Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I offer the following statement in support of Senate Bill 3036, expressing support for the National Alzheimer's Project Act.

The effects of Alzheimer's disease are devastating. An estimated 5.3 million Americans live with this disease, and millions more are directly affected through caring for loved ones and sharing the surmounting costs of this terrible disease.

Unfortunately, the devastation of Alzheimer's disease will only become worse as the Baby Boom generation grows older. It is estimated that if we are unable to change the trajectory of this disease, as many as 16 million Americans will have Alzheimer's by the middle of this century.

The economic impact of Alzheimer's is also staggering. We are currently spending an estimated $172 billion annually on Alzheimer's disease and other dementia care in America. As the nation faces a growing aging population, we must look at how to reduce costs while improving outcomes. The National Alzheimer's Project Act will help achieve this goal through the establishment of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services, which facilitates public and private coordination on research and services across all federal agencies.

As my mother is currently suffering from the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease, I would welcome news of a research breakthrough that would slow, stop, or reverse this degenerative disease.

The National Alzheimer's Project Act is an important step toward addressing a devastating and deadly disease. I am pleased to support legislation that will help improve the quality of life for the millions of Americans affected by Alzheimer's disease.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues who today recognize a faithful public servant and proud Minnesotan, Congressman Jim Oberstar.

Jim has dedicated his career to the people of Minnesota's 8th Congressional district--serving as their Representative since 1974 and as a staff member to his predecessor, former Representative John Blatnik, for more than a decade.

During his tenure in Congress, Jim was a passionate and unapologetic advocate for the causes he believed in. He rose to prominence as Chairman of the Transportation Committee, where he worked to ensure the safety and security of our nation's transportation infrastructure.

While we found ourselves on opposite ends of most political arguments, I respect Congressman Oberstar's accomplishments and the legacy he leaves behind in this House and the great state of Minnesota. I wish him well in his future endeavors.

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

Members on the other side of the aisle talked a great deal yesterday--and even again today--about playing politics and gotchas here on the House floor, so I feel compelled to take a moment to set the record straight.

Yesterday, the House was supposed to debate and vote on a bill to reauthorize Federal child nutrition programs. Rather than allowing Members to offer amendments and fully engage in the legislative process, the majority decided the U.S. House of Representatives should have no say in these programs that affect childhood health and wellness. Members of the House would have no involvement in writing initiatives to spend an additional $4.5 billion in hard-earned taxpayer dollars on legislation that imposes significant operational and financial costs on our local school districts.

They brought this massive child nutrition bill--$4.5 billion in new spending and 17 new or expanded Federal programs--to the floor under a closed rule. For the record, it was the 97th closed rule in the 4 years Democrats have controlled the people's House, 97th closed rule. Apparently it's easier to dictate the outcome when you prevent legislators from legislating. Talk about a gotcha. That's why I offered a motion to recommit, the one and only chance we had to remove some of the bill's most harmful provisions and insert stronger protections for our children.

My modest amendment included a pair of noncontroversial changes to the underlying bill that should have passed the House overwhelmingly, but that did not fit in the majority's plan. You see, as I said less than 24 hours ago, the clock is winding down on the 111th Congress, and there is a rush to push through as many bills at the last minute as this outgoing majority can manage.

As we witnessed yesterday, the sprint to the finish means the sacrifice of a deliberative process. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems all too familiar. Perhaps that's because it was just this year when the Democrats passed a massive government takeover of health care under a closed process. They denied Members an opportunity to offer their ideas or amendments. They promised the country a fiscally responsible plan while cutting backroom deals to hide the true cost of the legislation. All this was done in an effort to pass a partisan bill the American people have rejected.

Instead of letting lawmakers do our job and pass the best bill we can, the majority shut down the legislative process to defeat improvements to legislation while pretending to support them. Talk about playing politics.

Members will come to the floor shortly to support this bill, and why shouldn't they? This proposal, taken from my motion to recommit, the child nutrition legislation, protects children by requiring background checks for child care providers participating in Federal meal programs. It's a good proposal, which is why it belongs in the child nutrition legislation. Instead, we understand the majority party plans to execute a stunning same-day flip-flop, voting for these background checks now only to oppose them when they really count, as an improvement in the broader bill.

They will be for it before they are against it. This procedural gimmick may fix the political problem but leaves the policy broken. For anyone

still wondering why the American people hold their elected representatives in such low regard, I believe this is it.

Notably absent from this so-called cover vote is the other piece of our motion to recommit. The Republican plan would eliminate the middle class tax hidden in the child nutrition legislation. The Democrats' bill imposes an unprecedented Federal price mandate for paid school meals. As a result, many schools may have to increase the prices they charge children who pay for their meals.

The National Governors Association and leading school groups oppose this provision because it will drive up costs for families and punish schools that have worked hard to hold down costs while providing higher-quality meals. Our proposal would have blocked this harmful tax on working families.

We proposed, during the one and only opportunity we had to do so, a modest pair of corrections that would have made the bill better, our children safer, all while protecting working families. The majority party wants to defeat those corrections, but they cannot do so without political cover. So here we stand.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

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

We're told that in a few minutes we will resume the debate on child nutrition where we left off yesterday before we were abruptly interrupted by the majority's strategy to prevent legislators from legislating.

I urge my colleagues, if you support these sensible and important protections for children and working families, support our commonsense motion to recommit. Listen to the National School Boards Association, who in a letter today wrote, ``The motion to recommit recognizes that Federal regulation of the paid meal price is not in the best interest of school districts implementing school meal programs.'' They are urging Congress to support the motion to recommit.

Listen to child care experts with the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies, who today announced strong support for the motion to recommit to require a background check on all child care providers who participate in Federal child nutrition programs.

Mr. Speaker, I support the suspension. I ask my colleagues to support this suspension. But please, support the motion to recommit and provide the real protections our children and families need and deserve.

National Association of Child

Care Resource & Referral Agencies,

Arlington, VA, December 2, 2010.

Hon. John Kline,

Senior Republican Member, U.S. Committee on Education and

Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kline: The National Association of

Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) strongly

supports your Motion to Recommit to S. 3307, Healthy, Hunger-

Free Kids Act of 2010, to require a background check on all

child care providers who participate in federal child

nutrition programs.

NACCRRA works with more than 700 state and local Child Care

Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) throughout the

nation. These agencies help ensure that families in 99

percent of all populated zip codes in the United States have

access to high-quality, affordable child care.

NACCRRA has released several reports that examine state

laws and regulations with regard to child care centers and

family child care homes. The most recent state requirements

reveal that only half the states conduct effective background

checks on child care workers--state and federal fingerprint

record checks, a check of the sex offender and child abuse

and neglect registries. A name check alone leaves children to

chance.

Without a comprehensive check, parents have no way of

knowing whether their child care provider has a criminal

history. In fact, NACCRRA's 2010 nationwide poll of parents

shows that 92 percent of parents support a background check

for child care providers. Parents want their children to be

safe. The reality is that background check requirements vary

greatly by state and most fail to ensure that providers with

a criminal history are not caring for children.

NACCRRA commends your leadership on this issue. Your

efforts to ensure that all children are safe in child care

and that no one with a violent criminal history is paid to

provide child care with federal funds is a testament to your

dedication to helping parents know their children are safe

while they work.

Sincerely,

Linda K. Smith,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 3307, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The American people have spoken, and they continue to speak loud and clear. I have been listening, and I know what I have been hearing in the Second District of Minnesota is being repeated from coast to coast: Stop growing government. The people are telling us, Stop spending money we do not have. It's a simple request and a sensible one, yet it continues to be ignored.

Today's vote will be among our final acts as we move through the few remaining days of the 111th Congress. As we cast those votes, we have a choice to make. Will we continue spending more and increasing the role of government in Americans' lives, or will we listen to the people and begin to step on the brakes?

Each of us must make that choice as we cast our votes on the bill before us. Everyone recognizes the importance of extending child nutrition programs, but extending these programs does not mean expanding them. We could extend these programs and improve them with no added cost to taxpayers. We could listen to our constituents and do right by our children.

In fact, my Republican colleagues and I tried to do precisely that, but the Democrats on the Rules Committee denied us the opportunity to offer such an option on the floor today. Instead, this bill spends another $4.5 billion on various programs and initiatives and creates or expands 17 separate Federal programs. It imposes a tax on the middle class by empowering the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to require schools to increase--that's right--require schools to increase the price they charge families for school meals.

This is a dangerous foray into Federal price controls, and it's one of many concerns outlined by the National Governors Association and leading school groups. In fact, the school leaders who would be responsible for implementing these new requirements have urged us to vote ``no'' on S. 3307 because of its higher cost for local districts and its rigid mandates.

Earlier this month, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of the Great City Schools, and the National School Boards Association told us, ``All of the national organizations representing the Nation's public school districts do not support the Senate version of the Child Nutrition reauthorization bill pending before the House.'' This is a strong statement that should leave every Member questioning the wisdom of imposing these added costs and mandates on our school systems.

In fact, the cost of this proposal has been a sticking point throughout the process. The majority claims this bill is paid for. They want us to believe we can grow government with no cost or consequences. But the American people know that's just not true. More spending is more spending whether or not those dollars are offset elsewhere in the massive Federal budget. But one offset in this bill is particularly questionable.

The truth is, at least some portion of the billions the new program costs is deficit spending. This money was borrowed from our children and grandchildren in 2009 when it was put in the stimulus; that borrowed money is simply being redirected today. It was borrowed then; it is borrowed now.

This bill, with its so so-called pay-for, is merely a stalling tactic. It obscures government expansion in the short term so this bill can become law and its spending can become permanent. So here we stand, playing a shell game with the Federal budget and hoping the American people do not notice that government continues to grow, spending continues to expand, and our children continue to fall deeper and deeper into debt.

Mr. Speaker, I support extending and improving child nutrition programs. I believe we can do so in a bipartisan way, but that opportunity is lost with this bill, and so I must oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume here to address this issue of a floor on school lunch prices that can be imposed. I have got a couple of quotes here I would like to read. One is from the bill and one is from the letter from the Governors Association where there's a paragraph that says, ``Federally mandated paid meal price. The bill would establish a Federal mandate for every paid meal in every school in the country for the first time ever. Governors join with the school community to strongly oppose this Federal mandate. The provision will dramatically destabilize fair market pricing of school meals'' and so forth.

And they get that from the language of the bill itself. In section 205, it says: ``Lower price, in general, in the case of a school food authority that established a price for a paid lunch in the previous school year that was less than the difference between the total Federal reimbursement for a free lunch and the total Federal reimbursement for a paid lunch, the school food authority shall establish an average price for a paid lunch that is not less than the price charged in the previous school year.''

So the Federal Government is coming in and saying, you can't charge any less; you cannot lower the price of your paid school lunch unless its meets our requirements. It is, in fact, saying that you can't lower the price of food even if you would like to do so. It doesn't meet this requirement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from east Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to address an issue that we have talked about a number of times.

Both sides have referred to organizations that support or oppose this legislation. For a moment, I just want to go to a letter that has been referred to from the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of the Great City Schools, and the National School Boards Association. They represent the State and local officials who actually have to implement this law that we are preparing to pass here in Congress. There are just a couple of excerpts from the letter which I will quote:

``The bill adds multiple new requirements while failing to reimburse these additional costs.''

``School districts continue to financially subsidize the Federal meals program at the expense of our primary responsibility, our students' educational program.''

``The numerous new requirements in S. 3307 will exacerbate these operational concerns and drive school districts' budgets further in the hole. Notably, none of the interest groups or celebrities promoting this bill bear the governmental and legal responsibility of school district officials to deliver services with an annual balanced budget,'' and so forth.

This bill will drive up costs and complexities for school districts, and that is not the direction in which we should be going.

American Association of School Administrators; Council of

the Great City Schools; National School Board

Association,

November 15, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: All of the national organizations

representing the nation's public school districts do not

support the Senate version of the Child Nutrition

reauthorization bill (S. 3307) pending before the House. The

bill does not provide sufficient resources to cover the local

cost of providing the federal free and reduced-priced lunches

and breakfasts. Moreover, the bill adds multiple new

requirements while failing to reimburse these additional

costs. The Senate bill is actually less supportable than the

House version of the child nutrition bill. As a result, the

nation's school administrators, school boards, and big city

school districts recommend passing a simple extension of

current law.

School districts recognize the importance of providing

healthy meals and snack options for school children, and

support updating the nutritional standards for the National

School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. But, school districts

continue to financially subsidize the federal meals program

at the expense of our primary responsibility, our students'

educational program.

U.S. Department of Agriculture studies document that school

districts' cost of providing free lunches exceeds the federal

reimbursement by over thirty cents per meal, or an annual

cost of $54,000 for school districts serving 1,000 students

daily--the equivalent cost of retaining a teacher. In high

cost areas, the un-reimbursed cost can be significantly more.

The numerous new requirements in S. 3307 will exacerbate

these operational concerns, and drive school districts'

budgets further in the hole. Notably, none of the interest

groups or celebrities promoting this bill bears the

governmental and legal responsibility of school district

officials to deliver services with an annual balanced budget.

School districts simply request that Congress pay for the

costs of the federal free and reduced priced school meals,

and refrain from imposing new federal requirements

particularly in this economic environment. Much attention has

been directed to the use of food stamp funds (SNAP) to pay

for or offset the cost of the Senate's Child Nutrition bill.

Unfortunately, little attention has been focused on the drain

of local school district funds to pay for or offset the

continuing un-funded costs of the federal free and reduced-

priced school meals. We, therefore, recommend a ``no'' vote

on S. 3307 and passage of a simple extension of the current

programs.

Sincerely,

Noelle Ellerson,

American Association of School Administrators.

Jeff Simering,

Council of the Great City Schools.

Lucy Gettman,

National School Boards Association.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The speakers on my side of the aisle have expressed concern, as indeed I did, about the pay-for here. This bill proposes to take money from the SNAP program to pay for this, and we have expressed some concern that this is something of a shell game for two reasons. One, it's borrowed money, and if we really want to do some positive things for our children, we should look at not adding billions and trillions more to the debt that they're going to have to pay. But we've had speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle come down and say things like, The President has assured me that we're not going to actually spend this money or that they're going to work tirelessly to make sure that this pay-for is not in fact the pay-for. So I think the debate has confirmed our suspicion that in fact the promised pay-for is really not there.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a member of the committee, Mr. Bishop.

I continue to reserve my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the argument that we have been making in the debate today is that this really isn't about dietary guidelines or even school nutrition strategies. The point was made there are a lot of people caring, from local school boards to Members of Congress and certainly the First Lady. It's not a debate about keeping our children healthy and active. We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is a debate about spending and the role of government and the size of government, a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not.

Reauthorizing child nutrition should be easy. We should be able to extend these programs and approve them. We should be able to do that without adding to the cost. I'm confident Members on both sides of the aisle would welcome the opportunity to do just that at no new cost to taxpayers. Unfortunately, that option is not on the table today.

Instead, we are voting on yet another bill that calls for the government to grow, expand, to spend more and intrude more, and I am arguing that this bill is in fact not paid for. It's an argument that I made minutes ago.

I would quote from an article, the newspaper yesterday, I think Congress Daily. It says: ``Antihunger advocates opposed House consideration of the bill before the election because part of the offset for the bill is a cut in future food stamp benefits. But the Food Research and Action Center said last week that its member groups would support the bill as long as Congress and the Obama administration plan to restore the food stamp cut in future legislation.''

We don't know where the pay-for is going to come from. We've got something on paper that says it's going to come out of food stamps, which was money borrowed in the stimulus bill, and yet we really don't know where that's coming from.

So, Madam Speaker, I am arguing that this bill is not what the people want. They want our children to be healthy and active, but they do not want to see government grow. They do not want to see the creation or expansion of 17 new programs. They do not want to see $4.5 billion of new spending. This is not what the people want. It's not what they can afford. This is not a bill I can support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.

I am.

Madam Speaker, with the clock winding down on the 111th Congress, there seems to be a rush to push through as many bills at the last minute as this majority can manage. Unfortunately, this sprint to the finish means the sacrifice of the deliberative process. This bill was sent to us from the other body with the demand that we accept it as is; that we cannot change a single comma or period, much less improve the policy.

This is a bill that never received a hearing or vote in the Education and Labor Committee. Not a single amendment was made in order for debate, which means here on the House floor Members were not permitted to even discuss possible improvements to the bill.

This motion to recommit is our last chance to improve the bill, our last chance to remove some of its most harmful provisions and insert stronger protections for our children; and that is exactly what we are attempting to do.

First, to protect the safety of children receiving meals in a child care setting, the motion to recommit requires comprehensive background checks for all child care providers. A comprehensive background check searches various criminal databases housed at the State and Federal levels, as well as the National Sex Offender Registry. With taxpayers subsidizing these programs, parents need the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their children are not being left in the care of individuals with a history of violence, child abuse, or other criminal behavior. In fact, many parents today may wrongly believe these child care providers have been given a background check because of the tacit seal of approval that comes with being a federally funded program. Unfortunately, Federal law contains no comprehensive background check requirement for child care providers that receive funding under these nutrition programs. Currently, only 10 States have a comprehensive system that includes a check of the Child Abuse and Neglect Registry, a check of the Sex Offender Registry, and a State and Federal fingerprint check. Simply checking the fingerprint of a current or future child care worker will help advance the safety of countless children.

Next, the motion to recommit eliminates the middle class tax included in this proposal. Any time the Federal Government forces a private citizen to reach into his or her own pocket and pay more for a good or service, it is a tax by any commonsense definition of the word, and that is exactly what this provision would do. It creates a Federal price floor for paid school lunches, a floor for paid school lunches, forcing many schools to increase the prices they charge the children who do not receive free or reduced price meals.

The National Governors Association and leading school groups have spoken out in opposition to this provision because it will drive up costs for families and punish schools that have worked hard to hold down costs while providing higher quality meals.

In a letter to Congress, the NGA wrote, this provision ``would establish a Federal mandate for every paid meal in every school in the country for the first time ever.'' They went on to say this will, ``price out some low-income families from paid school meals and punish school districts that in good faith have worked to increase the quality of school meals, while simultaneously holding down the paid meal prices.''

Allowing the Federal Government to create price mandates is a dangerous precedent and should not be set. By approving this motion to recommit, we can block this harmful tax on working families. We have thoroughly debated the broader objections to this legislation today, arguing against the spending and mandate, but that is not the debate we're having now.

This motion to recommit is a modest pair of corrections that will make the bill better. It will make our children safer and protect working families, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3940.

With great fanfare, this Democratic majority increased the federally mandated minimum wage as one of its first acts. At the time, many of us warned that without adequate financial relief or transition time, especially for small businesses, workers would be harmed by a proposal that was intended to help them.

We warned that teens seeking their first job and the chance to build work experience would have fewer opportunities. We warned that unskilled workers would be replaced by a smaller number of more highly skilled workers. And we warned that regions with comparatively low wages and living expenses would be especially hard hit because of the added cost to job-creators.

With nearly 15 million Americans searching for work, it's a terrible time to have to say we told you so.

In July 2007, when the first phase of the wage hike took effect, the national unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. For teenagers, the unemployment rate was 15.3 percent.

Today, while the overall unemployment rate stands at an unacceptably high 9.6 percent, the figure for teens is far worse: more than one- quarter of all teens are unemployed, a total of 26.3 percent.

Young African-American men perhaps bear the greatest burden from this irresponsible tinkering with the free marketplace. At the time Democrats passed their minimum wage hike, 31 percent of African- American teen males were unemployed; today, these same young men have a 50-50 chance of being unemployed.

No one would suggest federal wage mandates are the sole cause of this spike in unemployment. But the difference between the overall jobless rate and the number of teens who cannot find work is startling and should not be ignored.

Economists from the University of California, Irvine and the Federal Reserve reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the impact of the minimum wage around the time these increases began. They found overwhelming evidence that the least skilled and the young suffer a loss of employment when the minimum wage is increased.

Similarly hard hit by the wage requirement are the territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. A major tuna cannery in American Samoa closed its doors last year, laying off some 2,000 workers--roughly 12 percent of the territory's workforce. The second cannery has already laid off hundreds of workers and its future remains in doubt.

In April of this year, the Government Accountability Office reported on the how the wage rate harms these territories:

In American Samoa . . . Many employers reported having taken cost- cutting actions, such as freezing hiring and cutting worker benefits, since the increases began. Employers also reported planning actions such as leaving American Samoa or closing by the end of 2010. More employers attributed their actions to the minimum wage increases than to other factors. . . . In discussion groups, workers generally said that their support for the wage increases had dwindled because of concerns about issues such as the cannery closure, job insecurity, and loss of benefits.

Today, the House is voting on a measure to temporarily suspend the destructive federal wage mandates. Another increase is scheduled to take effect tomorrow, which makes immediate action imperative.

But we can't pretend the negative consequences of the minimum wage hike wreaking havoc on businesses in American Samoa aren't equally damaging to businesses in Muncie, Indiana. Or Le Center, Minnesota. Or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Or anywhere else a business is struggling to meet its payroll and provide opportunities for its workers.

I certainly support this small measure of relief for the territories. Congress should do everything it can to right any wrongs it imposes on the people we are here to serve. However, I hope we do not fail to learn the larger lesson: Federal laws that force one-size-fits-all mandates on vastly different workers, workplaces, and communities often do far more harm than good.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague. I thank my colleague for his words here this evening and for his leadership on this and on so many issues.

I just found it striking, Mr. Gingrey, that what you are talking about here is not only staggering debt, as the current chart indicates, but that you are talking about taxes. I want to take just a minute to put this into context.

We have been suffering with a struggling economy. We have watched the gross domestic product decline each quarter for the last three quarters. As you know very well, we have been looking at unemployment above 9 percent for 16 consecutive months, and this is after the passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill that the President said would keep unemployment below 8 percent. We have been at 9 percent or more and at 9.6 percent most recently, and now there is a proposal to impose the largest tax increase in American history on January 1, which is, of course, what will happen unless Congress takes action, unless the majority party in this body brings forth legislation that will keep that from happening.

I just wanted to join with my colleague, with Leader Boehner, with everybody on this side of the aisle, and with a growing number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say let's don't do that, who say let's don't raise taxes on any American. Particularly to the point you were making earlier, let's don't raise taxes on the job creators. We are trying to create jobs. We are trying to let the private sector create jobs at the same time the majority party here is talking about imposing a crushing tax increase on the very people on whom we are relying to create those jobs.

So I just wanted to stop by to applaud your efforts here, to thank you for doing this today, and to add my voice to a growing number in this body who say let's don't do this.

Madam Speaker, let's don't do this.

Mr. President, let's don't do this.

Let's do not add to the tax burden of those who are creating the jobs in the private sector. Let's don't increase taxes on anybody in America. I think we need to say that loudly and clearly, and I have increasing hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize that that is a terrible thing to do in this economy and that we must move quickly.

As my colleague knows very well, there is an election coming. Congress will go into recess again here in 3 weeks or maybe 4 weeks or sometime, and I don't think we should leave and go into recess until we have taken care of this issue.

Again, I thank my colleague, and I yield back my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying measure.

Madam Speaker, 18 months ago, we gathered in this Chamber to debate economic stimulus. Republicans wanted to help job creators, but the majority said, ``No, let's borrow and spend.'' And borrow and spend they did, to the tune of $862 billion.

Back then, the Democrats sent nearly $100 billion to States and districts to prop up school budgets. It would save 300,000 jobs, we were told, and improve public education. It was a one-time investment, we were told. They would not be back for more.

Yet here we stand. They are back for more.

I know my schools, I know there are challenges, and I understand the difficult budget decisions our governors, superintendents, and school boards are being forced to make. And I know a Federal bailout is not the answer.

Spending another $10 billion we do not have will not improve public education or protect the very best teachers. Earlier this year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told us, ``Today, the status quo clearly isn't good enough.'' Yet the status quo is exactly what this $10 billion will perpetuate.

Schools will continue to operate on last-hired, first-fired policies that ignore student achievement when deciding which teachers to keep in the classroom. These dollars are not targeted based on jobs at risk or student needs. This is nothing more than an across-the-board inflation of State spending.

Spending another $10 billion we do not have will not balance State budgets or bolster our economy. Because of major increases in the number of school personnel in recent years, States are operating education budgets they cannot afford.

At best, inflating State education spending for another year will kick the can down the road, merely postponing the tough decisions and allowing States to overextend themselves for another year.

At worst, another bailout will make States more dependent on the Federal Government and more susceptible to Washington's political whims.

Finally, spending another $10 billion we do not have is not good for our children and grandchildren. This bill is not ``paid for.'' We are looking at a Washington shell game of tax hikes and deficit spending gamesmanship. It dips into stimulus spending we could not afford 18 months ago to pay for even more stimulus spending we cannot afford today.

I oppose this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the underlying legislation.

I give this whole effort an ``F.''

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

Mr. Speaker, whistleblower protections are a longstanding part of our Federal safety and health laws. Simply put, they protect workers' ability to speak freely about dangers in the workplace. They allow working men and women to protect themselves and their coworkers. The ultimate goals of our worker safety laws should be that no worker ever needs to blow the whistle. We need a culture of safety in our workplaces, a system in which employers have the information and resources they need to comply with the law and avoid unnecessary risks to workers' health and safety.

But in those rare instances where employers are not following the law and workers' safety is at risk, we offer protections to those individuals who speak up. These protections are widely available to workers and enforced by the Whistleblower Protection Program at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

However, we recently became aware that a gap may exist in those protections. Safety on offshore oil rigs is overseen by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, unlike most workplaces where safety is overseen by OSHA. As a result, it is not clear whether these workers are covered by the OSH Act's whistleblower protections or any of the 17 other statutes enforced by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program. Some might argue oil rig workers are covered by the Maritime Transportation and Security Act, while others point to a 1983 agreement in which OSHA retained whistleblower authority for these workers.

In the few days since this legislation was introduced, we have found confusion and conflicting information. This confusion was illustrated in recent news accounts detailing the experiences of workers on the Deepwater Horizon who were concerned about safety practices on the rig but were afraid to voice those concerns. If workers themselves believe they can be fired or otherwise retaliated against for identifying safety concerns, we must create or restate those protections. It is as simple as that. Yet the bill before us is not so simple.

H.R. 5851 creates a brand-new whistleblower framework for any individual directly or indirectly involved with a company that drills on the Outer Continental Shelf. We all agree on the need to clarify protections for workers on the rigs, but what about other workers, those who are already covered by other law?

H.R. 5851 adds a new layer of legal processes, deadlines, and remedies for workers who are already covered. It creates legal confusion, particularly for those workers who would now be covered by parallel and possibly conflicting statutes.

I'm also troubled by the differences between these new whistleblower protections and those existing under current law. This bill seems to prioritize resolution by the Federal courts, adding costs and delaying results for workers who simply want to remain on the job.

These are the types of questions normally addressed through hearings and committee votes. Members weigh the opinions of Federal regulatory officials, legal experts, industry personnel, and workers themselves. We evaluate which agency would be best suited to enforce protections and remedies under the law, and we prevent duplication and confusion by clearly defining which workers are covered.

Unfortunately, we did not use that process for H.R. 5851. It was never given a committee hearing. It was never given a committee vote. Last month, the committee held a hearing to examine broad jurisdictional questions about which Federal agency is ultimately responsible for worker safety on offshore oil rigs. We heard from the Coast Guard, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Those agencies told us they did not know which Federal whistleblower laws, if any, applied to workers on oil rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf. There was confusion.

Since that time, the committee has heard no further testimony, received no further information, and considered no legislation. Yet, on Monday of this week, the majority introduced H.R. 5851 and promptly announced Members of the full House would be asked to cast a vote on whether these are the best protections for workers on oil rigs. And, as has become all too common, we are here under a closed rule with no amendments being considered.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue and it deserves a serious process, one it has not been given.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

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

I continue to reserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, the best way to keep our workers and our workplaces safe is through compliance. We write workplace safety laws for a reason, and we

expect employers to follow those laws. This is true for factories and family-run businesses, and it is true for offshore oil rigs.

We never want to see a workplace where laws are not followed and worker safety and health is put at risk. But if that happens, workers must be able to report those risks without fear of being discriminated against or losing their job. This is where whistleblower protections come.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces 18 separate Federal whistleblower statutes for workers who report violations of worker safety, airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, health care reform, nuclear energy, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad and securities laws.

Yet somehow, in this maze of whistleblower protections, it seems that workers on offshore oil rigs may not be fully protected. When we asked the agencies responsible for overseeing rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf, they told us they did not know which statute might apply. This is unacceptable.

I fully support the effort to ensure workers on offshore oil rigs have access to whistleblower protections. But I have concerns and questions about how H.R. 5851 approaches this goal, and I have serious objections to the manner in which this legislation was brought floor.

There has been no hearing, no markup, no committee report. There has, quite simply, been no legislative process, and it's no way to treat the oil rig workers we are supposed to be protecting.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, like every Member of Congress, I am deeply concerned for the safety of offshore oil rig workers. No worker who sees a hazard to health and safety in violation of the law should fear reporting the violation to the proper authorities. Effective workplace safety starts with compliance, and is enhanced by alert workers who help ensure appropriate safety rules are being followed. That is why I am asking all my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

This proposal extends the whistleblower protections in the Occupational Safety and Health Act to workers on offshore oil rigs. As I noted earlier, there are a number of concerns with the Democrats' proposal. It creates an entirely new whistleblower protection framework for workers directly or indirectly involved with offshore oil drilling, departing from the long-standing protections in existing health and safety laws.

The majority also fails to focus on oil rig workers, extending their untested form of whistleblower protections to various workers on land who are already protected by existing, and possibly conflicting, statutes.

Legal confusion and uncertainty are never good when it comes to workplace safety. Last month, the Education and Labor Committee heard from Federal officials who could not answer whether offshore oil rig workers have access to basic whistleblower protections. To date, the committee has not received a response to a request for clarification. Virtually every American worker enjoys these important protections, yet Federal officials did not know whether maritime law, Federal safety and health law, or some other law was fully protecting oil rig workers.

Despite this confusion, not a single followup hearing was heard in the Education and Labor Committee. Certainly there was no committee vote on this legislation. Just last night, the House Rules Committee held the first and only hearing this legislation has ever received. In fact, Members of Congress and the public have had less than a week to examine the bill and determine what effect it may have on the safety of oil rig workers or to what extent it may even be necessary.

If the majority is determined to rush this bill through Congress without examining the full consequences and context of the issue, I would, instead, suggest a straightforward approach that more fully relies on current law.

We believe offshore oil rig workers deserve whistleblower protections and the OSH Act offers us an opportunity to extend those protections immediately. The OSH Act has been the law of the land since 1978, more than 30 years. It has improved over time through congressional and administrative action. And by incorporating oil rig workers into existing protections, they will automatically be included into any future changes of the law.

In short, the Republican motion to recommit provides parity in whistleblower protections. The Democrats' bill creates confusion. Our approach gives certainty. The Democrats' bill creates legal conflict. Our approach has established case law. The Democrats' bill will take time to implement and understand. Our approach will provide immediate protections in a manner Federal authorities and workers already know and understand.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generosity of a benevolent donation to benefit the community of Lonsdale, Minnesota.

The Lonsdale public library is now home to a text enlarger that returns the gift of reading to those whose eyes aren't as sharp as they once were. Estimated to cost $1,800, this gift was made possible by Joseph Schiprett, a Lonsdale resident. Joseph purchased the machine for his wife who was losing her eyesight due to Diabetes. Helen, who never lost her love for reading, passed away in 2007, at which time Joseph shared this gift with the entire Lonsdale community.

As the Senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, I commend Mr. Schiprett for his selfless donation and investment in the continuing education of the Lonsdale community.

Madam Speaker, those of us privileged to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives do not do our jobs alone. We rely on the expertise and tireless energy of staff members who share our commitment to serving our constituents and our nation. As one of my staff members prepares to depart, I recognize and applaud his years of service to this, The People's House.

James A. Paretti, Jr. first came to Capitol Hill in 1987, and has served on the staff of the Education and Labor Committee since 2003. As Workforce Policy Counsel, Jim has helped reform and modernize employment policy with the overarching goal of protecting workers and fostering innovation among American employers. As an attorney, his dedication to and understanding of the law has been the hallmark of his service.

Jim's quick wit and powerful intellect have served members of the Education and Labor Committee well. He has proven to be a deft negotiator able to put principle above party and craft legislation in the best interest of the nation. Jim's contributions to the House are many, and we wish him well as he enters the next phase of a career dedicated to upholding, interpreting, and improving the laws that affect American workers and employers.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, countless families and small business owners are making the tough decisions needed to weather this difficult economy. Many may have hoped to put off for another day the choices they were forced to make, but the American people realize the path to renewing our economic prosperity comes through courage and sacrifice. They also realize the difficult work must start today.

It is a dereliction of public duty for this Congress to deliberately fail to pass a budget. More than a year ago, the American people ignited a national debate about the future they see for the country. They have demanded that Washington get spending under control and spend taxpayer money wisely. It is shameful that here in the people's House, the Democrat majority's avoiding that same debate. We are failing our children by failing to produce a budget. It is time to get our priorities straight and our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, let's join this debate taking place around the country and begin to make the tough choices the American people expect from their leaders.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1261, recognizing National Nurses Week. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) explained in some detail the history of this week and the importance of nurses to our communities, to our States, and to our Nation. I strongly endorse and identify myself with her remarks.

I want to just take a personal moment. This is an especially important week in my house and my life. My wife, Vicky, has spent her entire adult life as a nurse, as a registered nurse. She did a career in the Army as an Army nurse and worked for years in emergency rooms and trauma centers literally around the country as I was transferred from duty station to duty station. And so I feel the importance that comes with this very noble and important profession.

I know the care and compassion that comes with this profession, the lifesaving skills and the dedication. In my family, literally in Vicky's family, the nursing profession has long been part of that family. Her mother was a nurse. I have a niece, her niece is serving as an Army nurse. I have a sister-in-law who spent her adult life as a nurse. This is a profession that is, indeed, lifesaving and so important to our families.

I want to extend my grateful congratulations to all those nurses, men and women, who have dedicated their lives to serving those in need here and around the world. I ask that my colleagues support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I don't have any other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers and I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 1261, and I yield back the balance of my time.