Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my simple amendment to ensure fairness in how we treat military installations after they are closed.

Most military installations are closed through the BRAC process. As such, they are granted certain legal protections, including indemnification from claims arising from environmental hazards created by previous DOD operations. However, some installations can be closed unilaterally by the Defense Secretary outside of the normal BRAC process. In these instances, the facilities are not granted the same protections. As it turns out, many former Army ammunition plants were closed outside the normal procedure. As you might imagine, facilities where chemicals for ammunition production were once mixed and discarded tend to pose some risk to the environment, and yet, merely because of the way they were closed down, cities and towns which later try to redevelop that property must assume the risk for any lingering environmental hazards.

My amendment would simply extend the same protection enjoyed by most closed installations to all closed installations.

Two years ago, I offered a similar amendment that was added to the House-passed NDAA, but it was not included in the Senate-passed version nor was it included in the conference report. That version would have retroactively applied this protection to properties which have already been transferred.

I have heard the concerns from the DOD and from others about adding this benefit on top of previously negotiated contracts. I am sensitive to those concerns, so this updated language only applies to those properties which are still under DOD's control today. I think this adequately addresses those concerns, and it still ensures that there is equity in how we handle these properties in the future.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman McKeon, for his work once again in putting together this NDAA. I would also like to thank him and his staff for working with our office to draft this amendment and include it as part of this amendment package.

Mr. Speaker, Hoosier innovation and small business entrepreneurship help drive the economic engine of the state. Indiana small businesses are a source of pride for towns and cities across the state for the distinctly local, high quality goods and services they provide. One such small business is the Story Inn of Brown County. Located at ``one inconvenient location since 1851,'' the Story Inn is a snapshot of Indiana's frontier past and melds modern convenience with a rugged atmosphere.

The Story Inn is a staple in southern Indiana with a unique history. The village of Story, Indiana was established through a land grant from President Millard Fillmore to Dr. George Story in 1851. The village grew to support a sizeable population and embodied the small-town Hoosier experience. When the Great Depression crippled the nation, citizens of Story left in droves to search for economic opportunity elsewhere. The small Indiana town never fully regained its pre- depression population, but the lack of development and construction after the economic collapse was a benefit in disguise. Story remained a vintage tribute to Indiana's frontier past, relatively untouched by the modern era, complete with wooden cabins, cattle barns, and an old- fashioned general store.

The general store was converted to a bed and breakfast in the 1980s by aspiring entrepreneurs. In 1998 the town of Story was purchased by Richard R Hofstetter and Frank Mueller. It is still owned by Mr. Hofstetter and today, the bed and breakfast occupies the entire village. A peaceful getaway nestled in the rolling hills of Brown County Indiana, the Story Inn caters to those who wish to revel in breathtaking sights, enjoy culinary delights, or escape the bustle of city life. Guests can relax in a variety of cozy rooms that have elements of modernity but seamlessly blend into the luscious forests that surround the Inn. Even Indianapolis radio personality Greg Garrison purchased a cabin that overlooks the town and is available to guests. ``The Garrison'' cabin is the epitome of Brown County style: the walls are paneled in pine and the balcony provides an expansive view of the Brown County wilderness.

Guests can enjoy authentic Hoosier cuisine at the Inn's restaurant which features delicacies like locally-raised pork and beef, garden- grown herbs, spices, and fresh local produce, all complimented by a crisp glass or two of fine wine. The Story Inn's commitment to elegant simplicity drives visitors from across the state to this quaint bed and breakfast.

The Story Inn of Brown County continues to offer excellent service with a local taste to any and all desiring a serene getaway. Whether one is embarking on a nature trail, wishing to sample local cuisine, yearning to enjoy the scenery, or just passing through for a visit, the Story Inn is an amazing getaway and a remarkable part of Indiana's history. I would like to thank the Story Inn for its cultural impact on the state, and most importantly, for continuing to exemplify the Hoosier spirit. I wish all involved--including the Blue Lady--continued success for many years to come!

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairman from Texas, for his leadership on this and so many other issues.

I am a passionate proponent of free trade because we have the most productive workers in the world, the most productive businesses in the world. Frankly, we need to open up new markets for our commodities, for our manufactured items, for our services. That is what this initiative is all about.

Trade promotion authority, or TPA as it is popularly known, reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branch's respective constitutional authorities over trade policy.

I applaud our Ways and Means Committee Chairman Camp, as well as Chairman Sessions and Chairman Nunes, for all of their hard work pushing renewal of trade promotion authority. In January, they together introduced the bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act, which updates and expands negotiation and consultation requirements.

For me, supporting trade is a no-brainer. It is important back home in Indiana, where over 8,000 companies exported from locations within the State in 2011. Eighty-five percent of these companies were small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 500 employees.

Indiana's export shipments of merchandise in 2013 totaled a whopping $34 billion. Fifty-four percent of Indiana's exports go to countries with whom the U.S. currently has a free-trade agreement.

Trade is important for the strength of our entire country's economy. Trade supports in total more than 38 million jobs across America. U.S. exports accounted for 14 percent of America's gross domestic product in 2012 alone.

TPA is the only way we can successfully bring international trade negotiations to a close and unlock job creating opportunities for these U.S. exports.

The administration has laid out a bold 2014 trade agenda and is currently negotiating a regional free-trade agreement, TPP, with 11 Asia-Pacific countries; another regional trade agreement, TTIP, with 28 member counties of the European Union; and TISA, a trade and services agreement with 22 other countries.

Combined, U.S. negotiations related to the Asia-Pacific and EU agreements would open markets with nearly 1 billion consumers, covering nearly two-thirds of the global economy and 65 percent of global trade. TISA covers about 50 percent of the global economy and over 70 percent of global services trade.

As a cochair of the House TTIP Caucus, the ongoing U.S.-EU negotiations

are a particular interest to me. The transatlantic economy is the largest and most integrated in the world, comprising 50 percent of global GDP and generating approximately $5 trillion in total commercial sales each year.

The EU and U.S. account for 30 percent of world trade, and $2.7 billion of goods and services are traded bilaterally each day. There are a lot of numbers, but all these things speak to the power of trade and its importance, not just to my home State of Indiana, but the United States of America.

I want to further emphasize that Europe is, by far, the largest market for U.S.-outbound investment, so I continue to work hard there in conjunction with my colleagues.

By one estimate, approximately 15 million workers are employed as a result of transatlantic trade. As for my home State of Indiana, in 2012, the EU purchased goods worth $9.1 billion or 25 percent of our overall Indiana exports.

In 2011, Hoosier services worth $2.4 billion went to the EU. That is 32 percent of Hoosier services exports. So successful implementation of TTIP is estimated to increase Indiana exports to the EU by roughly 33 percent and could boost net employment by up to 13,780 Hoosier jobs.

Currently, major Indiana exports to the EU include pharmaceuticals, aerospace products and parts, and medical equipment and supplies.

Again, I am a strong advocate of free trade, free markets. I think that trade agreements have the opportunity to strengthen our economy by creating new global markets and supporting existing ones.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act, so we can further and hopefully finalize many of these ongoing negotiations and bring final trade agreements before Congress for approval.

I once again thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro- Growth Budgeting Act of 2013.

I thank Dr. Price for his leadership on this issue.

Now, this issue may strike many Americans as somewhat arcane, but it has very important and real-world implications for our Nation's economic growth, for job creation, and for wage levels.

Under current law, when legislation is introduced, our Budget Office is prevented from taking into account how individual Americans will actually respond to that legislative proposal; so our Budget Office has to produce this artificial sort of analysis, failing to accurately estimate the true costs or benefits of a given proposal. This obscures, for policymakers, for members of the media, and for many rank-and-file Americans, the true negative impact that tax hikes can have on our Nation's economy, on the private sector, and so forth; and it fails to recognize how tax cuts can actually stimulate the very work, savings, and investment that lead to jobs, higher wages, and a secure retirement.

So the Price bill takes an important first step to eliminating CBO's unrealistic economic analysis by requiring CBO to apply real-world analysis of the impact a proposal will have on our Nation's economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as the Senate continues to push for a 25 percent increase in the Federal minimum wage, they continue to ignore that millions of hourly workers face as much as a 25 percent pay cut as a result of ObamaCare. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision buried in the employer mandate, many employees face the prospect of being limited in their work hours. When they are not allowed to work more than 29 hours, they simply aren't able to generate the income they need to support themselves and their families.

It is worth noting that an employee who sees his hours cut from 39 to 29 is losing 10 hours a week, which, over the course of a month, is an entire week's worth of wages. The employees we are talking about are the people who most depend on getting every hour and every bit of wages that they can. We are talking about custodians, cafeteria workers, and substitute teachers at your child's school. We are talking about the waitresses and busboys at your favorite restaurant, about the cashier who rings you out at the grocery store, and about the guys on the assembly line who help make your car. In my district, we are also talking about adjunct professors at places like Ivy Tech Community College and Indiana University.

These are all Americans who want to work, but they are dealing with the unintended consequences--and I do believe they are unintended--of this health care law, ObamaCare. Some of these provisions are limiting their hours and pay, and this needs to be fixed. So I introduced the Save American Workers Act because I want to help these hardworking Hoosiers and other Americans who are just trying to make ends meet. By simply repealing this provision and restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek, we can help make an America that works.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. I commend my colleagues on the other side who have already signed on as cosponsors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting this bill would decrease by $63 billion the amount of taxes on our employers during the worst economy, some will say, since the Great Depression. It will cause our wage earners around the country to realize an additional $75 billion in wage income.

I take the fiscal condition of this country very seriously. I find it very hard to believe, though, that anyone--a Member of this body--would desire to pass a national health care law that is paid for on the backs of our hourly workers, those who can least afford to absorb lower wages, fewer hours, and perhaps losing their job altogether.

I think that is essentially the argument I hear from the other side when I hear the $75 billion figure put forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I know my good colleague spoke with a great deal of sincerity and earnestness when he talked about pay-fors.

It is worth noting, once again, that the attempt to pay for this Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is popularly known--on the backs of our hourly workers strikes me as unconscionable and something that none of us ought to be contemplating, which is why this is a bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I would like to also indicate the fact that I, too, have read the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of this legislation. They indicate that $75 billion in wages will be lost as a result of the Affordable Care Act if something like the Save American Workers Act isn't implemented.

So, effectively, I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making the case that we ought to be funding the Affordable Care Act essentially on the backs of these hourly workers, and I don't think that is a position anyone wants to find themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. I heard that individual cases ought not be cited, that that is somehow off limits.

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just cited the example of his son, lost his insurance despite the promises of this bill during campaign season. He lost his doctor. He saw his insurance premiums and copays go up. These are real lives we are talking about. These are real hours and real wages that we are trying to remedy. This is a real 40-hour workweek that people depend upon.

Then to cite the Statement of Administration Policy as somehow being more authoritative than these personal examples I find, frankly, a bit off-putting.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that to get a bill this far in the legislative process requires the work of a lot of people: my own staff within my office, the committee staff, and my fellow colleagues who are willing to provide a consultative role, constructive advice, and a very strong leadership role.

So, with that, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Tim Walberg, who helped us introduce this bill. He is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

We have six speakers on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act, the bipartisan bill, by the National Restaurant Association.

Mr. Speaker, I also now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

National Restaurant Association,

Washington, DC, April 1, 2014.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Restaurant

Association, the leading trade association representing the

restaurant and foodservice industry, I write to urge you to

vote YES in favor of H.R. 2575, the ``Save American Workers

Act,'' when it is considered on the House floor this week.

The National Restaurant Association may consider any votes

on, or related to, such legislation in our annual ``How They

Voted'' legislative scorecard.

H.R. 2575 would reinstate the historic definition of full-

time as working 40 hours per week. The law's definition of

full-time set at 30 hours could have lasting impacts on the

labor market, far beyond the Affordable Care Act, with the

unintended consequence of potentially limiting hours for

workers who do not intend to rely on their employer for their

insurance needs.

One reason so many Americans are drawn to restaurant and

foodservice industry jobs is the flexibility to build a work

schedule or change hours to suit their personal needs.

Generally, most restaurant operators have classified

positions as salaried and hourly, not full- or part-time.

Previously, hourly workers were able to take on extra shifts

as available and as they chose to work. However, under this

law, there is now a bright line as to who is considered full-

time and who is considered part-time. As a result, the

flexibility so many enjoy and seek out in working for the

industry may become harder to find.

In its analysis of the legislation, the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) acknowledged employers' commitment to

offering coverage to employees and projects that only a small

percentage of employers would either reassign or reduce hours

of employees who work more than 40 hours per week. More than

156 million people would continue to be covered by employer-

sponsored plans, underscoring the CBO' s conclusion that

``most of the affected employers would continue to offer

coverage because most employers construct compensation

packages to attract the best available workers at the lowest

possible cost.''

Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status

with current levels used by restaurant and foodservice

operators would help avoid any unnecessary disruptions to

employees' wages and hours, and would provide significant

relief to employers. The National Restaurant Association

supports H.R. 2575 and encourages you to vote YES when it is

considered on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Scott DeFife,

Executive Vice President,

Policy and Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter of support from the International Franchise Association for this bill, and I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

International

Franchise Association,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2013.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the International

Franchise Association, I write today to urge you to support

H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep.

Todd Young (R-IN). This legislation will change the

definition of a full-time employee in the Affordable Care Act

(ACA) to 40

hours, the definition that employers have traditionally used

to manage their workforce, and will help small businesses

better adjust to the ACA's employer mandate.

For decades, employers have used the 40-hour work week as a

standard for workforce management. The ACA's provision

requiring employers to provide coverage to full-time

employees, and defining full-time as 30-hours, will cause

many employers to simply manage their part-time employees to

fewer hours. Data from a recent Public Opinion Strategies

survey commissioned by the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce shows that 31 percent of franchises and 12 percent

of non-franchised businesses have already reduced worker

hours to lower costs, a full year before the employer mandate

is set to take effect. Not only has the employer mandate

discouraged job creation and business expansion, it has also

damaged existing jobs by including a misguided statutory

requirement that discarded more than a half-century of

established labor policy.

The employer mandate will hurt American workers in many

ways, but one of the most devastating effects of the mandate

is that fewer workers will be offered health insurance, and

employees will be less able to afford their own coverage when

working fewer hours. Allowing employers to manage their

workers to the traditional 40-hour work week will give

employees more flexibility and eliminate the need to revamp

longstanding employer personnel policies.

IFA urges you to support the Save American Workers Act.

This is a common-sense effort to a problem we know is only

going to get worse. The passing of this bill would provide

much-needed relief and flexibility for employers and

employees by avoiding the worst effects of the employer

mandate.

While this measure will not make the Affordable Care Act

completely workable for the 825,000 franchise locations

nationwide or the 9 million workers they employ, it will help

both employers and workers better absorb the impact of the

employer mandate.

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Caldeira,

President & Chief Executive Officer,

International Franchise Association.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill, the Affordable Care Act that the President calls ObamaCare, clearly would not insure every American in the country.

Dropping somebody from 39 hours down to 29 hours is effectively a loss of 10 hours of work per week. Over the course of a month, that is the loss of an entire week's work of wages.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the very same individuals who embraced all of the three dozen or so administrative changes to this law without hesitation will not work together in a bipartisan fashion because this is a bipartisan bill to restore the hours and income of those who need it most during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

With that, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act from the National Grocers Association on behalf of their members and on behalf of their workers, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

National Grocers Association,

Arlington, VA, March 31, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, Washington, DC.

Hon. Eric Cantor,

Majority Leader, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Democratic Whip, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, Leader Cantor, and

Representative Hoyer: The National Grocers Association (NGA)

supports H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act (SAW), a

bill introduced by Representative Todd Young (R-IN) and

championed by Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL). The bill

has broad support in the House, with 210 bipartisan co-

sponsors. NGA strongly encourages the House to pass the bill

with bipartisan support during the vote scheduled for the

week of March 31. We commend Majority Leader Cantor for

bringing H.R. 2575 to the Floor for what will hopefully be an

overwhelming vote in support of the bill.

H.R. 2575 addresses one of the most problematic provisions

of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by amending the definition

of a full-time employee, which the ACA currently defines as

those averaging 30 hours a week. Left unchanged, this

provision will have far reaching consequences on the

independent supermarket industry. Simply put, 30 hours is not

full-time and requiring employers to meet this new definition

is one of the most significant challenges of the law,

jeopardizing coverage for our true full-time workforce. The

SAW Act seeks to amend this problematic provision by defining

a full-time employee as those averaging 40 hours a week and

treating full-time equivalents as full-time employees for the

purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable

large employer. This is a win-win for both American employers

and our nation's workforce.

Independent grocers face complex challenges in implementing

the law all while operating on a profit margin of around 1

percent. They are committed to their workers, and 92% of

independent grocers already provide health benefits to full-

time employees. It is important that Congress work in a

bipartisan manner to provide employers with important reforms

such as the SAW Act before irreversible changes to the US job

market occur. Maintaining the full-time level many employers

use today is something both sides of the debate can agree

would be better for job preservation and employee coverage.

Reforms such as the SAW Act are vital to our businesses and

to our goal of providing quality benefits and available hours

to our employees. Independent retailers and wholesalers have

a significant economic impact across nearly every community

in America. Our industry is accountable for close to 1

percent of the nation's overall economy and is responsible

for generating over $131 billion in sales, 944,000 jobs, $30

billion in wages, and $27 billion in tax revenue. We are

proud that the communities we serve are also the

neighborhoods we live in.

Thank you for your support of this important issue. NGA

looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to address

this issue before the employer mandate is implemented in

2015. This is a critical issue for NGA and our member

companies, and we will be key voting this vote and including

it on our 2014 Legislative Scorecard. We remain appreciative

of the reforms Congress has already made to amend the ACA to

make the law workable for both employers and the American

workforce.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Larkin,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record letters of support for the Save American Workers Act from The Associated General Contractors of America on behalf of their workers and their members, and also a letter by the National Franchisee Association on behalf of their members and workers, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my colleague.

The Associated General

Contractors of America,

Arlington, VA, February 3, 2014.

Re Support H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013

Hon. Dave Camp,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Camp: On behalf of the Associated General

Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing in support of H.R.

2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013. This act would

repeal the 30-hour definition of ``full-time employment'' in

the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by replacing it with the more

traditional 40-hour definition.

The construction industry is typically project-based,

transitory and seasonal, which distinguishes it from other

professional industries with more predictable hours. As a

result, many construction employers rely on part-time,

seasonal and variable-hour employees. In addition, the

construction industry consists of many smaller employers with

limited human resource and administrative staff. These two

issues alone add layers of difficulty for a construction firm

that is required to use the complex formulas in the ACA to

determine whether or not it is considered a large employer

under the law.

Despite the one-year delay of the reporting and enforcement

provisions of the ACA, the law continues to add layers of

administrative burdens for employers, while other regulations

are yet to be issued. Replacing the definition of a full-time

employee to the more commonly accepted 40 hours per week

will, at the very least, reduce some of the complexity

associated with the ACA.

AGC hopes you will support H.R. 2575 and provide some

relief for construction employers across the country.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

Senior Executive Director,

Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, the President proposes a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage. ObamaCare, however, is resulting in as much as a 25 percent decrease in the pay of millions of hourly workers. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision, too many Americans are not able to work the hours they need to support their families. By passing my bill, the Save American Workers Act, we can create an America that works simply by restoring the traditional 40- hour workweek.

I am joined this evening in this Special Order by my colleagues, Representatives Kelly of Pennsylvania and Barr of Kentucky, but so many people have helped bring this important issue to the attention of the American people at large, to rank and file Americans, who during this down economy are looking for as many hours as they can get and for as much take-home pay as they might receive.

Let me just kick this evening off by explaining in some level of detail what this 30-hour provision is because, frankly, for the uninitiated, it is a bit foreign for most of us to consider full-time employment to be a 30-hour workweek, but that is the case under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates employers provide ObamaCare-sanctioned health insurance to all of their employees should they employ 50 or more individuals who work 30 or more hours per week.

We have all heard from employers about the adverse consequences-- unintended, I expect--created by this 30 hours is full time provision. The unintended consequence is chiefly that so many employers, especially those who are squeezed by tight profit margins or those who just wouldn't be financially viable entities, are moving their employees down below this 30-hour threshold. They are reducing the number of hours that their hourly employees can work so that they don't have to provide ObamaCare-sanctioned health insurance.

The employer mandate has been delayed by the administration twice, so it is clear that this is ill-considered policy. While the White House says the delays are to help employers, it should be even more apparent to those of us who visit with our constituents on an almost daily basis that it is the low- and middle-income worker who is being most adversely impacted by this employer mandate.

The real result of the 30-hour bill--let me be clear--is fewer jobs, reduced hours, reduced wages, less take-home pay for things like food and shelter and clothing for Americans who need it most. I can cite plenty of examples in my district in which this is having a very serious impact at this early stage of ObamaCare's implementation. I live in Bloomington, Indiana.

Indiana University is feeling the pinch of this and is reducing some hours of some of their hourly employees, from custodians to cafeteria workers and others, because they cannot remain a financially viable entity, as taxpayers expect it to be, should it have to comply with this employer mandate as it is currently constructed.

Ivy Tech Community College is also feeling the pinch. In fact, 4,500 of their adjunct professors are losing hours. This is resulting in reduced course offerings for many students, but more importantly for those adjunct professors, they need the wages, they need the hours. Should Ivy Tech decide to continue on with business as usual, they would be eating all sorts of compliance costs to try and measure the hours of their hourly employees and ensure that they are complying with the law. They have done the math. They have figured out that this 30 hours is full time provision amounts to a $12 million unfunded mandate, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I have heard from 39 public school corporations in Indiana about the adverse consequences of this 30 hours is full time provision. In fact, they are suing the Federal Government, along with the State of Indiana, because of this provision, which they say will have catastrophic financial consequences on their operations, on their balance sheets.

From a practical perspective, the majority of employers who voluntarily provide coverage to their employees do so for their full- time employees, and they do so because they want to attract the absolute best talent they can within the labor market. This system has succeeded in providing coverage for nearly 160 million Americans. It is working. In fact, this is the largest source of health coverage in America, but the 30-hour rule radically disrupts this success and this model. Many people will lose their coverage, especially your lower- skilled workers, often your entry-level opportunities where younger workers get valuable work experience and start to work their way up the economic ladder. We need to protect the wages of Americans who depend on them the most. That is what this bipartisan effort, the Save American Workers Act, is all about.

I am proud to be joined in this effort by Representative Barr, who has shown some leadership on this issue, and by Representative Kelly, who was out front very early with respect to this issue. I look forward to engaging in some dialogue this evening and in turning over the mike to them to get their State level perspectives, but I think it is worth noting, because I do want to recognize them, the fair-minded Members among us who look for opportunities to work across the aisle.

Representative Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, has shown a lot of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives with respect to this issue. There are a handful of other Democrat Members who have signed on to the Save American Workers Act. It is my fervent hope, not for my interest but for the interests of my constituents and for those like them around the country, that other Democrats will join the vast majority of Republican Members of Congress in supporting this bill.

With that, I would just invite the dialogue of Mr. Barr, my good colleague in his first term--but he seems far more experienced than that--to speak to the Save American Workers Act.

Reclaiming my time, I sometimes like to distill the narrative down to some numbers.

You just mentioned the movement down to 29 hours a week. Let's consider the Kentuckian or the Hoosier who is currently working 39 hours a week, and because of this provision, their employer is unable, under the current economic conditions, to offer them ObamaCare- sanctioned health insurance.

They are incentivized to move that hardworking hourly work down to 29 hours. That is a loss of 10 hours per week. Over the course of a month, that worker is losing an entire work week.

How is an hourly worker that has to pay for food and shelter and clothing and other basic expenditures supposed to take care of their family?

It is imminently unfair, and someone needs to stand up for our low- and middle-income workers. I think that is the essence of what this is all about.

If I could interject because I think you hit on a key point. This isn't ideological. This ought not be partisan at all. In fact, we have a number of Democratic cosponsors. I am gratified by their intellectual honesty, their courage, their support. They are doing the right thing here. They are looking out for their constituents.

We have all been asked to come here and get something done while people are feeling pain. This was certainly an unintended consequence, is my reading. I don't want to impugn the motives of those who hurriedly passed this Affordable Care Act. I don't think they intended this.

So we repeal the provision. We replace it with something that makes sense and restores wages for workers that need it most.

Thank you for not just your support, but your vocal support, engagement, leadership, and education of your colleagues and others who are important stakeholders with respect to this issue. Thank you so much for being with us here this evening.

I would like to pivot off of your discussion of this down economy. We are at a 35-year low in labor force participation. None of us is happy with the rate of job creation or business creation.

One of my constituents was sharing with me recently they saw a stat indicating that business creation and entrepreneurship are at a 15-year low. Clearly, we are experiencing the hardest of times.

The way to grow an economy, based on my economic background, is not to reduce the hours of workers and impose new compliance costs on our employers. Instead, we need to be removing obstacles to realizing the sorts of income that people need and opportunities to work your way up that economic ladder. Unfortunately, this goes in the opposite direction.

I am pleased today to be joined by my good colleague, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, who partnered with me in helping to draft this legislation. He has proven himself to be a fine leader in the Ways and Means Committee.

It makes absolutely no sense. For example, I have a school corporation in Washington County, Indiana, which I recently visited. I was visiting their superintendent and members of their school board.

I don't know their politics, but I certainly know that they care about children. They care about all the employees who work for them. They were absolutely distraught.

They said: Congressman, I don't know what we're going to do with respect to this 30 hours is full time provision. When we think about our substitute teachers, we are actually contemplating having to reduce the number of hours in the middle of classes because we don't have a large enough pool of substitute teachers available to draw on.

We can literally have somebody substituting for half of a class. In order to fall under the 30 hours is full time provision in the Affordable Care Act, these folks are having to leave early.

The students are unattended. They are not being educated. Parents are certainly upset. It is imposing undue costs upon the school corporation in order to track the hours of their employees.

This is the sort of Rube Goldberg sort of contraption that only could be conceived of in Washington, D.C.

I cannot make sense of why anyone would oppose trying to change this provision, as we have done in this bill. Some have speculated that it is a matter of saving face. You pass a big bill; you pass it quickly.

It perhaps was most ill-advised in any sort of fundamental change to the bill. Any sort of repeal of a major provision within the bill and a replacement with something that works better undermines the credibility not only of the bill itself, but of those who supported it originally.

I would like to think better of my colleagues than that. I think there has to be something else at work here, but I don't know how to explain to that superintendent and those concerned school board members in Washington County, Indiana, why others won't sign on to this.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

This is not a political issue. There is an old saying that good policy is good politics. Those who are driven primarily by political considerations--and I think there are, frankly, few that are primarily driven by those--they need to be on the right side of history. They need to be adopting a more optimal policy with respect to how we treat our low- and middle-income workers, so I would invite their support.

Please understand, even in this sometimes shrill, divided Congress, even in this sometimes divided Nation, there are still things we can agree upon. There are commonsensical solutions that we can adopt. There are problems that we can solve.

Repealing the first ever definition of ``full time'' in full law at 30 hours and moving it up to 40 hours, the traditional full-time workweek standard, just makes common sense. It is going to restore wages for millions of workers. $75 billion in foregone wages will be realized if we pass the Save American Workers Act.

Now, there has been quite a bit of talk about wages in this town and beyond in recent weeks, the minimum wage, in particular. I didn't come here to talk specifically about the minimum wage, but let me just illustrate the impact of this 40-hour provision. Let's consider the worker who works at the Federal minimum wage, which few actually do, but $7.25 an hour. So many States have a higher minimum wage. So many people get multiple jobs and, you know, gosh, my heart goes out to them. I appreciate their work ethic. But as a proportion of our economy, most people are not working at the $7.25 rate.

But let's suppose someone is and they work 40 hours a week. That is $290 in take-home pay per week. Now, if we were to raise the minimum wage as the President suggests to $10.20 but this person got dropped down to 29 hours a week, guess what they would be making? Roughly $290 a week. The same thing.

So, for those who see this as a sort of an issue that is somehow partisan but care deeply about the issue of the minimum wage, which I think can create distortions in the economy and kill jobs and so forth--that is a separate debate that I suspect we will have--but those who care deeply about this ought to be on board with this 40 hours is full time legislation, the Save American Workers Act, so I would invite their bipartisan support.

I note that we have just about every Republican who has signed on to this bill. We have a handful of courageous Democrats, and I commend their participation. I think we have some others with us this evening who are supportive of this legislation, prepared to speak to their constituents' experiences and their thoughts about the adverse consequences of a 30-hour definition of ``full time'' in the United States of America.

I am joined by my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who is a very thoughtful and articulate member of the Budget Committee and cares deeply about his State. I yield to the gentleman.

So would it be accurate to say that, in part, it is our lower-income to middle-income workers, through reduced hours, who are paying for the Affordable Care Act, which is wildly unpopular nationally?

You mentioned a very compelling story, incidentally, and I think all of us hear these stories, Republican, Democrat, Independent. It matters not. I suspect we all hear them around our district. You mentioned the President's Statement of Administration Policy which came out today, April Fools' Day. I had to wonder whether it might have been an April Fools' joke. It, in part, reads: Rather than attempting, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the President in an agenda focused on providing greater economic opportunity. And then it goes on and on.

Listen, this is not a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. This is a repeal of a provision that we recognize that a bipartisan group of United States Congressmen and many Senators recognize is flawed. So, I mean, it is an absolute red herring.

I cannot understand why the administration won't engage with us in a fair-minded, statesmanlike way to mitigate the pain so many Americans are feeling.

I would like to associate myself with those remarks pertaining to preferring to start over in an open, deliberative fashion. My belief would be that, if we started over with respect to health care reform, we could actually control costs, increase access, continue to incentivize innovation, and do all the other things that were purportedly the rationale behind this law.

We want to broaden coverage to those who don't have coverage, but the Affordable Care Act, so-called, does not even accomplish that. And so the administration, at least according to the Statement of Administration Policy put out today, welcomes ideas to improve the law. Well, this is an idea to improve the health care circumstances of so many Americans. We need to repeal this 30-hour provision within the law, so that is what the Save American Workers Act does.

Now, I noted that this created some perverse incentives, this 30-hour threshold. I heard a story from a constituent who will remain unnamed for obvious reasons, but they indicated they own some fast-food restaurants, and they are actually contemplating employing some of their workers at one fast-food restaurant under the 30-hour threshold and then making an arrangement with a nearby restaurant, whether they own it or someone else owns it, of a different name to finish out their workweek. So basically, to use a colloquial example, you take off the Subway shirt or the McDonald's shirt and then put on a Burger King shirt.

These are the sorts of perverse incentives created by ill-considered provisions in a very hastily passed and, frankly, partisan law.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I am going to close where I began. The President is proposing a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage, but ObamaCare is resulting in as much as a 25 percent decrease in the pay of millions of hourly workers. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision, too many Americans aren't able to work the number of hours they need, aren't able to get the take-home pay they need to support themselves and their families and to go after the dreams that they want to realize.

So by passing my bill, one which has bipartisan support and which has enjoyed great leadership by so many of

my colleagues, the Save American Workers Act, we can create an America that works simply by restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek.

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

Madam Speaker, as we approach the deadline for enrolling in ObamaCare-sanctioned insurance, it has become clear the system is not working as its supporters intended. For months, we have been learning about Web site problems, spiking premiums, and lost coverage. For months, we have seen an underwhelming number of signups, not even close to matching the stated enrollment goals of this administration. For months, we have heard heart-wrenching stories from our districts about the negative impact this botched rollout has had on hardworking American families.

Unfortunately for those families, the White House and those who helped bring us this law have consistently turned a deaf ear to Americans' concerns. Meanwhile, at the urging of the business community, we had the White House delay the employer mandate tax-- twice. What must the constituents in our districts do to be heard by ObamaCare supporters? Should they form trade organizations and hire a lobbyist so maybe President Obama and champions of this law will listen?

Well, guess what? My constituents did hire someone to lobby on their behalf when they elected me to Congress. It is simply not fair when businesses get a break but the people who work at those businesses do not. I am all for delaying the employer mandate tax because it is confusing and it is cumbersome for our businesses. I also feel very strongly that the individual mandate tax is just as cumbersome for individuals and families as the employer mandate tax is for our businesses. I believe that individuals and families deserve the same sort of delay. So on behalf of my constituents in Indiana's Ninth District, and on behalf of all of yours, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and to support simple fairness.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this is an essential issue that affects groups in my home State of Indiana, as well as groups throughout the country.

As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have been present during hearings where we have learned that the IRS targeted conservative and Tea Party groups. During those same hearings, I have shared letters and documents that showed some of the targeted conservative groups were my fellow Hoosiers.

Regretfully, it appears that the IRS, rather than holding those responsible for this targeted sort of activity, is seeking to make political targeting part of their standard operating procedure. The recently proposed IRS regulation that pertains to these 501(c)(4) groups is designed to do so in a way that clearly inhibits their First Amendment activities.

501(c)(4) is the section of our Tax Code that many of the conservative groups tried to file under. They can't file as a 501(c)(3) because that would limit their ability to engage in grassroots lobbying. They can't file as a 501(c)(5) because they aren't a labor union. They can't file as a 501(c)(6) because they aren't a chamber of commerce. They can't file as a 527 because that would limit them only to political activity.

None of these other organizations are affected by the new regulations--only 501(c)(4)'s.

Now, this seems curious to me, and the regulation seems aimed at preventing such groups from engaging in civil discourse. This is why I strongly support H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs, or STOP, Act.

This bill doesn't say that the IRS cannot regulate this issue, or even that they should not regulate this issue.

Instead, it just tells them to wait until the investigation into this targeting concludes before discussing whether any changes to the rules are necessary.

It is eminently reasonable. It would help protect the political speech and the civil rights of my constituents and those around the country. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, since the launch of open enrollment and healthcare.gov on October 1, I have heard repeated stories of frustration from my constituents trying to enroll in the Federal exchanges.

The President and his administration have tried to assure us time and again that the Web site is improving and that Americans are enrolling.

Unfortunately, neither the stories I have been told, nor the claims of this administration, are easy to verify because HHS is giving us very little data to go off of. Now, that is a shame, because one of the greatest constitutional obligations of the legislative branch is robust oversight of the executive branch--to be sure that laws are working and being enforced as intended.

But there is an even bigger shame here. In August of 2013, HHS estimated that approximately 900,000 individuals in my home State of Indiana were uninsured. This week, HHS offered us a progress report. Now, can you guess how many Hoosiers, according to this report, actually selected a plan through healthcare.gov as of December 28? Only 30,000. Now, that means, according to the HHS estimates, the Obama administration estimates 29 out of every 30 uninsured Hoosiers have not selected a plan through healthcare.gov.

That 30,000 figure, by the way, is suspect in itself, to put it charitably. Since HHS is only reporting those who put a plan in a shopping cart, we don't know how many actually went through with the purchase.

Now, with a big deadline coming up for the individual mandate tax penalty, it is imperative that Congress understands exactly how many people are in compliance with the law. Merely selecting a plan won't help you avoid being taxed by the IRS.

That is why I am a strong supporter of the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. The Obama administration should be required to provide the American people and Congress weekly reports on the status of healthcare.gov. They should be required to tell us how many are actually purchasing plans. They should be required to tell us all sorts of additional data points they are already tracking that will help Congress perform our oversight role on behalf of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure here in the House and, hopefully, in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, a fellow Hoosier, fellow marine and fellow patriot died on December 28 in his 81st year. I didn't know Andrew Jacobs, Jr., a gentleman who for 30 years represented the Indianapolis area in the House of Representatives with great distinction. But I am familiar with the qualities of a decent, honorable public servant; and Andy Jacobs deserves to be remembered, honored, and even emulated by those of us who now serve in this body or bother to keep watch on its proceedings.

He was born February 24, 1932, in Indianapolis. After high school, Jacobs joined the United States Marine Corps. He was a plucky marine. His country called him to serve in the Korean war. He responded to the call of duty, fought bravely, and was wounded in action.

When Jacobs returned home to Indiana, he enrolled in Indiana University, graduating in 1955, and 3 years later he graduated from IU's law school.

Jacobs had a passion for public service. So after completing his studies in 1958, the marine kept fighting--fighting for a better America first as a sheriff's deputy, then as a lawyer, then as a State legislator, and then, beginning in 1965, as a Member of Congress.

In Congress, Andy Jacobs was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee where he fought to balance the Federal budget and simplify the Tax Code. He also fought, in the memorable words of journalist Colman McCarthy, to ``oppose wars that he believed couldn't be won, explained or afforded.''

Jacobs is survived by countless admirers, a beloved wife of 25 years, two sons and two sisters. May each of us honor this fallen marine's memory--and his constancy of purpose--by picking up his rifle and doing our part to fight for a better America.

Mr. Speaker, small mom-and-pop businesses are an integral part of local economies, especially in the State of Indiana. Schimpff's Confectionary, located in Jeffersonville, Indiana, is a prime example of a small, family-owned business that has maintained a tradition of community involvement and devotion to a quality product. Schimpff's is not only a vital part of the community, but also an important Jeffersonville landmark.

Schimpff's Confectionary is a world-class candy maker, confectionary store, and museum located within the Old Jeffersonville Historic District. This candy store is one of the oldest in the country. It has kept the same atmosphere throughout the years and continuously draws large crowds. In addition to selling candy, Schimpff's Confectionary gives tours to visitors of the shop, providing an interactive experience and insight into how the finest candy was and is made.

Schimpff's Confectionary contributes mightily to the town of Jeffersonville. Not only do they reliably provide delicious treats to the families of Southern Indiana and beyond, but they maintain local jobs, and their outstanding presence is a source of deep pride for the entire community. Residents of Jeffersonville have grown up with Schimpff's Confectionary, and the store has faithfully maintained its high quality standards, and friendly atmosphere, since the day it opened. For these reasons and more, I am proud to recognize Schimpff's in this installment of the 9th District's Small Business Spotlight.

Although the Schimpff family had been making candy in Louisville, Kentucky, since 1850, the Jeffersonville store was established in 1891 by Gustave Schimpff, Sr. and Jr. The shop continues to be run by his family and is now run by the third generation of Schimpff's. Gustave's great-grandson, Warren Schimpff, continues the family legacy of exceptional candy making with his wife, Jill. Through their leadership and labor, Schimpff's has expanded their operations and developed a distinguished international reputation.

While Schimpff's has been based in Jeffersonville since 1891, the family has traveled to Sweden to participate in the Candy Championships, the international candy competition in Granna. Jill and Warren Schimpff are the first Americans to have ever participated in this competition. While visiting Sweden, they met European candy makers, and learned some new and creative techniques to share with their many customers. Such initiatives have brought people from across the globe to Jeffersonville for the purpose of visiting their fine establishment.

The confectionary has gained its fair share of local and national attention as well, including recognition by ``Louisville Business First'' as one of the area's top twenty for-profit attractions. Additionally, the business has gained national media attention from the Food Network, the History Channel's ``Modern Marvels,'' and American celebrity chef Paula Deen.

The Schimpff's dedication to customers and quality has sustained the family legacy, and is responsible for the longstanding success of their business. This confectionary has been a Jeffersonville treasure since its opening over 120 years ago, and it will continue to be a recognized landmark for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 90th birthday of Professor Menahem Pressler of the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music in Bloomington, Indiana. I would like to join Indiana University in recognizing his lifelong dedication to music, teaching, and the artistic inspiration of others.

During Professor Pressler's 60 years with the piano faculty of the Jacobs School of Music, he has earned the reputation as a passionate and gifted instructor, helping young, talented musicians expand upon their skills and abilities. For his commitment to music and teaching, he has received the rank of Distinguished Professor of Music at Indiana University, and also holds honorary doctorates from several other American universities. Moreover, his repute among his peers, colleagues, and students serves as a testament to his outstanding character.

Professor Pressler's talents have taken him all over the world, performing in well-renowned competitions and musical events in the United States and abroad. He has performed solo as well as collaborated with groups like the Beaux Arts Trio, which is considered the gold standard for trios throughout the world. He has received numerous honors for his musical performances during his lifetime, beginning with first prize at the Debussy International Piano Competition in San Francisco in 1946. Since then, his career has been world renowned, performing with the orchestras of New York, Chicago, London, Paris, and many others.

I know that Hoosiers throughout Indiana's 9th District are proud to have such a brilliant, talented gentleman reside in the vibrant town of Bloomington. He has left an incredible impact not only in South Central Indiana, but also across our nation and the world, and his life and career are deserving of much recognition. For his continued work at Indiana University and outstanding contributions to music, please join me in wishing Professor Pressler a very happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391 and section 1002(e) of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the joint resolution under consideration.

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

Some people may be wondering why we find ourselves here today. Some people may be confused as to why we are voting on a resolution to disapprove of the debt limit suspension 2 weeks after the fact. And some people may be asking why I introduced this resolution of disapproval on behalf of some people who voted ``yes'' and others who voted ``no'' to give the President the authority to suspend the debt limit.

The answers to these questions are much simpler than they might appear.

We are here today because the United States of America carries a debt load of over $17 trillion and counting.

We are voting on this resolution today because this is the procedure that was put in place by the Senate when they crafted a package to end the government shutdown. Many of us voted for that Senate legislation largely because we didn't think it was responsible to risk defaulting on our national debt.

However, I introduced this resolution, and a majority of House Members will vote to disapprove, because it is also not responsible to ignore the problems created by our long-term debt.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a large number in this body voted to avoid default, it would be a gross mischaracterization to say that we approve of a debt limit suspension absent adoption of bold policy reforms that will set our Nation on a sustainable fiscal trajectory.

We must break the habit of negotiating these fiscal deals at the last minute. We must stop kicking the can down the road, proverbially skipping along from crisis to crisis.

Simply put: enough is enough. Let's start talking across party lines about how to fix our debt problems now, not the end of a deadline.

We know that programs like Medicare and Social Security are on unsustainable footing. That is why a Democratic President and Republican House have both offered up reforms for these programs. So if we agree there is a problem, why must we wait until the next crisis to address it?

We know that our Tax Code is outdated and that it has become too larded up with narrowly tailored provisions that benefit only a small number of special interests. That is why our House Ways and Means chairman has met weekly with the Senate Finance chairman to discuss how best to achieve a fairer, flatter Tax Code in a bipartisan way.

If there is agreement here, then why are we looking to self-imposed fiscal deadlines in hopes of getting a deal? I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: Washington missed an opportunity during our most recent fiscal showdown.

This resolution sends a message that ignoring our problems does not make them go away. It sends a message that we should not wait until the last minute, but should reach across the aisle to face these challenges now; and it sends a message that we take these issues very seriously because they bear directly on job creation, personal income levels, and our collective faith in America's enduring exceptionalism.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have so much respect for the long-standing service and distinguished tenure of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I just think that there is some clarification that is required in this body and for all who may be watching this evening's proceedings, so let me begin by reminding those who would review the record.

I am not sure I invoked the words ``Republican'' or ``Democrat'' in my opening comments. If I did, it certainly wasn't in a partisan nature. Instead, I extended a hand of friendship. I tried to actually increase trust and offered the hope that we might work together, we might actually work together to work on the very problems that caused me to run for office for the first time in 2010: the $17 trillion national debt that I know has grown to a great degree during the service of the good gentleman on the other side of the aisle who just spoke; the unsustainable entitlement programs that, when push comes to shove and we can no longer find the resources to fund them because people haven't made bold enough leadership decisions, those on the margins of society will be most adversely impacted.

I know these are issues that my good ranking member friend on the other side of the aisle cares about as much as I do. We have just not yet come together and found bipartisan solutions to these things.

Now, the continuing resolution vote that we passed, the package, if you will, the vote that we passed a few days ago, accomplished a few things. We indicated that the President could suspend the debt ceiling, but that move could be checked by votes of disapproval in the House and the Senate. So this was a process that was put into motion by that earlier bipartisan vote that occurred right here in this body.

It is true that it has been made clear over in the other Chamber, the Senate, that the leader there will never bring this bill up in the Senate. That has been made eminently clear. The risk of default is something that ought not be mentioned. We needn't spook the markets here. We will pay our bills in this country. That is something I have been proud to stand for ever since I have been in this body.

The continuing resolution package also indicated that, on February 8, the debt limit would be increased to reflect the borrowing that occurred during the debt limit suspension period, and then the Treasury would be given the ability to create additional headroom via so-called extraordinary measures after the debt limit was reinstated on February 8, 2014.

So that is the larger context here. It sounds to me very procedural, not particularly partisan. In fact, my hope was that this could be offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is a messaging bill.

There was an allusion during my good friend's comments to a message being sent as if that is somehow a negative thing. Now, most of the bills that are introduced in this body are introduced in part, at least, to offer a message to the broader American people, and we stand here and argue on behalf of the message that we are trying to drive home.

The message that I am trying to drive home is that these debt problems have lingered on too long and that to increase a debt limit, to suspend a debt limit, is certainly not to approve further borrowing in the future absent the sort of bold changes that, frankly, have not been enacted when my good friend has served many years in Congress. So that is the larger message here, and that is how I would respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished freshman gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), who has had a lot of life's experiences.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), a hardworking colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a distinguished colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to reiterate five key points:

One, our current national debt exceeds $17 trillion, an amount that is greater than our annual GDP, the size of our economy.

Two, while I and so many others in my party agree with many of my colleagues across the aisle that risking default is irresponsible, it is just as irresponsible to ignore why our debt is so darn high and what it means for the future of our country.

Three, we can and must work across partisan lines to avoid default in conjunction with a debt ceiling vote or a default related to a continued failure to address the largest drivers of our debt; and we must begin that work now, not at the last minute, or the next self- imposed fiscal deadline.

Four, those who have served here for decades have known for decades that our population was growing older, that health care costs were rising, and that our long-term fiscal trajectory was unsustainable; but nothing has happened.

Five, this recognition that Washington continually misses opportunities to put our country on a path to fiscal health ought to be something on which we can all agree.

I urge all my colleagues who want to see our country address our long-term challenges before it is too late to vote ``yes'' on this resolution of disapproval.

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

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in these early stages of his first tour in Congress. I know he is proud of his military background, and I know he is proud of our Nation's veterans. I am proud of my own service, and I am proud of our veterans as well, the veterans of Indiana's Ninth Congressional District, those veterans I served with.

And I would like to just highlight today one veteran who inspires me as I reflect upon his life, one veteran that I had the opportunity to get to know when I was at the United States Naval Academy. He is a fellow marine. And Veterans Day, you will recall, is a day of celebration. November 11 is a time we celebrate not only those living, but also those who have worn the uniform and died in the course of service.

So today, I would like to talk about my classmate, the class of 1995 at Annapolis, Doug Zembiec. Maybe some of you have heard of Doug. He is a man of quite a reputation. He was a two-time NCAA All-American wrestler at the Naval Academy. He was a leader. He had an amazing presence. Even among his fellow athletes who spent a lot of their hours preparing for the next match, the next game, he stood out. He worked especially hard, always went above and beyond. Because of his tireless work ethic, because of his infectious personality and a certain X factor about him, Doug just earned all sorts of friends. And he earned the respect of people in an atmosphere at a service academy where leaders and aspiring leaders are competing for the respect of their peers, and that really says something.

On May 31, 1995, Doug and I were commissioned as second lieutenants in the U.S. Marine Corps, at which point our careers took separate paths. After initial training at The Basic School in Quantico, Doug joined a Force Reconnaissance platoon. It was among the toughest of the United States Marines. We like to think we are all tough, but we can certainly agree that Force Recon marines have earned the respect of their fellow marines and fellow Americans.

He was among the first to enter Kosova in 1999 with his first unit, and 5 years later, he found himself in command of Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines. During Operation Vigilant Resolve in 2004, Doug led his rifle company of 168 marines and sailors in the first ground assault into Fallujah. His remarkable leadership earned him a number of decorations. These things weren't important to Doug, but it is important that our country recognize our fearless leaders like him. We awarded him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts for the wounds he suffered in the course of the Battle of Fallujah. His men were so impressed by the bravery and the principled leadership that Doug exhibited that they named him the ``Lion of Fallujah.'' The Lion of Fallujah would serve four combat tours in Iraq.

In his final tour, on May 11, 2007, Doug was killed by small arms fire. He was always thinking of others first. Doug warned the Iraqi forces that he helped train to get down, but Doug himself did not make it.

A mutual friend of ours and fellow Naval Academy classmate, Eric Kapitulik, who was very close to Doug, he delivered a moving eulogy at Doug's funeral at the Naval Academy chapel. He read some words that were written by Doug himself in the closing of that eulogy, entitled, ``Principles My Father Taught Me,'' and here they are:

Be a man of principle. Fight for what you believe in. Keep

your word. Live with integrity. Be brave. Believe in

something bigger than yourself. Serve your country. Teach.

Mentor. Give something back to society. Lead from the front.

Conquer your fears. Be a good friend. Be humble and be self-

confident. Appreciate your friends and family. Be a leader

and not a follower. Be valorous on the field of battle. And

take responsibility for your actions. Never forget those that

were killed, and never let rest those that killed them.

That is Doug Zembiec. May God continue to bless Doug Zembiec and his wife and beautiful child he left behind. May God continue to bless our Nation's veterans, and may God continue to bless this great Nation, the greatest Nation on Earth, America.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 3,000 Hoosier children are currently eligible for adoption while living in foster care. Now, I know all of us can agree that these children and the over 100,000 children in the United States eligible for adoption deserve a stable, permanent, and loving home. While there is no doubt our foster care programs provide an essential service, I strongly believe, as a proud father of four young children and as someone who used to provide free legal services to those wanting to adopt, that there can be no substitute for the care a loving family can provide.

Whether it is living with a family member or being adopted into a new family, we must do everything in our powers to see that children everywhere receive the best upbringing possible. This legislation represents a step forward in finding these children caring and supportive homes. By extending the Adoption Incentives program, we effectively encourage and incentivize States to help adopt more children out of foster care so these children can lead happy, healthy, and successful lives.