Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, individuals and families benefit when businesses, big and small, are able to help communities maximize their economic potential. In Southern Indiana, Dan Cristiani is one outstanding example of a small business owner who harnesses the talent and work ethic of his employees to improve their community.

At just fifteen years old, Mr. Cristiani started his first business by cutting down timber and selling it as firewood. Today his company-- Dan Cristiani Excavating--is a full service business that sells and rents heavy equipment, distributes topsoil and mulch, and offers waste disposal services for individuals and companies.

In addition to owning a thriving business, Mr. Cristiani has become a recognized community philanthropist. He is particularly involved with Clark County 4-H, saying, ``My dad was involved in Floyd County 4-H, and I guess I'm kind of a chip off the old block.'' In 2002, he started a consignment auction to help raise money for the organization. The annual event provides an opportunity for individuals and businesses to sell farm equipment that is no longer needed, typically generating between $15,000 and $20,000 for 4-H. Additionally, he donates money for 4-H project animals. There is no doubt that 4-H plays an essential role in educating children about the benefits of agriculture throughout Indiana's 9th District, and I appreciate that he is helping give children access to this wonderful organization.

Beyond his contributions to 4-H, Mr. Cristiani and his excavating company help provide many other services to Clark County, such as funds and equipment for a new baseball park. But perhaps his greatest impact is felt when the community is most in need. For example, in 2004 a tornado struck the north edge of Borden, Indiana, and he immediately sent his excavating equipment and crew to the affected area to begin cleanup. He did so under no pretense of being paid, and there was no guarantee of reimbursement for equipment use or staff salaries. Despite that, his team stayed in the area for weeks providing assistance to Hoosiers when they most needed it. As a result, Borden was back on its feet much more quickly than other towns impacted by the storm.

Dan Cristiani and Dan Cristiani Excavating are representative of the small businesses in which Hoosiers in Indiana's 9th District take pride. Their commitment and generosity prove that, whether big or small, businesses of any size can make a positive contribution to their community. I am proud to represent such sturdy Americans, and I am pleased to highlight their good works in the Congressional Record today in this installment of Indiana's 9th District Small Business Spotlight.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, a bipartisan issue. And I am encouraged to see so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle be here with us this evening to speak out to encourage our leadership, to encourage our fellow Members to stay engaged on this.

In the end, this is about improving lives. This is about delivering innovation within one of our highest growth economic sectors so that lives can be changed in a very positive way.

And to bring this sort of down to Earth here, aside from the very important economic statistics that we'll be citing this evening related to jobs and economic growth and losses in revenue, aside from the stories that we're going to hear this evening about manufacturing facilities being moved overseas, plans to build them no longer in the Midwest in a place like Indiana, instead, Europe is a better place to do business, let's set all that aside just for a moment and talk about one individual. This young lady, her name is Sheila Fraser.

Now, Sheila is a Hoosier, and she testified at a field hearing on the device tax and its impact on the individuals who benefit from medical devices and on businesses. This field hearing was held in Indianapolis a couple of years back, and Mr. Paulsen helped convene it, and we appreciated that.

But Sheila testified that, at age 10, she was diagnosed with bone cancer in her leg. She was an elite athlete for her age, playing gymnastics and track. And one day she just woke up facing the prospect of amputation, of all things, at age 10.

Biomet, a company out of Indiana, made a custom device for Sheila designed to expand as she grew and to replace the diseased bone while saving her leg.

Now, today, Sheila's much older. She leads a normal, active life. When we first met, she was a senior at Marian High School in Mishawaka, Indiana. Her courses were geared for college preparation. She received honors for a GPA of 3.5 or above. She's a member of the National Honor Society.

Now, Ms. Fraser, no doubt, has a bright future ahead of her. We have to wonder how differently her life might be were it not for the innovation that occurred at that Indiana medical device company.

Innovation in devices changes lives, thousands of lives every year across

this country. It's just--she's just one remarkable example of all the people that benefit from these devices.

And without this type of innovation, let's think about what Sheila's life would look like. Well, she'd be physically disabled. She'd face a future of sky-high health care costs. Who knows what sort of opportunities she wouldn't be able to seize as a result of the innovations that came out of Biomet, just one company.

Now, taxing companies that rely so much on research and development and are positively impacting so many lives, it makes absolutely no sense to me. And the only way I can make any measure of sense out of it is something that my good colleague from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Matheson, said earlier.

This medical device surtax wasn't included in the Affordable Care Act, what the President calls ObamaCare, for any sort of policy reason. It was just put in to raise revenue. There was no real consideration when this bill was passed about how to make the bill sustainable from a fiscal standpoint. Instead, it was an insurance coverage bill, and they were going to figure out some of the financials later. And so this was one effort, I think, to mitigate the cost of the bill.

We've discovered that it's just incredibly costly in other ways, though, the opportunity costs that will be borne by people like Sheila Fraser if this innovation doesn't occur. So, for Sheila and for millions of Americans, tens of millions of people around the world that benefit from these devices, I think we owe it to them to repeal this medical device tax, a very bipartisan issue, a bicameral issue. My constituents are demanding it. The American people are increasingly demanding it across the country.

And so I just look forward to getting this done in conjunction with those here and others in this body.

This hits very close to home. Because for every Zimmer or Biomet I visit in the State of Indiana, there have to be four or five small, fledgling businesses that aspire to become the next Zimmer or Biomet of the world. We're inhibiting, with this device tax, their future growth, their research efforts, and the lean years when they're just trying to get a product approved into market.

With entrepreneurship at a 15-year low, we need to be doing everything conceivable to incentivize people to start businesses, to grow jobs, to increase personal incomes, which is exactly what this medical device sector has done in recent years. But it's all in jeopardy as a result of this surtax.

I'm in the mood this evening to tell stories. So you have opened the door there, my good friend, Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota. So let me share with you another story about innovation in this sector.

There was a young college student who dreamed one day of becoming a doctor. So he did very well in school and studied incredibly hard. When he graduated, the U.S. military came calling. He was brought into the service against his will--drafted--and served his time as a medical technician. He got married later and they had children and one thing led to another.

They ended up moving to my hometown of Bloomington, Indiana.

And so this once-aspiring doctor did what so many Americans decide to do: they didn't give up on their dreams. So he and his wife decided to try and make a difference in the area of medicine in their own little way. He started tinkering with some wire guides in a spare bedroom of their apartment in Bloomington. Eventually, this turned into a small business--a profitable business--and they were able to hire other people and move out of the spare bedroom.

In later years, this company would grow to become the largest privately-held medical device company in the world, the Cook Group, headquartered in Bloomington, Indiana. Its founder was Bill Cook and his wife, Gayle, who survives him.

They have created thousands of jobs not just in Bloomington but around the State of Indiana, all around the Midwest. And now they're creating them in Europe. They're creating them in Europe not because they want to. In fact, there were plans, I'm told, for a number of manufacturing facilities to be built in America's Midwest. But because of our regulatory burdens and, more importantly, this medical device surtax, the plans were changed and those manufacturing facilities are now going to be constructed and jobs created in Europe. Because that's a better place to do business when they look at their financials. They tried hard. They resisted making this decision. But their Federal Government pushed them in this direction.

There's still an opportunity to salvage so many jobs, to rescue this great American industry that's really in its early stages of development. We must repeal this medical device tax. This is a no- brainer, as my oldest child says. It's a bipartisan issue.

So I'm really encouraged to see Republicans and Democrats down here this evening trying to ensure that the next Cook Group can be created and the next Cook Group won't be strangled in the cradle during its early formative years when it's trying to get cash-flow positive.

I'm glad we're getting out the word tonight to the American people on this important issue.

One would hope it's precise.

They are, indeed. And the numbers add up quickly. Right now, you indicated we're looking at a semi-monthly payment of this tax by our device companies. Roughly $100 million is due to the Internal Revenue Service semi-monthly as a result of this tax, And those numbers add up quickly.

So far in fiscal year 2013, the taxes already cost device manufacturers nearly $2 billion, and next year is looking even worse. Next fiscal year, starting October 1, the device tax is projected to cost manufacturers over $2.5 billion. So, once again, these taxes are not just being paid by the large companies; they're being paid by companies that are drawing on all their financial wherewithal--all the venture capital they can find, all their personal savings, all the community bank loans they may be able to get during these rough times. Those monies are being used to, with a threadbare budget, to research and develop these technologies into something that can finally make their way to the market. And all the while Uncle Sam is taxing away any profits they might be realizing on another product that may already be at market.

So this is absolutely something that is a disincentive to innovation. It undermines job creation at a time that all politicians are talking about creating jobs and saving the middle class. These are good-paying jobs. Manufacturing jobs, which you started off talking about, we need to be creating more manufacturing jobs here in the United States. So these pay better than your median or your average wage in a given State.

This is why we have 79 supporters in the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat--and I think perhaps an independent in there, one never knows, that might favor repealing this device tax. Here in the House, we have 260 cosponsors for repealing the device tax, Republican and Democrat. So let's get it done.

I would absolutely agree. And I throw another wrinkle into this conversation.

We need to be identifying ways to control health care costs. Whatever one thinks of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--as the President's health care law is known--we are not here to discuss the larger law. But to the extent we figure out or can incorporate into our policies cost-saving measures that still maintain the quality of care that Americans have grown to expect from our medical system, that allows us to reduce the burden of taxation.

So I think those who are enamored of this law need to reflect on this litany of different taxes that have been put into place in order to pay for it--many of them, I believe, unwise. But this one is particularly unwise; that's why we have so much bipartisan support behind its repeal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 367, the REINS Act.

Some of my Democrat friends want to characterize this bill as an antiregulation bill. But a vote for the REINS Act isn't a vote against regulations. It's a vote for better regulations. It's a vote in favor of a smarter regulatory system. It's a vote to balance broad economic interests against the narrow jurisdiction of individual Federal agencies. It's a vote to give the people most affected by regulations a louder voice in the democratic process.

Yesterday, the White House threatened to veto this bill if it passes. In their veto threat, they wrote:

Maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility

between the two branches is essential to ensuring that the

Nation's regulatory system effectively protects public

health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while also

promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and

job creation.

I couldn't agree more. That's exactly why I introduced this bill in January. For those, like me, who are truly concerned about maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility between the two branches, regardless of who occupies the White House, it's worth noting the executive branch only derives its power and only invokes its responsibility to issue a given legislation when the legislative branches authorize it to do so, and only in accordance with legislation passed by Congress.

However, this ``allocation of responsibility'' has been thrown out of whack because Congress has taken to the habit of passing sweeping, ambiguous laws that leave it to Federal agencies to sort out the details. This is typically done for the purpose of rushing bills through Congress in order to meet a political timetable or because certain Members would prefer to avoid working through the controversial details. It's much easier to leave such decisions to unaccountable rulemakers, after all.

ObamaCare is a great example of this phenomenon. As the minority leader said when she served as Speaker:

We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.

It turns out that's exactly the case. They had to pass the bill so HHS, the IRS, and our veritable alphabet soup of Federal agencies could tell us how the law would actually work. In fact, we still don't know exactly what's in the bill because we're still waiting on more regulations.

If the REINS Act were in place, none of the major regulations that are issued for ObamaCare or other sweeping laws would take effect until Congress approved them. This would make our regulatory process smarter for a number of reasons--chiefly, because we currently regulate in silos.

Now, when HHS employees are drafting a regulation about health insurance, for instance, they narrowly focus only on insurance. They aren't too worried about economic growth. If the IRS is drafting a regulation on tax collection, they are likely to focus narrowly on taxes. They don't take much

into account job losses and income effects.

We need a Congress that can comprehensively look at these things, a body that can, in the words of the White House, ``protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while also promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation,'' all at the same time.

So as we learn what's actually in ObamaCare and other laws, why is it such a bad idea to ensure that individual, rank-and-file Americans get to weigh in, through their elected representatives, on the important details that impact their pocketbooks, consume their time, and govern countless aspects of their daily lives?

The truth is it's not a bad idea. In fact, I predict Congress would take the time to more thoroughly and publicly deliberate about these large ambiguous bills if the regulators didn't get the final say. In the end, we would end up with better, clearer legislation in a diminished role for unelected rulemakers. More Americans could stay engaged in the entire lawmaking process and could voice their concerns in a meaningful way. And politicians would be unable to hide behind so- called ``unelected bureaucrats'' because the American people could ultimately hold Congress accountable for the rules coming out of Washington.

I implore my colleagues to join me in restoring a measure of accountability to the democratic process. Support this bill.

Are these some of the very same bills, my good colleague, that the President in recent speeches has characterized as partisan, misguided, meaningless? I do believe you may be referring to some of those bills.

Well, it is hogwash. And it's particularly hogwash because among those various reforms that you've itemized there, let's reflect on how much persuasion, how much public argument was required to even bring the President of the United States to go along with repealing this egregious, superfluous 1099 obligation.

We had to make the public argument. We had to win the argument because there was great reluctance, if recollection serves, and I think it does, to make any changes whatsoever to what most Americans now know as ObamaCare.

The thought was and the thinking still seems to be among a number of our colleagues that if they touch the act, then that is going to lead to further reform, perhaps dissolution or repeal of the act altogether and replacement with something that is more patient centered, with something, frankly, that is more bipartisan.

So to our colleagues who often level criticisms at those of us who are identifying ways to alleviate the pain on the American people with respect to this law, the so-called Affordable Care Act, I think it bears reminding the importance of continuing the argument, forcefully making the argument about all the pain that it is causing.

Well, the mandate is that every employer across the United States of America who employs 50 or more persons on a full- time basis must provide government-sanctioned, government-approved health insurance to their employees.

Now, look, superficially, that sounds just great. There's some problems here. First, this law redefines full-time in a way that Americans have never understood

That's what most Hoosiers think as well.

I think I've traveled quite a bit, gotten to know people around the country. And I don't believe I've encountered, I reckon, anyone who thought that full-time was 30 hours. So where did this come from? Out of thin air, presumably.

Potentially, you, myself and so many other Members of this body agreed with the substance of the President's blog post, though one would question whether we were intended to be a Nation of laws or instead a Nation of blog posts. We could get into that separate conversation.

I think fair-minded people agreed that the delay was appropriate. ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. The computer systems don't seem to be ready. Employers are confused about exactly how this law's going to work, exactly how it's going to impact them. Employees are confused. And something had to be done.

But I think that recognition that something had to be done only occurred because there were people in Congress making arguments, as they continue to make arguments, with respect to the flaws in this legislation.

Well, kudos to the one of, what is it, six colleagues on the other side of the aisle that joined us in voting for your bill.

Thirty-five in total?

I think one out of every six members of their conference were supportive of your bill.

I think that was the right thing to do, the right vote to cast. It certainly preserved the precedent that it is this body that passes the laws, that develops the legislation.

It's the job of the executive branch to sign those various acts into law, and then to execute them, not to recraft the laws as it might see convenient, for whatever motives.

And so you mentioned my bill, which is really, in the end, the American people's bill because it's designed to provide relief to American families, the Fairness for American Families Act.

You know, the thinking behind this is quite simple. If the President wants

to offer businesses a relief from the employer mandate tax, as our Supreme Court has styled it, then why won't you offer relief to working Americans and their families?

It's that simple. And I have yet to hear an acceptable response. No, we're playing politics.

Well, are those one of nine Democrats who voted for my legislation also playing politics?

No, candidly, I think they're being fair minded. Some would argue that they're looking for political cover or whatever. I'll let others assess that.

But, certainly, it's good legislation. It's fair and equitable legislation to accord the same sort of treatment to hardworking Americans that the President would give to the business community.

And though I agree, let me go on record that that business community needs relief too.

There seem to be a lot there. How would you like to proceed?

So the Contra Costa Times of Concord says that half of the Affordable Care Act call-center jobs will be part-time.

The Missourian says ObamaCare is going to impact Franklin County workers.

The Weekly Standard reports Wisconsin grocery store forced to cut hours due to ObamaCare.

The Huffington Post reports that White Castle indicates that ObamaCare is causing them to consider only hiring part-time workers.

KHN indicates Wellpoint sees small employers dropping their health coverage.

There's more.

So we're already picking up on some trends here. From a number of the headlines, we're getting the sense that this health care law is not what we were told it would be, what the American people were told it would be. It's not sustainable. That's why there's all manner of taxes, from medical device taxes to what was once a tanning tax. They're looking for revenue under every rock to make this thing sustainable.

It doesn't control costs. By some estimates in my own State, the State of Indiana, premiums are expected to go up 70 percent-plus within the next year or so. There are problems about access that we're hearing about that are captured in articles around the country. Rural areas, in particular, can expect to have a shortage of doctors as a direct result of this law. And there are quality concerns.

I've just listed my thoughts on what health care reform ought to accomplish. All those various things ought to happen. Unfortunately, ObamaCare is failing on every front. And I don't say this with any celebration. I lament the fact. It's all the more reason that we need to continue to educate our colleagues and that minority of the American people that still believe this is going to work.

There are people behind every one of these headlines.

Forbes says: Labor Unions Are Indicating That ObamaCare Will Shatter Our Health Benefits and Cause Nightmare Scenarios.

My recollection was that labor was very much behind this bill, originally. I would love to work with them or any members of union or union leadership

to be part of the solution here to help alleviate some of the pain. Welcome home.

Absolutely.

Well, they're hearing from their members.

That's right.

Objective journalists.

Let me press ``pause'' here before we read more of these headlines, which are incredibly illustrative and instructive.

So many of them deal with the cut in the number of hours for our wage earners during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Why is that happening? Why is that happening?

Well, you've got employers that are now mandated to provide health insurance to their employees, and many of them, in order to remain profitable, must change their way of doing business. So they change people from full-time into a part-time status. They hire people into part-time positions rather than full-time positions.

And then we have, perhaps most pathetically and tragically, what has been dubbed the ``29er effect,'' where people are working more than 30 hours a week, many of whom are barely getting by, barely able to put food on the table and meet their utility bills and so on, that are being dropped down to 29 or fewer hours.

How is that helpful to the American people?

That's right. And we have legislation here, again, to address this problem, like the Saving American Workers Act. There's lots of cosponsors here in the House.

I introduced the bill in response to some of the same things I'm hearing from my colleagues who are, in turn, hearing from their constituents and the sort of things I hear back home in Indiana, which is this is absolutely ridiculous. We're helping very few people at the expense of many.

Let's restore the definition of full-time as it's always been popularly understood and provide some relief. So we need to move forward on that. Let's continue to educate and assess what is being reported across the country on some of these.

That's right.

I've seen some Indiana headlines--a number of them--related to some of these effects. One pops out there for me.

The Indianapolis News: School Part-Timers Fear Fewer Hours, Less Pay, as Impact of Health Care Law Kicks In.

Let's remember this is not just businesses that are being impacted. We've got municipalities, school workers, and businesses, especially in the hospitality industry or your retail sector, where we see a lot more people being hired on a part-time basis. Seemingly, every aspect of our economy and much of our society is being adversely impacted by this law.

Now, that's not to say that some people aren't helped. All things being equal, if we can insure a few more million people, that's a great thing; but with all the collateral damage created by this law and its unsustainability, that's the real problem here.

Out in Colorado: Fort Collins Small Businesses Prepare for Affordable Care Act Changes;

The World-Herald: Districts to Cut Back Paraprofessionals' Hours as a Result of Health Care Law.

It's already even impacting paraprofessionals right now.

Beacon Journal: Limiting Part-Time Hours to Avoid Health Care Costs.

More of the same, impacting yet more Americans.

Requirements for Health Care Reform and Resulting Requirements for Chesterfield County Public Schools;

The Salt Lake Tribune: Ahead of Health Reform, Granite District Cuts Part-Time Workers' Hours.

Redundant to the Treasury Department's blog post, it bears reminding. They're sitting over there, gathering dust, as the American people demand relief. It is so important.

I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. Those in Arkansas are well represented by you on this and other matters, working very hard to ensure that where relief can be provided, we provide it; where the prerogatives of the legislative branch can be defended, you will defend them.

That's where I stand as well. We just need the United States Senate to act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the great work of the AbilityOne Program. As the largest single provider of employment for people who are blind or have significant disabilities, the AbilityOne Program puts more than 47,000 Americans to work by providing products and services to federal and commercial customers. In my home State of Indiana, I am pleased to have two AbilityOne centers, Bosma Enterprises and the First Chance Center, who help bring Hoosiers with disabilities into the workforce.

Since 1915, Bosma Enterprises has been providing Hoosiers who are blind or visually impaired with job training, employment services, rehabilitation, and outreach programs, empowering Hoosiers to reach their own personal goals while giving them to tools to live independently. In the past year, Bosma has been able to change the lives of many blind and disabled Hoosiers as they navigated the complexities of finding meaningful employment. One of those individuals is Ray Montgomery who, at the age of 17, lost his sight as a victim of a violent crime. After rehabilitation, Mr. Montgomery graduated college and began searching for a job without much success. He then came to Bosma Enterprises where they looked beyond his disability and focused on his skills and potential. Ray now works in Bosma's production facility and is learning new skills to develop personally and professionally.

The First Chance Center in Paoli, Indiana, has helped to provide sustainable gainful employment for Hoosiers with disabilities for the past 13 years. They promote the abilities of Hoosiers with disabilities and provide opportunities for these individuals to fully participate in their community. It is through these meaningful job opportunities that these Hoosiers have been able to gain marketable skills and confidence. The First Chance Center also provides a multitude of other support services, including day services for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities and Tot-to-Tot playgroup for children with special needs.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the efforts of Bosma Enterprises, the First Chance Center, and other AbilityOne organizations and am grateful for the work they do each day to open the doors of opportunity for Americans who are blind or have significant disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mrs. Marilyn Harris for receiving the Rural Development Site Manager of the Year award for Elderly Projects. This award was presented to her on June 11th, 2013 at the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing Annual Meeting and Legislative Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

Marilyn was nominated by her friends and colleagues at Richland Senior Citizens Housing, Inc. in Ellettsville, Indiana. She was nominated for not just being an exceptional property manager but also being a dear friend to those senior citizens who count on her for a safe and comfortable living environment. She also enjoys the privilege of helping with several other properties that her company manages, including PRAC 811 properties for the developmentally challenged and a Rural Development property for families. As a Regional Manager of these properties, she oversees the daily operations of these communities in Indiana and Tennessee.

Being both state and nationally recognized, Marilyn's hard work has not gone unnoticed, and it goes without saying, that this sort of accomplishment is not reached overnight, but through a career dedicated to exceptional work. I once again commend Marilyn for all that she has done, and thank her for her service to South Central Indiana, as she stands as testimony to Hoosier compassion and work ethic.

Mr. Speaker, my home state of Indiana takes pride in its long tradition of Hoosier innovation and small business entrepreneurship. Hoosier businesses across Indiana's 9th District strive to offer quality products and services that become integral parts of their local communities. One such small business is BuffaLouie's, a popular restaurant in Bloomington, Indiana, which is known throughout the state for their amazing selection of buffalo-style chicken wings and homemade sauces.

BuffaLouie's has been a mainstay in Bloomington since they first opened their doors in 1987. It is a popular hangout for Indiana University (IU) students and Bloomington residents alike, who come and enjoy great food in a comfortable atmosphere. In fact, BuffaLouie's has such a strong reputation that they earned national recognition from USA Today as one of the Top Ten Wing Joints in the country.

Today, I commend BuffaLouie's on the success of their business, as well as their commitment to improving the local Bloomington community. As part of my commitment to acknowledge Hoosier small businesses and the critical role they play in my home state, I want to recognize BuffaLouie's as the first in a series titled the 9th District's Hoosier Small Business Spotlight.

Jay Lieser, an IU student and native of Buffalo, New York, founded BuffaLouie's. His mother and father, Ed and Trudy--or Mr. and Mrs. Louie as they are often referred--joined their son in his venture, bringing their family recipes to BuffaLouie's. BuffaLouie's is truly a family business, getting its name and company logo from another member of the Lieser family, Jay's grandfather Lou. This tradition of family and service to the community has been carried on by the current owners, the husband and wife team of Ed and Jamie Schwartzman.

The Schwartzman's have continued to build on the cornerstone of what makes BuffaLouie's great: working hard to ``serve quality food, prepared fresh and made to order using the finest ingredients in a family friendly atmosphere.'' It is not uncommon to see both Mr. and Mrs. Schwartzman at the restaurant helping serve customers and personally thanking patrons for their business. It is this philosophy and commitment that has garnered a loyal following of wing lovers in Bloomington.

BuffaLouie's strengthened its local ties when it relocated from its 17th street location to the famous Gables building on Indiana Avenue. The Gables, once known as the ``Book Nook,'' often played host to the famous jazz musician and IU graduate Hoagy Carmichael. It is where the famous musician penned part of his immortal song ``Star Dust.'' In keeping with this tradition BuffaLouie's hosts musical performances that allow customers to enjoy the historic venue.

BuffaLouie's has become a landmark in Bloomington, Indiana-- exemplifying the spirit of Hoosier small businesses across Indiana's 9th district. The family friendly atmosphere and nationally recognized wings continue to bring satisfied customers through the doors of the historic Gables building. I would like to congratulate BuffaLouie's on more than 25 successful years in business and thank them for the dedication they show their customers. I wish them continued success for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Albert Anness of Franklin Indiana has shared with me a particularly memorable experience during his service as a Congressional Page in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Anness's story takes place during the first session of the 81st Congress in the winter of 1949, in which he gives his account of the inauguration of President Harry S Truman. His story holds both sentimental and historical value, and I believe future generations will find equal worth in his narrative. I am sure all of my colleagues join me in thanking Mr. Anness for his service to the House of Representatives during the 81st Congress and for sharing his account of a special moment in history.

With utmost gratitude, I present the text of the letter written to me by Mr. Anness:

A Moment in Historical Remembrance

(By Albert Anness)

Franklin D. Roosevelt unexpectedly died April 12, 1945, and

his Vice-President Harry S Truman succeeded him to the

Presidency. Three years later on Thursday the 20th of January

1949 Harry S Truman again took the `Oath of Office', becoming

the 33rd President of the United States. The historical

significance of his inauguration is greatly enhanced when you

consider that of the members of the 81st Congress attending

his inauguration, four of them would someday themselves

become President, i.e. John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson,

Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. Three of whom--Johnson,

Nixon, and Ford--would like Truman, first serve as Vice-

President. And of even greater historical significance,

Congressman Gerald Ford would become both Vice-President and

President without ever having been elected to either office!

Fellow House Page, Jim Richardson and I briefly occupied

what would arguably have been considered among the best seats

at Truman's inauguration. The operative word in this scenario

is BRIEFLY as our `up close and personal' presence at this

historic milestone in our country's glorious history was

soon, very soon, cut short by our boss `Fishbait' Miller,

Doorkeeper of the United States House of Representatives.

Thursday January 20, 1949 was a cloudy cold winter's day.

The Boarding house where my roommate Senate Page Bob Hansel

and I lived was located on New Jersey Avenue, a `stone's

throw' from the entrance of the Old House Office Building.

Leaving our lodgings early that Thursday morning, we

encountered an almost surreal scene. It appeared as if

Capitol Hill was in a `state of siege' with soldiers and

military vehicles everywhere! We quickly realized today was

going to be a very special day.

Entering the Old House Office Building we soon were in the

underground Capitol Hill complex on our way to school. After

school we usually had breakfast in the House cafeteria before

reporting for work.

The House after a brief session adjourned, and as a body

proceeded to President Truman's Inauguration. Our services no

longer being required, my fellow House Pages and I scattered

like the four winds!

I cannot remember how it came to be that I found myself in

the Rotunda of the Capitol Building standing beside the

Secret Service man guarding the entrance to President

Truman's Inauguration Platform. An even bigger mystery is how

fellow House Page Jim Richardson came to be standing next to

me. But there we were, and as luck would have it the last

Congressman about to pass through the door and onto President

Truman's Inaugural Platform was my Congressman Edward G.

Breen of the then 3rd Congressional District of Ohio.

After greeting me Congressman Breen proceeded to invite Jim

and me to come along and watch President Truman's

Inauguration. I explained that our passes did not extend to

the Inaugural Platform. Congressman Breen while patiently

waiting to pass thru the

huge double ornate doors, causally turned to the Secret

Service man and informed him that we were official House

Pages. Unhesitatingly, and without uttering a single

syllable, the Secret Service man with a mere wave of his hand

gave permission for us to join the House Members on the

inaugural platform.

Albeit, our stay was brief but the undeniable fact remains

that Jim and I were the only Pages (House, Senate or Supreme

Court) who that day gained admission onto President Truman's

Inaugural platform.

Jim and I were ensconced in the `nose bleed' seats. Behind

us was the stone outside wall of the U.S. Capitol Building!

As a matter of fact we rested our backs against it.

In front of us sat the House of Representatives! Across the

wide center aisle was the Senate. The Supreme Court was in

attendance, including Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson (who swore

into office that day, both Vice President Alben W. Barkley

and President Harry S Truman), the members of President's

Cabinet and invited V.I.P guests. Seated immediately in front

of the Inaugural platform was the United States Marine Band,

and in front of the band were the members of the Washington

Diplomatic Corps and beyond them, thousands of invited

guests. It was an exciting scene that Jim and I were certain

we would always remember!

With the arrival of Vice President-Elect Alben W. Barkley

and his daughter, the Marine Band played `ruffles and

flourishes', and we all stood as they took their places on

the platform.

We arose from our seats again when the Marine Bang struck

up `Hail to the Chief', announcing the arrival of President

Truman, his wife Bess and daughter Margaret.

Standing there thrilled to be participating in the

Inaugural ceremonies, Jim and I were thunderstruck when out

into the middle aisle stepped `Fishbait' Miller, looking

straight at us and inexplicably, but with great emphasis

gestured for Jim and me to leave the Inaugural Platform. And

to leave immediately!

We looked at each other in utter disbelief! How could

Fishbait, in this huge throng of people have known Jim and I

were on that platform? Considering the distance from where we

were seated to where he was standing it just did not seem

possible! Congressman Breen who had been observing the scene,

turned to me and said, ``Al, I guess you two will have to

go.'' With the sounds of ``Hail to the Chief'' ringing in our

ears we quickly departed.

Disappointed, but not ready to call it `quits', Jim and I

scurried up to the roof of the Capitol Building, sharing that

lofty vantage point with the Marine who were there on guard.

But it was not the same. And, after a while we came back

down, and with several other House Pages observed the

remainder of President Truman's Inauguration from one of the

House windows. To mark the occasion, we opened the window

panel and inscribed our names.

Several days passed before the opportunity presented itself

to inquire of Head Democratic Page why `Fishbait' Miller had

ordered Jim and me off President Truman's Inaugural platform.

He told me that Jim was `inappropriately dressed' as he was

wearing a surplus WWII Navy Pea Coat.

More than sixty years have passed since that day and I

still cannot figure how `Fishbait' spotted the two of us in

that crowd!

Not too long after the Inaugural, I was honored to be

invited by Fishbait to be his guest at his church's Father &

Son Banquet. He couldn't take all of the House Pages so I was

selected to represent them. I still have the Banquet Program.

Later that spring Fishbait assigned me to the House Ways

and Means Committee to operate the sound system during the

committee hearings on Amending the Social Security Act 1935.

For that assignment I am forever grateful to him.

On the first day of the hearings, the Doorkeeper sent

fellow Page Dave Cunningham. Dave did not like the job and

asked to be reassigned. Early the next morning Fishbait

collared me, and away I went to the New House Office Building

and the Ways & Means Committee! Had I been on the job the

first day of the hearings I would have met former President

Herbert Hoover, the man who was President of the United

States the year I was born. In 1949 he was then President of

the Hoover Commission and the first person to testify before

the committee. I deeply regret having missed that

opportunity.

I couldn't have been happier with my assignment on the Ways

& Means Committee, and I remained for the entire hearings; I

was later recalled for several hearings on other legislative

matters. I have a letter from Ways & Means Committee

Chairman, the late Robert L. Doughton (North Carolina) in

which he said, ``I remember you and your efficient services

to the Committee very well. If and when you are in Washington

while I am here, I would be pleased to have you come by and

see me.'' He enclosed a line drawing of himself inscribed

``to my Dear Friend Albert R. Anness'' and signed it,

``Robert L. Doughton.''

My last contact with Fishbait occurred sometime in the

1970's. My wife Sharon and I were in the D.C. area visiting

college friends, and one day with time to spare found

ourselves near Capitol Hill. As I wanted to show Sharon

around the House of Representatives, I hailed a cab, and in

short order we were walking up the steps into the Rotunda

through the same huge double ornate doors that I had exited

President Truman's Inaugural Platform many years earlier.

Desiring to renew my acquaintance with Fishbait, introduce

Sharon to him and ask him permission to take her onto the

floor of the House, we headed for his office. Since the House

was in recess I didn't hold out much a chance of finding him

there, but I felt lucky that spring day!

I was pleased to find Fishbait in his office bent over a

mimeograph machine busily trying to get it to work! He looked

up, and greeted us in his typical down home fashion. I

introduced myself and Sharon. After we shook hands he

immediately hugged and kissed Sharon and then hugged and

kissed her again! Grinning like Cheshire cat, Fishbait turned

his attention to me. He, of course, did not remember me, and

small wondering considering the hundreds of House Pages he

encountered during his long career as Doorkeeper. We talked

briefly and he mentioned several former Pages who had

returned as Congressmen. Realizing he was busy, I soon came

to the point of my visit and asked for a pass to the House

floor. He apologized for not having the time to personally

conduct our tour himself, and quickly scribbled out a note to

the Capitol Policeman in the Visitor's Gallery.

After handing me his handwritten pass, he again hugged and

kissed Sharon. We shook hands, and wished each other the

best. I turned, and left Fishbait's presence for the last

time. On September 12, 1989, two days before my fifty-eighth

birthday, Fishbait passed away.

Mr. Speaker, on July 2, the President announced the delay of ObamaCare's employer mandate tax. Now, we know this is great for business, for those businesses that have the resources, the lobbyists, the accountants and so on to get their message out to Congress and the administration. But it does little for hardworking American individuals and families.

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people must be a government that is fair to all of its citizens. It's simply unfair to give business a pass, but not to give such treatment to rank-and-file Americans.

So that's why I introduced H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. The bill gives individuals the same reprieve from ObamaCare that our President gives to Big Business.

Under current law, individuals must buy insurance on January 1 or pay a tax. My bill would merely delay implementation of the individual mandate tax for 1 year as well.

It's worth noting that the individual tax is just as confusing to hardworking Americans as the employer tax is to businesses; but families don't have teams of accountants and lawyers to help them comply with ObamaCare.

It isn't getting any easier either. On July 5, an additional 145 pages of regulations were promulgated by this administration related to the individual tax. So how are ordinary Americans supposed to keep up with all of this?

That's why poll after poll shows that the individual mandate tax is so unpopular. In fact, only 12 percent of Americans like it.

The White House said they delayed the employer tax because it's too darn complex for businesses. Well, I hear from my constituents every day that the individual tax is just as confusing. They want relief.

The President only wants to give relief to some. I think all of our constituents deserve relief. And with that in mind, I ask my colleagues from both political parties, let's take off our political blinders for once. Let's do the right thing here, and let's support the Fairness for American Families Act.

Let's provide the same relief to America's families that the Obama administration has granted to Big Business. That's only fair.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mrs. Clara Roedl on her upcoming 100th birthday, and to celebrate her life's devotion to her faith, family, and friends. Clara says those Three F's, along with kindness to others, are the secret to her longevity. Furthermore, I would like to thank her for being such a positive role model to her fellow Hoosiers, teaching us all a thing or two about important things in life.

As a father of four young children, I share Clara's views about faith, family, and friends, and I firmly believe these values are the cornerstone of the Hoosier mindset. She loves to tell stories of her childhood on a farm, and through them she imparts many lessons to friends and family alike about those shared values and traditions. I am truly moved by the example she sets for those around her, and I know that the community in her hometown of Nashville joins me in this sentiment.

A little more about Clara: She is the proud mother of two sons, Frank and Fred, who both have loving wives and families of their own. She also has three grandsons and two granddaughters, all of whom she loves dearly. Her commitments to family and faith go hand-in-hand: As a devout Catholic, one of her greatest pleasures comes when she is praying the Rosary with her devoted daughter-in-law, Mary Beth.

So today I commend Clara for being an outstanding Hoosier and teaching family, friends, and anyone willing to listen about how to live a long, happy, and virtuous life. I wish her only the best as she celebrates her 100th birthday, and thank her again for being a living testimony to our state's traditions and values.

I thank so much the gentleman from Georgia for his hard work on this issue, working with our colleague, Mr. Yoho of Florida, and organizing this freshman initiative designed to tackle overly burdensome regulations, ensure that we produce smart regulations here at the Federal level and alleviate some of the pain during this very down economy that so many Americans are facing.

You know, when you talk about regulations, this is not some arcane issue. These are the rules we live by, just like the legislation that emerges out of this body. It impacts our jobs, our economic growth, the level of personal income that Americans enjoy. It impacts the number of long-term unemployed we have in this country, and right now we're at a historic low. It impacts these things and so many others.

People have too many hassles, too many burdens, too many anxieties, and regulations are a big part of the reason why. There are direct costs of regulations that come out of the alphabet soup agencies that populate Washington, D.C.

There are compliance costs that our small businesses, in particular, must contend with. There's a great deal of uncertainty associated with the regulations being developed in the buildings around Washington, D.C.; and regulations lead to an increase in the costs of our goods and services produced, thus making us less competitive economically vis-a- vis our international competitors. Regulations reduce, oftentimes, the productivity of our workers, which drives down their wages, which hurts our competitiveness once again.

So what's the solution to this?

Well, we here in Congress, especially folks on this side of the aisle--although, I have to say, this doesn't have to be a partisan issue, and, historically, it has not always been. I think that's a good thing. But we on this side of the aisle have been trying to alleviate the pain that many businesses and Americans feel by the costliest regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. I think that is proper, and I think we should continue to do so.

But I also believe it's time for us to consider a comprehensive approach to improving the entire regulatory process, and so that's why I have introduced, in this 113th Congress, the REINS Act.

Now, what the REINS Act does is it establishes a $100 million threshold. This is the threshold established historically by our Office of Management and Budget for a so-called major regulation. And every major regulation, after it goes through the public hearing process, under the REINS Act, it has to go before Congress for an up-or-down vote before it can become the law of the land.

This would improve immeasurably the quality of regulations that come out of Washington, D.C. It would slow down the regulatory process, to be sure. But let's remember, our Founding Fathers devised a system where they wanted people in Washington to deliberate before we acted. This would lead to more deliberation, wiser judgment.

This would also allow the American people, the citizens of this great country, to weigh in on given regulations, ones they feel passionately about.

And, most importantly, the REINS Act would hold Members of Congress accountable for the regulations that come out of Washington.

You know, of course it would allow us to tame some of the executive agencies that have gone rogue from time to time, that pass unwise regulations. But I think, more importantly, it would allow those who elect us to bodies like this to hold us accountable for the things that cause pain to them, those imperial regulations that are promulgated from a distant Capitol, which our Founding Fathers were so upset about when this Nation was founded.

To the issue of congressional accountability, too many vague laws are made in this body--Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act. I could go on and on. We pass and we kick the can down the road, as is often heard, on sticky issues, politically sensitive issues that politicians don't want to deal with because we know ultimately there will be regulators to fill in the gaps of our vague laws.

Well, the REINS Act would prevent that. It would incentivize Members of Congress to take on the hard issues in the beginning because they'd know that in the end those issues are going to come back and have to be resolved in this body.

When I go home and meet with small business people and individual constituents and they speak to me about specific regulations that are causing them pain, oftentimes, the best I can do and my colleagues can do is say, Listen, we'll try and repeal that particular regulation by preventing it from being implemented at the agency and by impacting the funding of that agency. These are very difficult things to do, and it's so incredibly difficult to identify all the bad regulations that are out there. But under the REINS Act, that would no longer be an acceptable excuse to my constituents. Unelected bureaucrats, in the end, would not be accountable; Members of Congress would. And that is the intent, in the end, of the REINS Act.

Now, I believe in regulations, smart regulations, and this bill is about improving the regulatory process so that here in the United States of America this remains a vibrant place to live with a growing economy. Our rules must be balanced against economic concerns. The American people must have a voice about what those rules will be, and Congress cannot skirt responsibility to legislate.

Again, I'd like to close here by thanking those who led this effort-- Mr. Collins, in particular, for leading the floor conversation this evening. He's shown some great leadership as a freshman. He's working very hard. I know he came here, as did other Members, the freshman class of the 113th Congress, to make a difference. By supporting the REINS Act, I think you will help advance that cause in a very big way.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Armed Services Committee on their excellent work here, and I want to take this opportunity to highlight an issue addressed in last year's NDAA which required the Secretary of Defense to produce a report this fall that examines an issue of great importance.

During my prior service on the Armed Services Committee, I learned of a discrepancy in the law where military facilities closed outside of the BRAC process are not given the same indemnification against liabilities that are a result of hazardous substances left over from any previous DOD activities.

Several Army ammunition plants were closed outside of the BRAC process, and because DOD is not required to maintain responsibility for potential problems related to military use, we are hindering redevelopment of these properties.

Last year, I wrote a bill called the Base Redevelopment and Indemnification Correction Act, or the BRIC Act, that would extend the same BRAC protections to non-BRAC closed facilities. It was included in the House-passed NDAA but was removed during conference. However, language was adopted that requires a DOD assessment of the status of these former defense facilities as well as recommendations to facilitate their redevelopment. Local redevelopers should not be held responsible for any lingering issues that were a result of DOD operations.

I anticipate the Secretary's report on this matter will provide a path forward for these former military installations that remain disadvantaged without these important indemnification protections. I thank the chairman for his continued support to address this ongoing issue and look forward to working with the committee after the report is released to address this glaring anomaly.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 170 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

I thank my good friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand here tonight as a member of this Problem Solvers Coalition. The coalition offers a common ground for lawmakers to make government work better and to negotiate solutions without the blinders of partisan talking points.

Our country has a history, during difficult times, times more difficult than these, times of great political strife, of coming together, rank-and-file Americans and legislators alike.

During the early days of our Republic, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to his friend, Edward Rutledge, and he said this:

You and I have seen warm debate and high political

passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then

speak to each other. It is not so now. Men who have been

intimate all their lives cross the street to avoid meeting,

and turn their heads the other way lest they should be

obliged to tip their hat.

Well, we, as Americans, made it through those difficult times, and eventually this hall was populated by people who were prepared to tip their hat.

During this time in our history, we too need to be hat tippers. We need more hat tippers in the U.S. Congress. We need more statesmen, more men and women who are prepared to root out waste, to improve the performance of our largest programs of government, to modulate our discourse.

We need to recognize that our public disagreements aren't always about ends; sometimes they're merely about means.

So I invite my colleagues to join this coalition of problem solvers. Let's work together, Republican and Democrat. Let's work together for the common good for the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the value of home healthcare to the people of Indiana's Ninth Congressional District. In addition to being a preferred place for care for most eligible seniors, home health consistently offers seniors the lowest cost venue. In Indiana alone, over 61,000 Medicare beneficiaries receive home health services from more than 8,000 Hoosiers who provide their care. Home health services, properly regulated, need to be encouraged rather than discouraged, to fulfill their mission of quality care for America's seniors and greater value for our Medicare program.

I appreciate the home health care community's efforts to develop their own proposal to weed out bad actors in their industry. One proposal that might save money within Medicare would place reasonable per-provider limitations on 60-day episodes of homecare. Such limitations aim to ensure beneficiary access to care and stop abusive billing practices that appear to exist in a small number of counties nationwide. MedPAC's March Report to Congress referenced 25 counties in the nation where a reasonable reduction in homecare utilization with an episode limit could achieve up to $1 billion in savings per year.

A reasonable but stable reimbursement environment is necessary for homecare providers to continue accomplishing their mission. Since 2010, the homecare industry has been subjected to nearly $70 billion in reimbursement cuts, 21% of their total funding. I have said time and again that our Medicare system needs broad reform to make it sustainable for future generations. We cannot continue to impose cut after cut on our providers and expect to fix the system without shifting more of the financial burden to our senior population or harming patient care. Working together to implement creative reforms like this, we will ensure that this valuable service continues to improve the lives of our seniors in their homes in Indiana and across the nation.