Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, As Dean of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the South Carolina delegation to honor the South Carolina Research Authority, SCRA, on its 25th anniversary. SCRA was established 25 years ago and, since its inception, has played a leading role in commercializing technological advances, managing research parks, and supporting small businesses and entrepreneurial development. The result has been a positive economic impact on South Carolinians. In 2007, SCRA operations, technology parks, and programs in South Carolina were responsible for a $1.4 billion economic impact. SCRA' s operations, technological programs, and research parks, have benefited South Carolina and the country.

Madam Speaker, we are honored to celebrate with fellow South Carolinians the 25th anniversary of the South Carolina Research Authority. We recognize the distinguished leadership and staff for their hard work and dedication to making SCRA successful. We look forward to witnessing the continued growth and development of this great institution and seeing the tremendous impact it has on our State and our country.

Madam Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to a remarkable citizen, Sergeant Major Johnnie Robinson, of Rock Hill, SC. Johnnie Robinson served for 27 years in the Army, including tours in Korea and Vietnam, and rose to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. When he retired from the Army, he kept on serving. For 22 years he was Quartermaster and Commander of VFW Post 2889 in Rock Hill, SC, and also State Commander of the VFW. Under his leadership, Post 2889 became one of the largest posts in the State, and by everyone's estimation, one of the best. Among his proudest accomplishments: handsome new quarters, a building 11,000 square feet large.

Johnnie Robinson has passed the torch to a new generation, and stepped down as commander, but to commemorate all that he has done for veterans, the VFW, and Post 2889 in particular, the post today is naming its ballroom for him.

Madam Speaker, I ask permission to enter into the Record the following account from the Rock Hill Herald of Johnnie Robinson's service to community and country, and not least, to veterans and the

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the prospect of peaceful cooperation and trade between the United States and India on matters of nuclear power. I voted for the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 because I thought it was a foundation on which we could build an energy relationship with India, one that would be mutually beneficial and, at the same time, reassuring to the international community.

Seeking energy solutions for the world's rapidly developing countries, India among them, is an admirable cause. But nuclear nonproliferation is also an admirable, compelling cause, and I am not frankly convinced that the bill we're considering on this fast track, with 40 minutes of debate, will promote India's nuclear energy goals without creating exceptions, gaps, and ambiguities that could hamper our efforts to police and stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

Many serious questions need to be answered with respect to this legislation. Chief among them are questions like these: How well do these agreements comport with the letter and spirit of the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act? Does the bill take the right course in constraining India from breaching the worldwide moratorium to undertake nuclear testing? Does the bill indirectly encourage India to enlarge its arsenal of nuclear weapons by allocating nuclear materials from reactor fuel to warheads? Does it provide international safeguards?

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the President is bent upon a hurried approval of this agreement. Frankly, I can find no convincing reason to treat this issue in such a hasty manner, particularly as we enter the waning hours of this session preoccupied with other issues.

The Atomic Energy Act contemplates a continuous 30-day period of congressional review, calling clearly for due diligence on issues of this gravity. I say we should abide by this solemn requirement, and if necessary, work our will and make improvements to the legislation before us.

The President may want us to move with dispatch, but the American people, on matters of this importance, want us to move with diligence and deliberation. Due diligence takes time and effort. In this instance, if we adopt this bill, we are not applying either.

Madam Speaker, under section 204 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to passage of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2095 (Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008). Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, under section 220 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This is in response to consideration of the bills HR 7005 (Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008) and HR 7006 (Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008). A table is attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2638, as amended, but I wish to draw particular attention to the $5 million of funding provided within this bill for a space-based kinetic interceptor study, that, ostensibly, was included as an earmark requested by Senators Allard, Inhofe, Kyl, and Sessions. Chairman Obey's explanatory statement of the amendment under consideration expressly states, ``The bill provides $5,000,000 to support the study outlined in section 236 of S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.''

Section 236 of the Defense Authorizaton bill no longer refers to a space-based kinetic interceptor study. The provision specific to such a study appeared in a Senate version of the authorizing bill, but it was stricken from the House amended version of the bill that we passed this afternoon for good cause.

Mr. Speaker, a study to explore the potential for space-based kinetic interceptors within our ballistic missile defense system is a bad idea. I have many reservations, but chief among them is the message that the purported study would project to the world. It would clearly indicate America's willingness to unilaterally introduce weapons into space. The notion for the proposed study may be couched by its proponents as a low cost method for determining the merits of a purely defensive mechanism, but the dual use technologies associated with kinetic interceptors could be used for a variety of offensive purposes, such as shooting down satellites. Such a step, however small, would surely be perceived as the first step toward an arms race in space, which would only place our vital military and commercial space assets at greater risk. Independent studies in the past concluded that space-based kinetic interceptors would prove impractical and costly. We have no evidence that the proposed study would prove otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to underscore that the Congress has not granted any authority to fund a space-based kinetic interceptor study and to reiterate for the record that the specific provision relied upon in this bill for authority and guidance to fund such a study does not exist.

Madam Speaker, under section 220 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This is in response to consideration of the bills H.R. 7005, Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, and HR 7006, Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008. A table is attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, under section 211(3) of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the bill H.R. 6983, as expected to be amended on the floor (Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008) (September 23, 2008, 9:24 AM). Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, under section 205 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the bill H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer

Protection Act. Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 301 and 302 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009.

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. 70. 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. 70 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and fiscal years 2009 through 2013. 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 2008 and 2009 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) suballocations within the Appropriations Committee.

The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 302 of S. Con. Res. 70. This list is needed to enforce section 302 of the budget resolution, which establishes a point of order against appropriations bills that include advance appropriations that: (i) are not identified in the joint statement of managers; or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, under section 208 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 4137 (Higher Education Opportunity Act). Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for H.R. 6083. This bill authorizes funding for a national training program, which is focused on State and local prosecutors. The funding this bill authorizes will be an important step toward ensuring that State and local prosecutors from across the country can have the training they need to be skilled, effective, and more professional prosecutors.

Originally, H.R. 6083 would have authorized $6.5 million per year for 5 years to fund the Ernest F. Hollings National Advocacy Center, the NAC. The NAC is a joint venture of the Department of Justice and the National District Attorneys Association, which is located on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina.

The NAC is a unique facility created specifically to train Federal, State, and local prosecutors in advocacy skills and management. Since 1997, 22,000 prosecutors from across the country have benefited from this program, which makes it a vital resource for the professional education of our State and local prosecutors. The classes and other programs at the NAC strengthen a prosecutor's advocacy skills by offering a wide range of specialized subjects, ranging from child abuse to gang crime to cyber crime and identity theft.

Over the years, operations at the NAC have relied mostly on congressionally directed appropriations. Recognizing the value of a national advocacy center, Congress has consistently seen to it that this support is available to NDAA for services at the NAC. But this year-by-year funding has led to uncertainty in the budgeting and operations of the center, and a cut in funding in recent years, or at least the threat of it, has put this program in doubt. Classes have been canceled, educators have been laid off, all of which is evidence of the impact that unstable funding has had on the programs and, indeed, the NAC's ability to continue fulfilling its mission.

I intended H.R. 6083, as originally written, to be a step away from this perennial end-of-year funding crisis. I wanted to ensure also that State and local prosecutors nationwide could receive the training they need through a broad curriculum. However, with my concurrence, during the markup of H.R. 6083, the bill was amended. In its current form, the bill creates a grant program for comprehensive training, for which national nonprofit organizations, like the National District Attorneys Association, can compete.

In addition, the authorization has been lowered from $6.5 million to $4.75 million per year over a period of 5 years. This was done in response to suggestions from Members of the Senate that it would increase the bill's likelihood of being accepted unanimously there.

This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Cosponsors on the bill come from all parts of the country: California, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and of course, South Carolina. It also has the emphatic support of the National District Attorneys Association.

I want to express my great appreciation to the committee chairman, Mr. Conyers; to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Scott; and to the Judiciary Committee staff, particularly Mario Dispenza, for working with dispatch and great diligence so that H.R. 6083 could be reported out of committee and placed on the suspension calendar.

Once again, I urge all my colleagues' support for training our State and local prosecutors, making them more professional. Vote ``yes'' on

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 includes a trigger. That trigger is exercised when general fund revenues, as opposed to trust fund revenues, premiums and payroll taxes, exceed 45 percent of the Medicare program.

Once the Medicare trustees determine in two back-to-back reports that the 45 percent threshold will be crossed within 7 years, the administration must submit legislation ``eliminating excess general revenue Medicare funding.''

The trustees submitted their first such report last year, projecting that general revenues would fund 45.07 percent of Medicare in 2013, the last year of the 7-year window. This year the trustees issued a similar warning, and the administration sent Congress a bill to keep general revenues below 45 percent through 2013. According to CBO's analysis, the administration's bill will hold general revenues below 45 percent until 2014 by charging higher premiums to Medicare beneficiaries who make above a certain income level.

Instead of enacting the administration's proposals, the House and Senate enacted last week into law the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 over the President's veto. CBO calculates that this new law will keep general revenues below the 45 percent threshold through 2014, just as the administration's bill would have. So substantively and for all practical purposes, we have met the trigger's financial requirements, and we have made this issue moot for the rest of this Congress.

I support the rule before us which would turn off the Medicare trigger for the remainder of this Congress. I find, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, the legislation we have just enacted ``eliminates excess general revenue Medicare spending'' and complies with the Medicare law's financial test. Consequently, there is no need or reason to exercise the trigger.

I thank the gentleman.

I would add that the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act would have accomplished and satisfied the law's requirement, also, if for technical reasons it had been entitled ``a bill to respond to Medicare funding warning.''

I support this resolution and urge its adoption.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are in the midst of a recession, which is not your garden variety business down-cycle. This recession started with the collapse of sub- prime mortgages, which has taken a toll on investment banks, like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns, and even the biggest of the commercial banks, like Citibank.

At the outset, it seemed that the effects of the recession would be felt mostly by those institutions that were long in sub-prime mortgages. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deal mainly in prime mortgages, typically with equity of 20 percent, and not sub-prime mortgages, it was felt at first that these institutions, with their government-sponsored status, and their implicit guarantee, would be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. It was felt that maybe they could even take up some of the defaulted sub-prime paper. But as foreclosures increased, and housing values decreased, and net interest rate spreads worsened, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to feel the effects, and the financial markets began to question their financial statements, which, I will emphasize, state positive net worth and positive cash flow.

Secretary Paulson was able to slow down the steep fall in value by stating explicitly and emphatically what has been implicit since these entities were first created, namely, that the credit of the United States stands behind them. The most important purpose of this bill is for the Congress to affirm in law what the Secretary has declared, or to be more specific, to confer on Treasury the power to extend to these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an open-ended line of credit.

It's fair to ask why no ceiling on the line of credit. The answer may seem paradoxical, but the Secretary of Treasury has assured us that the larger and less restricted the credit is, the less likely the lines will ever be drawn down. Creditors will not need to worry if they forbear, if they don't cash in, they may not be paid because come hell or high water the Federal Government's credit stands behind these entities.

For that pledge also to be taken seriously by the market as credible, it's necessary to increase the debt ceiling of the United States. We did that in the last budget resolution we adopted here in the House. This bill, once again, would confirm and raise the debt ceiling of the United States, giving the Secretary headroom and credibility when he says the standby lines of credit that we're extending will be adequate to accomplish the effect it's intended.

This debate is about housing and two entities, GSEs, but it's also about our credit globally. If these two entities were to default and not have the United States government back up its guaranty, the consequences could be truly calamitous.

This is also good policy, counter-cyclical policy for the recession itself. It's a good bill, good policy, and I urge everyone to support it.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, under section 207 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations, aggregates, or other appropriate levels for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the bill H.R. 6275, Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar.