Floor Statements

I thank my friend, Mr. Neal, for yielding.

I think all of us here today--certainly in this game of inside baseball--understand that we have to raise the debt limit. We don't have a choice to let our Nation go into default on its bonds.

But I do come today to ask you to support it. I come reluctantly. And I am glad to hear that my friends on both sides of the aisle now are for fiscal responsibility.

I think many of us over here have been saying for years--particularly for the last 8, 9 years--that policies that we were pursuing starting in 2001 of spending more than we were taking in on an annual basis had to stop. We found ourselves in pretty good shape in 2001, and then we changed the policies, and you know the rest of the story, the history of that.

Many of us have been working all during that 8-year period to try to reinstall the tools that we could use to return fiscal discipline to our government: the tools such as pay-as-you-go rules, something that we had in place in the 1990s that was allowed to expire by the Congress and the administration in 2002; discretionary spending limit.

There are lots of tools that can be used, but in the last 9 years, this Congress and the administrations have rejected those tools, and it's time for us to put those back into place.

We don't have the will here at the United States Congress to discipline ourselves. I think both parties have proven that over the years. So we have to come back with those tools such as pay-as-you-go, discretionary spending caps, sequestration, whatever it takes. There's a good idea floating around on both sides of the Capitol here. It's called the SAFE Commission.

So what we're trying to do here is hit the pause button for less than 60 days, and we will move forward, break for the Christmas holiday, and then come back, and we have to focus on this issue of fiscal responsibility.

I have said to my party leaders, as I have said to the other party leaders over the last 8 years, we have to look beyond the ends of our nose and we have to focus on fiscal responsibility. And the first step we have to do is keep our country from going into default on its bonds. And then we have to move forward to reinstall such tools as PAYGO, commissions, whatever it takes to get us focused on getting our government back to the point of acting in a responsible way for fiscal matters.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 70th wedding anniversary of two American patriots residing in my District. Their deep dedication to this country founded in the commitment to each other is a testament to the strong values that have made this country and its people the model for the world to emulate.

James Henry Shaw married Elizabeth Garbutt on December 14, 1939 in Valdosta, GA. James is a former U.S. Marine who stormed the beaches of Yellow Beach with the First Marine Division on April 1, 1945 and fought long and hard in the entire 82-day campaign that saw over 50,000 American casualties including over 12,000 dead or missing. James was one of those casualties sustaining shrapnel wounds in his side earning him the Purple Heart. Once the island was secure, James and his fellow Marines began training exercises preparing to invade the main Islands of Japan on their push to Tokyo until the Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945. He was then part of the occupying U.S. forces in China before returning home in 1946. Elizabeth remained back on the home front contributing to the vital efforts supporting our troops abroad. She raised two children and is now the proud matriarch of a family that has grown into 6 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren. Her son was a career Air Force enlisted man with his children all serving proudly in the officer and enlisted ranks of the United States Air Force. Her daughter had two sons that attended the United States Naval Academy and are currently active duty officers in the United States Navy. Besides being a father and grandfather, James has been a career railroad freight man moving to trucking freight later in his life and retiring. James and Elizabeth are now in their 9th decade, still living unassisted, and until recently, served tirelessly and unselfishly as volunteers at their local polling precinct assisting others to vote.

This achievement allows for reflection on what it means to remain in a committed and loving relationship dedicated to the values and ideals that help shape and foster the citizens of this great country. On behalf of my colleagues, and myself, I extend to James and Elizabeth Shaw my gratitude, deep appreciation, and continued health for many more years to come. Thank you both for your service and commitment to our country.

I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for yielding. I also thank Chairman Rangel for his work and also particularly the gentleman from North Dakota for his longtime dedication to resolving this issue and making it fair and permanent for families who are trying to plan estates.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the motion to recommit and in favor of H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009. The bill before us creates permanent financial guidelines for the future of families, farmers, and small businesses across this country.

Due to the policy enacted in 2001 under the Republican leadership, financial planning for estates since then has been at best unpredictable, a crapshoot for now a decade. The leadership at that time had a chance to fix this problem because we had surpluses as far as the eye could see. But they failed to act, and by doing so, they failed hundreds or thousands of families in this country, despite, as I said earlier, a picture of record surpluses as far as the eye could see. Instead, a policy was created that set an unsustainable rate for political gain.

Congress can do better. We can provide some permanency. The leadership of this body, my Democratic colleagues and I, have chosen to solidify the future of American families by making these 2009 levels permanent.

Let's be clear. The motion to recommit provides the same sort of uncertainty for folks who are planning for their estates as was done in 2001. What the motion to recommit does is extend the zero tax rate for 1 year to the end of 2011, and then in 2012 it comes back just like it was in 2001. How in the world are families supposed to plan when they're sitting down with their lawyers and their accountants near the end of life, how in the world are they supposed to plan with those kinds of laws in place? It is heartily irresponsible.

So I would plead with you to defeat this motion, pass H.R. 4154. Let's send it to the Senate hooked with PAYGO and see if we can't get this country back on track economically and provide some certainty and permanency for the folks as they plan for their estates.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding.

As we have seen so many times in the past, ladies and gentlemen, the minority party has again offered a very insincere proposal that does not fix the issue at hand. This proposal is a gimmick that would eventually lead to deep cuts in Medicare.

In contrast, this underlying bill recognizes that the current baseline of physician spending is no longer useful in projecting obligations for providing physician services to Medicare beneficiaries.

The underlying bill fundamentally addresses this issue that Congress has acted on six times in the last 6 years for a temporary patch that has only made the problem worse. That is what they want to do again.

As my colleague, Ranking Member Paul Ryan, mentioned earlier, this issue should be resolved in a bipartisan way, but that is not forthcoming here today. In the meantime, we must ensure that our seniors have access to their doctors.

In addition, this bill also addresses the pay-as-you-go rule. Under Republican rules, record surpluses were turned into record deficits as the pay-as-you-go rules expired. We cannot police ourselves with regard to fiscal discipline. That is why we have to have these rules in place. My Blue Dog colleagues and I have urged implementation of this policy for years.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the MTR and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend to votes this week. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows: ``Yea'' on H. Res. 800; ``yea'' on H.R. 2892; ``yea'' on H.R. 2423; and ``yea'' on H.R. 2442.

Madam Chair, I rise to express my concern with H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. This legislation was crafted in the Committee on Education and Labor after President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget proposed reforming the federal student loan system. Although I support the President's goal of ensuring our affordable and accessible educational opportunities for our nation's children, I have some serious reservations with this bill.

H.R. 3221 calls for the transition of all federal student lending to the Direct Loan Program by July 1st 2010. Not only will this move end the reliable administration and servicing of student loans at more than 4,000 schools across the country, this transition will risk job losses at a time when unemployment is threatening to hit 10 percent nationwide. This industry represents over 30,000 jobs throughout our country, and 700 Sallie Mae employees in my district alone.

These employees have a history with the program, the college administrators and the students that they serve, given the over 40 years of the program's existence. During that time the private industry has continued to evolve to better help students with their financial responsibilities through quality customer service and product innovation. It is evident that as the Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) programs have competed over the years the quality of the student experience has been changed for the better. I am not comfortable taking this dynamic out of the equation via the provisions in H.R. 3221. Furthermore, I am concerned that the quick transition required by this bill could prove burdensome to many of the schools that are currently using the FFEL program despite the efforts of the Department of Education to prepare for it.

I believe that the country and students would be better served if the private industry framework of the current system was enhanced instead of proceeding with H.R. 3221 as written and I would therefore urge my colleagues to vote no.

Madam Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend to votes this week. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows:

``Yea'' on H.R. 3123;

``Yea'' on H.R. 310;

``Yea'' on H.R. 324;

``Yea'' on H. Res. 447;

``Yea'' on H. Res. 722;

``Yea'' on H.R. 2498;

``Yea'' on H.R. 2097, and

``Yea'' on H.R. 965.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication to the youth of our Nation and whose contributions as a highly successful high school football coach in Florida meant so much to generations of young men. He prepared hundreds of young men to face the world and taught them discipline, excellence, and the desire to strive to be the best they could be in life. We have been very fortunate to have Gene Cox as a strong, dedicated, persevering, and committed leader.

Coach Cox passed away on Monday, March 30, 2009, in Tallahassee, and he is being honored by the establishment of the Gene Cox Memorial Football Scholarship at Leon High School, which will provide continued support of deserving youth.

Gene Cox grew up in Lake City, Florida, moved to Leon County in 1963, and became one of the nation's most successful football coaches. He even served as my football coach briefly in my younger days. Not only was he a great coach, he was a veteran of the Army National Guard and an active member of East Hill Baptist Church. His long term leadership in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes showed many the true foundations of living and serving. He was also the loving husband to Patsy, father to three sons and a daughter, and grandfather to five.

Gene Cox had a tireless passion and intensity to his role as coach and mentor to our youth. I am proud to commend this man who meant so much to north Florida and to the many young men throughout this country who he coached and led.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a long-time employee, a trusted advisor, and a good friend of mine, Mr. Harold Mikell. Over the course of his career, which has spanned six decades, Harold has tirelessly worked for the people of Florida--both at the Florida Division of Forestry and as my Agriculture and Natural Resource liaison in North Florida.

Following his service in the United States Navy during World War II, Harold joined the Florida Division of Forestry as an Apprentice Forester. Over his 41 years with the Division, Harold rose through the ranks and distinguished himself as an expert in Fire Control.

Harold retired as Director of the Division in 1991, but his retirement proved to be short lived. In 1993, Harold accepted a position with my predecessor, Congressman Pete Peterson, to serve as his Agriculture liaison in the North Florida community, a role that Harold continued when I was elected to Congress in 1996.

The people of Florida truly owe Harold Mikell a debt of gratitude for his tireless commitment to our great state, and I look forward to his continued friendship, expertise, and counsel.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I rise today in favor of the legislation before the House. This PAYGO bill is a piece of legislation of which I've been an advocate for years. It brings me great satisfaction to see this bill with such broad support here in the House of Representatives.

I'm always intrigued, Mr. Speaker, by the language used here and the words and the rhetoric. And I heard the

word used earlier by the gentlelady from Wyoming that some were disingenuous.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that my friend, Mr. Ryan, is disingenuous. I think he's a great American, and I think that he opposes this legislation because he believes it would create an automatic pay-for for tax cuts, and he just thinks that is wrong. I don't understand how we can consider paying for the great military we have, the Medicare programs, all of the issues that made this country a great place. I assume that they believe that we can go overseas and borrow that money from the Chinese, like we have for the last 6 or 8 years.

But, Mr. Speaker, sooner or later we will be buried under that mountain of debt. And when our creditors figure out that we can't pay it back, the house of cards will crumble.

My Blue Dog colleagues and I have, for years, introduced pay-as-you- go legislation that requires the government to pay for new programs that it creates. Throughout the Bush administration, however, it was difficult to get an audience. Thankfully, the very first bill that the Obama administration sent to this Congress was the PAYGO bill.

Furthermore, the leadership of this House, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, have taken up this cause wholeheartedly. I also want to thank my chairman, the Budget Chairman, John Spratt, for his leadership, who worked with me during the creation of the fiscal 2010 budget that conditioned the enactment of some major policies this year on action of PAYGO in the House.

These leaders are responding to the deficit situation that we find ourselves in after years of reckless spending policies after the original bipartisan PAYGO was allowed to expire in 2002.

As you may have heard today, PAYGO was a tool used in the 1990s to help bring this country to record surpluses, Mr. Speaker. Given our current budgetary outlook, with the debt growing faster than our economy, we know we must act.

The President and our Democratic colleagues understand that we cannot continue business as usual the last 8 years in Washington on a number of levels, including our budget.

The enactment of this legislation is necessary to ensure our national security, our quality of life, and slow the drain on our economy. The world is watching to see if we are serious about turning this country's fiscal sinking ship around.

We did it in the 1990s, and we can do it again with this tool. The enactment of PAYGO, Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s was a bipartisan act. PAYGO should not be a partisan issue. Fiscal responsibility should not be a partisan issue. We all have a vested interest in making sure that our fiscal policies are sound.

We know all too well that we cannot live on credit forever. This bill is the first step we need to take to ensure to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.

I believe that everyone here, Mr. Speaker, wants to leave a more prosperous country with a better standard of living for our children and grandchildren.

I urge my Republican colleagues, many of whom have stood up and supported the PAYGO concept in the past, to support this responsible legislation today. I, furthermore, challenge the Senate to share equally in our goal to balance our budget and ensure that new programs are paid for.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the pay-as-you-go legislation that the House will be considering later this week. This is a bill that the Blue Dogs and I have endorsed for the last several Congresses. It is a priority of this President and of the House leadership and of more than 165 cosponsors of this legislation. I'm always intrigued by those who would oppose PAYGO, like my friend, Mr. Pence from Indiana, who spoke earlier that basically criticized the deficit spending that has occurred, I assume that he would be critical of that in the last previous administration and this administration, but yet he seems to oppose the one tool that we have that has proven to control deficit spending.

The principle is simple, Mr. Speaker. If you have new spending programs, then you have to pay for them. It is very simple. PAYGO was one of the tools that led this country in the 1990s to record surpluses. However, that tool, PAYGO, and others that were in place, were allowed to expire under President Bush and the Republican leadership of this body in 2002.

Those who claim that PAYGO didn't work need simply to look at the numbers. When it was on the books, we had balanced budgets and even record surpluses. But after it was allowed to expire, we saw the explosion of new spending programs and spiraling deficits to go along with it. By putting PAYGO back into law, we will get back on the path toward fiscal responsibility and long-term sustainability.

It is no secret by anybody that works in this place and now even out in the country, that we have an unsustainable budget picture looking forward. When you have a budget hole, Mr. Speaker, the first rule of thumb, the first rule you need to follow is stop digging. PAYGO does that by ensuring that new programs that are enacted must be paid for. We owe it to our children and to their children to stop digging this hole deeper.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this PAYGO legislation in order to return to fiscal discipline.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend to a vote on May 20, 2009. Had I been present, my vote would have been ``yea'' on H.R. 2352, Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act.

Madam Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend a vote. Had I been present, my vote would have been ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

Mr. Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend to a vote. Had I been present, my vote would have been ``aye'' on H.R. 915, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend a vote. Had I been present, my vote would have been ``yea'' on rollcall 242 for final passage of H.R. 1728, Mortgage Reform and Anti- Predatory Lending Act.