Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to have the opportunity tonight to be here in this Chamber with so many of our colleagues, either to discuss solutions--solutions for our country, solutions for our economy--and I am just going to invite my colleagues to participation in the conversation as they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just point out to you that we have reached out to our constituents about this leadership hour tonight on Twitter using #4jobs; and, Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful that tonight during this hour, we will continue that conversation with our constituents at #4jobs.

I have a lot of comments from my constituents back home that I'm eager to share as we go through this hour. I want to point out what many of you may have already read, and that is that the President has stated that he plans to pivot, once again, back to jobs and the economy. I thought, well, that's great news. That's what we have been pushing here. Many of you have seen us carrying around our laminated cards that talk about all of the jobs bills that we've passed in this Congress and, last, trying to promote economic growth in this country, to help get hardworking, taxpaying Americans back to work.

But I lost my enthusiasm when buried in that article was the President's statement: White House officials said three speeches will not offer new proposals or approaches.

So we're going to pivot back to jobs and the economy, but we have no new approaches and we have no new ideas. That to me is a pivoting of message and not a pivoting of policy. We are watching, and all of us have stories of going back home to our constituents and meeting with American families that continue to struggle. The rhetoric that we all feel is not helping the reality of the situation of the people that we were sent here to represent.

We are not losing faith; the American people are not losing faith because the President's message isn't working. They are losing faith because his policies aren't working. I'm the first to say that we've got to quit doing a lot of this pointing fingers, so I'm hopeful that tonight we can have this conversation, and I have some solutions that I'd like to put out there. You can't criticize without coming behind it and offering a solution. We've continuously done that in this House and will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Like I mentioned at the beginning, buried in that article is when the President gives these speeches over the course of the next few days, there will be no new approaches or ideas. I also said that we can't stand here and criticize without offering our own recommendations about how we can do this better and how we feel like we have done it better and offered real solutions for hardworking Americans.

I wanted to compare some of the things that we've done with what I am hearing directly from my constituents. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, specifically we wanted to communicate with our constituents using #4jobs. These are some of the comments that we've gotten.

Chris Ray from Prattville, Alabama says:

No business is going to risk hiring full-time employees

like they did in the past because they will have to provide

health care due to ObamaCare. Change that and address the

widening skill gap, and I think businesses will begin to hire

en masse. So it's a regulation problem and an education

problem, in my opinion.

That's from Chris Ray from Prattville.

Well, let's look at our approach and how that matches up with the concerns of our constituents. Instead of pivoting back to no new ideas, because we remain focused on jobs and the economy, let's pivot away from ObamaCare to patient-centered health care that actually improves health care, brings down the cost, takes a market approach to help struggling families, and makes it harder for small businesses to hire; a health care system that ensures when you are sick, you and your doctor are in the driver's seat and making the decisions.

And then to address the concerns of Mr. Ray from Prattville, Alabama, about overburdensome regulations, we want to pivot again back to all these bills that we have offered that ease burdensome regulations so that businesses are free to expand and invest and hire so more people have good jobs.

Okay, so what regulations? I can look at any one of you and you could say, Keystone pipeline, the hindrance of allowing that to move forward; replacement to the health care law. I had a bill, the Working Families Flexibility Act, that amended part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a 70-year-old restriction that doesn't allow compensatory time in lieu of cash payments for overtime in the private sector which would help these very Americans that we're talking about, about providing flexibility in the workforce and all of the uncertainty that we see. We have stood on this floor many times talking about testimonials that we have heard directly from business owners.

And it just never ceases to amaze me that we're having these discussions here. But we're all about to go home in August, and I would love to hear from even our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about what they're hearing from their businesses. Do they feel certainty? Do they feel like they can ramp things up and hire more people in this uncertain environment with all of this overburdensome regulation that we're

trying so hard to ease so more Americans can have jobs?

I want to share something that I pasted on Facebook last week, and it was an article. Many of you may have seen it, but it was in The Washington Post last Wednesday, and this is what I wrote:

If you've ever wondered just how ridiculous Federal regulations can be, just ask Marty the Magician. This front-page Washington Post article tells the story about how USDA regulators required a children's magician to license his trick rabbit and even compile an animal disaster plan to comply with the Federal mandates. It's a lighthearted tale, but the rabbit trail of regulations Marty was forced to navigate illustrates a lesson in one of Washington's bad old habits: the tendency to pile new rules on top of old ones, with officials using good intentions and vague laws to expand the outrage of the total bureaucracy.

If you haven't seen that, I strongly encourage you to get online and find a copy of it. It is a funny story, but it's really sad at the same time because it shows and highlights exactly what you're talking about for a guy that just wants to pull a rabbit out of a hat for some kids at a birthday party.

Well, I just was thinking, while we were talking about this, part of the President's criticism in this article that came out is about Republicans' approach to just slashing spending.

If any of us cannot recognize that we are spending well beyond our means--we have $17 trillion in debt and our 4th year with over $1 trillion deficit. My kids, Margaret and George, are the reason that I'm here. Why I'm fighting is for that generation that's going to carry this burden after we're all gone.

And for us to not first admit that we have a problem as we move toward finding solutions and admitting that we are spending well beyond our means, that we do have to rein in spending, that we have to change the approach, that's when we see our economy improve. That's when we see hardworking American taxpaying families begin to be able to pick up and make that investment that you mentioned into the business so that they can be the job creators.

So this is great if the President wants to talk about this again because I see, for my kids' future, that this is how we're going to get this country back on track.

But we got ourselves in that trouble, as far as the government goes. We can't point fingers at somebody that is smart and figures out how to do it. What we do is fix the problem, which is the underlying code, by making it fairer and flatter.

I'll just say, we were saying earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we've been communicating tonight with our constituents at #4Jobs. Just some of the things that I'm hearing go directly to this point.

Josh from Troy says:

Throw out the Tax Code.

I just want to highlight that the people that we're hearing from, Mr. Speaker, are saying exactly what our frustrations are on this floor, as the President tells us to pivot back to jobs and the economy.

James from Dothan, Alabama, says:

Taking out ObamaCare will help free employers to hire full-

time employees, which our economy really needs.

Sara from Dothan:

Health care is the biggest problem. Employers are afraid to

hire until they know the whole deal.

We've talked about that in your three R's, the repeal and the replace being the first, about this uncertainty not just in the regulatory environment that businesses have to deal with, or, with the Tax Code, which is the point you were all just making, but also in how these laws are going to be implemented. We've passed these gargantuan bills. We don't know what's in them. And they get passed. And now the uncertainty associated with it.

How many people have you talked to have had to hire a new person just to come into compliance with what they think the health care law might be, instead of hiring another individual that can then produce what that company produces to provide a product for this country? Instead, they're having to compete with all of the Federal employees that are put in place to implement these laws. Employers are going to go out to hire somebody just to come into compliance with the laws.

Now I hear from our bankers back in our State--and you've probably heard this one--that not only is the regulator showing up, but the regulator is now showing up with a lawyer as well. So the bank has to go get their lawyer there because they're not going to find themselves in a position to not be duly represented at a time when there's a Federal regulator in their office. This is just costing businesses more and more dollars.

It's passed off to me, the consumer.

Then she goes to the grocery store and she sees that the cost of milk is higher because the cost of gasoline is higher. I'm that mom that puts gas in her car and goes to the grocery store. And you can see the net effect that this has on the individual. So you're absolutely right. It's not just the businesses. The businesses then have to turn around and pass that cost on to the consumer.

We have solutions for these problems--real commonsensical solutions that we have put forth and put forth and put forth, reducing the regulatory environment, a health care solution that works, that allows for individuals to make those decisions between themselves and their doctor, an all-of-the-above energy plan that is actually put into practice here in the House of Representatives instead of being that campaign rhetoric. We really have demonstrated our belief in our approach to an all-of-the-above energy plan.

Speaking of energy, thanks for joining us.

I wanted to share a few numbers with you.

Since the President took office in January 2009, the U-6 unemployment rate has remained stuck at 14 percent. That's workers that are stuck in part-time jobs, or they just have dropped out of the workforce altogether. During that same time we've watched, as I mentioned earlier, the national debt go from $9.8 trillion to $16.9 trillion; and according to Gallup, 17.3 percent of Americans consider themselves underemployed, which goes to your point.

The President also promised 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016, but factory employment has

continued to fall in 2013, where 4.3 million Americans have been out of work for 6 weeks or more. The point is that we started this hour talking about The Washington Post article where the President came out and said that he is going to pivot back to jobs and the economy; and to the gentleman from Colorado's point, he should have never left the issue of jobs and the economy.

Here in the House, our majority has been working tirelessly, as the gentleman from Illinois said, to bring the other side and say look, we have these commonsense solutions. This is about my kids and yours. This is about the future of this country. And we have an opportunity as leaders here in Washington representing all of the people that we do back home--and a responsibility at that--to do all that we can to get the Federal Government out of the way so that people like your constituent back home in Colorado with the bagel stores can open another bagel store instead of having to worry about closing.

Well, I just want to thank all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for joining us to talk about these important issues.

As we will hear from the President in his next three speeches about pivoting back to jobs and the economy, we here in the House remain focused on jobs and the economy for all Americans families. But we are also remaining focused on an all-of-the-above energy approach; repealing ObamaCare so that I can make those decisions with my doctor about what's best for me; a fairer, simpler Tax Code that we know will help all Americans. We've got to ease burdens and regulations so that businesses can create more jobs instead of having to worry about the ones that they're going to lose.

This is about making life work for Americans. This is about easing the pain that so many Americans are feeling because of this bloated government that refuses to, first and foremost, admit that we have a spending problem.

This is about refocusing our efforts here in the House and making sure that we are remembering the people that sent us here, the families that we've talked about tonight that we want to ensure that government is not hurting, but government is getting out of the way so that they can thrive in these United States of America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Leader Cantor's amendment to H.R. 5. It's an amendment that would allow title I dollars to actually follow the student to the school of their choice. I thank the leader for recognizing me.

We all agree that every child deserves equal access to quality education--one that challenges them, builds critical-thinking skills, and enhances their opportunity for success. But all too often, the system fails those who need it most. For too long, we have perpetuated failure by not demanding accountability for results.

This amendment would allow title I dollars to follow the child to the school that their parent deems best.

As a mother of a child in public school, I understand firsthand how important it is for parents to be able to choose the school that best fits their child's needs. School choice can help drive innovation, healthy competition and, most importantly, accountability.

If a low-income parent makes the brave and noble decision to seek a better opportunity for their child, the last thing we should do here is make it more difficult by withholding funding meant to help educate that child.

Mr. Chairman, we can't afford to do the same old thing expecting different results. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and pass the Student Success Act. Let's get Washington out of the way to ensure a brighter future for our children.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.

I thank my chairman for yielding. It is a privilege to serve on this committee and be a part of this debate on the floor today.

We need excellent teachers in every classroom and inspired administrators in every school, but even the most gifted educators can be hamstrung by overreaching mandates, regulations, and red tape.

Over the last several years, Federal mandates in education have grown at an alarming rate. Politicians and bureaucrats keep trying to fix our schools with a ``Washington knows best'' approach, but ask any teacher or principal or parent, and he'll let you know that one size does not fit all when it comes to education.

That's why I am pleased that the Student Success Act reduces the Federal footprint in education, returning the decisionmaking authority to States and local districts where it belongs, and this bill expressly prohibits the Department of Education from making funding grants and regulation waivers contingent on whether a State adopts certain curriculum or assessment standards.

I believe we should have the highest standards for our schools. As a mother of a child in public school, I am glad my State of Alabama has made recent efforts to increase its standards, but the problem is that the Obama administration has improperly inserted itself into the process. We need to empower all States to set their own education policies free from Federal intrusion. Collaboration between States in setting and revising standards can be a good thing. However, the unwelcome intrusion of the Federal Government into the process invariably comes with the political agenda of the White House. The executive branch has exceeded its appropriate reach where State education policy is concerned, and it is absolutely time that we rein it in.

I am proud to support H.R. 5, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation that finally puts State and local leaders back in control of their classrooms.

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss today's fairness. Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced it would be delaying the business mandate in the President's health care law.

Setting aside for a moment the dubious legal authority the executive branch is using to pick and choose which parts of the law will be enforced and which won't, this action represents unfair treatment in the implementation of ObamaCare. In delaying the business mandate for a year but not the individual mandate, the President is choosing to protect Big Business from ObamaCare, but not hardworking individuals and families. In explaining this delay, White House officials repeatedly said the President was ``listening'' to business.

Madam Speaker, why isn't the President ``listening'' to the American people? Why is Big Business getting a break while individual Americans get the short end of the stick? Maybe this is what happens when Big Business has access to the White House and individual Americans can't even take a tour.

Today, we will take action to protect all Americans by delaying both the employer mandate and the individual mandate. Our work to dismantle ObamaCare is part of our ongoing fight to spur economic growth, create jobs, and provide a more secure future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to be here on the floor tonight with my colleagues to discuss a very important issue, and that's affordable energy.

Mr. Speaker, like we did a few weeks ago, I just want to invite all of our constituents that might be paying attention right now, that they can contact us at #affordable energy.

We are trying something new, Mr. Speaker, as a way to continue communication with those that we represent back home in an effort to answer very important questions about some of the things that we've read in the news recently today.

Today, this subject couldn't be any more important. That's because today President Obama launched his latest assault in the war on coal. Those aren't my words. That's what President Obama's own climate adviser told The New York Times just hours before his speech today. And let me quote him:

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 they

are having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is

exactly what is needed.

A war on coal? A war on coal ultimately amounts to a war on American energy and a war on American families. And the regulations that President Obama announced today are unprecedented executive actions aimed at punishing industries critical to domestic energy production, particularly the coal industry. These regulations would not pass the United States Congress, not the Republican House and not even the Democratic Senate.

President Obama is trying to accomplish through executive regulations that which he cannot accomplish legislatively or electorally.

He also again passed the buck on approving the Keystone pipeline. This is a project that would create up to 20,000 jobs and increase domestic energy production, but a project that has been delayed because of regulatory approval for almost 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, what strikes me the most about President Obama's aggressive unilateral actions is how out of touch he and his administration are with the American people. That's why we're here tonight.

I remind my constituents all the time that I'm Riley's wife and a mom to my two kids, Margaret and George. I'm putting gas in the car. I'm picking up carpool. I'm going to the grocery store. I see directly in my everyday life how these inflammatory statements and just in-your- face remarks to the American people that are going to be directly affected by this President's policies--I see it as milk prices increase, as gas prices go up, as domestic energy prices continue to skyrocket, and this is just unacceptable.

I'm joined by my colleagues tonight. The gentleman from Colorado I know serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and can certainly weigh in on these matters. But again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our constituents that it's #AffordableEnergy. And as we move through this leadership hour, we want to hear from you, our constituents

back home, about the issues that are important to you when it comes to energy production in the United States of America.

I reached out specifically earlier today, Mr. Speaker, to my constituents on Facebook, and I've got a few examples of that. As you say, everybody has their own energy story.

Howard from Dale County, Alabama, pointed out that he's already struggling to make ends meet as is, especially with ObamaCare and an increase in payroll taxes. Now the President wants to raise his electric bill.

Suzanne from Montgomery, Alabama, said that the President just doesn't get it. She watched the President's speech today, and she doesn't understand why he won't focus on improving the economy instead of hurting it. She said the President doesn't have a clue how his policies actually affect the middle class.

Spike, a young man from south Alabama, correctly pointed out that regulations have a trickle-down effect that are felt by hardworking Americans. These new regulations on energy sources will be felt by young Americans just like him.

Kevin from Dothan, Alabama, works for the military and has recently been furloughed due to the President's sequester, and he worries about how rising energy costs would affect him, especially since he's already having to deal with less take-home pay.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my constituent's thoughts, and that's why we're here tonight.

I have with me kind of a checklist here about this administration and President Obama's energy record: obviously, delaying the job-creating Keystone pipeline you've already mentioned; stopping job-creating natural gas exports; regulating oil and gas production on Federal lands; investing in green energy failures.

Mr. Speaker, you can learn more about this at gop.gov/energy. So we continue to focus on this here tonight with all of my colleagues who have joined us.

A recent report from CBO came out which sought to find out just how higher energy costs would affect the economy, and the report said raising the cost of using fossil fuels would tend to increase the cost of producing goods and services, especially those requiring electricity and transportation. We have already mentioned that tonight.

I talked about being a mom and driving carpool and buying milk at the grocery store--it is very evident what is going on based on these policies. Higher production costs lead to higher prices for our goods and services. Areas in the country where electricity is produced from coal, places like Alabama and other States represented here, would tend to experience larger increases in electricity prices than other areas of the country would. Specific to Alabama, 36 percent of electricity is produced from coal, the largest of any fuel source. And as for jobs in Alabama, it is the sixth nationally for total electricity generation. All of us have stories here tonight that are just right along these lines.

We have an opportunity here as Members of the House of Representatives to, whether it is through oversight on Energy and Commerce and other committees of jurisdiction, to rein in this. That's our responsibility to our constituents. That's what this conversation here tonight is about.

And, Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you again that #AffordableEnergy, if you want to know more or make a comment, Mr. Speaker, about what we are doing tonight, #AffordableEnergy. And any of my colleagues who want to chime in, please do.

I just want to chime in for a second. I think that it cannot be said enough in this Chamber tonight that his war on coal is a war on American energy and American jobs; and that what you will see if this unilateral decision happens, you're going to see an outsourcing of manufacturing to places like China that are unregulated, when all any of us in this room hear every time we travel our districts is: How come we can't bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States of America?

And it's these type of threats coming from this administration that are chasing jobs offshore left and right, and this is not what our economy can withstand right now.

I don't understand. All of us have heard this President, this administration, say, repeatedly: I support an all-of-the-above approach to energy production.

And then you try to promulgate a rule like what came out today and unilaterally announce a war on coal, a war on American families, a war on jobs in the United States of America, and what reasonable individual would put that with an all-of-the-above approach to energy production so that we can become independent in the United States of America?

It makes no sense. We should hold this administration accountable for this. We, in Congress, have a job to make sure our constituents back home understand this doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for jobs. It doesn't make sense for families. And we absolutely have to hold him to this.

Mr. Gardner, will you share the testimony, because I've watched it, and it's really powerful. You were questioning, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, about whether there's ever--and you can tell the story better than I can because I've just watched the clip-- any connection between the number of jobs that would be affected by the regulations that come down from the EPA.

In the President's speech today, he basically made the case that more regulations and restraints on the energy sector, to your point, would be good for our economy and create jobs.

Regulations creating jobs?

I know none of us in here believe that, and I know we've never heard from one constituent who owns a business that regulations, more regulations, create jobs.

And furthermore, this is the same President that tried to sell us Solyndra. And we're going to take this, we're going to take him at his word? It's really unbelievable.

But aren't those businesses supposed to be--I mean, they want to create product to then sell to the American people, not hire people to follow regulations.

So we need to say, What's the holdup? What's the holdup, Mr. President?

Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot emphasize this enough. And the whole point of this hour tonight is to say, based on that information and this new war on America families and American jobs, what is the holdup? What is the deal? This is 20,000 jobs. And we're just continually seeing the President, who's for the all-of-the-above energy approach, at every corner attack domestic energy production. I just don't understand.

And I only like some kinds of energy.

And let me just say this real quick, as a reminder: Mr. Speaker, tonight's conversation is at #affordable energy. So I just wanted to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that that's where we're having this conversation tonight, alongside countless others. I just wanted to throw that in there as this conversation continues.

So it's a war on education as well.

So when it comes back to our responsibility as a Congress, this week we're going to debate and hopefully vote on the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. This is legislation that will increase production of home-grown energy, and it will drive down costs and it will increase American jobs.

What it does is it expands U.S. offshore energy production in order to create over 1 million new American jobs, lower energy prices, grow our economy, strengthen national security, and strengthen our communities by lowering our dependence on foreign oil. And the bill removes government barriers that block production of our own resources right here in the United States.

You know, currently, the Obama administration keeps 85 percent of our offshore areas off-limits to energy production--85 percent. So H.R. 2231--again, we will be debating and hopefully voting on later this week--will open new offshore areas for that energy production and require the Obama administration--and again, Mr. President, who's for an all-of-the-above approach--require him to submit a new lease plan by 2015 for developing our offshore energy resources.

Well, I just want to thank all of my colleagues for joining this conversation tonight. And Mr. Speaker, we will continue this conversation at #Affordable Energy.

But the bottom line is this: While the President continues to promote his political agenda, we here in the House of Representatives' majority are committed, as we have demonstrated time and time again, that we are committed to the all-of-the-above approach. And that this isn't, as you've heard from all of my colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, this isn't just a war on coal, this is a war on the American family and American jobs. We are committed to getting government out of the way so that the American family and the American business can thrive.

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

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 274 I inadvertently voted ``yes'' when I intended to oppose the amendment. I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Courtney

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise to support H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

This bill would at last prohibit dangerous, late-term abortions of unborn children at 20 weeks. That's the stage of development which we feel pain. And I say ``we,'' Madam Chairman, for a reason. Many supporters of this bill are taking to Facebook and Twitter using the hashtag #TheyFeelPain to illustrate the brutal reality of late-term abortions.

I applaud their efforts, and I appreciate the many notes of encouragement I've received from constituents back home in support of this bill. I certainly hope that they will keep those Facebook posts coming to get the word out about what we are doing here today.

I use the phrase ``we feel pain'' because I'm afraid too often we speak of this issue like it's someone else we're talking about, some other species. Madam Chairman, we are talking about human beings--human beings--babies far along enough in development to feel touch, to respond to touch. We're talking about us.

We were all 20 weeks at one time. Every Member in this Chamber was. We all reached a particular point of development at which the prayerful hope for life becomes precious potential and viability.

These babies right now are in NICUs all over this country. Having been premature, the babies are laying in a protective environment trying to build stable breath, reaching to hold the fingers of their mommies and daddies. Yet, right now, under Federal law, other babies at 20 weeks are still at risk of being brutally, mercilessly, and painfully killed.

Madam Chairman, this must end. This must end because we feel pain.

I reached out just a few hours ago via Facebook, Madam Chairman, to my constituents to ask for stories about children that were born at or near 20 weeks. I want to share one. A constituent named Terry writes that her baby was born at 24 weeks, weighing only 2 pounds, 3 ounces. After struggling initially, her child grew strong and healthy. That was 19 years ago. Her son is now an adult living out west.

I ask my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1797.

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss an issue that matters to all Americans--jobs and economic growth. The story got buried with all the breaking news of last week; but last month's job numbers are in, and they aren't good.

On the surface, the U.S. economy adding 175,000 jobs might sound like good news; but look deeper, and you'll see troubling indicators for our economy. Manufacturing actually lost 8,000 jobs in total. This recovery is so weak by historic standards that it has produced 4 million fewer jobs than any other recovery since World War II.

Madam Speaker, this isn't real recovery. If we are going to improve this economy and create jobs, we need less government and more freedom. Every day, House Republicans are seeking solutions to grow the economy. Let's make life work for families across the country, and let's expand opportunities for everyone without expanding government.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 1960, and I would like to thank my chairman and the ranking member and all of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for all of the hard work that has gone into this bill. This is a strong, bipartisan bill that properly funds our military. It provides for our men and women in uniform and their families, while ensuring that our warfighters have the necessary equipment and provisions to continue to ensure our Nation's security.

I am honored to chair the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. I am pleased to have as my colleague and ranking member Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts.

The world has changed tremendously in the past decade. It remains a dangerous place, but in new and challenging ways. For this reason, H.R. 1960 takes into account the threats this Nation faces today and the forces that we must maintain in response. The members of the House Armed Services Committee are united in the belief that we must not return to the days of a ``hollow'' military decried by General Edward ``Shy'' Meyer 33 years ago.

Indeed, H.R. 1960 addresses part of our military's current readiness crisis. It restores funding so planes can take flight, ships can sail, and our military can train at the pace and scope that's necessary. This bill responsibly responds to the global conditions, but does so within this Nation's fiscal constraints.

H.R. 1960 also ensures that, as Afghan forces assume an incredibly large role in Afghanistan's defense, preserving the safety and security of Afghan women will be among our priorities. It includes important provisions so that the Department of Defense understands the lessons of Benghazi and organizes its forces to preclude or better respond to a similar attack. This year's National Defense Authorization Act maintains that the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay is being funded, operated, and managed properly; and it also provides the necessary guidance relating to Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

I'm proud to represent two distinguished military installations, Maxwell Air Force Base and Fort Rucker, and I'm mindful of the important role these and all other installations around the world play in ensuring the defense of this great Nation.

In light of the strong provisions included in H.R. 1960 and the collaborative, bipartisan sentiments upon which it rests, I join my colleagues in urging support for the National Defense Authorization Act.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and I just want to add--and you've heard the statistics--that the number of backlogged cases--each case represents a veteran who may have earned a benefit but is currently being denied because of bureaucratic delay.

In the last 4 years, the number of VA claims pending for longer than a year has grown by 2,000 percent.

An award of a bonus should be a special recognition of success and accomplishment, not a right or a routine payment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't consider a backlog of over 1.2 million cases to be cause for celebration or reward. I consider it a catastrophe that must be fixed. Restricting the ability to award bonuses until that backlog is cleared is a commonsense good-government policy. I'm pleased to support my colleague's amendment. It is a strong step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize Honor Flight South Alabama and the World War II veterans. This very special organization is bringing its ninth flight to Washington, DC on May 8, 2013. I am honored to insert this tribute in the Record on the anniversary of the unconditional surrender of Germany to the allies.

Founded by the South Alabama Veterans Council, Honor Flight South Alabama is an organization whose mission is to fly heroes from Alabama to see their national memorial.

Nearly seven decades have passed since the end of World War II and, regrettably, it took nearly this long to complete work on the memorial that honors the spirit and sacrifice of the 16 million who served in the U.S. Armed Forces and the more than 400,000 who died. Sadly, many veterans did not live long enough to see this memorial, yet for those veterans still living, Honor Flight provides for many their first--and perhaps only--opportunity to see the National World War II Memorial, which honors their service and sacrifice.

During their time in their nation's capital, the veterans will visit the World War II Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and other memorials.

Mr. Speaker, the May 8, 2013, journey of heroes from South Alabama is an appropriate time for us to pause and thank them--and all of the soldiers who fought in World War II. They collectively--and literally-- saved the world. They personify the very best America has to offer, and I urge my colleagues to take a moment to pay tribute to their selfless devotion to our country and the freedoms we enjoy.

I salute Sid Hamilton and L.C. Malone, veterans from Alabama's Second Congressional District who made the trip to Washington. May we never forget their valiant deeds and tremendous sacrifices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, my chairman, for all of the hard work on this bill and the committee, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor this bill. And I can tell you, as a working mom, my husband, Riley, and I certainly relate to and understand the pulls on families that are juggling so much between their work life and their home life. If you talk to any working mom or dad, you'll hear them say things like, wouldn't it be nice to have flexibility to attend my son's soccer game, coach a tee ball team, take care of my aging parent, or be there to support my children at a time when one of the spouses is being deployed by our military.

These are all things that working moms and dads want to be a part of. Those that have elderly parents want to be there for their parents in their time of need. We can't legislate another hour in the workday, but we sure can give moms and dads a little bit of relief when it comes to flexibility in their workplace.

Under this bill, no worker could ever be forced--despite the claims of my colleagues on the other side--no worker could ever be forced to take time off, paid time off, just like no business would ever be forced to offer it. For some people, having paid time off is far more valuable than money.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that under the current law, the private sector doesn't enjoy the same privilege to offer this benefit to their workers as the public sector does. And as my colleague was just talking about sick time, sick leave, and the benefits that we may enjoy in the Federal Government, I think that the private sector should enjoy the benefit that Federal employees have now, and that's compensatory time and the right to choose what to do with their time.

Our message to Americans, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. We must get Washington out of the way of how they use their time. It is your time to choose.

All existing enforcement remedies under the current law are retained; but this legislation goes above and beyond to incorporate additional protections that will prevent coercion and ensure utilizing comp time is truly voluntary, including a requirement of a written agreement, a voluntary written agreement between the employer and the employee, a cash-out provision entitling the employee to ask for their paid overtime at any time, and a provision requiring employers to be found in violation of coercion to pay double damages.

I want to read--I have lots of quotes from constituents, but there is one in particular that sums all of this up. I got a note from a young lady who lives a long way from Alabama's Second Congressional District, in California; and she writes:

As a kid growing up with both parents who worked, I missed

a lot of time with them. I am also an only child so I didn't

really spend time with my actual family. I was either in

daycare or a friend's house during the 5-day workweek. And if

my mom took time off, she wouldn't get paid over that time

period----

I didn't really spend time with my actual family. I was

either in daycare or a friend's house during the 5-day

workweek. And if my mom took time off, she wouldn't get paid

over that time period, even though she would work overtime.

So when I read about this bill, I was touched and compelled

to tell you that if this bill passes it really would change

people's lives and help families around America. Thank you

for recognizing how valuable time is to people, and for

giving us an option of how to use our time.

I thought that was compelling. Mr. Speaker, I think that sums up this bill in its entirety. This doesn't solve our Nation's debt problems or our deficit, but this provides some relief to working families in America, to those working moms and dads.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank my friend, Representative Gibson, for offering this amendment, which I strongly support.

Let me start by highlighting a provision of the Working Families Flexibility Act that is meant to ensure this policy works today and into the future.

Section 5 of the bill states:

This act and the amendments made by this act shall expire 5

years after the date of enactment of this act.

The intent here is clear: Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to review the use of comp time by private sector employers and employees, if need be, to make adjustments in the law before authorizing its continued use.

Even though comp time has worked well in the public sector for decades, Congress should examine its use in the private sector to make sure that workers are protected. To further support this oversight of the law the Gibson amendment would require GAO to regularly review private sector use of comp time and provide information to Congress relating to changes that might be needed. This commonsense addition to the bill will help inform Congress as it continues to oversee the use of comp time by private sector employees.

The Gibson amendment is about transparency and accountability, and will help ensure the use of comp time in the private sector is a net benefit to employers and employees.

Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act will help more Americans balance family and work. Because the Gibson amendment would strengthen this important effort, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. My friends on the other side of the aisle are again refusing to work with us to help American families. Instead, they are spending their time taking political shots and, in fact, politicizing Mother's Day in order to do it.

Despite having taken the underlying bill through the committee process before bringing it to the floor, my Democratic colleagues have made no real attempt to engage in meaningful conversations on this bill. In fact, while they originally offered a related provision as an amendment to floor consideration, it was quickly withdrawn. I guess they've decided they score more political points by waiting until now, when the process is about to conclude, than offering up meaningful suggestions during the months we've been debating this issue.

Americans are tired of this game. They're tired of watching us fight each other when we should be fighting for them. That is why it is time that we pass the Working Families Flexibility Act. Our bill gives private sector employees the same choice government workers have enjoyed for decades: the choice to receive comp time instead of wages for overtime.

Again, this is something that the public sector has engaged in for many, many years--decades, in fact. If it's good enough for the Federal Government, it ought to be good enough for the private sector.

I'm a mom. Riley and I have two beautiful children, Margaret and George. Margaret is 8 and George is 4. I understand the pulls on working families as we balance our workplace and our home time. This is about helping working moms and dads. This is about providing the ability to spend time at home that's so needed in today's hectic time. I know this firsthand. And this is important and will provide help for many working families. This could change lives.

It is time to do the right thing for working families. It is time we do the right thing for American families. Let's pass the Working Families Flexibility Act. I encourage my colleagues to defeat this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be on the floor tonight for the next few minutes, and I hopefully will have some other colleagues joining me here in a few minutes. Tonight is about making life work for American families.

What are we doing on behalf of the American people here in the House of Representatives to make life a little bit easier for working families, working moms and dads? And let me just say that there are things across the board, whether it's health care issues, energy, reducing the deficit and the debt for Margaret and George, my two kids, and future generations, all of those things add up and matter.

I want to talk for just a few minutes about one proposal that I have in front of the House of Representatives that's going to come up for a vote here after we return from our district workweek. But before I do that, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, tonight, that we're going to do something a little bit different in

an effort to engage individuals in their interest about making life work for American families.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if someone wants to know more about what we're talking about tonight, the hash tag on Twitter is ``makinglifework.'' We want to hear from the people that we represent, Mr. Speaker, throughout our time on the floor tonight. So I would just say to you again, Mr. Speaker, that any individual that would like to know more about what we're talking about or would like to engage in a conversation, it's ``#makinglifework.''

Before I introduce my colleagues or get engaged in this conversation, I want to very briefly talk about the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, which is a bill designed to do just what we're talking about tonight, and that's make life work, make life a little bit easier for working moms and dads.

I'm a working mom, and my husband and I, every week, sit down and figure out what the plan is. We have an almost 8-year-old and a 4-year- old, and we certainly understand the pulls on the American family in balancing the workweek and our home life and supporting our children.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of families out there right now that would like choice in the workplace, hourly-wage employees that would like the choice in the private sector to exercise compensatory time-- that's paid time off in lieu of cash wages. Right now, under current law, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, public employers can offer to their employees that option. In 1985, the Fair Labor Standards Act was amended to allow that. Private sector employees can't.

So, again, as a working mom who understands the pulls on family-- maybe that T-ball game at 4 o'clock on a Thursday afternoon or the PTA meeting that's at 9 o'clock in the morning when my daughter's class is the one leading the charge on the entertainment for the PTA meeting--if I'm an hourly-wage employee and I want to exchange paid overtime for paid time off, I cannot legally, under the law, do that with my employer.

This amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act allows for the private sector to do what the public sector is already doing. Now, some of the opponents of this bill say that the big bad employer would use this to coerce employees into taking comp time rather than overtime pay. That is unlawful. The same protections that are in place currently under the Fair Labor Standards Act are the same protections that exist under our amendment preventing intimidation, coercion, and discrimination by the employer on the employee. And the most important thing about this bill is that it is voluntary. The employee is the only person who can opt to exercise this option if the employer chooses to offer it.

We know that this is not necessarily an option in every line of work. For example, if there's a manufacturer with 10 employees who actually make a product, if you pull one person off the line, they can't make the product, so it may not be a fit. But for those that want to, this amendment allows for that individual to say to their employer: I would like to enter into a voluntary written agreement with you to use compensatory time, to bank up to 160 hours within a 12-month period of compensatory time because time is more valuable than money to me.

And the greatest protection in this bill is if, in fact, that employee determines at any time that this isn't working, I'm not using my compensatory time or I can't find a time that works with my employer that fits, the time that I want to take off, that employee, Mr. Speaker, that employee can say: I want to cash out my compensatory bank time. So let's say they have 60 hours. They can cash out, and within 30 days their employer has to pay them time-and-a-half overtime for that banked accrual of comp time.

This bill makes sense. This bill is about helping working families. This bill is about allowing that mom and dad that are balancing T-ball games and PTA meetings as well as caring for their elderly parents. This bill is about getting military families ready to have one spouse deploy, to have the flexibility to do what they need to do. This is one example about how we are making life work for American families.

This bill doesn't solve our debt or deficit problem. I'm the first to admit that. But what this bill does is it eases some of the hardships on our moms and dads in the workforce, and I'm really thrilled to be the current author of this bill. It has a long history. I'm excited about taking it to the floor in 2 weeks.

Again, Mr. Speaker, for those who want to know more about tonight's discussion, the hash tag is #makinglifework. We want to hear from all Americans that are affected by any of these issues and look forward to addressing those throughout tonight's hour.

I want to let you know, joining me today I have the gentlelady from Washington, Jaime Herrera Beutler, as well as the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, and at this point, to my colleagues, I'd like to open this up.

Cory, I know that you currently serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I know you have a couple of topics that you want to talk about, but let's talk about making life work for American families when it comes to energy.

Right. I can tell you as the mom of two kids as well, every week when I get on a plane to come back to Washington, there is a lot of planning that goes into it. I put the gas in my car; I go to the grocery store; and when it comes to energy, I can watch energy prices affect the cost of food.

One of the things that I do every week just to ease some of the juggle in our lives is I try on the weekends to cook a few things. I love to cook, and I try to make life a little bit easier by having a few things in the refrigerator already made that I do over the weekend. So usually my grocery store visit is on Saturday and Sunday. I tell folks that sometimes it can amount to a town hall. You get in the produce section and you have great conversations with your constituents.

But I can see what the gentleman from Colorado is saying as the price of milk goes up. If gas prices are increasing, then the cost of food is affected.

I can tell you, and your wife would say the same, thanks for helping us in your role on Energy and Commerce.

Sure. And I can reiterate all of the points that the gentlelady from Washington makes. And you're right. These are all things that contribute to making life work for American families.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, as we're having this conversation, I'm getting information from folks that want to make life work. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind all of us in this room that we remain committed to cutting spending and reducing the deficit and getting our debt under control. This conversation really all encompasses just that.

Margaret and George and all of the families represented in this room tonight, they're the ones that we want to get this under control for because, Mr. Speaker, we want this country to be great for them as it has been for all of us.

But, at the same time, there are things that fall under Federal jurisdiction that we can be doing to ease the burden on American working moms and dads; and that's the things that we're talking about tonight, the Working Family and Flexibility Act of 2013, energy solutions that are out there.

We're going to talk about health care and tax reform. We're joined by Mr. Young from Indiana. Thank you for coming. Please join the conversation.

We don't have to yield. You can just talk.

I want to say to both gentlemen, what we're talking about tonight is kitchen table stuff. Americans all across this country sit down across the table from their loved one and they balance their budgets. Why do we hold the Federal Government to any standard other than that?

We're addicted to spending. We are on an unsustainable path for the next generation. Tax reform, energy, and removing burdens on the working families are all such important concepts to making life work for American families.

We're joined by another colleague. I just want to introduce our newly elected Member of the House of Representatives joining us in the 113th Congress, Mrs. Ann Wagner, the gentlelady from Missouri. Please join us in this conversation and offer your perspective.

That's great. I serve on the Education and Workforce Committee. Of course, that bill was reported out, as well as the Working Families Flexibility Act. Again, kitchen table stuff. We've got to balance our budget. Everybody here tonight voted in favor of a budget that would balance in 10 years. We understand that that's the key.

We're about to enter into a district work week, and I'd love for the gentlelady from Washington to speak on this because you always have great examples of this, too, but we're all about to get on the plane or get in our cars and go home for the week. And we're going to be with our small business owners and with our employees. Quite frankly, the employers, yes, they provide the jobs. The employees, we need to spend a little bit more time talking about those moms and dads sitting at the table, making it work. And they are the ones who are suffering at the hand of these duplicative programs that are sucking up precious taxpayer dollars that--at the end of the day we can be doing a much more efficient job of helping American families and making life work.

Let's talk about one other thing, and I'm sorry to open another door, but I think it's important because of what you heard on airplanes today, about the sequester and what's going on in defense spending. Can we talk just a minute about our military families?

You're talking about making life work. The people that we have a direct charge to make life work for are those who sacrifice on behalf of all of our freedoms and their families--our military men and women.

I'm going to circle back to the bill, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. Think about that military mom or dad that's getting ready to deploy and they're an hourly wage employee, and they don't have, under the current law, the option to exercise compensatory time. Yet their spouse is about to leave for a 1-year deployment to Afghanistan, and they've got to get their house in order. They've got to have flexibility to handle life outside of their job, whether it's their children or their aging parents, while their spouse is deployed.

Let's talk about making sure that those men and women, as they're deployed, have everything that they need to accomplish the mission that we've given them. And yet through the sequester we know that we are going to have a smaller force. And our commanders say not less capable but we're going to have to make some really tough decisions about where we are in the world and what we can do with our capabilities.

And I'll just tell you, all you have to do is go to the military installation closest to your home and look into the eyes of that spouse whose family member is currently deployed in harm's way, and it will change our outlook, as it should.

Making life work for military families, making life work for Margaret and George, my kids, and yours, that's what we're talking about tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just remind that we are, throughout this discussion, looking on Twitter, #makinglifework, taking input, Mr. Speaker, from our constituents as we have this conversation.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

All you have to do is pull out your copy of the Constitution, and what does it say? Our charge as Members of Congress is to provide for a strong national defense. If we're not taking care of those men and women in uniform who have fought and died for the very freedoms that allow for us to stand in this room today and talk about making life work, if we don't have enough respect for that, to do our job in Congress and set priorities when it comes to wasteful spending on behalf of them, then we all need to take a long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror.

To the gentleman from Indiana, we appreciate the hard work that you're doing on the Ways and Means Committee. All of us here look forward to helping making life work for American families through a simpler, flatter, fairer Tax Code that does just that.

I just want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that tonight we are grateful to be on the floor talking about making life work. Mr. Speaker, one of the ways that we're doing that tonight is engaging our constituents through #makinglifework. We want to hear, as we continue through this discussion, from the people from Missouri's Second District or Alabama's Second District or the other districts represented in this room, Mr. Speaker. We want to hear from those folks as we continue this conversation tonight about how to make life work on behalf of Americans.

As I've talked about on several occasions tonight, the Working Families Flexibility Act, which will be on the floor for a vote in 2 weeks, is about a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee, only at the option of the employee, in the private sector-- which is currently not legal, and the private sector removing this regulation so that employee has the opportunity to say, you know what, time is more precious than money. As a working mother with two small kids, I get that. I get that and I can relate to that.

This bill is about allowing in the private sector that employer and that employee to come to an agreement and that employee exercising their right to say I'd rather have comp time, paid time off, than overtime payments and cash payments.

So we're talking about not just through tax reform or energy or health care--all of these things that have been discussed tonight-- we're talking about how do we make life just a little bit easier for hardworking tax-paying Americans? They sit around their kitchen tables, balance their budgets, live within their means, and the Federal Government, quite frankly, doesn't do that, and we should be held to that same standard.

My farmers in Alabama are very, very familiar with all those regulations. We've worked hard through the Committee on Agriculture to do all that we can to remove that heavy hand of the Federal Government. Our farmers just want to farm.

Let me tell you, when we talk about national security, the day that our farmers in the United States of America can't feed, not just the world, but can't feed America, do you want to talk about a national security interest? Those are great examples of how we can remove those regulatory burdens.

We've sat on this floor for the past couple of years, and glad to have our new colleague join us tonight, but we've all given examples, and one of my favorite examples, although it's not funny, it's real, is the owner of a construction company that came to one of my NFIB roundtable discussions back in my district during a district workweek. Let me just give you this as an example. He said, The regulator drives by my job site and there was a ladder propped up against the eave. Let's say the guy stood to make an $800 profit off of this construction job. His workers have been going up and down the ladder all day safely. And the regulator on his way home from his job slows down, because it happened to be on his street, and he says, That ladder does not meet regulation. This guy gets slapped with like an $8,000 fine on a job that he only stood to make an $800 profit on. That is not making life work.

This administration and our colleagues in the Senate have got to wake up to what we're doing strangling small businesses. But, again, it's not just about the employer. I think we've got to remember and remind ourselves that it's not just about the employer that creates the jobs. We get that and we applaud that. We want to make it as easy for people to create jobs as we can in this country because that's innovation and that's what this country is about, but it's also about that hardworking employee. And we've got to remember that clearing this regulatory environment, it helps that American family, it helps that American family when they're sitting around their dinner table and they're trying to make life work.

Again, real quick, we've got a few more minutes, I just want to remind, Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are hoping to receive input from our constituents at #makinglifework. Throughout our conversation tonight we've been hearing from folks that have been reminding us of issues that are important to them. And I think this is, Mr. Speaker, a very unique opportunity to have this conversation.

One of the things we haven't really spent time on--and the gentlelady from Washington wants to talk about--is health care and things that we are doing to make sure that American families have the access. I think we can all agree that we want health care to be more affordable and more accessible by all Americans, but as we move closer and closer to the full implementation of ObamaCare in 2014, we're finding that that doesn't work.

Didn't the President, himself, promise that those individuals would receive that care?

We look forward to that debate in the next 2 days.

We are closing in on the end of our hour, but we have just been joined by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin). As you know, tonight, we are talking about this #makinglifework for American families.

So I want you to jump in, but we do have, just as a reminder, about 2 minutes tops.

We do. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I know you ran over here to join us tonight. I thank all of those States and districts that are represented here tonight.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman.

I rise today in support of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, of which I'm a proud cosponsor.

This bill reforms and streamlines our Nation's critical job-training programs.

Currently, over 30 different agencies are involved in workforce development or unemployment services. Why? Because Washington loves creating a bureaucracy, but rarely ever ends one.

The SKILLS Act changes that by consolidating these myriad departments into one workforce development platform tasked with equipping unemployed or underemployed workers with the skills that they need to land a good job.

This bill also enhances flexibility by giving States more authority to direct resources based on their individual needs. It empowers State workforce development agencies to collaborate more with community colleges by removing bureaucratic red tape. In addition, it repeals 19 Federal mandates that previously dictated who was even able to serve on these State workforce boards.

Also, I'm pleased that the legislation that we're debating today also reflects an amendment that I offered in the markup last week to strengthen the underlying bill. My colleagues accepted my amendment that prohibits any State or local agency from using Federal workforce funds authorized by the SKILLS Act to turn around and lobby for more funding or to engage in political activities.

We can all agree that Federal funds provided to State and local areas should be used to provide workers the training and support they need to find a job, especially when there are 12 million Americans searching for work.

Workforce development agencies need to be using precious Federal resources to help their unemployed workers land jobs, not to lobby Congress for more funds and certainly not to advance political beliefs.

I am proud to vote in favor of H.R. 803. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill so we can streamline government spending, eliminate duplication, and allow States to build more effective workforce development programs.