To ensure that the reduced annual cost-of-living adjustment to the retired pay of members and former members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 will not apply to members or former members who first became members prior to January 1, 2014, and for other purposes.

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

There are a number of problems with this piece of legislation. One of the biggest ones is just the process of it. This has been dropped on us at the absolute last minute. In fact, on a bill that has profound impacts on the budget in a number of different areas, we just, moments ago, received a broad outline of a score of how it is going to impact that budget--moments ago. We did not have time to consider this legislation adequately to figure out what impact it was going to have on the budget, but there are a couple of things we do know about it that creates a major problem.

Yes, in the short-term, this pleases two constituency groups. It pleases veterans, and it pleases doctors by giving them the money that they want. But what was not mentioned in the speech talking about this bill in favor of it is how it is paid for. It is paid for by adding another year to sequestration.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things about this. First of all, that is 8 years from now. We have heard nothing but, from the other side of the aisle, about how government is spending too much money, about how the deficit and the debt are out of control, and yet here we have up-front money being spent on the promise that 8 years from now we will cover those costs. And what is worse, 8 years from now, the way we are going to cover those costs is through sequestration, across-the-board cuts that will cut other entitlement, other mandatory spending programs. So we are really simply robbing one group of deserving people to pay another group of deserving people. That is hardly responsible and hardly helpful.

There are a couple of other specific aspects of this that I want to mention from the Department of Defense standpoint, focusing now just on the portion that addresses the cost of living reduction.

I want to make sure we understand what exactly that cost of living reduction was. In the military, if you serve 20 years, you can retire at that point with your full pension, which is basically half of your pay at that point. This bill took, for those people between the ages of 42 and 62, working age, and reduced their COLA by 1 percent. It didn't reduce the pension. It reduced how much that pension would be increased by each year by 1 percent.

Now, I don't deny that that is a hit and a cost, but what is it offsetting?

The Pentagon has to pay this cost, or at least a portion of this cost. They have to pay--the old bill, and again, I am just getting the new score. But in the old bill, it was roughly $700 million a year that DOD had to take out of their operating budget and put in to paying for this pension. So, by doing this, we are taking roughly $700 million a year out of the Pentagon budget.

What does that mean? What it means is a further blow to readiness. Now, Republican and Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee have rightly screamed that we are cutting readiness to the point where we are not training our forces to prepare to fight the fight that we ask them to fight.

Now, the gentleman made an excellent point that, basically, what is going to make people want to sign up for the military? And he mentioned making sure that we take care of our veterans. I certainly think that is an issue. And I will tell you, for the last 10 years we have increased the GI Bill. We have increased pay every single year. We have made dramatic increases in combat pay. I applaud this Chamber for the bipartisan way in which they have taken care of our military veterans. But one other major issue that is going to determine whether or not people want to join the military and stay in it is whether or not we train them and prepare them for the fight we are going to ask them to do. And what the consequences of this are going to be is it is another blow to that.

If you are a pilot, you will not have enough fuel or enough fixed equipment to train as often as you need to. If you are an infantryman, you will not have the bullets to practice as much as you need to. Doing this creates the one thing that everyone has said we don't want, and that is a hollow force, a force that exists but is not trained to fight the fight that we ask them to do.

In fact, there is a great and compelling story told by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in an argument for why readiness is important, and that was the Korean war, and those were the troops that we sent over in the initial effort to stop the North Koreans. Those troops were not trained, and men died because they were not trained and they were not prepared for a battle that we sent them into.

So we are robbing one portion of the Pentagon budget to pay another, and I think we are robbing precisely the portion that we can least afford to rob. And I don't think there is anything noble about standing up and taking money away from the readiness that is going to train our troops to fight fights that we, as politicians, send them to fight.

Now, I will say, on the SGR fix and the doc fix, that is a short-term problem, and we need to deal with it. Step aside. I would be very, very happy to pay for that, and I support that very strongly.

I do not like the pay-for. Personally, I would be more than willing to raise taxes or cut spending in other places other than to, once again, go back to the sequester option and also to kick it out 8 years from now.

This is an irresponsible bill that approaches very, very real problems. But make no mistake about it. You can stand up and talk about what you are paying for, whom you are giving the money to, but I do hope people will address whom you are taking the money from. You are taking the money from other recipients of mandatory spending by doing sequester again. And as importantly, you are taking the money away from the readiness accounts that will train our troops so that they are able to fight, so that we will hopefully not do the one thing that I think would be utterly unconscionable, and that is to send troops to a battle that we have not prepared them for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), though she is in support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the gentleman has no further speakers I will close.

I yield myself the balance of my time just really to drive home one point on the Armed Services' side of the equation, and that is the impact that personnel costs are having on the Department of Defense. They are an increasing, growing part of our defense budget in large part because we have been very, very generous with people who serve in the military in terms of pay, benefits, and retirement, but as everyone who serves on the Armed Services Committee knows, increasing personnel costs squeezes out other portions of the budget.

I have talked a lot about readiness. I think that is incredibly important, but also procurement, making sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment that they need to fight the fight. We can have a great military where everyone is very well paid, the benefits go on forever, but they don't have the equipment or the training necessary to fight.

I will tell you, every single expert, right, left, middle, wherever, who studies this question, we just had four prominent think-tanks spanning that spectrum come out with a study on the future of the Department of Defense budget. Every single one of those experts has said that if we do nothing to rein in personnel costs, that is precisely the force that we will have; it will be hollow. It will not have the equipment, and it will not have the training to do what it is that we ask them to do.

Now, we may not think that the 1 percent cut that was done here in the COLA is the best way to go. I can entertain that argument. I certainly understand veterans who were promised this, who expect to receive it. If it is not that, what is it? What is on the table? All we have done in this Chamber is said no, no, no to every effort the Department of Defense has put out there to try to rein in this spending, to try to rein in this spending, as I said, so that we can have a military that lives up to what we want it to live up to. This is a very, very real issue.

Once again, we are punting it and completely ignoring it, completely unaddressed by supporters of this bill. They are just addressing this narrow area, making the broader problem worse.

As I said in the beginning, also, once again, adding sequester back in the lexicon for another year. This is not a solution to any problem, other than a series of political ones. We have just too many difficult choices to make to simply rely on politics with every bill that we bring up here. We have got to make some hard choices. This bill doesn't do it. It punts once again in every conceivable way. It simply makes the problems worse.

I know it is not going to happen, but I would nonetheless urge this body to oppose this bill and make some responsible choices, actually make choices as to what to do with the budget instead of continually punting on every difficult decision that comes before us. I assure you, this will not be the last one by any stretch of the imagination.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 25) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal features of the electric distribution system to the South Utah Valley Electric Service District, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, President Washington once said:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to

serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly

proportional to how they perceive veterans of earlier wars

were appreciated by our Nation.

There is no doubt that we appreciate the service and sacrifice of each generation of veterans, from our original veterans, patriots, to those who landed at Normandy during World War II, to present. We as Americans and as lawmakers are forever in debt to the dedication of our military men and women who bore the pain of battle, physically and emotionally.

While we stand here in this Chamber each day and pledge our allegiance to the American flag that they defend, while we are able to act as a democratic body freely elected by the people thanks to their sacrifices, sometimes simple appreciation isn't enough. We have a chance today to treat our veterans with the honor they deserve by ensuring that they are fully compensated for their service during retirement, while also addressing other concerns facing our Nation.

Today we will take up the legislation under consideration to ensure that all servicemen and -women who are enlisted prior to January 1 of this year will receive the full cost of living adjustments in retirement before and after the age of 62. Furthermore, this bill also ensures our seniors will have access to the health care services they depend on through Medicare.

For too long, the relationship between doctor and patient has been strained by the confusion and instability of a well-intentioned but unaddressed problem with the Medicare program itself, known as the sustainable growth rate or SGR. A component of this legislation works to ensure that seniors are able to receive the care they depend on from the physicians who know them, while also guaranteeing that those physicians are fairly compensated by Medicare through a fund until long-term reform of the SGR is achieved this spring. In doing so, this legislation provides much-needed stability for the medical community by ensuring that physicians have the predictability in billing they need to further their practice and to focus on their patients.

By taking up and passing this legislation in bipartisan fashion, we can address areas of critical concern, while working together to make sure we are also being fiscally responsible. This legislation provides a necessary offset that is in the same vein of the bipartisan budget agreement this Chamber passed just over a month ago.

The American people expect us to make the tough decisions that help them in their daily lives, be it a military veteran looking to secure his retirement after a lifetime of duty and commitment, to the senior making sure their next doctor's visit is free from any undue stress, or ensuring that physicians can further their passion of serving their community.

This legislation provides a path forward for our Nation and this body in addressing their concerns. I urge full bipartisan support of this legislation

and encourage the whole House to consider the important needs that the bill addresses.

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, it is always responsible to keep promises made to our Nation's veterans. What is before the House today is an extension of current policy that was passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion right here in this Chamber less than 2 months ago.

In addition, it does protect the promises that the Nation has made to our veterans. So, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill, to care for those who have borne the battle, and to send that message to all who can hear it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize passage this week of three important pieces of legislation: H.R. 2431, the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act of 2013; S. 25, the vehicle which included the military retiree COLA fix and SGR bill; and H.R. 3448, the Small Cap Liquidity Reform Act. Additionally, I would like to make clear that I would have opposed S. 540, the Debt Limit Extension. Unfortunately, I was not able to vote on final passage of these important bills because of much needed hip replacement surgery. I guess I'm finally being paid back for playing rugby all through college and dental school.

H.R. 2431, National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act of 2013, is important legislation that will provide critical benefits for ranchers, waters users and local communities allowing them to better prepare and respond to extreme drought conditions that are continuing to plague the West as well as rural communities.

S. 25 reverses the cost of living adjustment (COLA) cuts for working- age military retirees that was found in the Bipartisan Budget Act. I voted against the flawed Bipartisan Budget Act because it increased spending levels by $45 billion in one year and $63 billion over the course of two years. To pay for those increases, the Bipartisan Budget Act erased various, if not all, spending cuts from the Budget Control Act which passed back in 2011. Additionally, the Bipartisan Budget Act reduced the annual retirement COLA for working age military retirees by one full percentage point. I found this provision to be completely unacceptable and don't believe we should be balancing our budget on the backs of our veterans. As S. 25 repeals this provision that penalizes our military retirees and includes a payfor, I would have supported this legislation.

H.R. 3448, the Small Cap Liquidity Reform Act of 2013 is important legislation that establishes an optional liquidity pilot program which will benefit the securities of small emerging growth companies.

Finally, I want to reiterate that I would have opposed S. 540, the Debt Limit Extension. Back in 2011, we reached an understanding that if we're going to raise the debt ceiling and not jeopardize the nation's credit, then we need to attach reforms to each debt ceiling increase so that we reduce the need to constantly raise the debt ceiling and we start living within our means. This increase violates those principles. Although some like to call this a ``clean'' debt ceiling increase, there is nothing clean about borrowing another trillion dollars; this is as messy as it gets and the term ``clean'' is propaganda as far as I'm concerned. The bottom line is that our nation has a spending addiction--it's past the point of a problem--when we must continually raise the debt ceiling to accommodate our dangerous spending habits. At what point does it stop? How is it possible that we couldn't include a single reform in this legislation? I don't want our country to default but I wouldn't have voted to give the President a blank check. The federal government will collect an estimated $3 trillion in taxes from October 1, 2013 until September 30, 2014. We do have the ability to live within our means and it's time we make the hard decisions necessary to make that happen.

Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted in support of these three important bills with a ``yea'' vote on rollcall Numbers 55, 60 and 62. I would have opposed increasing the debt ceiling and voted ``nay'' on rollcall Numbers 61.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 25) authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for activities associated with the ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Native American code talkers.

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

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

I rise in very strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 25, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on Wednesday, November 20, for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Native American code talkers who assisted the United States military and our ally powers. This ceremony, Mr. Speaker, is a very long overdue recognition of all Native American code talkers that served this Nation during times of foreign conflict.

Although the contributions of the Navajo code talkers during the World Wars have been the most celebrated, many, many other Native American tribes deserve recognition for their courage and dedication to this Nation as well. Thousands of Native Americans from over a dozen tribes across the country saw the threats to humanity being posed and joined with our military forces to protect our common homeland. It was a call to action that they selflessly and successfully accomplished.

I want to thank our former colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Boren, for his leadership on H.R. 4544, the Native American Code Talkers Act, which provides for this overdue recognition and celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the Rules Committee and also recently named last week as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations. Also, Mr. Cole is a member of the Chickasaw Nation and the Chickasaw Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure and Natural Resources Committees. He is also a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I follow on from the two previous speakers we had on our side that talked very eloquently from their heart about their pride in their heritage and their pride as being Americans and now as Members of the Congress about this bipartisan bill, and it is a ceremony that I tell my colleague from California we are all looking forward to.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is certainly a ceremony that is long overdue for the recognition of all Native Americans, and particularly these code talkers and what they did to keep America free. They are great ambassadors of liberty, freedom, and democracy.

I urge all my colleagues to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 25, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from Michigan for yielding me time to speak on such an important issue.

The Cherokee Nation has a rich history of pride and heritage inside this country. At a very young age, I had the special privilege of meeting a gentleman, another former member of the Cherokee Nation, Wayne Russell.

Wayne Russell was taken care of by my grandparents. My grandad, Kenneth Morris, is also a Cherokee member, who fought in the European theatre as a combat engineer. Wayne Russell was a neighbor of my granddad.

My grandmother and granddad took care of Wayne until he passed away. At a young age, I got the privilege of getting to know him. We share the same birthday, and so it was a common bond for us. Wayne used to tell me stories of how he got to use his native language to help this great Nation win a war against a group of individuals that had very bad intentions not just in our country, but in this world.

Wayne never asked for anything. Wayne simply stood up each day and did his job when he was in uniform. When he came home, he didn't ask for anybody to give him anything. He didn't ask for a handout. He was just proud to serve.

Before I even knew what code talkers were, Wayne used to tell me about it all the time, because he used to teach the Cherokee language in the school I went to in Westfield. So Wayne would talk to me in our native tongue and tell me about the stories that he had from the war.

He didn't realize he was special. I didn't really realize he was special. But today, I get to stand up and talk about him. What an honor it is for me to stand on this House floor as a Member of the United States Congress and get to bring Wayne Russell's name up and tell people what he did.

Wayne has passed. When he left, he left me all his medals. And we get to stand up this week and vote on something to honor not just Cherokee members, but the members of Native Americans in Indian Country all across this great Nation that didn't ask for anything, but just simply did their job. They didn't realize they were special; they just did what it took to win. Because we have pride in Indian Country. We take great pride in this great country we call America. And for us to stand up and speak up for them, what an opportunity for this House to reach across the aisle and show bipartisan support to honor a group of people.

So it is an honor to stand up here, Mr. Speaker, and it is an honor that the gentlelady from Michigan has given me time to talk about Wayne Russell and something important to me.

I urge my colleagues to support this. Let's stand together and say ``thank you'' to a group of people that is well overdue.