Pay Our Military Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the committee and my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 366 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, at midnight on Monday, just 2 days from now, the Federal Government will shut down if Congress does not act to provide the necessary appropriations. The legislation before us today will ensure that a shutdown does not happen; and, if adopted, the House amendments would make important steps to ensure that ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act that President Obama and every Democrat voted for, does not have the opportunity to hurt American jobs and drag down our economy.

The first of these three amendments would repeal the medical device tax included in ObamaCare. This medical device tax is also known as what might be the tax that will harm not only the creation of investment but also the products of medical devices, including pacemakers and other medical products that keep America's health care a leading edge. The medical device industry provides our Nation with innovative health care services as well as much-needed jobs for many, many hardworking Americans. ObamaCare's onerous medical device tax-- what we also call the pacemaker tax--is already causing job loss in this industry and negatively impacting innovation of new and other lifesaving devices.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter from a gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Mr. Walt Humann, CEO of OstoeMed, who came to my office over a year ago in June of 2012. He spoke with me about how innovative medical devices clearly help not only Americans, but doctors perform very difficult and leading-edge surgeries. And I will tell you that Mr. Humann spoke very clearly about how this onerous tax would literally tax the production, not the sale, but the production of medical devices to an industry that needs more and more innovation. That clearly explains the damaging effects that this has on American businesses. His letter, Mr. Speaker, clearly outlines how it harms not only his company, but the industry as a whole.

The second amendment would delay all aspects of ObamaCare for 1 year. This proposal is an important step to prevent the costly job-killing regulations contained in President Obama's health care plan from becoming an unfortunate reality. The President has already delayed several pieces of the law; and just as he begins to see how ill- conceived and unworkable his plan is, it's time for us to stop it dead in its tracks. So much for the hundreds of waivers that he has issued; so much for him delaying for his friends in business; so much for him delaying the pieces that he wants to, knowing that the harm will be on individuals all across America. It makes sense to delay the entire law for a year in an effort to protect American families from paying higher health care premiums and having fewer options.

This is important, and the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today on behalf of taxpayers and what we believe is about 60 percent of Americans who are opposed to this bill starting to work October 1. So that's why we are here.

Finally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act. This important piece of legislation is designed to ensure that our Nation's men and women in the military continue to receive their paychecks in the event that the Senate does not adopt a responsible CR and forces our government into a shutdown.

Our Nation's military puts their lives on the line, and they have throughout the history of our country. They remain engaged in combat operations as we go to sleep tonight. They are protecting this great Nation, and the services that the men and women of the military provide to the United States of America should be aided and helped, and we should make sure that we do not stop the pay to the men and women

of the United States military. In the event of a government shutdown, this body should take the necessary measures to ensure that our servicemen and -women continue to be compensated for their services.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have finished a Rules Committee meeting upstairs. We spoke about this, the impacts, at the committee hearing that allowed Mrs. Lowey, on behalf of the minority, and Mr. Hal Rogers, our Appropriations Committee chairman, to talk about the important part of what we're trying to do today.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

OsteoMed,

June 5, 2012.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sessions: Thank you for taking time to

visit with me last week regarding OsteoMed and my concerns

about the significant ``headwinds'' we face, especially

related to the 2.3% medical device tax that is scheduled for

implementation in 2013. On behalf of OsteoMed's 400

employees, I thank you for your support of H.R. 436, which

would repeal this onerous provision that otherwise will

negatively impact innovation and job creation at a time when

we can least afford it.

As president & CEO of OsteoMed, a dynamic, 20 year old

surgical device manufacturing company based in your district,

I confront the challenges that America's innovators face

every day. In addition to challenges with the FDA and

reimbursement, this 2.3% excise tax--which is on gross sales,

whether or not a business has any profits--will directly

impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and

development and effectively compete in the global market.

OsteoMed formed a new subsidiary company a couple of years

ago to develop an innovative spine product that greatly

simplifies spine fusion surgery and improves patient

outcomes. OsteoMed launched this product last year which

quickly grew to almost $5MM in sales in 2011 and currently

employs a number of highly skilled, high paid individuals.

Due to the significant upfront investment and on-going

development costs, this new company is not projected to make

a profit in the near future but is nevertheless subject to

the device tax which will further delay this subsidiary's

success. As a result, OsteoMed has now delayed additional new

product developments and personnel in order to make ``ends

meet'' and achieve the returns initially envisioned when this

company was created.

OsteoMed's core business manufactures surgical implant

systems for use in craniofacial, neurosurgical and small bone

orthopedic (upper and lower extremities) surgeries. These

systems require extensive, specialized instruments that are

typically not sold, but are used to implant the devices that

drive OsteoMed's revenue stream. The device tax will not only

tax gross product revenues, but my understanding is it will

also tax the instruments OsteoMed must invest in and place

into hospitals at no charge thereby further reducing my

company's profit opportunities and forcing expense reductions

in other areas in order to achieve our profit goals.

OsteoMed's products are sold through a variety of sales

channels and will require a new level of administrative

burden in order to track the ``gross'' revenues defined by

this tax. This requirement, along with the recent challenges

imposed by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, force

additional levels of administration and non value added

expenses that male OsteoMed less competitive and viable.

The market in which OsteoMed competes is in turmoil and has

become increasingly competitive with many new offshore

competitors. As economics and recent government restrictions

have largely removed surgeons from the surgical device

purchase decision process, hospitals are now forcing

increasingly price concessions. Despite increased raw

material and labor costs, OsteoMed has been unable to raise

product prices over the past several years and is now equally

unlikely to simply pass along the device tax to our

customers.

Like any other responsible business, OsteoMed must

carefully manage expenses in order to make profit and

continue to grow and succeed. In order to cover the shortfall

the new device tax will create, OsteoMed has already started

to implement cut backs in its operations including the delay/

cancellation of new product development projects and the

hiring of additional personnel, including biomedical

engineering positions. It should be noted that OsteoMed is

also aggressively re-directing its business focus to

international markets that provide a less cumbersome and

lengthy regulatory pathway with revenue streams that are not

subject to the medical device tax . . . immediately

``saving'' 2.3% in the process. In the past month, OsteoMed

initiated the search for sales managers in China and the

Middle East to supplement recent managers hired in Korea and

Italy. Unfortunately, OsteoMed has already started to

effectively trade U.S. jobs for overseas positions as a

direct result of the medical device tax and other

governmental involvement.

The medical device industry not only provides numerous

highly skilled and attractive jobs across the U.S., but it

also pays its workers on average 40% more than the typical

job. We are a vibrant sector of the economy and one of the

few remaining industries that produces a healthy export of

products. Tragically, this industry has now become the focus

of misguided and short-term government intervention and the

growth and continued prosperity of this proud American

industry now faces great hurdles.

Again, I thank you for your service to our country and

specifically for your support of H.R. 436 to repeal this tax

and to help America's innovators continue to improve patient

care and drive job creation. I look forward to your ability

to visit OsteoMed when you are back in Dallas so you can see

firsthand our great employees and the innovative products

they produce to help people around the world. Please do not

hesitate to contact me to discuss this issue or any other

issues impacting the medical device industry.

Sincerely,

Walter J. Humann,

President & CEO, OsteoMed.

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

I am intrigued by the notion today that Republicans were meeting secretively. In fact, we have had several meetings over the past few days, and probably two or three today, and the nature of that is to make sure that our Members, some 233 Republican Members across this country, that Republican leadership like myself is hearing from them, that we are moving together and talking about the terrible and disastrous effects of ObamaCare and how we're going to work together.

Some of the common things that have been talked about in those meetings, as if we need to remind ourselves--but I will again--in that ObamaCare bill, $716 billion was cut and taken away from senior health care to go directly to ObamaCare. But we've also seen the real effects of ObamaCare, as we know that since ObamaCare has been passed, there have been 7 part-time jobs created for every one new full-time job.

Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor of the House of Representatives because our country is in trouble. This is a continually difficult time for Americans back home not just to find work, but to keep work.

We find that large companies, these large corporations that are talked about from time to time on this floor, especially by our friends, are moving people off the health care that they're on because it makes sense to do it, but also because of the expense.

We saw just in the last few weeks large companies like UPS and Walgreens move their employees and make very, very difficult decisions. Just like Delta Air Lines had to make a decision. They announced that ObamaCare alone would cost Delta Air Lines over $100 million next year alone.

These are destructive and devastating consequences of ObamaCare. The Republican Party is on the floor because this law is going to start very quickly: October 1 and January 1. People begin signing up October 1.

Of course, what we've seen is the President very clearly over the last few years has given waivers to the people that he chose to give waivers to. He turned around and let business off the hook. But he keeps the law on individuals. He keeps this onerous law on individuals--and it's causing chaos and panic.

It's causing chaos for people like my family and others who have children that they have to take care of that are sometimes disabled. And we are seeing problems because now we're not sure in this mix who will be the doctor. Will that be a doctor we've gone to in the past? Will that be a doctor that one time we may see and another time we may not see?

There is uncertainty. And this uncertainty has been driven to what I believe has become reality. And the reality is, if you look, there is a CBS and New York Times poll showing that a majority of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare. And when a majority of Americans say this to CBS News and The New York Times, I think even our colleagues, the Democrats, should listen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for every opportunity that Republicans have to talk about how bad this bill is, there is an equal opportunity for our colleagues to talk about how great it is. But the facts of the case are the American people don't see it yet. The reason why we don't see it is because this President and this administration have given out over 1,200 waivers to people, saying, It's okay for you to not have to come under this law; what you do is okay. But it's not okay for the American people, individuals of this Nation, the men and women who get up and go to work every day.

And let's note, too, that we have a section of this bill that's about paying the military in case we do shut down. I would think that our colleagues on the other side of this building would want to make sure that we pay members of our military. They're important to this country. This body is going to do it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a distinguished young gentleman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, you know, one of the most commonsense classes that we've ever had of new Members of Congress has arrived in Washington. They're in their first year, and they're seeing some amazing things that are happening.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), one of these new freshman gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I would have to beg to differ with the gentlewoman. That's not what this bill is about. Evidently, the gentlewoman has not had time to read the bill. We are not debating shutting down the House. We are debating what is called a continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker. So I would encourage her to please go, and we will help her at the Rules Committee and make sure she understands what the bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), a distinguished young man.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Congressman Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

I will remind my friends that we hear stories after stories about companies dropping their employees from their employee-sponsored health care plans because of the costs and the way the health care bill is written.

I think it is very interesting how--I have great sympathy for individuals who are having problems. They are in the district that I represent from Dallas also--the vast majority of people who are going to be just like them, huge amounts of people, are now being impacted by ObamaCare.

It goes back to an argument that we made years and years ago moving forward: don't impact the people that have health care and insurance; help the people that don't have that. This is a case that is happening all across this country.

The problem is the President played a Robin Hood plan. He went after everybody that has got insurance, he went after everybody that had a job, he went after employers. Rather than us taking care of those that did not--and let's say there were going to be 23 million people that were going to be covered, and I believe that that was the number years ago--23 million people times about $5,000 a contribution so that they could get an insurance plan would be far less destructive on our economy than going after 230 million people and destroying their health care plans.

This comes back to a simple ideology, Mr. Speaker. They want a government-run health care system. That is what they are after--a government-

run health care system, just like they want in other areas of the free economy. That's why they've done so many outward things with not only student loans to the banking industry, health care industry, the energy industry; they have an attack and an assault on employers and the American people.

I have great respect for these individuals that we're talking about. I share their concern and I guarantee you I and my office will help these people and have been helping these people, and we care about them.

But that's not what we fixed. We did a Robin Hood plan to take from everybody else and put everybody in trouble then, including the economy, including jobs, and we are now a part-time American economy.

By the way they wrote the bill, it is not only expensive but it kills jobs. It is just as effective as what their EPA war on coal is. It is an attack and assault on the free enterprise system and free people.

To say that the Republican Party doesn't care about these individuals is simply not true. We would offer a plan, a different way to look at it, and take the 230 million Americans that had something and worry about the others. That is what we have been trying to do all 17 years I've been in Congress.

The biggest divide in this country is on taxes, and it's on health care. Republicans want normal, regular people to be able to have health care. That is what we believe in. That's the difference and the real story behind tonight.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is not I. It will not be I. I am here to help, and the legislation that's on the floor is about a continuing resolution.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas, Congressman Culberson.

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

To advise the gentlewoman, I am through with my speakers, and I will then, as she finishes, offer a close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just go through the things that we've talked about that are the attributes of why we are here tonight.

The cost to taxpayers: $716 billion was cut from senior care, Medicare, to fund ObamaCare. That harms our seniors.

Just one example of the cost to employers: Delta Air Lines announced that ObamaCare will cost its company $100 million in increased health care costs over the next year.

Americans are losing their current health care coverage. We read about it, and we know that UPS, Walgreens, and many other employers are losing their health care coverage that they have today.

Fewer hours and fewer full-time jobs. Since ObamaCare was passed, there have been seven part-time jobs for every one full-time job that was added.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to move our country forward. The Republican Party is prepared. We believe and can substantiate that a ``yes'' vote is for making sure that we keep this government open-- something that the American people want and need. That's why the Republican Party--233 strong--is here tonight. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are once again bringing a bill to the floor in response to the terrible news coverage on their shutdown.

Now, I am very confident that every single Member of the House of Representatives supports our Guard and Reserve men and women. We all want them to receive the pay that they have earned. We could do just that really quickly by passing a clean CR to fund the entire Federal Government and put an end to this GOP shutdown. But Republican leadership isn't serious about stopping the shutdown.

We all know that this bill is not a solution. It is just a distraction. For example, this bill claims to support military pay during the shutdown. However, while this bill does provide them a paycheck, it fails to provide them the materials essential for doing their job.

Let me give you an example of a few of the things that it doesn't fund: it doesn't fund the maintenance of existing equipment, and we need that for readiness; the procurement of new equipment if something needs to be replaced in order to continue a training drill or to be fully prepared; research and development to keep the technology superiority of the U.S. forces; and then, as the ranking member pointed out, keeping the facilities and maintenance moving forward.

This bill fails to ensure that our servicemen and -women will have the equipment and other support materials that they need. It certainly won't ensure that our other Federal law enforcement at the FBI or the DEA are paid even as they continue to work to keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican government shutdown needs to end. The entire government needs to be funded. The American people don't want the Tea Party picking winners and losers, deciding what government services are necessary.

Let's do what is right for the American people and pass a clean continuing resolution to fund the entire Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the Minnesota Air and Army National Guard Government Shutdown Impact in its entirety.

MN Air and Army National Guard Government Shutdown Impact (Version 2--2

October 2013)

Addressed from:

Less than 15 days (short term) and

Greater than 15 days (long term).

Federal Full-Time Staff (FTS) Impact:

Emergency Furlough--Number of Federal Personnel Impacted

Army Technicians: 701 (655 Furloughed--93.4%)

Air Force Technicians: 445 (381 Furloughed--85.6%)

Total Force Impacted: 1146 (1036 Furloughed--90.4%)

Short Term impact:

Benefits processing delayed (in processing, retirements,

return to duty) AGR and TECH

1,036 Technicians not at work and not receiving pay

General personnel actions delayed, AGR and TECH

Scheduled travel/training TDY will be cancelled

No new hires or job announcements

Leave accrual stops for technicians after 80 hours (48

already used during furlough)

Over 30 Active Duty Operational Support/Active Duty for

Special Work (ADOS/ADSW) will not report to work

Long term impact:

FTS will incur a debt for benefits

FTS personnel not attending required training courses for

positions

Delayed hiring actions will compound the turmoil of

personnel turnover

Labor relations with union and union members stressed

Personnel readiness will drop due personnel actions not

taking place

Moral of technician force is greatly diminished with

another furlough

Animosity of technician force towards the AGR force

AGRs do not receive Mid-month and subsequent pay until

furlough complete.

Bottom line for Full-Time Staff (FTS) is that very limited

personnel actions will be able to be supported and will be

greatly delayed during a furlough.

FTS Top Three Concerns:

Benefits Processing

Pay

Loss of trained FTS forces due to cancelled training

Personnel Readiness/Soldier-Airman and Family Services Impact:

Short Term Impact:

Family Programs initiatives and support efforts will be

significantly impacted due to unavailability of all

personnel.

Reduce current ability to provide deployment related

services to soldiers and family members by 62%

Reduction in our ability to provide ID cards to soldiers

and family members in select locations.

No retiree counseling services

Slowed processing for GI bill requests and issue resolution

Longer processing times for routine medical readiness

activities due to employees' taking on the responsibilities

of furloughed personnel.

Long Term Impact:

Technicians will incur a debt for benefits

FTS personnel training to be qualified in their positions

Delayed hiring actions further compound turmoil of

personnel turnover

Morale of Technician force is greatly diminished with 2nd

furlough in one year

Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) soldiers may not receive

mid-month and subsequent pay.

Units that deploy within the next two months (Oct-Nov) or

who are currently deployed will experience significant impact

on deployment and family readiness support. Yellow ribbon

events may need to be cancelled due to contracting for venue,

food or lack of child care.

Remaining Defense Travel System (DTS--travel

reimbursements) Vouchers for Soldiers and Military Families

for FY13 will be delayed for payment.

Funeral Honors Team will cease operations.

Reduced capacity in processing enlisted promotion actions

Outside agencies may have to process Federal Tuition

Assistance requests.

Potential loss of ability to deliver timely medical

readiness events across the state, reducing medical readiness

of the force.

Potential reduction in personnel readiness ratings for all

reportable units due to eroded medical readiness ratings.

Logistics Impact:

Maintenance--All Maintenance activities in the MNNG will

cease during shutdown. All Maintenance facilities will be

closed.

Short Term impact:

Maintenance Readiness of the MNNG will decline due to

inability to repair dead-lined equipment while Dual Status

Technicians are furloughed.

Upgrades to MNNG M1A1s will be deferred until funding

resumes.

BFT/JCR Fielding--Fielding team is issuing all remaining

equipment to the USPFO effective 30 Sep 13. USPFO and J4 will

then complete the install and fielding.

Long term impact:

Blue Force Tracker upgrades will be delayed, systems will

go off line after 90 days of non use. Blue Force Tracking is

a United States military term used to denote a GPS-enabled

system that provides military commanders and forces with

location information about friendly (and despite its name,

also about hostile) military forces. If they are not synced

with the satellite once every 90 days they lose their

identity and it costs us more manpower to re-sync them.

Supply:

Short Term impact:

$54,334 of Class 1 (food) has been ordered supporting 23

units in an IDT status for the weekend of 4-6 OCT. These

orders will need to be canceled.

$8,717 for seven commercial bus requests for the weekend of

4-6 OCT canceled.

Long term impact:

An additional $16,198 in Class 1 (food) orders will be

canceled from the local vender if shutdown continues till 30

Oct.

Training:

Short Term impact:

New Equipment Training (NET) for 1/34 Armored Brigade

Combat Team will be suspended based on Inactive Duty Training

and Annual Training restrictions, suspending NET for Bradley

Fighting Vehicle Crews

Training needs to be deferred to colder weather months,

less desirable.

Training/Operations Impact:

Short Term Impact:

Cancellation of upcoming drill weekend will cancel weapons

qualification for many units scheduled to do this at Camp

Ripley. These units will be challenged to re-schedule as

ranges are usually booked first quarter of the fiscal year.

Will be an opportunity for units to re-schedule yet in Oct

short term. Units that have Periodic Health Assessments (PHA)

and Dental events will have to re-schedule. Will negatively

impact personnel readiness.

School cancellations. We will daily be cancelling travel to

schools that start this FY. It will be case by case that we

find school seats later in the FY that troop will be able to

attend. This will be a readiness issue if it goes long term.

Long Term Impact:

Personnel readiness will begin to suffer more as we cancel

schools and medical readiness events. Begin building a larger

pool of Soldiers/Airmen that will need new schools dates and

units will begin to see a larger backlog of troops that need

periodic physicals and dental. The challenge with schools is

that some lower density schools and longer schools will have

fewer opportunities to re-schedule this FY. This becomes a

readiness issue.

Camp Ripley Training Center Impact:

Short Term Impact:

No Active Duty Operational Support (ADOS) or Technicians

Long Term Impact:

After 21 days loss of State Employees paid under the Master

Cooperative Agreement.

Operations--Section is reduced by 50% (2 Technicians, 1

State Military) resulting in reduced support to customers and

no new leases agreements.

Range Control: Reduction 55% (6 ADOS), resulting in reduced

customer support for range safety briefings, general customer

support, and response for Range Safety Checks delayed

Automated Target Systems: State Military, potentially 50%

reduction immediately. Automated Target Personnel would not

be available resulting in limited automated ranges or target

maintenance for military customers and very limited support

to state agencies with signed leases.

Air Operations: Reduction of 100% (3 Technicians and 2

ADOS), resulting in the airfield, UH-60 Simulator being

closed and no fueling operations.

Arden Hills Army Training Site: Reduction of 50% of the

full time staff, resulting in reduced support to customers

and availability.

Logistics (other than billeting which is self supporting)--

Reduction of 100% (17 Technicians), resulting in:

Supply & Services being open 2 days a week.

Housing: Limited AGR Employees will need to Inventory &

Inspect the Troop Issue Buildings when they need to be

turned-in.

Fuel Support: Retail Fuel Points will run out of fuel.

Ammo Supply Point: No ammo for military customers.

Department of Public Safety--No initial impact. After 21

days the section would reduce from 12 guards to 9 guards

resulting in reduced services and ability to man only one

gate.

Joint Visitors Bureau/Public Affairs Office--Reduction of

80% (4 Technicians and 1 ADOS), resulting in no ID Cards, no

Command or Department of the Army photos, reduced protocol

visits and public affairs/community support operations.

Signal Support--100% reduction (1 Technician), resulting in

no on site support for computers, radios, frequency

management, and other support.

Budget--100% reduction (2 Technicians), resulting in only

emergency budget issues being addressed by non-budget

personnel.

Safety--Reduction of 100% (1 Technician), resulting in all

safety issues reverting back to the state level for oversight

by the State Safety Manager.

Environmental--limited initial impact with the loss of 1

Technician. After 21 days the section would reduce 100% (9

State and 2 Contract), resulting in all Hunt Programs for

Deployed Soldiers will being cancelled at both Camp Ripley

(Dec 2-4) and AHATS (Oct 25-27) and (Dec 6-8). No Native

American Consultation meeting. (Annual Requirement NHPA) REPI

(ACUB) Report to NGB will not get completed. Annual update to

the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) will

not get completed (Annual Requirement--Sikes Act). No

Environmental Review (National Environmental Protection Act

Requirement) for Sustainment Restoration and Modernization

(SRM) and Military Construction (MILCON) projects will not

take place due to no staff available. All Conservation and

Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Projects will be

impacted.

Air Bases Impact:

Short Term Impact:

No local flying training operations during any shutdown

period--impact on perishable flying skills

No Mission Ready Airlift or Joint Airborne Air

Transportability Training (JA/ATT)

No Aircraft Maintenance or fuel support presence capable of

preparing aircraft for response to state or national

emergency

No Air Operations Supervision, planners, or instructors to

support response to real world contingencies or training

events

Reduced to an AGR force only, there is no support for any

function beyond maintenance & protection of the facility

Long Term Impact:

Depending on duration of shutdown, aircrew members may go

non-current, non-mission ready along with instructor force

leaving unit with no local means to regenerate an operations

force (unless AMC/ANG issue training waivers)

Medical Readiness requirements, if not completed, render

members non-deployable

Impact on SORTS for any units unable to complete upgrade or

continuation training

Impact on construction projects, such as the contract for

the water line replacement, if we do not have staff to

supervise the operations

Pilot currencies become affected if the shutdown continues

for longer period. Proficiency begins to fade (depending on

experience) after a couple weeks. Additionally, the ``Ready

Aircrew Program (RAP)'' currencies are tracked on a monthly

basis. As pilot currencies expire, they will no longer be

qualified to sit alert. For that reason, we have submitted a

listing of approx. 128 essential employees that we will

require in order to maintain currency for 20 of our 29

pilots. This group will be needed if the shutdown continues

for an extended.

State/Department of Military Affairs Impact:

Number of State Personnel Impacted

State Military Employees (Short Term 2 Oct 2013): 5

State Civilian Employees (Long Term 22 Oct 2013): 131

Total Force Impacted: 136

Over the short term, the direct cost to the State of

Minnesota in lost assistance for payroll through the Master

Cooperative Agreement is just under $300,000.00 per week.

This means that the cost to simply cover the amount of

federal funding unavailable to the state for the 21 days

required per the bargaining agreements to provide notice to

our employees of a layoff will approach $1,000,000.00.

During the notification period, costs will be incurred by

the agency to manage the seniority moves that will be

generated by the layoff. Once the 21 day notification period

ends, costs to the agency will stabilize, but the services

provided by the laid off employees will not be available to

the agency or the people of Minnesota. Efficiency will be

negatively impacted as the seniority moves are made, and

employees must be trained for their new responsibilities. If

the Federal Government shutdown is resolved, then we will

need to unwind whatever management activities we initiate to

comply with the bargaining agreements, causing further

disruption to routines, negative impacts on productivity, and

morale.

If the shutdown continues over the longer term, the

Adjutant General must then decide if any of the services

provided by the employees normally supported by the master

cooperative agreement are essential to state agency

operations. If they are, then the agency will need to

determine how to fund the activities within our existing

state budget, and since we do not carry an aggressive

reserve, other agency activities will need to be cut to fund

the services deemed necessary.

Additionally, the agency will be responsible to pay the

unemployment benefit costs for all laid off state employees

for the duration of layoff.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of 10 different joint resolutions, all of which demonstrate House Republicans' continuing commitment to reopen necessary portions of our government.

The rule is a closed rule, which provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for each joint resolution. Additionally, the rule provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for each bill or joint resolution.

Additionally, the rule extends same-day authority for resolutions reported by the Rules Committee through the legislative day of October 21, 2013, thus continuing to allow the House the flexibility to continue to address the government shutdown. Finally, the rule permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules until October 20.

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker--day four of a government shutdown. Unfortunately for the American people, not much has changed. The Senate is still recalcitrant, unwilling to consider legislation that would reopen parts of the government. I do want to add an exception, though, and thank our friends in the upper Chamber for actually agreeing with us to exempt our military from these cuts, both civilian and uniform. The Senate, however, is still unwilling to go to conference to discuss the very serious fiscal issues facing this country. The Senate is also unwilling to consider any of the five pieces of legislation the House passed in the last 2 days, which will reopen parts of our government. Even so, House Republicans continue to bring legislation to the floor to meet the needs of American citizens.

Today's rule will allow for the consideration of resolutions that reopen the Bureau of Indian Education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, the WIC program, the National Weather Center, FEMA, our intelligence agencies, Impact Aid, Head Start--and the list goes on and on.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes clear our commitment to the 800,000 Federal workers currently furloughed that they will, indeed, be paid. It is not their fault that Washington is dysfunctional in that Congress can't agree on the size and scope of government. Yet they are caught in the crossfire, wondering if they will be able to afford their mortgages and pay their utility bills. Mr. Speaker, that simply isn't fair. H.R. 3223, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would codify what we have done in every previous government shutdown: pay our Federal employees from the date on which the government shut down.

I particularly want to compliment in a bipartisan fashion our friends Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf, who worked together on this measure, who brought it forward and gathered many dozens of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I think their example of bipartisanship and working together is something that we could all learn from.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike agree that that's the responsible thing to do. House Republicans are working to deal with the real-world problems of our constituents. Republicans are working to reopen the government. However, we lack a willing partner in the Senate and in the President. Every time we have attempted to negotiate with them, they have told us to accept their plan. They have even rebuffed our attempts to go to conference. Therefore, House Republicans have been left with little choice except that of passing a number of smaller bills to see if the Senate would be willing to accept those. Again, I remark on one occasion, with respect to the military, that they

did, indeed, accept one, so I would urge them to do that with the others.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that my good friend raises; but before I do, I want to agree with her in that I think we all think the government ought to be open. I, actually, don't think there is much division about that, and folks have actually tried to do that. On our side of the aisle, every single piece of legislation we've brought to the floor during this period has either kept the government open in whole or in part, and I suspect we will continue to try and do that. So it's not the aim of either side here to shut down the government.

In terms of the Affordable Health Care Act, I certainly don't support it--I voted against it, and voted multiple times to repeal it and delay it--but I'll agree with my good friend on that, too, in the sense that there are times when we have actually worked together on both sides of the aisle to change it. My friends like to quite often mention there have been 41 or 42 efforts to repeal, delay, defund the bill; but they usually forget to add--and, quite frankly, some people on our side of the aisle forget to add--that seven of those have actually succeeded, that is, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President agreed with them.

The proposals that we have on the table now in terms of the Affordable Health Care Act are immanently sensible and overwhelmingly popular. To put it quite simply, we just don't think that political appointees and elected officials ought to be treated differently

than other Americans. Now, we can get into a big fight about health care; but the reality is, right now, under the law, Members of Congress and their staffs can bring subsidies with them onto the exchange. No other American can do that. We can do this either way as far as I'm concerned. I could leave them back as Federal employees, and they could be treated like every other Federal employee--that's the acceptable solution to me at least--or we could allow other Americans to bring subsidies onto the exchange just like Members of Congress; but the underlying principle is that we ought to treat them all the same. Washington political appointees shouldn't be treated differently than the average American.

The second thing is, I think, very simple. We're not talking about delaying all of ObamaCare; but if we are going to allow big businesses to wait a year before they implement what they're required to do--if we are going to allow 1,100 organizations and many labor unions to do it-- why shouldn't we allow the average American, at his choice, to delay it as well?

They don't want to delay. They can go onto the exchanges. The subsidies are still there. The tax programs are still there. Why shouldn't the average American have the same privilege that we've bestowed on Big Business, Big Labor, and countless organizations? That's what we're talking about.

To my friend's point here--and I suspect this is true of the debt ceiling a little bit further down the road--the Democratic approach is very simple: do everything I want, and then I'm willing to negotiate. We would like to sit down and talk now and see if we could find some common ground. We've got negotiators, conferees--the technical title-- available to sit down and find common ground. We're not asking for something that is unreasonable, in my view. We're certainly not proposing something that is outside the scope of the type of things we've been able to agree on before.

The President, I want to add, is taking the same approach that the Senate has taken with regard to the continuing resolution with the debt ceiling. He has just simply said we have to raise it unilaterally. That's not a particularly popular vote, probably on either side of the aisle. It's certainly not on my side of the aisle.

I'm willing to work with the President on the debt ceiling. I did it in 2011. And I want to note for the record, that is something he never did when he was a Member of the United States Senate. He didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity to do it. Instead, he engaged in a lecture about debt. It probably was a lecture that was needed. Regardless, he did not do for George Bush what he's asking us to do for him.

I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to work with him on the debt ceiling. If you voted for the Ryan budget, you envisioned the debt ceiling as being something that has to be raised while you deal with the underlying deficit. I do want to do something or be in a negotiation with the President about what to do on that deficit. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

I think the real central issue in this is not the Affordable Care Act, not the debt ceiling, and, frankly, not even the government shutdown, as serious as that is. The real issue is whether my friends and the President of the United States will simply come to the table to negotiate. Will they put a counterproposal out there, or is it simply going to be: We insist in getting our way, in full, all the time? I don't think that's an acceptable way to arrive at common ground, and I don't think it's likely to succeed.

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

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

Just a quick point. My friend is always quite eloquent, and I know, frankly, very passionate and very well-meaning and very expert when he talks about nutrition programs, where he spent a great deal of time.

For the record, it's worth noting that we have increased nutrition programs broadly by 400 percent since George Bush became President. We doubled them, roughly, when Bush was President. Doubled them again since President Obama has been in office. What the Republican program is talking about is a 5 percent cut after a 400 percent increase based on reforms. I think it's maybe not quite so dire.

Again, I recognize my friend's good work in this area and hope that we have an opportunity to get to conference, have that discussion. I suspect the bill, if it comes back, may be closer to his liking than the bill that went out.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, the rolls have been going up in a period we're supposed to be recovering. I think we have some genuine problems in this program in terms of reform. Again, that's the initial proposal. It's not out of bounds considering a 400 percent increase to have a 5 percent cutback. We'll wait and see what comes out of the conference committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield my friend from Florida an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Kentucky, the Honorable Hal Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address this bill in general.

This bill is an act of political theater. It attempts to cover up the underlying problem of a government shutdown with what in essence is a rhetorical gimmick. The bill claims to support our troops, which the majority knows that the minority party wants to do at least as much as they do. There's no disagreement in terms of the desire to make sure that all of our noble men and women in uniform and the civilians who work for the Defense Department and the contractors that contribute to our national security are all paid. We all want to do that. So why do we have this bill?

Well, this bill attempts to reassure the public, who might be confused, as to what the adverse impacts of a government shutdown might be.

Mr. Speaker, it's important that the public understand that even with this bill, what we will do tonight, what the majority will do tonight will, nevertheless, fail to provide the materials essential to support and maintain the readiness of our U.S. forces.

I'll list any number of activities that will, notwithstanding this bill, go unfunded if the government is shut down. And because of the action that really the majority will take tonight, it looks increasingly likely that will happen at the beginning of next week.

Mr. Speaker, when we finish tonight, we will set in motion a situation where military medical treatment facilities will have to scale back operations. They will try not to impact inpatient care or acute and emergency outpatient care; but routine medical and dental procedures, elective surgery is likely to be stopped. Most maintenance activities would stop. Military members would continue to receive private sector care under TRICARE, but medical provider bills are going to go unpaid until appropriations are enacted.

New contracts, including contract renewals and extensions and the issuance of task orders, those are not likely to be executed. Any new contract will not be paid until appropriations are enacted. Death benefits to the family members of military personnel killed in the line of duty are not likely to be paid until appropriations are enacted; in other words, they won't be if the government is shut down.

Almost all travel for temporary duty and some permanent change of station moves would be delayed, canceled, or cut short. Many professional training and educational activities would be stopped.

The bill fails to fund the materiel support needed to conduct training and ensure the readiness of our forces at home. Regular training exercises, including large-scale training rotations that are absolutely essential, depend on equipment that is in proper working order, facilities that have been properly maintained, and the supplies needed to support soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

The bill fails to fund the procurement and research accounts that maintain the technological advantage of U.S. forces. It fails to fund the ships, the aircraft, ground equipment, sensors, and ammunition that our troops rely upon in combat. My friend from Georgia knows that about 40 percent of the DOD appropriations bill goes to acquire and enhance this equipment. Failure to fund these accounts hurts the readiness of U.S. forces and degrades our defense industrial base.

Now let me mention some of the other activities that will not be exempted, notwithstanding the fact that this bill will be passed virtually overwhelmingly. The Department of Veterans Affairs personnel charged with claims processing for veterans, including those returning from the last 12 years of combat, will not be paid. This legislation will nullify the progress that has been made by the VA on reducing the unacceptably high claims backlog.

A shutdown cuts foreign military financing to Israel, a vital partner and ally that depends upon $3.1 billion being provided at the beginning of the fiscal year; and, thus, it undermines our national security in an ever-changing and unstable region by degrading Israel's ability to maintain a qualitative military advantage.

These cuts will also have a direct impact on the industrial base throughout the United States, costing countless jobs that are funded through Israel's purchase of goods and services. Additionally, a shutdown will have a direct impact on our counterterrorism efforts, will halt programs that combat transnational crime, terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This could severely impact activities supporting our homeland security. It will stop counterdrug, anticrime, and border security efforts in Mexico and Central America that secure our own borders, as well as programs that advance democracy, including civil society and the rule of law.

When the government shuts down, overseas operations are heavily affected. It would put at risk the physical protection for diplomatic personnel and facilities overseas and severely limit the ability of the State Department to provide for and maintain missions in increasingly dangerous locations. With all the rhetoric about Benghazi--and we share the concern about what happened--this, again, puts people at risk overseas.

It would stop commercial export sales. A shutdown would force the State Department to impose indiscriminate cuts to embassy security and protection of personnel, thereby eroding the security of the United States Government diplomatic facilities and making it all but impossible to meet the requirements to provide safe and secure embassies overseas.

All national parks would be closed, memorials and museums. There are 401 of these locations throughout the country. Cumberland Island National Seashore would be closed. The Martin Luther King National Historic Site would be closed. The Chattahoochee River National Recreational Area would be closed. Fort Frederica National Monument on St. Simmons Island would be closed. And that's just to mention a few Federal facilities that I suspect the gentleman who is managing this bill is fully familiar with.

We'll let go of 4,000 weather forecasters. We could go on and on. The Smithsonian will be closed. The Lincoln Memorial will be shut down. The National Zoo, Yellowstone.

What are we doing this for? This doesn't make sense. All the wildlife refuges will be closed for hunting. This is hunting season.

You know, this may not seem like a big deal; but I think the American people, when this is done, are going to realize the same thing they did back in 1995: wait a minute, we want these Federal activities. We need these Federal facilities. We need these jobs. Open up our government. And any Congress that acts to close it down is disserving the American public.

We are not fulfilling our responsibilities if we allow this government to

shut down, but that's exactly what we are doing with the action that the majority will be taking tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the comments of my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I completely agree with him that we want both DOD personnel and the personnel of our other Federal agencies to be able to continue to come to work. I appreciate his comments.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the very distinguished minority whip of the Congress who not only has substantial military activity within his district but very ably represents tens of thousands of Federal employees.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Does my friend from Georgia have many other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who has real-life practical experience in knowing what it's like to administer an agency--in this case, the Interior Department--during a shutdown.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, since I have only 1\1/2\ minutes, I think I'll let the gentleman from Georgia yield to further speakers, but I do want to ask if the gentleman would yield some time, though, if he has time available, to engage in a colloquy. But on his time.

Let me ask my very good friend from Georgia if he knows why over in the Senate the minority has insisted upon the cloture rule; in other words, filibustering the appropriation rules, and why they have not appointed conferees to the budget conference?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill is that it assumes a government shutdown. If it didn't assume a government shutdown, then it wouldn't separate Department of Defense personnel from non-Department of Defense personnel. Why would you need it if we were assuming that we're going to be able to fund the government? That's the underlying problem with this bill.

We're going to vote for it because we feel that Department of Defense personnel ought to be paid. Of course, we do. Of course, we're going to vote for this. But why are you doing it? You're only doing it because you assume that you're going to shut the government down. That's the problem with this bill. There's no other purpose for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unless the silent Members of the majority speak up, today's debate is a fait accompli.

For the last 2 days, Members of the majority have said publicly that they wish this government shutdown would end. In fact, a coalition of more than 218 Democrats and Republicans has publicly declared that it is ready to vote on the clean Senate CR. This 218 would be the majority, and we would pass it; and that's why the powerful minority, who has taken the government hostage, is doing all it can again today to prevent the Senate CR from coming to the House floor. It doesn't make any sense. Not only doesn't it make any sense; but, actually, were we to do that, we wouldn't have to be here today, trying to do these piecemeal pieces.

Last night, the Rules Committee proposed a rule for these 11 piecemeal funding bills before us today. They didn't go through a single meeting of a committee. At least, in the committee process, the subcommittees and committees would have given both Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to weigh in on these measures. Remember that half the population of the United States is represented by Democrats and that, in the last election, Democrat candidates for Congress achieved a million more votes than our Republican friends, but we are shut out of the process. Indeed, these bills were written yesterday afternoon and were brought straight to the Rules Committee, as so many are lately, in order to be rushed to the floor.

During our hearing, a colleague promised that the reckless approach would continue, even suggesting that we could see 150 more of these piecemeal bills before the majority agrees to end the government shutdown. That should take us to, maybe, October of next year. Yet, while they're willing to take 150 votes on bills the President would veto--and everybody knows the President would veto them--and the Senate would reject, they haven't allowed a single vote on the cure to the problem: bring up the CR, and put the government back to work.

Fortunately for the American people, no minority--no matter how powerful--can stop the will of the House if we exercise it. Unlike the Senate, a majority in the House can only be held back for so long. Thanks to the democratic spirit baked into our Chamber's rules, the majority will always succeed. For the more than 218 Members--a majority who has expressed a desire to vote on the clean CR--our most powerful tool is voting down the previous question and bringing the clean Senate CR to the floor to vote on.

Now, earlier this week, my Democrat colleagues and I urged the Chamber to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we could bring the Senate bill to the floor. Not a single Republican joined our cause. Today, we are going to give you another chance. Following the debate on the rule, we will have a chance to vote down the previous question. While that may simply be legislative language to most people, what that will do is give us an opportunity--those of us who very strongly believe this government should work--to bring the CR, bring the shutdown to a close and put everybody back to work. I want to see by the end of this day that we can accomplish that, because words are no longer enough. Those Members of the majority who claim that they want to end the government shutdown get the opportunity today to stand up and vote. As I said the other day when we had the same opportunity, I would like them to put their voting cards where their mouths are.

Over the next hour, I encourage every Member of this Chamber to reflect on the damage that has already been wrought on our Nation because of the shutdown and on the damage that will ensue if we wait another day. The shutdown is costing the Nation $300 million a day, and more than 800,000 workers are furloughed without pay. Today, we are going to vote--and, I think, almost unanimously--to pay them when the shutdown ends. A logical person would say, Why don't you bring them back to work? If they're going to be paid anyway, let them work. There is no answer for that. There must be some reason here that is available to only a few people as to why the majority wants to keep the government shut down.

We have to also end this because our State Department and intelligence employees need to go back on the job. A hurricane is bearing down right now on the State of Louisiana while 80 percent of the FEMA workers are furloughed. NASA had to turn off the Mars Rover, which was giving us so much information about the universe--stopping all the space exploration in its tracks.

I think one of the best things I've read to describe what we are doing in this House was said by a Republican. Because there is no plan here--there is no end game here--he is saying that what they are doing is laying the track ahead of the speeding train as it bears down on them.

The majority started the shutdown because they were dead set on repealing the Affordable Care Act; and I think, by doing this piecemeal, they think they can still do that. Throughout the process, they have issued dire predictions about the health care law and have warned that the law would hurt American workers. It is absolutely turning out not to be true.

In the last week, two of our Nation's biggest companies have responded to the Affordable Care Act by giving tens of thousands of their part-time employees full-time jobs. Guess who they are? One is the largest employer in the United States--Walmart. They are raising 35,000 of their part-time employees to become full-time employees in order to make them eligible for health insurance. Walt Disney announced that 427 employees at Disney World who have been hired as full-time employees will be given access to the health insurance plan. We also hear all the time--and I've really got to research this--that Delta Air Lines has said, they tell me, that the affordable care plan would cost them $100 million a year. I surely would like to know how that's possible unless they plan to hire 70 million new employees, which would certainly be good for employment, but I see no earthly reason for them to do that. We need to know whether that's true or not since all of the rest of the dire predictions have turned out not to be.

The Affordable Care Act is working; but because of the majority, the government is not, and it's time for the majority to give up this losing game. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying legislation; and, so importantly, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Then, Mr. Speaker, we can bring the clean Senate CR to the House floor, as we should have done weeks ago, and end this government shutdown today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our incredible member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

My colleagues have confused the fact that they have gone around saying how, indeed, throughout August and all the rest of this time, that they don't want to shut down the House, in some hope, I guess, that nobody would understand that when they shut down the House, that they had actually done it.

Now what my colleague is talking about from the Democrat side, what they are saying, let's do what we agree with, they are taking their word for it that you didn't want to shut down the House. So let's not do it. You cannot superimpose that notion onto the idea of setting up this government by dribs and drabs. None of us are for that. The Senate won't do it. You know this is an exercise in futility. But pretty soon, the previous question is coming up. You are going to have a chance to do what you said you didn't want to do, shut down the House. But I understand from what you have said that because of health care, because of health care and what you think it has done to people in your district, you are holding this country hostage.

I don't have the time. My time has been given out.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling quite badly. I didn't know how much time I had remaining.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), if he would like.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.