Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him so much for the leadership he has shown on budget matters. Receiving fiscal lectures from this crowd is a little bit like getting investment advice from Bernie Madoff. You know, when George Bush took the Presidency, the debt was $5.6 trillion. And under majorities in the House and Senate, with a Republican President, the debt doubled. Part of the reason is the expiration of pay-as-you-go budgeting principles. Don't take my word for it. The record is clear.

When we adhered, on a bipartisan basis, with the Bush I agreement, the budget '97 agreement, and the Democrat-passed '93 agreement to pay- as-

you-go, we set the path towards surplus. When pay-as-you-go expired, Katy bar the door, and the deficits exploded.

Now, as we get our hands around this fiscal situation, my friend Mr. Ryan is in part right when he says that this is not a full measured response. You know, we have got a long journey. We have got to begin with a solid step. Restoring pay-as-you-go budget principles is that step.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. I would like to thank Chairman Peterson of the Agriculture Committee for his leadership and work to produce legislation that regulates the futures markets and brings transparency to the dark corners of the financial markets. I would also like to thank Chairman Frank of the Financial Services Committee for his leadership and efforts in crafting the greater overall regulatory package.

Madam Chair, the unchecked greed and excesses of Wall Street have brought our economy to its knees, placed hardship on millions of American families and dimmed the prospect of leaving behind a better life for our children. The volatility in the oil prices and the crash of the financial markets were fueled by outrageous short term profits at the expense of our shared long term prosperity. These markets resemble the Wild West, and are void of transparency or effective regulation.

Today, Congress has before it a commonsense reform package that will assure the American people that what happened to create the financial meltdown will not happen again. H.R. 4173 would place limits on speculators, preventing them from dominating the markets, and also bring transparency to the markets. The bill will also give regulators the information they need to properly police the markets and the authority to identify and protect against systemic risk. H.R. 4173 protects the economy from irresponsible too-big-to-fail companies like AIG, by creating a responsible mechanism to dissolve them without putting the American tax payer on the hook. It is essential that consumers, farmers, and businesses have access to a reliable source of credit and financing that does not dry up because Wall Street tries to gamble away our future.

Madam Chair, the landmark Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 puts the interests of consumers, small business and the millions of Americans dependent on their 401Ks for retirement, first. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4173.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to thank the Speaker, Leader Hoyer, and Chairman Rangel for bringing this bill to the floor today.

The purpose of this bill is very straightforward: establish clarity and certainty in the Tax Code for the estate tax while exempting 99.7 percent of the estates in this country from this estate tax altogether.

The estate tax has changed 10 times in the last 11 years. Now, this has been a bonanza for the attorneys, the accountants, the planners, but it has been very unfortunate for the American people trying to make reasonable plans for their estates.

If recent history is bad, the next 2 years become completely absurd when it comes to the estate tax thanks to a law passed by Congress in 2001, estate tax repeal in 2010 replaced with a new capital gains tax that will impact many more farmers. In fact, for the 6,000 estates estimated to benefit from the tax change next year, 71,000 will find themselves with new tax obligations, this capital gains tax. Additionally, come 2011 the repeal goes away. In this Tax Code they repeal the repeal and we're back at a $1 million level for estates, $2 million joint, a 55 percent rate, the very rate it was in 2001.

There's going to be a lot of talk on the other side about how this law should go forward for the benefit of family farms. Let me tell you, the capital gains tax they are proposing for family farms is a catastrophe.

Let's say Grandma buys a farm at $100 an acre. It's now worth $2,000 an acre. She deeds it to you. She passes. You acquire the property. You go to sell the farm. You're going to pay capital gains tax under present law on all appreciated value over the $100-an-acre initial acquisition price. That's because under present law carryover basis is substituted for what we have under the existing framework, statutory basis.

Here's what the Farm Bureau said about carryover basis when it was considered some time ago, in 1979: carryover basis fosters an insidious bias against farmers and ranchers. And that's precisely what they would create.

Look at this. No estates with capital gains tax burden and 71,000 suddenly with capital gains burden under the law if we allow it to go into effect next year.

Another byproduct of this bill is to establish certainty once and for all on what the estate tax level is.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

The 2009 level represents an exclusion from estate tax that is 75 percent higher than last year alone, where it went from $2 million up to $3.5 million. This chart shows who pays the tax and who doesn't under the 2009 law. You may not be able to see this little sliver. It's because it represents .25 of 1 percent. The estate tax goes away for 99.75 percent. That is almost perfection, about as close as this body is ever going to get. That's why we should vote for this bill and move it forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just observe that the Tax Policy Center estimates that 100 farms or small businesses are estimated to be impacted by the estate tax under the 2009 levels across the entire country, and CRS has estimated that one-half of 1 percent of those may be in a position of having to liquidate something.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just observe that the estate tax level last year was $2 million, this year $3.5 million, a 75 percent increase in the exclusion. Now, that is quite an index by anybody's measure.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

The bill on the floor would establish the capital gains exclusion at $7 million for a couple. I don't think we've ignored the small guys one bit with this legislation.

I yield Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would reference the earlier notation in the Farm Bureau that carry-over basis establishing this capital gains exposure falls particularly hard on family farms and ranchers.

With that, I yield my friend and colleague, Shelley Berkley from Las Vegas, 2 minutes.

I yield my friend and Ways and Means colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) 2 minutes.

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend, Mr. Brady. He has been entrusted to manage time on the bill. He's done a great job of it. For many years I've had a running debate with Mr. Hulshof who's no longer with us as he did not run for reelection last year. I think Mr. Brady has more than picked up the banner from Mr. Hulshof, and I commend him for a good discussion.

I do believe that he begins with a curious point. He attacks the Democrats for budget deficits while advocating a bill that would cost twice as much as the bill on the floor. Repeal of the estate tax would lose roughly half a trillion dollars over the next decade. That is well over double the cost of the bill before the House. Another thing about that bill that you did not hear one speck of discussion on from the Republicans in the debate today is this capital gains tax issue. Let me briefly recount it.

Right now, when someone inherits property under an estate, if they go on to sell it, the capital gains is on the value of the asset at the time it was inherited. If we don't act, the law that is on the books brings a different formula--it's called carryover basis. When you inherit property and go to sell it, you pay capital gains on everything over the value of the initial acquisition--the price grandma paid when she got the farm or what have you. The Farm Bureau has called this insidious relative to its impact on farms and small businesses. We make that problem go away, and it needs to go away.

I don't think it's right, responding to another point made by my friend, Mr. Brady, to blame Mr. Clinton for the estate tax. President Bush had 8 years of governing after Mr. Clinton. Six of those years Republicans controlled this Chamber. If they needed to do something, they certainly had time to do it. But what they left us is a mess that now needs to be attended to; because to have the estate tax repealed next year, have a capital gains tax come in instead of the estate tax, a capital gains tax that will hit 71,000 taxpayers. While the 6,000 get relief on the estate tax, 71,000 have new capital gains exposure and then have it all go back to the 2002 levels in the year after that; $1 million, $2 million joint, 55 percent rate. It makes no sense.

The bill on the floor achieves almost unanimous relief from the estate tax while making the rules very clear: 99.25 percent get excluded from the estate tax. Those estates, joint estates, over $7 million would continue to have the exposure--although they would obviously have the wherewithal to apply to that. The rate 45 percent only applies to assets over the $7 million. So in a taxable estate there is zero tax on the first $7 million, 45 percent over that. On average, that means you have got about an 18 percent rate, not nearly half as had been described by the other side.

In closing, I have a quote from a Washington Post editorial talking about this situation in today's paper. It says, ``In one of those fiscal time bombs left from the Bush administration, the estate tax, having gradually dwindled, is set to be eliminated entirely next year-- only to spring back to life, full-force, in 2011. Unless something is done, 2010 will be the year to throw Mama from the train, tax-free. This would be terrible policy, not to mention unkind to Mama.''

So I believe that we need to act. The bill before us is a reasonable resolution of this issue. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order under clause 10 of rule XXI. The motion increases the deficit for purposes of that rule.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

I commence my comments by offering to yield to the gentleman if he would like to discuss the

capital gains tax implications of the motion to recommit.

Reclaiming my time, that wasn't much of an answer, so let me make it a little more clear.

The bill would impose a new capital gains tax obligation. Six thousand people would get estate tax relief if full repeal goes into effect; 71,000 have a new capital gains tax laid upon them because carryover basis is established instead of the step-up basis.

In other words, if you inherit Grandma's farm, if Grandma paid $100 an acre for it and it's now worth $2,000 an acre, and you go to sell it, you have capital gains on all appreciated value over $100. That's not how the law works now. How the law works now, if you have property worth $2,000 an acre, that's your basis. There's no capital gains if you would sell it for $2,000 an acre. The Farm Bureau has said this falls particularly insidiously on farms and small businesses, the very people they claim to be helping.

The motion to recommit, unfortunately, brings what has been a pretty respectable debate into, I think, some of the same overblown rhetoric that has plagued this issue in the past. The estate tax has changed 10 times in 11 years. Now, isn't it time we provide some certainty to the American people, not just more of the uncertainty that they offer?

What's more, it's not just certainty. We make the estate tax go away for 99.75 percent of the people in this country, 99.75 percent. But that's not good enough for them. They'll hold out for that last few tenths of a percent even if it means laying a capital gains tax obligation on 71,000 families to achieve that end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Madam Speaker, on October 13, 2009, due to flight delays, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 772, 773, and 774. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No: 772-- ``yea''; rollcall No: 773--``yea''; and rollcall No. 774--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern with certain provisions of H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009.

While I strongly support the goal of the bill to increase airline safety and improve pilot training, I am concerned about changing current rules to require an airline pilot to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, which necessitates a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. During a hearing in September Tim Brady, dean of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University's College of Aviation, testified that these added requirements could increase the cost of pilot training fivefold from $40,000 to $200,000. I am concerned that these increased costs could encourage pilots to seek less costly training alternatives and potentially be counter to the bills intended goal, of increasing safety.

By dramatically increasing the costs of training we will drive our most qualified potential pilots out of accredited flight schools such as the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota that have produced exceptional pilots for decades. Graduates of these programs receive high quality flight instruction that is much more valuable than a pilot who might just be racking up straight and level flight time that has no increased educational or safety benefits. The focus on total flight hours rather than the quality of those hours will not provide the increased safety and pilot quality that is the goal of this legislation. It could in practice have the opposite effect, by driving students to undertake low value flying at the expense of high quality directed flight training. I believe that as this legislation moves forward some consideration must be given to Collegiate Aviation Programs that have been accredited by the Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI). This will help to increase the focus of these requirements on quality of training rather than quantity of flight hours.

While I will be voting in favor of this legislation in order to move forward the important process of increasing the safety of commercial aviation, I do so with reservations. Before this legislation becomes law I believe that it is vital that the bill be modified to recognize the tremendous benefits that our nation's accredited flight schools provide.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the 20th Air Force as we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the nation's nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force. I have had the privilege of working with the Airmen who maintain this critical piece of our nuclear triad throughout my career in Congress and have seen first hand the commitment and dedication of all of those involved in ensuring that this crucial capability remains ready to respond on a moments notice.

The history of our ICBM force began in 1954 with the establishment of the Western Development Division. The Western Development Division was responsible for the development of the first generation of underground ICBM's, the Titans, and the above-ground Atlas.

This development lead to the initial alert of a nuclear warhead equipped ICBM, an Atlas D, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in October of 1959. Soon after, work began on the Minuteman I missile, a second generation ICBM that would be on alert by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Within three years the Air Force had replaced all of its first generation ICBM's with Minuteman I and a newer more advanced version, the Minuteman II. The Minuteman II would remain in service for the next 30 years.

By the 1970's the Air Force had developed the Minuteman III with the first squadron of Minuteman III missiles at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota reaching operational status by the end of December 1970. With the threat of the Soviet Union developing and deploying an increasing number of multi-warhead ICBM's the Air Force began to develop a third generation ICBM that would become the Peacekeeper. The Peacekeeper would ultimately be deployed in 1987 at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming.

For the past 50 years, the ICBM fleet has provided an important nuclear deterrent, which at its peak included more than 1,200 missiles. Today the Air Force has 450 Minuteman III ICBM's on alert in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska. As the Air Force activates Air Force Global Strike Command, a brand-new command committed solely to the nuclear deterrence mission, the 20th Air Force and the ICBM mission will transfer from Air Force Space Command to Air Force Global Strike Command.

Madam Speaker, the citizens of the United States have been lucky to have the Airmen of the 20th Air Force diligently working to operate and secure this vital component of our nation's security for the past 50 years. These Airmen have maintained a constant state of vigilance 24 hours a day, seven days a week, performing vital operations, maintenance and security missions across the missile fields in areas that to the untrained eye look just like any other place in America. This is a mission that demands a constant level of alert to respond in an instant should it ever become necessary to employ our arsenal. This constant vigilance has served America so well in the past is poised to continue well into the future. I know my fellow Members of the House of Representatives will join me in congratulating the Air Force's 50 years of commitment to the ICBM mission with the highest standards of performance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3663, bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Congressmen Zach Space (D-OH) and Lee Terry (R-NE) which will delay implementation of flawed accreditation requirements imposed on America's pharmacies who offer service to Medicare beneficiaries.

Starting tomorrow pharmacies will be required to meet new accreditation requirements in order to participate in Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) program. This program ensures that seniors covered under Medicare have access to critical medical supplies and Part B medications.

I have heard first hand from pharmacists across my state of North Dakota about the negative impact saddling these new costly and burdensome accreditation requirements will have on seniors' access to supplies and medications that pharmacists provide, especially diabetes testing strips. These local pharmacists have been faced with the tough choice of spending thousands of dollars they do not have to fulfill these accreditation requirements or leave seniors will no affordable access to the critical supplies and medications they need.

Both the House and Senate have included in their health care reform proposals important changes to these flawed regulations that will protect seniors' access to their medications and supplies. However, we have not yet been able to complete consideration of this legislation before the October 1st effective date.

By enacting H.R. 3663, which provides a three month extension of the DMEPOS accreditation requirement date for pharmacies, we will be providing Congress the additional time it needs to reform these important rules. Doing so will enable seniors to continue receiving valuable health care products at community pharmacies without disruption.

H.R. 3663 is important legislation that will protect America's Medicare beneficiaries. Leadership did the right thing bringing this important legislation to the House floor and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3221, important legislation that will provide critical resources for community colleges and expand access to higher education for our nation's students. While I have some remaining concerns with this bill that need to be addressed before enactment, I am voting to move this measure forward in the process because it strengthens our student aid programs while decreasing our federal deficit by $10 billion.

H.R. 3221 provides an historic investment in Pell Grants and ensures that interest rates remain low on need-based federal student

loans. I am a strong supporter of making college more accessible for everyone, and am pleased that the bill invests $90 million in North Dakota for the Pell Grant program. This increased level of funding means that 17,143 student will be eligible for a Pell Grant award in the 2010-2011 academic year, an increase of 37 percent over the 12,467 North Dakota students eligible in the 2007-2008 school year. And by 2019, the number of students receiving Pell Grants will nearly double from 2007-2008 levels to 21,410. Under this legislation, the maximum Pell Grant scholarship will ultimately reach $6,900 by 2019, representing over a 45 percent increase in the maximum Pell Grant Award over the next 10 years from today's maximum Pell Grant level of $4,731. This is good news for students.

However, there are a few issues of remaining concern with H.R. 3221. First, I strongly believe that student loans should be affordable. I have heard concerns from several North Dakota institutions that under the new Direct Perkins loans program, students are required to pay interest accrued on Direct Perkins loans while they are in school. The final proposal of this bill must weigh these concerns with the number of new students who will enter the Perkins loan program as a result of increasing the loan authority of this program.

Second, it is important to ensure that rural and rural-serving community colleges receive their fair share of funding from the new Higher Education Federal Assistance for Community College Modernization and Construction program. Rural and rural-serving colleges face unique challenges in providing critical educational opportunities for our nation's rural students, and should receive an appropriate portion of the funding provided under this program. I also believe that the Veterans Resource Officer Grant program should be modified to better ensure that rural and small schools have access to this program.

Third, as the only state-owned bank in the country, the Bank of North Dakota should continue to be allowed to provide student loans. The Bank of North Dakota currently serves about 75 percent of North Dakota students and has been a wonderful partner for students and their families. The Bank of North Dakota's service should not be disrupted. This is why I led an amendment that was made in order that ensures that non-profit entities like the Bank of North Dakota can continue to provide valuable student borrower services, including delinquency prevention, default aversion, and loan counseling. In addition, I appreciate Chairman Miller's commitment on the floor to work with me in conference to ensure that this important institution will continue to have a role in federal student lending programs.

Having received the Chairman's assurances to work together on these issues in conference, I am going to vote to move this bill forward. I hope by furthering this bill, we can build on its historic investments in the Pell Grant program and strengthen its provisions for North Dakota schools and students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 163, legislation commending Job Corps on their 45th Anniversary and declaring September 23, 2009 as ``National Job Corps Day.''

For 45 years, Job Corps has served our Nation's at-risk youth by providing desperately needed residential, academic and vocational services to help economically disadvantaged students secure a job and build critical life skills. As a co-chair of the Friends of Job Corps Caucus, I proudly support Job Corps and salute this unique program for helping nearly three million youth pursue their dreams of an independent life.

One of our country's most significant challenges is helping America's forgotten youth. Thirty percent of our youth do not graduate from high school and 40 percent of those who do complete high school are unprepared for work or higher education. Taken together, this means that an astounding three out of five American youth leave traditional schools without the skills they need to succeed in work or post- secondary education.

The Job Corps model remains out-of-school youths' best chance for success. For over four decades, Job Corps has been considered the Nation's largest and most successful dropout recovery program. Each year, more than 60,000 youths choose to enroll in Job Corps to receive the support they need. The vast majority of students leave with a GED or high school diploma and over 85 percent of Job Corps graduates obtain jobs, enlist in the military or pursue higher education.

In addition to helping students, Job Corps stimulates the economy through local economic activity. Job Corps funding is immediately invested in local economies across the nation through its 15,000 staff and the money local centers spend regionally on supplies and services. Every dollar invested in Job Corps stimulates $1.91 in local economic activity.

I have seen first-hand the difference the Job Corps program has made in my own district through my work with the Quentin Burdick Job Corps Center in Minot, North Dakota. This center serves approximately 250 students in the region, and has been one of the top performing centers in the country for over five years. I am proud of the work the Burdick Job Corps Center has done in my community, giving disadvantaged youths the skills they need to succeed in today's workforce--at no cost to them or their families.

For all of these reasons, I want to commend Job Corp students and staff on their 45th anniversary, and urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting this important resolution.

I thank my friend, because I wanted to say some words on behalf of Jobs Corps and missed by moments, apparently, the formal opportunity do that. I will add a statement to the Record.

But let me say as co-Chair of the Friends of Job Corps Caucus, I believe so strongly in the promise of Job Corps and admire its 45-year track record in providing at-risk youth the core job skills they need so that they might move forward and make something of their lives.

My statement will include data, including the 60,000 youth every year choosing to enroll in Job Corps, the 85 percent of Job Corps graduates that obtain the high school diploma or GED equivalent, graduate with jobs and job-related skills, pursuing service in the military, other alternatives.

I have seen firsthand in the Quentin Burdick Job Corps Center in Minot, North Dakota, youth that are getting after the business of turning their lives around and the new sense of self-esteem as they acquire skills, skills that will bring them jobs, jobs that will pay living wages so that they might have, for the first time, often, in the life of their family, a shot at breaking the cycle of poverty and leaving a better future for the children and grandchildren to follow.

There is a reason why for 45 years Republicans and Democrats alike have supported Job Corps: It works.

The President has told people contemplating walking away from school, not continuing their education, you are not only quitting on yourself, you are quitting on your country, because we need those skills. Well, for our country, I must say we must not quit on these young people, and that is why I look forward to the next 45 years of Job Corps support.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and his work on this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment.

It will impact entities like the Bank of North Dakota, the only State-owned bank in the country. This bank provides for the students of our State the lending and servicing functions for the Federal student loan program, and it is uniquely positioned in this regard in the country.

It has provided students and families the tools and techniques to deal with their student loan debt. It has worked to maintain low default rates through one-on-one repayment default counseling, on- campus presentations and other outreach efforts.

As a result, we have had very low default rates in North Dakota. I am pleased with the service they have provided to their students.

I am delighted that this amendment, unlike the underlying bill, would allow that to continue. I know the chairman has given his approval to this amendment and urge its adoption.

Madam Chair, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Mr. Miller, the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

Chairman Miller, I rise to discuss an issue that is of critical importance to my district.

We have a unique situation in North Dakota. As you know, the Bank of North Dakota was created by statute in 1919 to meet the needs of North Dakota citizens, and it is the only State-owned bank in the country.

By State statute, the Bank of North Dakota has administered both lending and loan guarantee functions to assist families, schools, and lenders in providing reliable student loans for over 42 years. It is the only bank in the country to perform the guaranteed lending and servicing functions for the Federal student loan program. Mr. Chairman, this important institution has served more than 150,000 borrowers at 20 postsecondary institutions in my State.

The Bank of North Dakota has provided one-to-one counseling and default prevention workshops for schools and lenders, providing techniques to use when counseling borrowers on their student loan debt. The result has been an extremely low default rate under the FFEL loans administered by the Bank of North Dakota.

For all of these reasons, I've been a huge supporter of this Bank of North Dakota student lending program. I commend the work that its 55 State employees have done to make college accessible for North Dakota students. I have received concerns about altering

the Bank of North Dakota's role in student lending programs, and I would like to address that issue.

I yield to the gentleman.

I acknowledge that this legislation ensures a role for private lenders in the servicing of loans. Particularly, I thank the chairman for his inclusion of a provision that ensures nonprofit entities, such as the Bank of North Dakota, will be able to service student loans in their States.

Will you work with me, Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves to conference, to ensure that the Bank of North Dakota can continue to participate in the Federal lending program?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I salute my colleague Mr. Flake for, once again, his vigor in trying to raise questions relative to spending. Certainly, these are public assets we're talking about, and it's a fine thing to have a discussion in the full light of day here in the House of Representatives for each and every line item, including a $500,000 issue that has been raised relative to the Grand Forks airport terminal. I, as a Representative of Grand Forks, am proud to give the details relative to what is an extremely important project for North Dakota.

Airport improvement moneys in North Dakota typically run through the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission. I would submit into the Record a letter from the North Dakota Aeronautics Commission relative to their support of this project as the first priority.

Mr. Flake has raised the question in terms of whether airport improvement money raised is used for terminals. Most of it isn't, some of it is. I have a chart here that shows about 12 percent, nearly 13 percent is used for terminals, and I would wager that nearly every Member of the Chamber has some evidence of airport improvement grant money being used for terminals.

Now, why would it be used for terminals when principally its direction is elsewhere? Because each of us is encountering, in our districts, situations where the terminals, frankly, get beyond repair and must be attended to on a priority basis for the needs of the general public. The conditions of this airport are truly, deeply problematic. They involve issues of safety.

Under the present layout of the airport terminal relative to the tower, a line of sight is actually blocked by virtue of how they're forced to use the terminal. Believe it or not, the Grand Forks International Airport is the 22nd busiest airport in the country. You might think, How can that possibly be? Well, we're proud to host the University of North Dakota pilot training programs under the John Odegard School, one of the truly elite university-based pilot training programs in the country, with enrollment well over 1,000 students. They place a tremendous traffic burden on what would otherwise be a small airport facility.

So safety issues really matter, especially considering the fact that you have got a lot of inexperienced pilots doing their training at this particular facility.

We have issues of public safety. Severe inundation of basement areas resulting in everything from mold to threatened mechanical equipment, sump pumps running around the clock. Again, for a fairly substantial major facility, these are pitiful problems for a facility that desperately need to be addressed.

We have security issues by the TSA screening equipment linked to equipment in this basement area. We have ADA code deficiencies. One might ask, Well, is there a cheaper thing you can do than build a new terminal? A major renovation triggers addressing all of the ADA deficiencies in the building. That involves a massive amount of money.

The Aeronautics Commission, the experts in North Dakota on this, believed it was essential to address in this fashion. Passenger load this year up 11 percent over '08. It is an airport that continues to grow. It is a facility that needs to be done.

So I thank Mr. Flake, my friend, for giving me the chance to explain these aspects of it. I stand here prepared to answer any questions the gentleman may have.

North Dakota Aeronautic

Commission,

Bismarck, ND, Apr. 3, 2009.

Congressman Earl Pomeroy,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Congressman Pomeroy: The North Dakota

Aeronautics Commission has reviewed the 2010 FAA Airports

Improvement Program. In priority order, we ask that

the following airports be given strong consideration of FAA's

Discretionary Grants:

1. Grand Forks International Airport--Construct a two level

air passenger terminal capable of boarding jet and regional

aircraft. The building is designed for energy efficiency,

improved circulation of safety and security screening, and

future expansion if necessary. Total cost in 2010 is

$11,840,632 with FAA share at $9,264,744. The state share is

estimated at $500,000 and local share at $791,499.

2. Devils Lake Regional Airport--Construct Runway 13

extension, improve safety area, relocate perimeter road,

relocate Rwy 31 ILS system, and construct parallel taxiway.

In 2010, the total cost is $6,000,000 with FAA share at

$5,700,000. State and local share is $150,000 each.

3. Minot International Airport--Reconstruct Taxiway C and

purchase Snow Removal Equipment. In 2010, the total cost is

$2,152,631 with FAA share at $2,045,000. The state and local

share is $53,816 each.

4. Wahpeton Harry Stern Airport--Reconstruct Runway 15/33,

taxiways, apron and lighting system including safety area

improvements. In 2010, the total cost is $7,368, 421 with FAA

share is $7,000,000. The state and local share is $184,421

each.

These projects are ready to be constructed with the FAA

2010 allocations. We appreciate your support of FAA funding

for enhancing safety with these proposed improvements at

these North Dakota airports.

Sincerely,

Mark Holzer,

Interim Director.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman has stated his case well, but he's shooting at the wrong target this time. I'm not going to stand here and say every dollar in the appropriations process is perfectly directed. Nothing is perfect. I believe that the steps that we have made-- certainly to address some of the concerns raised by my friend from Arizona--have helped bring transparency to this process where all this business is conducted in the full light of day.

I've got a problem with the appropriation at issue. It's not nearly big enough. We saw $2 million. We have got $500,000 for a project that is going to cost $22 million.

I follow a member of the Republican Party who just said that the Democrats have a credibility problem on budget. I would remind the gentleman that it was indeed under Republican control of this Chamber and the Senate Chamber and the executive branch that pay-as- you-go discipline on budget deficits was ended. Why did they end? Because they had no intention of living within their means. Don't take my word for it. Look at the record.

The national debt tripled. Percentage of the national debt we had to borrow from other countries tripled. I earlier meant national debt doubled. Percentage financed by other countries tripled. That's the record of the minority party. In fact, I believe it's that record that got them from the majority to the minority.

You might think that given the economic crisis that their very fiscal policies brought about, we would have an opportunity today to work together in a bipartisan fashion to put in place this foundation of fiscal stability, pay-as-you-go. It has happened before.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush convened a budget summit, he was so alarmed at budget deficits, Deficits much smaller than what President Obama inherited from his predecessor. They agreed that across the party aisle to install pay-as-you-go.

In 1993, I was a Member of this body when we passed it on a party- line vote. But in 1997, that pay-as-you-go budget discipline was enshrined in a bipartisan budget agreement and continued for another 5 years.

It's time for us to work together. It's time for us to rein in these out-of-control deficits.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the military service of the Lothspeich family of North Dakota. North Dakota has a proud military tradition and has sent many of its sons and daughters into the service of their country. Amongst this proud history and tradition the Lothspeich family is unique. Edward and Rose Lothspeich were the parents of nine boys and one girl. From this family all nine of the Lothspeich brothers have bravely answered the call of a grateful nation when it was sorely needed.

These brave men served across several critical periods in our nation's history. Eugene, Harold and Edward served at the height of World War II. Donald, Gerald, Lyle, Marlin served during the Korean War and the beginning of the Cold War. Franklin and Leon served in Germany during a period in which the Soviet Union was increasing the isolation of East Germany.

Next week as we gather to celebrate the birth of our nation, the City of Park River, North Dakota will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. As a part of that celebration, Park

River will honor those brothers who are still with us, Edward, Lyle, and Marlin, and those who are not Eugene, Harold, Edward, Donald, Gerald, Franklin and Leon.

The United States is what it is today because of the sacrifices of families like the Lothspeich's who gave so selflessly and served so bravely. These brothers helped win World War II and kept watch during the coldest nights of the Cold War.

The sacrifices of the Lothspeich brothers are worthy of our highest respect and I can think of no greater duty of a member of Congress than to honor our nation's heroes. I stand today to honor their service as the city of Park River will next week.