Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to call attention to the gathering in Baltimore, Maryland of alumni from Jefferson High School over the weekend of June 5th, 2010 in honor of the class of 1966's 44th reunion.

Although the school officially closed in 1970, Jefferson High School got its start in a frame schoolhouse built for African-American students in York, South Carolina. From there, Jefferson became a Rosenwald school and the town's African-American public school in a racially segregated system. Although the system was called ``separate but equal,'' Jefferson never had facilities or teaching materials equal to its counterparts, the white schools that I attended. The school district built a new high school for white students in 1950, but left black students to make the best of their old one. The students, teachers and administrators at Jefferson did just that and made the most of their circumstances.

Instead of gathering to dwell on what was lacking at Jefferson, the class of 1966 comes together to remember the teachers and fellow students who so impacted Reunion made clear that Jefferson lives on in the lives it made better. Hundreds of the alumni attending attested to better, more productive lives because of what they learned at Jefferson under teachers who cared, encouraged, and challenged.

I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding and commend him for the job he has done in bringing together an excellent bill to this floor.

This bill fully funds national security activities in the Departments of Defense and Energy, including top-line funding increases for DOD as well as fully funding Iraq and Afghanistan operations. This is the fourth consecutive year that the Congress has significantly increased funding for the military of this country. Overall, this bill

provides $548 billion for DOD, $159 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a total altogether of $726 billion, if you include the Department of Energy.

Among the unsung heroes in our national military are the families who serve every bit as much as the member, particularly when there is deployment in the family. This bill recognizes the vital role they play and provides a 1.9 percent pay increase, it expands TRICARE health coverage to include adult dependent children up to the age of 26, it increases family separation allowance for troops who are deployed and away from their families, and it increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004.

There will be more extensive debate later on the alternate engine, which this bill accommodates and provides for. Let me simply say I think it makes sense and saves money--it will in the long run--because the $100 billion program for the engine alone is something where competition is vitally needed.

Having followed the course of ballistic missile defense for some time, it's of interest to me that this bill amply provides for military defense for a robust missile defense, providing $10.3 billion, which is $361.6 million above the budget request.

Let me say finally that this bill is consistent too with the glide path that has been set for exploring the ramifications of a change on our Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I think it would be wise if we left the Secretary of Defense to finish his exploration, along with the military chiefs, before dictating any changes.

Madam Chairman, I was a member of Congress and served on the House Armed Services Committee, when the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy was adopted. It was a clever solution, but the policy and its consequences deserve an updated review.

The Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, has proposed such a review. He told the House Armed Services Committee that he had managed several large institutions, like the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, and had found that when imposing major policy changes, it was better not to cram change from the top-down, but to help it percolate from the bottom-up. What Secretary Gates proposed was a year-long review, bringing the troops into the dialog, and weighing issues like fraternization and problems not even apprehended at this point.

In a letter to Chairman Ike Skelton dated April 30, Secretary Gates wrote: ``I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change; develop a comprehensive implementation plan, and provide Congress and the President with the results of this effort in order for it to be taken in the most informed and effective manner. A critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage our forces, their families, and the broader military community throughout this process. Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to completion of this vital assessment process.''

I basically agree with Secretary Gates and will vote to support the process of review that he and Admiral Mullen have laid out.

Madam Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House to a landmark event in the Fifth Congressional District of South Carolina. On Sunday, May 2, 2010, the Bethesda Presbyterian Church of York County will celebrate its 250th anniversary. For 2\1/2\ centuries, Bethesda Presbyterian Church has kept the faith, preaching the gospel and bearing witness to its faith through Christian service and community leadership.

Worship at Bethesda began in the 1760s among some one hundred forty families, most of whom had immigrated from northern Ireland by way of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the low country of South Carolina. Bethesda Presbyterian Church was formally organized in 1769, and became instrumental in forming other Presbyterian churches in our area. According to church records, its outreach included two churches in western Mississippi.

During the Revolution, after the fall of Charleston in 1781, Bethesda became a stronghold of resistance to the British. Its members figured prominently in the Battle of Huck's Defeat at the nearby Williamson Plantation. In the early 1800s, Bethesda was the site of evangelical meetings, now called the Great Awakening, which inspired the creation of churches throughout the upcountry of South Carolina.

The Bethesda church buildings have undergone various changes over the years, but the church's exterior still reflects the simple, old meeting house design, and the cemetery on the grounds is as hallowed as it is historic. In 1977 the Bethesda Presbyterian Church was placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Despite the social changes of 250 years, war, economic crisis, and the ravages of time,

Bethesda has remained an old rock of the faith, with a future as promising as its past. In view of its long and glorious history, I ask that this commemoration of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church's 250th anniversary be noted by the Nation through entry in the Congressional Record.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I acknowledge the achievements of Miss Lauren Cholewinski. An accomplished young woman of 21 years of age, Lauren Cholewinski honorably represented the United States of America in her participation at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. Her discipline and determination carried her from her home in York County, South Carolina, where she attended Northwestern High School in Rock Hill, to compete in the 500 Meter Women's Speedskating competition on February 16, 2010. Her two times were 39.51 and 39.58 placing her 30th overall.

On behalf of South Carolina, I am proud to recognize Lauren Cholewinski's achievements as a professional and Olympic athlete.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the reconciliation bill before us does more than advance the cause of health care. It makes a landmark investment in education, one that will make college more affordable for millions of students, and all without adding a dime to the deficit.

Under this bill, Federal student loans will now be made through the Direct Loan Program. That means the elimination of $61 billion in bank subsidies over the next 10 years. This bill then takes that $61 billion and reinvests $36 billion out of it in Pell Grants, raising the value of Pell Grants and making college a reality, a possibility, for more than 8 million students.

The bill takes other steps to improve access to college and helps students graduate from college. For example, it includes more than $2 billion for historically black colleges and universities, and it invests $2 billion in community colleges which are increasingly important in our economy as well as in our educational system because our economy more and more demands skilled and educated workers. Finally, it helps students after they graduate by lowering the amount they will have to repay.

As we switch to making student loans through the less costly Direct Loan Program, I am pleased to see that this bill doesn't try to fix what ain't broke. It leaves the current Perkins Loan Program by which colleges provide low-interest loans from a revolving fund to low-income students, and it makes it easier for colleges to pursue public service by canceling loans, the debt incrementally, if they're employed in public service.

Mr. Speaker, a productive economy demands an educated workforce, and this reconciliation bill moves us towards that goal at no additional cost to the American taxpayer and no impact on the deficit. It's a win- win solution.

I urge support for this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I first recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield to Mr. Israel of New York to make a unanimous consent statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Congress cleared the way for health care reform in the budget resolution. And when we did, we stipulated that reform had to be deficit-neutral. We can now say that the House, Senate and President have all abided by this principle. The bill put before us has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. In this case, CBO found that the 10-year cost of all the covered changes in the bill put before us amount to $788 billion. But the bill before us also includes reductions, savings, and new revenues which total $931 billion.

When the $931 billion is netted against the $788 billion, the result is a net savings, which reduced on-budget deficits over the next 10 years by $143 billion. That's CBO's estimate of the first 10 years under these reforms, a reduction in the deficit of $143 billion. What about the next 10 years? CBO estimates that these two bills together will save around .5 percent of GDP over the second 10 years. Now that may sound minimal, but during that period of time, GDP cumulatively is $272 trillion, so .5 percent of that easily equals more than $1.2 trillion.

You will hear numbers of all sorts in this debate, but remember these because they come from a disinterested source with a well-proven record. This is what CBO estimates as the effects of these bills on the deficit: a reduction of $143 billion over the next 10 years and a reduction of $1.2 trillion over the following years. We have kept the promise we made at the outset by keeping health care reform deficit- neutral, and that's one more reason to vote for this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to Ms. Fudge of Ohio.

(Ms. FUDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for a unanimous consent request.

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

I now take pleasure in yielding 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

(Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard).

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to Mr. Ackerman of New York.

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

For purposes of another unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

For purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to Mr. Driehaus from Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Also for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to Mrs. Dahlkemper from Pennsylvania.

(Mrs. DAHLKEMPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

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

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

(Mr. BISHOP of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, who has led the way in this quest for health care reform and tirelessly, persistently, she has brought us to this moment of the decision, the

gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1203, I call up the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to sections 321 and 331 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Corresponding tables are attached.

This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (Budget Act). For the purposes of the Budget Act, this revised 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, to supplement my remarks about statutory PAYGO, I would like to include in the Record the attached section of the bill.

Madam Speaker, at the outset of the 1990s, the Congress passed the Budget Enforcement Act for a simple purpose: to ensure that the Budget Summit Agreement we just passed was actually carried out. Among its provisions was a new rule called PAYGO, pay-as-you-go.

I can remember how our critics disdained our resort to budget process instead of making hard substantive decisions. They said we were dodging the hard choices, choices we had to make if we were going to wipe out the deficit. But by the end of the 1990s, the budget was in surplus for the first time in 30 years, and it was clear that for the budget process, rules we would put in place like PAYGO played a big part in our fiscal success.

Republicans were in the majority in 2002 when the Budget Enforcement Act expired, and they chose not to reinstate PAYGO because they knew it would impede passage of their tax-cutting agenda. Without these process rules in place, the budget plunged from a surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $413 billion in the year 2004. When Democrats took back the House, we made PAYGO a rule of the House the first day we convened the 110th Congress.

The Obama administration, the current Congress have inherited an economy in crisis and a colossal deficit, swollen by recession and recovery measures both. As these measures pull us out of recession, we should turn our attention on our longer-term fiscal fate.

Statutory PAYGO works. It's proven to work. It reins in new entitlement spending. It reins in tax cuts as well. Both tend to be long lasting, easy to pass, hard to repeal. By insisting on offsets and insisting on deficit neutrality, PAYGO buffers the bottom line, and Lord knows it needs it now. Its terms are complex, but at its core is a commonsense rule that everyone can understand: When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Statutory PAYGO was first put in place with bipartisan support, renewed on a bipartisan basis in 1997. When the House passed it in July, the rule PAYGO, two dozen Republicans joined 241 Democrats in voting for it.

We recall and invite you to cast another vote today for statutory for fiscal responsibility. Vote for statutory PAYGO. It will help us reduce the deficit, both short-term and long-term. And while it can't solve all of our problems--it's no panacea--it does represent one solid step forward towards getting things back on the path of fiscal sustainability and fiscal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Budget Committee I am submitting for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the Statutory Pay-As- You-Go Act of 2010 that the House is considering today as part of the Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 45. The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes points of order in the House of Representatives only to the extent that it does so explicitly.

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

Section 1--Short Title: The title of this Act is the

``Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.''

Section 2--Purpose: The purpose of the Statutory Pay-As-

You-Go Act (PAYGO) of 2010 is to reestablish a statutory

procedure to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new

revenue and direct spending legislation.

Section 3--Definitions and Applications: Section 3 sets

forth definitions of terms used in the PAYGO statute. Many

terms are defined by cross-references to the standard

definitions used in other budget laws, including the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985. Terms that

are of particular importance include:

Budgetary effects. Budgetary effects are defined as the

amount by which PAYGO legislation changes mandatory outlays

or revenues relative to the baseline. The budgetary

effects of changes in tax or mandatory spending law are

measured relative to what revenues or mandatory spending

would otherwise have been if not for the legislation, as

measured by the baseline (as defined in section 257 of

BBEDCA). Off-budget effects (i.e., Social Security trust

funds and the Postal Service fund) and debt service are not

counted as budgetary effects. ``Mandatory spending'' and

``direct spending'' (the term used in the statutory language)

are synonymous.

PAYGO legislation/PAYGO Act. Legislation, or provisions

thereof, that increases or reduces revenues, or increases or

reduces the cost of mandatory programs, is called PAYGO

legislation or a PAYGO Act. In this Act, the terms are used

interchangeably. PAYGO legislation is subject to statutory

Madam Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 424 and 427 of S. Con. Res. 13, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by S. Con. Res. 13. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for each authorizing committee with the section 302(a) allocations made under S. Con. Res. 13 for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure.

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 with the section 302(a) allocation of discretionary budget authority and outlays to the Appropriations Committee. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach section 302(b) sub-allocations within the Appropriations Committee.

The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 424 of S. Con. Res. 13. This list is needed to enforce section 424 of the budget resolution, which establishes a point of order against appropriations bills that include advance appropriations that: (1) are not identified in the joint statement of managers; or (2) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, under sections 421(a)(4) and 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates and allocations for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. These adjustments respond to House consideration of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3326, Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. Section 1011 of the House amendment includes funding for Medicare improvements. The House amendment also designates certain funding for overseas deployments and other activities pursuant to S. Con. Res. 13. Corresponding tables are attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar at 226- 7200.

Madam Speaker, under section 325 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to House consideration of the bill H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. A corresponding table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised 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 am proud to claim Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (FCCC) as a corporate constituent. On October 29, 2009, Freightliner hosted a plant-wide celebration to announce that its facility in Gaffney, South Carolina is now operating as a Zero-Waste- to-Landfill manufacturing plant. FCCC has been working diligently for years to achieve this goal, which underscores its strong commitment to a better environment. Freightliner is the first company in the trucking industry to achieve Zero-Waste-to-Landfill status.

Before undertaking this initiative, FCCC disposed of some 250,000 pounds of solid waste every month. It now disposes of zero pounds. FCCC's parent company, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, began the Zero-Waste-to-Landfill program as a means of reducing the carbon footprint of its manufacturing facilities. FCCC's facility in Gaffney was selected as the pilot site beginning in September 2007 and will now serve as an example for other facilities to emulate.

FCCC's move to the forefront environmentally reflects well on it, and shows that other manufacturers can do the same.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the death of a remarkable woman. On November 29, Mrs. Nettie DuRant Dickson of Darlington, South Carolina, died at the age of 106. Remarkable not only for her age, but for a life full

of accomplishment, Mrs. Dickson and her late husband, William James Dickson, owned the Darlington Hardware. Mrs. Dickson was a member of the Darlington Presbyterian Church and active for years with the American Legion Auxiliary. In the past few years she resided at the Methodist Manor in Florence, South Carolina and then at Agape Senior Care in Irmo, South Carolina.

One of twelve children, Nettie DuRant Dickson is survived by sibling Marion DuRant, daughters Elizabeth Betty DuPre and Jeanette D. Renfrow, numerous nieces and nephews, four grandsons, and three great-grandsons.

In the end, what counts most is not how long we lived, but how well. On both counts, Nettie DuRant Dickson lived a good and fruitful life.