Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 959, the Officer Daniel Faulkner Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act of 2010. I'm sure we're going to hear from my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) something about Officer Daniel Faulkner.

He represents a profession where the men and women serving put their lives on the line every day. And H.R. 959 honors this ultimate sacrifice that fallen heroic police officers and firefighters make by providing their children with a helping hand that they cannot be there to provide in furthering their education.

Children of fallen Active Duty service men and women are already afforded this same assistance. This act ensures police officers and firefighters are honored in the same manner as our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines for giving their lives to protect our safety.

Every year hundreds of police officers, firefighters, and other public safety officers die in the line of duty. Their jobs are inherently dangerous, and they accept this risk to protect America's citizens. It is important that we recognize their sacrifice and honor their lives. The Officer Daniel Faulkner Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act provides a fiscally responsible way to convey our gratitude and respect for those who sacrifice their lives to protect us.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 959, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1333. This resolution supports and honors Children's Book Week, which is in itself a celebration of the written word. And as my colleague so aptly said, today our children are immersed in a multimedia world. I know my grandchildren are unbelievably expert at video games. And I can't tell you how happy I am, how thrilled I am, when I see them sitting with a book.

I was so pleased to see that my oldest grandson followed in the line of his father and grandfather and great grandfather of seeking every available minute to get into the world of literature, to get into the written word, to read these books, going to the point of getting under the covers with a flashlight way after lights out time for bed. I think that's an important part of our children growing up.

I am concerned that many of our children are losing this touch with the written word. So I believe that the Congress expressing our support for the goals and ideals of Children's Book Week, the written word, is an important statement.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my constituents' concerns and frustrations over the health care bill that unfortunately is now law.

Last night, I hosted a telephone town hall meeting; thousands of my constituents participated. I invited them to discuss any issue that they chose; every single one spoke about this new health care law. And they had concerns. One man who called in said, I'm 72 years old, I'm retired, and I get my health insurance from my company. Are they still going to provide prescription drug coverage? That's a fine question.

The wife of a family practitioner said, My husband is 62, and his patients are asking whether he will be able to stay around. And he tells them it will all depend on the government. It's sad to me that he doesn't even get to make his own choice about whether or not he retires.

Last week, the Obama administration's own experts confirmed what we've been saying for a year: this bill costs too much. Mr. Speaker, it's time to repeal this law and replace it.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to honor the memory of the 29 miners who lost their lives in the Upper Big Branch Mine, and to express our gratitude to the rescue teams who bravely pursued a tragic recovery mission. The Nation watched in collective apprehension last week as mine rescue teams rushed from the coal fields of Appalachia to the small town of Whitesville to help their own. For a week we all clung to the hope that four missing miners might have found refuge. It was not to be.

Over the weekend, the mine rescue teams performed a more solemn duty, bringing these men out of the mine one final time. Under the best conditions mining is dangerous work. After an explosion the mines are even more treacherous. Mine rescue teams undertake rigorous training and exercise valiant resolve. Today we recognize their bravery in the face of danger and tragedy. H. Res. 1236 honors their commitment to service.

Chairman Miller has announced our intention to investigate this tragedy and seek answers on behalf of the families and the entire mining community. Our focus must be to determine what caused this devastating loss so we can prevent it from ever happening again.

The cameras have gone elsewhere and this tragedy has faded from the hourly broadcasts. For the families, however, the devastation of the Upper Big Branch Mine will never disappear. With this resolution we offer our condolences, we honor their loved ones, and we pledge our commitment to get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 2 minutes.

It has been suggested that today's action will be the final word on the health care debate that has consumed the attention of Washington and America for more than a year. I would suggest instead that much remains to be said and seen. The ink is hardly dry on the Democrats' government takeover of health care, but already we are seeing its devastating real-life consequences.

We discovered a loophole that leaves many young adults out of the reach of their parents' insurance coverage, despite the President's pledge that they will receive care today. We learned there is a gap in the law that allows insurance companies to continue denying care to children with preexisting conditions. Again, despite the President's claim to the contrary. And reports continue to document what this legislation has in store for workers at companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, and many others. Here's what they're telling us to expect: $100 million or more in compliance costs this year alone for just one of these companies, major changes to workers' current health care coverage, and higher taxes, which will mean higher costs for consumers.

These announcements arrived just days after the President signed his health care plan into law. We can only imagine what's in store for the American people as the weeks and months unfold and we begin to experience the full impact of the government control over one-sixth of our economy. These revelations are the obvious consequences of jamming a flawed bill through a flawed process. Mr. Speaker, a flawed bill jammed through a flawed process guarantees the health care debate will go on.

The American people have rejected a government takeover of health care, so let's reject this latest fix of the bill. Let's show the American people we will not accept even more job-killing tax hikes at a time when almost 15 million Americans, 15 million Americans are looking for work.

Let's show the American people we will not accept even steeper cuts to Medicare that will leave millions of seniors less secure.

Let's show the American people we will not exploit this economic crisis to launch a government takeover of student loans or take $9 billion from students to help fund government-run health care.

Let's show the American people we're ready to do better. Let's vote ``no.''

And now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished Republican leader, can I ask the chairman of the committee to confirm that he is the last speaker and will be closing? All right.

Then, at this time, I am very pleased to yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I came to Congress 7 years ago to do my part to make this country better. Every vote I cast and every policy I help shape must be judged by whether it achieves what my constituents sent me here to accomplish. As each Member of this, the people's House, prepares to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' tonight, we should all take a moment to remind ourselves of why we are here.

Our job is to ensure American employers have the tools and the freedom they need to sustain jobs and create jobs. Instead, this bill will destroy jobs at a time when we need them the most.

Our job is to ensure freedom, security and prosperity for future generations. Instead, this bill will be paid for by our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Our job is to legislate openly with integrity and fairness. Instead, this bill is full of back- room deals negotiated behind closed doors.

This bill is not what the American people want. They are imploring us to start over with reforms that will bring down health care costs while preserving the relationship between patients and their doctors. This is our last chance to stand up for the people who sent us here and display the courage to prove that we can do better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, Dr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, the ranking member of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time?

Mr. Speaker, then at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a senior member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mrs. Biggert.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month President Obama said, ``Everything there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everyone has said it.''

Perhaps he is right. Perhaps everyone in Washington has said all there is to say. The lines have been drawn, and the number of undecided votes is dwindling. But perhaps it is time for Washington to stop talking and start listening.

I am listening to the calls coming into my office, 13-1 against this legislation. I am listening to residents of Minnesota's Second Congressional District, who told me during a town hall last week 72 percent of them are opposed to this bill. I am listening to small business owners in my State and around this Nation who are paralyzed by the fear of new mandates, job-killing taxes, crushing Federal deficits, and more government control.

I am listening to the thousands of citizens who traveled to our Nation's capital this weekend to tell us in no uncertain terms they want us to kill the bill. I am listening, and what I am hearing is the American people shouting ``stop.''

They want us to start over. They want health care reform we can afford. They want reform that will bring down costs without sacrificing quality or personal freedom. Mr. Speaker, they want us to say ``no'' to this bill today so we can come back and do better tomorrow.

There is no question that there are Members in this body, Republicans and Democrats, who are ready to go to work on a much improved bill.

The die has not yet been cast. It is not too late. I urge my colleagues: Listen to the American people. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have been talking all day about this bill that is that 2,700-page Senate bill, this bill that increases bureaucracies and bureaucrats and gives more government power and more government control. We know the American people don't like it, and we are speaking against it.

But that is not bad enough. At the same time, using this convoluted parliamentary procedure, our Democratic colleagues want to have the government take over the student lending business, build up bigger bureaucracy, wipe out 30,000 private sector jobs, make the Department of Education one of the largest banks in the country lending $100 billion a year of money that we don't have, money that we have to borrow from China before we can lend it to students.

So whether it is health care or it is student lending, we are watching a massive growth of government power, size, and spending, and I deem that unacceptable.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4247, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that the incidents uncovered by the GAO are unacceptable. No child should be put in physical danger by the use of seclusion or restraints in school. The tragic stories just related by the chairman of Cedric and Paige are unacceptable everywhere.

In each of the cases reviewed by the GAO, there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. In other words, everyone agrees that what happened is simply wrong. We do not need a change in Federal law for such behavior to be condemned. Sometimes the most powerful tool we have as elected officials is the bully pulpit, and Chairman Miller and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers have certainly availed themselves of it. They have worked hard to call national attention to the misuse of seclusion and restraints in our schools.

States clearly recognize the need to proactively limit the use of these disciplinary tools. Today, 31 States have policies and procedures in place to govern when and how seclusion or restraint techniques may or may not be used. Another 15 States will have such protections in place in the near future. Many, many independent school districts and school boards have such procedures in place.

The question today is: Who is best equipped to create and enforce those

policies? To answer that question, I would point to a letter from the Council of the Great City Schools, which States, ``Every injury to a student in school is a matter of serious concern, but all such incidents are not necessarily matters of Federal law.'' In fact, until recently, the U.S. Department of Education was not even collecting data on the use of seclusion and restraint tactics in schools. The Department has no experience or expertise regulating in this area. Yet, H.R. 4247 would establish a new, one-size-fits-all Federal framework that overrules the work of these States.

I will include the letter from the Council of the Great City Schools in the Record, along with letters from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council for American Private Education, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

American Association of School

Administrators,

Arlington, VA, March 2, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The American Association of School

Administrators, representing more than 13,000 school

administrators and local educational leaders, would like to

express serious concerns with HR 4247, the Preventing Harmful

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act, which is expected to

be considered in the next few days. We ask that the voices of

rank-and-file teachers, principals, superintendents and

school board members be heard and that HR 4247, as reported

from Committee, be defeated.

The need to establish these particular federal regulations

for seclusion and restraint has not been established by

objective, carefully gathered and analyzed data. For example,

the report by the National Disability Rights Network upon

which HR 4247 partially relies mixes data from regular public

schools with data from schools for children with serious

behavioral disorders and institutions for students who are

regularly violent. Further, the incidents took place over an

unknown period of time--perhaps a decade or more. It seems to

us that most of those cases took place in settings serving

either the small percentage of students with serious behavior

disorders or the even smaller percentage of students who are

a violent danger to themselves or others. Finally, the NDN

report counts incidents of seclusion and restraint without

noting whether those events took place over a decade or some

other time period.

The Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of

Education is preparing to gather more objective information

this coming school year. We urge the House to await

objective, uniformly reported and analyzed data from OCR

before acting. Based on experience, we are sure that a

student in a regular public school is extremely unlikely to

be physically harmed, secluded in a windowless room, taped to

a chair or handcuffed to a fence by a teacher or

administrator. Just how unlikely such events are is unknown

because objective, uniformly gathered and analyzed data

simply are not available.

In addition, the report recently released by the U.S.

Department of Education states that 31 states currently have

policies in place to oversee the use of seclusion and

restraint and 15 states are in the process of adopting

policies and protections. Given this massive state action,

AASA questions the need for federal involvement on this

issue.

Reviews of HR 4247 by state-based teacher, administrator

and school board associations have identified a number of

serious flaws, which they have raised to their congressional

delegations, but so far their voices have not been included

in the discussions.

HR 4247 includes a prohibition against including seclusion

and restraint in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or

behavioral plan. The IEP and behavioral plans are the

communication platform for parents and school staff to

discuss the students' needs and corresponding school

interventions. Prohibiting the inclusion of seclusion and

restraint in the IEP or behavioral plans where past behavior

clearly indicates a need will only lead to further conflicts

and misunderstandings between parents and school staff.

The Protection and Advocacy agencies are given broad

undefined authority to enforce the new law. P&A agencies have

long monitored and investigated on behalf of disabled

students, but enforcement is new. Enforcement of federal law

has been the sole responsibility of state or federal

agencies. A bigger problem for school systems is that the

meaning of enforcement is undefined. For example, does the

enforcement authority permit P&A staff to enter schools

without checking in with appropriate school personnel? Arrest

authority? Authority to change school policy on the spot?

HR 4247's prohibition against mechanical restraints is too

broad and could prevent appropriate use of restraints in

emergency situations where students must be restrained to

protect themselves and others.

This legislation applies to both the special education and

regular education populations, and thus raises mandate

training and reporting costs for school districts. These

increased fiscal and operational burdens are accompanied by

minuscule authorization and few prospects for an

appropriation. A huge, new, unfunded mandate is difficult to

justify at a time when schools are cutting teaching staff and

stretching resources to balance budgets.

HR 4247 also prescribes a debriefing session for school

personnel and parents within 72 hours of the use of seclusion

or restraint, to address documentation of the antecedents to

the restraint or seclusion and prevention planning (although

it cannot involve the IEP). School staff are already over-

committed in their daily schedules. Imposing short, mandatory

timelines for extensive meetings will likely result in the

cancellation of other instructional commitments or missed

timelines and new litigation.

Finally, the tone of HR 4247 is relentlessly negative

toward teachers and administrators. This tone indicting all

teachers and administrators is unwarranted by plain

observation, is unsupported by any credible data and should

be eliminated. AASA is certain that every member of the House

knows at least one teacher or administrator who has dedicated

his or her professional life to the education and development

of children and who has never restrained or secluded a single

student, even if his or her career spanned over 40 years.

Thank you for your consideration. If there are any

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me for further

discussion of this important issue.

Yours truly,

Dan Domenech,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, I would like to yield myself a minute.

My friend from Illinois was just here. I'm sorry that he left. He underscored for me one of the many problems with this legislation. It turns out that Illinois is one of those States that actually has a very strong seclusion and restraint law. They passed it in 2001. It went into effect in 2002; and in 2006, there was an incident, one of those reported by the GAO, where a teacher restricted a child inappropriately. The teacher was prosecuted, found guilty, and yet I find it interesting that even today, or the last look that we had at this, she still has a teacher's certificate to be a substitute teacher in Illinois, something which this bill doesn't address either. We need to get these teachers out of the teaching business.

It just makes a point that when you pass a law, it doesn't automatically keep kids safe. You have got to enforce that law. You've got to educate folks, and you've got to have people locally take an active interest.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

I will be yielding to Mr. Souder momentarily, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

I wanted to touch on a couple of things that we have talked about in the course of this debate that I find to be interesting. We have heard an appeal from one of the Members here on the floor, I think it was the gentleman from Illinois, who said he was applauding this evidence-based approach. And yet we have heard other Members say we have insufficient data. I must admit that I fall in the latter category. We really don't know the extent of the situation.

We have heard the numbers quoted. California, for example, is quoted as having 14,000 incidents. We really don't know what is in those 14,000. These include emergency interventions. So we don't know if that's the case of a teacher breaking up a fight or stopping an argument. It is certainly not 14,000 cases of taping children to their chairs, and I don't think anybody in this body believes that is the case.

But the point is we don't know. We don't know, and yet we are using numbers as though they were gospel.

Look, on this issue let's start with what we agree on. We agree students and teachers should be safe at school. We agree children with disabilities are especially vulnerable because they may struggle with behavioral and communication problems that are difficult for teachers to control. As a result, children with disabilities have been more likely to be restrained or placed in seclusion when, in many cases, positive behavioral interventions could be much more successful and pose a lower risk to students.

We also agree that teachers must be able to protect students with serious behavioral problems from injuring themselves or their classmates or their teachers.

The only real disagreement, outside some dispute over the data and the evidence and the GAO report, and I find the GAO report particularly interesting because it cited 10 incidents of really egregious behavior in seclusion and restraint. Of course, one of those incidents was 18 years ago, two were 12 years ago, and the most recent was 4 years ago. It just seems to me, when we are going to enact this kind of legislation, this sort of Federal overreach, in my judgment, we ought to have better data.

So our only real disagreement is who should address the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. I believe States and local school districts have an obligation to keep their classrooms safe. I have seen real progress from the 46 States that have or will soon have their own policies to train teachers on how to handle difficult behavior and to ensure seclusion or restraints are only used to protect children from harming themselves or others.

I believe the Federal Government has historically limited its reach into private schools, and it would be a mistake to start applying new Federal mandates to independent schools that do not receive taxpayer funding. I also believe that we do not protect schools by empowering trial lawyers.

For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose H.R. 4247. Through hearings and public outreach, Members of Congress have successfully spurred a national dialogue about the dangers of these strategies for controlling student behavior. That dialogue is a positive step, as is the action it has prompted at the State and local level. Let's not discard the work of these States and districts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with the chairman. This is a technical amendment. It changes the short title of the bill and some other technical and clarifying changes to the bill. While I still cannot support the underlying bill, we have no objection to this. I will vote for it and encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at a town hall meeting in Faribault, Minnesota, just this past Friday night, a small business owner shared his frustrations that I am certain every Member of Congress is hearing from their constituents. And certainly, we heard the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) describe the frustrations he heard from small business owners in his great State.

Whether it's the stimulus that failed to create jobs, or the job- killing national energy tax, or this massive government takeover of health care, small business owners are worried.

My constituent said, ``I've had small businesses most of my life, so I understand when you would feel like hiring more people. Businesses want to know the rules, and they want a consistent future where they can project and plan.

``What's going on in the White House, with all these different bills and health care, it's a big unknown out there. Businesses are scared, and they have no idea what the future is. They don't want to invest, they don't want to hire. The economy's not going to rebound if they badger businesses the way they are right now.''

I say ``Amen'' to that, Mr. Speaker. Let's push these job-killing bills off the table and get together and work in a bipartisan way.

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

Madam Speaker, we have before us today more than 2,000 pages of legislative text that will give us public policy that costs more than $1 trillion and creates a huge morass of government bureaucracies. Over a hundred new offices, bureaus, commissions, and programs. Let's look briefly at just one of these new offices.

The Democrats empower a new super bureaucrat with unprecedented authority over personal health care decisions, the health choices commissioner, heading up the Orwellian health choices administration.

In the short time we have had since this legislation was made public, we have combed these pages--in the first part of these 2,000 pages--to see if we could get a picture of the responsibilities, authorities, and powers that were granted to this individual. As you can see, Madam Speaker, we actually had to go back to the supply store to get enough of these tabs.

This super bureaucrat, this health choices commissioner, it turns out will have powers to define, deny, deem, determine, assess, administer, and establish our health care benefits for all Americans.

It is no wonder that millions of Americans are afraid of a government takeover of our health care. How can they not fear such a thing? This is unprecedented, this amount of power granted to one bureaucrat. And, of course, there are other bureaucrats in this bill.

I don't believe that this bill should see the light of day. It certainly should not pass. It is a recipe for job losses. It is a clear power grab by Washington bureaucrats. It is a power grab. We ought to discard it altogether. Press the reset button, start over. We can do better. The American people deserve better. Let's vote ``no'' on this power grab by Washington bureaucrats.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, certainly a member of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Price).

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina, a former member of this committee and now a member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Foxx.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1

minute to a very important member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and the former ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am now pleased, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the ranking member on a subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to someone who tells me that he is, in fact, very proud he doesn't have a section in this bill, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, a practicing physician himself, the gentleman from Louisiana (Dr. Cassidy).

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from California, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There has been quite a bit of discussion here about how this bill is going to help small businesses and reduce their taxes. I think it is no accident that business group after business group, small business after small business, large business after large business across this country is opposing this legislation. It is the businesses who are going to bear the first brunt of the taxes, bear the costs, and that is going to be relayed to lost jobs.

For example, I have a whole list of organizations: the Associated Builders and Contractors; the Associated General Contractors; the International Franchise Association; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National Federation of Independent Businesses; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and on and on, oppose this bill because it does not help business. It puts a burden on them.

Now I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to another physician, a member of the committee who is not only a doctor, but a small businessman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Dr. Roe).

(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from my home State of Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, now I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to exactly the time remaining for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we have before us here is a true loss for American families seeking quality health care and American workers seeking quality jobs. It is remarkable that our colleagues believe 2,000-plus pages of more red tape, more power in the hands of the super bureaucrat, more taxes will do anything other than make health care more costly and more complicated and kill more jobs in this country.

Why, when we have a 10.2 percent unemployment rate, the highest in a quarter century, would we ever want to pass legislation that will destroy millions of jobs? It defies logic. Why would we want to strip Medicare from the seniors who depend upon it? Why would we want to pile debt on our children and grandchildren? Why would we want to raise health care costs? Why would we want to raise taxes? I have yet to hear an answer to these questions.

This bill is not health care reform. The American people deserve better than this. We can do better than this. Let's make the right decision. Stop this Big Government takeover of health care and return to the table for real reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the consequences and costs of the majority party's proposed government takeover of health care.

Despite the lack of bipartisanship and the absence of the transparency promised by Speaker Pelosi, the House is poised to vote this week on a bill that will give control of one-sixth of our economy to the Federal Government. Sadly, the $1.3 trillion price tag is not the only cost of this risky proposal. The bill also saddles Americans with 111 new boards, offices, commissions and programs, all of which will be required to implement Speaker Pelosi's takeover.

Further, this bill imposes hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes on small businesses, individuals who cannot afford health coverage, and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meets Federal bureaucrats' standards.

Mr. Speaker, these costs are far too much to ask the American people to bear. It is time to press the reset button and come together to create a health care proposal that meets the needs of every American and saves our economy from additional burdens we cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern

about the consequences of the majority party's proposed health reform to the members of our Greatest Generation.

As my colleagues have stated over and over today, the bill under consideration in the House would pose a major threat to our senior citizens. I'm especially troubled by the legislation's consequences for the more than 10 million Americans who rely on Medicare Advantage for their health care coverage.

In my home State of Minnesota, more than 230,000 senior citizens rely on Medicare Advantage. More than 17,000 of these men and women live in my district. And as their Representative, I simply cannot abide limiting their choices, let alone stripping them of their coverage completely. These are Minnesotans who, if they like their insurance, can't keep it.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Let's push the reset button and start over in a bipartisan way to write legislation, not behind closed doors, but out in the open.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the majority party's proposed government takeover of health care and its devastating consequences for small businesses across the Nation. Despite continued calls from me and my Republican colleagues for a bipartisan approach that expands access to affordable health care to all Americans, the majority party insists on engaging in closed door meetings that ignore the input of a significant proportion of Congress and the millions of constituents they represent.

Among the most damaging elements of their proposal is a punitive new tax on small businesses that cannot afford to provide the coverage the Federal Government decides is acceptable. My Republican colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee offered numerous amendments to protect the small businesses that drive our economy from these and other burdensome mandates that threaten their viability, but our attempts were rejected.

Madam Speaker, it is time to push the reset button on this flawed proposal. Members of all political persuasions need to start fresh and work in good faith to bring meaningful health care reform to our constituents and keep our small businesses thriving.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time, although I do not oppose this amendment.

In fact, I rise to say that we are going to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although at this time I do not expect to oppose it.

Madam Chair, this amendment kind of attempts to cobble together a new system that will provide students, families and colleges the types of delinquency prevention, default aversion and financial literacy services available today under the FFEL Program.

I do not oppose these types of activities; I support them. But the existence of this amendment, it seems to me, is proof that we are eliminating these important benefits by eliminating the FFEL Program.

Rather than figuring out a better way to keep the FFEL Program, to keep the private sector involved, the majority is attempting to wedge some of its components into the direct loan program. I am concerned that the net result will mean fewer students served with more red tape for those who do wish to obtain these services.

As I said, Madam Chair, I am not going to oppose this amendment, but

Members should know there is a much easier way to preserve the value- added elements of FFEL. Rather than destroying the program and working to recreate it, we can work to preserve and improve the FFEL Program.

Madam Chair, I yield back.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not plan to oppose it.

The purpose of this amendment is indeed laudable. It's to ensure that dislocated workers are considered in each State's postsecondary education planning. It's a reasonable goal. I support the goal. We should all support that goal.

But there is a rich irony here in that the underlying bill itself is going to create thousands of these dislocated workers. We have seen estimates of 30,000 or 35,000.

So if we are serious about helping dislocated workers, and I believe we are, we should scrap this underlying job-killing bill and find a better way to stabilize student lending for the long term.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I don't plan to vote against it.

Madam Chair, this amendment, it seems to me, is a little bit like putting a bandaid on what has proven to be a gaping wound. I don't think it's going to make many things worse, and it might even stop a little bit of the bleeding, but it certainly won't heal the damage.

H.R. 3221 eliminates a program that over 70 percent of colleges and universities have consistently chosen. This amendment is an acknowledgment that the breakneck pace of this transition by next summer will be a problem for students, families and schools.

While I share the concern about this radical change to our financial aid system, I fear this amendment may not do as much good as the gentleman from Texas hopes. The Department of Education already maintains a Web site on Federal aid programs and regularly disseminates information to high schools about the availability of Federal student aid.

In spite of information about the direct loan program, most schools still choose the FFEL Program. That tells me it's not a lack of information but a genuine preference for the choice, innovation and competition of the FFEL Program.

Informing students and families is important, but it's no substitute for simply maintaining the program they already know and they already like.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, clearly there is continuing disagreement over money that this bill saves or costs. The Congressional Budget Office provided an original score of a so-called savings of $87 billion. That same Congressional Budget Office has provided additional information which would indicate that this bill is going to put us further into deficit, further into debt by perhaps as much as $50 billion.

This is not a money-saving bill. This is, indeed, a government takeover of an industry. This will cost jobs despite the Etheridge amendment. This is a bad piece of legislation. I am going to support this amendment because it is at least a Band-Aid.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again I rise to claim time in opposition, although once again I am not going to oppose the amendment.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow States to provide education and training for early learning providers by entering into partnerships with higher education institutions. I don't oppose these partnerships at all, but I am concerned with the underlying language here.

What we are doing in the bill, we are diverting $8 billion to fund and impose requirements on State early childhood systems. In 2005 the GAO reported there were already 69 Federal early childhood programs spread out over 10 Federal agencies with no coordinated or comprehensive strategy.

It is not the partnerships to improve early learning provider training that cause my concern. It is the entire notion that the Federal Government is inserting itself yet again into pre-K education and other areas, especially when we have not yet met our obligation to very important programs like IDEA, creating new programs that once again will be underfunded, once again will compete with special ed. We ought not be adding new programs when we haven't met our basic obligations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although again I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a very worthy goal, and I applaud the gentleman's efforts in putting this amendment together. We should be doing things in all of our legislation that will strengthen the support that we provide for our men and women in uniform while they are in uniform, while they are overseas, when they come back, and when they take the uniform off. I applaud the gentleman and support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It was the gentleman's amendment. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair. Doesn't the opposite side have the right to close on these amendments as offered?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support this amendment. I support the comments of my colleagues from New Jersey and Mississippi, the author of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although, in fact, I'm going to support the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a good, laudable goal. I certainly hope it works. Financial literacy is in dire straits at every stage of our development. I don't know that this will do the job, but I certainly like the direction it's going.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although, once again, I do not plan to oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our higher education system should be focused on serving low-income and nontraditional students along with dislocated workers and veterans. In fact, some parts of the system are already working and working well. Community colleges and proprietary institutions, for example, are addressing this need. I do not oppose prioritizing these populations if we're providing grants for education and job training. But again, this amendment proves that H.R. 3221 was crafted hastily, failing to adequately address the needs of students and job seekers. It creates a new program that duplicates many of the purposes of the existing job training system under the Workforce Investment Act which is long overdue for reauthorization, I might add. Those populations are receiving assistance today under WIA.

I would also point out the perverse consequences of this bill coupled with this amendment. Under H.R. 3221, we will likely see significant job losses, creating those dislocated workers. Rather than adding to the number of dislocated workers, we should simply abandon this job- killing bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we're going to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We clearly have some differences of opinion on this legislation, as often happens in this body. I want to underscore a couple of things that the underlying bill, by mandating the public option, mandating a government takeover of an industry, does to expand the government's role. It creates new programs, it creates new expenses. It will cost jobs in the private sector.

And when you remove the budget gimmicks, and you look at the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, it is clear that it will add to the deficit. It will add to our debt.

And so we are looking at an underlying bill here that says it's better if we turn over to the Department of Education and the Treasury the responsibilities of lending $100 billion a year to students and getting the interest back from those loans.

Of course, we don't have the $100 billion. We are running a deficit this year

of $1.6 trillion, and we are looking at a debt in 10 years of $21 trillion. So in order for the government, now this huge bank, to have the money to lend, the government is going to have to go somewhere, China perhaps, and borrow that money so that it can lend the money. This seems to be a strange time to be doing this.

I think the underlying bill is flawed. I think it is a rush to a government takeover. It is going to add to our deficit.

So I rise in strong support of this amendment, which says let's take advantage of the private sector. Let's see if there is a way that we can strengthen it, encourage it. Let's take some time and continue with the bipartisan agreement ECASLA and look at the program before we push precipitously the entire industry into the hands of the government.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Once again Members on the other side of the aisle are frantically rushing to expand the reach and cost of the Federal Government. Well, if government expansion is what you are looking for, this is the bill for you.

H.R. 3221 eliminates the private sector-based Federal Family Education Loan program and shifts every student and every school in America into the Direct Loan Program beginning July 1, 2010, less than 10 months away.

It creates or expands numerous entitlement programs, spending tens of billions of dollars on everything from pre-kindergarten programs to school renovation to online course management.

Republicans offered more than a dozen amendments to this deeply flawed legislation, amendments that were designed to forestall the damage it is sure to cause, or at the very least, alleviate some of the most egregious spending and policy shifts. Six of those amendments were made in order, less than half. By comparison, Democrats offered a total of 32 amendments: 18 were made in order and another five were incorporated into the manager's amendment. That means in total 72 percent of the amendments offered by Democrats will receive a vote today.

A bad process often accompanies a bad bill, and H.R. 3221 is no exception. The Education and Labor Committee has a track record of working across party lines when it comes to education.

In recent years, our panel has approved a comprehensive renewal of Federal higher-education programs that incorporated ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. We also acted last year to avert a shutdown of the student loan programs by enacting, with bipartisan support, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act.

Apparently, Democrats have now decided to abandon that effort and pursue a partisan goal they have harbored for more than a decade. Bipartisanship has been cast aside, as this rule reflects.

If Democrats wanted to pursue a thoughtful, careful, bipartisan approach to stabilizing the student loan programs and reducing our deficit, they would support the Republican alternative which we plan to offer later in the debate. That's one amendment that was made in order under this rule, and I am certainly glad it was. Our amendment offers a commonsense solution that allows us to slow down and carefully consider what is best for students, schools, and taxpayers.

Shifting to 100 percent direct lending will radically alter the way students pay for college. It will cause upheaval at colleges and universities from coast to coast as schools scramble to make the personnel and infrastructure changes necessary to administer a program that is run by the Federal Government.

This is a serious issue that deserves a serious debate. And what are we doing about it? We are giving it a few hours this afternoon and tomorrow morning before casting our votes and turning our attention to the next thing.

Students deserve better. Families deserve better. The tens of thousands of Americans who stand to lose their jobs deserve better. And taxpayers--who ultimately foot the bill for this measure, this massive expansion of government--deserve better.

We have had discussion already this morning about the costs of this bill. And they are certainly confusing and debatable. Proponents say and have said it will save billions and reduce the deficit. Others say it will add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, as Mr. Dreier was addressing earlier.

In fact, I was looking at a story from McClatchy Newspapers coming out of Kansas City, discussing an independent analysis of this program, and it says, ``Changes in the loan program will `save a big chunk of money,' said Marc Goldwein, the policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a watchdog group. Will it be the right amount to offset the new spending? The obvious answer is we don't know.''

He warned that the new system's fiscal outlook would be ``particularly uncertain because it would depend on economy-related factors such as default rates, need-based aid, and other factors.''

In fact, that's why the Congressional Budget Office, in looking at this bill, has amended, although not officially by the rules of this House, its estimate. The letter that Mr. Dreier talked about, addressed to Senator Gregg, they said if we had used market risk-based analysis like we did in the TARP program, this bill wouldn't ``save $87 billion, but some $33 billion less.'' And if we counted the discretionary spending--over $13 billion--it would cost more. And if we looked at the real cost of Pell Grants, it would cost another $11.5 billion more.

So I think those that say that this is going to impact the deficit, increase the deficit, have the arguments in their favor. I understand it's debatable. But what is certainly clear, what is not confusing, is that this bill is an expansion of the government, with new programs and new spending. It is a government takeover in an industry. And it will result in a loss of jobs.

I wanted to address just a couple of comments that have already been made today in this debate. I felt the pain when my colleague from Colorado talked about the student that was paying some 15.5 percent interest. That's not a FFEL program. That interest rate is capped. We want to make sure that such a program exists and people aren't paying those kind of interest rates.

Then, I'm always struck when one of my colleagues says, Well, we're trying to eliminate waste and inefficiency by going to a government program. My colleagues, that just defies history, to find a government program that reduces waste and inefficiency. The stories are rampant. We know in every department huge amounts of waste and inefficiency, whether it's a $500 or $600 hammer in Defense acquisition or money wasted on trailers sitting in fields after hurricane recovery efforts. The Federal Government does not reduce waste and inefficiency. That defies history.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.