how to take care of their students, and we disagree.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and support the Student Success Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 5, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, including the changes now at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The Student Success Act will take a critical step toward real reform of our education system. This legislation will restore local control, empower parents, eliminate unnecessary Washington red tape and intrusion in schools, and support innovation and excellence in the classroom.

As chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I've heard countless stories of the amazing progress being made in schools across the country. This success isn't due to heavy-handed dictates from Washington; rather, it reflects the work of dedicated parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and State officials who decided the status quo is just not good enough for our kids.

In dozens of committee hearings over the last few years, my colleagues and I have had the honor of speaking with many of these reformers. We learned about the groundbreaking programs and initiatives they've implemented to serve students more effectively.

We listened to the ways they are working to hold schools more accountable, not just to the government but to their local communities and families. And we heard impassioned stories of how much more these dedicated reformers would do for our children if not for the slew of onerous Washington mandates and outdated regulations standing in the way.

Our children deserve better. But instead of working with Congress to fix the problems in current K-12 education law, the Obama administration chose to go rogue, granting temporary waivers in exchange for implementing the President's preferred reforms. Thirty- nine States and the District of Columbia are now beholden to new Federal standards crafted without congressional consent, representing an unprecedented expansion of Federal control over our Nation's classrooms.

It's time for a new way forward, Mr. Chairman, that starts with passage of the Student Success Act. This commonsense legislation reflects what we've learned from parents, teachers, and education leaders nationwide, and embodies four principles vital to a stronger education system in which all students have the opportunity to succeed.

First, the bill before us today will reduce the Federal footprint in our classrooms. For too long, Federal overreach has tied the hands of American educators. The Student Success Act will put an end to the administration's convoluted conditional waiver scheme and take concrete steps to rein in the Secretary of Education's authority.

The legislation also will eliminate more than 70 Federal programs, end the rigid Federal accountability metrics and overly prescriptive school improvement requirements, and grant States the freedom to develop their own plans to raise the bar, all of which will help ensure a more focused, streamlined, and transparent Federal role in the Nation's education system.

Second, the legislation will restore local control by providing States and school districts the flexibility they need to spend Federal funds where they are needed. School leaders know best which programs and initiatives will have the greatest benefit for their students' achievement. We must support policies that encourage more local decisionmaking and allow these knowledgeable school leaders and administrators to do what they do best: educate America's children.

Third, the Student Success Act recognizes a better education system cannot come without better educators. The legislation will eliminate Federal requirements that value credentials over a teacher's ability to educate students. Instead, States or school districts should develop their own evaluation systems based, in part, on student achievement, ensuring teachers can be judged fairly on their effectiveness in the classroom.

Finally, the Student Success Act will empower parents. No one has a better understanding of a child's strengths and challenges than his or her parents, and no one--no one--is more invested in making sure their child achieves his or her full potential. H.R. 5 provides parents more freedom and choice by reauthorizing and strengthening the Charter School Program and improving tutoring and public school choice initiatives.

We have an opportunity before us today, for the first time in more than a decade, to approve new K-12 education legislation in the House of Representatives. We have an opportunity to lend our support to legislation that will tear down barriers to progress and grant States and districts more freedom to think bigger, innovate, and take whatever steps are necessary to put more children on the path to a brighter future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this critical step toward real reform, and ask you to vote ``yes'' on the Student Success Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes now to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute now to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to balance the time here, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it has been 12 years since anybody in either body-- House or Senate--has had a chance to come to the floor in either Chamber and vote on education policy. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been overdue for reauthorization since 2007. When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority or since we've been in the majority, neither party has been able to bring legislation to the floor in either body. Our children deserve better.

We've been in a situation for years now in which the Congress of the United States--House and Senate--has abdicated completely to this administration its responsibility for establishing public policy. This administration has been issuing conditional, temporary waivers to suit its idea of what education policy ought to be, not what the legislative body and not what the people we represent say it ought to be.

Our children deserve real reform of the Nation's education system. We can't allow these conditional waivers or temporary fixes or political infighting and an impasse here--whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in charge--to keep us from our fundamental responsibility to improve what is now, I believe, universally recognized to be a flawed law.

By passing the Student Success Act today, we can help ensure that teachers, principals, superintendents, and State and local officials have more opportunities to build a more responsive and effective education system that better meets the unique needs of every student and, in fact, yes, of businesses. A vote for this bill demonstrates our heartfelt commitment to reform, proving to families nationwide, Mr. Chairman, that the House of Representatives will not stand by and allow the administration to micromanage our classrooms or to defend the failed status quo.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment for H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the first time in more than a decade, we are debating comprehensive legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Congress. This law is woefully overdue for a rewrite. While some seem perfectly content to leave students and schools tied to an outdated law, my Republican colleagues and I know our children deserve better.

The legislation before us today will help schools across America raise the bar and better prepare our children for a successful future. It will support unique student populations, protect our Nation's most vulnerable children and help States continue to narrow achievement gaps. Most importantly, the Student Success Act restores the balance between the Federal Government's limited role and the responsibilities of State and local governments to deliver an excellent education to all students. I would like to highlight a few technical changes included in the manager's amendment that will improve the underlying legislation and strengthen our efforts to ensure all students have access to a quality education.

To encourage more local control, the amendment specifies State assessments must measure individual student growth at the sole discretion of the State. This ensures States have maximum flexibility in developing their own accountability systems.

To support effective teachers, the amendment also clarifies school districts may use funds for professional development programs, for civic education teachers, or to operate a civic education program, if they so choose.

To promote parental choice and engagement, the amendment makes additional improvements to the charter school program ensuring equal funding for credit enhancement and allowing schools to use that funding for predevelopment.

Finally, to further reduce the Federal footprint in our schools, the amendment clarifies States may opt out of funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act entirely, freeing them from any requirements that would otherwise come tied to those Federal education resources.

Mr. Chairman, nothing is more important to the future of this Nation than the success of our children, and right now Federal education law isn't helping students gain the skills and knowledge they need. Our children deserve better. With passage of this legislation today, we can take a critical step forward in the fight for real education reform.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the Student Success Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the gentleman's concerns--and we've talked about this at some length over the year--the amendment reduces funding for title I programs. That's aid to the disadvantaged, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, rural education, and English language acquisition to pay for the restoration and expansion of the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs. This reduces funding to States and school districts--about $64 million a year--that need title I funds to increase student academic achievement, especially with today's budgetary challenges.

The underlying bill upholds the Federal Government's trust responsibility to the Indian people. It reauthorizes and maintains a separate funding stream for the Indian education program as in current law and increases funding for Indian education over the FY13 level and over President Obama's FY14 budget. The manager's amendment adds Alaska Native organizations as eligible entities to the program as well.

Reluctantly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the Student Success Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I would be happy to do so.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me thank my colleague from Washington for her leadership on this important issue and for her remarks today. I understand the passion and knowledge she brings to this topic.

Throughout this reauthorization process, we have sought to recalibrate the Federal role in education, undoing the excesses of the past while maintaining provisions of the law that ensure parents and communities have the information they need to evaluate their schools' and students' performance. As the gentlewoman acknowledged, we do maintain requirements for disaggregated achievement data so special needs students' achievement won't be masked by high averages among all students.

On the topic of the gentlewoman's amendment, we do maintain current requirements that narrowly define the population of students eligible to take an alternate assessment. I believe these are important provisions that will limit the possibility of abuse by schools. That said, I share my colleague's desire to see all students, including those with special needs, succeed in school and beyond. And I'm happy to work with her and other Members on this issue as the reauthorization process continues.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This amendment will eliminate the requirement, the mandate, if you will, for States and school districts to develop teacher evaluations, but does not prevent them from developing these systems if they so choose.

States and local school districts are currently developing impressive and innovative teacher evaluation systems, and I applaud it. The Federal Government can support them in this endeavor, giving them the resources and the

flexibility to design systems to meet their particular local and unique needs.

Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, States and school districts need the flexibility to do the activities that will serve their students and teachers best. I, therefore, support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

As the attention of the American people turned to celebrating the July 4th holiday, the Obama administration quietly announced through a blog post on the Treasury Department's Web site it would delay enforcement of a vital part of the President's health care law--the employer mandate.

The reason for the delay? According to administration officials, the Federal bureaucracy needs more time to get it right. Let's be honest: no amount of time or bureaucratic tinkering will ease the pain ObamaCare is inflicting on workplaces across the country. The employer mandate will destroy jobs, whether it's implemented a year from now or 10 years from now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, jobs are already being lost and employees' work hours are being cut today because of the law.

That's the difficult reality facing workers and job creators from my home State of Minnesota and across the country.

It's part of the reason we are stuck in a jobs crisis with 12 million Americans searching for full-time work. Even union leaders are beginning to realize how the health care law they supported is hurting workers.

And the quote from my colleague, Mr. Burgess, laid that out very clearly. They were promised, as all Americans were promised, if they liked their health care, they could keep it; and they're finding out that's simply not true.

The delay of the employer mandate is the latest confirmation of the fatally flawed nature of ObamaCare and the need to dismantle it. That is why I support the proposal to delay the employer mandate for 1 year, as well as a bill the House will also consider today to delay enforcement of the individual mandate.

In less than a year, individuals who fail to purchase government- approved health insurance will be forced to pay higher taxes. It isn't right, Mr. Speaker, to deny American families the same relief available to American businesses.

The American people didn't ask for this government takeover of health

care, and they don't want it. Let's give every family and business the reprieve from ObamaCare they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Kline-Hunter- Andrew-Polis amendment ensures the students I serve in Minnesota and throughout classrooms around the Nation are treated equally and given the same opportunities to enlist in the Armed Forces.

Currently, students who earn a high school diploma from charter schools, home schools, schools that use blended learning models, and other means of virtual education are required to score significantly higher on the Armed Forces Qualification Test than students enrolled in traditional secondary schools.

This policy, continued by the Department of Defense, disregards congressional intent established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Mr. Chair, as you know it is imperative that the recruiting and selection policies for enlistment are not only fair and consistent, but also in step with the evolution of the way our nation's students achieve a high school diploma.

Despite studies that show education credential tiers do not consistently reflect the attrition patterns of recruits, DOD continues to insist where you receive your education is the single best predictor of your ability to successfully adapt to service.

The bipartisan Kline-Hunter-Andrews-Polis amendment would put DOD back in line with the law and require them to set recruitment and enlistment policies that end this discriminatory requirement.

As Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and a retired Marine Colonel, I have a unique and fortunate position to ensure the young men and women enlisting in our Armed Forces have the best opportunity to support the defense of our nation.

Mr. Chair, the continuous innovation in education requires the adaptation of our recruiting policies. I urge my colleagues to support the dream of military service for all patriotic Americans who simply want the chance to be able to raise their hand and pledge to defend our nation without unnecessary burdens.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kline-Hunter-Andrews-Polis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 232, I call up the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1911.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

We're here today to address a crisis of Washington's own making. Several years ago, Congress decided politicians, not the free market, were better equipped to set student loan interest rates. Politicians set a fixed rate of 6.8 percent for all loans and then decided to advance legislation based on a campaign promise that would temporarily phase this rate for subsidized Stafford loans down to 3.4 percent.

Last summer, with the expiration of the lower rate scheduled for July 1, 2012, debate about student loans reached a fever pitch. The President began touring college campuses, calling on Congress to prevent the increase that his own party set in motion back in 2007.

As I said at the time, no one wanted to see interest rates double-- particularly at a time when one out of every two college graduates was struggling to find a full-time job. But we need to move away from a system that allows Washington politicians to use student loan interest rates as bargaining chips, creating uncertainty and confusion for borrowers.

When Congress approved legislation to temporarily stave off the Stafford loan interest rate increase, my colleagues and I lent our support with the promise that we would use this time to work toward a long-term solution that better aligns interest rates with the free market.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act accomplishes this goal by simply moving all Federal students loans, except Perkins loans, to a market-based interest rate system. This responsible legislation builds upon a proposal that was actually put forth by the President earlier this year.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a narrow piece of legislation that will provide a lasting solution to the problem facing the Federal student loan program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some critics would rather kick the can down the road and simply extend the current arbitrary rates at a taxpayer cost of roughly $8 billion. They want to continue the failed status quo and leave politicians in charge of setting rates.

Earlier this week, The Washington Post called it a ``weird fact'' that student loan interest rates:

Aren't pegged to anything real, just to the whims of

Congress, which inevitably uses student loans as political

playthings.

Students deserve better. They shouldn't have to watch as Washington holds their interest rates hostage each election year. They shouldn't have to deal with the uncertainty that comes with waiting for politicians to cobble together another temporary fix to keep interest rates in line with the market.

We have an opportunity today to get politicians out of the business of setting student loan interest rates. We have an opportunity to provide students with more stability in the long run by putting an end to quick fixes and campaign promises, and we have an opportunity to build upon common ground with the administration and advance a bipartisan solution that's a win for both students and taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to support the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the vice chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Dr. Roe), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, in order to balance the speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as always in these debates, there is a lot of confusion, and there is a lot of misinformation. We are using that old thing about ``figures lie and liars figure,'' and you've got different guesses for interest rates and reports and all those sorts of things, and I want to get into some of that, but some of it is at the core of our differences here. Let's get a couple of things straight.

We watch what has happened as Congress tries to chase an interest rate and gets in political battles year after year. You'll remember that the 6.8 percent that was put in law was considered a good deal. Then there was the plan to take it from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for all loans. It didn't work. It costs a lot of money, and it's added to the debt, which is a problem that is still nagging us to this day. So interest rates were taken from 6.8 to 3.4 percent gradually over years. It got down to the point where, for 1 year, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans--not the unsubsidized Stafford loans, not the PLUS loans, because we didn't have the money for that--took it down to 3.4 percent for 1 year, and then there wasn't enough money. So, by law, the interest rates on those loans went back up to 6.8 percent, and last year, an election year, we had a big political fight, and that's what you can anticipate, apparently, forever as politicians try to use this as a political pawn and fight over what the student loan interest rates ought to be and what can be afforded.

Mr. Speaker, what can be afforded counts because a problem, as I said, that is continuing to nag us is we have a mountain of debt in this country. We've been running deficits year after year of over $1 trillion. We've got over $16 trillion in debt. We have to face that issue here coming before us. So, while we would like all student loan interest rates to be low and as we want to get them as low as we can, we don't want to add to the mountain of debt that's out there.

We thought that it would be a good idea to let the free market determine what those rates ought to be, and we came forward with a proposal, and we talked about our proposal with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--staff to staff, hour after hour--trying to beat this out staff to staff and in talking to the White House and the Department of Education about what we're doing and what they're doing and what might work out. I talked to the Secretary of Education before this bill was ever introduced because I agreed with the President and the Secretary that we needed a long-term solution and to get out of kicking this can down the road with annual--or maybe it's semiannual or biannual--political battles.

So we moved to the market. We used a 10-year Treasury that the White House was proposing using--center Republicans wanted to use a 10-year Treasury--and then we worked it, Mr. Speaker. We worked it and worked it to get it as close to budget-neutral as we could possibly get it because we want to help students, and we wanted to give them certainty, and we wanted them not to rely on the whims of politicians here, and we wanted also not to put the burden on the American people and the taxpayer, and we wanted not to add to that debt. So we tried to get it close to zero.

We've seen charts down here--I love charts, particularly colored charts. We've seen charts down here that say that our bill is adding billions of dollars to student debt. Well, we've got a counterproposal over there. I think the gentleman from California offered it. It's the President's proposal, President Obama's plan. That additional debt to students is $3.1 billion--ours is $3.7 billion--over 10 years. We tried to come together on this. Mr. Speaker, I think we can continue to try to come together on this, and we need to move this forward.

There are a lot of things we need to do to help students. Certainly, one of them is to help graduates get to work. Half of all college graduates now are underemployed or unemployed, doing things, working in places, employing none of the skills that they learned in college. We need to get the economy going. We're still asking, Where are the jobs? We need to get Americans back to work. You can't get Americans back to work if you just keep piling on mountains and mountains and mountains of debt and piles of regulations, but that's a fight for another day. Income-based repayment systems we didn't touch in our bill, but there are some interesting proposals out there we want to look at. Right now, with this bill, we're just trying to determine who is going to set interest rates--politicians here or the market.

So here is what we've heard from the other side today: that Washington should be in charge of setting interest rates on student loans, that Washington should be in the business of creating confusion and uncertainty for student loan borrowers. Washington cannot agree to a long-term solution that will serve the best interests of students and taxpayers. I think we need to keep working to do that.

It was pointed out that the Senate won't act. Well, for many of us in this body, that's not a lot of news, but July 1 is still July 1, and there is an incentive over there, and I believe the Senate must take action. I look forward to working with them to achieve the long-term solution that I think that we all need to see.

It was pointed out that we have a variable rate. The President has a variable rate but then his fixes. Certainly, under our law, when you graduate, if you're in a low-interest environment, you can consolidate those loans and fix them for the duration of however long you're taking to pay off those loans. If it's in a high interest rate environment, you may not want to do that. In the other plan, you've already got a fixed rate.

We believe we can work together. The only way we can continue to work together to solve this is to pass this legislation. Pass it today. I urge my colleagues to reject the failed status quo and to embrace a responsible long-term solution on behalf of students, families, and hardworking American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we're trying to get to a long-term solution on how student loan interest rates are set. I believe the process for that is to pass the underlying legislation here, talk to our Senate colleagues, get them to act so that we can come together and come to a long-term solution.

The gentlelady's motion puts Washington squarely back in the middle of setting student loan interest rates. It's the wrong thing to do. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 45, the legislation that will repeal the President's job-destroying health care law, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is mired in a jobs crisis, and the President's health care law is making it worse. Since ObamaCare was first enacted in 2010, Federal bureaucrats have written nearly 20,000 pages of new regulations--20,000 pages.

Colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about how many times we've tried to get rid of this menace and what's changed. Well, as we know, very famously, we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but even then we didn't know what was in it. We're now at 20,000 pages of regulations and still counting.

Meanwhile, America's job creators are struggling to manage the full effects of the law in their workplaces.

Ed Tubel has owned and operated Sonny's Real Pit Barbecue for more than 30 years. At a recent hearing in North Carolina, Mr. Tubel outlined the difficult choices he now faces, including higher prices for customers and fewer hours for workers. Brett Parker, vice chairman of Bowlmor Lanes of New York, testified in 2011 that his business may also have to shift workers to part-time hours in order to ``protect existing jobs.''

As chief human resources officer with Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, Tina Haynes stated the college must consider cutting the number of courses offered to students. She also described

the health care law as a ``massive administrative burden that comes with unanticipated costs.'' And Gail Johnson, president and CEO of an early childhood learning center, warned in 2011 that ObamaCare would ``force entrepreneurs to invest less into growing their business'' and slow the growth of small businesses.

These men and women live each day with the consequences of the health care law. No doubt, others across the country have similar stories to tell. There are a number of good reasons why Congress should repeal the government takeover of health care. It is driving up the cost of care, and millions will lose the health care coverage they have and like. Yes, Mr. Speaker, if you like your coverage, you may not be able to keep it. According to CBO, at least 7 million people fall into that trap.

But for many Americans, one reason stands above the rest: jobs. Our Nation's workers and employers cannot afford the Democrats' job- destroying health care law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1406.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, I call up the bill (H.R. 1406) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today we have an opportunity to make life a little easier for working families across the country. This legislation doesn't create a new government program or bureaucracy. It doesn't spend taxpayer dollars or add to the national debt. The Working Families Flexibility Act simply removes an outdated Federal policy that denies private sector workers the flexibility they need to better balance family and work.

For 75 years, the Fair Labor Standards Act has provided covered workers with basic wage and hour protections. Those covered by the law receive time-and-a-half in paid compensation for each overtime hour worked. The law plays a significant role in millions of workplaces; yet it does not reflect the realities of the modern workforce.

For example, in 2011, 59 percent of families with children had two working parents, compared to 37 percent 40 years ago. Meanwhile, 8.5 million workers today are single parents, and one in three undergraduate students also works full-time.

Behind each statistic, Mr. Speaker, are men and women trying to juggle family and work; a single, working mom that needs extra time to attend a parent-teacher conference, a dad hoping to leave work early to catch his son's Little League game, a married couple working two jobs while raising a family and caring for an aging relative.

Supporting a family is about more than providing an income; it's about being there for one another. We know there are a lot of workers who would seize the opportunity to earn a few extra dollars, but others may welcome additional paid time off to spend with loved ones.

Shouldn't workers choose what's best for their families? Shouldn't workers choose?

Unfortunately, Federal law denies many private sector workers this fundamental choice. The law assumes everyone would choose more money in the bank over more time with family. To add insult to injury, public sector employees have enjoyed this benefit for decades; yet we continue to treat those in the private sector differently.

That's not fair, Mr. Speaker. It's not fair to millions of hardworking Americans. The Working Families Flexibility Act will remove this unnecessary barrier and allow private sector employers to offer employees the choice to accrue paid time off, or comp time, for working overtime. The bill does not change the 40-hour work week, and comp time would accrue at the same time-and-a-half rate as cash wages.

The legislation includes numerous protections to ensure the use of comp time is strictly, strictly, Mr. Speaker, voluntary, such as requiring a written agreement between the employer and employee, allowing workers to cash out their accrued comp time whenever they choose, retaining all enforcement remedies available under current law, and adding new protections to prevent coercion and intimidation.

At the heart of the legislation is worker choice. Workers choose whether to accept comp time. Workers choose when to cash out their accrued comp time, and workers choose when to use their paid time off, so long as they follow the same standard public sector employees do. Same standard, Mr. Speaker.

Americans sacrifice a lot to provide for their families. Let's get the Federal Government out of the way and give workers the flexibility they need to thrive at home and at work.

I urge my colleagues to support the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very pleased right now to yield 3 minutes to the author of this terrific piece of legislation, a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm always interested to listen to the characterizations of a bill that simply aren't true.

It's my pleasure right now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, the chair of the Republican Conference, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. Speaker, I now am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana, a member of the committee, Mrs. Brooks.

May I inquire as to the time remaining on our side.

I want to thank my colleagues on the other side. It was an excellent show. It expanded the lexicon in the thesaurus.

I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, a subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I need to inquire again as to the time remaining because as I listened to my colleagues come down for unanimous consent requests, it seems to me I heard the Speaker saying that the gentleman's time was going to be charged. How did that add up?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's interesting math.

I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a friend and colleague, the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Mr. Speaker, I'm now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague, a leader in so many areas.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

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

We have no further speakers, either.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.

I agree with some of the comments made by my colleague. The gentleman from Connecticut has talked about the years that we, Congress, have tried to extend the use of comp time to the private sector employees so they can access the same benefits that those in the public sector have enjoyed for almost 30 years. Yet powerful special interests have stood in the way through a constant campaign of misinformation.

We've heard a lot of those same, tired talking points from the other side today. We've seen some political stunts. We've heard divisive language, and we've heard just plain misinformation, things that this bill does not say.

We've heard, for example, that an employer could coerce an employee into taking comp time instead of overtime wages. That is simply not true. The bill specifically prohibits employers from doing that. An employer ``shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of interfering with such employee's rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off.''

There are extensive protections in this bill for employees and for employers. But we've seen the straw men, we've seen the accusations, and we've heard some things that, frankly, are just absolutely preposterous.

Let's go over some of the basics.

The Working Families Flexibility Act allows for the voluntary--the voluntary--use of comp time. Any worker who wants to receive cash wages is free to do so and can do so at any time, even if the worker has made an agreement, and not every time, and not some extensive legal document. It can be as simple as checking a block or just signing a piece of paper that says I would like to take comp time in lieu of cash overtime. And they can do it once a year.

Even after they've signed such an agreement, if the employee says, ``Do you know what? I really do need that cash. I wanted the time; now I need the cash. Another emergency has arisen,'' the employee can demand the cash and get it and must get it.

The Working Families Flexibility Act puts workers in control of their time. They get to take the time off when they want to. These are exactly the same standards that have been working almost 30 years in the public sector. They simply can't unduly disrupt the business. That's worked for almost 30 years in the public sector, and it will work in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, despite all the rhetoric, despite all the accusations and despite all the misinformation, we know that millions of mothers for Mother's Day would like to have time. Time is more important to them than money. This legislation would give them the option, the choice--the voluntary choice--to take that time.

We heard an example of a young, 5-year-old child coming forward with a flower. A lot of moms would like to take that time to spend with that 5-year-old. They can't do it under the current law. We want to give that mother and that father that time.

This is a commonsense proposal. It will help hardworking Americans balance the demands of work and family. We need to do that for them. This doesn't balance the budget, but it will help families.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1406, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Minnesotans I serve who tell me simply: it's about time.

I rise today on behalf of a South St. Paul mom and dad who find it difficult to balance work and family and feel they are not spending enough time with their children.

I rise today on behalf of the Minnesota National Guard and all our brave men and women in uniform who are deployed while their spouses single-handedly juggle work and household responsibilities.

I rise today on behalf of a college student from Shakopee and millions like her working full-time while pursuing an undergraduate degree.

And I rise today on behalf of an Eagan couple, who, like more than 50 million working Americans, spend at least 8 hours a week providing care for aging relatives, a challenge when balancing the demands of a job.

Mr. Speaker, outdated Federal policy denies many workers the chance to spend more time with their children or care for an aging relative. Accordingly, the Education and Workforce Committee approved legislation last week that will fix this outdated policy and help more Americans balance family and work.

Mr. Speaker, Americans sacrifice a great deal to provide for their families, and I agree with my Minnesotan constituents and most Americans: it is about time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 146, I call up the bill (H.R. 1120) to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from taking any action that requires a quorum of the members of the Board until such time as Board constituting a quorum shall have been confirmed by the Senate, the Supreme Court issues a decision on the constitutionality of the appointments to the Board made in January 2012, or the adjournment sine die of the first session of the 113th Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1120.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

America's workplaces are facing significant challenges. Consumer demand remains weak. Threats of new regulations and higher taxes continue. And a looming debt crisis threatens the growth and prosperity our Nation is working so hard to attain. Washington should not be in the business of making these challenges worse. That is why we are here today.

Many Americans may not even know a Federal labor board exists, let alone the role it plays in their everyday lives. Despite its obscurity, the authority of the National Labor Relations Board governs virtually every private business across the country. Our Nation needs a labor board that will appropriately and responsibly administer the law, or else the rights of both workers and employers are diminished.

Unfortunately, partisan politics have left the board in a state of dysfunction. A year ago, President Obama made three recess appointments to the board while Congress was not in recess.

The President's action was unprecedented, and a Federal appeals court has ruled it was also unconstitutional.

As a result, the work of the Board is tainted. Every decision it issues is ripe for appeal on the basis that the Board itself is not legitimate. In fact, employers and unions are now citing the recent court ruling as a reason why Board decisions should be overturned.

A story in The Wall Street Journal helps illustrate the real-life consequence of the President's recess appointment scheme. Five years ago, a truck driver alleged that her union failed to follow the rules and assign her work. The NLRB agreed and ordered the union to pay the driver back wages and benefits. So far, the union has refused, and the current chaos offers a new opportunity to toss out the Board's decision. According to the union's attorney:

I'll explore every opportunity to make sure my client

doesn't have to pay anything.

This is the reality we now face. Unions, employers, and workers are forced to spend more time and money defending themselves before the Board and in Federal court. Our Nation has relied upon the Board for more than 75 years. Never has it faced this level of confusion and uncertainty.

The current crisis began with the President's power grab, and it is up to him to fix it. Just this week, the President announced he was submitting three Board nominees to the Senate for its approval. This is certainly welcome news and long overdue. However, it does nothing to mitigate the chaos surrounding the NLRB. Roughly 600 Board decisions are constitutionally suspect, and that number continues to grow.

The legislation before us today simply tells the Board to stop exacerbating the problem that is already wreaking havoc across the country. H.R. 1120 prevents the Board from taking action that requires a quorum until one of three events occurs: the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the appointments; a Board quorum is constitutionally confirmed; or the terms of the so-called ``appointees'' expire.

The bill does not--I repeat--does not stop the NLRB from overseeing union elections or processing claims of wrongdoing. The narrow scope of the bill is directed at the Board and only the Board.

The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act is an appropriate congressional response to an unprecedented situation. I expect we will hear a lot of false accusations today from our friends on the other side of the aisle, but I doubt we'll hear any denial of the serious challenges facing the Board.

The question then is this: Should we do nothing, or should we advance responsible legislation to help prevent further harm?

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to our next speaker, I would just note that the remarks made by my good friend and colleague, frankly, I believe, ignore the reality of the crisis that currently exists. No one, employer, worker, or union, can rely upon a Board decision today. A court of appeals has ruled that it's not constitutional, and it is that same court to which every appeal is made.

Now I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), another member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a real leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker reportedly en route from another committee, so I will reserve the balance of my time and give him a chance to get here.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that the speaker we're waiting for has not yet arrived. I'm not sure how many speakers are left on your side.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, our speaker has not yet arrived, so I will be ready to close after the gentleman from New Jersey.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think it is important to remember why we are here today. More than a year ago, the President took an unprecedented step despite all of the discussion from the other side of the aisle. No other President made a recess appointment when the Senate was in session, in pro forma session, or any session. So despite how many times President Reagan or President George H.W. Bush or President George W. Bush made recess appointments, this was unprecedented.

Now, it's still an open question to be decided. The D.C. Court of Appeals made a ruling that the President's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional. And it's going to be an ongoing debate, I'm sure, going forward for days and weeks, the sooner the better, to determine what it means under article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, where it says the Senate is vested with the power to ``determine the rules of its proceedings.'' The Senate determined that the rules of its proceeding said that the Senate was in session.

We heard mention today by a number of my colleagues that Senator Reid had announced, when President Bush was in office, that the Senate was going to stay in pro forma session in order to keep the President from making recess appointments. That's an important debate going forward.

The problem is, as we stand here today, with a lot of discussion from the other side of the aisle, unfortunately some of which was questioning our motives, my motives, called action shameful, that's a shame. Because what we've got today is a Board that has been ruled unconstitutional by the D.C. court, which by the way is the court that reviews every single challenge to an NLRB ruling. You can't get relieved by a court in San Diego. If you don't like the ruling of the Board, you're going to appeal to the court that has already ruled that that Board is unconstitutional.

This is dysfunctional. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I, or anybody else, believe in collective bargaining rights. We have a Board that under the National Labor Relations Act is supposed to be an arbiter, a fair arbiter. It's the place where you go to get a determination; and the problem there is you can't go there to get a determination, or you get one that is immediately suspect and open to appeal to a court that has already said that they're unconstitutional.

We already have over 600 rulings by this Board since these appointments were made January a year ago. Every time this Board makes another decision, another ruling, it pours more uncertainty into an economy that is, frankly, still desperately struggling to come out.

We've heard accusations about, well, it's the Senate's fault, and I'm sort of inclined to always think that it's the Senate's fault when something doesn't happen. I just remind my colleagues that this is a bipartisan Senate problem.

In 2011, a Republican Board nominee languished in the Democrat-led Senate for a year--no hearing, no debate, no vote. So this is not a new circumstance.

There is an answer to this: the President of the United States can bring forward nominees that can be confirmed--that can be confirmed-- and then we would have a constitutionally constituted Board to go forward and resolve the disputes that were brought up so many times by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's not what we have now. We have a dysfunctional Board that is worse than useless because they are making decisions which are entirely suspect.

Congress should not allow this situation to get worse. The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act is an appropriate response to a horrible situation. This ought not to be Republicans versus Democrats. This is a chance for us to say we have an intolerable situation. This Board needs to stop issuing decisions that are immediately suspect and challengeable to the very court that has ruled them unconstitutional.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1120, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting political stunt.

My friends on the other side had ample opportunity, both in committee markup and before the Rules Committee, to offer an amendment of this nature. They did not.

It does nothing to fix the problem that we're faced with today. Making an exception in statute that says a Board that has been ruled unconstitutional can act any way for some people and not for others, frankly, makes no sense.

I'll stand behind no one in my desire to protect our men and women in uniform, those who are serving and those who have served, but that's not what this motion to recommit is really about.

Our bill brings certainty and an impetus to our friends at the other side of the Capitol to move the President to fix a dysfunctional National Labor Relations Board that can address the very issues that my colleagues have brought up.

I urge defeat of the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.