Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gerry House on his induction into the National Association of Broadcasters' Hall of Fame. Gerry's contributions to broadcasting are celebrated in the country music industry. His talent has made a lasting impact on country music and radio.

For over three decades, Tennesseans have eagerly awakened to Gerry's voice on his early morning radio show, Gerry House and the House Foundation. Nashville radio loves Gerry House.

Not only a radio personality, Gerry is also a gifted songwriter. His songs have been recorded by George Strait, Reba McEntire, LeAnn Rimes, Brad Paisley, Randy Travis and Pam Tillis among others. He has further released two comedy albums, The Cheater's Telethon in 1990 and The Bull in 1992.

Gerry's resume does not stop there. He has been voted Billboard's Radio Personality of the Year seven times and Country Music Association Personality four times. He is also a member of the Country Music DJ Hall of Fame, has won Radio & Records Country Format Personality of the Year multiple times and is a recipient of the NAB Marconi Radio Award for Large Market Air Personality of the Year.

On April 12, 2011 in Las Vegas, Gerry will become the first country radio personality to be inducted into the NAB Broadcasting Hall of fame.

Thank you Gerry House for bringing a smile to countless faces each and every morning. You truly are a staple of Nashville's culture.

Mr. Speaker, the promise of our great nation depends on each generation working to leave this country a better place than they found it. Men and women of great service dedicate their lives to the ideals of such a promise. I rise today to honor two public servants, Joe Reagan and Joe Sweeney, as they end their public careers in service to the citizens of Brentwood, Tennessee.

All across America, small towns and large cities depend on the leadership, vision, and service of their local elected officials. First elected as City Commissioner in 1992, Joe Reagan's dedication to the City of Brentwood extends far beyond his official title. Reagan's emphasis on community development and sustained growth assisted the city in attaining the highest city bond rating possible, ushered her into the new world of internet and social media, and facilitated the opening of centers of great commerce for Brentwood.

One person making a commitment to public service could truly make a difference. The dedicated work and service of Joe Sweeney embodies such a long-lasting truth. Beginning his service in 1972 to one of Tennessee's finest communities, Sweeney was elected to serve the three year old City of Brentwood. Under his 39 year watch, Brentwood grew from 958 households to over 40,000 residents; from a city staff of 15, to an expanded library of 55,000 square feet; and from 64.13 city road miles, to almost 1,000 acres of city parks. Serving several terms in city leadership positions, I am confident Joe Sweeney's fidelity to the City of Brentwood, as well as the higher calling to public service, is what helped to bring Brentwood into a position of prominence in the great state of Tennessee.

Dr. Joseph Warren, one of devoted Found Fathers, encouraged the patriots of the young colonies to ``act worthy of yourselves.'' Mr. Speaker, in an age where devotion to public service is not the norm, it is my privilege to acknowledge two public servants who live Dr.Warren's call. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Joe Reagan and Joe Sweeney for their lasting example in devotion to the work of public service.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion about House Joint Resolution 37 and what it does.

My colleagues seem to think this would impact the FCC's statutory authority, and I want to call their attention to the actual wording of the resolution. It's eight little bitty lines. If you start on line 3 and you begin to read, it says the Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices.

Now, what this does is to say we disapprove it. If you want to get to the statutory authority, I want to invite you to join us in that discussion. You are going to have that opportunity. It is called House Resolution 96, and it is coming to a committee near you very, very soon, and we look forward to forever prohibiting the overreach of the Federal Communications Commission.

Let's also be clear on another point that has been misstated. There have never been telephone rules that regulated the Internet. It didn't happen. They were not there. So we need to be certain that those who are listening to us, Mr. Speaker, realize that never had the Federal Communications Commission, never had the Federal Government regulated the Internet until December 21, when the Federal Communications Commission met after we had adjourned the 111th Congress and decided to go where they had no statutory authority to go. They enacted, they brought the heavy arm of government in and put it on the Internet after these Internet service providers spend about $60 billion a year on spectrum, on maintaining this network.

I would also remind my colleagues that when the ACLU decided they were going to go in here and show there was a need, they couldn't even find enough examples.

There has never been an example of a market failure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation and thank our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, for bringing it forth and bringing forth a bill that will limit the EPA's regulatory overreach. It is important that we do. This is an issue that has been going on since 2007, when the Supreme Court gave the EPA permission to regulate greenhouse gases. At that point, I introduced a bill that would have stopped the EPA. Unfortunately, Congress didn't act and the EPA has now issued a final rule, and there will be more rules and regulations on the way if Congress does not step in and take action to stop this.

I am grateful that we are stepping forward and making certain that this authority returns to Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 910 and reassert Congress's authority over this issue, as it should be, and take it away from unelected bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague across the aisle is having a tough time figuring this out, I think we can probably help with that explanation.

First of all, if you like the Internet that you have, we are saying we want you to keep it. Mr. Speaker, there has been no market failure. Over 80 percent of all Americans are pleased with the Internet service that they have. What they do not want to see is the Obama administration step in in front of these Internet service providers and say, We the government are here to change your Internet. We are here to take control of your Internet.

That is exactly what net neutrality would do.

Net neutrality is the Federal Government stepping in and saying, We're going to come first. We're going to assign priority and value to content. It basically is the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.

As I said, there has been no market failure, and there is no need for this government overreach. So many are saying, Why do this? It's one of those issues of power and control, of government wanting to dictate what speed you will have, how often you will be on, the type of Internet service that you will have, being able to control them.

What the FCC did after Congress left town, mind you, during Christmas week, was to step in and bring uncertainty to the marketplace. What they did was to say, We are going to put ourselves, the government, in control of the Internet. It is the first time ever this has happened.

Also, in their net neutrality order, if you read paragraph 84, what it does is to bring an incredible amount of uncertainty to the innovative community and to the creative economy that our jobs growth is going to be based on, because what it says to these innovators is, Look, if you want to innovate a new application, a new attachment, a new usage for a Web-based service or for the Internet, you'd better come apply to the FCC first because, if you don't, we can step in and require you to come make application to us.

Now, if you want to talk about a chilling effect--a chilling effect-- on all of our high-tech innovation, on health care innovation with our telemedicine concepts, with our health IT concepts, I would encourage individuals to look at paragraph 84, which is found in the net neutrality order that was brought forward on a 3-2 vote by the Obama administration. It will do more to squelch jobs growth and to pull back innovation than any other action in this administration.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Any time you allow the Federal Government to step in to a process where they have not been involved in a process--and we did this not once but twice. We did it not once but twice.

The gentleman knows that that is not relevant to the discussion that we are having here.

What we are talking about is that the application of this is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet.

Will the gentleman yield?

We all know that anytime you give the government the ability to assign priority and value to content, you have inserted them into the decision-making process. They would precede the responsibility of the Internet service providers. And the gentleman knows there has been no market failure.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 174, I call up the bill (H.R. 1076) to prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1076, a bill to get the Federal Government--and Federal taxpayers--out of the business of buying radio programming they do not agree with. This is a bill that is long overdue. Regardless of what you think of NPR, its programming or statements by its management, the time has come to cut the umbilical cord from the taxpayer support that has become as predictable as an entitlement program.

Much has changed, Mr. Speaker, in the media landscape since the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created in 1967, followed by its creation of National Public Radio in 1970. Today, we have multiple listening choices. There is analog radio, digital radio, satellite radio, streaming radio over the Internet, and podcasts--both commercial and the self-published variety. Choice and available content are not the problem. If you want to find some content, the only question is where you will find it.

In these challenging economic times, committing the taxpayer to fund and support particular content, including content he or she may never listen to, highlights this absurd anachronism of the past. It is time to move forward and to let National Public Radio spread its wings and support itself.

This legislation does several important things. It prohibits the direct Federal funding of National Public Radio; and more importantly, it ensures that American taxpayers will not be funding through their tax dollars radio programming from NPR or other outlets with which they may not agree.

It is also important to recognize that this bill does not do a few things. It does not defund public radio stations. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is such an important point. It does not defund public radio stations. They still may use Federal funding to operate their stations or to produce their own programming. Public radio stations may also continue to purchase programming from NPR or other sources, just not with Federal taxpayer dollars. Also, this bill has no impact--I want to repeat that--no impact on public television.

The added benefit of this legislation is that it ensures that, if taxpayer dollars are necessary and given to local stations, the money will not be used to purchase generic national programming but, instead, can be used to produce local content that actually will meet the needs of the communities in which these are located.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our new freshman Members, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), who is a broadcaster and brings that expertise to this Chamber.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up what I think are probably a couple of misunderstandings that my colleagues have across the aisle.

One of the things I think it's important for everyone in this Chamber to realize, and I know some want to make fun of the fact that we're here talking about $100 million, $92 million, $67 million, different funding that goes in and through NPR. Mr. Speaker, every single penny that comes from the taxpayer is important. And every single penny that we appropriate comes from those taxpayers, and we are charged with being good stewards of that money. Changing the structure in which NPR does their business, as Mr. Lamborn said, looking at that business model, this is a step that we can take to save those taxpayer dollars. This is a step that is going to change that business model and free

Mr. Speaker, since the previous speaker talked a little bit about NPR and its listening audience, I would like to make certain that the record reflects a little bit about that listening audience.

We know that more men than women listen to NPR, except for the classical music, which is 48 percent female. Baby boomers are a big part of their audience.

We also know that NPR, according to their Web site, says that their audience is extraordinarily well educated. Nearly 65 percent of all listeners have a bachelor's degree, compared to only a quarter of the U.S. population.

We also know that they are wealthy listeners, Mr. Speaker. NPR households tend to be more affluent than other households as a result of their educational attainment. The median household income of an NPR news listener is about $86,000, compared to the national average of about $55,000.

We also know that when it comes to geography, more than 99 percent of the U.S. population has access to at least one NPR station. And then, when it comes to employment, the majority of NPR listeners, 63 percent, are employed full time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat the point. The object of this today is to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is time for us to do this. It is time for this structure to be changed. It is time for us to be good stewards and save the money of the American taxpayer. This is another step toward that goal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one thing. This is not an ancient animosity. I don't think I'm quite that old. And I don't think you have to be Dick Tracy to figure out what this debate is about. This debate is about saving taxpayer money. We do not have a revenue problem in this town. We have a spending problem in this town. The Federal Government does not have the money to fund these programs. We are borrowing 42 cents of every single dollar that we spend. We have to get the spending under control. We have to get an environment where the American people can get back to work. And we're talking about funding for NPR.

I just gave the demographics. It is a wealthy, educated listening audience. If people want this programming, Mr. Speaker, they're going to be willing to pay for it. But the American taxpayer has said, get NPR out of our pocket.

I pulled the sponsors for NPR, and I think my colleagues would be interested in this. When you go to the NPR Web site and you start pulling the sponsors, they don't sell advertising, but they do have many sponsors. They have some sponsors that land in the $1 million plus category. And then they list sponsors all the way down to $5,999. This is how wealthy the sponsorship base and the subscribership base is for them. It is time for us to remove the Federal support system that they have relied on. They have told us they do not need the money. We need to cut the umbilical cord. We need to see what NPR can do on their own.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in response to this statement that there are no savings, may I point my colleagues to a CRS report on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal funding and issues, and I will be happy to submit this for the Record.

Reading from it: ``NPR, Incorporated, which oversees the NPR system, states that annually NPR receives direct funding in the range of $1.5 million to $3 million from three Federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Those are the National Endowment for the Arts, the CPB, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the Department of Education.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is you can't do that anymore. This is one of the steps that we have to take in order to straighten out this budgeting process. Our country does not have the money to spend on this. NPR does not need the money. They will not be able to get these grants. We will save those dollars.

The American taxpayer has said, Get your fiscal house in order. This is a step in that process. I know they don't like it, but, you know what? This is something we can do. This is something we will do. This is something the American people want to make certain that we do so that we get this Nation back on a firm fiscal and sound fiscal policy.

The day has come that the out-of-control Federal spending has to stop. A good place to start is by taking NPR out of the taxpayer's pocket.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to one of our freshman Members, the gentleman from the Florida Panhandle (Mr. Southerland).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is one of those things that's kind of what's wrong around here. Everybody says, Don't do this, don't do this; that's not much money, that's not much money. Mr. Speaker, it all adds up. And the American people have had it with the Federal Government spending money they do not have.

With that I yield 1 minute to a wonderful new Member who has joined us, the gentlewoman from Dunn, North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do think our colleagues across the aisle are missing the point on this. We are responsible for making certain that this fiscal house gets in order. This is just another of those steps. This bill is not about taking NPR off the air. There is nothing here that says you will take NPR off the air.

What it simply says is, if you are an affiliate station and if you want to pay NPR dues, you can't use taxpayer dollars. If you want to buy NPR programming, you cannot use taxpayer dollars for that. The taxpayers want NPR out of their pockets. Now, there is plenty of popular programming out there, and if listeners want to hear that, we are not trying to disenfranchise those listeners. Indeed, if listeners like the NPR they have, they can keep it. What we're saying is that they need to raise the money for this.

We went through the demographics for NPR: college-educated; 63 percent have full-time jobs; the average household income is upwards of $86,000 a year. They have a list of sponsors who give over $1 million a year to NPR. NPR, itself, has said it does not need our taxpayer funding. So this is a place that we can save some money.

Now, to those who say it is a job-killing program, may I remind you, indeed, to develop local programming, I articulated 17 different positions that are attached to creating even one radio show. Unlike some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I fully believe there are talented people--talented writers and editors and programmers--all across this great Nation who would love to have a platform for the great ideas and the content they would like to create.

I want to encourage all of my colleagues to take a step in the right direction in getting our fiscal house in order. The time has come for us to claw back this money. The time has come for us to send a message. We need to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pockets. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1076.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that this Nation's children, our children and our grandchildren are an incredibly important part of our lives and protecting those children, protecting their future.

We all agree that it is important that we put this Nation on a firm fiscal footing. Now, while we all heartily support the AMBER Alert program, we also know there is nothing in the H.R. 1076 that would prohibit the AMBER Alert program. What we also know is that this is a procedural move by the minority to try to derail the funding to NPR.

As I said, as we talked about the bill, it is imperative that we be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, that we get this fiscal house in order. It is time to get NPR out of the taxpayers' pocket. The underlying bill does that.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. I encourage an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1076.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, business leader Peter Drucker believes, ``whenever you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous decision.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell you of one successful businessman who lived Drucker's mantra. Born on a working farm in Williamson County, Alexander built an automotive empire in Middle Tennessee. Through humble beginnings to a sprinting end, R.C. Alexander spent his life developing a strong sense of business, family, and community.

Starting with nine employees and single gas station in Murfreesboro, TN, R.C. Alexander grew Alexander Automotive into 22 locations throughout Franklin, Columbia, Murfreesboro, Dickson, and Cookeville. Built upon the tenants of hard work, dedication to community, and straightforward business models, Alexander Automotive maintained almost 1,000 employees at the time of R.C. Alexander's death. He led not only generations of his own family to excellence, but taught those in his influence of the straightforward business practices that brought him success.

Through service to his community, fidelity to his mission, and dedication to his family, Alexander leaves a behind a lasting tribute to his ideals. I ask my colleagues to join with me in celebrating the legacy of Mr. R.C. Alexander.

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, the American people spoke loud and clear in November, and they have continued to speak and hold us accountable. Their message is clear: They are overtaxed, this government is overspent, and they have had enough of Washington passing bills, regulations, rules and programs they can't afford and do not want. They have said stop the out-of-control spending.

Washington does not have a revenue problem; Washington has a very serious spending problem. They are ready for us to change the way the system operates. They want the fiscal house in order, and there is a systematic way we can approach this.

In the past couple of years, 26 different States have used this method--indeed, even Tennessee, my State, used it during a time of fiscal crisis. They have replaced billions of dollars in deficit spending and projections with spending cuts, and now it is time for the Federal government to follow the States.

The Republican Study Committee amendment makes an 11-percent cut on our legislative branch spending and a 5\1/2\ percent cut in other non- Defense, non-Veteran, non-Homeland Security accounts. This amendment will save $22.2 billion for the balance of this fiscal year and from this year's deficit. I know not everyone is a fan of across-the-board cuts, but many of us are and so are our constituents.

This is a concept that should be implemented at the Federal level. And indeed, it has been used before. President Roosevelt used it during World War II, and from 1942 to 1944 they cut 20 percent. President Truman, with the Korean War, they cut 28 percent in 1950. It is used. It works. It has a history of working. It is imperative that we get the spending cut. And across-the-board spending reductions are a very responsible way for us to do this.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Chair, how much time remains on each side?

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman's comments.

I would take issue with saying any Member of this House is lazy or that this is a lazy process. Indeed, it is not. As I said, 26 States have used across-the-board cuts to get their fiscal house in order. This government has overspent. We have to get it under control. Let's complement what has been done by the appropriators and make these across-the-board cuts.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the author of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we look at what this process of net neutrality is. I rise in support of the resolution that we're bringing to block this funding at the FCC from being used to implement it.

Bear in mind--and I think it's important that we realize this and remember it--after we adjourned from the last Congress and all headed home at Christmas, the FCC convened and the FCC decided that they were going to go where they had no authority to go. They were going to go in and implement net neutrality rules. Now, bear in mind that this body has stood in a bipartisan manner against the FCC taking this action. We have had over 300 Members stand and move forward with letters stating that they didn't think the FCC should move forward. This is an issue that should come back to Congress.

But Christmas week they moved forward and the gentleman from Louisiana is exactly right in his comments. We heard from the FCC yesterday, and we heard about how they plan to move forward in this. Bear in mind, they have not done any analysis that would indicate that there has been a market failure. Indeed, by the actions taken in this body in 1996 in the Telecom Act, adopting a hands-off approach to the Internet and broadband, what we were able to do is see this country go from 8 million to over 200 million users; 95 percent of the country has access. Get this, according to the FCC, over 90 percent of those that have Internet access are satisfied with what they have. That has been done because we left it alone.

Government created the environment. They made the spectrum available, companies came in, bid on that spectrum, secured that spectrum. They spend 60 billion private sector job-creating dollars every single year to build and maintain that spectrum.

When we talk about the creative economy, when we talk about 21st- century jobs growth, much of it is based off of technologies that are going to be attached to, developed, or applied to broadband, the Internet, and Web sites.

It is in support of this resolution that we should all stand. We should vote ``yes.'' We should rein in some of these Federal Government agencies. We should stop the FCC from enacting the fairness doctrine for the Internet.

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

This has been a good debate this evening. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the time you have allowed this body to stand and have this debate. There has been a lot said. A couple of things, I think, do need to be corrected.

Mr. Chair, we are thinking about the American taxpayer, and we are thinking about our responsibility to the taxpayer. This is not a debate about a vendetta; this is not a debate about Planned Parenthood; this is not a debate about something that is extreme. What this is tonight is a debate about our stewardship and our responsibility to the American people.

Our discussion tonight--and I thank Mr. Pence for his leadership on this--is how we fund this government in a responsible manner and how we get this government back on track. The taxpayers are weighing in. They're reminding us that we, the Members of the House, are the keepers of the purse of this great Nation, and that it is important that we have these discussions. They want us to do it respectfully; they want us to do it responsibly; and they want us to make wise decisions.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, to give $363 million in taxpayer funds to an organization that has not conducted itself in a manner that suggests it deserves those funds is not respectful of the taxpayer.

I want to go back to what Mr. Pence said at the beginning of the debate, that this is a debate about who pays. No one is saying that Planned Parenthood has to stop operating or has to stop being an advocate for abortion. What we are saying is that the American taxpayer should not have to foot the bill, especially for an organization that is facing criminal charges, that has admitted wrongdoing, and that is accused of endangering the safety of Americans. The American taxpayers should not have to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on this.

I encourage my colleagues to stand for appropriate stewardship of the taxpayer dollars and to support and vote ``yes'' on the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 423: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues across the aisle

are showing their displeasure. They think that it requires passing a law to create jobs and they want to tax and spend so that they can use the term ``invest.'' But I think the American people have really wised up to what is going on. They know that every time a law is passed, rules and regulations start to pile on. They also know that if money is coming to D.C., then they can't use that money there in their communities to create jobs. Because the way it really works is this: Government does not create jobs. Government creates the environment in which the private sector can create jobs.

Last week, as we were home, I visited, I worked with my Chambers of Commerce and with job creators to tell us, what is getting in the way. We heard a lot about regulation and the overreach of regulation. From bankers, we heard about auditors and regulators and the FDIC. From builders, we heard about OSHA and the EPA. From small business manufacturers, we heard about the EPA and carbon emissions. From retailers, we heard about the FTC. From our implement device manufacturers and biotech community, we heard about the FDA overreach. From our high tech innovators and our health informatics, we heard about the overreach of the FCC.

Regulation is stifling job growth. It is time for us to cut back on this $1.75 trillion a year hit that the business community, the job creators, are taking; rein this regulation in; and, yes, my friends, let's repeal some of these laws and rules and regulations, get them off the books and free up the private sector so they do what they do best-- create the jobs that the American people want to see.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the comments that were just made about women in the health care law, I would just remind the body one of our primary concerns with this legislation was the way in which women would be adversely impacted when you look at the comparative results board and the fact that they were going to change the ratings that were coming from the task forces, and it would be more difficult for women under the age of 50 and over the age of 75 to get mammograms. And I use that as an example.

We need this bill off the books.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the repeal of this measure. The health care law this body passed last year means well, but we all know that it will never deliver on the promises that my colleagues have made.

Let me tell you why this is not a rant and why we are serious. Earlier, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) spoke to the body on this. ObamaCare makes the same fundamental mistakes that TennCare in Tennessee made. Do we not learn from our mistakes?

ObamaCare and TennCare bet that the near-term cost incurred by Washington's health care mandates will be made up by long-term savings. That's 10 years of revenue for 6 years of expenses. Tennessee lost that bet, and it nearly bankrupted the State. Unless we repeal ObamaCare, America will go down the same road.

We know hundreds of mandates, thousands of mandates, and hundreds of bureaucracies don't add up to a savings. By repealing and replacing, we can keep the promises we made last year, better care at lower cost; but we can do it in a way that will deliver through competition, not mandates.