Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013.

The American economy is hurting, and what we need is less government standing in the way of the private sector, not more. This act will bring about some commonsense reforms by requiring the SEC to review existing regulations, as well as preventing new and unnecessary ones that would only continue to slow economic growth and hurt businesses and families.

With job growth struggling and our already having experienced several years of high unemployment, we've got to make certain that we're doing what we can to ensure that it's easier, and not harder, for businesses to hire again.

This act will do just that by first clearly defining the root of a problem before trying to implement perhaps unjust and redundant burdens on America's businesses.

This is an appropriate reform bill that should garner bipartisan support. The President's own Jobs Council has advocated regulatory reform by focusing on streamlining the current system for permitting projects that can create jobs. That Jobs Council understood that regulations involving the Federal, State, and local level can lead to a tangled web of red tape and cause a bureaucratic nightmare. The current system will only continue to stunt economic growth, and this act is a much-needed step in the right direction.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Garrett, as well as the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas, for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the passage of the bill, and I urge my colleagues in the House to do so as well.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of the full repeal of ObamaCare.

Moms and dads across America are worried. They are worried about their health, the health of their kids, the health of their aging parents. They are struggling to understand how the new health care laws will affect their prescription prices, their emergency room visits, whether they can keep their doctors or, worse, whether they can keep their jobs.

These families want the best for themselves and their children, and so do we. House Republicans want patient-centered health care reform that lowers costs, increases access, makes the health care system easier to enter and easier to navigate. ObamaCare is not the answer.

While both parties agree that we must make health care more accessible, we in the majority fundamentally disagree that more government is the answer. Sweeping mandates on individuals and businesses will not improve our health care. We do not wish to see unelected, Federal bureaucrats come between patients and their doctors--limiting choices, lowering quality and raising costs.

Madam Speaker, this act, which is the ObamaCare law and which is set to be implemented 8 months from now, is a threat to American patients and their families. When this law was first debated in 2009 and signed in 2010, the White House promised the American people that ObamaCare would lower costs for families and businesses. That promise has been broken. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you like the health care coverage you currently have, you really don't know if you will be able to keep it under ObamaCare. Many employers are delaying hiring decisions because of provisions outlined in the law, and people with preexisting conditions are now being denied the coverage the President promised. There are more complaints about the law than praise--and for good reason.

It is now projected that ObamaCare will send health care premiums skyrocketing in the individual and small group insurance markets. When fully enacted, this law is expected to pose new financial burdens on America's youngest adults and many working families. Moreover, due to the projected cuts to Medicare Advantage, many of our seniors will face a type of health care that they didn't bargain for. This act should not be considered a reform but a bureaucratic overreach that makes a mess out of our health

care system and gives incredible power to the Internal Revenue Service.

President Obama has already signed seven bills originating in the House that repeal or defund parts of this health care law, but if we are serious in wanting to deliver real results for the people who sent us here, we should repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the health care that the American people desire.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill forward, as well as the bill's sponsor, the gentlelady from Alabama, a working mom whose inspiration is her kids at home and her husband that she is responsible for and with in order to make life work for them in Alabama. So I want to appreciate her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill, the Working Families Flexibility Act. If you are a working parent in this country, you know from experience that there's hardly ever enough time to spend with your family.

Recently, I spoke with a constituent from Richmond. Her name is Nicole Lambert. She's a working mom who runs an early childhood education center. It's quite often that Nicole is approached by one of her employees requesting more flexibility with how they can use their overtime. Some of her employees need to take off to take their child to the doctor, some need to go and meet with a teacher. But under the current law, Nicole is not able to present her hardworking staff with this option. She understands that this bill would give her employees more flexibility to balance both work and their lives at home.

Mr. Speaker, for too long working families in the private sector have not been able to choose a more flexible schedule when working overtime; but for the past 30 years, government employees have been afforded this luxury. It's time for all of us to present all parents in America with this option.

As a father of three, I can tell you as a working parent I know that it is very necessary to be there for your children. And I bet no matter who you are as a working parent, if you asked a mom or a dad what they need more of, it's time. Washington should not be standing in the way of any employer voluntarily offering this benefit for any employee choosing more time. That's the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. Washington should not be in the way of more freedom in the workplace.

I know this policy will work, from speaking with local government employees who already enjoy this advantage.

Vicki is a working mom and a police officer in my district. She works long hours, and she raises her children.

She tells me her life is made a little easier because she's allowed to work a few extra hours, save it up in case there's a sick day or an after-school event that she must attend.

It's simply unfair for those who work for Nicole in the private sector to be prohibited from receiving the benefits that Vicki does, a government employee.

This is a bill that should easily garner bipartisan support because, frankly, it puts parents before politics and will give people more freedom to make their lives work. There's simply no good reason to deny hardworking parents the opportunity to take their children to the doctor or to attend a parent-teacher conference.

I want to thank my constituents for their relaying stories to me about their life story, about how this bill helps.

And again, I'm very grateful to the leadership and the role model that the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) and Chairman Kline have set forth in this effort. This act will help parents all across America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today, the administration has confirmed that the Assad regime in Syria has crossed a dangerous, game-changing red line, using chemical weapons against its own citizens.

The Syrian conflict has raged for many months, and nearly 100,000 Syrian civilians have been killed. The conflict now threatens to spill over Syria's borders, destabilizing key American allies. This dangerous conflict threatens American national security interests in the region.

I wanted to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to urge Members to attend the classified briefing that the administration will be providing tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. in the CVC auditorium. Secretary of State Kerry, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Sandy Winnefeld, and Deputy Director of National Intelligence Robert Cardillo will be there to brief Members on the situations in both Syria and in North Korea.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say to Members that we won't be having another vote in this series.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to stand before the House today in support of this award to honor Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Denise McNair by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal.

The 50th anniversary of the attack on the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham is a strong reminder of how many people fought and died in the civil rights movement so that this country could live up to its founding ideals of equality and opportunity.

On a recent trip to Selma, Alabama, I had the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with Congressman John Lewis and other civil rights heroes who stood on the front lines and fought to change America for the better. We must never forget the hardships they confronted and sacrifices they made.

While reflecting on such moments in our history, and by honoring those who come before us, I look forward to continuing to focus on ways in which we all can stand together once again and continue to solve our Nation's problems and move forward in unison.

I would like to thank Congresswoman Sewell, Congressman Bachus, and the rest of the Alabama delegation for their hard work on this matter and bringing it forward.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions on Tuesday and Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Of the suspensions, I'm proud to announce that the House will consider a bill by Representative Terri Sewell to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the four young girls who lost their lives in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham 50 years ago, which served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we'll take up H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Now Act. This bill, authored by Representatives Joe Pitts, Michael Burgess, and Ann Wagner, will help Americans with preexisting conditions obtain insurance coverage without delay.

We will also consider H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Chairman Hastings. This legislation applies pre-market principles to future sales from the Federal Helium Reserve and will protect thousands of American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the spirit with which he recommends that we proceed along the lines asked for by those individuals he spoke about.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I'm told that our chairman and the chairman on the other side of the Capitol, Mrs. Murray, they're meeting and looking to see the path forward so that we can effect a meeting of the minds and do what the American people are asking us to do, which is to get the fiscal challenges addressed at the Federal level so they can go on about making their life work and continue to create their dreams and live the life they want and have the life they want for their kids.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his desire to see a satisfactory resolution of issues surrounding the fiscal challenges.

Obviously, the debt ceiling is another point with which we will be faced on how to deal with the spiraling debt and out-of-control spending in Washington. I know that the gentleman shares with me the desire to see the reduction in the need to borrow, the balancing of our budget and, actually, a return to a real growth in America of jobs and the economy, of economic opportunity for all. It is in that spirit that I know that he approaches this issue, and so do I.

I would say to the gentleman, when the rating agencies look at the creditworthiness of our Nation--and I think some have said as much--it is, yes, to observe a political system that works, but it is also to make sure that there is demonstrable evidence that we are making progress in dealing with the problem, and that is the focus that we must all maintain.

I mean, we know that the disproportionate problem of the debt in this country and the deficits we are running have to do with the unfunded liabilities of the entitlement programs, and we can see the White House and the President call for tax increases every other day--every day for that matter--and those are not going to deal with the spiraling, out- of-control spending that raises the need for more debt.

Again, the differences on this subject, Mr. Speaker, are well known, and I am hopeful that we can work towards setting aside the differences and focusing in on how far we can work towards accomplishing success in dealing with the problem of the mounting unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, on a day meant to celebrate patriots' freedom and personal strength, we witnessed terror and tragedy. My prayers remain with the victims and everyone in Boston. I'm grateful for the first responders, the medical professionals, and fellow citizens who responded so heroically.

We don't know yet who is responsible for this terrorist attack. The United States Government must--and will--use all tools at its disposal to track down the perpetrators and hold them accountable.

This vicious act of terror cannot stand, and we must remain committed to the task of combating the scourge of terrorism no matter where it raises its ugly head.

The Boston Marathon is a symbol of so much of what is great about America. It honors personal fortitude and perseverance. Let it continue to be a symbol of fortitude and perseverance for Boston and for our entire Nation.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, we expect a robust debate next week on the importance of our Nation's cybersecurity. The House will consider a number of bipartisan bills to reduce the obstacles to voluntary information- sharing between the private sector and government, secure our Nation's infrastructure, better protect government systems, and combat foreign threats.

A number of committees will bring bills to the floor next week, Mr. Speaker, including the Intelligence, Oversight and Government Reform, and Science Committees. In the coming months, I expect to continue to address cybersecurity legislation from additional committees, including Homeland Security and Judiciary.

Of the bills coming to the floor, we will consider H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, under a rule. This important legislation is authored by Chairman Mike Rogers and cosponsored by Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and really appreciate his remarks and willingness to sit down and see where we can find areas of agreement. Because as the gentleman and I have both expressed on this floor on many occasions, there is plenty of disagreement and no shortage of supply in this town of that.

On the bigger issues of the fiscal situation of the country, we still struggle, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, on trying to come together. But I listened to the gentleman, and I know he's very committed, and has been to his agenda, Make It In America. As the gentleman knows, I gave a talk earlier this year at the American Enterprise Institute, which I spoke of an agenda of trying to make life work for more working people in this country.

There is a lot in common that we have in these two programs, if you will. Because we talk about the kinds of things that will help working families, that will help working people get a job again. The gentleman's intention in a national manufacturing strategy, I'm sure, is to increase job availability; make sure that we have more American jobs.

We also have a skills problem. We passed the SKILLS Act on the floor a couple of weeks ago. My hope is we can increase bipartisan support for things like that, because it was simply an attempt to respond to a GAO recommendation where there are 50 different job-training programs at the Federal level. Certainly we can do better than that. Certainly we can streamline and still protect the kinds of individuals that the statute asks us to, or requires protection of--the veterans, the folks who are on limited income that we can help put in place for employment. Because, after all, all of us believe that we are a society built on hard work, built on playing by the rules and getting ahead. So, I welcome the gentleman's commitment to those type of things.

He mentions the need for us to invest and to look to the future. In fact, I have not only a budget and a spending plan of the future, but a real mentality on this floor of how we can work together for all Americans. I have talked a lot about this in this making life work for people and for families. Really, the priority that we place in this country on medical research, on research and development, because it is the seed corn of the future.

While we are constrained by the current fiscal situation, it does bring to life setting priorities. We're not going to be able to fund everything, but certainly we can agree on trying to find medical cures, trying to understand how we can better discover therapies, treatments, so people can live longer and have a better quality of life. These are the kinds of things I look forward to working on with the gentleman as well, and I accept his invitation and look forward to being able to sit down.

I would say to the gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, I, too, am glad that we have finally seen the Senate act and pass a budget. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. And the President also has finally proposed his budget. So the gentleman is right that we've got some things on the table that maybe we can start to discuss.

I know that Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray are already in discussions about a path forward, and I look forward to the results of those discussions. And in concert with the gentleman's point earlier about setting priorities, it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the best way forward is to find areas where we agree and let's go make some progress on those things. Again, this town is full of division and disagreement, but there are things we have in common, in agreement in these three documents that I believe we can work on together.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has indicated, Mr. Speaker, the majority has committed itself to a budget that balances in 10 years. It is our desire that we can come to some agreement on how to do that. This is where the difficulty, again, comes in, where the President's proposal and budget raises a lot of new revenues. Some estimates have indicated it will create a trillion dollars in new taxes and won't ever balance.

So we've certainly got a gulf between us, but it is our intention to work together to avoid the situation of default; and we are and do intend to consider a bill that will ensure we meet our legal obligations and do not default on our debt, which I'm sure the gentleman agrees with me, Mr. Speaker, is the responsible thing to do.

I would just respond to the gentlemen by saying this in terms of the family he talked about going to Macy's and making the charge of $200. I think most families would also think it's prudent to figure out how they're going to pay that bill before they go about incurring it, and that is the spirit in which I think the majority approaches the debt ceiling to say, How are we going to tell the people that we're going to pay off the debt that we've now gone ahead and incurred?

I think a little bit of forethought here, planning into the future how we are going to pay the bills, is the emphasis. I've always agreed, as the gentleman said, the debt ceiling is something that is necessary for the operations of government. We'll bring a bill forward that will ensure that we don't go into default. But I do think that we should be mindful of how we're going to tell the public we're going to go into the future and pay off these debts. Because, as the gentleman, who has many children and grandchildren, he doesn't want his kids, nor do I want mine, to be shouldering the debts and paying our bills.

We should be really committing ourselves not to just borrowing more, not to just taking more from taxpayer dollars, because we've done a lot of that this year already. When the gentleman talks about the need to proceed with revenues, we already have close to $650 billion of additional static revenues--taxes that are accounted for because of the fiscal cliff deal. So it's not that there are no revenues in the mix here.

Again, I look forward to working with the gentleman. I appreciate his commitment to longevity in this country, to sustaining economic growth or to at least restarting it again so we can sustain it, and look forward to joining him in that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the

Speaker's table the bill (S. 716) to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House, and further ask unanimous consent that it be read in full.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his continued leadership on the issue of the fiscal outlook for our country, on the issue of the moral obligation that we have to our children. And next, to address the growing mountain of debt that unfortunately they're facing.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that this debate that we're having is a debate of contrasts. When you look at the two budgets, in this Chamber and you look at the budget that is underway across the Capitol, ours is a budget that balances.

Just as people at home around their kitchen table at the end of the month have to do with their checkbook every month, we believe the same is true. We balance this budget within 10 years.

The other side calls for more taxes. The other budget that is being discussed in the other body, in fact, creates $1 trillion of new taxes.

And the question for the American people really is which budget do you think grows the economy, which budget do you think helps folks gain some certainty, helps folks get back to work, helps folks who are relying on some of the programs that this body knows, because its budget office is telling us are going to go away unless we act? It is clear, the choice is clear, and the contrast couldn't be clearer.

I would like to respond, Mr. Chairman, to some of the suggestions by Members on the other side of the aisle that somehow our budget doesn't address the needs of those who are most in need. In fact, the opposite is the truth. Our budget protects the social safety net programs. The other budget on the other side of the aisle does nothing to respond to the alarms that have been issued by our budget counters and CBO and others year in and year out. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--all are on life support if we don't act.

Our budget, and the chairman of our Budget Committee, has been a champion to say, let's be responsible, let's help those who are in need, let's preserve the social safety net, the programs that make America who she is. It is our budget that helps those in need, Mr. Chairman, not the other side of the aisle.

Let's look at the question of tax reform. The people of this country have spoken out on this issue. They want a fairer and simpler Code. What Chairman Ryan has done in this budget is provided a prescription for doing just that: a broadening of the base, a lowering of the rates, and, yes, Mr. Chairman, an insurance in our budget that we are going to get rid of the special interest loopholes that have put Washington in the business of choosing favorites.

I think all of our constituents know that is not what they elect us to do. They want to see an even playing field for all. They want everyone--everyone--in this country to have a fair shot.

If you compare tax reform in the position that we take in our budget to that which the other side is proposing in this body and in the one across the Capitol, I think it is very clear: higher taxes without the reforms necessary versus what we are trying to do, which is even the playing field, giving everybody a fair shot to go and earn success.

The choice is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that our budget provides some certainty for the future for the moms and dads out there who are desperate to know that we are doing our job in Washington on their behalf; that we are going to address this fiscal situation so that they can get on about their lives; so that they can see their kids have a better education; so that they can access the health care that they have come to know, and for those who don't have the health care, can actually have a system that will lower costs and provide real prospects for quality health care, not the kind of health care designed by this Affordable Care Act that we are going to see come into effect.

So, again, I want to thank Chairman Ryan of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for his dogged attention to this very, very alarming question of how we are going to grow our economy and doing it in a way that is thoughtful, that is well put, and has the specifics to go and do the job.

Mr. Chairman, that is something that we have not seen from the other side. We have certainly not seen that from the White House. They haven't even presented the budget yet. And that is unacceptable.

I urge my colleagues to support the budget coming out of our Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Ryan.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, for bringing this bill forward, and his leadership on so many issues affecting working families across this country.

Madam Chair, I rise this morning to speak in favor of the SKILLS Act. Today, there are 20 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. And I want to take a moment and speak about the individual that's looking for their next job and explain how the SKILLS Act will actually help them.

First of all, the SKILLS Act streamlines the complicated maze of existing Federal programs. Rather than spending time figuring out which one of 30 different programs you're supposed to go to, this bill creates a one-stop shop and creates a one-stop workforce investment fund.

Second, if you need job training, the SKILLS Act eliminates bureaucratic hurdles, such as first requiring you to work on your resume and develop an individual employment plan so that you can access the training that you need right away.

Third, by emphasizing the role of local employers on your local workforce training board, the SKILLS Act helps ensure that the training you receive is related to the jobs actually available in your area.

And, finally, the SKILLS Act makes sure that you receive quality training by making it easier for community colleges and technical schools to actually

participate in these workforce training programs.

What does all this mean? Better, more accessible job training to help more people who are unemployed find jobs faster.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to tour an automotive workshop at the Northern Virginia Community College and saw firsthand the need to train skilled workers.

I want to thank Chairman Kline, who went with me to that community college, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, and Congresswoman Susan Brooks, for their leadership on this important issue.

The SKILLS Act has been endorsed by numerous employers, community colleges, and community college systems, and a number of Governors because they all recognize that a broken workforce training system hurts those in need of assistance. We have a chance to fix that broken system with this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the SKILLS Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions on Monday, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. In addition, we'll take up an expected Senate amendment to the House's continuing resolution, ensuring that the Federal Government remains funded beyond March 27. We'll also consider a resolution providing for the funding of the House's committees. This is a responsible resolution that makes tough choices and abides by sequestration.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Republican House will consider and pass a budget resolution on time for a third consecutive year. The Republican plan, put forward by Chairman Paul Ryan in the Budget Committee, will increase economic growth and job creation, cut wasteful government spending, and strengthen our entitlement programs. And for the first time in recent memory, the House budget will balance in 10 years.

Before I yield back, I would like to acknowledge the launch of the House Historian's new Web site, ``The House and Selma: Bridging History and Memory.'' This important historical record is now available for the public to explore at History.House.gov. It will soon include oral testimonies from Members of Congress, like John Lewis, describing their role and contributions to the civil rights movement.

I was proud to have joined Congressman John Lewis, Congresswomen Terri Sewell and Martha Roby, the gentleman from Maryland, as well as others, in that trip to Selma and Montgomery this year. But to those in particular who were actively involved in the unveiling of this project, I look forward to its growth in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the CR, and the amendments that the Senate is working on, contains within it measures dealing with certain sectors of government that prescribe for spending plans that avoid that very blunt, indiscriminate approach that the gentleman speaks about in the across-the-board sequestration formula. The gentleman knows I agree with him. These kinds of cuts are not smart. They are indiscriminate. They cut good programs just like they cut bad programs.

I don't think any of us would choose to do things that way. I look forward to working with him to see what we can do to even expand the prescription to go beyond that which is in the sequester.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

What I would say in response, as the gentleman knows, it has been the tradition of the House, both with Republican and Democratic majorities, that when the budget comes to the floor, there are substitutes that are offered. As the gentleman knows, the budget is a very complex and large document, and there are easy ways to perhaps distort one's intent by offering amendments. I believe--and I would just venture to guess-- that's why the tradition is as it is, both under Democratic majority and Republican, which is to allow for substitutes, and anticipate a very robust debate around the offering of substitutes, as well as the passage of our budget next week.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman and his sentiments in wanting to try and work together.

As he knows, I have always held the position that there are going to be differences in this House. I hear the gentleman saying he doesn't want to support the Ryan budget; that's why we're going to have debate on his party's alternative budget. But I agree with the gentleman, we ought to try and reach some type of resolution. The best way forward to do that, Mr. Speaker, in my mind, is to be able to set the differences aside.

We have big differences on health care. We believe that ObamaCare is not good for this country, not good for health care, and we're going to continue to advocate that position. Because, unfortunately, what we're going to see is a continuing increase in cost, rate shock that will come into play over the next year, where more and more of the American people are going to realize this is going to be a very expensive endeavor, with a big question mark as to whether the quality of health care is going to stay the same, improve, or whether it will stagnate and become worse. That question is still unanswered.

We believe very strongly in our position that it ought to be patient- centered care. We ought not have this board of 15 unelected bureaucrats empowered to cut or deny care for seniors. As the gentleman knows, we disagree strongly on health care.

We disagree strongly on taxes. We don't want to raise taxes. We just had a huge tax increase in the beginning of the year. We don't think you ought to be raising taxes in this town every quarter. But every time we hear from the President--because we heard, and he was nice enough to come and visit our conference this week, we heard yet again the cry for more taxes.

We saw an introduction of the Murray budget in the Senate--$1 trillion of more taxes. To try and say that the American people are going to be benefited by that kind of tax levy I think is something we take strong exception with.

But the gentleman's right: we can agree on some things. Let's go find where we can agree. And I look forward to doing the things that we can do together, like extending the welfare reforms that we did this week, like making sure that we also do the things we did today on the floor-- without much help from the other side--and that is, Mr. Speaker, try and put some good government practices into place.

That SKILLS Act came from a recommendation of the GAO. It said you've got 50 programs, a maze of bureaucracy. Unemployed people have a very difficult time of even beginning to navigate that maze if they want skills to get back to work.

That was the essence behind the bill.

We also said you need some flexibility. Take people and put them back to work. So get the community colleges and the other training forces in place to respond to the marketplace where there are job openings, not some micromanaged idea of what that should be from Washington. I think we can agree on some kind of commonsense principles like that.

So, again, I appreciate the sentiment of the gentleman and look forward to working with him on some of the very big challenges we face, as well as those issues that working families face every single day.

If the gentleman would yield.

Just to respond to the gentleman's allegations that somehow there wasn't an open process in the passage of the SKILLS Act, if I recall, this week there were reports that the gentleman's members, the members of the minority, walked out on the committee markup. Now, if you can't show up for work, how are you going to participate in the markup and shaping of a bill? The committee process was fair; it was open. There were hearings. There was a markup, and the gentleman's members on the minority side chose not to participate.

Now, if you're asking what the American people expect, I think they expect that there's going to be disagreement, but I think they expect everybody to show up for work, and that didn't happen.

So I say to the gentleman, we continue--and he has my commitment, and he knows that--to work together and to have an open process. Our Speaker has continued to uphold that as a goal. So I hope we can sort of resolve that lingering question, especially around this bill. The SKILLS Act is something we should have all agreed on.

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to the gentleman's request. Just to give a general idea of the kinds of things that we'll be considering upcoming, we'll look to do and consider some cybersecurity legislation that will result from the work of multiple committees. The gentleman knows, as well as I, that we face a very serious threat in the cybersecurity arena, and we want to take action as a House. We want to take bipartisan action, and I look forward to working with him on that.

We're also going to be taking up the Working Families Flexibility Act. This will be a bill designed to provide working moms and dads with some flexibility as they try and manage their obligations at work and at home.

We also are going to be looking at taking up some measures in the area of health care and innovation and in pursuit of an agenda that focuses on medical research. I know the gentleman has been a big champion of that, and we, as well, believe it's very important for us to maintain the American leadership in innovation which is premised upon the devotion of resources to medical research, to curing disease, and to developing therapies that increase and enhance the quality of life for so many Americans who are afflicted by disease. We'll be working on that.

We'll also be looking at some legislation in the area of domestic energy production that will lead to more jobs, that will lead to more energy independence for America.

These are the kinds of things that we look to in April, Mr. Speaker, and I would tell the gentleman, again, I look forward to working with him in an open process, in a bipartisan fashion.