Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of North Dakota for the chance to represent our great state in this great chamber for the past 9 terms.

Words cannot adequately express the feelings of gratitude I have as my time as a member of body draws to a close.

At varying times I've agreed or disagreed with virtually every member--Democratic or Republican--in this House. Steering the course for the United States of America is a very difficult and complex undertaking. As our country moves into its third century in the first decade of the new millennium, it seems like the challenges only get bigger as we go forward.

But I conclude my life here with a strong sense of hope and optimism for the future.

The United States Capitol is the icon of democracy known throughout the world. In this historic place, sometimes in the darkest hour, leaders here assembled have set the course to see us through.

If the American people exhibit the best aspects of their nature-- courage, compassion, strength, resolve, community--the leaders in the chamber will deliver accordingly.

I will always treasure the time I had here. I won some, I lost some, but I tried my best to reflect the concerns of those I represented, as well as the genuine goodness of the folks who call North Dakota home.

North Dakotans have selected a new Congressman, Representative-elect Rick Berg, and I wish him great success in delivering for our state.

In conclusion, there is one group in particular I want to thank--all of those who have served on my staff now at the end or any time during these nine terms. Present and recent staff members include Bob Siggins, Melanie Rhinehart Van Tassel, Stacy Austad, Brenden Timpe, Adam Durand, Dustin Olson, Diane Oakley, Chris Cunningham, Matt Pearce, Hillary Price, David Grant, Annie Finkenbinder, Ross Keys, Joan Carlson, Dianne Mondry, Nick Keaveny, Geoff Greenwood, Bill Heigaard, and Erin Hill.

They are extraordinarily talented and dedicated individuals, reflective of the wonderfully gifted staff members I have been privileged to work with for the 18 years of my service in the House.

Now I look forward to more time with my wife, Mary, and my children, Kathryn and Scott, as this term ends and my membership in this body ceases.

I thank my colleagues for their commitment to work so hard to serve their constituents and our country.

I have been richly blessed to have had the chance to work with you in the people's House--the United States Congress.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4853--Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

I believe it is important that we extend the so-called Bush tax cuts for everyone while our economy is still struggling to recover, and as long as we can pay for it. This bill as presented to the U.S. House does not meet that test. I am especially disappointed in the provision on the estate tax. I cannot in good conscience cast one of my last significant votes in Congress in favor of a bill that would add tens of millions of dollars to the Federal deficit to benefit the wealthiest few families in the country.

The payroll tax holiday provision included in this package is also troublesome since for the first time in 75 years, the sacrosanct, dedicated revenue stream to provide Social Security benefits is diverted for other purposes. While we have fully protected the Social Security Trust Fund in the legislation and there will be no change in how much money is in the Trust Fund, I am concerned that proponents of private accounts will argue to continue this diversion of the payroll tax beyond one year--perhaps even putting the money into private accounts. At a time when we know that the long term solvency of Social Security will need either greater contributions or significant reductions in benefit, providing a payroll tax holiday is clearly a move in the wrong direction.

Madam Chair, for the last five sessions I have worked to try and clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. I felt the right approach was ultimately to take the 2009 levels and make them permanent.

The amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the 2009 levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the Senate compromise.

The rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. The estate tax in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years.

My friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered from his family. He did not say it was at a much higher rate of tax than was ultimately achieved in 2009. In fact, the rate in 2009 means 99.8 percent of the families in this country have no estate tax. Zero. It went gradually lower and lower, and in 2009 hit a lower rate of taxation for estates than was ever the case under Ronald Reagan, was ever the case under George Bush I, was ever the case under George W. Bush.

Now, why would we want to go with 2009 levels as opposed to the Senate deal? It's simply a matter of money: $23 billion over 2. And, quite possibly, the levels in the Senate bill would be the new rate for the estate tax. In that case, we would lose $90 billion over 10.

I have heard on the other side such concern about unpaid-for unemployment benefits. I have not heard one word about unpaid-for estate tax levels. They would add to the national debt $23 billion more than the 2009 levels. They don't pay for a cent of it, and they seem to think that is fine. Do you know who benefits from the Senate tax levels compared to the 2009 levels? 6,600 of the wealthiest families.

Let's go with the 2009 levels. Let's save $23 billion over 2, let's save $90 billion over 10. Let's tackle these deficits, starting with a fair estate tax level.

Madam Speaker, all of us have observed from time to time wounded heroes in uniform and with their loving families being guided through our Capitol by an energetic tour guide. I know we all appreciate the efforts made to reach out to those who are healing from the wounds of war and recognize them with these very trips to our Capitol.

The tour guide responsible for these visits is Albert Casswell and as I've come to know him, I have been deeply impressed by his commitment to those who have served our country.

This fall I asked Mr. Casswell to provide a tour for the family members of Chief Master Sergeant Richard Etchberger during the week Chief Etchberger was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism in service to our country.

During the Vietnam War he acted bravely to save the lives of his fellow airmen resulting in the tragic loss of his own life.

Mr. Casswell was moved as I was moved by meeting this wonderful family and learning the story of Chief Etchberger. He not only provided an exceptional tour for the family, he authored a poem in honor of Chief Etchberger and has inquired as to whether it was appropriate to include in the Congressional Record. I offer the poem of Mr. Casswell in appreciation of all he has done to help our soldiers and for his obvious concern for them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5987) to ensure that seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities who receive Social Security and certain other Federal benefits receive a one-time $250 payment in the event that no cost-of- living adjustment is payable in 2011, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5987, the bill now under consideration.

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

In October, the Social Security Commissioner announced there would be no cost-of-living adjustment--or COLA--for Social Security benefits in 2011. This is the result of economic conditions. It is not due to action or inaction on the part of Congress. Congress enacted legislation in 1975 to provide for an automatic cost-of-living adjustment so seniors would not face year after year of rising prices for daily expenses with no increase in benefits. Unfortunately, due to the formula, next month will mark the first time since 1975 when the automatic COLA will not increase for the second year in a row. Because the recovering economy is slowly turning around, prices tracked by those bureaucrats measuring these items find that it has not reached the peak of inflation in 2008 caused by the spike of energy prices. So it is an anomaly within the formula providing no cost-of-living adjustment.

Any of us visiting with our senior citizens across this great land understand something quite different has occurred within the life of our seniors: they are experiencing higher prices. In fact, this is causing a hardship for so many, given the fact that Social Security benefit levels are really very modest. They are $14,000 for the average retiree. It is $13,000 on average in North Dakota. We estimate that some more than 30 million Americans get most of their income from Social Security, and many millions of Americans get all of their income from Social Security.

So, basically, they have their benefit levels flatlined at a time when they are encountering higher costs, reducing their quality of life experience, and disappointing them greatly about Social Security.

The bill before us would provide 54 million Americans with a $250 payment in lieu of COLA. Now, for those at the very bottom, this means a lot--about a $20 a month cost-of-living adjustment to help them with those higher costs.

I want us to think for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, about this very modest $250 payment, $20 a month, in contrast to some of the relief measures being tossed around as negotiations proceed to conclude this session. We heard about a deal the White House has been discussing with the Senate that would provide, for example, an estate tax provision representing a windfall to the wealthiest few families in this country. At a time when Congress is considering measures that would provide vast amounts of relief to the wealthiest who need it the least, you would think that we might be able to measure support for $250 to seniors living on Social Security checks unable to meet their expenses in light of higher costs but no COLA.

The bill before us should pass under any sense of fairness, particularly at this time of the holidays. The bill is supported by AARP, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Wider Opportunities for Women organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5897, the Seniors Protection Act of 2010.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3789) to limit access to social security account numbers.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced a bill with my friend, the ranking member on the Social Security Subcommittee, Sam Johnson, to protect the accuracy of Social Security records and help shield individuals from identity theft. Our bill prohibited Federal, State, and local governments from employing prisoners in any capacity that would allow inmates access to the full or partial Social Security numbers of other individuals, such as through prison labor contracts. The bipartisan Senate bill before us today does the same thing and also prohibits Federal, State, and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on paper checks, which will also help protect the Social Security program and protect fraud. Both are obvious changes that would protect millions of Americans from identity theft.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, by way of close, let me say that the legislation before us is important and reflects what has been a pattern of bipartisan work between the ranking member and myself as I have chaired the Social Security Subcommittee. I have enjoyed working with Sam Johnson. It is a pretty thrilling thing for a kid from North Dakota to get to work with an American hero, and I have appreciated his conscientious service as ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee.

I also, to colleagues, have deeply appreciated the opportunity to chair the committee. I received a Social Security check in my own life when my dad died as I was a teenager. To have the opportunity to chair the subcommittee, protecting the United States' most important domestic program, Social Security, was a deep honor and a responsibility that I'll always treasure, having had that chance.

I want to thank the staff members who helped throughout, keeping this subcommittee superbly supported with the important policy work before it. Kathryn Olson, Joel Najar, Morna Miller, Jennifer Beeler on the majority. We have certainly appreciated working with Kim Hildreth on the minority. It has been a terrific experience.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 3789, the bill now under consideration.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1494.

Our nation's future rests on the shoulders of our youth, and the exceptional dedication and intelligence displayed by all of the students who took part in the 84th Scripps National Spelling Bee earlier this year gives me great confidence that our future will be a bright one.

As the largest and longest-miming educational promotion in the United States, this year's Scripps National Spelling Bee brought together 273 spellers from all over the United States and across the world. The rigorous preparation and diligence required by these students to compete at this international level is truly incredible.

I would specifically like to recognize Shantanu Srivatsa, a student at Cheney Middle School in West Fargo, North Dakota, for tying for second place in this competition. This was Shantanu's third consecutive appearance at the Spelling Bee, and I was impressed to learn that his favorite subject in school is in fact mathematics, and that in addition to his participation in the spelling bee, he also represents his school at regional and state mathematics competitions.

When reviewing the words Shantanu correctly spelled to make it to the highest levels of the competition, I am astounded by his command of the English language. Though I represent a state with a large sugar beet industry, I must admit that I did not know that a cossette was part of the sugar refining process--and I certainly did not know how to spell it. Thanks to Shantanu, I now know that it is cossette, C-O-S-S-E-T-T-

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5297--Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, a bill that brings billions of dollars of tax relief and access to capital to small businesses.

Helping North Dakota businesses create jobs is one of my top priorities. In North Dakota, small business is business. Nearly 80 percent of North Dakotans work for companies with less than 500 employees and 60 percent work for companies with less than 100 employees. Small businesses are a proven engine of job creation. During the last economic expansion, companies with less than 20 employees accounted for 40 percent of the job growth while accounting for only 25 percent of all jobs.

Today, we give this engine of job creation the fuel it needs to charge forward.

Surveys of National Federation of Independent Business members identified the number one economic concern facing small businesses as poor sales stemming from a lack of demand from consumers. This has been their top concern since the recession and most recently 31 percent of respondents reported poor sales as their most important problem. Beneath this response is the fact that many small businesses want to borrow but cannot. So, they need help with capital too.

To help small business, I introduced bipartisan legislation, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, which would generate demand for products and services while putting more capital into the hands of small businesses.

One of the lingering difficulties is that many small businesses have limited access to the capital they need to operate, grow, and create new jobs. By providing small business tax relief, Congress can free up money, which will help small businesses feel that they can hire new employees and make investments in new equipment that will build demand for goods and services. I am pleased that tax cuts from the bill I authored are in key components in this bill before the House today.

One of the several good measures in H.R. 5297 that will generate the demand that our small business need to grow is bonus depreciation. It is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Bonus depreciation accelerates the rate at which businesses can deduct the cost of capital expenditures so it encourages companies to spend while it boosts company cash flows.

Economists rate bonus depreciation as one of the most economically productive tax initiatives. In a 2001 analysis, the Institute for Policy Innovation estimated that every $1 of tax cuts devoted to accelerated depreciation generates about $9 new growth in the economy. Looking back at times when bonus depreciation was used to encourage capital investment, economists determined that it was responsible for creating several hundred thousand jobs.

Out in our small towns, many Americans are creating job opportunities for themselves and for others by starting new small business. We need to encourage this spirit of free enterprise. The Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010 will help new start-up businesses in two ways that I heard from North Dakotans would be helpful and included in my bill:

1. The bill would double the current amount a start-up business can deduct, so that a new business owner could deduct $10,000 of expenses he or she might have incurred to set up shop. Without the bill before us today, that deduction for start up costs would be limited to only $5,000; and

2. The 100 percent exclusion from tax of gains on small business stock in H.R. 5297 would expand the access to capital for small business across the county.

This bill also reduces the regulatory burden on small business by modernizing the tax accounting required for business provided cell

phones and eliminating outlandish penalties for abusive tax shelters.

Small businesses are most likely to conduct business while they are away from their offices. Nine out of ten small businesses indicate they use mobile phones for their business and one in seven feel that their businesses could not survive without mobile devices. The Internal Revenue Code still contains paperwork requirements for wireless phones from the 1970s. Rather than spending money on accountants and the costs associated with an IRS audit, H.R. 5297 allows small businesses to spend it instead on creating jobs.

While the Internal Revenue Service must stop abusive tax shelters, today will vote to eliminate a disproportionate effect that some tax penalties have on small businesses. No longer will small businesses face outlandish penalties for failing to disclose on their taxes reportable transactions. The bill brings such penalties into proportion with the underlying tax savings and does not put business owners out of business.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Chairman Levin for including small business tax incentives, especially bonus depreciation, and relief from excessive regulations that I authored in the bipartisan Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act in the final bill that we vote on today.

The Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010 is good for North Dakota small businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 5297.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Motion to Recommit H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

I believe that our current medical malpractice system is in need of reform. Rising medical liability premiums are threatening trauma centers, emergency rooms and obstetrician-gynecological practices and the patients they serve, causing some to shut their doors because they cannot afford the cost or risk of treating patients. To help address this issue, I have repeatedly voted for legislation that would reform our medical malpractice system by, among other things, placing a cap of $250,000 on noneconomic and punitive damages as well as limiting lawyers' contingent fees.

While the flawed Motion to Recommit H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act includes important provisions to help avoid frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, it would also eliminate important delivery system reforms recently enacted in the health care reform law. This includes eliminating the Independent Payment Advisory Board which is charged with developing recommendations about innovative ways to better control costs both in public and private health programs while also ensuring that care is improved. In addition, I believe that comparative effectiveness research holds the potential to improve quality by helping doctors and patients determine the most effective treatment approaches. Repealing this important program would be an unacceptable step backwards. Furthermore, I have deep concerns with reducing funding aimed at improving public health.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the flawed Motion to Recommit H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Madam Speaker, today I join with my colleagues, Sam Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and Jim McDermott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program (WIPA) and the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) program. This bill will ensure that two programs which provide critical assistance for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability beneficiaries who are seeking to return to work continue for another year.

WIPA and PABSS were both originally established in the bipartisan Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. WIPA provides $23 million for community-based organizations to provide personalized assistance to help SSI and Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) recipients understand Social Security's complex work incentive policies and the effect that working will have on their benefits. In 2009, WIPA assisted over 37,000 SSI and DI beneficiaries who wanted to return to work. The PABSS program provides $7 million in grants to designated Protection and Advocacy Systems to provide legal advocacy services that beneficiaries need to secure, maintain, or regain employment. In 2009, PABSS served nearly 9,000 beneficiaries.

This bill will extend the WIPA and PABSS programs for one year. It also includes two commonsense technical changes to conform the treatment of WIPA and PABSS grantees. The bill would require WIPA grantees to report annually on their services to the Commissioner of Social Security, as PABSS grantees do. Although there have been problems in the past with maintaining an electronic reporting system for this data, we believe those problems are resolved and expect the Social Security Administration to maintain its commitment to an effective system during this extension. The bill would also allow WIPA grantees, like PABSS grantees, to carry over some unspent funding for one year, which will allow for smoother and faster staffing transitions.

This bill does not increase government spending, since the funds will continue to come out of the Social Security Administration's existing administrative budget.

By extending WIPA and PABSS for a year, we reaffirm our commitment to these important work support programs, while also acknowledging the need to consider policy and funding changes in the near future. For example, in 2008, the Social Security Administration made important regulatory changes to address the disappointingly low participation in the early years of the Ticket program. If those changes are successful, they will increase the number of people who are able to transition to work, but they may also increase the number of people who need help from WIPA and PABSS or change the kind of help they need. Funding for WIPA and PABSS has not grown since they were created in 1999.

I urge your support for extending these important programs.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, normally I don't come to the floor to add to a building naming that's flying through, but I want to put into the Record my thoughts about Bob Ball, one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. And there is no one I have met whose public sector contribution I admire more. Naming this building on the campus of Social Security, a building that has so much of the daily delivery of the Social Security benefit to the American people, having this building carry his name is just so utterly appropriate.

Bob Ball, through his entire service, had a clear vision of Social Security. It comes down to simply this: If all of us protected each of us, the lives of tens of millions would be improved and our country would be stronger as a result.

He was the most influential proponent of social insurance our country has ever had. He was a leading thinker, a gifted administrator, a skilled political operative, an irresistible advocate, an exceptional teacher, and I can tell you personally he was a very wise mentor.

Of all of his remarkable abilities and traits, perhaps the one we will remember most was his dogged persistence. He stayed on task and made valuable contributions to Social Security through six decades of service. Bob knew what his mission was and he never wavered in pursuit of it. By the time he resigned as Administrator of Social Security, he had literally worked at the agency for 37 years. He was the longest tenured administrator serving under three different Presidents of two political parties.

Now, when he retired after 37 years, you might think, well, there he goes riding off into the sunset, job well done. Well, Bob indicated another inclination. In fact, he wrote in his letter of resignation to President Nixon, ``I will continue to be available for whatever help I can give promoting the sound development and sound administration of this important program.''

As the preceding speaker said already, he served on the committee that ultimately worked the long-term solvency package for Social Security out in 1983, and he continued to work right until his final days--at the ripe age of 93--on advancing this notion of Social Security for the American people.

There is nobody I can think of more deserving of the perpetuating honor memorializing his life and his work than Bob Ball, and I am just delighted with this resolution and urge Members' support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns with certain provisions of H.R. 5900, the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act.

While I strongly support the goals of the airline safety portions of the bill, I continue to have concerns regarding the practical effect of the provision requiring a minimum of 1,500 hours of training for an airline transport pilot certificate. As we work to improve the safety

of airline service it is important that new training requirements have their desired effect of improving safety while avoiding any unintended consequences that may decrease the number of skilled pilots.

Specifically it is my concern that students looking to get their pilots license could be forced by financial considerations to attend pilot training programs with an emphasis of meeting the flight hour requirements inexpensively by flying straight and level courses without mastering important safety skills.

I support provisions that specify that certain academic training courses can be credited towards the total number of flight hours required by this Act. I believe that this language should be further improved through the normal legislative process to ensure that high- quality outcome orientated training programs are given more credit towards this requirement than other programs.

While I will be voting in favor of this legislation in order to ensure that funding for Federal Aviation Administration, FAA programs that support aviation operations in North Dakota do not lapse, I believe it is important that new safety requirements are appropriately constructed to recognize the tremendous benefits that our nation's accredited flight schools provide.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Seniors Protection Act of 2010, H.R.5987. I am honored to be joined by many of my colleagues who have heard from senior citizens back home about the pressing need for Congress to provide this relief in light of the widely held expectation that there will be no increase in Social Security benefits for a second year in a row. The legislation would ensure that seniors, veterans and people with disabilities who receive Social Security and similar federal benefits receive a one-time $250 payment in the event that no cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) is announced this fall.

Seniors did not cause the near meltdown of the economy that occurred in the last days of the prior Administration, yet too many are still feeling the brunt of its fallout. This bill would help seniors across the country who face the likely possibility that on October 15th, the Social Security Administration will announce for the first time ever-- as a result of a long-standing statutory formula--that there will not be a COLA in Social Security benefits in back-to-back years.

The failed economic policies of the prior Administration left the nation in such a deep recession that, for the first time since automatic COLAs began in 1975, recipients of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Veterans Administration Pension and Disability Compensation, and Railroad Retirement benefits did not receive a COLA in January of this year.

Social Security benefit levels are quite modest--only $14,000 a year for the average retiree. Yet, the median income for senior households is a mere $24,000, reflecting just how much Social Security means to most elderly Americans. Six in ten seniors rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. About a third of retirees have little other than Social Security to live on.

Although economy-wide measures of inflation have shown no net increase since the last COLA, which reflected price levels in the third quarter of 2008, Medicare premiums and health care costs have continued to rise. Moreover, seniors' other sources of income have weakened as a result of the economic downturn: the financial collapse reduced the value of their IRAs; interest rates are low, reducing income from seniors' savings; and the housing crash reduced seniors' home equity. The one-time $250 payment for retirees and other beneficiaries would represent less than two percent of the average annual Social Security benefit.

Seniors who depend on their very modest Social Security benefits worry about meeting their basic day-to-day expenses. I have heard these concerns from seniors in my district and from Members of Congress who are hearing these same worries from their seniors. I am pleased those Members are joining me in introducing the Seniors Protection Act of 2010. Democrats are honoring America's commitment to protect the purchasing power of seniors' Social Security benefits.

For 75 years, and through 13 recessions, Social Security has been a steady and reliable source of income--never a day late nor a dollar short. And since 1975, when Congress implemented automatic COLAs, recipients of Social Security have been able to maintain purchasing power over time. Social Security is often the only source of retirement income that is fully protected against the corrosive effects of inflation.

This bill is responsive to seniors and responsible to taxpayers. My colleagues and I are committed to fiscal responsibility and will ensure that the Seniors Protection Act of 2010 shall not cause an increase in the federal deficit. When the bill comes to the House floor it will include the necessary offsets to comply with the PAYGO law.

The legislation is supported by seniors. With regard to this legislation, our former colleague Barbara Kennelly, President of the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare said:

For the millions of seniors who rely upon Social Security

as their only source of income, and millions more who rely

upon it for at least half of their income, a one-time payment

to make up for the lack of a COLA is not a luxury, it's a

necessity. I applaud the Members of the Congress who

understand that helping seniors maintain their purchasing

power for necessities like health care, fuel and food, not

only improves their quality of life but also helps the local

economy.

AARP Senior Vice President Drew Nannis offered the following statement:

For over three decades, millions of Americans have counted

on annual increases in their Social Security checks to help

make ends meet. This year, 41 million older Americans did not

receive a Social Security COLA, the first time since

automatic Social Security adjustments went into effect in

1975.

This relief will put money in the pockets of millions of

older Americans struggling to make ends meet--money likely to

be injected directly into our fragile economy.

Edward F. Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans said:

Seniors are struggling to get by. $250 may not seem like

much on Wall Street, but to retirees on Main Street it could

be what allows them to pay their electric bill or buy

groceries. We must make sure Social Security meets today's

basic needs.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for seniors and support the Senior Protection Act of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule allowing for consideration of H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010.

Congress has a responsibility to take action to respond to the terrible tragedy in the Gulf region and work to ensure that such an event never happens again. However, in doing so, we must also be careful to only advance legislation that is narrowly focused on responding to the root causes of the Gulf Oil Spill. Unfortunately, that is not the case with H.R. 3534, which I believe is overreaching and will have negative effects on domestic onshore production and on independent oil producers' ability to continue operating offshore. Among my concerns is subjecting oil and gas wells to new and unnecessary Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, storm water discharge permitting requirements. A report from the Department of Energy has shown that should the storm water provisions pass, it could result in the loss of up to 10 percent of domestic oil and gas production.

My colleagues, Congressman Harry Teague and Congressman Jason Altmire, offered amendment to this legislation in the Rules Committee to remove these problematic provisions. However, it was not made in order. I believe that the inclusion of this amendment would have improved this bill by helping to more limit its scope towards responding to the oil spill and not place new unnecessary burdens on onshore development. Without this amendment, and because of my concerns about the impact these provisions will have on North Dakota's growing energy sector, I am voting against this rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``No Prisoner Access to Social Security Numbers Act of 2010.'' I am honored to be joined by the Ranking Member and other members of the Committee on Ways and Means as cosponsors of this needed legislation.

The bill would protect the accuracy of Social Security records and help shield individuals from identity theft by prohibiting federal, state, and local governments from employing prisoners in any capacity that would allow inmates access to full or partial Social Security numbers (SSNs) of other individuals.

Some prisons allow inmates to work while incarcerated, generally for the government or government contractors. In the course of their duties for these prison industries, some inmates perform duties such as data entry and digital scanning of documents, which allow them to view SSNs on student transcripts and employee wage statements for Federal, State or local governments. Such access raises the potential for crimes such as harassment or stalking, and SSN-related identity theft, which damages the integrity of Social Security records and puts individuals and businesses at risk for fraud.

Identity theft remains the fastest growing type of fraud in the United States. In 2009 over 11 million Americans were reportedly victims of identity theft, an increase of about 12 percent from the number of cases in 2008. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission estimates that it costs consumers about $50 billion annually. Access to Social Security numbers provides criminals with a key that unlocks many other sources of private personal information that can be used to perpetrate identity theft. The Social Security system relies on accurate earnings records associated with an individual's SSN. When an SSN is used by more than one person, it affects the accuracy and integrity of the Social Security system.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Social Security Administration (SSA) has investigated the use of prison inmates to process SSN information in several reports. In a 2006 report, the OIG found 13 states had allowed prison inmates to perform work that allowed them access to personally identifiable information, including SSNs. SSA responded by contacting the state governments and advising them of the dangers of this practice. In response, five states stopped this work. However, a more recent audit found that several states continue to allow prisoner access to SSN information. The states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Some of these states have adopted limited safeguards to keep prisoners from stealing the information, but the OIG's audit found these protections generally insufficient. SSA and the OIG agreed that legislation to ban on this practice altogether was warranted.

The Committee's comprehensive SSN privacy bill (H.R. 3306) included a prohibition on prisoner access. That bill was reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means unanimously in the 110th Congress but has not advanced. Based on the findings in the Inspector General's report, however, Ranking Member Johnson and I agreed that the prohibition on prisoner access was needed immediately and therefore we have introduced it in its own bill, so that we may move to enact it as quickly as possible.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will help shut down a dangerous and unnecessary threat to the privacy of Social Security numbers.