Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the recognition.

I'm rising today to support the legislation that is in front of us.

I have to tell you, my constituents are wanting to know: When did the President decide he could pick and choose what laws he's going to enforce and what laws he's going to waive?

Over the course of 3 days, this administration decided they were just going to waive and rewrite this law, and it took them 3 years to try to implement it. I think what we're seeing is they're finally admitting this is a train wreck and it is not ready for prime time.

However, it is not fair that the President is choosing to protect big business from ObamaCare, but not hardworking American taxpayers, individuals, families. It is also eerily similar to the closed-door manner in which the law was written and passed. And now that people are reading it, they're finding out what is in it.

This legislation before us today would delay the requirements that nearly all Americans purchase minimum essential health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty until 2015. The delay of the individual mandate is needed.

Due to the administrative delay of the employer mandate, my constituents overwhelmingly oppose this law, and I work each and every day to stop the harmful effects it's having on American families and businesses and to continue the fight for solutions to spur economic growth, create new jobs, and provide a more secure future for all Americans.

I encourage support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we're learning an awful lot about ObamaCare these days, and it seems like every week is bringing something new. We have learned that this program is too expensive to afford. We have learned that it is too difficult to implement. We have learned that it is too burdensome for business. That is why the employer mandate is being delayed. Indeed, we're seeing these burdens on business lead to an under- and unemployed number, the U-6 number, 14.3 percent.

Where have the jobs gone? ObamaCare holds some of that answer.

We are also learning that there are too many mandates, too many rules, too many regulations. We're hearing it from our health care providers, we're hearing it from constituents, and we're hearing it from individuals who want to be able to make their health care decisions with their doctors, not a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.

What my constituents are telling me is this: let's delay, let's defund, let's repeal, let's replace. This law is too cumbersome and too expensive to afford.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as I begin to talk about this amendment that Mr. Rokita and I have worked on and bring to you today, I want to pause and take just a moment and commend our appropriators and the chairman. He is accustomed to seeing me come down and try to cut 1 percent, 5 percent more out of the budget, but the appropriators this year have done that work for us.

This bill before us today totals $30.426 billion, which is $2.9 billion below last year's level, $700 billion below the sequester level, and $4 billion below the President's request. Indeed, it's below the pre-Pelosi budget, which was $31.5 billion.

As my former colleague in the Tennessee State Senate used to say--Tim Burchett, now mayor of Knoxville--he would quote Tennessee author Alex

Haley, who said ``find the good, and praise it.'' So I praise them for doing these cuts on the front end, and I focus my attention on the issue we have with ceiling fans and this administration's interest in overregulating ceiling fans.

As many of my colleagues know, ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits already face existing regulations set in place by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These provisions burden ceiling fan manufacturers with ineffective mandates. However, despite the current mandates, the Department of Energy is looking to require additional mandates that will impact everything such as the angle of the blade, shape, airflow, light kits. They are determined to redesign the American fan and have issued a 101-page rulemaking framework document which evaluates the potential energy savings that new regulations would supposedly provide.

We've already seen the Federal Government stretch their regulatory tentacles into our homes and determine what kind of light bulbs we have to use. Now they're coming after our ceiling fans. It is a sad state of affairs when even our ceiling fans aren't safe from this administration. Enough is enough.

These new regulations being considered by DOE will significantly impair the ability of ceiling fan manufacturers like Hunter Fans in Memphis to produce reasonably priced, highly decorative fans. They will also force our constituents to use less energy-efficient mechanisms to cool their homes, using more energy. It is imperative that we join together and prohibit any funding in this bill from being used by DOE to finalize, implement, or enforce new regulations on ceiling fans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to share a quote with my colleagues to make them aware of this. It is from Daniel Schrag. He is the White House adviser on climate change, and this was reported in The New York Times. Quite frankly, I find this quote baffling. Here it is:

The one thing the President really needs to do now is to

begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal

plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say that

we're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal

is exactly what's needed.

That was Mr. Schrag, the White House adviser on climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I highlight this with my colleagues in this House right now because a war on coal is a war on jobs; a war on jobs, is a war on the American worker.

I have never met anybody that wants to pay more for electric power generation, but the actions of this administration, the actions of the President choosing to circumvent Congress and implement these is costing us 500,000 jobs.

Madam Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) for the leadership she has brought to this issue, and for the bipartisan manner in which she and Ranking Member Sanchez have approached this issue to bring together a bill which we can focus on, we can agree on, and we can pass to address a problem that does need our attention and our best efforts.

We have heard about the 26,000 estimated sexual assaults that are taking place in our military each year. Now, as we look at those numbers, we have to look at the number that are reported--3,374. That is the number of reports--3,374. More stunning is the number of convictions--238 convictions. That is what we have learned from this DOD report. As we've heard, the reason given for the lack of reporting is because so many fear retaliation and the fact that it would negatively impact their career. Sixty-two percent--62 percent--give that as their reason.

I think the scope of the problem is much larger than we know at this point in time, and here is an example. On May 15, police arrested Fort Campbell's sexual harassment prevention manager on charges involving stalking his ex-wife. That's important to me and my district because Fort Campbell is in my district. Now, if you can't turn to the people who are there to protect, who are you going to go to when you have one of these situations?

As a woman and as a strong supporter of our Nation's military, I find it absolutely appalling that any woman who has been the victim of crime should have to fear reporting her perpetrator for fear of retaliation.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the two Members who have worked so diligently on this, Mrs. Walorski and Ms. Sanchez.

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

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, so often we come to the floor and we will hear Members say, we are doing this for the children or that for the children, and I have to tell you, this is one of those days that we truly can stand and say, yes, indeed, we are taking an action that will enable so many children to enjoy that first guarantee, that guarantee to life. And indeed, that is the reason that we stand here.

The Unborn Child Protection Act is based in science. This is an area that has overwhelming public support, and it is, indeed, an appropriate response to Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors and the similar stories that we are hearing emanate from across the Nation about what is happening in these abortion clinics.

What this does is to limit abortion at the 6th month of pregnancy and includes exceptions so that we can send the clearest possible message to the American people that we do not support more Gosnell-like abortions.

It does nothing to ban abortion before the 6th month of pregnancy. It does not affect Roe v. Wade, and we know that it is a step that needs to be taken to protect life.

You know, scientific evidence tells us that unborn babies can feel touch as soon as 8 weeks into the pregnancy. They feel pain at 20 weeks. Indeed, some of these marvelous, marvelous fetal surgeries that are performed, they administer an anesthesia to these unborn babies.

And as I said, public opinion polling shows that 60 percent of all Americans, Madam Speaker, they support limiting abortion during the second trimester, and 80 percent during the third trimester. So we think that it is incumbent upon this body to take the step that we bring before the Chamber today and to recognize science, to bring the law in line with the majority of public opinion, and to stand against what has transpired in the Kermit Gosnell-like abortion clinics.

Indeed, I think it is so noteworthy that Mr. Gosnell's attorney, Jack McMahon, stated that he thought the law should be back to 16 or 17 weeks. He said that 24 weeks was not a good determiner, and that it would be a far better thing to have that ban at 16 or 17 weeks.

We're not pushing back that far. We're at 20 weeks. We think that this is an appropriate step.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to one of our great pro-life advocates, Mrs. Black from Tennessee.

I yield 15 seconds to myself to respond.

A USA Today-Gallup poll: 64 percent, abortions should not be permitted in the second 3 months of pregnancy; 80 percent, in the third 3 months. The polling company on March 3, 2013: 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence shows the baby can feel pain.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

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

Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to one of our bright young attorneys, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

When we talk about what is dangerous and wrong, let me tell you what is dangerous and wrong: condoning the actions of Kermit Gosnell or Doug Karpen or what transpired in New Mexico or what we found out from Delaware or from Virginia or from West Virginia. The house of horrors goes on and on.

At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a member of our House Republican leadership team, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), who chairs the Republican Study Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Women's Policy Committee, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask how much time is remaining on each side?

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers. If you want to complete, then I will close.

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

This has been an interesting debate, and I have to tell you, we have heard every descriptive adjective that there can possibly be coming from the negative of why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that this debate is inappropriate.

I do think that some of the most interesting has been the parliamentary inquiries to ask about what we're doing about jobs and student loans and veterans. And I have to tell you all, I agree. This Obama economy has been brutal to especially women and the female workforce; and, indeed, we would love to see our colleagues in the Senate and the administration work with us on those issues.

But let me refocus us on why we are here. We are here because it is imperative that we take an action, and that we address these Gosnell- like abortions. We have stood on the floor today, and we have talked about what transpired with the conviction of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, 21 felony counts, performing illegal abortions beyond the 24-week limit, manslaughter for the death of a woman seeking an abortion at his clinic, three counts of killing babies born alive, and dozens of other heinous crimes.

We have heard about how the necks are snipped, the heads are punctured. We even heard the statement from his attorney who said 16 to 17 weeks should be the limit.

We are going at 20 weeks. We have heard of other atrocities, whether they are the Carpin case in Texas, the case in New Mexico. Nurses, pro- choice nurses out in Delaware recently quit their jobs at a big abortion business to save their medical licenses. They said the clinic was, I'm quoting them, ``ridiculously unsafe, where meat-market style, assembly-line abortions were happening.''

Another abortionist, Leroy Carhart, recently stated he's performed more than 20,000 abortions on babies after 24 weeks gestation, and he's perfectly happy to do elective abortions on babies at 7 months gestation.

We know that at 8 weeks babies feel pain. When they have these prenatal surgeries, we know that they're given anesthesia. We know they respond to pain, and we know these late-term abortions are incredibly, incredibly painful.

So that is why we stand today. We want parity for these babies, for these unborn children. We can see them. We have seen some of the ultrasounds. And you know what is so amazing? When you see these ultrasounds, and when people are waiting for the arrival of these precious children, they go ahead, they name them. They're expecting them. They are waiting for them. And they know that these children feel pain when they are harmed.

Science tells us so. The American public is with us on this. Sixty- four percent of all women think abortions should be eliminated when these unborn babies feel pain. Out of all Americans, 60 percent--60 percent--this is a Gallup/USA Today poll. Sixty percent says second- trimester abortions should be eliminated. Eighty percent say third- trimester abortions should be eliminated.

So for those reasons, that is why we stand here today. To support these women and these unborn children, to end these atrocities, to stand together, to make certain that that first guarantee, the guarantee to life--the guarantee to life--so that you can pursue liberty and enter into the pursuit of happiness, that is why we stand here today.

Madam Speaker, I've been honored to work with my colleagues. I know some don't like the fact that a former Judiciary Committee member has come to the floor to handle this bill. I've been so honored to be joined by so many

pro-life women as we have discussed this issue, as we have come together to stand for this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Today, I stand to support keeping the money--that $5 billion--that we need for readiness, and here is why: I think it is absolutely immoral that we would sign up, suit up and ship out men and women in uniform and not give them the readiness and the skills and the training that they need. The flying hours program is a great example of that. In the $5 billion that the gentleman would like to cut is the money for the flying hours program--37,000 flying hours. It would equip us with 500 aviators, whom we need. Let's fund these efforts for the men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Chairman, when Congress created the Transportation Security Administration in 2001, we defined ``TSA security screeners'' in law as ``Federal security screeners.'' Their role, as defined by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, is to screen passengers and luggage at airports across the country. However, beginning in 2005, TSA administratively reclassified ``TSA security screeners'' as ``transportation security officers'' and proceeded to upgrade their uniforms to reflect those of Federal law enforcement officers with metal officer badges.

My concern and those of many of my constituents is that, despite their appearance, TSA officers do not have any Federal law enforcement training to reflect their current title and appearance. This can be confusing to the traveling public as they interact with TSA officers at airports and now on the highways, at rail stations, ferry terminals, bus stations, and at other mass transit facilities across the country.

I strongly believe that Congress has an obligation to ensure that the title and appearance of Federal employees properly reflects their training and background. Until we are able to pass a legislative fix to correct TSA's administrative decision, we need to use the power of the purse to ensure that TSA screeners are not abusing the current perception that they are trained Federal law enforcement officers.

I would like to commend Chairman Carter and committee staff for their due diligence and dedication in working with my office to address this issue. I am pleased that we were able to reduce screener uniforms by $18 million, a 20 percent decrease, so that we can continue to monitor this issue.

I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Carter and his staff in moving forward on finding a permanent solution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, as I have stated earlier during the floor debate, TSA transportation security officers are not Federal law enforcement officers. They do not have any Federal law enforcement training, nor are they eligible to receive Federal law enforcement benefits.

When Congress created the TSA in 2001, we defined TSA screeners in law as Federal security screeners. Their role as defined by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act is to screen passengers and luggage at airports across the country.

However, beginning in 2005, TSA administratively reclassified TSA security screeners as transportation security officers and began to upgrade their uniforms to reflect those of Federal law enforcement officers with metal officer badges.

Time magazine contributor Amanda Ripley succinctly summed up the transition by stating that TSA was ``outfitting frontline employees with new gold badges and royal blue shirts as part of a broader effort to improve their image and make people, to put it bluntly, hate them less.''

The problem is that TSA officers do not have any Federal law enforcement training to reflect their officer title or appearance.

Law enforcement personnel for air transportation security are clearly defined in section 44903 of title 49, U.S. Code. U.S. Code states that ``law enforcement'' means individuals who are authorized to carry and use firearms, vested with the power of arrest, and are identifiable by distinctive marks of authority.

TSA officers do not meet these basic requirements of our law. Their training consists of 2 weeks in a classroom to learn how to screen passengers and bags, followed by 2 to 4 weeks of on-the-job training.

That is why it is troubling to me and many of my constituents that TSA is allowing their officers to take part in DHS VIPR team operations outside our airports. These operations are currently taking place on our Nation's highways, in our rail stations, ferry terminals, bus stations, and other mass transit facilities across the country. Adopting this amendment would end this practice.

The American public should be outraged that our national security strategy to prevent a horrific attack at a mass transit facility includes randomly sending people with no Federal law enforcement authority to randomly select and search citizens without any actionable intelligence. I strongly believe that Congress has an obligation to ensure that the title and appearance of Federal employees properly reflect their training and background.

There are already enough well-documented concerns questioning whether these individuals can even carry out the basic functions of their jobs within our airports. Here is an example:

Last year, a TSA officer whistleblower in Nashville produced documents showing that TSA officers in charge of screening a passenger's bags were receiving failing grades at being able to identify potential threats and were not receiving remedial training.

Another example is a GAO report, which I have with me right here, published in January, which shows that the TSA is failing to deploy passenger-screening canine teams to airports and terminals with the highest risk as determined by the agency's high-risk list. Furthermore, the report lays out concerns that the current protocols in place ``are not appropriate for a suicide bombing attempt requiring an immediate law enforcement response.''

If that's not concerning enough, there is a DHS Office of the Inspector General report released just last month on TSA's Behavior Detection Officers--and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi referenced this earlier--which only consists of TSA's Transportation Security Officers, and it raised concerns about their performance:

TSA senior airport officials at airports contacted raised

concerns regarding the selection, allocation and performance

of the BDOs.

TSA does not use an evaluation period to determine whether

new BDOs can effectively perform behavior detection.

For these reasons, we should end this program and restrict them to the airports.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, there are citizens making up this great country who never cease in offering themselves to their communities while improving the quality of our lives. They are the lights of our neighborhoods and families that bring hope long after they are gone. I rise today to celebrate one such glorious light and honor the legacy of Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Charles Currie, Ret.

Chaplain Currie dedicated his life to the calling of the Almighty and in service to the country he loved. During World War II, Currie played the trombone in the 11th Airborne Division Band. He returned to the Army as a Chaplain after graduating from Dallas Theological Seminary with a Master's Degree in Theology. He preached of the goodness and hope of the Almighty at Ft Bragg, Ludwigsburg, Germany, Fort Campbell, Pajori, Bayreuth, and Nuremberg, Germany, Vietnam, and Fort Knox. He retired as a Lt. Colonel with more than 20 years of service and began to travel the world serving and leading mission trips to more than 38 countries.

From all of Judea to the ends of the Earth, Chaplain Currie's legacy will be long remembered. Mr. Speaker, the Tennessee 7th Congressional District is better for his lasting goodwill. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the life and service of Chaplain Charles Currie.

My constituents are asking me this question: What does this administration have against expanding energy production?

More American energy means more American jobs. We all know that that is true. It also would mean lower energy costs, stronger national security, and a boost to our economy, a boost that we badly need with 12 million Americans out of work. Yet the President has seemed to stymie the energy sector at every single turn. We're going to give him the opportunity to change that record as we bring another bill forward that would approve moving forward with the northern route of the Keystone pipeline.

Now, we all know that burdensome overregulation by this administration has caused energy output domestically on our Federal lands to decrease significantly--about 30 percent. It hampers our ability to be productive.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old American prayer asking the Almighty to bring ``safety, hounour, and welfare of thy people; that all things may be ordered and settled by their endeavors, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations.'' I rise today to honor the lives of those the Almighty used to bring peace, safety, and welfare.

On average, one law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 57 hours. Since the first known line-of-duty death in 1791, more than 19,000 law enforcement officers have made the ultimate sacrifice.

There are those souls, Mr. Speaker, whose lights guide the way even after they are dimmed. During National Police Week, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring those law enforcement officers lost in the line of duty. We join their families, friends, and communities in offering our condolences and prayers that the memory of those lost be cherished.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise today to support this legislation and to support the sportsmen from Tennessee and Kentucky. And as you can see, this is an issue where there is bipartisan agreement.

One of my constituents said it so well. They're so frustrated with this situation, and we've heard from so many of them on it. And they said, you know, you can turn on the TV any night and you see government overreach, whether it's the IRS admitting that they have targeted conservative groups or DOJ wiretapping reporters. And then you get home to Tennessee and, at the local level, what you see is the Corps of Engineers coming in and saying, well, by the way, we're going to change something, and you're not going to be able to fish.

Fishing in Tennessee is a tradition. It is a favorite pastime. Sportsmen have been fishing along this beautiful Cumberland River for years. As Mr. Cooper said, it is a beautiful place to be. And since the dams were built, I have to tell you, there are now generations of Tennesseeans, you will see families out together fishing. We have about 900,000 registered anglers in our State, and I have to tell you, I think our office has heard from almost every one of them on this issue. They have been very persistent.

One thing I would want my colleagues to know is that our sportsmen in our State are wonderful stewards of conserving our natural resources and the great outdoors, and they exercise personal responsibility and great care in protecting their favorite place to go fishing.

It is really to the disbelief of the Army Corps of Engineers that we already know when it is safe or not to go fish in these tailwaters. So what we're saying is let's right this wrong, and let's allow individuals to get back and enjoy the Freedom to Fish Act. Pass it today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 45.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 679, I call up the bill (H.R. 436) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

You know, it is just absolutely amazing that we are once again here on the floor to repeal ObamaCare, but it is a necessary step that we find that we have to do.

It is so interesting being out in my district. Whether I am talking to State-elected officials or county-elected officials or talking to those who are employers in our district--those who are job creators-- repeatedly we hear from them: this is a bill that turned into a law that is too expensive to afford.

One of the reasons--and I would point this out--this is a copy of the law as published. What it has turned into is 13,000 pages of regulation. Indeed, I wanted to bring that tower of red tape here to the floor today. It is seven feet tall and growing. It was too big to be allowed on the House floor.

It is amazing that much regulation that has come from this 2,700-page bill. Now we find out from The Washington Post and The New York Times that Secretary Sebelius had conversations with some companies and organizations asking them to help fund getting this started.

Why is this happening? Three years ago, we were told it would be an $800 billion bill. And guess what? When we went to the Budget Committee this year, $2.6 trillion is the estimated cost of this bill. So insurance--more expensive. It was to save households $2,500 a year, but instead they're already paying $3,000 more. And the survey that Chairman Murphy ran for us in the Energy and Commerce Committee shows that the cost will go anywhere up to about 400 percent, depending on who you are, what group you're in. That's what you're going to see your insurance cost go up to.

We hear from physicians. Harder to get in to see a physician? Yes, it is.

Our goal should be about how do we preserve access to affordable health care for all Americans. Instead, what my friends across the aisle have done is to focus on how do you centralize health care, run up the cost, and decrease access. That is the reason that we are here on the floor today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Health Care Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.

We trust our constituents and the American people. We don't need government control of this. Certainly we don't need the IRS policing our private health care information. There is nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act, and that is why we are concerned.

At this point, I want to yield 1 minute to the chairman of our conference, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee at Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to our chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

At this time, I yield 1 minute to one of our freshmen, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to another of our freshmen, Mr. Holding of North Carolina.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to a couple of things.

We are working on jobs. One of the items that concerns us is that, according to the CBO, implementation of the ObamaCare bill with its 13,000 pages, 7-foot tall tower of red tape would cost this economy 800,000 jobs. We also know that it's grown to being a $2.6 trillion program.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann), who is the author of H.R. 45.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

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

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

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

This law has become 13,000 pages of regulation. It has gone from costing $800 billion to $2.6 trillion.

It's so interesting to hear people talk about solutions and wanting government to do things. Mr. Speaker, the American people can solve so many of these problems. They know the answers do not come out of Washington, D.C. They come from our communities. They come from our State legislatures. They come, solutions come from employers that are fighting every single day to keep people employed.

One of the biggest impediments to job growth, indeed, including the 800,000 jobs this bill will cost us, this law, ObamaCare, costing us 800,000 jobs over the next 10 years, is keeping people working full- time.

We know what the problems are. We're saying, Look, admit it was a mistake. The American people don't want it. It's too expensive to afford. Let's get it off the books.

And we do come forward with solutions. We come forward with keeping patient-centered, health care centermost for our constituents. That's what they want. They want options. They do not want regulation and mandates by the Federal Government, who can't seem to solve the problems that are in front of them right now, whether it's the IRS or anyone else.

Let's repeal this bill and pass H.R. 45.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his work on this effort. And I also want to say thank to you Mrs. Roby from Alabama for the outstanding job that she has done on the Working Families Flexibility Act.

I have loved talking with my constituents about this issue. And it is absolutely amazing, when you say, tell me what you think about this. Would you like to have the option, the ability to control what your compensation method is going to be? And so many of my constituents, whether they're rearing families, whether they have teenagers that they're working with, whether they're caring for elderly relatives, say, this is a great idea. And it is so worthy of discussion, and it is about time for Congress to do something that's just plain old good common sense.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for this is, take a look at what is happening now. In 1975, when I was newly married and beginning to start a family, there were only 37 percent of all the families where both parents were working outside of the home.

Look at what is happening now that my children are having their careers, and my daughter has two children. You've got just under 60 percent where both parents are working outside of the home. On top of this, you have those of us who are caring for elderly relatives.

And as the majority leader just said, any time you run a survey and ask women what they want, they would love to have more time, and they also want more control over how they're able to manage their lives and the lives of their families. And this is a piece of legislation that does that.

I agree with what some of my colleagues have said. This Obama economy has really forced more families than ever to work more than one job. It has been very difficult. And having more options makes it easier for those families to manage.

I thank the leadership for the work on the bill.