Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are interesting times we live in, and as we sit here this evening, we have a lot of things that are kind of up in the air about what's going to happen to our country and about what's going to happen to our ability to fund the government for the rest of our time. Unfortunately, we don't have answers to that question. I wish we did, but we don't. Yet there are some things that are happening that we ought to talk about because the American people are concerned about what's going on. In some ways, they're confused.

As we sit here today, we are looking at the possibility on Friday night, at midnight, of there being no more appropriated funds for the operation of the government. Some people call that shutting down the government, but that's the real term. We have no appropriated funds that are available for the operation of the government.

There's already the blame game going on up here. This blame game is confusing to most Americans, so I think it's kind of important that we start off by trying to explain what's going on up here. I'm going to give you a quick synopsis of what I think has gone on recently.

Let's start off with the fact that the Republicans fully funded the troops and the rest of the Federal Government through FY 2011, which would be the 1st of October of this year, with H.R. 1 in March. The Democrats refused that submission. The Republicans are ready again this week with a submission, that we will do today, to fully fund our troops through FY 2011, and we're ready to come back next week to debate the rest of the budget. It seems we're hearing a message that the Democrats will refuse. The House and Senate Republicans have a bill, H.R. 1297, that simply guarantees that our troops get their pay without any budget agreement. So far, the Democrats have refused. That's a bill that was put together by Congressman Louie Gohmert and Congressman Jack Kingston.

So I guess we can say that--or I would at least offer this as a submission--it seems that the Democrats want to hold our fighting men and women's pay hostage so that they can continue their runaway Federal spending, because, really, the debate here in this House today and in the Senate, which is down the way from us, is:

Are we going to continue to spend like drunken sailors, as usual, or are we going to take a hard look at what this government is doing, and are we going to turn this ship of state to a ship of state that is moving in the direction of saving the American people from this runaway spending?

The President has submitted to us a budget proposal which carries in it almost $1.5 trillion of deficit spending. What this House is trying to do is to change the mood and the attitude of where this Congress sits on the issue of spending, and it's time for us to take a long, hard look. I would argue, if people could have taken the time and watched the debate when we sent our first submission over to the Senate, which was H.R. 1, they would have seen an extensive debate that went on for hours and hours and hours on the floor of this House, with both sides participating, as to what we would and would not submit in the way of cutting certain amounts of spending, and there were multiple, multiple votes.

This was after this same idea had been vetted in other forms, like our committee system. And yet when it was sent to the Senate it was dead on arrival, and the only thing they could offer as an alternative to the submission we gave them was $6 billion worth of cuts, which they even voted down.

They didn't even pass that. They weren't even willing to take their meager little $6 billion versus our $60-plus billion that we proposed to them.

And everybody says, Where is the give-and-take? Why don't you work together, Congress? What's wrong with you people? Well, when one side does a whole bunch of work, sends it over to the other side, they say they don't like it, they reject it, and we wait and we wait and we wait and we wait for them to submit something back so we can discuss it, well, we've been waiting a long time now and we still haven't gotten it back. And we've gone through two short-term CRs to give them the opportunity to go vote on some things in the Senate. I know they're slow. I mean, we all know they're slow, but we don't even see the Democrat majority in the Senate even trying to bring things to the floor for a vote on giving us an idea where they would stand on cutting spending.

Now, they love to do press releases out of smoke-filled rooms and come back from White House meetings with the President and tell us, Oh, we've got this deal--which our side certainly didn't agree to. And actually doing this so-called ``democracy'' inside of the press instead of doing it by sitting down across the table or passing a bill that we can look at and examine and see if we can't work out that bill and maybe get the comfort to do something under normal course of business here has not been available. Senator Reid just says, Dead on arrival. Dead on arrival. Keep trying. Dead on arrival.

And what that requires is for the House Members to--first off, what they're really looking for us to do is to give up our principles because of threats of this government closing down. I want to make it very clear, I have heard this ever since this debate started. The leadership of the Republicans in the House of Representatives has stated consistently, every time John Boehner steps up to the microphone, we do not want to shut down the government. And I will tell you, if people are listening with a tight ear, they will find out that any conversation about shutting down the government has always originated from the other side of the aisle where the Democrats tell us, Watch out, they're going to shut down the government. Watch out, they're going to shut down the government. And we're saying, No, we're not. We're trying to get you to respond to us and let us know what you think is the right thing for us to do to try to do something about this overwhelming debt, this overwhelming deficit, this gigantic leap in the debt that we're going to face in the future.

Just look at this chart. And you've seen it before. It's been here. I've had it here twice. Here's 2010. So 2011 is about right there. Look at 2051. Look, 300 percent plus. And right now we are bouncing around 100 percent here. That was during the Second World War, and this is where we've been ever since the Second World War. But all of a sudden, with the projections that President Obama has given us as to what he perceives is the right path for America, bam, that red line goes up and that red block comes there, and that's what our children and grandchildren are going to have to deal with. And we honestly believe that that takes this country and changes the very nature of what makes America great because it wipes out any opportunity that possibly our children and our grandchildren can look forward to when they are overwhelmed with debt.

Have you ever heard the debate that goes on among college parents and among college students when they graduate from college these days and they're faced with $100,000 or $200,000 worth of debt to pay for these expensive college educations we've got out there; and they've borrowed all the money and how they are overwhelmed with debt to the point where they look at the salaries that are being offered them and they say, Holy cow. If this is what my revenues are going to be, my income is going to be, I will never pay off this student loan. I know that I heard it from hundreds of kids because I used to teach Sunday school at that age. And they came back from college saying, I can't believe I've got this much debt to pay off before I even start making a living. Well, that's meager compared to what this Congress, if we don't change the way we do business, is going to do to our children and our grandchildren. College debt is going to look like a walk in the park compared to that kind of accelerated debt that's going to be placed on every human being that calls themselves an American.

This is frightening. It's more frightening when you think what this Congress really needs to be about--and is about over here on our side, and I would hope on the other side, too--is finding jobs for the American people.

Now, what do the job creators think when they see this? People who run businesses, small businesses or large, they look at the projected future of the economy and they make decisions as to why they hire people for very simple reasons. You hire someone to advance your business. You don't hire them because you're a nice guy. You don't hire them because somebody gives you an incentive to hire them. You hire them because ultimately they are going to improve your productivity or your bottom line. That's why labor is infused into anything that people do. Most people who start out with their small business, it's all them and maybe their family. And then when they hire that first employee, they don't hire them just because they like that kid across the street. They hire them because that first employee is going to make their business do better.

Now, if they're looking at the accumulated debt being put upon them by this government and they look at what projected debt they have to deal with, what they have to handle, where they think their revenues are going to be, what solutions there are going to be for this debt in the way of tax increases, they have to say, Whoa. Until somebody gets a handle on this stuff, we're looking at a world that I'm not sure I want to hire anybody else in.

This is not rocket science, this is very simple. You hire to prosper. If you're afraid prosperity is not going to be a result of the hiring, you don't hire.

I would argue--and I think it's an argument that's made by many, many economists and many, many editorial writers--that the fear of the unknown and the known that you think you see by the way the government is proceeding keeps a lot of people from hiring other folks. I think that's common sense. I think anybody that knows anything about business can realize that. So this looms over everybody.

I saw a cartoon up here in Washington. Many of you may have seen it. It was a gigantic elephant's behind sitting on a scale, and it had written across the back of it, ``National Debt.'' And then on the very top of the backside of that elephant was a Band-Aid about the size that would wrap around my little finger stuck on there, and it had an arrow right there that said, ``Spending Cuts.''

The reality is what the Republicans have proposed in terms of spending cuts as they relate to the gigantic mess that we're in is just that teeny, weensy little Band-Aid. And yet, this very meager proposal of changing the way we spend money has been rejected out of hand by the Harry Reid Democrats over in the Senate and by our colleagues in the House. And it is on every submission that we've made, on every attempt we've made to negotiate, on every time we have said, so and so, how about you all getting together and come up with an alternative? And it's just, no, you're dead on arrival. We'll talk at the White House behind closed doors or we'll talk in smoke-filled rooms or whatever-- smoke-filled rooms probably dates me a little bit, but there are still some smokers around here.

Okay. Now, where are we tonight? I think where we are tonight, I am optimistic about where we are tonight. And the world may be sitting out there pessimistic, but I'm optimistic because, first and foremost, I honestly believe that we're going to do everything at least in our power to try to get us to come up with a solution for this small spending cut bill of $60-plus billion that we put forward, which, compared to that elephant's behind, is nothing. And we're going to get it done before we run out of time and we run out of appropriations and the government starts to wind down.

But I'm more optimistic than that, because I am very optimistic that the fact that Paul Ryan and the Budget

Committee of this House have put forward a proposal that is like you ought to have the Hallelujah Chorus in the background when they introduced it, singing ``Hallelujah.'' Because it was finally a budget that wasn't the same old budget--how can we jack every spending level up, and how can we figure out a way to raise some taxes to make that work? No. It's a budget that says this budget is going to be about prosperity and preserving the America we love for our generations to come.

If that's not something as we come up on this deadline--which should make us nervous, and it makes me nervous. But the big picture is our Budget Committee has put a revolutionary budget out for discussion. And that budget is worth joy on behalf of the American people, because what it does is it says to the people around us that there are some good ideas we ought to try.

I'm joined with many of my colleagues here today, and I want to give them all an opportunity to talk. So let me finish up at least this short part of talking here and let some other folks talk.

Today where we are is a very simple place. Are we going to fund our Department of Defense and make sure our troops get paid or are we going to be so--with miniscule cuts and then continue this debate so we could probably try to get a resolution next week, or are we going to reject out of hand--as now Harry Reid is making public statements to say and the President, in Atlanta, supposedly said he would veto this proposal--reject out of hand to say we want our troops to suffer and we don't care whether they're getting shot at. We don't care. We're ready to let them get shot at and do without pay, men and women who have been risking their lives for over 10 years so that we can stand in this Chamber and talk. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves to even consider not doing something.

All of us ought to be wanting to do something to make sure that those folks get their paychecks so their spouses and children back home don't suffer while they suffer the possibility of being killed or maimed on our behalf. And that's what this vote, this day and tomorrow, is all about.

The deadline is Friday night at midnight. We're asking our Senators to reconsider rejecting out of hand what we are sending over and consider it in light of that momma back home with a child on her hip, telling the creditors, We have no money to pay you. And I'm sorry my husband can't talk to you. He's over in Afghanistan, in the mountains, trying to stay alive. Or he's flying missions into Libya, trying to stay alive. So I think we really need to know that's where we are in time, and the other is stuff we're going to be talking about.

Whoever would like to step up, grab the microphone, and let's talk.

My friend from Virginia, step up. Tell us what you've got to say.

And I thank you very much for those comments. I want to point out that I have here the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. Mr. Gohmert is the cosponsor of this, along with Jack Kingston. I was worried about Louie. He was here a minute ago. He left. I am going to recognize Kristi Noem to discuss with me, and I will yield whatever time she needs, and then we will get Mr. Gohmert for a minute and hear what he has to say.

Thank you, Congresswoman.

I want to say that I agree with everything you have to say. As you were speaking, I was thinking our soldiers are not asking for somebody to excuse their mortgage, not asking for somebody to come bail them out. They are just asking to be paid for the dangerous blood, sweat and tears work that they are doing right as we speak today.

Right now, somebody is being fired on somewhere in the world in an American uniform. It's a frightening thing to think about, but it's true, and they just want to have the paycheck they earned. And their families back home want to be able to stay current on their bills, and they are not asking for these grandiose bailouts that this body has become famous for. They are just saying, give me my paycheck.

Now, this is not hard stuff. I want to recognize my good friend from Texas, Congressman Gohmert. He was the author of this bill. I think we got it done well.

Soldiers, might even be some of mine, Fort Hood.

You started the ball rolling. We have been talking about this for a long time. If we are getting close to this deadline, we have got to get the soldiers paid.

I want to recognize Louie Gohmert, who introduced this, along with Jack Kingston. I joined with them on this.

Now our leadership is offering an alternative submission, which would fund the entire DOD, which is an even better idea because of all the contract authority and all the things that go on that get hurt by not having an appropriations finished up with. And we are hopeful, although we are hearing signals, that it's going to be dead on arrival, and they are not going to tell us what they want us to do.

I will submit this to you, and then I will let you comment, Louie, and that is, I would submit, if anybody is shutting down the government, it's the Democrats in the Senate, not the Republicans in the House.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Reclaiming my time. Let me point out, as Mr. Gohmert said, those of us who sat in a courtroom for years, in my case almost 21 years, you want to look at the evidence to see what the evidence shows. And just very quickly, the evidence shows first: How do we get to a shutdown for failing to fund the government? Well, you start with last year when the Democrats were in charge of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They passed no budget and not one single appropriations bill, although I'm on the Appropriations Committee. They certainly could have. They just chose not to. They chose not to.

They chose the date that they would have a CR go into the next term of Congress when it had already lost and knew how many of these wonderful people were going to be here replacing them the next time they showed up in the House, so they put this thing all the way to March, which they knew was going to put us under a tremendous amount of pressure to get something to do to fund the government. And we made diligent attempts to fund the government. And it didn't even last long enough for Harry Reid to say ``dead on arrival'' when it got to the Senate.

So let's see. They didn't do their job. They didn't do their budget. They set up the CR deadline. We met the CR deadline with a way to fund the government for the rest of the year for all departments. They rejected it out of hand without even coming back with any alternative of any substance. They offered a $6 billion cut and spending as usual under the Obama budget. And then now we've given two extensions to try to talk, and each time dead silence. No comment. If there's a comment, it's to the press. But to us, they're treating us like a stepchild. And then they're wanting to shut down the government when we say, at least let's protect our soldiers. Let's take care of our troops.

Before we've even got it over there tomorrow, Harry Reid and the President have both made a statement tonight. ``Dead on arrival,'' Harry Reid says. The President says, ``I will veto it.'' He would veto funds--that's what he supposedly said in Georgia. Now I may be out of school, I didn't hear it, but I was told he did, that he said, I won't accept what Mr. Boehner is going to send to us. I will reject it.

That's the bill that funds our troops. I think we've got other great people.

Yes.

It tells me that they are marching in route step to the commands of the majority leader, Harry Reid. And unfortunately, we didn't get elected to march route step in that fashion. We got elected, Senators included, to make decisions that are good for the American people.

Scott, my friend from Virginia, I will recognize you for the amount of time you need. We have 9 minutes.

Reclaiming my time, I now yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

I don't know how much time is left, but I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I apologize for the short time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a while ago, one of my colleagues was down here talking about ObamaCare and what a problem it was going to cause for this country from a financial standpoint as well as causing rationing of health care and a whole host of other things. But what I want to do right now is bring to the attention of my colleagues and anybody else that's paying attention a decision that was just made by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer that affects everybody on Social Security who wants to have a health care plan besides Medicare.

I'm going to read you an op-ed that just was in the Washington Examiner and also in The Wall Street Journal that I think every single American ought to be aware of because this has wide-ranging impact on everybody in this country. Here's what it says. ``A recent court ruling has helped President Obama push ahead with a mandate that all citizens be required to have government health care. This court ruling would mandate that every citizen in this country has government health care.'' Socialized medicine.

``In a March 16 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who previously served as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, ruled that seniors who elect to opt out of Medicare coverage must forfeit their Social Security benefits as well and repay all past Social Security benefits prior to opting out.''

I hope everybody is getting that in their offices. If you don't take Medicare coverage and you're a senior and you opt out of Medicare coverage because you want another form of health care, maybe a better form of health care, then you have got to lose your Social Security payments and pay back all the Social Security payments that you received in the past.

Now, anybody who is paying attention is going to say, ``You know, that didn't really happen,'' but I'm telling you that decision was made on March 16 by Judge Rosemary Collyer, a U.S. district judge here in this area.

The ruling relates to a lawsuit that was filed in 2008 in--and this is the name of the case--Hall v. Sebelius. Several senior citizens challenged a 1993 Clinton administration program rule, and they sued the Federal Government for their right to opt out of Medicare without losing their Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs all paid their Medicare taxes throughout their employment histories and did not request reimbursement of the money.

So they'd paid into Medicare for the entire time that they'd been working. These individuals simply wished to engage other health insurance plans. They wanted to get some other health insurance plans besides Medicare. They'd paid into Medicare and they'd paid into Social Security, but they wanted to get other health insurance besides Medicare.

It goes on to say that they believed it would provide better coverage than that of the government's Medicare program.

In addition, these seniors contributed to Social Security while they were working, and accepted these benefits upon retirement. Now, here is what the seniors' lawsuit argued:

Both the Social Security and Medicare acts state that the application for Social Security benefits and Medicare are voluntary and that applications for each program are not dependent upon each other. Forced participation in Medicare violates an individual's constitutional right to privacy. The Clinton-era rules were promulgated without undergoing the required notice and comment rulemaking requirements, which is a violation of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.

The judge stated that, in its arguments, the Obama administration ``extols the benefits of Medicare and suggests that plaintiffs would agree that they are not truly injured if they were to learn more about Medicare, perhaps through discovery.'' Note the familiar condescending Obama administration tone: Take the Medicare, and then find out what's in it. You'll like it when you do.

We had that problem before on legislation. You'll remember the previous Speaker of the House. When asked about ObamaCare, she said, Well, we've got to pass the bill. Then we'll find out what's in it.

That really made a lot of sense--but once again, this is pretty much the attitude of the administration.

Here is what the judge went on to say:

``The parties use a lot of ink disputing whether plaintiffs' desire to avoid Medicare part A is sensible.''

Translation: If Americans don't want government-run health care, well, they just don't have much sense. After all, the government knows what's best for them, and they don't.

What is most astounding about this case is that, as of late 2009, this same judge, Judge Collyer, supported the plaintiffs' claim and even refused the Obama administration's request to dismiss the suit. Her ruling then was that neither the statute nor the regulation specifies that plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare, which means simply that, if they decide not to take Medicare, they can continue to get their Social Security that they paid into, as they should, and they wouldn't have to pay back the Social Security benefits they'd received in the past. That makes sense.

She changed her mind. This judge made this ruling in 2009. Now she changes her mind, and she argues in her stunning reversal, ``Requiring a mechanism for plaintiffs and others in their situation to `dis- enroll' would be contrary to congressional intent, which was to provide `mandatory' benefits under Medicare part A and for those receiving Social Security retirement benefits. Plaintiffs are trapped in a government program intended for their benefit. They disagree and wish to escape,'' Collyer wrote. ``The court can find no loophole or requirement that the Secretary provide such a pathway.''

According to Collyer, an ``entitlement'' is mandatory. You have to take it. Now, here is the government saying you have to take Medicare, and her opinion will undoubtedly be relied upon by the Obama administration as support for claims of mandatory entitlements, such as that which is the crux of ObamaCare, which could be Medicare for everyone. Everyone would have to be covered, not by their own individual health care plans that they have or by their employers' health care plans or a group plan they're on, but everyone would have to be covered by Medicare, which is a government-run, socialized medicine approach, which ultimately would ration health care and cost a great deal more. ObamaCare, when you run it out for 10 years, you'll find is going to cost literally trillions of dollars at a time when we have a $14 trillion national debt. This year alone, we're exceeding our revenues by $1.4 trillion.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Kent Masterson Brown, the lead attorney for the seniors, commented that, if Americans wonder how bureaucrats will write ObamaCare's rules, they need look only to this ruling. ``When they do,'' he said, ``they will realize nothing will be optional.''

This is an alarming decision that came about in a disturbing manner. Collyer's ruling is a danger to freedom-loving Americans. Let's look to the plaintiffs' appeal--they're appealing--to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for more favorable results.

That's where we are today. If she is not reversed, that means anybody who gets Social Security, who may have another health care plan and who may not want to be on Medicare, will either have to take Medicare or will have to pay all their Social Security benefits back; plus, they don't get Social Security in the future.

Now think about that. You don't want to take Medicare for whatever reason, and you've been paying into Social Security all of your life. You're

getting Social Security benefits, and because you won't take Medicare, they say, Uh-oh. You've got to pay all your Social Security benefits back to when you received them, and you can't get any more in the future.

That is just absolutely crazy.

I want to read to you some information that I have from the actual wording of the statute, and this is very, very important because it can only be interpreted one way. Yet this judge and the Obama administration are changing it so that it will fit their desired objective. Let me read this to you. Be patient with me while I read this and get all the information before me.

Here is what the Medicare statute says. My colleagues in your offices, see if you get from this that the people have to take Medicare if they're getting Social Security or if they have to pay the payments back and not get any more of their Social Security benefits. Here is what the Medicare statute says:

The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are entitled--entitled--to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. If you're ``entitled'' to Social Security. You have to be entitled to Social Security in order to be entitled to Medicare, but it does not say if you're entitled to Social Security that you have to take Medicare. It only says, if you're entitled to Social Security, you're entitled, if you want to, to take Medicare.

This judge is changing the words that are in the statute to mean, if you take Social Security, you have to take Medicare; but the law does not say that. She is making law on the Federal bench, but that's not what our Founders contemplated when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Listen to this again: The Medicare statute says that only individuals who are entitled to Social Security are entitled to Medicare.

Therefore, the judge is arguing the only way to avoid entitlement to Medicare part A at age 65 is to forgo the source of that entitlement, i.e., Social Security retirement benefits. So she is standing the law of the country, the Medicare law and the Social Security law, on their heads. This will mean to every single citizen of this country that, if the government says, ``Here is something we want you to do. If you don't do it, we're going to take away another benefit you have or another government program,'' you will have to do it, because that's what this judge's ruling simply means.

If the government is giving you a benefit like Social Security and they decide that there's another benefit that you're entitled to, then say you have to take it, but you don't take it, they will be able to withdraw your Social Security and say you have to pay back all of the benefits of the past. This is absolutely insane. It is government run amuck, government run out of control.

And this judge, if I had the ability, would be fired. I can't remember the exact date, but in 2008 she ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying if you have got Social Security and you don't want Medicare because you have got another health care plan, you don't have to take it; and now she's reversed herself and said if you get Social Security, you have to take Medicare.

And once again, before I give up the floor, Mr. Speaker--and I see my good friend's here, I'm going to yield to you the balance of my time-- this is what the law says: the law says that only individuals who are entitled to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. But that does not say if you're entitled to Social Security you have to take Medicare, and she's saying--and I hope everybody's getting this--she's saying that if you're getting Social Security, you have to take Medicare. You've got another health plan, if your employer has another health plan, doesn't matter; you've got to get rid of those, and you have to join Medicare or you lose your benefits.

Now, this case is on appeal, and I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will reverse it because, if it does not repeal this decision by Judge Collier, then what's going to happen is that everything that government says will have to be done, and you will have almost complete government control over every aspect of our life. If they can say you get Social Security, you've got to take Medicare and if you have got a separate health care plan, to heck with it; and if they can go far enough to say that, they can say anything they want to to make you jump through a hoop. And that is just dead wrong, and it flies in the face of everything that we believe as far as the free people and a free government is concerned.

I just can't believe some of the things that are happening around here; and the thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is the American people who are involved in so many things that they can't pay attention to all the things that are going on. They rely upon their elected Representatives because we have a democratic Republic to study these bills and make decisions that are best for the entire country. And that's the reason they do this, because we've got 300 million people here, and they can't read every bill or watch every court decision.

But the fact of the matter is, these courts, a separate part of our government, our Forefathers said we've got a judicial branch, a legislative branch, and an executive branch, and they're supposed to be coequal. But here you have a Federal judge making a law that will transcend laws that we have on the books and change the way of life for every single American.

Remember what this does. The law says if you're getting Social Security, you may take Medicare, and what the judge is saying, if you get Social Security, you have to take Medicare, no matter what other health care plan you have; and if you don't do what the government tells you, you have to do it, then you're going to lose your Social Security benefits; and not only that, you have to pay back, probably with interest, every Social Security check you received.

That is horrible. This administration and this judge ought to be taken to task for it; and with that, I'd like to yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Can I just say one thing. My colleague, a good friend of mine, Representative Gohmert points out the fallacy and the problems with the ObamaCare bill, and that is bad, very bad and it should not be in law, and that's why we moved H.R. 1 to repeal it.

But this decision that I was talking about, Louie, even goes further than that. It says if you're getting Social Security, you have to take Medicare, and what they're doing is they're saying everybody in this country is ultimately going to have to be under a government-run program, Medicare or ObamaCare, which means socialized medicine and an entirely different approach to medicine which will be controlled by government bureaucrats.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Louie, but one thing I think that my colleagues and anybody that is paying attention ought to know is, first of all, I have heard that the Republicans don't have an alternative health care plan. We've had one for 2 years, and the media keeps saying that we haven't provided an alternative. We do, one that will work and won't cost the taxpayers and the future generations almost everything that they will ever expect to earn. That's number one.

The other thing that concerns me is that the administration and now their complicit persons in the court and the media are trying to do everything they can to move this country in a direction that nobody has ever anticipated and that is complete government control over our lives. And I know that you and all of our colleagues from this side of the aisle are very committed to making sure that doesn't happen.

The last thing I would like to say is, we need to cut government spending. You know this. And we're sending legislation over there to try to cut $100 billion or $61 billion out of this year's spending, $61 billion. The projected deficit this year is $1.4 trillion, so $61 billion is a drop in the ocean. It's nothing. Yet they don't want to cut anything or any programs. And if we don't cut spending, this country will not only be bankrupt, but we'll be giving a legacy to our kids and grandkids that they will never forgive us for.

So I just hope my colleagues are really aware of that. We don't want to shut the government down. We are committed to cutting spending. They are the ones that, when we send a spending cut over there, won't let the bill pass; and we're cutting in a responsible way. So they're the ones that are causing the problem. We do not want the government shut down.

I thank my colleague for coming down to the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 1363) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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 H.R. 1363 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1363, the Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.

I ask my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to support this bill so that we can avoid a government shutdown and provide the necessary time to finally complete negotiations on a final funding agreement for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year.

This bill funds government operations for 1 week while reducing spending by $12 billion. These cuts include funding rescissions, reductions, and program terminations from nearly all areas of the government. Virtually all of these cuts were also included in H.R. 1, and many were included in the President's budget requests, the Senate's alternative to H.R. 1, or the recent OMB CR proposal.

Most importantly, Madam Speaker, this bill supports our troops and our national security by providing funding for our national defense for the remainder of this fiscal year. Our troops and their families deserve to have the financial security we promised them while we continue to work towards a final budget agreement.

After months of uncertainty, it's high time we provide for our national security in a responsible way. This means commonsense funding that ensures the safety of our war fighters and the success of our missions abroad.

However, while this legislation points us in the right direction on security and spending cuts, what we all want right now is to wrap up these negotiations, complete the process for 2011, and move our many other important legislative items onto the table.

As I have said many times before, Madam Speaker, short-term measures like this are not the preferable way to fund the government. So while no one wants to fund the government in 1- or 2-week bursts, this short- term CR is what we must do to prevent a government shutdown and allow time to pass a smart and thoughtful bill for the rest of the year.

Madam Speaker, coming into this Congress, the Democrats left us with a financial mess: soaring deficits, unchecked spending, and no budget, not a single appropriations bill for 2011. And now that we're 6 months into the fiscal year, the Senate Democrats have yet to produce any plan to help clean up this mess.

Despite all the roadblocks we've faced throughout this process, we must continue down the path to fiscal solvency, and this CR both affords us the time required to complete negotiations as well as makes the spending cuts needed to continue to help balance our budgets. We are committed to making real spending cuts like these to reduce our deficits both now and in the future. We are determined to complete this work where Democrats failed to do so.

While answering our constituents' calls to reduce excessive government spending, this bill provides time to negotiate in an honest way to do what is only right for our constituents, our Nation, and our financial future. Let's pass this bill and finally get this leftover work from last year behind us once and for all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would point out, Madam Speaker, that this bill would prevent a shutdown. This keeps the government operating. That's one aspect of it.

I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and former chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Madam Speaker, insofar as the military is concerned, this is not a CR. This funds the Department for the balance of the year. The rest of the bill, of course, is the CR.

I yield 3 minutes to the very hardworking chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman on our committee of the Subcommittee for Transportation and HUD, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of my hardworking subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Chairman Simpson a moment ago referred and reminded us that we're in this mess that we're in because the other side, when they controlled the House last year, failed to pass a single appropriations bill and left the mess in our hands when we took over in January. And now they are complaining about the way we're trying to clean up their mess. It reminds me a bit of Abraham Lincoln back in Illinois when he was practicing law spoke of a man who was accused of killing his parents, and in court made a plea that he was an orphan.

I yield 2 minutes, Madam Speaker, to the chairman on the Financial Services Subcommittee on our full committee, the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to a member of our committee, and a good one, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a brand- new member of our committee, and a hardworking one at that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another new member of our committee and a new Member of Congress; but he is doing a great job, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks) a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

May I inquire of the time remaining?

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, what the gentleman is asking is if we will continue the status quo. We do not and cannot accept the status quo.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle), a new Member of this body.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Let's try to summarize here. The Democrats left us, when we took control of the House, in a mess. You hadn't passed a single appropriations bill. You passed a CR until March 4. We prepared and put into play and passed in the House a continuing resolution that would have funded the government entirely for the balance of the year, including the military, and sent it to the other body. And they have said nothing, and that was 2 months ago.

When that time ran out in March, this body passed a second CR for 2 weeks. Sent that to the Senate. We haven't heard from them since. That time ran out. We passed a third CR. We passed it to the Senate, not a peep. Nothing.

And now a fourth time, now a fourth CR where we are going to give the Senate another chance to come forward with what they propose in a CR. They have yet to pass anything. And I have to say this, too: The White House has been late in coming to the aid of their party. The White House has been absent from the battle until the last few days.

And now you come to us and say, look, here's what we complain about on your cleaning up our mess. And I say to you, this bill takes care of our military, our young men and women fighting in three wars on the other side of the world. And the Commander in Chief of the military is saying I'm going to veto the bill that pays their salaries and supports their families back home. I find that inexplicable, inexplicable that the Commander in Chief would put an end to the pay of our soldiers.

The failure of the Senate to act and the failure of the White House to act when we pass this bill means a vote to shut down the government. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 8120 of Division A of H.R. 1363 as passed the House on April 7, 2011, Chairman Rogers submits the following explanatory statement:

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, the amendment, or motion, proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states:

``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I move to table the motion.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation on the point of order.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, this procedural motion is nothing more than a dilatory tactic which comes at a time when we can least afford those types of things. Now is the time to act, not partake in political games.

Our debate should be not about procedure. It should be about doing our job. It should be about funding our troops, about keeping our government running, and saving the taxpayer money.

The measure before us provides the essential funds for our men and women who are in harm's way on three battlefields around the world. Those who sacrifice so much for us should not be held hostage by Washington's inaction while providing for our national defense. The measure also gives us one more week for the Senate and the White House to come to a resolution on funding the activities of the government, and it cuts $12 billion in wasteful spending.

The American people expect us to stop the partisan bickering and get our work done. The time for idle talk is over. Enough is enough.

This motion is purely a political gesture and should be defeated. I think all Members should know, Madam Speaker, this bill is not a political tactic. The real fact is that if you vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops who are engaged in three wars.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. How I miss my magic minute.

I want to say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, how often he and I have said, you know, when we have these impasses, we need a clean CR. This CR is unclean. This CR will not get us to where you say you want to get, Mr. Chairman, and that's not shutting down the government, because you know and I know the President will not sign this bill. Why? Because you put in poison pills that you know are unacceptable to him. Why? So you can get the votes on your side of the aisle to vote for your bill to keep the government open. Why is that difficult? Because so many of your folks, unless they get 100 percent, are prepared to shut down the government. You and I both know that, Mr. Chairman.

I have great respect for you. Very frankly, I think you and I could go in a room and solve this in the next 30 seconds, but you and I are not in that room. It is time, as the Speaker has said, to be adults.

Why is this viable piece of legislation on the floor? Because you think you can hold the government ransom for an additional $12 billion. I said that I would not support, after supporting the first two--which I thought were reasonable to try to give us an opportunity to solve the differences that exist between us--that I would not vote for a third one, and I'm not going to vote for this one. It won't matter because it's dead anyway, and you all know it's dead. But you're banking on the fact that you know we don't want to shut down government. What's the proof in the pudding? We did not shut it down when we had disagreements with George Bush because we believed that reasonable people elected by a diverse community in America who had differences of opinion were expected by our public to come together, reason together, and act productively together.

Now very frankly, I don't take a back seat to anybody on this floor in my support of defense or the men and women in uniform, and Mr. Young knows that, my dear friend, not a back seat to anyone. And yes, if we passed a unanimous consent request to fund at present levels, defense would continue. Should we have passed a defense bill last year? I think we should have. I'm sorry we didn't. I urged that we do it. But the Senate, as you might recall, would not allow any bills to come to the floor, any bills--that is, the Republicans in the United States Senate would not allow that to happen.

So now we are faced with not a let's-reason-together bill but an additional $12 billion in cuts, which means that week by week by week you think you will get to what you want, not a compromise, not an agreement, but what you want. And you will do it $5 billion a week, $2 billion a week--this one is $12 billion a week. And you have no expectation that that will pass or be signed by the President, but you do it to pretend you want to keep government in operations. Newt Gingrich has said don't worry about shutting down the government, as he shut it down in 1995--and over Christmas--for 3 weeks, in '95 and '96.

Ladies and gentlemen on my side of the aisle, we ought to reject this specious political act which pretends that we want to keep the government open.

We ought to do, Mr. Chairman, what you and I have done in the past as members of the Appropriations Committee: say we haven't reached an agreement, we will do a clean CR at present levels while we continue to negotiate on behalf of the American people to do what we all want to do.

Absolutely. And that would pass the Senate as well.

I urge my colleagues to reject this CR and adopt a clean CR that will keep the government in operation and allow us to come together and reason together and pass a reasonable piece of legislation.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the chairman if he will yield to me for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request that we proceed with what we would call a clean CR, which would provide for the funding of the troops, provide for the funding of all other government agencies at the levels that we are currently at, which of course involve all the cuts that have been made to date in the last two CRs that we passed and for which I voted. I tell my friend, the reason I want to propound this unanimous consent, it will in fact provide for a document, an

act, to pass this House which I believe will in fact pass the Senate and will in fact be signed by the President.

As a result, we will protect our troops and we will protect all other services that government has available for the American people.

I ask my friend if he will yield to me for that purpose.

I think I have concluded, Madam Speaker, in asking the chairman whether he would yield to me for the purposes of making that unanimous consent so that we could have an act pass this House that we know will be signed by the President and will protect the troops and will keep the government open.

Will the chairman yield simply for me to clarify my request?

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the chairman as well. I understand he has given me the 5 minutes, and I appreciate that.

First of all, I want to say to my friend from Kentucky--and he is my friend and we've worked together for many, many years. He told the story about a gentleman who was in court and he was in court for killing his two parents, and he pled for the mercy of the Court because he was an orphan.

I tell my friend from Kentucky, particularly appropriate because he's from Kentucky, because the mess that we have was created because some folks from Kentucky would not give some votes to put appropriation bills on the floor. To that extent I think that analogy is apt. The gentleman complains of a mess that, frankly, was of the Republican Members in the United States Senate refusing to allow bills to come to the floor.

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit, if adopted, A, will take care of the troops; B, will keep the government open; and, C, importantly, I would presume, from all of you who have protested how you want to protect the troops, it will pass the Senate and be signed by the President. So it will become law, and it can become law by tomorrow night before 12 midnight when the government's authorization ends. So it should commend itself to all Members of this House as a viable document to protect the troops, keep the government open, and get signed.

As the great legislator Henry Clay, who was elected Speaker the first day he served in this House--Henry Clay was from where, Mr. Chairman? From your great State. And Henry Clay said this: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.'' Henry Clay.

And let me repeat that to my friends on your side of the aisle: ``If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.''

Too many of our Republican colleagues have refused to compromise. And now you bring to the floor a resolution and say, If you only do what we tell you to do, things will be fine. My, my, my, what a definition of ``compromise.'' Then you say, If the Senate will only do what we say, we'd be fine. The first time, the second time, the third time, and now here we are on the fourth time.

Now, I supported you, as you know, on the second time and third time because I thought it was reasonable to give that opportunity, and the cuts you were asking for, yes, I thought would be included at some point in time.

The Senate, by the way, passed those two resolutions, as we indicated they would. And the President signed them, as the gentleman is telling me.

I'm getting a little help over here from the ranking member, and I appreciate it.

But now we are on the brink of bringing the government to a halt. That makes no sense, and anybody here knows that to be the case. My friend Mr. Simpson, for whom I have a great deal of respect, knows that it makes no sense. In fact, many of your folks who have said to shut it down in the past are now saying, We don't want to shut it down, because they know the American people think that makes no sense.

Republicans showed their priorities when they passed a spending bill that cuts billions in scientific research, kicks 200,000 children out of Head Start, and cuts college aid for millions of middle class students.

Yes, we don't agree with those priorities. They're not our priorities. We think we need to invest in growing this economy and growing jobs. We think we need to invest in young people so that they can have the educational opportunities. Ronald Reagan said Head Start worked. George Bush I said it worked. George Bush II said it worked. We don't want to cut 200,000 children out of that program. We think it's important to make sure the future of our country is secured by educating those children.

You have shown your priorities when you threatened a government shutdown over divisive social policy riders. Governor Daniels, Governor of Indiana, and a candidate for President, I understand, said, Take the social issues and consider them on another bill; let's get the finances of our country in order first.

That's what you say you want to do. We want to help you do that. We will work with you on that. We have been working with you on it. That's why I voted for the last two CRs, and the Senate passed them and the President signed them.

But, Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will allow for our troops to be taken care of, as they should be; and, by the way, they will be taken care of even if we have a shutdown because they are critical to our national security.

I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit that will be signed by the President of the United States.

Point of Order

I do, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit speaks directly to the funding of government. The continuing resolution offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, he has repeatedly said its objective is to fund the government and keep the government open.

This is an alternative which argues for the fact that we want to pass a piece of legislation that the President of the United States says he will sign. It is simply for 1 week. It is simply a short period of time while we negotiate.

I urge the Speaker to find this motion to recommit consistent with the rules and consistent with the objectives of the legislation that is under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

I appreciate that, and thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I am one of the new Members of Congress that has first come here tonight, this is the first opportunity I have had to give a Special Order. And I cannot think of a better reason to be here tonight than to make sure that our military men and women have the opportunity to receive pay for their hard work and for their service to our country.

I think it's extremely important that we focus on all of the important things that this Congress is doing and the important things that this Republican Conference in the House is doing, because we recognized that from the very beginning we took every action possible to ensure that our military could get paid. We started with our first bill that addressed the spending problems that this country has, H.R. 1. We brought it to the House floor. We changed the way that this House does business by having an open process on the House floor. Hundreds of amendments were offered. And that bill ensured that paying our military was a priority from us. It got the job done. It did the work that the previous Congress did not do.

The previous Congress did not choose to make that a priority. They did not choose to wrap up the business of fiscal year 2011. They left that for us to do. Then they left us in a big hole as far as the debt that this country is accumulating. We came in as the adults at the table.

When our President talks about having adult conversations addressing the spending in this country and addressing the budget resolution that we need to come to, the only ones who have been doing that from the very beginning have been the Republicans in the House. We came with H.R. 1, with real spending cuts that would put us on a much better path, that funded our military. Because we wanted to take care of them. We recognized that their families were at home while their spouses and family members were at war, and they were trying to make ends meet while that was going on.

I will tell you that I feel that the Democrats are holding our troops hostage, that they truly are. Because they choose to do that so they can spend more money. They choose to hold them hostage and their pay hostage because they want to help this country accumulate more debt. And it's unacceptable. You know, we voted to fully fund their pay, to fund our troops through fiscal year 2011 through H.R. 1, and we are still dedicated to that, and still pursuing that because it's a very high priority for us.

I will tell you that the Department of Defense is allowed to continue operations without appropriations because of its authority to protect the national security. But I will also tell you the military personnel are scheduled to receive their paychecks on April 15. Now, if this government truly does shut down, if it truly does shut down tomorrow night, they will only receive 1 week's pay instead of the 2 that they are owed. And that is not right.

When you look at people who are at war overseas, standing on that wall so we can sleep safely in our beds at night and we are telling them we are not going to pay them for doing that, then that is truly a travesty, and a travesty that we should not allow to happen. And if this shutdown were to continue and to continue on and on and they would not be paid, we cannot do that to their families.

People talk about the debt that this country accumulates. And they recognize the fact that it is a big deficit, that it continues to accumulate. The way that I talk about it back home in South Dakota is that months ago, when I was making the analogy and talking about the fact that our country borrows 40 cents out of every dollar that it spends, well just in the few short months since I was talking about that back in October and November, now it's we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar. I used to tell my son you owe $42,000. You are responsible for that. That's the amount of our Federal debt that you are responsible for. Well, just in a few short months now he is responsible for almost $46,000. You know, that boy is 8 years old. That boy is 8 years old, and he owes that kind of money because of the irresponsibility of this government and because of the irresponsibility of the previous Congress and the Congresses before that that did not get this spending under control.

That's what we are trying to address today. And that's why we are making sure we are addressing the spending cuts, we are being much more responsible in what we are proposing, and we are also making it a priority to make sure that our military gets funded. You know, I think that it is absolutely discouraging to see that we are even having to pursue the priority of funding our military during these times, and that it is being held hostage literally through these discussions that have gone on. It doesn't seem reasonable or fair to ask our military men and women to have to worry about the types of situations that they would be put in.

Many of them live paycheck to paycheck just like a lot of families are during this recession in America right now. They are having a tough time. How do they make their car payment? How do they make their housing payment? When they are out there standing and serving our country, we are telling their families that we are putting their ability to even pay their bills in jeopardy.

Then you look at the situation that we are accumulating more and more

debt in this country. That is only going to lead to higher inflation. It's only going to devalue the dollar. I was talking to someone last week about what that really means. When you talk to people on the street about what does it mean when the dollar is devalued? Well, what that means is that maybe that loaf of bread that that military wife needs to go buy next week when she only has half of a paycheck, well, someday instead of costing her $2 it will cost her $4. Maybe it will cost her $6.

So we are telling her not only are we putting you in the situation where you are going to be faced with high inflation, that you are going to be faced with a dollar that's not worth as much as it used to be because people in Washington, D.C. couldn't have some discipline in their spending habits, couldn't make the tough decisions; well, on top of all of that, then we are going to keep your spouse's pay. On top of that we're not going to pay him even though he is risking his life for our country. It absolutely is wrong. And it absolutely needs to stop.

Mortgages don't stop. Bills don't stop. Car payments don't stop. How do we expect these men and women to continue paying for their everyday living expenses when they have no paycheck? In South Dakota we have an Air Force base, Ellsworth Air Force Base.

We have 1,000 civilians that work there and over 3,000 military personnel. Those people are extremely special to me. Not all of them grew up in South Dakota, but they are all living there in South Dakota, and they are all serving this country. And I think that a government shutdown not only affects these individuals, but it also is going to impact that local economy where they are trying to raise their children and raise their families.

Two Ellsworth Air Force Base B-1 bombers were recently involved in the Libyan military strikes. Missions like Odyssey Dawn are likely to continue whether the government shuts down or not. These missions are risky, they are costly, they are vital for our national security.

Doesn't it seem unreasonable that the Democrats here in Washington, D.C., would put those servicemen and -women in harm's way to protect our freedoms and then not compensate them for the work that they have done simply because they want to spend more money and they want to put this country further into debt?

These are all the reasons why I have fought on every CR to make sure our military men and women get paid, why we are continuing to do that, and I thank you for bringing this bill. It is critical if for no other reason I have had family members that have served, I have had friends that have served, friends that have been overseas and have stood on that line so that we could continue to live the kind of freedom and have the kind of liberty that we have in this country today.

But even if I didn't, I am an American; and I recognize the importance of having them there to protect us and to protect our future, and I am grateful every single day for the sacrifice and service that they offer to us. It is completely inappropriate for us to play politics with military pay.

We owe these men and women at least some financial stability in return for all of their service that they provide to us, to our children and to our country.