Kristi Noem

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Avon Elementary School of Avon, South Dakota for being named a Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. This year the Department of Education named 305 schools Blue Ribbon Schools, Avon Elementary School was one of them. I would like to congratulate Avon Elementary School for its incredible academic achievements. This school reflects the attributes all American education institutions strive for: academic improvement and tangible results. These early successes will give students the ability to further their education and open doors to future opportunities. The commitment of students and staff to quality education and a high level of performance is commendable. Again, congratulations to Avon Elementary School for being named a Blue Ribbon School.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hamlin Junior High School of Hayti, South Dakota for being named a Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. This year the Department of Education named 305 schools Blue Ribbon Schools, Hamlin Jr. High School was one of them. I would like to congratulate Hamlin Jr. High School for its incredible academic achievements. This school reflects the attributes all American education institutions strive for: academic improvement and tangible results. These early successes will give students the ability to further their education and open doors to future opportunities. The commitment of students and staff to quality education and a high level of performance is commendable. Again, congratulations to Hamlin Jr. High School for being named a Blue Ribbon School.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sharon F. Delzer Elementary School of Estelline, South Dakota for being named a Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. This year the Department of Education named 305 schools Blue Ribbon Schools, Sharon F. Delzer Elementary School was one of them. I would like to congratulate Sharon F. Delzer Elementary School for its academic achievements. This school reflects the attributes all American education institutions strive for: academic improvement and tangible results. These successes will give students the ability to further their education and open doors to future opportunities. The commitment of students and staff to quality education and a high level of performance is commendable. Again, congratulations to Sharon F. Delzer Elementary School for being named a Blue Ribbon School.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentlelady from Missouri for recognizing me and for facilitating this wonderful discussion that we have tonight in front of us to really talk about our seniors and to talk about the challenges that they face and the promises that we've made to them that we intend to uphold and to keep for the years to come. I rise to speak on this Special Order with our other Republican female colleagues to discuss a lot of important issues, and I want everybody to know across this country, in South Dakota we have more than the average share of seniors in South Dakota. We have a very high number, and all of us have seniors in our families--grandparents, neighbors, friends who are seniors and live under the programs and policies of this country. Our seniors have worked hard. They've raised their families. They've raised grandchildren with strong values, with good work ethics that are extremely important to them to deal with a lot of the things that this life may throw at them. They paid into Social Security. They fought our enemies on foreign soil to defend our country and our freedoms. They have built businesses, and they literally have created the fabric of our society in America today. Our Republican agenda reflects the deep gratitude that we have towards our seniors in this country. We're thankful for the country that they have given us. We're thankful for the values that they have taught us, and we intend to follow through on the promises that we've made to them. So you're asking me today what are the promises that we've made to our seniors? The first promise we have made is to care for them. That's why we chose to step up and to save the Medicare program. That's why we didn't choose to not address the problem that we have and the fact that it is going to go broke in less than a decade. We also did this at a time when we can truly fix the program without impacting seniors who currently rely on the program. Future generations will need that program, and we did offer solutions for that. But our current beneficiaries, all of those who are 55 and older, will not be impacted if we do what the Republicans did this year and fix the program so that it's still around. Nothing will change for seniors under the plan the Republicans have put forward. We have also made important promises to our seniors who are military veterans. South Dakota has a strong history of military service. Thousands of South Dakotans have stepped up and put their lives on the line to defend this country. Many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice, and for that we'll always be grateful. Many of them came home wounded or forever changed by the experience. Veterans earned and deserve all of the benefits that they were promised going back to the founding of this great country. We've worked to protect those programs and protect those veterans and the programs that they rely on. Some in Washington, in the media, try to scare our seniors. They try to scare them by telling them that we're going to get military veterans' pensions and payments and programs, and that we're going to cut the military veterans' benefits. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite vicious rumors and whatever the media and Democrats try to say, we are not going to let our veterans down and not follow through on the promises that we have made to them. We will continue to fight for those veterans' benefits. Finally, we also promised our seniors that we would leave to our kids and our grandkids a nation that is as exceptional as they left us. That means that we're focusing on growing our economy, that we're reducing burdensome regulations that are driving people out of business and overseas. We're empowering small business at the same time, letting them make decisions that the government has no right making, and we're cutting wasteful spending that does nothing but bloat government and crowd out the private sector. In closing, let me just say that I am proud to stand here with Republican women because we take our promises to our seniors very sincerely and seriously, and I know that we will do our part to uphold all of those promises that we have made. Thank you for the time.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, and I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me today. I certainly appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a proud Republican woman as well, as my good colleague from Kansas said, but also as a wife and as a mother and as an American concerned about Washington, D.C.'s spending habits. We not only need a solution to dig ourselves out of the situation that we are in, but we need to make sure that we don't find ourselves back in the same place. We need to make sure that we are putting us on a new fiscal path that certainly addresses the problems that we have in front of us. The frustrating thing about that entire process is that this President has been on the sidelines. Certainly we all know the Biblical phrase that ``without a vision the people perish,'' and that is truly what is happening to America today--that we don't have a leader who has been willing to step forward and give us a plan to tell us what he truly thinks are the options that are available to us. Instead, that has been left to others to lead, and he has been more than willing to stand on the sidelines and to criticize every single one of those options that have been brought forward. In fact, his original budget, which was proposed in February of this year, failed to even address our most difficult problems. The Democrat-led Senate voted down his budget unanimously. No one jumped onboard because they recognized that, under his plan, that we doubled our debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10. It certainly wasn't going to be the answer to what we needed to prevent this most predictable financial crisis that we find ourselves in. Since then, the executive branch has failed to provide the American people with a solid plan to move forward. During a House Budget Committee hearing the CBO director, Douglas Elmendorf, referenced President Obama's revised budget speech by saying this: ``We don't estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.'' And essentially what he was saying was, we can't score a speech, we don't know what a speech means. Anybody can give a really great speech; what we need is leadership. We need someone to step up to the table and tell us what we need to do to address our problems so that we can put it into action. House Republicans have taken this lead in the looming budget crisis. We have shown time and time again that we are serious about cutting our spending, we're serious about balancing our budget. In January, we passed H.R. 1, which continued funding through 2011, only to have it stalled by the Senate, which in effect essentially delayed any action until it got down to the brink of a government shutdown. In March, we passed our budget plan for fiscal year 2012. We are still waiting--more than 800 days--for the Senate to pass anything that resembles a budget. We are doing our work here in the House, but we can't do it alone; we need a willing partner in the President, and we need a willing partner in the Senate. Last night, the House again passed yet another plan to get our fiscal house in order. We voted overwhelmingly to support Cut, Cap, and Balance. I supported this plan because my constituents have been calling for weeks telling me to support serious change, serious spending cuts, and a balanced budget amendment. They realize they can't spend more money than what they have in their households; they want their government to have some common sense. South Dakota families and businesses understand the need to balance a checkbook. Our country, just like our families, can't continue to spend more than it makes. Even my 9-year-old son realizes that. Recently, he had the chance to come out with me to Washington, D.C., and he wanted to spend some time at the Spy Museum, he had been talking about it for months. So he did a lot of chores around the ranch to earn some money, but when he got there and he got to walking through the gift shop, he realized he didn't have enough money to buy everything that he wanted. He saw a lot of things he wanted to take home with him, but he didn't have the money, so he had to prioritize. He had to pick and choose and leave some things there because he simply couldn't afford that. Was he disappointed? Absolutely. He was heartbroken. But I tell you what: That taught him a life lesson that he will only learn from people that have common sense, that understand you cannot spend money that you do not have and you have to prioritize and make choices. America is out of money. We know this, and President Obama knows this. And yes, we do need fundamental tax reform; yes, we need to identify our priorities; and yes, we absolutely have to stop spending money we don't have. Strong leadership, action, courage, along with responsible solutions, are needed from all of us if we want to preserve the American dream for our kids and our grandkids. As a wife, mother, and a Republican woman, I support a balanced budget amendment, smaller government so my kids can grow up with the liberties and freedoms and so that they don't have to worry about paying the bills that we are continuing to rack up in this country. It is time to change our ways. I certainly thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Representatives Terry and Berg's amendment to H.R. 1309. As you may know, the Missouri River Basin is in the midst of record flooding. In order to determine a trigger date for a flood-in-progress, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program sent an examiner to Garrison Dam in North Dakota at the end of May on a fact-finding mission. After looking at the dam and both sides of the river, the adjuster determined a flood was in progress and declared June 1st as the trigger date for the entire Missouri River Basin. The flooding along the Missouri River stretches more than one thousand miles and is affecting multiple states. Very few homes in South Dakota were underwater on June 1st, yet this trigger date is used to determine if flood insurance policies are valid, regardless of location and when flooding actually began. Not all my constituents along the Missouri River have flood insurance. Some, however, had the foresight to purchase a policy prior to being underwater, and, more importantly, prior to FEMA's declaration that June 1st was the universal flood-in-progress date. Flood insurance requires a 30-day wait period before the policy becomes effective. Individuals who purchased flood insurance on May 1st will be covered for their losses in this flood, but those who waited until May 2nd are out of luck. This amendment rectifies this problem. It would allow for reasonable flexibility for policy holders when a universal trigger date is used for such a vast multi-state event. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture Appropriations bill. While agriculture, along with every other industry must take some reductions to get our spending under control, it should not be in a disproportionate manner. This bill would take a nearly 14 percent cut in discretionary funding compared to last year while other appropriations bills thus far have seen cuts less than 3 percent. I could not vote in favor of this bill because I did not feel that it recognized the importance that agriculture plays in our nation's economy or take into account the impact this would have on farmers. While it is important to reduce the deficit, we should do it in a responsible manner and not disproportionately on the backs of the farmers who are supplying our nation's, and much of the world's, food supply. There were many provisions in the bill that I supported, but I felt the bill sent the wrong overall message about the importance of agriculture policy. As South Dakota's lone Representative, I could not in good conscience vote for a bill that unfairly singled out South Dakota's number one industry.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Texas. The B-1 bomber is the workhorse of our long-range bomber fleet and has been flying missions over Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade. More importantly, the B-1 bomber from the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State of South Dakota just carried out air strike operations in Libya. In just under 2 days, Ellsworth generated aircraft loaded with conventional weapons that were able to strike targets halfway across the world. Regardless of what one thinks about our involvement in Libya, one thing that one cannot dispute is the B-1's capability to respond globally and its vital importance to our bomber fleet. Mr. Chairman, with the next generation bomber development still a decade or more away, the administration's proposal to retire six B-1s is short sighted and it's premature. What's more, it can't be reversed. Retired planes aren't mothballed and put away for a period of time. They are sent to the bone yard and they are used for parts. Mr. Chairman, we propose that no B-1s be irreversibly retired this year because of questions regarding the future of our bomber force structure and the B-1's proven track record in theater as our workhorse. I urge my colleagues to vote for a strong bomber fleet, a strong national defense, and I ask them to support this amendment.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my fellow female colleagues and Members on this side of the aisle to highlight exactly what it means to be a Republican woman. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a family that didn't believe that there were certain tasks for boys or certain tasks for girls, but that we all did it all. My dad taught me how to drive a semi-truck and a combine, just like he did my brothers. I was expected to help with the chores even though they were tough and they were often dirty ones. I grew up thinking that I could do anything that the boys could do, and that way of thinking has certainly stayed with me. Over the years, I helped run our family businesses, including the farm and the ranches. I helped run the family restaurant and our hunting lodge. Although our businesses never grew so large that I was one of the women who are a part of what controls now 51 percent of the New York Stock Exchange, I always remembered what my dad said, and I always remembered that I could work just as hard as the guys could. My contribution was always just as valuable. A few years ago, with young kids, raising them still at home, I saw that we needed someone with business experience, someone with common sense and ag experience to serve in our State legislature. So I ran and won a seat there. I realized that if I was going to be there and spend time away from my family and away from my businesses, I wanted to be as effective as I possibly could. So that meant running for a leadership position. So in my second term I became the assistant majority leader in the South Dakota State legislature. I soon realized that the place that really needed a person with common sense and business sense and a place that really needed someone who had worked in agriculture and run businesses and someone who isn't afraid to roll up their sleeves and get to work was in Washington, D.C. So I ran for Congress last year on the platform that we need people to represent us who have real-life experiences; who have experience running businesses, balancing checkbooks, dealing with regulations, and paying taxes. I didn't run because I was a woman, and I didn't expect people to vote for me because I was a woman. That had never ever even entered into my thought process, as the person I was running against was also a woman. I worked to earn each vote in talking about what was important in this country, in talking to folks about our life experiences and my position on the issues. That's what I knew mattered to South Dakotans, and that's what mattered to me. Mr. Speaker, my agenda, the Republican agenda, is indeed pro-women. It is pro-women because it's pro-small business, pro-job creator, pro- family, pro-economic growth. You see, just as my dad taught me years ago, women in my home State of South Dakota and all across this country, we care about the same things that men do. They're worried about the security of their jobs; they're worried about their children's future, and they're worried about finding a job if they need one. We're worried about the excessive spending that this country is engaging in and the overwhelming debt that we're continuing to accumulate and that we're going to leave to our children and our grandchildren. We're worried about what new government regulation is going to come in and hinder our businesses and what is around the corner that's going to try and control our portion of our lives or hurt our small businesses on the street corner. Mr. Speaker, our Republican Conference has rolled out a jobs plan. It's pro-woman and it's pro-man because it does exactly what we need to get our economy back on track. It cuts burdensome regulation; it fixes the Tax Code; it increases American competitiveness, and it maximizes our production of American-made energy. I would like to close by thanking all of my colleagues for this opportunity to speak on the House floor tonight on what it means to be a Republican woman and what it means to be someone who serves here with common sense, business experience, and life experience, who cares about our children and grandchildren in this country. I would like to thank my colleagues as well for organizing this special hour. It has been my honor to serve and to speak and to share this evening with you tonight.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, we talk a lot on the House floor recently about agriculture and about the fact that agriculture needs a haircut and that people are concerned about agriculture getting too many benefits provided by the taxpayers. I would certainly say that in the past, in the most repast, agriculture has been significantly cut, and under this bill here before us today, we also see significant cuts. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona because this amendment is an attack on consumer choice, on the free market access, and on home grown American energy. He's trying to provide technology that would allow consumers to decide if they want to use an ethanol blend. We've seen the reports out there that have indicated that ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline up to 89 cents a gallon, and across this country consumers don't even have the option to purchase that right now if they would like to. I have a plan that would modernize ethanol policy. It would send over a billion dollars to deficit reduction. It would make sure that we have infrastructure in place so that consumers can have relief from these high gas prices. With everything that has been going on in the country today, one of the top two issues that I hear about every day in South Dakota and across this country is high gas prices. If we can reduce those high gas prices for people at home struggling with that today, the best thing we can do is give them a flex pump in their community where they can access that. Right now they have no choice if they want to use an American, domestically grown, renewable energy source which they can use to reduce their dependence on foreign sources of oil. I'm a strong supporter of an all-of-the-above American energy plan, and that's truly what we need. We need to put Americans first. We need to stop relying on the Middle East to fuel our vehicles. We can grow that product right here in our country. We can provide the taxpayers with lower priced gasoline. We can renewably do that over and over and over again and give them that choice and that option. We just need to give them a pump. We need to give them a pump in their community so they have that option, and that's what this country is about is flexibility, by giving those people back home options. That's why I am not a supporter of this amendment. I think that that is certainly a wise place for us to invest in making sure that we rely upon ourselves, that we use our own sources and we provide exactly what the American people need today.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Madam Chairwoman, we have important things to discuss, and it truly does deal with our values. As the previous speaker was talking about his grandchild that was on the House floor previously, I wondered if he had told the grandchild that from the moment they were born they owed $47,000 in Federal debt. That is their responsibility because of the spending that's gone on and because of the fact that when we are going to start with feeding programs and distribute food to other countries, we're going to borrow money from other countries and have our grandchildren and great- grandchildren pay for that so we can do that. So this discussion truly is about values and getting back to our priorities and getting back to what's important in this country, and it's fiscal responsibility. There are tough decisions to make, but we talk about what we need to do. And the fact that we're increasing food and nutrition programs and spending shows that we dedicate ourselves to those values and taking care of our children into the future while remembering that we're not going to saddle them with a debt that they certainly cannot pay. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support and to speak a little bit about the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, the BCAP, which is addressed in this bill as well. I just want to talk about some of the projects that have offered some alternatives in South Dakota. This program, authorized in the 2008 farm bill, is part of our all- of-the-above energy program. BCAP promotes second-generation biofuels refined from renewable biomass and can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. I have been a firm supporter of an all-of-the-above American energy plan, and this can certainly continue to play a role in that. It reduces barriers that farmers face to diversify their farms. BCAP, if funded and used as the program was intended as cellulosic biofuels, can spur economic growth in rural areas such as those in South Dakota.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to empathize and to stand with those in my home State of South Dakota who are experiencing flooding along the Missouri River. Up and down the Missouri River, people continue to hope for the best and to prepare for the worst as floodwaters continue to rise, and are going to rise, to record levels over the coming days and weeks. I was in our State capital of Pierre and in the Fort Pierre area this past weekend with residents helping sandbag with my family and surveying the looming damage. While the forecasts for flooding grow grim, neighbors continue to help neighbors, and an unshakeable sense of community remains strong. I also commend the hard work of the South Dakota National Guard for swiftly responding to the call of those that are in need. Many of those affected have worked tirelessly over the past week on short notice to protect their homes. Even so, thousands could be displaced for months until the water recedes, not knowing if they'll even have a home they can go back to. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that our thoughts and that our prayers would be with all of those who have been affected by these floodings and natural disasters in South Dakota and across our great country.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. 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.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, we have spent the last 3 months debating the need to get spending under control, and it's a good thing. That's why my constituents sent me here, and that's what I plan to continue to do. But we also need to remember that we need to look to get spending under control and help our economy and create jobs. A large part of that is providing certainty for the American people, and like many of my colleagues, I represent the rural parts of America. Many of them are concerned with the uncertainty that removing this program, Essential Air Service, too quickly would bring. Many of the communities in rural America, including those in South Dakota, that rely on this program use it as an economic development tool. They understand that they won't be using EAS forever. But I'm concerned, Madam Chair, that we may not be providing them with the time that they need to plan under this bill. This issue deserves additional consideration. I hope that as we move forward with conference conversations with our Senate colleagues that this is given much more careful consideration, and I look forward to working on it with them.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 177, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I'm concerned about an EPA rule on the National Primary or Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards that would make the standard for the amount of coarse particulate matter in the air more stringent. Last summer, the EPA laid the groundwork to regulate dust at an unprecedented level. We must stop the EPA from any regulation of farm dust. Anyone who has driven a combine through a field or a pickup down a gravel road knows that dust is a part of rural living. Potentially fining farmers and livestock producers who practice good management with new dust regulations would be excessive and extremely detrimental to our Nation's vital agriculture industry. Mr. Chairman, it's hard to think of something more emblematic of Washington's regulatory overreach than the potential punishment of farmers and livestock producers for kicking up a little dust. Expanding the coarse particulate matter standard on dust would be a burdensome regulation for farmers and ranchers. My amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any of the funds made available under this act to modify the standard for coarse particulate matter under the Clean Air Act. There is enough uncertainty in farming in rural America. We do not need to add to that uncertainty with the threat of more strict EPA regulations on farm dust. Farmers are certainly looking for certainty about the future. Burdening them with greater regulations on dust is excessive and unreasonable. For this reason, my amendment is supported by the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, it is all about the jobs, and that's exactly what this Republican majority has been fixated on ever since we've come into control of this House. I will tell you that specifically we recognize that what we need to do to create jobs in this country is provide certainty, tax certainty, and, right here in this resolution, certainty that we are being clear, that we are going to address the regulations that are killing jobs in this country that the Democratic Party has allowed to happen over the last several years. We're going to change that today. I rise in support of this resolution because small business owners in South Dakota and across this country are losing more of their bottom lines to red tape this year and in the past several years than they have in decades. Federal agencies continuously overstep their powers and impose new regulations, which not only raises the cost of doing business but feeds the uncertainty of doing business here in America. Today's economy is uncertain enough. The least we can do for our job creators is to provide them with stability by eliminating unnecessary and costly burdens. The EPA is rife with examples of these burdens. This agency wants to penalize farmers for dust on their operations and what they produce. You can bet any South Dakota farmer tending their livestock, baling hay, or harvesting their crops would agree this is absurd.

Mrs. NOEM. I want to thank you for letting me voice my opinions on these regulations. We will address the problem.

Mrs. NOEM

Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the first time on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to make a case for a very important piece of legislation, namely H.R. 2, the health care repeal bill. Mr. Speaker, there are a multitude of reasons why this law should be repealed, but the most important is because it is a major impediment to job creation for small businesses and job creators in South Dakota and across this country. According to one study, an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important jobs and job-creation measures that we can do this year is to repeal this bill and to replace it with commonsense policies that actually lower costs for families and for small businesses, expand access for affordable care, and protect American jobs. What I heard time and time again on the campaign trail last year from South Dakota's small business owners is that they are simply waiting. They are waiting to hire another worker or to invest in new technology because of the looming threat of this health care law. Whether it's a foundry owner in northeastern South Dakota or a motorcycle parts manufacturer in central South Dakota, the refrain is the same: get the government off our backs, and we'll be the small business job-creation engine that this country so desperately needs right now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to the citizens of this great country on this important issue.