Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6200) to amend part A of title XI of the Social Security Act to provide for a 1-year extension of the authorizations for the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program and the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security program.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This bill is an extension of two very important provisions of the Ticket to Work Act of 1999 which basically helps disabled Americans return to work when, and if, they can. This has been a bipartisan team effort I was pleased to work on with Mr. Johnson some time ago. The bill has no direct spending and complies with pay-as-you-go rules.

I am pleased to support this important extension of two programs from the bipartisan Ticket to Work Act of 1999, which was introduced by my colleagues Earl Pomeroy, Jim McDermott, and Sam Johnson.

This has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort to ensure that two important programs that help disabled Americans return to work continue for another year, and I thank my colleagues for their good work on this issue.

The Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program (WIPA) provides $23 million for community-based organizations to provide personalized assistance to help Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) recipients understand Social Security's complex work incentive policies and the effect that working will have on their benefits. In 2009, WIPA assisted over 37,000 SSI and DI beneficiaries who wanted to return to work.

The Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) program provides $7 million in grants to designated Protection and Advocacy Systems to provide legal advocacy services that beneficiaries need to secure, maintain, or regain employment. In 2009, PABSS served nearly 9,000 beneficiaries.

If Congress does not extend these programs by the end of October, the Social Security Administration has told us there may be a lapse in service to beneficiaries, so it's important that we act now.

The bill also includes two commonsense, good-government changes to increase accountability and make the WIPA program more efficient.

First, we add a requirement that all WIPA grantees report data to the Social Security Administration about the beneficiaries they serve and the kinds of help they provided, the same requirement that current PABSS grantees have.

Good data is critical to our efforts to make sure that taxpayer funds to WIPAs are well-spent.

It also helps us learn more about what kind of help disabled beneficiaries may need if they are able to return to work, which will allow us to make other improvements in future legislation.

Second, this legislation would allow all WIPA grantees to carry over 10 percent of their funding into the next year, a change originally proposed by the Obama Administration. This change will allow for better and more consistent budgeting instead of encouraging end-of-year spending.

By extending WIPA and PABSS for a year, we reaffirm our commitment to these important work support programs, while also acknowledging the need to consider policy and funding changes in the near future.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5307) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight aircraft under the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions under that Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Ultralight Smuggling Prevention Act of 2010 is a bill introduced by my colleague Representative Giffords and is aimed at preventing smuggling through the use of ultralight vehicles, a recent practice threatening our border security.

The legislation is a commonsense, good policy approach to give border enforcement officials the tools they need to protect to the fullest extent and bring to justice those who attempt to smuggle illegal narcotics and contraband into our country, regardless of the means. It makes good sense that we do this bill now. Our prosecutors should be armed with the ability to apply the strongest deterrents.

Before yielding, at this moment I would like to thank Representative Giffords for her efforts in bringing this bill to the floor. It is, I think, great national security. We all know what the problems are, and her dedication and her commitment to this approach is something that I think deserves our notice and our thanks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Heller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1595) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the passage of legislation that created real estate investment trusts (REITs) and gave millions of Americans new investment opportunities that helped them build a solid foundation for retirement security and has contributed to the overall strength of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on September 14, 1960, President Eisenhower signed legislation into law, creating real estate investment trusts.

House Resolution 1595 celebrates the 50th anniversary of REITs, as they are called, and the enhanced opportunities they provide for investments in real estate by Americans from all walks of life. REITs allow individual investors to purchase interests in portfolios of real estate assets. In many instances, REITs also operate the properties that they own.

To qualify as a REIT, these companies must distribute 90 percent of their income back to their shareholders in the form of dividends. As noted in the resolution, REITs have given average American investors access to large-scale commercial real estate investment opportunities through publicly traded, regulated securities, which provide investors with transparency and liquidity.

Four REITs are headquartered in my home State of Tennessee, and nearly 800 Tennessee properties are owned by REITs. Across the country, REITs own approximately $500 billion commercial real estate properties, approximately 10 to 15 percent of institutionally owned commercial real estate.

In 2009, REITs paid over $13.5 billion in dividends. More than 30 countries around the world have passed legislation enabling REITs. Again, they have helped millions of average American investors to participate in the real estate markets of this country as well as others.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the passage of House Resolution 1595, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Madam Speaker, from May 28-June 3, I led a House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) meetings in Riga, Latvia, and to additional bilateral meetings in Podgorica, Montenegro. The U.S. delegation to the NATO PA had a highly successful trip during which we examined a range of political, economic, and security issues currently confronting the Alliance, as well as NATO and U.S. policy in Montenegro and the Western Balkans.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly consists of members of parliament from the 28 NATO states, as well as members of parliament from candidate state Macedonia (or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM), and other associated states such as Russia, Georgia, and Ukraine. I currently have the honor of serving as President of the Assembly. In this capacity, I preside over meetings during which delegates discuss and debate a range of issues of importance to the Alliance. During the NATO PA's two annual plenary sessions, delegates also have the opportunity to listen to presentations by specialists on NATO affairs and to offer guidance to NATO leadership in Brussels. An additional element of the meetings is the opportunity to meet and develop relationships with members of parliament who play important foreign policy roles in their own countries. These responsibilities can include setting defense budgets and determining the operational restrictions placed on deployed forces. Some of the acquaintances made through the NATO PA can last the duration of a career, and are invaluable for gaining insight into developments in allied states.

Discussions during the NATO PA's annual spring meeting focused on the key issues currently facing the Alliance. These include: the drafting of a new Strategic Concept for NATO; NATO's ongoing stabilization mission in Afghanistan; NATO's evolving relations with Russia; and the effects of the global economic downturn on national security and allied commitments to NATO. More specific issues such as the Alliance's nuclear weapons posture, missile defense, and emerging security challenges such as piracy and cyber and energy security were also discussed by the delegates.

At NATO's 60th anniversary summit in April 2009, the leaders of NATO's 28 member states tasked the NATO Secretary General with producing a new Strategic Concept for the Alliance. The re-writing of the Strategic Concept, which was last updated in 1999, offers NATO a chance to lay out a clarified vision of its role in the 21st century security environment. Heads of state from the NATO member states are expected to approve a new Strategic Concept at their November 2010 summit in Lisbon. In April 2010, NATO PA representatives presented NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen with the Assembly's recommendations for a new Strategic Concept. There is broad agreement within the NATO PA that the new Strategic Concept should re-affirm NATO's primary role as a military alliance devoted to ensuring the collective defense and security of its members. In this regard, Article 5 of NATO's founding North Atlantic Treaty--which states that an attack on one is an attack on all--remains NATO's core principle. Our delegation emphasized that in the face of new and emerging security challenges, the Alliance must also continue to broaden the traditional Cold War concept of collective defense to include security threats such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyber- security, and energy security. In this regard, territorial defense can no longer be separated from ``out-of-area'' security concerns. Members of our delegation also highlighted the importance of developing and maintaining the capabilities necessary to achieve NATO's stated objectives.

The key issue facing the Alliance continues to be NATO's effort to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. Approximately 120,000 troops from 46 countries currently serve in NATO's International Security Assistance

Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, with NATO members providing the core of the force. Close to 80,000 U.S. troops are under ISAF command. NATO allies have generally welcomed the renewed U.S. focus on Afghanistan and have voiced their support of the Administration's new strategy in the region and the associated U.S. troop increases. In April, NATO Foreign Ministers reiterated previous commitments to shift ISAF's emphasis toward transferring responsibility in the country--first and foremost in the security sector--to the Afghan government. Our delegation made an effort to urge our counterparts from NATO parliaments to continue to support ISAF and to contribute the forces and resources necessary to stabilize Afghanistan. Our delegation also emphasized that success in Afghanistan will depend on more than just military efforts, and called on the Alliance to develop a more comprehensive political strategy for the region.

Since NATO-Russia relations reached a low point in the wake of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, NATO and Russia have sought to improve ties and boost cooperation. Meetings of the NATO-Russia Council resumed in mid-2009 but while cooperation in some areas has resumed, disagreement persists on some issues. Officials from some member states within the Alliance express concern that NATO has not taken a strong enough stance against assertive Russian behavior. Others have attempted to view Russia as a ``strategic partner'' and call for more pragmatic cooperation and engagement. Our delegation contributed to a number of forceful discussions, including with our Russian counterparts, on the future of NATO-Russia relations. We emphasized that NATO should by no means recognize Russian spheres of influence outside Russian territory or tolerate Russian behavior that threatens the territorial integrity of independent nations. At the same time, we pointed out the importance of developing a unified approach toward Russia within the framework of a broader Alliance policy toward the east.

During the four-day NATO PA session, our delegation participated in day-long meetings of the Assembly's five committees, in a meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee, and in a final plenary session attended by NATO Secretary General Rasmussen. During each NATO PA committee meeting, members of parliament from NATO member states present reports on a range of issues confronting the Alliance. Committee members discuss and debate the issues raised by the reports and are given the opportunity to make counter-arguments or recommend that amendments be made to the reports. Members of the U.S. delegation were present and active participants in all committee meetings.

The NATO PA's Political Committee received three interesting and informative presentations from government officials and outside experts, as well as presentations from members of parliament on three committee reports. Alvis Ronis, Latvia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave an engaging briefing on Latvia's foreign and security policy priorities. Despite facing a severe economic downturn that has forced sharp budget cuts, Latvia remains committed to NATO operations, including in Afghanistan, where it has deployed 170 troops. The committee also heard from U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow, who shared a U.S. perspective on lessons learned from the NATO mission in Afghanistan. A third presentation, given by Alain Deletroz, Vice President of the International Crisis Group, focused on Central Asia and current U.S., European, Chinese, and Russian policy in the region. The three committee reports presented included a report on security in the Persian Gulf region and on the Arabian peninsula written by our colleague, Rep. Mike Ross. Unfortunately, Mr. Ross was unable to attend the meeting. Italian Senator Sergio Di Gregorio graciously agreed to present Mr. Ross's report, which was well received by the committee. Other reports debated by the Political Committee included a report on Alliance cohesion and a report on NATO's relations with so-called ``Contact Countries,'' countries outside the Euro-Atlantic region that are not formal NATO partners.

Members of the Science and Technology Committee heard presentations from a former Latvian president and a senior political advisor at NATO headquarters and debated issues raised in three committee reports. Former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga shared valuable insights on the Baltic states' relations with Russia. Michael Ruehle, Senior Political Advisor in the NATO Secretary General's Policy Planning Unit, gave a comprehensive assessment of efforts to strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The most discussed of the three committee reports presented during the session was Rep. David Scott's report entitled, ``Nuclear/WMD proliferation and Missile Defense: Forging a New Partnership with Russia.'' Rep. Scott gave a lively and forceful presentation on this timely subject, outlining a broad range of perspectives on NATO, U.S., and European cooperation with Russia on non-proliferation issues, including efforts to counter Iran's nuclear program, and on missile defense. Additional discussions during the committee meeting centered on possible security challenges posed by climate change and on the appropriate role for NATO in energy security issues.

The NATO PA's Defense and Security Committee discussed a range of security issues facing the Alliance, including NATO's engagement in Afghanistan and the role of non-strategic nuclear weapons in maintaining Alliance security. On Afghanistan, delegates heard sobering accounts of ongoing NATO efforts to develop and partner with the Afghan National Security Forces, and on measuring success in Afghanistan. During subsequent debate, delegates reaffirmed the importance of the mission in Afghanistan but acknowledged the significant challenges the Alliance is facing. In response to a report on U.S./NATO non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, Rep. David Scott made a well-received intervention emphasizing that any decision on the Alliance's nuclear weapons posture must be made by the Alliance as a whole. Rep. Scott highlighted the vital role that non-strategic nuclear weapons have played in affirming the allied commitment to collective defense and invited continued talks with Russia on global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

The meeting of the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security focused on several issues of increasing importance to Alliance security, chief among them the role of governance and regional politics in ensuring long-term stability in Afghanistan. Delegates debated a committee report outlining a range of governance challenges in Afghanistan and agreed that the Afghan mission's success will hinge largely on the success of international efforts to improve Afghan governance. Additional reports presented to the committee focused on NATO's role in maritime security and on achievements and future prospects in the Western Balkans. On the Balkans, delegates emphasized the importance of outlining paths to eventual NATO membership for the countries of the region, but agreed that significant progress must be made before membership becomes a reality.

Members of the NATO PA's Economics and Security Committee discussed various aspects of the global financial crisis and the associated global economic downturn. This included an in-depth presentation by the Governor of the Bank of Latvia on the Latvian economy and an assessment of the Greek financial crisis and its global implications by a professor from the London School of Economics. The reports presented by committee members focused on the impact of the financial crisis on Central and Eastern Europe, the impact of the global recession on the developing world, and a possible long-term shift in global economic power.

On Monday, May 31, our delegation participated in a meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee. As President of the NATO PA, I chaired this meeting, which consists of members of the NATO PA's Standing Committee and members of the Russian parliament. The committee heard candid and insightful presentations on NATO-Russia relations from Professor Alexei Pushkov, Director of the Institute of Contemporary International Studies at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and from Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia. Arguing that ``all military alliances are directed against something or somebody,'' Professor Pushkov asserted that the Russian government continues to view NATO's possible enlargement eastward as a security threat. Despite continued disagreement between NATO and Russia on this and some other core issues, Professor Pushkov maintained that the two sides can minimize the points of contention in their relationship by enhancing cooperation in areas ranging from counter-narcotics trafficking and counterterrorism to maritime security and nuclear non-proliferation. Assistant Secretary Vershbow expressed concern that the Russian government continues to view NATO as a security threat but reiterated the Obama Administration's fundamental commitment to enhancing NATO- Russia ties. He emphasized that NATO and Russia have common interests and could each benefit from cooperation on many of today's most serious global challenges. As Monday was Memorial Day, the delegation visited Riga's Brethren Cemetery to commemorate Latvian soldiers who were killed during the First World War and Latvia's war of independence with Russia.

On Tuesday, June 1, I chaired the closing plenary session of the NATO PA meeting. During the session, the Assembly had the opportunity to hear from NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, Latvian Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardack, the Commander of Allied Joint Force Command, General Egon Ramms, and the Speaker of the Latvian parliament, Gundars Daudze. Secretary General Rasmussen used his address to the Assembly to

outline some key principles for NATO's new Strategic Concept and to urge delegates to remain committed to the mission in Afghanistan. On the new Strategic Concept, Secretary General Rasmussen emphasized the importance of adopting a document that explains in clear terms how the Alliance is enhancing security in the 21st century. He argued that NATO must remain committed to deterrence and collective defense, that the Alliance must cooperate with non-NATO member states such as Russia, and that NATO's approach to security must be comprehensive and must complement actions taken by other international organizations such as the European Union and the United Nations. The Secretary General added that in order to realize the strategic goals agreed by the Alliance, NATO headquarters must function efficiently and that NATO member states must develop more flexible and deployable military forces and capabilities.

In sum, Madam Speaker, the 2010 spring session of the NATO Parliamentary session in Riga, Latvia was a great success. As President of the Assembly, I took pride in the deliberations and the informed engagement of the delegates from all NATO member states and our associate and observer members. For Members of the House and Senate interested in reading the committee reports or transcripts of the presentations mentioned in this statement, they are available on the NATO PA website at www.nato-pa.int. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our Ambassador to Latvia, Judith Garber, and her staff for the excellent job they did assisting the delegation during our stay in Riga.

On Tuesday, June 1, after the conclusion of the NATO PA meeting, our delegation travelled to Podgorica, Montenegro, on the invitation of Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic. Since achieving its independence in 2006, Montenegro's key foreign policy goals have been European Union (EU) and NATO integration. Montenegro has moved quickly to advance its NATO membership candidacy and in December 2009, the Alliance invited Montenegro to join the Membership Action Plan (MAP), a critical step on the road to possible NATO membership. The United States strongly supported Montenegro's effort to gain independence from Serbia and continues to support its efforts to gain membership in NATO and the European Union. During one-and-a half days of meetings in Montenegro, our delegation observed first hand the steps being taken by the Montenegrin government to advance its NATO membership prospects and to ensure that membership will lead to a stronger Alliance and enhance stability in the Western Balkan region. We also took the opportunity to urge the Montenegrin leadership to continue to advance reforms in the area of democratic governance, to combat corruption, and to enhance the rule of law in the country.

Over the course of our visit, the delegation met with numerous Montenegrin government officials, including Prime Minister Djukanovic and President Filip Vujanovic, and had the opportunity to observe Montenegrin troops as they trained in preparation for upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. We were also fortunate to meet with representatives of non-governmental organizations and media outlets, including several outspoken critics of the current Montenegrin government. Shortly after our arrival in Podgorica, we received a comprehensive briefing on U.S.-Montenegrin relations from our Ambassador to Montenegro, Roderick Moore, and his excellent staff. Ambassador Moore highlighted the record of strong U.S. support for Montenegro and emphasized the work he and his staff are currently doing to enhance democratic governance in the country. Our meetings with Prime Minister Djukanovic, President Vujanovic, Foreign Minister Milan Rocen, and Speaker of the Montenegrin Parliament Ranko Krivokapic focused primarily on the country's prospects for NATO and EU membership and on the government's democratic reform efforts, particularly in the rule of law area. The Montenegrin leadership stressed the importance of Euro-Atlantic integration not only for the country but for the Western Balkan region. Each of our interlocutors believes strongly that NATO and EU integration represent the best hope to bring lasting peace and stability to the region.

Our delegation also had the opportunity to observe first hand the advances being made by the Montenegrin armed forces. Since gaining independence, Montenegro has had to create a military virtually from the ground up. The size and capabilities of the Montenegrin armed forces remain limited, but the government has made some notable strides in modernizing the military and creating more deployable units. Our delegation was especially impressed to learn of Montenegro's contribution to NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. In March of this year, Montengro deployed a 31-man infantry unit and a medical team to Afghanistan. One of the highlights of our trip was being able to meet with Montenegrin soldiers preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and to express to them our sincere appreciation for their efforts.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Ambassador Roderick Moore and his staff, who went out of their way to organize an excellent visit for the delegation. The embassy team in Podgorica deserves high praise for the work they have done advancing U.S. policy in Montenegro and the Western Balkan region. As always, members of the United States military also contributed greatly to the success of this NATO PA trip. The logistics of such a trip, compressed into a tight time frame, are complicated and require lengthy and detailed preparation. Our military escorts were from the Air Force Legislative Liaison Office and the aircrew was from the 201st Airlift Squadron at Joint Base Andrews, MD. They did an outstanding job and I thank them for their hard work and dedication to duty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess this probably symbolizes as much as anything what's wrong with Congress. Here are people who get up and say this is a good bill that's good for job creation in this country, it had been bipartisan for 30 years, and because we made a mistake in the Republican Conference with respect to lumping it in as some sort of earmark, we have to oppose it, even though it's good for job creation in this country and good for our Nation. This is almost Alice in Wonderland where up is down

and down is up. I have to vote against a bill I know will help create jobs because they did it when they wrote the rules. And we misinterpreted the rules, so now we're going to have two wrongs make a right.

If job creation is important, and everyone knows that this bill will help create jobs in the United States of America, it seems to me that to vote against it for the reasons--and by the way, part of the time delay was because of a Senator in the other body who is in the Republican Party. But all that aside, if we cannot rise above some inane technicality that is in the rules that we just don't like or we can't interpret correctly, or whatever, and we're going to vote against American workers and the industrial base of this country because of that, then I suggest we give our voting cards to whoever the leadership of the Republican Conference is and go home.

What do we have brains for? We are not supposed to park our brains at the door because of some sort of partisan political advantage we think we might be able to get by hurting our own country.

I would like to place in the Record a series of letters of support from the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, AMTAC, NCTO, and from U.S. manufacturers all across the Nation.

They say this is for us to create jobs. I know I'm running out of time, but this is a perfect example of what is wrong with this House of Representatives--when we put partisan politics ahead of the country's interest.

United States of America

Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2010.

To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

and region, strongly supports H.R. 4380, the ``Miscellaneous

Trade and Technical Corrections Act,'' commonly referred to

as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB). Tens of thousands of

American workers and hundreds of American companies depend on

the MTB for relief from tariffs that serve only to raise

costs for U.S. manufacturers and other U.S. businesses.

According to guidelines established by Congress, the MTB is

a vehicle for the temporary suspension or reduction of duties

levied on imported materials or intermediate products that

are not produced domestically, or where there is no domestic

opposition. By eliminating these tariffs, the MTB lowers

costs and helps U.S. businesses maintain their competitive

edge.

The process for approving products for duty suspension

under the MTB is fully transparent. All tariff suspension

requests go through a vetting process to determine whether

any affected products are produced domestically or whether

there is any domestic opposition. Requests are subject to

review by the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S.

Trade Representative, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and

the U.S. International Trade Commission. Opportunities for

public comment are provided by both the executive branch and

Congress.

Since the expiration of the last MTB on December 31, 2009,

U.S. businesses both large and small have faced higher costs

for imported inputs not available from domestic sources. The

savings afforded by the MTB will help these firms to invest

in training and equipment and enhance their competitiveness.

Given its importance for preserving American jobs, the MTB

should receive the same strong bipartisan support it has in

the past, and the Chamber urges you to support its swift

approval. The Chamber will consider including votes on, or in

relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted

scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Madam Speaker, I rise today alongside our colleague Mr. Shuler, to recognize the lifetime accomplishments of our friend, former University of Tennessee football coach Johnny Majors.

Johnny is from a remarkable football family in Lynchburg, Tennessee. His father Shirley was the patriarch of a family of Tennessee football royalty. He was the head coach at Sewanee, the University of the South, for 21 years and had five sons who played college football.

Johnny and his brother Joe played high school football for the Huntland Hornets, where their father coached, and their sister Shirley- Ann was a cheerleader. The team won the state championship in 1951. Johnny, along with two of his brothers, Bill and Bob, would all go on to play for my alma mater, the University of Tennessee. His brother Larry played for the University of the South at Sewanee.

His brother, Joe Majors, a close friend of mine, was the starting quarterback at Florida State University and also played for the University of Alabama. He was an accomplished attorney; a former member of the Tennessee State House of Representatives, and a well-respected and popular figure on Capitol Hill. Everyone who had the pleasure to know him or work with him, as I did, was saddened when he passed away in 2007.

Johnny Majors stayed with football all of his life. In college, he was a triple-threat tailback at the University of Tennessee. Johnny was an All-American and runner-up for the Heisman Trophy in 1956. He played for the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League for one year and then moved on to several coaching positions.

Johnny was head football coach for the Iowa State University Cyclones for five seasons before taking over the football program at the University of Pittsburgh, where he helped win the National Championship with the Pittsburgh Panthers in 1976 and was honored as the National Coach of the Year.

Luckily for our alma mater, Johnny Majors decided to return to the University of Tennessee in 1977. While there, he reached remarkable success in the 1980s and early 1990s by winning three SEC Championships--in 1985, 1989 and again in 1990. His time there included one particularly noteworthy season in 1989, when the Majors-led Vols followed a 5-6 season with an 11-1 season, the largest turnaround of the year. Johnny retired from NCAA coaching after the 1996 season.

Over the years, Johnny Majors has been recognized as a self-less player and a capable, dedicated leader. He was admitted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1987, where his biography reads, ``Few who have followed college football over the years will soon forget the gridiron magic created by a certain skinny tailback. . . Even [his] name

had a special ring to it. It wasn't Jones or Smith or Thompson. It was Majors. . .. In his senior year Majors led Tennessee to an undefeated season, He ran, passed, punted, and even blocked. He was one of college football's best punters.''

Johnny and his wife Mary Lynn live in Knoxville, where he is still known not only as a former player and coach but as a leader in the community. Mary Lynn, a remarkable and talented woman in her own right, and my wife Betty Ann have become friends over the last few years. The Majors' collective contribution to our state and nation are an inspiration to all those who know them.

One other thing: Coach Majors, as President of the Nike Coach of the Year Clinic, has promoted and assisted the United States Marine Corps in coaching clinics across America. Johnny Majors is a dedicated patriot.

Madam Speaker, I also want the House to hear from our colleague, Mr. Shuler, who had the honor of playing for Coach Majors at the University of Tennessee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of John Taylor and honor his more than 40 years of service with the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Refuge Manager John Taylor began his career with the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1969 as a GS-3 Student Trainee. For three years he worked with the Mattamuskeet, Piedmont, and Back Bay National Wildlife Refuges. In 1971 he was promoted to his first assistant manager's position.

His career has taken him across the continent, from North Carolina to Alaska. He has worked with 15 refuges across 9 states. He worked with several refuges just as they were being set up, including the Becharof and Alaska National Wildlife Refuges.

While working with the Alligator River and Currituck National Wildlife Refuges he was instrumental in the Red Wolf Reintroduction Program. Red wolves were nearly extinct ten years ago. Now, thanks to his efforts, they can once again be seen in their natural environment.

John Taylor also supported the establishment of the Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge, the first Refuge in the state of Kentucky.

John Taylor has worked selflessly for more then 40 years to protect and preserve the beauty of our country's natural environment for future generations. For the last 19 years, he has served as the Refuge Manager of the Tennessee Natural Resource Refuge. He has been noted for his leadership abilities and his eagerness to get the public further engaged in conservation efforts.

Tennessee's natural beauty and amazing diversity of plant and animal life remain one of its most treasured endowments for future generations.

Madam Speaker, please join me today in thanking John Taylor for his years of service both to the public and to the environment. He will be missed, and we wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I was in a conference committee and could not get to the floor when the Tennessee delegation was speaking about the unprecedented flooding. Sixteen of the 19 counties in the Eighth District have been declared a disaster, and we expect the other three.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1337 to acknowledge the difficulties facing many Tennesseans as a result of the severe weather that struck our area recently.

Sadly, the storms that hit our area took seven lives in the 19 counties that make up the Eighth District, which we are honored to represent in this chamber. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families.

Additionally, there remains damage in all 19 counties that make up the Eighth District. We are appreciative that at the time we consider this resolution, 16 of those counties have been declared federal disaster areas, giving Tennessee families and businesses access to much-needed assistance as they get back on their feet. We are hopeful that the necessary assessments will be completed soon to allow federal assistance to all the counties we represent and others across the State.

Tennesseans always rise to the occasion when our neighbors are in need, and that was the case in this disaster as well. We commend the swift response from first responders, State and local leaders, volunteer organizations and members of the community. Both the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, TEMA, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, were also on the ground immediately to begin their work helping those affected and ensuring assistance is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cooper and our colleagues from Tennessee for bringing this resolution forward so the House has an opportunity to express its condolences to Tennesseans who are just beginning the recovery process.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend the Jackson-Madison County Tennessee Chapter, National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution, chartered in 1901. This chapter is one of the oldest chapters in the great state of Tennessee.

It is fitting that the members of this body should salute those estimable organizations that strive to promote love of country, preserve American history, and support better education for our Nation's children.

The members of the Jackson-Madison Chapter, National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution are descended from the men and women who won American independence during the Revolutionary War.

On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local ``Sons of Liberty'' committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row ``by sea'' across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching ``by land'' out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston); on the way to Lexington, Revere ``alarmed'' the countryside, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. ``Noise!'' cried Revere, ``You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!''

To celebrate the anniversary of Paul Revere's Midnight Ride, the Jackson-Madison Chapter, NSDAR will sponsor a reenactment of the famous ride around the Madison County, Tennessee Courthouse on Sunday, April 18, 2010.

This Chapter is located in Jackson--named after President Andrew Jackson of Tennessee--and Madison County--named after President James Madison of Tennessee--both of which I am honored to represent in this chamber. Nationally the NSDAR has more than 165,000 members in approximately 3,000 chapters worldwide and is one of the world's largest and most active service organizations.

Madam Speaker, I hope you and our colleagues will join me in commending the Jackson-Madison County Chapter of the National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution on its 109 years of outstanding service and its ongoing commitment to the preservation of our country's history.

I rise to a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this a sad day for our institution here when a Member comes to the floor and, by name, calls other Members to task for an unsubstantiated, untrue, fabricated allegation made in a blog somewhere and stands behind the fact that it has been reported that such and such occurred.

Now, the primary reason my wife and I decided not to seek reelection is because we have four grandchildren in Tennessee that we don't see enough of and are not a part of their lives as we want to be. And any suggestion that there is some sort of NATO job in Brussels, Belgium, is beyond the pale. I, and Mr. Gordon as well, I think, are rightly indignant about this reckless, scurrilous, I think, indiscretion.

Let me just say this. Emotions are high, but we can disagree on public policy matters agreeably. And to take an unsubstantiated, untrue, total fabrication and to repeat it on this floor, in my judgment, is an affront to this institution. It is too late to take the words down I'm told by the Parliamentarian, but let me just say this: When we get to the point as a society, when we--some of us--are unable to extend to one who may disagree with us on a matter of public policy the same purity of motive and the same intellectual honesty we claim for ourselves, we are going down the wrong road.

I didn't pay any attention to this. It is a total fabrication. I have talked to nobody. I wouldn't get on a plane and go to Brussels to live if they offered it to me. I say again, this is a complete fabrication by, and I think I know the political leanings of this blog. But to take that and then bring it down here to the floor is an affront to everything civil that we are supposed to stand for in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabor the point, but I can tell you this. I have been in public office over half my life. That is another reason we decided we wanted to do something else. And I don't remember a time when the people who know me best would countenance someone saying something like this about me. I don't know what I am going to do. I can't take the words down. But this is something that I think the institution ought to think carefully about and certainly I think the leadership of the Republican Conference ought to take seriously, as well as the Democratic leadership, because this institution is bigger and better than either political party that resides here right now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Speaker, if we were in Afghanistan by ourselves, perhaps this debate would be worthwhile, but the fact is we are not.

I am presently serving as the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The Afghan effort is a NATO-led effort.

NATO, arguably, one, if not the most successful military alliances in the modern era, is not only involved with us as allies in Afghanistan, but we know that our military might is no longer a deterrent like it was most of my life, most of our lives, during the Cold War. With a doctrine of mutually assured destruction, even though you had the bipolar world of East versus West and even though you had the USSR and their buddies and the United States and our allies, there was this, not only feeling, but we were protected by our military might. 9/11 shattered that. These people who are trying to kill us don't care how many aircraft carriers we have, how many tanks we have, how many submarines we have. It doesn't matter.

Therefore, if our military might is no longer our primary defense, what is? I would suggest that it is accurate, timely intelligence to know who, what, when, where, and how they want to try to attack us again so we can stop it.

How do we maximize that defense? We do it through allies. We do it through friends of ours. The French really have the best intelligence network in northern Africa. They are helping. They are helping in NATO.

If you look at all of the former Warsaw Pact countries that are now members of NATO, we are in a conflict that is global in nature. NATO is evolving from a static, land-based defense force to a security force that relieves our men and women to the extent they supply troops. It relieves the American taxpayer to the extent they help us pay for these efforts toward our common defense.

Again, were this just an American expedition, perhaps this debate would be more worthwhile, but it's not. So in the strongest possible terms, I would urge my colleagues to reject this.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Union City High School football team on its first-ever state championship in the 2009 Class 1A Blue Cross Blue Shield Bowl held in December. The Tornadoes beat the four-time state champions, the South Pittsburg Pirates, by a score of 31-29.

The Purple and Gold were down the entire game, until Keylon Hyde intercepted the ball in the third quarter, which started a 67-yard drive that put the Tornadoes ahead 28-21.

Following a touchdown by South Pittsburg in the fourth quarter, Union City was down 28-29 with 3:25 left to play. Union City struck back with a 68 yard 12-play drive which set up a field goal opportunity for the Tornadoes' kicker, Jorge Guerris. Guerris scored a 22-yard field goal with only two seconds left in the game and clinched the championship title for the team.

The Tornadoes have done exceptionally well with a final record of 12- 2. The state championship win marked the team's ninth straight victory of the season. This win was also the first time a rural West Tennessee public school had won the Class 1A championship in 20 years.

I would like to specifically applaud Coach Darren Bowling for leading this exceptional team and fullback Josh Nicks for setting a state championship game record of 47 carries and for being the offensive MVP of the game.

As an alumnus of Union City High School, I am proud of the accomplishments the Tornadoes have made this year, and I look forward to rooting on the Purple and Gold next season.

You know, if we accept that everything that everybody has said on both sides of the aisle is true, that is still not, in my view, a good financial reason to vote against this bill. It may be a good political reason, but it is not a good financial reason.

Yes, this bill is imperfect, but it is a first step. PAYGO only applies to those laws that are enacted that either demand by the law itself that Federal revenues be altered or that spending be changed. It does not affect discretionary spending and so forth. It is a first step. This bill is not perfect. But whatever your reason is is not a good reason, financially speaking, to vote against something that is good. Perfect? No. But the perfect is always the enemy of the good in a legislative body.

And so unless one wants to talk politics, if one wants to talk finances, I cannot think of a good financial reason to say, ``Well, let's just do this if this is all we can do.'' It is a good first step, and it ought to be taken.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4532) to provide for permanent extension of the attorney fee withholding procedures under title II of the Social Security Act to title XVI of such Act, and to provide for permanent extension of such procedures under titles II and XVI of such Act to qualified non- attorney representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4532.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Johnson for being here and being able to work together to work this out.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, for the past several years, one of the top priorities of our Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security has been helping the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been waiting sometimes over a year or two for a hearing on their disability case due to the large backlog. We have urged the Social Security Administration to make eliminating this backlog a top priority.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for his commitment to ensuring that the Social Security Administration has resources to address the issue effectively.

We join today with Mr. Johnson, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Linder on this bill to provide access to professional representation. The benefit application process can be very complicated, as many know; and this bill would help ensure that the applicants can get professional representation and help when they need it. It makes permanent an existing program to increase access to professional representation. And without the passage of this bill, the program would expire March 1.

It has the support of many organizations that are engaged in this effort. I would like to insert into the Record this morning a couple of letters from some of those people.

Consortium for

Citizens With Disabilities,

February 1, 2010.

Hon. John Tanner,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways

and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Sam Johnson,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on

Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jim McDermott,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Linder,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family

Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member

Johnson, and Ranking Member Linder: On behalf of the

undersigned members of the Consortium for Citizens with

Disabilities (CCD) Social Security Task Force, we are writing

in support of H.R. 4532, the ``Social Security Disability

Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act of

2010.'' H.R. 4532 makes permanent two provisions included in

the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), P.L. 108-

203, designed to improve access to representation for

claimants applying for Social Security disability and

Supplemental Security Income benefits.

Section 302 of the SSPA authorized the withholding and

direct payment of attorneys' fees in Supplemental Security

Income cases. Section 303 established a demonstration project

to allow withholding and direct payment of fees to eligible

non-attorney representatives. Both programs are scheduled to

sunset on February 28, 2010. Because both programs have been

successful, we are writing to support their permanent

continuation.

Withholding and Direct Payment of Fees in SSI Cases

Section 302 of the SSPA amended section 1631(d)(2) of the

Social Security Act to extend the Title II fee withholding

and direct payment procedures to claims under Title XVI of

the Act.

The CCD Social Security Task Force has long supported

allowing SSI claimants to enter into voluntary agreements

with attorneys which would allow SSA to withhold and provide

direct payment of attorneys' fees from past due SSI benefits.

The SSPA established this provision and extended it to

attorneys and non-attorney representatives who qualify under

the Section 303 demonstration (described below). The SSA

disability determination process is very complex and beyond

the capacity, training, or experience of many claimants to

negotiate without knowledgeable assistance. By ensuring that

representatives will be paid a fee for successful work on a

claimant's behalf, this provision has helped to assure that a

knowledgeable, experienced pool of representatives is

available to claimants. The limit on fees and the involvement

of SSA in establishing the fees helps to ensure that the fees

are reasonable. Experience has demonstrated that this

provision has increased opportunities for SSI claimants to

obtain representation.

Fee Withholding for Qualified Non-Attorney Representatives

Section 303 of the SSPA established a demonstration program

to examine the effectiveness of allowing non-attorney

representatives to qualify for fee withholding. In order to

qualify, the non-attorneys must possess a bachelor's degree

(or equivalent experience) and malpractice insurance

coverage; pass a background check; complete a test examining

knowledge of the Social Security disability system; and

maintain continuing education in areas directly related to

Social Security disability programs. To date, the

demonstration program has been successfully implemented. We

believe that claimants benefit from the availability of

qualified non-attorneys and we urge that the sunset date be

lifted.

Conclusion

CCD appreciates your efforts to assure that claimants

applying for Social Security disability and Supplemental

Security Income benefits receive the benefits to which they

are entitled. Access to an experienced and qualified

representative to guide claimants through the lengthy and

often-confusing process is key to a timely and well-informed

decision by SSA. Since the SSPA was enacted, the provisions

detailed above have proven their effectiveness in increasing

claimants' access to effective representation. For these

reasons, we urge Congress to move quickly to extend and make

permanent both programs so that there is no gap or delay

which might affect claimants' cases and/or their ability to

receive knowledgeable assistance.

Sincerely,

Marty Ford,

The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy

Collaboration.

Peggy Hathaway,

United Spinal Association and National Spinal Cord Injury

Association.

Susan Prokop,

Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Paul Seifert,

Council of State Administrators of Vocational

Rehabilitation.

Co-Chairs, CCD Social Security Task Force.

On behalf of:

American Council of the Blind

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Community Access National Network

Council of State Administrators of Vocational

Rehabilitation

National Association for Disability Representatives

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare

National Council on Independent Living

National Organization of Social Security Claimants'

Representatives

National Spinal Cord Injury Association

Paralyzed Veterans of America

Research Institute for Independent Living

The Arc of the United States

United Cerebral Palsy

United Spinal Association

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am joined today by my colleagues, Jim McDermott Chairman of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Sam Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and John Linder, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, in introducing the Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act. This important, bipartisan legislation will help individuals with severe disabilities navigate the often lengthy and complex process of applying for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, disability benefits.

Specifically, this bill will improve access to quality, professional representation for disability applicants by making permanent a temporary provision to expand access that is due to expire on March 1.

For many years, attorneys who represent Social Security disability claimants have been able to have their fees withheld from the claimant's past-due benefits and paid directly to them by SSA. By providing a way to ensure that attorneys are paid if the claim is successful, this system has helped to ensure that disability applicants--even those who are very low income--have access to professional representation. This representation is particularly important for those applicants who appeal their case by seeking a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The fee paid to representatives is limited to 25 percent of the claimant's past-due benefits, subject to a dollar cap, and is only paid if the claimant wins.

In 2004, Congress adopted a provision to temporarily expand this fee- withholding system in two ways: by extending the system to SSI claims, and also by allowing qualified non-attorney representatives to participate. To be a ``qualified non-attorney,'' a representative must pass an examination administered by the Social Security Administration, SSA, and meet other criteria designed to protect applicants.

This expansion of the fee-payment system has been very successful, and disability groups and other stakeholders have strongly supported making it permanent. In addition, both SSA and the Government Accountability Office have examined the program to extend fee- withholding to non-attorney representatives and found it was working well.

The Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act would ensure that these successful programs continue. The bill has no cost, and even generates some savings--$55 million over 10 years--due to user fees paid by representatives who participate.

Ensuring that individuals with severe disabilities have the help they need to navigate the complex benefit application process is a goal on which we can all agree. I urge you to support this bipartisan legislation to move us closer to this goal.