John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the juvenile justice bill that we have on the floor, and thank all of my colleagues that have taken part in bringing us to this important day. I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) have fully explained the bill. My reason for rising today is to say that, without a true bipartisan effort over the long journey of bringing this bill to the floor, we would not be here. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) have worked diligently for 5 years trying to bridge the differences, and they have done it in such a way that we have learned a great deal from them. I also thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for their efforts in shepherding this bill through the committee process. Lastly, I thank the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who provided an atmosphere of cooperation and respect which I think brings this bill here in front of us today. Mr. Speaker, this is a great example of what can happen when people keep their eye on the goal, and the goal being what is it that we can do from our perspective here in Washington to help these juvenile justice programs work better. They have done a great job, and they deserve our thanks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, until tonight the most important vote that I had cast as a Member of this body was the vote that I cast in 1991 to support then President George Bush in our Gulf War. Now we are at another grave moment of decision for our Nation. This is a tragedy of unspeakable proportions. We grieve for all of those who have been affected by this horror. After Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, Melville wrote a poem that expresses as best we can the force of our emotion in the wake of this horror. He wrote, ``There is a sobbing of the strong, and a pall upon the land. But the people in their weeping bare the iron hand. Beware the people weeping when they bare the iron hand.'' The cowards who planned and executed the attack and any state that harbors them should be aware and beware of our iron hand, because they will pay. As a Congress we will lock arms, we will rally behind our President and we will confront terror as one, because freedom will prevail.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude to Mary C. Law, a great friend of mine who is retiring in a few weeks after serving my home county for two decades. Mary began her career as Butler County Treasurer in September of 1981. Her twenty years of service to myself and my neighbors have been marked by too many accomplishments to name here. However, one of her most significant achievements while in office was to provide working mothers in her office with flex time and job-sharing to work around their children and children's schedules. Aside from her great work as Treasurer, Mary has been an active supporter of many charitable organizations in the city of Hamilton and throughout all of Butler County. She is truly a great leader, both in office and throughout our community. Mary always has been a great friend to me. She always has been willing to help me when I have needed it. I wish her a healthy and joyful retirement. Her services will be deeply missed, and she will be remembered as a dedicated and respected community leader.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who has spent many, many hours on this issue.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), who spent months and months developing this issue.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Great State of Ohio (Mr. Portman), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, I am confused. We have been through 6 years of legislative gridlock on this issue. They all know it. It has been not exactly a partisan divide, but almost. Finally, the President of the United States reaches out on a bipartisan effort over the last 6 months, does not get many takers on the other side of the aisle, but finally over the last couple of weeks he and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) come to an agreement to break this legislative logjam and to move this issue down the road. It is beginning to sound to me like it is ``my way or the highway.'' Members all know compromise is the art of legislating. I think what we have before us is a bill that only is different in one respect, and that is just how much liability, how much right to sue, and how many damages we can impose on people. That is the only difference in this bill. The American people want access to health care, not access to the courtroom.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, just 6 months into his Presidency, President Bush has worked with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) to bring 6 years of gridlock to an end. I remember when I met the gentleman from Georgia in the autumn of 1994 down in Georgia; he was running his first campaign. As we went around his district that day, his constituents were eager for health care reform, and I think Americans today are just as eager for reform of the health care system. Families are worried about soaring costs, they are worried about declining access, and they are worried about access to quality health care. I think they want a reasonable solution. Seven years later, families are still waiting for that solution. The number of uninsured Americans remains very high, at some 43 million today, and health care costs are on the rise once again. Cost and access remain the top two health care concerns of most Americans. But Americans today are also concerned about the quality of coverage they receive for managed care, and they want a comprehensive solution to the problems that they see each and every day. But as much as they want a solution, they want a balanced approach that will let patients hold their health plans accountable without sending costs spiraling into the stratosphere and increasing the ranks of the uninsured. There is no one, no one in this Congress over the last 6\1/2\ years who has done more to bring this issue to our attention and to bring it to the attention of the American people than the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). He has put his heart and his soul into trying to find a compromise, trying to find a solution for this problem that we have been locked in over the last 6 years. I think what he wants and what he has said oftentimes to all of us is that he wants a bill signed into law. Well, I think the President shares that goal. I share that goal, and I think the American people share that goal. They want a solution that will be signed into law, and I think that we finally have that solution. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and I want to praise the President for reaching out to him and other Members in trying to find a solution to 7 years of legislative gridlock. The underlying bill that we have before us causes me great concern, because I do believe it will raise costs for employers and their employees who share in the cost of their health insurance. Secondly, the underlying bill, in my view, will cause many employers to simply drop their health care coverage for their employees. That is not what the American people expect from their Congress. One of the real strengths of the Norwood approach is that it is balanced, is that it will bring patient protections, it will increase access to courts, it will bring new remedies, but it will contain them so that we do not drive up the cost of health care for American employers and their employees. But I think the proposal that we have before us is a hard-earned compromise, and when we compromise here, it is the American people who win, and they are going to win when we pass this bill later on tonight. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me once again congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), for his tremendous job in helping to move this entire process along this year. He has spent weeks and months, I might add, trying to build consensus for how do we break the gridlock and how do we move a real patients' bill of rights. Now, my colleague, who was just here opposing association health plans and medical savings accounts, it should not surprise any of us, because he is one of the larger promoters of a single payer national health care system. My goodness, if we get people insured by private insurance, which is what most people want, there will not be any need for a single payer system. In 1992, when this issue of health care began to be a big issue in America, we were worried about those 36 million Americans who had no health insurance. We remember the 1992 presidential campaign. We remember 1993, when we had this big effort of having a national health insurance plan, a card for every American. Then Americans stood up and said no, no, please, we do not want that. Our own health insurance is very good. Then, over the last 6 years, all we have done is talk about patients' rights, and while they are important and we need to deal with them, let us admit that the far bigger problem in America today are the 43 million Americans who have no health insurance at all. All these patient protections, all the consumer protections my colleague just talked about mean absolutely nothing to those Americans who have no health insurance. What we want to do under this amendment is make it easier for small businesses to offer health insurance for their employees, because 80 percent of those 43 million Americans have jobs, they have full-time jobs, and they work for smaller employers who do not have the ability to create large pools. But by allowing them to work in an association, whether it be the NFIB, whether it be the Association of American Florists, and create larger pools, they will get lower rates, they will have a better opportunity at getting health insurance. And why should we not help them?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) mentioned that we would go back to the original liability that would drive employers out of the system, drive up costs for employers and their employees. We do not want to do that. It would also eliminate the association health plans that we have worked so hard on over the last 10 years to try to help small employers provide health insurance for their employees. But of all things, after 40 years of one party controlling this House and balancing the budget one time in 40 years, to stand in the well of the House and say that this bill will bust the budget, please, give me a break.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Ganske-Dingell bill would subject employers and unions, including many small businesses that voluntarily provide health benefits to their employees, to new lawsuits with unlimited damages and no protection from frivolous lawsuits. I think it is pretty clear that Americans want a Patients' Bill of Rights. I think they have made it very clear, as well, that they do not want unlimited lawsuits. Expanding liability for small employers and unions who voluntarily offer health plans is wrong-headed and dangerous, and in my view, will cause millions of Americans to lose their coverage. Mr. Chairman, all of us who serve in this body come from different walks of life. We have doctors that serve in the House. They happen to be split on both sides of this particular issue. We have our share of lawyers that occupy this body as our colleagues, and we have lawyers on both sides of this particular issue. In my own case, I come to the halls of Congress as a small business person, someone who has in fact hired people, someone who has had to run a business, and someone who offered a health plan to my employees. I can tell my colleagues, as I have said year after year, debate after debate on this particular subject that if the underlying bill were to pass as is and to become law, immediately I, as an employer, would eliminate the health benefits for my employees. Why? Because I would be subject to more increased litigation. Every employer in America, and most of their employees as well, understand all of the litigation that is occurring in this country is causing prices to go up, and in many cases, causing businesses to go out of business. One little lawsuit under that underlying bill that would be allowed could put under many, many small employers. Today, when new employers are the lifeblood of our economy, why would we want to increase the liability that we put on them? Mr. Chairman, I think that we need to find a balanced approach, and I think the President, working with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), deserves an enormous amount of credit from all of us. The President put his prestige out on the line. He worked hard to come to some compromise that he would be willing to sign into law. I am a little surprised at my colleagues across the aisle who have rejected the hand of the President over the last 6 months, and then today continue to reject the idea of trying to find some common ground and moving ahead. What do they want to do? Do what we have done for the last 6 years, and we are going to get the same result. Nothing. I think the President deserves an awful lot of credit for ending the legislative gridlock on this issue. What do we have to fear? Nothing, because we are going to go to conference with the Senate which has a different bill. We have an opportunity to try to resolve the differences between the two bodies. That is the nature of our institution. What we ought to do today is get behind the compromise bill that is going to be before us, support the Norwood amendment, support the bill on final passage, and let us work out our differences with the Senate. As we do, not only will Congress be winners, but more importantly, the American people will be great winners because they will have better access to health care, more patient protections; and regardless of which version of liability becomes law, they will have greater remedies in the law than they have today. Even the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), which is being criticized here as being inadequate, goes far beyond what we have in law today. If Members want to help patients, why not accept his amendment? Give patients additional remedies and help them get the kind of quality health care that the American people want.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and let me say that all of us, I think, owe the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) a great big thank-you. The gentleman has been at this for 6\1/2\ years as a Member of Congress. I know when I went to his district in 1994 and campaigned with him, we went around his district, we spent 16 hours in a bus going to about 16 small towns in eastern Georgia. Those constituents in that district wanted a Patients' Bill of Rights. The gentleman came up here, and we all know, every Member of Congress knows, there is nobody in this body who has worked harder, nobody who has put more heart and soul into trying to find the right language that will be signed into law than the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and we owe him a great big thanks. Everybody thinks there is some big fight here, that there is some huge difference. Let us put it all back in perspective. The bill we have here is an identical bill. We have one bill. The only big argument is over how much more liability we are going to impose on insurers and on employers. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia basically says that we are going to expand remedies and we are going to expand liability from where we are today, and we are going to give people easier access to courts. Our friends on the other side have an even greater expansion of liability in State and Federal courts, and what their language will do is drive employers out of the system, will drive up costs for employers and their employees. It will damage the foundation of our health insurance system today, which is employer- provided coverage. What we are trying to do here is to find some common ground, and I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), working with the President, has found common ground that will give patients in America greater access to the courts, greater remedies, bringing greater accountability. Not as much as we have on the other side, but our bill will not drive employers out of the system; it will not drive up costs. It is a reasonable compromise that the American people expect us to deliver for them.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the Committee on Rules for bringing to the floor the Patients' Bill of Rights. Let us not make any mistake about what this bill is. It is the same patient protections that we have talked about for years. It is the base bill. There is only one real change in the bill that we are going to bring to the floor today, and that is in the area of how much liability we are going to impose on employers and insurers. Many of us believe, under the base bill, that we will have unlimited lawsuits that will tremendously increase costs for both employers and their employees, and as a matter of fact, I believe will cause tens of millions of Americans to lose their health insurance because of these increased costs. That is unacceptable when we have 43 million Americans with no health insurance at all. Under the rule, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) will offer a compromise that he struck with the President that does provide for greater remedies and greater access to courts for those who have been injured. But it will not unduly raise the cost of health insurance and it will not force employers out of employer-provided coverage. I think it strikes the right balance for the American people and we ought to stand up today and think of the patients, not the trial lawyers and the politicians.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives, a remarkable and unanimous ruling of the bipartisan National Labor Relations Board--known as Crown Cork & Seal, 334 NLRB No. 92 (July 20, 2001)--that resolves an issue that many of us wrestled with throughout the 1990s. The issue is the legality of workplace teams under which employees work with their employers to resolve on-the-job issues including workplace health and safety, efficiency and productivity, training, and diversity. Prior to the Crown Cork & Seal ruling, there was some ambiguity as to whether these teams may be considered employer-dominated ``labor organizations'' under the National Labor Relations Act. Those who were here during the 104th Congress are probably familiar with this issue. Thanks in large part to the efforts of my predecessor as Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, William F. Goodling, and the former Chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee of that Committee, Harris Fawell, the Congress passed lelgislation--the ``Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act'' (TEAM)-- aimed at addressing the ambiguity that existed. Disappointingly, President Clinton later vetoed that legislation and left the ambiguity in place. Many of us could not understand why the issue was even contentious. The sham ``company unions'' which existed during the early years of collective bargaining--and which necessitated the inclusion of Section 8(a)(2) in the NLRA, making it an unfair labor practice for an employer to ``dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute . . . support to it''--are largely a relic of history. Yet the Board in its infamous Electromation case reaffirmed its interpretation of the statute's broad definition of ``labor organization'' to include an enormous variety of workplace teams. Subsequent attempts to ``clarify'' its ruling only muddied the waters further. Unfortunately, because of the Board's holding in Electromation, employers were forced to make a difficult decision. On the one hand, they knew they needed the assistance of their employees in order to be competitive, but if they acted on that need they opened themselves up to litigation. American firms in every sector of the economy continue to learn that to compete successfully in a global economy, they need to follow the lead of the high-tech sector by engaging the full talents of their employees as never before. Today's employer-employee relationship is one of cooperation as opposed to the confrontational relations of previous generations. The NLRB's decision in Crown Cork & Seal reflects this cooperative relationship by adopting a common-sense approach. While protecting the prohibition against company unions, the Board has ruled that a workplace team is not a ``labor organization'' if all it is really doing is assuming a function that previously was performed by a manager. That, in a nutshell, is what employee involvement is all about. This decision will allow for the growth of employee involvement, which will, in turn, lead to a sea of change in the structuring of the employer-employee relationship. Companies will now be comfortable implementing progressive human resources practices, because they know it will benefit both the company and its employees through open communications and by pushing decision-making downward within the organization. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the bipartisan Board that issued this ruling unanimously--Republican Chairman Peter Hurtgen and Democrats John Truesdale, Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh. We should all applaud them for rishing above the partisan past of this issue. I sincerely hope that this landmark ruling points the way to a less contentious, more bipartisan approach in Washington in all of these areas where we need to upgrade laws that were passed in a previous century to apply to our workplace of today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, on a bit lighter note for all of our colleagues, tonight happens to be a great event that you may not be aware of, but tonight happens to be the 20th anniversary of Mike Oxley being a Member of this great institution, having been elected in a special election in 1981. I think we all owe Mike Oxley a great round of applause for his 20th anniversary.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of President Bush's charitable choice initiative, the Community Solutions Act of 2001. I wish to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for their diligent efforts in crafting this legislation which has taken into account many different points of view. As chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased that the legislation clearly indicates that faith-based organizations will be able to compete to provide services under several programs within our committee's jurisdiction. Every day throughout our Nation, community and faith-based organizations are playing a key role in meeting the needs of many Americans. Whether operating a soup kitchen, helping to build homes, providing child care, or providing training to welfare recipients, community and faith-based organizations are reaching out to others, and, in doing so, improving the quality of life for many Americans. President Bush has called them ``armies of compassion''; and, indeed, these organizations have demonstrated compassion on many fronts: caring for children after school, providing emergency food and shelter, offering mentoring and counseling, uplifting families of prisoners, and helping to rescue young men and women from gangs and violence. While many of these organizations have had success, some faith-based organizations have faced barriers in accessing Federal funds. H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, addresses this problem by making Federal programs friendlier to faith-based organizations. It will enable these organizations to compete for Federal funds and grants on the same basis as other organizations; and, in short, it will ensure that they have a seat at the table with other nonprofit providers. Charitable choice is not a new idea, and over the past several years, Democrats and Republicans alike have voted for charitable choice in the Welfare Reform Act, the community services block grant law, and two substance abuse laws under the public health services act. The Community Solutions Act of 2001 represents a logical extension of these laws and would expand charitable choice to juvenile justice programs, housing programs, employment and training programs, child abuse, and violence prevention programs, hunger relief activities, high school equivalency and adult education programs, after-school programs and programs under the Older Americans Act, as well as many more. For those who might be concerned about the excessive entanglement of religion in H.R. 7, it prohibits faith-based organizations from discriminating against participants on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief. Other safeguards include a prohibition on using government funds for religious worship, instruction or proselytizing, and a requirement for separate accounting for the government funds. Finally, if one objects to receiving services from a faith-based provider, alternative providers must be made available. I think another important part of this legislation is the expansion of charitable deductions to those who do not itemize on their tax returns. One organization in my home State that would benefit from this change in tax law, as well as the charitable choice provisions, is Reach Out Lakota, located in West Chester, Ohio. This group began nearly 8 years ago after a one-time Christmas charity event, and now has expanded into a year-round organization which provides food, clothing, and other social services to about 45 families each month. It is this kind of organization and this kind of involvement by community and faith-based organizations that I think is truly making a difference in the lives of many Americans. It is this kind of involvement that the Federal Government should be promoting and encouraging, the kind of involvement that H.R. 7 envisions. I urge my colleagues to support President Bush in his efforts to transform cities and neighborhoods all across the land. I will ask all of my colleagues to vote for the rule and to vote for this most important bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to instruct conferees on the table.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has worked closely with myself and members on both sides of the aisle; and I have to say, as I said when we closed debate on the bill when it came through the House, I could not have had a more perfect gentleman and a more perfect partner to work with as we went through this process. Mr. Speaker, I also thank our drafting team on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) who spent hours and hours trying to bridge the differences, always, though, with a view and a vision toward how do we help the neediest children in our society have a shot at a good education like our children get. I think we achieved that when this House bill came through here. Is it the bill I would have written by myself? No. Is it the bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) would have written by himself? No. But it is a bill both parties worked together on, and we have built a solid piece of legislation that will change the way that we educate low income and minority students in our country. My commitment to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and my commitment to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is that when we bring the conference report back to this House that we will in fact have a fundamental change in giving schools more flexibility, holding schools more accountable for real results and additional resources to help meet those new standards that we hope to put in place. Mr. Speaker, when we brought our bill to the floor back in May, I asked all of my colleagues whether they would be able to stand up on that day and have the courage, the courage to vote with us and the courage to do the right thing even though not everyone was in full agreement. I think the House exercised its prerogative and did show the courage by a strong vote of 384-43 in support of our bill. Mr. Speaker, as we go to conference, I feel confident that members on both sides of the aisle will continue to work together and to bring back to this House a bill that we can be proud of, a bill that the President can be proud of, and the most important goal, to make sure that we bring a bill back that helps the neediest of our society get the education they are going to need if they are going to have an opportunity at securing the American dream that every child deserves. And every parent of every child in America wants their child to have that opportunity.