Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, when I was elected to Congress 28 years ago, it was the fulfillment of a life-long ambition. But I had never served in elective office before, and frankly, I wondered how well it would wear--all the back-slapping and glad-handing and garrulous talk.

My first revelation was to find that this House is not made up of back-slappers and glad-handlers. It is made up of members who work hard to get here, many out of patriotic purpose, hoping that they in their time can contribute something worthy of this great country. Most of the members are extroverted and energetic, and have to be, to get elected every two years.

At Davidson College, my alma mater; at Oxford on scholarship; at Yale Law; in the Pentagon as a young analyst, and as a practicing lawyer, I made many good friends, but few as good as the friends I have made here. Of all the things I will miss, I will miss most the fellowship and camaraderie.

I first experienced Congress as a young Army officer in the Pentagon, working for the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) on defense contractors in financial distress, mainly Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. As staff at the Department of Defense, we did a lot of work that I thought staff at Congress should be doing, particularly if Congress hoped to be a co-equal branch. The greatest difference between Congress then, from '69 through '71, and Congress 12 years later, when I came here in 1983 as an elected member, was staff. Committee staff and members' staff both had grown greatly, in quality and quantity. As a result, today's Congress is better staffed and equipped, more effective and independent, and a lot closer to being co-equal.

I have had the good fortune of working with talented staff in my office and on the committees where I have served; and as I leave, I thank them all, because anything I have done of significance, I did with their good help.

My first quest in Congress was to get a good committee assignment. After two days of bidding, I had struck at every option and never scored a hit. I was at a loss for where to go when Tony Coelho sought me out and offered me a seat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The HASC dove-tailed nicely with my district because the Fifth District includes Shaw Air Force Base. But as important as Shaw is, I learned that other members had defense interests far larger than mine. Since I was not carrying water for a large defense constituency, I had the independence to take on troubled systems, like the DIVAD, the Division Air Defense gun, which my amendment effectively killed; or the MX , which I voted to stop at 50 missiles, or binary chemical weapons, which my amendments helped side-track and eventually derail.

In selecting members for every committee, the leadership tries to match the member's interests at home with his committee in the House. That's natural and to be expected, but we should also select members for ballast--members free to act, ask hard questions, and offer amendments.

At the time I took my seat on Armed Services, the nation was engaged in the biggest defense build-up in our peace-time history, and the committee chairman presiding over this build-up was well past his prime. Elderly and weak, he could barely be heard over the din of noise in the committee room. When Les Aspin let it be known that he was going to run for the chair, and leap-frog six senior members, I was among the first to offer support. We prevailed, and over the next five years, Aspin allowed me to set up and chair two panels, the first on Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, and the second, on the nuclear weapons complex. Though both were important, neither was receiving the attention it deserved by the committee or any of its subcommittees, due to other issues or a lack of interest in these.

Because of our oversight, we were able to pare back the SDI budget; shift funds from strategic missile defense to theater missile defense, and wipe out a few far-fetched systems altogether. For example, my amendment deleted funding for the space-based interceptor. In the press release accompanying passage of the defense bill, the headline read: ``House Takes the Star out of Star Wars.'' President Reagan did not find it amusing; he vetoed the defense bill, but after many years and billions of dollars, our cuts have stood the test of time.

After two years, we had to return SDI to the Research and Development Subcommittee, so we set up a new panel dealing with nuclear facilities. The Cold War had enabled our nuclear complex to put off environmental and safety issues. To deal with these problems, we shifted nearly a billion dollars from Defense to Energy, and saved over a billion dollars by stopping the Special Isotope Separator, a laser-driven process to produce plutonium, even though the Secretary of Energy acknowledged we were ``awash in plutonium.''

We scored a number of such successes, but the most satisfying took place largely off stage where we made the case for a moratorium on nuclear testing. We first helped Representative. Kopetski draft a bill calling for an immediate cessation of testing, and we then drafted an alternative that we thought the Senate would pass allowing for a few final tests before declaring a moratorium. We proposed the alternative to Senators Exon and Hatfield, who took up its support and moved it to passage through the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This saved the moratorium from being vetoed because the super-collider was also in this bill, and President Bush wanted it to be funded.

Another satisfying measure: my substitute to the war powers resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. This substitute authorized the force needed to search for weapons of mass destruction, but before going further, it called on the president to seek the sanction of the U.N. Security Council, as his father had done, and to come back to Congress with the case for a broader use of force, which would be received with a fast-track guaranty, an up-or-down vote in the House and Senate. My substitute did not prevail, but it drew 157 votes, and gave many members a position they could uphold.

I made my mark in the House on defense, but during most of my 28 years, my greatest concern was the budget and chronic deficits. In 1997, I was elected by the Democratic Caucus as ranking member of the Budget Committee. I ran against opposition and told the caucus that if I was elected, we would ``finish the job'' of balancing the budget that began with President Clinton's first budget. About the same time, Erskine Bowles returned to Washington to be the President's Chief of Staff, and when he paid me a courtesy call, he told me that he had the same understanding with the President. With the President's encouragement, the four budget principals in the House and Senate began meeting, and by May 1997 we had hammered out a balanced budget agreement which worked. By 1998, the budget was in balance for the first time in 30 years.

President Bush took office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed, a budget in balance, in the black by $236 billion the year before. I was invited to Austin, Texas with 12 other members to discuss defense issues with the incoming president. I used my time to encourage President Bush to apply the surplus in Social Security to buy outstanding Treasury debt, and reduce Treasury debt held by the public. This would increase net national saving, lower public debt, and be a long step toward making Social Security solvent. The president-elect professed interest but not for long, and by 2004, the deficit was over $400 billion.

President George W. Bush was greeted as he took office by a surplus of $200 billion. When he left office in 2009, the surplus was gone, and the deficit projected for that fiscal year was $1.2 trillion.

As I leave Congress, the deficit is hovering around a trillion dollars and while improving, current deficits exceed the deficits of the mid-1990s by every measure. But the process of resolving both is basically the same: everything must be on the table and everyone must be at the table.

As the menu for such a meeting, the President's Fiscal Commission has submitted a plate full of recommendations. I served on the commission and voted for the report, even though I do not support all of its proposals. I cast an ``aye'' because our country is in desperate need of a plan for balancing the budget and making Social Security and Medicare solvent. These will not be popular--far from it--but as they shore up our economy, they will prove their worth and raise the standing of Congress in the eyes of our countrymen. I am

sorry that I will not be here to lend my support, but as a parting gesture, I urge the House to go for it.

I will remember with pride my 28 years in the House of Representatives and our positive accomplishments over that time. I am told that only 500 members have served in the House for as long as 28 years. I thank my constituents for that opportunity, and hope that history will show that I used it to make this a better country in ways that stood the test of time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in emphatic support of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.

This bill, as befits its title, makes record investments in our Nation's military, authorizing $725 billion to strengthen national security. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have said that they would do things differently next year. It'll be interesting to see whether or not this becomes a high water mark for defense spending, given the deficits, debt, and other fiscal policy obstacles that remain in our future, that loom over our future. This bill fully funds operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, while modernizing the force to prepare and be ready for the threats of today and the wars of tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Armed Services Committee for 28 years. I have always believed that our first order of business is to fund the defense of this Nation. This will be the last defense authorization bill on which I have had the honor of working side by side with my great friend, Ike Skelton. I will be honored to cast my final vote for a good bill that funds our deployed troops, keeps our many commitments, and secures the Nation of threats foreign and abroad and bears the name of a real patriot, a great patriot, Isaac Newton Skelton, known to all of us and loved by all of us by the name of Ike.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill with this worthy name.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to support a bipartisan bill that will help rebuild our manufacturing sector and continue our economic recovery.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the ``Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act.'' The legislation was introduced in response to China's persistent intervention to keep its currency undervalued by 35-40 percent relative to the dollar and its resort to illegal subsidies and non-tariff barriers to promote its own industries at the expense of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

These practices affect billions of dollars in trade and have allowed China to flood our markets with their products while they limit our ability to export our goods to them. Many companies are left with little choice but to move their operations offshore in order to compete, costing us precious jobs.

According to the textile industry, these unfair trade practices have cost the United States over a million manufacturing jobs in the last decade, including hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs.

The devaluation of China's currency worsens the already severe U.S- China trade deficit. Statistics show that between January 2000 and May 2009, China's share of the U.S. trade deficit for non-oil goods grew from 26 percent to 83 percent. If we can convince the Chinese to stop pegging its currency, U.S. exports would get a huge boost, and in time, so would investment in new plant and equipment.

This is a great way to stimulate an economy on the mend without adding a dime to the deficit or incurring new public debt.

Specifically, the ``Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act'' requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to: (1) determine, based on certain requirements, whether the exchange rate of the currency of an exporting country is fundamentally and actionably undervalued or overvalued (misaligned) against the U.S. dollar for an 18-month period; and (2) take certain actions under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding to offset such misalignment in cases of an affirmative determination. This legislation provides U.S. manufacturers and workers the necessary tools to defend themselves against anti-competitive trade practices of foreign governments, whether it's China or any other country.

About ten years ago, I joined Representative Sue Myrick in sponsoring one of the first bills filed to force a change in China's currency policy. The United States has been seeking to negotiate a solution to the issue for a decade without success; and recent talks between the Obama administration and Chinese officials have made marginal progress at best.

All we're asking for here is a level playing field for U.S. businesses.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the tenth anniversary of Freedom Temple Ministries in Rock Hill, South Carolina. The Church was founded on October 8, 2000, as a group of 38 people began ``Preparing for the Promise'' on the campus of Winthrop University. Freedom Temple Ministries now calls 215 Main Street in Rock Hill its home. The structure, called The Freedom Center, includes a sanctuary which seats 700, a gymnasium with a walking track, and 65 classrooms. Various youth and community outreach programs are housed here and the congregation looks forward to making the facility an intricate part of the Rock Hill community. Today, Pastor Herbert C. Crump, Jr. leads the congregation. Freedom Temple Ministries has made a significant impact on the spiritual wellbeing of its followers and will continue to serve God and country for years to come.

Madam Speaker, Pursuant to the Budget Enforcement Resolution that the House passed on July 1, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record an outline of changes within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction to help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, by promoting efficiency and reform of government, and by controlling spending.

While the Budget Committee does not have jurisdiction over specific government programs, it does maintain a broad oversight role over the federal budget as well as budget process.

This year Congress enacted statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, a measure under the Budget Committee's jurisdiction. The legislation was the culmination of years of work on the part of Congressional Democrats to restore statutory PAYGO after the previous statute expired in 2002. That version of PAYGO reined in new entitlement spending and required new tax cuts to be offset in the 1990s, with the result that the federal budget returned to surplus. The new law likewise will help set budgetary priorities and restore fiscal responsibility. Since its enactment in February, Congress has passed and the President has signed legislation into law with PAYGO provisions reducing the federal deficit by a total of $58.4 billion over the next five years and a total of $43.1 billion over the next ten years, according to the most recent OMB scorecard.

The passage of statutory PAYGO built on the internal House PAYGO rule, adopted during the opening week of the Democratic majority in 110th Congress--along with a rule that fast-track budget reconciliation procedures cannot be used for legislation that increases the deficit. The Budget Committee works continuously with other House committees to ensure that legislation coming to the House floor for a vote meets the requirements of these deficit-reducing rules.

One of the critical roles that the Budget Committee plays each year is to set the overall level of discretionary spending for the annual spending bills produced by the Appropriations Committee. This year, the appropriations cap is $7 billion below the comparable level proposed by the President, and follows a similar reduction of $7 billion below the President's request last year. Approving these more disciplined spending levels encourages Congress to find efficiencies and reduce wasteful spending while providing enough room to fund critical services and investments at a time when the economy is still recovering from the worst recession in decades.

In addition, on May 28 of this year, I introduced H.R. 5454--the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010--that will enhance fiscal discipline by allowing the President to sign spending bills into law while culling out unneeded or wasteful items and proposing that Congress rescind them. ``Expedited rescission'' under this bill requires Congress to consider the President's recommendations as one package, without amendment and on a fast-track basis, guaranteeing an up-or-down vote within a specified time frame. While expedited rescission will not eliminate the federal deficit, it will be one more tool to control spending. Forty Democrats have joined me in cosponsoring this bill, including five Budget Committee members.

Finally, in light of the Budget Committee's broad oversight role on the federal budget, four Committee members have been appointed to the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. With representation on both sides of the aisle from the House, the Senate, and the private sector, the Commission is charged with building consensus on ways to wipe out the deficit and improve the long-term fiscal sustainability of major entitlement programs. The House Democratic leadership has pledged to vote this year on any legislative recommendations reported by the Commission and approved by the Senate, and agrees that deficit reduction as a result of the recommendations cannot be used to offset costs of future legislation. The deficit- reduction proposals of the bipartisan commission will be issued in December.

The Budget Committee will continue to examine ways to reduce the deficit and increase efficiency in government spending. I look forward to working further with all Members of Congress to address the long- term budget challenges facing the nation.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will authorize the Rural Utilities Service to make loans to rural electric co-ops so that the co-ops, in turn, can make loans to families and small businesses for energy conservation and efficiency measures that meet Federal standards.

This process will begin with an energy audit aimed at identifying energy-saving measures. Based on this audit, the co-ops will propose improvements like insulation or high-efficiency heat pumps. Consumers will pay the co-ops for the installation through a charge on their utility bills spread over a period of 5 to 10 years. The energy savings will cover much, if not all, of the loan repayment. And after the loan is repaid, the participating consumer will continue to save, as will the economy, because of the more efficient use of energy.

There are more than 200,000 rural electric cooperative customers in my district, many of them near or below the poverty level. Many of these hardworking people would gladly invest in their homes to make them more efficient, but they cannot borrow or afford the funds necessary to install a new heat pump or place insulation in their walls and ceilings.

This is where the ingenuity of the co-ops comes in. Through a program that could be implemented nationwide, they would provide a simple but effective solution to help their customers at relatively low cost. At the same time they would create new jobs by making low-cost loans available to install high-impact energy efficiency improvements. The loans will be repaid over time on the consumer's utility bill, and ideally there will be a net reduction of utility payments even when accounting for the loan repayments. This is a win-win solution to a major problem.

I urge support for this bill. It is well crafted and it will not have an impact on the bottom line of the budget because we are talking about loans made by the Federal Government to the electric co-ops, which will be, I am sure, duly repaid.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Budget Enforcement Resolution that the House passed on July 1, I hereby submit an outline of changes within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction to help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, by promoting efficiency and reform of government, and by controlling spending.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the city of Rock Hill, South Carolina for receiving a Municipal Achievement Award from the Municipal Association of South Carolina for excellence in communications. MASC established these awards in 1987 in an effort to encourage innovations and excellence in local government.

The city of Rock Hill won this year's award for RH19, the city's government access channel, which not too long ago was in a dire state. With no upgrades since the 1980s, malfunctioning cameras, a signal that did not meet broadcast specifications, and inadequate audio capabilities, the result was an unimpressive broadcast that was not taken seriously.

What RH19 did have, however, is a dedicated staff that responded with urgency when the Rock Hill City Council decided in 2008 that one of its strategic goals would be to provide ``open and effective communication'' to the citizens of that community.

After doing an inventory of the city's existing means of communication, the staff decided that the public access station was the most deficient and in need of modernizing. According to the Municipal Association of South Carolina, RH19 staff took a ``modest budget and a rebate from a terminated franchise agreement with the local cable provider'' and went to work, fixing existing equipment and buying new software and equipment to replace those items beyond repair. Moreover, they developed a ``branded'' look for the channel and established standardized production schedules, opting for ``short, well-executed messages'' to ensure the most current information was aired to the public. RH19 also recruited students from local colleges and universities to work as interns, providing them a significant and lasting experience in media production and journalism.

With the equipment updated and the quality of the broadcast signal enhanced, the city of Rock Hill began to air several programs of public interest and even posted the videos on YouTube to maximize exposure. These changes have met with widespread praise and appreciation across the city of Rock Hill, and are a perfect example of what can happen when people in our community see a problem, set a goal and carry out the arduous work necessary to achieve those goals. I congratulate RH19 for this impressive achievement.

Madam Speaker, under section 422(a) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, as revised by H. Res. 1493, providing for budget enforcement for fiscal year 2011, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revised 302(a) allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and revised budget aggregates for 2010.

Section (a)(1)(A) of H. Res. 1493 provides for adjustments to discretionary spending limits for certain Program Integrity Initiatives when these initiatives are included in an appropriations bill. The House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 4899 (Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2010), as passed the House on July 1, 2010, included an appropriation for such initiatives in accordance with S. Con. Res. 13. At that time, I submitted an adjustment accordingly. However, the House receded from its amendments and concurred in the Senate amendments to H.R. 4899 on July 27, 2010. The Senate amendments did not include an appropriation for such initiatives. Therefore I am adjusting the allocations and aggregates accordingly to reflect the absence of these initiatives in the enacted measure. Corresponding tables are attached.

These adjustments are filed for the purposes of sections 311 and 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS--APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a)

Madam Speaker, I join other members of the South Carolina delegation in cheering the University of South Carolina baseball team and Coach Ray Tanner for winning the 2010 College World Series.

I extend special congratulations to Coach Tanner for being named College Coach of the Year by Baseball America. Coach Tanner is completing his 14th season at the University of South Carolina.

I also take particular pride in the accomplishments of the players from my district, the Fifth Congressional District, including Matt Price, the pitcher who earned the win with his relief effort against UCLA in the Gamecocks' championship-clinching victory.

The College World Series is a tribute to the impact of baseball on our State. Five public universities from South Carolina made the field of 64, and during the semifinal, a great in-State rivalry was played out on the national stage as the Carolina Gamecocks defeated the Clemson Tigers to advance to the finals.

This win was the university's first championship in any men's sport, and its impact upon the city of Columbia and the State was immediate and profound. It is hard to believe that the Gamecocks prevailed even when they were one strike away from elimination in the quarter-final game.

In addition to their athletic abilities, these young athletes serve as examples of the power of hard work, perseverance, and commitment. They have our gratitude and admiration, and I commend them for their sterling achievement.

Madam Speaker, James ``Jim'' H. Griffin will retire on July 31, 2010, from the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation after 24 years of dedicated service to the agribusiness community of South Carolina.

Born December 6, 1952, Jim is the youngest of four children. His dad is 91 and still lives at home in Six Mile, South Carolina. His mother, ``Sal'', passed away last year.

Jim met his wife, Jeanne, on a blind date 37 years ago while she was attending Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Jim convinced Jeanne to transfer to Clemson, where he was studying, and they were married while still in college on June 30, 1973. Their first home was a prefab (tin house) used to house military in World War II. They have two children, Jesse (Charlyn) Griffin of Roanoke, Virginia and Johanna (Rich) Pressley of Indianapolis, Indiana. Jim and Jeanne currently reside at their home in Lexington County, South Carolina.

Jim began his career after college as a teacher, but soon discovered teaching was not his true passion. He then worked in manufacturing and as an association manager until he landed himself at the Farm Bureau in 1983. He did leave the Farm Bureau for a couple of years to work with Habitat for Humanity, which has long been an important cause to him. But the farmers of South Carolina needed him and his love of the agricultural community drew him back to the Farm Bureau.

Jim is now retiring from the position of National Legislative Coordinator--a position that required frequent trips to Washington. He has worn out many pairs of shoes walking--very rapidly--through the streets of D. C. and halls of Congress leading Farm Bureau members and staff on these visits. I know I speak on behalf of the entire South Carolina Delegation and all those that have had the pleasure of working with him that his warmth, enthusiasm, knowledge and passion for agriculture will be missed both in Washington and in South Carolina.

During Jim's retirement he will enjoy spending more time with his wife and visiting with his children who both live outside of the Carolinas. Jim has long practiced blacksmithing, which he plans to continue, and he will likely pitch in with the backyard chickens his wife Jeanne raises. Jim also has a passion for cooking and hopes that more free time might allow him to cook more often and try new recipes. A man with many hobbies, Jim looks forward to listening to and performing music, particularly bluegrass and old timey tunes. Since the age of 12, Jim has played the harmonica, learning from and being inspired by his blind grandfather who played.

Jim deserves thanks for all the hard work he has done for farming and rural South Carolina. The Farm Bureau will have big shoes to fill. On behalf of the entire delegation, we wish Jim Griffin well in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the budget enforcement resolution for fiscal year 2011, contained in this rule. This resolution sets an overall limit of $1.121 trillion on discretionary spending in next year's appropriations bills. This limit is well below the comparable request made by the President for FY 2011 and $3 billion below the resolution approved by the Senate Budget Committee.

One of the chief functions of a budget resolution is to cap the level of discretionary spending for the forthcoming fiscal year. This resolution serves that purpose, and permits the Appropriations Committee to move forward with appropriation bills for fiscal year 2011.

The ``Pay-As-You-Go'' rule, PAYGO, passed previously, bars increases in mandatory

spending and decreases in revenues, unless offset, so that they do not add to the budget deficit. The current PAYGO system requires that the authorizing committees meet the deficit-neutrality test for four time periods: two for the House PAYGO rule and two for statutory PAYGO. This resolution would align these time windows so that the requirements for complying with House PAYGO and statutory PAYGO would be the same, and makes other synchronizing changes--thus facilitating the consideration of deficit-neutral bills.

While this resolution does not project the budget out over five years, it does look to the future by assuring that the House will have an opportunity to vote this year on longer-term budget proposals made by the President's Fiscal Commission and approved by the Senate. This resolution also sets an out-year goal for the budget: a budget in primary balance (excluding net interest costs) in 2015.

The budget enforcement resolution reinforces the Commission's goal of lowering the deficit to sustainable levels, and as mentioned, reaffirms the House leadership's commitment to bring to a vote any of the Commission's recommendations passed by the Senate.

In addition, this resolution--

instructs House committee chairs to submit recommendations for eliminating wasteful spending in their committee jurisdiction; and

accommodates additional program integrity funds of $538 million in 2010 to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal budget.

When all of these elements are brought together, they form a complete substitute, the functional equivalent of a budget resolution.

The budget enforcement resolution limits discretionary spending, while the PAYGO rules limit mandatory spending and revenue reductions. These are disciplines for the short run, while the Fiscal Commission works out recommendations for the longer run.

The budget enforcement resolution is another of many steps Democrats in the 111th Congress have taken to enforce fiscal responsibility, such as enacting statutory PAYGO; reforming defense acquisition; and insisting, successfully, that health care reform not add to the deficit.

Madam Speaker, under section 422(a) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, as revised by H. Res. 1493, providing for budget enforcement for fiscal year 2011, I hereby submit revised 302(a) allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and revised budget aggregates for 2010. Section (a)(1)(A) of H. Res. 1493 provides for adjustments to discretionary spending limits for certain program integrity initiatives when these initiatives are included in an appropriations bill. Chairman Obey's amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4899 (Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2010) includes an appropriation for such initiatives in accordance with S. Con. Res. 13. Corresponding tables are attached.

These adjustments are filed for the purposes of sections 311 and 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the retirement from government service of a true hero, Martin Leonard Skutnik. On June 4, 2010, Lenny retired after 30 years supporting logistics at the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. His work there--printing and distribution of literally hundreds of CBO reports, providing IT support, and handling mail and supplies--may not have been heroic in the standard sense, and Lenny Skutnik may still insist he didn't do anything special, but those who remember the Air Florida crash in Washington, DC, in 1982 know differently. On that January day when a plane crashed into the freezing Potomac River seconds after takeoff, Lenny dived from shore to save a woman who was too weakened to hold on to a helicopter's rescue line. His selfless and risky act saved Priscilla Tirado, and two weeks later President Reagan made Lenny a household name by citing his heroism during the State of the Union address.

Lenny never sought recognition of his heroism, but he received it in spades, including being awarded both the United States Coast Guard's Gold Lifesaving Medal and the Carnegie Hero's Fund Medal. The public accolades included ``Lenny Skutnik Days'' in Mississippi in 1982, and a unanimously passed resolution by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia honoring his ``unselfish act of bravery.''

But day in and day out, Lenny downplayed his heroism in an unassuming way, continuing to provide logistics for CBO. Doug Elmendorf, CBO's Director, publicly cited Lenny's contributions on Friday, noting that Lenny says he was proud to have been part of CBO, and that he learned a lot working there.

Lenny Skutnik exemplifies the spirit of public service, both on that fateful winter day in 1982 and every day since then through his work with others at CBO to provide budget-related materials that inform Congress and the public on key decisions. On behalf of the many people who rely on CBO's products, and as a grateful American, I would like to thank Lenny Skutnik not just for his heroism in 1982 but also for his many years of public service.

Mr. Chairman, I support the provisions in this bill that support a second engine for the F-35.

The Air Force will soon shift its air-to-ground, air-to-air, and air- supremacy roles to the F-35, and the F-35 will eventually number more than a thousand jet fighters, or 95 percent of the fighter force structure.

To power these aircraft, the Air Force will require some 2500-3000 engines at a cost of more than $100 billion.

We are fortunate to have two excellent engine manufacturers, Pratt Whitney and GE. Both started out as candidates for the F-35 engine.

The question now comes: Do we need and want a second engine, produced by GE?

More specifically--

Do we want to sole source, run this program out 25 years or more, without price competition?

In addition to price competition, do we want competition on innovation, reliability, and durability?

Do we want to run the operational risk of having no back-up if problems show up in one engine?

Do we want to keep competition in the defense production base?

A second engine for the F-35 makes sense and saves money.

I urge the House to leave intact the second engine provisions in the defense authorization bill before us today.