Floor Statements

One of the previous speakers said that he wanted to empower the parents of the District of Columbia. I agree. I think we should empower the parents of the District of Columbia to elect a representative who has a vote in this Chamber. Why don't we start with that?

The irony of the proposition that this bill is allegedly about empowerment of adults in the District of Columbia and their children comes from people who, I assume, would resist the notion that the representative of the District of Columbia should have a vote in this Chamber.

And let me bring up some very recent history. Under our majority, votes in the Committee of the Whole were, in fact, accorded to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. On the first day of the new majority, it repealed her right and the rights of others from the territories to vote on matters in the Committee of the Whole.

There is one issue in this bill: Taxation without representation is tyranny. Decisionmaking without representation is wrong. The duly- elected representative of the people of the District of Columbia supports this amendment and opposes this bill. So do I for that reason.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we should consider a bill reorganizing the public schools of Cincinnati, Ohio, because we have just about as much prerogative to do that as we do this.

Support the amendment. Defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce much-needed legislation to benefit one of the most deserving groups of workers in our nation. The National Guard Technician Equity Act will go a long way toward correcting many wrongs in several outdated laws that harm the men and women who serve our country.

National Guard dual-status technicians are a unique group of workers. They are civilian employees of the National Guard in all 50 states and each territory. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they also must serve in either the Air or Army National Guard. These men and women serve the National Guard in a variety of capacities, from helicopter, airplane, and tank mechanics to clerical and support workers. National Guard technicians also serve their country on the military side of their jobs--during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and on state active duty in events such as Hurricane Katrina, forest fires, and floods.

The primary law that covers National Guard dual-status technicians is the Technician Act of 1968. Because of many outdated and unfair provisions in this law, technicians receive the worst of both worlds-- on the civilian and military side of their jobs. My legislation, the National Guard Technician Equity Act, will correct these injustices.

First, the Technician Act requires that if a technician is no longer fit for military duty, then that person must be fired from their technician position, even if they are fully capable of performing their civilian duties. In a time in our nation with record unemployment, we should not be losing experienced, expert employees like this. My legislation would allow technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of creditable service as a dual-status technician. This not only will retain some of our best and brightest, but also will clear the way for other National Guard members to advance in the military ranks.

Second, the Technician Act bars technicians from having the same appeal rights as most other federal employees--including their counterparts in other Defense Department positions. Federal employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance in the event of an adverse action (typically a long suspension or termination of their employment), and then proceed to arbitration; otherwise, they have the right to file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, a neutral federal agency. While technicians can file a grievance, they can only appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, not to any neutral third-party. My legislation will allow National Guard technicians the same right to appeal their case to a neutral party that most other federal workers have.

Third, most National Guard members are able to enroll in the TRICARE Reserve Select program, a key health benefit. However, despite the requirement that National Guard dual-status technicians must join the Air or Army National Guard, they are ineligible for TRICARE or TRICARE Reserve Select. Instead, technicians can only participate in the FEHBP program. FEHBP plans are generally significantly more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select. My legislation takes the common-sense step of studying the feasibility of including National Guard technicians in the TRICARE or TRICARE Reserve Select programs.

Fourth, National Guard technicians also receive the worst of both worlds--military and civilian--when it comes to retirement. The FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision to provide technicians who started work after 1996 to have ``special category'' civilian retirement. This means that they can retire somewhat earlier than most other federal workers, due to the dangerous nature of their jobs. However, technicians who were already working for the National Guard on or before 1996 were exempted from this improved retirement. My legislation will ensure all National Guard technicians--regardless of when they started work--will have the same retirement. Further, although active duty members of the military can retire after 20 years of service at any age, National Guard members, including technicians, must wait to retire until they are 60 years old for full military retirement. A provision in the FY 08 NDAA allows National Guard members to retire 3 months early for every year of service, but that provision does not go far enough. Since technicians can be fired from their civilian position if they cannot meet their military requirements, many of them depend on their civilian and military retirement if this occurs. Therefore, my legislation will ensure technicians--and all other members of the National Guard--receive a fairer military retirement by reducing the age of normal military retirement from age 60 to age 55.

Finally, my legislation corrects other injustices that harm technicians and treat them differently than their civilian and/or military counterparts. They include: requiring the federal government to pay FEHBP premiums during Emergency State Active Duty; doubling the amount of military leave for all federal employees in the National Guard; giving technicians the same right during a reduction in force that other federal workers have; giving technicians the same access to enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses and student loan repayment benefits that other National Guard members receive; and the right to receive overtime pay for overtime worked.

National Guard dual-status technicians have waited 43 years for Congress to correct these inequities and injustices. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation that benefits the brave men and women who so proudly serve our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Freeholder Riletta Cream for her contributions to New Jersey as an educator and as a Camden County Freeholder.

A native of Camden City, Freeholder Cream has devoted her life to improving Camden County. Freeholder Cream began her career in education, rising from teacher to principal during her 37 years in Camden County Schools. Since 1994 she has also worked as an adjunct professor at Rowan and Rutgers Universities instructing student teachers. On January 3, 1991, the Riletta Twyne Cream Family School opened its doors to the next generation of Camden's children.

In 1994, Riletta Cream was appointed to the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and was re-elected three times. In her capacity as Freeholder, she served as a liaison to the Departments of Buildings and Operations and Education. She also worked to restore the Camden City Council Chambers, implement the construction of two new libraries, and install computers in every classroom in the city.

Working as an Educator and Freeholder of Camden County, Riletta was a steadfast public servant. After announcing her retirement, Riletta said that her time in service has been a joy. Speaking as a former Freeholder, I share in her joy and commend her for her accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Freeholder Cream has served Camden as a passionate civic leader and am confident that her service will continue to set an example for all citizens of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor George E. Norcross, III for his service to Cooper University Hospital and the health care community of South Jersey.

Mr. Norcross, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Cooper Health System, was named the ``2011 Healthcare System Trustee of the Year'' by the New Jersey Hospital Association.

A member of the Board of Trustees of the Cooper Health System since 1990, and Chairman since 2006, Mr. Norcross has brought significant improvements to the South Jersey health care community. Among his accomplishments are the expansion of the South Jersey and Camden Health Sciences Campus and the establishment of the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, which plans to open its doors in 2012.

Through his strong leadership and dedication to Cooper University Hospital, Mr. Norcross has helped influence development of the surrounding neighborhoods, including new and revitalized housing, the establishment of three parks and aesthetic improvements to streets and landscaping.

In addition to his work on the Board of Trustees of Cooper University Hospital, Mr. Norcross serves as Chairman of the Annual Cooper Norcross Run the Bridge, a 10k race that supports the Larc School in New Jersey, a school for children with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Norcross on his receipt of the ``2011 Healthcare System Trustee of the Year'' award and thank him for the service he has provided to Cooper University Hospital and the residents of South Jersey.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for at least 15 million Americans, this is another day without a job, and tomorrow will be another Friday without a paycheck. What are we doing?

After 11 consecutive weeks of this majority producing not a word, not a bill, not one idea about how to create jobs, what we're doing this morning is debating whether or not to defund and get rid of National Public Radio. Now, the excuse that we've heard is that, well, this will save money. A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office says this will save zero. So what we are doing is spending the time of the country on whether to defund National Public Radio.

Here is what we should do instead: With gasoline prices approaching $4 a gallon at the pump, why don't we cancel out $40 billion in giveaways to the oil industry. Why don't we take most of that money and use it to reduce the deficit, and why don't we take some of that money and use it to put Americans back to work, building clean water systems, schools, roads, research facilities, and other things that we need? Why aren't we debating that bill? Now, Members of Congress can say they disagree with that bill. They could amend it. They could vote for it or against it. Why don't we debate that bill instead of whether or not to pull the plug on National Public Radio?

Eleven weeks, not one idea on jobs, not one word of debate on jobs, and abandonment of the issue Americans care most about. I am hopeful that the leader on our side of the Rules Committee will give us a chance to vote on a real bill to create jobs for the American people.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as we began this week, there were 15 million unemployed Americans looking for this Congress to work together to try to get something done for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs. What has the Congress done? Yesterday, the majority managed, only with the help of a few dozen Democrats, to keep the government running for the next 3 weeks because they couldn't agree among themselves as to what to do with the budget. Today, they're taking up this bill that, rather than fixing a flawed program, they rip it up from the roots and throw it out. Tomorrow, they're going to pull the plug on National Public Radio.

Now, I would suggest if you're like some of those 15 million Americans who are spending the day at the public library in front of Monster.com or looking at the want ads in the newspapers, wearing out your shoe leather to figure out where your next job is going to come from, this has not been a great week. Eleven weeks the majority has been in control--no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no jobs idea. Not one word, not one bill, not one minute.

The priorities of this majority are wrong.

Republicans and Democrats should come together, work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for the American people. Eleven weeks--no jobs, no sense of priorities. That's the record of this majority.

I thank my friend.

I want to agree with my friend from Texas that investing in transportation construction creates jobs. We agree with him. And I would ask the gentleman if he would support our Build America bill that offsets the deficit by cutting job outsources and creates more transportation construction jobs. Would he agree to put that on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, we'll give the gentleman a chance on the previous question motion, perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, there are 15 million unemployed Americans as we meet this afternoon, and this is the 11th consecutive week that the majority has not brought to the floor a bill for us to work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs could create jobs for our country.

Now, I do agree with the proposition that one of the ways that we could have jobs created by small businesses and entrepreneurs is to improve the country's fiscal standing and give us low long-term interest rates in the long run; and reducing our deficit is a key part of doing that. So I think the issue is not if we reduce spending; it's how we reduce spending.

And I do think we should stop sending money to the Brazilian Cotton Institute. I think we shouldn't spend $1.5 billion for the Police Department in Baghdad when American cities are laying police officers off around our country.

And I certainly don't think we should be giving $40 billion in subsidies to the oil companies that made $77 billion in profit last year and are raising gasoline to four or five bucks at the pump. I think those are areas we ought to agree on and get this budget done.

But 11 consecutive weeks without a bill that helps small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs is 11 weeks too many.

I do, however, Mr. Speaker want to compliment the majority on a good decision I think they've made in this bill. There's an argument in this country about whether to repeal the health care bill or not. We think that would be a surrender to the insurance industry and hurt the American people, and we're against that repeal.

And there's an argument in this country about whether Planned Parenthood should continue to get funding for women's health services. Most of us think it should, and many on the other side think it should not.

These are legitimate debates. They are not debates that should result in a shutdown of the Federal Government, however. The right thing to do is to agree on the budget and then agree to disagree on repealing the health care bill and funding for Planned Parenthood later down the road.

And I would commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Rules Committee for putting on the floor this afternoon an extension that does not defund the health care bill, that leaves it in place, and an extension that does not defund Planned Parenthood, that leaves the funding for that in place.

I think that's the result that we should have in the long run. I think the budget that we adopt between now and September 30 should continue to fund the health care bill, as this bill does, and should continue to fund Planned Parenthood, as this bill does.

But I commend the majority for its decision to leave those issues out of this bill so that these issues are not wrapped up in this.

I thank the gentleman.

Look, there is a significant national debate about whether insurance companies should be able to deny someone health coverage because they have leukemia or diabetes. We think they shouldn't be able to do that because of preexisting conditions. Others disagree with us.

We think that if a young woman needs counseling and services on her gynecological health, that there should be a Planned Parenthood clinic available to her. Others disagree with that, and we respect that debate.

But to tie up the operation of the Marine Corps and the FBI and the other aspects of this government over those social policy disputes is a big mistake. It's a mistake the majority has avoided in this resolution that's before us today, and I think that's a wise choice. I hope that the majority continues to avoid that choice.

Let's agree on a budget that creates the conditions to help small businesses and entrepreneurs put America back to work, and let's leave the political debates out.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the gentlelady from Illinois who just spoke, who said what the American people want is jobs. I agree with her. And when we assess the record of the new majority on this issue, I think we have to assess that it's found very wanting.

This is the 10th week of the new majority. In 10 weeks, they found a way to shut down women's health clinics by defunding Planned Parenthood. They've found a way to essentially repeal 30 years' worth of protections for our drinking water and our air and our land. They've found a way to pass a budget that cuts education, that saps strength and energy from our job creators in this country, but they haven't found one bill, 1 minute, one debate over a plan to work together to create jobs for the American people.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people want Republicans and Democrats to come together and figure out an environment that will encourage entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs for our country. The majority has, frankly, done everything but that. And today is yet another bill that I think is a wasted opportunity in that regard.

I view today's debate through the eyes of three constituents I interacted with at home this weekend. One was a gentleman who runs a music distribution company. They produce CDs for people who have written and recorded music and don't have a label yet so they can get their music out to the rest of the world. He employs 500 people, and he wants to grow. And in order to grow, he needs people who are facile with various software and other technologies that will help his company grow. He depends upon graduates from our community colleges and our 4- year colleges and universities. And he didn't understand why the majority wants to cut the maximum college scholarship under Pell Grants by $845, thereby taking employees away, conceivably, from him by taking them out of school.

It's the homebuilder that I met who really can't call himself a homebuilder anymore because he's not building any homes, and he wonders what we're doing to try to restore faith and confidence to the real estate market so that Americans will feel secure and confident enough to buy a home and put him and his workers back to work. He wonders what we're doing.

It was the gentleman I met yesterday who runs a biotech company that has two employees, and he depends on contracts from the National Institutes of Health to do research on various pharmaceutical products. He wants to double the size of his company, put just two more people to work, but he won't hire them as long as the threat of a government shutdown is imminent.

This is the wrong bill at the wrong time on the floor.

I thank the gentlelady.

What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans and Democrats, to cut spending, to find ways to sensibly cut spending. Many of us on the floor, for instance, 2 weeks ago voted to not send $1.5 billion to Iraq to fund their police department. Many of us voted not to spend a substantial amount of money for the Brazilian Cotton Institute. Many of us voted to say that if you make over a quarter of a million dollars a year as a farmer you shouldn't get a crop subsidy. These are areas that we agreed upon to reduce spending.

Let's work to sensibly reduce spending but let's not cut education and let's not undermine jobs. By all means, let's bring to the floor a bill that says to my friend that runs the music production company, we will help train the workers that you need; that says to my friend that wishes he were a homebuilder, we will talk to these banks that have record amounts of money in their balance sheets and get them lending money again so people can buy a home; and says to our friend that's running the small biotech company, you don't have to worry that there's going to be gaping cuts in the research budget of the National Institutes of Health, we're going to fund them, and they're going to continue to pay people to be the best and the brightest and find cures to diseases, and you can hire those two more people.

Ten weeks, no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no cooperation to produce an environment where small business and entrepreneurs can put America back to work. Let's put aside our differences. Let's get to work on solving the real problems of our country.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and affection for my friend from Texas. He's a valued Member of this House and someone who cherishes this institution and represents his constituents well. I would like to respond to two of the points that he's made.

First, he makes reference to this 800,000 job loss as a result of the health care act. There was a prediction made before the final version of the act was put together, very early in the process, by a group that frankly is rather ideologically to his side of the aisle, that predicted that 800,000 jobs would be lost. In fact, most economists have argued that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gained, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, than predictions is reality.

The health care law was signed into law almost a year ago, and I wonder if anyone on the majority side could tell us how many jobs the economy has lost in that year. How many jobs has the economy lost since the health care bill was signed into law?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, the answer is that the economy has added over 1 million private sector jobs since the health care law was signed into effect, so predictions of great job loss have turned out not to be the case.

Secondly, the gentleman made reference to the sort of great opposition to this law around the country.

I thank my friend for yielding.

So the fact here is that despite this prediction of 800,000 jobs lost, in fact, the economy has gained more than 1 million private sector jobs since this happened.

But I want to address one other thing that he said. He said that our goal is to ``knock the Republicans off their game.'' We do not think this is a game. We think 15 million unemployed people is a very serious national crisis, and we do not want to play a game. We want to come to an agreement that would create an environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs to create jobs for the American people.

He mentioned sacred cows. We don't think college scholarships are wasteful spending. We don't think that student loans are reckless spending. We don't think that reading teachers and math coaches for our neediest children is wasteful spending. We don't think that job- training grants for people who have lost their job is wasteful. We think that cutting those programs wastes jobs in the private sector. That's why we oppose their reckless budget plan. That's why we beseech the majority, let's get to work putting Americans to work.

I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that if we went to a mall this afternoon in our country, or a diner, or some other place where people gather--maybe people waiting outside of school to pick up their kids-- and said, ``What would you like to see Congress work on this week?'' I think most of them would say, ``Why don't you work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs, because there are 15 million unemployed Americans and we need to put people back to work.'' Others of them might say, ``I'm concerned about educating my children. I have college-age children, and I'm looking at the cost of paying for college education, and I'm extremely concerned I'm not going to be able to educate my kids.'' Others might say, ``I'm worried about my parents. My mom or my dad live with me and their prescription costs are going through the roof and it's a major problem for them. I'm worried about health care for my parents.''

I'm sure there are some--there are many--who would say that they're worried about wasteful government spending, that they do want to see this government not waste their hard-earned money. And I guess there are some who would say there's this mortgage program that's been running for a couple of months, and I really think you should do something about that and get rid of it. There are some, and there will be debate about the merits of doing that.

But if we look at the record of this majority, 10 weeks of hearing those concerns and they are 0 for 10. Ten weeks, not one bill about jobs. Not one idea about jobs, not one effort to create an environment that small businesses and entrepreneurs would thrive in, and this is week number 10 and not a word.

Earlier, in the last debate, the gentleman from Texas said that the Republican job plan was to repeal the health care bill. That was their jobs plan. Well, that ignores the reality that since the health care plan was enacted, about 1.4 million jobs have been added to the economy, almost a quarter of a million of them in health care itself. So that's their jobs plan.

Their education plan is to go to a woman who's working part-time, raising children and trying to go to school, and reduce her college scholarship by $845, so that she probably has to either stretch the years in which she's in school or throw in the towel on her education altogether.

Their education plan is to take 10,000 reading teachers out of America's classrooms and 7,000 special education teachers out of America's classrooms. That doesn't sound like a very educated education plan to me.

I thank the gentleman.

And, frankly, as far as the price of health care is concerned, if they succeed in repealing the health care bill, the price of prescription drugs will go up for people's moms and dads, not down. Jobs. Ten weeks. No plan. The cost of education. Ten weeks. A bad plan that raises the price of education. The prescription drug problem for seniors. Ten weeks. A bad plan that raises the price of prescriptions for seniors.

A lot of Americans would probably say they don't like the idea of paying $4 or $5 a gallon for gasoline at the gas pump. No plan from the majority. So we'll have a debate on the merits of this bill; but with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. The American people want us to work together to create jobs, make education affordable, and make health care affordable, particularly for senior citizens in this country.

The majority is 0 for 10. Let's make this week the one that we break their losing streak and work for the people of our country.

Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, let's take the next 2 weeks to try to work together to do the right thing for the American people.

I believe that the right thing for the American people is to come up with a budget plan that sensibly reduces spending but does not put American jobs at risk. What do I mean by this? What do we mean by this? Let me give you an example.

I think that a policy that says that oil companies, which made $77 billion in profit last year alone, can drill on federally owned property that's offshore and not pay anything in royalties to the American taxpayer is wasteful, and we should stop it. I think provisions that say that there are tax loopholes for companies that outsource jobs out of our country are wasteful, and we should stop them. Let's get rid of those things from our budget.

But let's not follow the reckless plan of the majority that says in education, let's cut funding for 10,000 reading tutors and math coaches. In education, let's cut funding for 7,000 teachers of autistic children, children with a learning disability. In border security, let's cut funding that's used to pay the people who board ships and inspect containers that come into this country to make sure they don't have dirty bombs in them. In public safety, let's not cut funding that will lay off police officers and firefighters in towns around our country. In health care, let's not cancel hundreds, if not thousands of research grants, where our best researchers are working on cures for cancer, or dementia, or diabetes. These are reckless cuts.

The problem with the Republican plan is not just that it disrupts the United States Government; the problem with the Republican plan is it disrupts the United States economy. And this is why the leading economist for John McCain's Presidential campaign of 2 years ago says this plan the Republicans are offering will cost 700,000 jobs. That's why the largest investment bank in the country, in a nonpolitical way, says that this Republican plan will cut in half the economic growth the country is counting on for this year.

Let's not disrupt jobs in this country. Let's cut wasteful spending. Let's go after corporate welfare, not special education. Let's go after oil company giveaways, not Head Start. Let's get back to the business of debating job creation in the private sector in our country, not defunding Planned Parenthood.

There are 15 million unemployed Americans as we meet here this afternoon. Let us resolve in the next 2 weeks to put their interests first, to sensibly reduce spending where we can, to invest in education and health care where we must, and get on with the people's business.

I would ask the gentleman what the sales tax rate would be on his fair tax proposal on American families for buying something?

What is the sales tax rate?

Twenty-three percent on every purchase.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I hope that we are beginning to usher in in the next 2 weeks a season of compromise on this very important question before the country. I hope and I am confident that Chairman Rogers and Mr. Dicks are capable of striking a very sound compromise for the people of our country.

Here is where we are. When the fiscal year began on October 1, there were a series of resolutions that said let's live under the budget that spent what last year spent, and we have lived under that budget until this time. That budget saves $41 billion below what the administration asked for last February.

The majority, about 10 days ago, passed a bill that said it wants to spend $100 billion less than what was proposed by the administration last February. Now, logical people would say that we are very well on the way to a sensible compromise.

We are on track to save $41 billion below what was requested. The majority wishes to spend $100 billion less than that.

I am certain that talented legislators like the chairman, like Mr. Dicks, left to their own devices and leadership, can find a way to have us strike a middle ground for the rest of the fiscal year. I am hoping that this is the last one of these temporary extensions we have so that those who rely upon the continuing funding of government departments-- vendors, employees, and institutions--will be able to do so.

I think it's fertile for a good compromise, and I certainly hope the House reaches it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the Administration to stand with Israel and veto the proposed anti-Israel United Nations Security Council resolution. Any compromise in our support for the State of Israel would be detrimental to efforts to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East. The United States should veto any resolution that endangers our allies in the region and threatens the

future of the peace process. We must stand with Israel and veto this resolution in the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

The gentlelady from Connecticut's point of order should be sustained, and, frankly, the chairman's arguments are deficient in two respects:

First, he notes that the chairman of the Budget Committee's opinion is that the point of order should not be sustained. Although I realize that the chairman of the Budget Committee's opinion by custom is given some sort of special gravity on these kind of questions, with all due respect, the Chair is the Chair. The Chair is the authority here, and the Chair's responsibility is to follow the rules of the House which very clearly state that a piece of legislation that has a net increase in budget authority is out of order under these circumstances.

Secondly, the chairman makes the argument that this is not a change in substantive law. One first would wonder why it's then being offered. But secondly, it seems to me that if agents of the executive branch have a responsibility and that responsibility includes discretion as to how to carry out a certain law, prohibiting them from carrying out that responsibility and limiting their discretion is, in fact, a significant change in substantive law.

On those grounds, I would urge that the point of order be sustained.

Mr. Chairman, all across the country this morning, millions of Americans got up for another day of searching the job search Web sites or looking at the want ads, enduring another day of courtesy interviews, pointless discussions with potential employers, and dreading the arrival of the letter carrier today because he is going to bring one more credit card bill or dunning letter for a bill that they can't pay.

Life has become a nightmare for 15 million unemployed Americans--and here we are in the House of Representatives. I don't think many of them got up this morning and said, I really hope that Congress for the second time in a month debates the repeal of the health care law. I think what our constituents said was, Why don't they get to work, working together to create jobs in this country?

Instead, the Tower of Babel that the House of Representatives has become this week has produced yet another meaningless debate on the repeal of the health care law, which followed on the heel of defunding Planned Parenthood last night.

Now, it's not bad enough what this bill doesn't do in having us work together to create jobs for the American people; it's bad in what it does do. It's very important that the Members understand the real-world consequences of the chairman's amendment.

If his amendment passes and if the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes wake up one day to discover that an insurance company won't sell their son or daughter insurance because that child has juvenile diabetes or that an insurance company will charge them four or five times the amount of the premium because the child has juvenile diabetes, the person at the Department of Health and Human Services who can step in and stop the insurance company from doing that won't be able to, because this amendment says, let's tie the hands of the people here to enforce the law.

If an insurance company says to a family who is grappling with a malignancy or a brainstem injury for their son or their daughter, ``You've run out of coverage. You've hit your lifetime limit. Too bad, so be it,'' the person who would be in a position to do something, to require an insurance company to pay those hospital bills, won't be able to do that because this is happening.

With all due respect, we've had a debate about using names this morning. I think we're using the wrong name for this amendment. This should be called the ``insurance company bill of rights'' because what it says is, anything any insurance must do at any time, so be it.

The American people deserve better than this. Members of the House should vote ``no'' on the Rehberg amendment and get back to the business of putting Americans back to work.

If I could just get the attention of the gentleman who is the author of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I would ask her, at the appropriate time, to yield for an answer.

Here is my question: Let's say we have a person who is on Medicare who

has $100 a week on drug costs and they hit the doughnut hole in August of the year.

The way the law works right now is they will get help to continue to pay for their prescription drugs in the form of either a cash rebate in the past or a discount in the future.

I wonder if the gentleman could explain to us what will happen to those Medicare recipients when they hit the doughnut hole if his amendment becomes law.

I would ask the gentlelady to yield to him for an answer.

The question was: What about someone who is in the doughnut hole? What happens to him under your amendment?

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is not unclear at all.

What would happen under the gentleman's amendment is the prescription drug price of this senior would go up dramatically, and he would have to pay the entire cost of that prescription until he hit, I think, the $5,100 limit. This is substantive legislation, the effect of which will dramatically raise prescription drug costs for America's neediest seniors.

I thank the gentlewoman for her time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

For 15 million Americans, this is another Friday night without a paycheck. And instead of working together to create jobs, here we are again relitigating the health care bill, the bill we talked about last year, last month, last week, yesterday, this morning. Here we are. We should be creating jobs, but here we are.

Now, the exchange does three things. It says that small businesses and families and individuals can get the same purchasing power that big corporations do when they buy their health insurance. It says you can choose among private competitors, insurance companies, and see who makes the best offer to you. And it says you make the choice that you want.

This should sound very familiar to the Members on the other side because it's exactly what they have as Members of Congress in the Federal health insurance program. So I would think that the Members on both sides would want their constituents to have the same health care opportunities that they do. If you believe that's the case, then the right vote on this amendment is ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I believe it's based upon two false premises. The first is that evidence shows that contracts performed under PLAs are not as efficient. The data simply don't exist that show that. And second is the implication that this is somehow a politically connected decision by governments to reward building trades unions.

First of all, it doesn't have to be a union contractor. And second, and I think most importantly, all kinds of nongovernmental users use PLAs: the Disney Corporation, Inland Steel, ARCO, Boeing, Harvard University. These are all institutions and companies that use PLAs because they believe they are a good, sound business judgment.

Why should the Federal Government of the United States be precluded from exercising a similar sound business judgment? This is a poorly thought-out amendment, and the right vote is ``no.''

Members of both parties should oppose this amendment because it rests on three misjudgments.

The first misjudgment is that the wages established by this Davis- Bacon practice are union-imposed wages. The fact of the matter is they are prevailing wages which are determined by a survey of the local marketplace.

The second misjudgment is that it always raises the cost of a construction project. The fact is quite the opposite. When the productivity rises, the value rises; and if you have better performance and fewer errors and the faster completion of a project, productivity rises, and you get more value.

But I think the most important misjudgment is that it is, one more time, the wrong issue at the wrong time. There are a lot of Americans awake at this hour. Thankfully, for them, they're probably not watching this debate, but they're awake at this hour because this has yet been another day and another week and another month with no paycheck, no job and no hope.

What they want us to do is to work together to put them back to work. Yet what we have seen in the last 24 hours is a debate over whether to defund Planned Parenthood, a debate over whether to repeal most of the environmental protections that have taken 40 years to build up in this country, a debate over whether people have the right to know if they're buying safe toys, and now a debate over whether to repeal a successful labor-management partnership.

It's the wrong amendment at the wrong time.

Vote ``no.''

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the issue raised by this amendment is to whom does this Congress belong; in whose interests are the Members of Congress working.

Now, Mr. Chairman, every one of our constituents will draw a conclusion about that question based upon how we vote, what we do, and what we say. And every one of us will face the consequences of that conclusion in the next election. One of the facts that I think every voter has a right to know is who is funding and supporting the campaigns of any one of us who seeks the honor of serving here.

Whether you belong to the most progressive group on the Democratic side, the most libertarian group on the conservative side, whether you're a member of the tea party, whether you're a member of a union or the Chamber of Commerce, I think every voter deserves and believes that they deserve the right to know who is funding the campaigns that bring people here. This is a basic matter of transparency and full disclosure.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think if we're honest among ourselves, we know how much the American people despise the political ads that vandalize their television screens every fall. A lot of people I know turn the television off or turn the sound down because they're so exhausted of hearing ridiculous personal dirty attacks by one side against the other. I would hope that some day the level of civility could rise to where we all stop that, but I think until we get to that day, people, at the very least, have the right to know who's paying for it, from where is this money coming.

Ms. Eshoo's amendment is very simple, very plain, and should be supported by people of all ideological stripes. It says the public has a right to know where the money is coming from. And if you think a special interest group that promotes traditional energy supplies--oil and gas--is a good thing, then you'll be happy that they're paying for commercials. And if you think like someone who's running on a platform promoting the woman's right to choose, then you'll be happy knowing that some of their money may have come from people who sympathize with that point of view. So irrespective of where you come out on substance, shouldn't we all come out to a place to say the public has a right to know who's funding these campaigns.

So to whom does this Congress belong? Well, if we look at the legislation before us today, it certainly looks like it doesn't belong to oncological nurses, because money for cancer research is being cut in this bill. It certainly doesn't look like it belongs to police officers working the beats of America's towns, because upwards of 15,000 police officers will be laid off as a result of this bill. It certainly doesn't belong to America's schoolteachers and guidance counselors, because under this bill upwards of 10,000 reading tutors and math coaches will lose their job under this bill. Seven thousand special education teachers under one version of this bill would lose their jobs.

So if this Congress doesn't belong to nurses, police officers, teachers, to whom does it belong? One of the answers to that question would certainly come from answering the question: Who paid the bills to get the Members here? Who wrote the checks and who made the contributions?

I hope that our friends would join us in supporting this amendment. I think it's clear and simple. But if they don't, maybe one of the reasons they don't want to join us in supporting this amendment or even hearing this amendment is they don't want the public to know who wrote the checks, who paid the bills, and who paid the freight.

Everyone should have the right to know who funded the campaigns that brought people here. It's as simple as full disclosure. It makes great sense. And I urge a ``yes'' vote on Ms. Eshoo's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I join a strong coalition of Democrats and Republicans in urging a ``yes'' vote on the Kline-Hastings amendment. I do so because I believe that every student should be guaranteed the right of knowing that he or she is going to get a high quality education for every tuition dollar they spend and because every taxpayer should be guaranteed that not one dime of Pell Grant or student money goes to any school under any ownership or management that does not properly spend the public's money. This is a goal that I believe is shared universally by each speaker on each side who has spoken here tonight. Our difference is not over whether we should guarantee students and taxpayers high quality and gainful employment. Our difference is over how to accomplish that.

Here is my concern about the rule that has been proposed thus far. It is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. To understand that, consider two schools. The first school successfully places 50 percent of its graduates in the job for which it's training people. So let's say it's a job in medical records technology and 50 percent of the students from that school are placed successfully. That school has a tuition that generates a rate so that 7 percent of the graduate's income goes to pay back their student loan. The second school successfully places 90 percent of its graduates in the medical records technology field, but its tuition generates a repayment rate of 10 percent. So again the first school only places half of its graduates in the job for which it's training people and the second school places 90 percent of its jobs for which it's training people. Under this rule, the first school survives and the second school is thrown out of the program. Let me say this again. The school with the 50 percent placement rate continues to get taxpayer dollars, but the school with the 90 percent placement rate doesn't. This doesn't make any sense and it is the basis for our bipartisan objection.

What should we do? If we're going to measure gainful employment, let's come up with a proposal that measures gainful employment. Let's ask the question that when students graduate from a school, whether it's for-profit, nonprofit or public, whether those students in fact gain employment and whether that employment raises their income and, therefore, is gainful. Let's measure what the law actually says.

Finally, I think there is the issue of whom should make this decision. As Chairman Kline pointed out, as Mr. Hastings pointed out, as others have, the statutory phrase ``gainful employment'' has been with us for a very long time. But this Congress has never chosen to define it. So the issue here is a separation of powers issue. Who should determine what gainful employment means? Should it be an administrative agency or should it be the duly elected representatives of the people? I think it should clearly be the duly elected representatives of the people.

So I would urge my friends, both Democrat and Republican, to vote yes

for a procedure that will correct this rule, let us join together, Republicans and Democrats, and do a bill, work on legislation that will give us the kind of outcome that we should really have here.

Now why are we doing this? We're doing it so the person with three jobs gets fair treatment here. You all know her. She's the person who works 35 or 40 hours a week on her feet, and that's a full-time job; she's raising children, and that's a full-time job; and she's going to school, and that's a full-time job. Let's not put the additional burden of taking away or jeopardizing the quality school that she has chosen for herself. Everyone in this Chamber, I believe, supports high quality career education. Instead of a rule that subverts that principle, let's write a bill that advances that principle. Let's vote ``yes'' for the Kline-Hastings amendment.