Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong, strong support of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill provides important protections for gun owners, and its time is past due.

As a retired marine and avid outdoorsman, I'm an experienced firearms owner and user. I hold a concealed-carry permit in the State of Minnesota, and I believe individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of their home, property, family and person. They have that right.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of mischaracterizations surrounding this legislation. I've heard a lot of it here today. To be clear, this bill does not create a Federal licensing or registration system. It does not create Federal standards, or infringe on the ability of States to make laws for a carry permit, and it does not negatively affect States that have permit-less carry systems.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will protect law-abiding gun owners from current confusion caused by the wide array of State laws and preempt the threat of frivolous lawsuits they could face simply by traveling outside of their home State. National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity provides critical recognition that the Second Amendment rights of our constituents do not end when they cross State lines, and this will enhance public safety.

I urge my colleagues to stand for the Second Amendment and to stand for the rights of responsible gun owners who engage in gun safety, and I urge them to support H.R. 822.

Mr. Speaker, I offer the following statement urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to move forward in the approval process of artificial pancreas technologies and issue draft guidance no later than December 1, 2011.

Diabetes is a common, serious, and costly disease that poses a major public health problem. Diabetes affects more than 25 million adults and children in the United States or 8.3 percent of the population. One out of every

three Americans born in the year 2000 is predicted to develop some form of diabetes during his or her lifetime. One third of every Medicare dollar is spent on individuals with diabetes, and estimates show diabetes costs the U.S. economy $174 billion annually. In my home state alone, approximately 243,000 Minnesotans have been diagnosed with diabetes.

The statistics about diabetes and its consequences for Americans are staggering. But they are not nearly as compelling as hearing firsthand from a child with type I diabetes what he or she goes through to keep their glucose levels stable. Recently, I met with the Theis, Strader, Melhus, and Nash families, who came to my office as part of an effort organized by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. They shared with me what it's like to live with the disease and what medical tools are available to better manage it.

One such medical advancement is the artificial pancreas. This technology has the potential to dramatically improve the health and quality of life of those who have diabetes. As shown in a landmark study in February 2010, a first generation artificial pancreas system can improve diabetes control and even lower the risk of blood glucose emergencies. Specifically, it will combine two external devices--an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM)--which will stabilize glucose levels by automatically providing the correct amount of insulin at the appropriate time.

Before this technology can be made available to people with diabetes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration must approve next steps in the regulatory process. Earlier this year, I sent a letter to FDA's Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, urging her to quickly provide clear and reasonable guidance so outpatient artificial pancreas studies can proceed as soon as possible. I urge the FDA to issue this draft guidance no later than December 1, if not sooner, to enable artificial pancreas technologies to be tested in an outpatient setting and be made available to those who need it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 372, I call up the bill (H.R. 2587) to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance, 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. 2587.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2587, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act is a commonsense proposal that will prevent the National Labor Relations Board from dictating where an employer can and cannot create work. Upon the date of enactment, this limitation will apply to all cases that have not reached final adjudication by the full Board.

Now, more than ever, the American people are looking for leadership out of Washington and some common sense. They want to know their elected officials are willing to take on the tough issues and make the difficult decisions needed to get this economy moving again. They need to believe Congress has the courage to tear down old barriers to new jobs, regardless of the political cost. After 31 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, we cannot afford to cling to the status quo any longer.

This legislation represents an important step in the fight to get our economy back on track. It tells job creators they don't have to fear an activist NLRB reversing important decisions about where to locate a business. It offers workers peace of mind by ensuring no Federal labor board can force an employer to ship their jobs across the country. And it tells the American people we are serious about getting government out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs who are desperately trying to do what they do best, create jobs and opportunities for our Nation's workers.

On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board sent a shock wave across our struggling economy. In a complaint filed against the Boeing Company, the NLRB demanded that this private company relocate work already underway in South Carolina to Washington State. The Board has more than a dozen remedies available to protect workers and hold employers accountable. Regrettably, the Obama NLRB exercised the most extreme remedy and, as a result, put the livelihoods of thousands of South Carolina workers on the line. Equally troubling, countless workers across the country now fear they could be subject to a similar attack in the future.

Make no mistake. Every worker deserves strong protections that ensure they are free to exercise their rights under the law. This legislation preserves a number of tough remedies for the Board to punish illegal activity. This Republican bill simply says that forcing a business to close its doors and relocate to another part of the country is an unacceptable remedy for today's workforce.

If the NLRB is allowed to exercise this radical authority, it will have a chilling effect on our economy. Businesses, at home and abroad, will reconsider their decision to invest in our country and create jobs for American workers. We have already heard stories of Canadian business leaders doing just that. No doubt, these difficult choices are being discussed on shop floors and boardrooms across the country and outside our borders.

Last month, this Board unloaded a barrage of activist decisions that undermine workers' rights and weaken our workforce. If the President will not hold the Board accountable for its job-destroying agenda, Congress will. It is time we forced the NLRB to change course. This is a sensible reform that will encourage businesses to create jobs right here at home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a wonderful representative of the people of Tennessee and the American people, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Then at this time I will yield 2 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again about the time remaining?

I will inform my colleague from New Jersey that I am expecting another speaker; so at this time I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that we have two speakers, a gentleman from Virginia and one from Texas who apparently are not going to be able to get here on time; so I will be closing when Mr. Andrews has exhausted his speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

There is always an interesting debate on the floor. This has been another example. We have some fundamental differences in how we view the problems and, more importantly, the solutions facing our country.

Both sides recognize that we have high unemployment, historically high, with 30 months of unemployment over 8 percent, 14 million Americans out of work. Both sides want the economy to grow and people to get back to work. But one side believes that more regulations--by the last account some 219 in the pipeline coming from this administration--more regulations, more spending money that we don't have, more government interference will somehow get Americans back to work; and the other side, Mr. Speaker, believes that employers, the private sector, small businesses, entrepreneurs, middle-size businesses and large businesses create jobs, put Americans to work.

Now, the National Labor Relations Act, as has been discussed, has been around for a long time. Neither side is suggesting that Americans don't have the right to organize and to bargain. I beg to differ with my colleagues on the other side. That's not what this is about.

But what we have here is a case where the act creates a board which, by

its nature, changes back and forth, depending upon who's in the White House, so that it has more Democrats one time and more Republicans another. And so I would argue and have argued that for some time, the board, in enforcing the act, is causing some whipsaw of the economy. I'll concede that.

But right now with this board, I would argue that, as one of my colleagues on the other side said, there was an agenda over here. I agree, there is an agenda. The board has an agenda.

There is a rainfall, a torrent of rulings coming out of this board that strike at the heart of American job creators that create jobs. One of those rulings--and I agree that it's an interim ruling. It's a ruling by the acting general counsel. One guy looks at the actions that a major American company has taken to create more jobs, to spend a billion dollars, build a plant in South Carolina, hire over a thousand people. One guy says, No, I don't think so. I think, says he, this is a transfer of work and it's in retaliation; I think that.

So it's been pointed out this is an ongoing process. And one of my colleagues in the committee said, Well, nothing bad has really happened here. Let's let this play out.

No, no. I beg to differ.

Go to Charleston, South Carolina. Talk to those thousand employees about their future and the uncertainty that this brings. Talk to the companies who are looking at creating jobs, starting businesses in this country and are looking at this ruling and the threat this poses and reconsidering their actions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a choice. We can stand, we can sit, we can watch, or we can step up and try to help Americans get back to work in America by stopping this action and the threat that it poses to companies across America.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation. Let's get Americans back to work in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the words of my colleague from New York, but if he and others on the other side of the aisle are looking for a way to stop jobs from going overseas, I've got really good news for him. H.R. 2587 is a step in the right direction.

Right now, the National Labor Relations Board is exercising an extreme remedy that has a chilling effect on job creators here and potential job creators who would like to come here from abroad. And right now, Members of Congress have an opportunity to say, ``Stop.''

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the employers, themselves.

Recently, the National Association of Manufacturers asked thousands of American manufacturers a simple question about the Boeing complaint, which was: Could this NLRB complaint negatively impact your decisions on hiring or workforce expansion plans?

Sixty-nine percent of those manufacturers who responded to the survey said, yes, this complaint could negatively impact decisions to grow their businesses and hire new workers.

At a recent hearing of the Education and the Workforce Committee, former NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber described an encounter with 60 Canadian business leaders. Mr. Schaumber told us, ``A few with whom I had an opportunity to speak with afterwards expressed real concern about doing business in the United States as a result of the agency's complaint against the Boeing Company.''

Thanks to the NLRB's actions, efforts by manufacturers to hire workers are being undermined, and international employers are concerned about doing business here in the United States. This is the hostile environment to new jobs and economic growth that is created by this decision, and it must end.

So, as I noted earlier today, we can stand by or sit by, or we can stand up and do something about it. My friends had ample opportunities to offer amendments in committee. They chose not to do that. It was a procedural step. I understand that. It doesn't go to fix the hostile environment that has been brought forward by this activist NLRB.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw my reservation of the point of order.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we're all concerned about the safety of our students and all of our schools. Ensuring our students are in a safe environment is a critical part of the duties of our teachers, principals, administrators, school authorities. But whether the students attend charter schools or traditional public schools, all of our students and parents need to know that schools are providing a safe environment for them.

That's why this issue is best considered when we look at the full Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this fall, the law that governs all public schools.

This motion would single out charter schools from the rest of the public schools, something we've worked very hard and in a bipartisan way to avoid.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion, reject this motion to recommit, and support the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am, at the suggestion of my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, indeed rereading the amendment. It says: ``Priority.--In awarding grants under this subsection, the Secretary is encouraged''--and we've got to figure out what ``encouraged'' means-- ``to give priority''--I think we know what ``priority'' means--``to States that encourage''--we're encouraging again--``green school building practices and certification.''.

Again, I think this language is going to make it more difficult for States to be able to build these charter schools. We're trying to expand charter schools here and improve academic opportunities for schools, not get into a semantics battle over encouraging and green, which this is necessarily going to lead to. So, again, I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 2218.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act is a key component of our efforts to reform the Nation's education system and ensure more students have access to a quality learning experience. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been strong proponents of charter schools for the breadth of opportunities they offer students and parents.

These innovative institutions empower parents to play a more active role in their child's education and offer students the priceless opportunity to escape underperforming schools. They also open doors for educators to experiment with the fresh teaching methods uniquely geared to meeting the needs of their individual students.

The stories of charter school success are impressive. Students who previously had little hope have been inspired by excellent teachers to reach new heights. The tales of groundbreaking programs and initiatives at local charter schools have motivated surrounding public schools to improve. Parents have witnessed children of all backgrounds transition from struggling to excelling as a result of their charter school education.

Unfortunately, there are not enough charter schools to meet demand and hundreds of thousands of students remain on wait lists each year.

The legislation we consider today takes important steps to encourage and support the establishment of more high-quality charter schools in communities across the United States.

The bipartisan Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will consolidate funding under the Federal Charter School Program into the existing State grant program. This will allow State educational agencies, State charter school boards, and governors the freedom to award subgrants to support new charter schools as well as replicate or expand high-quality charter schools.

To ensure States are facilitating the growth and expansion of charter schools, this act will give funding priority to those that lift arbitrary caps on the number of charter schools permitted in the State. The legislation

also will provide priority to States that take additional steps to encourage charter school growth, such as allowing more than one State or local agency to authorize charter schools, or promoting charters as a solution to improve struggling public schools.

As we work to increase the presence of charter schools in the United States, we must also protect limited taxpayer funds and make sure every dollar is well spent. It has been said that charter schools are the epitome of performance-based education: In exchange for increased flexibility and autonomy, these schools are held accountable for results. The Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act will ensure charter schools continue to be held accountable by supporting an evaluation of schools' impact on students, families, and communities, while also encouraging shared best practices between charter and traditional public schools.

Charter schools are a valuable part of our efforts to improve the education available to our children. This legislation does not represent the whole solution. All of us recognize that additional measures must be enacted to support excellence and innovation in the American education system. However, this act takes an important step in the right direction.

I am very pleased that members of the Education and Workforce Committee have put their differences aside and worked through a very bipartisan process to develop an exceptional piece of legislation. I would like to thank Members and their staffs for these efforts. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us in supporting this positive legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chair of the K-12 Subcommittee.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the committee and the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, Mr. Walberg.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

It is my understanding that the gentleman from California has several more speakers.

I am prepared to reserve and let you call on speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to those of Ranking Member Miller's to the staffs on both sides, to

the members of the committee on both sides, and to our colleagues not on the committee, like Mr. Polis, for their input and help on this legislation.

All of us were elected to Congress with the promise to enact laws that will make this country a better place for our children and our grandchildren. This starts with ensuring that every child has access to a quality education.

For many students and their parents, charter schools are a beacon of hope and, in some cases, the only beacon of hope. They symbolize opportunity, choice, and educational excellence, and it is past time to ensure more families and communities across the United States have access to these groundbreaking institutions.

By approving the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act today, we can help put more students on the path to a successful future. I urge my colleagues to put differences aside and to join together in supporting this legislation for the sake of those students trapped in underperforming schools across America.

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 offered by myself and Mr. Miller.

In all our goals for an improved education system, one stands above the rest: ensuring students have access to a quality education. My colleagues and I firmly believe supporting the growth of high- performing charter schools will help us reach that goal.

Charter schools epitomize choice and flexibility in education, and represent an efficient way school districts can transform an underperforming traditional public school into a dynamic learning institution. Thanks to the additional autonomy afforded to these institutions, charter schools have become renowned for their ability to effectively meet the needs of the unique student population.

A great case study of adaptability of charters is Locke High School, located in the tough South Central area of Los Angeles. Students in this area face a multitude of challenges--from gang violence to poverty to troubled homes. Locke High School had some of the lowest test scores and highest dropout rates in the country. Only roughly 5 percent of its students went on to 4-year colleges and universities.

In 2007, the LA Unified School District agreed to transform Locke High School into a public charter school. Charter school officials instituted broad changes to the school, such as improved facilities, new teachers, parental volunteer hours, uniforms, and strict disciplinary measures. As a result, attendance rates have increased to 90 percent--a real success story.

Stories of charter schools that inspire success in students no matter the circumstance exist beyond Locke High School. These institutions have benefited children and communities in cities across the United States. Unfortunately, charter schools are not growing as they should. This act will facilitate the development of high-performing charter schools by consolidating Federal funding streams, incentivizing States to support the development and expansion of these institutions, and evaluating the benefits these schools offer to students and their families.

However, as my colleagues and I continued to work together on this legislation, we realized even more could be done to help charter schools assist a variety of students, including those most at risk. The accomplishments of a charter school like Locke High School should be encouraged and supported. That's why we have developed language in the manager's amendment that would offer incentives to States that use charter schools to reach out to special populations, such as at-risk students.

Additionally, Members on both sides of the aisle decided steps must be taken to help Federal Charter School Program grants remain on a sustainable path. The manager's amendment directs the Secretary of Education to undertake proper planning efforts to ensure sufficient new grants can be awarded annually to the best applicants.

As we work to ensure all students have access to a quality education, this act is a step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes commonsense adjustments to improve the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment is entirely consistent with the underlying purpose of the charter school movement. It improves the bill. I support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not intend to oppose it.

This amendment simply emphasizes the importance of STEM education. It is widely recognized in the business community, the education community and throughout America that there is a growing gap that we need to fill in STEM education. By underscoring the importance of STEM education, this is helpful to the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from Colorado has very succinctly, clearly, and I would even say eloquently explained the problem in the authorizing business in charter schools and offered a very, very good solution. This is a good amendment. It improves the bill. I support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

All across the country we've seen Governors and other State and local officials stand up in support of important education reform efforts that put the interest of children first. The underlying legislation before us today expands the number of State entities that may compete for charter school funding, allowing Governors to act on their support for charter schools. It addresses a real concern that has arisen in States that do not have a State education agency which supports charter schools.

Today, there are more than 420,000 students on charter school wait lists. And we've all seen the recent documentaries, ``Waiting for Superman'' and ``The Lottery.'' These chronicle low-income students trapped in failing schools, desperate for better education opportunities. Instead of helping States meet this truly incredible demand for more high quality charter schools, unfortunately, this amendment would actually stifle charter school growth by limiting a Governor's ability to support these institutions.

At the core of this bill is our desire to see more quality charter schools available for more students. More choice, more opportunity. Less ``Waiting for Superman.'' And so I oppose this amendment because it works in opposition to what the underlying bill is trying to do and what we're trying to do--and that's give the States more opportunities to create and replicate more quality charter schools.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe that the underlying legislation, as Ranking Member Miller alluded to, has language in it that strongly encourages, at the very least, Governors to work with their SEAs. But I would underscore the point that States are different. Some States are set up with different relationships between the different elected officers. They're not all elected the same way they are maybe in Wisconsin or something. Our underlying purpose here is to expand access to quality charter schools, and I believe this amendment gets in the way of that.

So I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The underlying bill maintains and strengthens Federal support to assist charter schools in accessing credit for facilities construction, as it has in the past and will in this, but it doesn't get into the details of school construction. It doesn't take another step towards getting the Federal Government involved in school construction.

I understand there's a great excitement in some areas about putting green in any construction, or in anything for that matter. If it's green, apparently it's better.

This amendment, I'm afraid, will actually weaken efforts at the State level to fund school construction. It will dramatically increase the cost of building elementary and secondary charter schools. Where there's already limited funds available, some States, school districts, and charter schools will be forced to use union workers to construct public charter schools and to comply with this need for green schools.

Instead of imposing new burdens on charter schools, we should support State and local efforts to raise student academic achievement, stay out of the school construction business. This amendment is not an appropriate role for the Federal Government. I urge opposition to the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman from Iowa's amendment. That's an unusual place for me to be on the floor of this House, but I believe that the gentleman from California has correctly outlined the problem.

One of the strengths of an otherwise pretty seriously flawed law in No Child Left Behind was the disaggregation of data. It was allowing parents and, in this case, authorizers and Governors and school boards to look in and make sure that there was no element in a school body that was being left behind. It is important, since we're trying to replicate high quality schools, that that information be available. I'm afraid the gentleman from Iowa's amendment would, in fact, end up masking that information and depriving those who need to make decisions of the kind of information they need in order to make sure that we're replicating high quality charter schools.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. The severity of our Nation's fiscal crisis cannot be overstated. More than 14 million Americans are looking for work. Meanwhile, Federal spending continues at an unprecedented pace, with an average of $4 billion added to our country's debt every day. We need to encourage economic growth and investment. Instead, leaders on the other side of the aisle are pushing more reckless policies, more redtape, and more taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending spree, leaving job creators frozen by uncertainty and fear, and risking our future prosperity.

At a recent roundtable in Minnesota, a small business owner told me, The government is out of control. It's too big, and I don't like it. Well, I don't like it either, and it's costing our country jobs. It's time for Washington to do what's right. We need to make the tough choices necessary to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. No one said it would be easy, but it certainly is necessary.

The legislation before us today will end unsustainable spending and put this Nation back on a fiscally responsible path. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, this legislation that would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This program was created in 2004 with bipartisan support. This program has provided an educational lifeline and meaningful choices to thousands of District families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Everyone agrees now that our educational system is broken. As we work to craft targeted reforms, we must support existing education programs that improve student achievement. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is one such initiative with a proven track record of success. Over the past 7 years, this program has helped more than 3,000 low- income children receive a high-quality education at the private school of their choice. The Department of Education's own research confirms the program's success in increasing graduation rates to more than 90 percent in the low-income population of students previously trapped in underperforming schools.

Additionally, this scholarship program has improved parental involvement in education. Four consecutive studies have shown parents of program participants are more engaged in their children's education and more satisfied with their academic progress than parents of public school students.

The evidence is clear, Mr. Speaker. This innovative program works and serves as a real alternative for parents who want to give their children the educational opportunities they never had. Yet, despite this proof, the administration and some in Congress are determined to destroy this groundbreaking program.

Without the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, thousands of parents will be denied an opportunity to make decisions about their children's education. Equally troubling, thousands of children will be denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential, leaving them unequipped to succeed in a 21st century workforce. We must put children first and stop a vocal minority from taking vital opportunities away from thousands of D.C. families.

The program has received widespread support from Washington residents, including three former Democratic Mayors, several members of the D.C. City Council, and thousands of students and parents. Congress cannot turn its back and deny students a chance, a chance for a better future.

As our Nation fights to get back to the path to prosperity, we cannot afford to eliminate critical educational opportunities that will prepare our Nation's youth for tomorrow's workforce.

All parents should be empowered to decide what school is best for their child. A quality education should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, President Obama laid out his plan to conduct a comprehensive regulatory review to ``remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.'' I have pledged to be a partner in that effort. Job creation and American competitiveness are our top priorities. That's why I am offering an amendment to deny funds from being used to implement and enforce a job-destroying Department of Education regulation.

More than 3 million students attend proprietary schools. These schools, also known as for-profit schools or career colleges, provide students with skills that can be applied immediately to specific jobs in the workforce. With more than 6 million workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks, proprietary schools address a critical need in today's economy. These schools also help address the needs of local communities. Proprietary institutions are nimble and easily adapt to the demands of an ever-changing local economy. If a community lacks trained nurses or qualified auto mechanics, proprietary school can quickly develop programs to fill those needs.

For years, proprietary schools have served young adults, single parents, first-generation college students, and low-income individuals. They have opened doors to bright futures and strengthened our economy. That's why recent efforts by this administration have been so troubling.

Last year, the Department of Education put forward regulations that will deny students access to many of these institutions. The regulation includes a number of provisions, including unprecedented reporting requirements placed solely on the backs of these proprietary schools. The regulation also requires schools to seek preapproval from the Department of Education before creating any new program, tying down in bureaucratic redtape the flexibility that has benefited communities and workers.

The public outcry to the regulation has been resounding. More than 90,000 public comments were sent in to the Department during the rulemaking process. A strong bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress has voiced their concerns to the administration, but those concerns seem to be ignored. In 2008, Congress had an opportunity to define ``gainful employment,'' yet it chose not to. It recognized such a definition would limit student choice and stifle employment. Instead, the administration is barreling ahead with bad policy.

We all support transparency and accountability. We should empower students with good information about all institutions so they can make the most informed choice about their education. We should do our part to root out bad actors. We can do that while opposing an outright attack on the private sector. That's what this is: an attack on the private sector of education. Colleges that planned to expand their campuses have put those plans on hold.

This effort will force schools to turn away students and close their doors. Some have already laid off workers. Capella, based in my home State of Minnesota, announced just yesterday they will lay off 125 staff members. The regulation is destroying jobs today and will continue to do so.

Make no mistake, this isn't just another regulation that will destroy jobs. This is an assault on students' ability to find an institution that best meets their needs.

The President has laid out a goal to lead the world in college graduates in less than 10 years. This goal represents the reality that far too often our workers are unprepared to succeed in a highly competitive global economy. But we cannot lead the world if we follow the path this regulation would force us to take.

Let's support our students. Let's support their right to choose a college that meets their needs. Let's support a strong and competitive workforce. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress has a responsibility to outline a budget the country can afford that sets priorities to live within those means. Too often in recent years Congress failed in this basic duty. I'm pleased to see us beginning to move in a new direction.

The choice we face today is whether we will begin to uphold our commitments or continue to kick the can down the road for another debate another time. That's why I'm proud to support this amendment.

This amendment will move Congress closer to meeting its commitment to students with disabilities and help schools, all schools across the Nation. It adds to our effort to set the right priorities.

In 1971, a landmark decision was handed down by a Federal judge that ruled the U.S. Constitution prohibits schools from denying access to education based solely on a child's disabilities. While this represented the judgment of one court, states soon followed.

Four years later Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. That law, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, was designed to help states meet their obligation to provide a quality education to students with disabilities. It is a law that has been improved over the years, most recently, in 2004.

We've worked to strengthen the law's focus on academic achievement, empowered parents to take greater responsibility for the direction of their child's education, and helped to improve the critical relationship between local school leaders and the parents and students they serve. Despite our efforts over the years, more work remains to strengthen the law to ensure students with disabilities receive the education they need. That's why we're here today.

Over the past 35 years, while states have worked to follow the letter of the law and serve these students, the Federal Government has failed to deliver on its promise to fund 40 percent of the additional costs of educating students with disabilities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we've never funded 20 percent. We haven't made it halfway.

This amendment reallocates resources at the Department of Education to improve our commitment to meet this important need. It makes tough choices we were sent here to make. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Offered By: Mr. Kline

Amendment No. 214: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today's effort is driven by a simple goal: to ensure every area of the Federal Government is dedicated to job creation. If we are to get the Nation back to work, we all must work together to remove barriers to economic growth and prosperity.

Every job matters, and every effort to help create a new job matters. The American people have demonstrated a relentless determination to make the difficult choices necessary to get through these tough times. We should do no less.

Employers need certainty, flexibility, and freedom to expand their businesses and hire new workers. Red tape should not tie down economic growth, and onerous regulations should not be roadblocks to job creation. Congress can no longer accept sweeping changes that affect the lives of students and workers without first determining whether it is good for our long-term competitiveness, good for job creators, and good for our economy.

We were sent here to focus on getting the economy back on track and the American people back to work. Today we are moving forward with our commitment to do just that. In my conversations with constituents, I have seen the desperation that follows months of searching in vain for work. I also have witnessed the hope that is renewed at the prospect of future employment.

Everyone agrees you need rules of the road and commonsense protections; bad actors will always exist, and they must be held accountable for breaking the law. But we shouldn't accept lost wages, lost jobs, and lost opportunities as inevitable consequences to advancing fairness, accountability, and responsibility.

The Education and Workforce Committee oversees a broad range of policies that affect the Nation's workplaces and classrooms. A number of those policies will be discussed by other leaders of the committee in a few moments.

In the time remaining for myself, I would like to discuss one area in particular that deserves closer examination. Is the Federal Government using its authority fairly and on behalf of American workers, or is it pursuing a partisan agenda that makes our workplaces less competitive?

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created by Congress more than 75 years ago. The NLRB is charged with preventing and remedying unfair labor practices and establishing whether employees desire union representation. Its responsibility is to fairly protect the rights of workers against unlawful encroachments by employers and unions.

Unfortunately, the board has recently shown an eagerness to tilt the playing field in favor of powerful special interests. A culture of union favoritism has seized the board, with consequences that reach into virtually every workplace. Stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot through a backdoor card check scheme is just one looming threat. The board also has threatened legal action against States seeking to protect the secret ballot, and it has diminished safeguards for employers. We cannot allow the board to rewrite the rules of the game to circumvent the will of Congress in pursuit of its own job- destroying agenda.

This same culture of union favoritism has also swept across the administration, expanding protections for big labor at the expense of rank-and-file workers. Project labor agreements and high road contracting sound innocent enough, but they put small businesses and the vast majority of their workers at a disadvantage--at the expense of the taxpayers, I might add.

These are the kinds of policies that should be examined to determine whether they undermine economic growth. Our efforts will not be blinded by partisanship. If we learn of a rule or regulation that stands in the way of a strong workforce, regardless of the Congress or administration that put it in place, we will take a look at it. This is a critically important responsibility, and I look forward working with every Member of Congress to get it done.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina, I feel compelled to respond for just a minute to the remarks of my good friend from New Jersey that underscores the fundamental difference here.

We believe that the issues that we have been talking about and are talking about today and will be talking about next week strike directly to the problem of unemployment and the lack of jobs in this country. Without fiscal responsibility, without addressing the exploding debt, without addressing the job-killing health care plan, which we've done, and without addressing the blizzard of regulations that are coming out of this administration and every industry, we're not going to be able to create those jobs. It's a fundamental difference.

The debate will go on, but clearly we believe, and I believe, that we are directly addressing jobs because we found out over the last few years, certainly the last 2 years, that spending billions and hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars does not, in fact, put America back to work.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we're spending this time talking about real job creation. For the last 2 years, we've watched the Democrats spend literally trillions of dollars in failed efforts to create jobs, with more government spending. We need to get the private sector back to work.

We've heard examples here today, and we'll hear more this afternoon, of how this blizzard of regulations is getting in the way of that job creation and preventing Americans from getting back to work. We need to step up to our responsibility, and this is just the opening of that discussion as we step up to do our jobs in oversight.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for 20 consecutive months more than 14 million Americans have been unemployed. As much as we would like to solve this problem, the Federal Government cannot legislate or regulate our way to job creation. We can, however, foster economic certainty that will encourage families, businesses, and entrepreneurs to spend, hire, and invest. And that is what we will try to do today.

Almost 1 year ago, Democrats launched a nearly $1 trillion government takeover of health care that increases national health care spending by $311 billion over 10 years and levies more than $500 billion in new taxes on individuals, consumers, and businesses. The 2,700-page law has led to more than 4,000 pages of new rules and regulations, and the law is only 10 months old. The uncertainty of what this all means for individuals and businesses today, and in the months and years to come, is having a chilling effect on the country's job creators.

A number of provisions of the law will undermine job creation and economic growth, but perhaps none is as alarming as the employer mandate. For the first time in the Nation's history, employers with more than 50 workers are required to provide government-approved health care coverage. Those who do not or cannot afford to will be forced to pay a $2,000 penalty for every worker beyond the first 30. If you are a small business owner with 50 workers and you cannot afford to provide government-approved health insurance for your workers, adding one additional employee to the payroll will result in a $42,000 penalty.

Some refer to the employer mandate as shared sacrifice. They argue that expanding coverage to every individual means everyone must pay, but the cost of this provision will result in more than lost dollars and cents. Hiring new workers will be more expensive, creating a disincentive for job creators to put Americans back to work.

The employer mandate isn't the only challenge facing employers. Last year the administration released a regulation on the so-called grandfather provision, a provision intended to protect current plans against the law's costly and complex requirements. It is also central to the President's promise that, If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.

Unfortunately, the regulation falls far short of the President's promise. By the administration's own estimates, up to 69 percent of all employer plans and 80 percent of small business plans will be denied grandfathered status in just 2 years. One estimate indicates 87 million Americans will face changes to their current health care plans.

Instead of keeping what they already have, individuals and employers will have to pay more for something new and unfamiliar. The more costly it is for employers to provide coverage, the more likely existing health plans will be eliminated and the need for government assistance will grow. And as the rolls for government programs expand, the cost to taxpayers will skyrocket.

At a time when every job creator should be encouraged to grow and hire, the Democrats' health care law instead forces employers to choose between rising health care costs and government penalties. It is time to end the uncertainty facing families, employers, and workers. It is time to push ObamaCare aside so America's job creators, both large and small, can move forward with the confidence they need to hire new workers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a physician on the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) to respond to the gentleman from California's comments.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

(Mr. ROKITA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).

May I inquire of the Speaker how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to

another new member of the committee, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another physician, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

And we're so happy to have them.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased, following the comments of the gentleman from California, to yield 1 minute to another physician, a new member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

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

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I'll take about 10 seconds to respond to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, about the $250. It's not contemplated in the legislation, nor is it our understanding of the scoring that there is any intention of that $250 being brought back from those seniors.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to balance the time here--we have an embarrassment of riches in numbers of speakers; that's what happened in November--I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new Member of this body, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again as to the time remaining on each side, please.

Mr. Speaker, then at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

We're in that time of trying to balance here.

At this time, I will yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. Adams).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).

Mr. Speaker, I had two more speakers en route. They are not here. So I plan to close, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I actually don't know anybody who is supporting the red tape of the insurance company. What I find interesting is that we think it is a better solution to add thousands of pages of new government regulations and thousands of new government bureaucrats on top of that system and think somehow it is going to be better.

Let me address a couple of things that have come up in this debate and some things that we discussed in the past. One of them is the cost of this bill. Other committees have talked about it and will again.

There have been claims today that repeal will cost the taxpayers variously $230 billion or a trillion dollars based on what the CBO has said. We find that incredible that repealing this job-killing legislation is actually going to cost us money. So the question comes why are these things different.

It turns out there is a wonderful piece in The Wall Street Journal today that addresses that specifically. I will just quote it. It says: How then does the Affordable Care Act magically convert a trillion dollars in new spending into painless deficit reduction? It is all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.

We heard some words today addressing that fact. Some of our physicians pointed out that in order to get the numbers to add up, you have to assume that we are going to continue to punish physicians who are providing Medicare services. And there is nobody in this body who believes we are actually going to do that. Nor did they believe that we were going to do it when that sort of gimmicky accounting was used to justify the cost in the first place.

We have heard discussions about how this is a very good deal for businesses large and small; and yet if you look at associations, organizations that represent businesses across America, they are saying today, not just 6 months ago or a year ago, but saying today that they support repeal of this job-killing legislation. And a short list, just some of them are the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Franchise Association, the America Bankers Association, American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National Stove and Gravel Association, and on and on. Businesses do not like this government takeover of health care, and they support repeal. This is not a good deal for businesses.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to focus their remarks on a handful of provisions included in the law that are more attractive than tax hikes, penalties imposed on employers, and higher health care costs. And no one is disputing that such provisions exist, but it is wrong to suggest that the only way to reform health care is to bankrupt our Nation with this albatross.

I believe we can improve health care without orchestrating a government takeover. That is why I look forward to casting my vote to repeal this law so we can move forward to carry out the wishes of our constituents. Repeal is the first step toward the right kind of reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that any minute or two that I have left be granted to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee during that portion of the debate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Saturday was a dark day for the residents of Tucson, Arizona, and our Nation.

In the blink of an eye the lives of men, women and children who were going about their daily routines were forever changed. One troubled, twisted soul robbed six innocent individuals of their lives and cast a dark shadow over a fundamental right of our democracy, the exchange of ideas between a Representative and the community she represents.

Madam Speaker, in an effort to find meaning in this tragedy, it is tempting to assign blame or to draw conclusions in support of a larger pattern, but what we witnessed this weekend is void of rationale. We must recognize the disaster for the senseless act it is, but we should not stop there.

As the men and women we represent mourn those who were lost and rally to support a brave public servant who is battling for her life, we in this body have a responsibility to lead the way. We must demonstrate our resolve to continue the important work of listening to our constituents and legislating on their behalf. We must press on, undeterred by panic, in carrying out the work we have been elected to do. We must demonstrate that America is strong, her institutions are unshakeable, and her people are brave and determined.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family and friends of the victims of this tragedy and sending my prayers to our colleague, Gabby Giffords, in her time of

need. May she find the strength to recover and join us in leading the way forward.