Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding. It is certainly important to look at the procedure, Mr. Speaker, by which any piece of legislation comes to the floor. But I think it's more important to look at the substance. And hopefully later this week, this body will have an opportunity to work its will on a piece of legislation that strengthens our country, that increases what we pay our troops, that improves the respect that we show to their families, that protects our country against threats, both present and in the future. Now, the purpose of what's on the floor right now is to make a procedural point about whether or not legislation that deals to protect Americans against hate crimes should or should not be included. I believe that should be. And I think those who would argue that there's something irregular or unfair about that procedure are respectfully incorrect in two respects.

The first is that before such a provision would be included in the final conference report before this House, the House will have to work its will on a rule. And if a majority of the Members believe that that rule is fair, then we will proceed. If a majority of Members believe the rule is not fair, we will not and have a different procedural setting. So there will be that opportunity for every Member of this House to take his or her position. Secondly, the hate crimes legislation has been thoroughly vetted in this Congress in hearings before the committees of jurisdiction, in markups in those committees and voting sessions in those committees, and on this floor repeatedly. There's nothing new, undebated, untested or unusual in the substantive legislation that will be before us.

So I believe that the right thing to do is to proceed with the plan that would include this legislation. But frankly, the majority of this House will get the chance to work its will as to whether we do that or not. I, for one, will be voting to proceed on that basis. Those who disagree will have a chance

to have their day on this floor, and the majority will work its will.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to express the committee's strong support for his amendment. It is important to reflect on what Mr. Cuellar's amendment does, and what the bill does not do.

Mr. Cuellar's amendment answers questions for students and families and financial aid officers and universities and colleges about how best to access student loans. Mr. Cuellar's amendment, I think, very wisely recognizes there is a whole different kind of person who is achieving a higher education in our country today.

It is not simply the person fresh out of high school. It is people who are in the middle of a career change, either voluntarily or involuntarily because of a layoff or a plant closing. It is a person who is a bit further along in life who wants to build his or her career by going to college. It is a nonconventional student. It might be a person very new to America, or it might be a person who has been here for a very long time. It is people facing language, cultural, or other kinds of issues.

What Mr. Cuellar's amendment is doing is making sure that the Department of Education is a constructive

and active partner in answering the questions that our constituents have. We enthusiastically embrace and support his amendment.

His amendment improves on a bill that doesn't really do any of the things that with all due respect the minority said. The minority discusses this as some sort of radical shift. It is not radical at all. Right now a student goes to a financial aid office and applies for a Pell Grant. It is a common process done throughout college and university campuses around the country. The only change between applying for a Pell Grant and applying for a student loan is you sign a document that is a note to pay the loan back. That is the only additional step that takes place. As a matter of fact, it is far less bureaucratic and far less complicated for a student accessing such a loan.

This bill saves the taxpayers $10 billion over time off the deficit. It stops the practice of rewarding people for taking risks with taxpayers' money. It understands, as the Congressional Budget Office has said, that the savings generated from this are $87 billion over time. The bill promotes efficiency. It will generate economic development.

With respect to the gentleman's point about lost jobs, Mr. Etheridge's amendment very much speaks to that. It makes sure that loan originators are now eligible to become loan processors and collectors, and much of the work done by those who originate in the private sector will now be done in the private sector by those who process and service these loans.

So the underlying bill saves the taxpayers money, significantly expands educational opportunity, and reduces the deficit by $20 billion over time. Mr. Cuellar's amendment significantly adds to the value of this bill. The committee strongly supports his amendment.

I thank my friend for yielding, and the committee congratulates and thanks him for this very excellent work he has done on this amendment.

Mr. Murphy's amendment recognizes that some of the most important teaching in America is going on right now by people who have had some of the least access to high-quality education for themselves. And it is not because they are not competent; it is not because they don't want it. It is because the resources have not been there.

The research is very clear that children in the early years of their lives develop much of their learning patterns and their skills. The country needs a significant investment in high-quality teacher education for the men and women who are teaching preschools across the country.

Mr. Murphy's amendment, I think, embraces that concept in a very wise

way by encouraging the States that will receive early learning funding under this bill to consider using some of that funding in partnerships with higher education institutions so that the quality of teaching may improve.

This, I think, is an amendment that will pay dividends for years to come because better education for our pre-K students will lead to better achievement in the classroom which will yield better results throughout the lives of these students when they become taxpayers and workers and productive citizens of this country.

I think this is an effort that will bear fruit for many years to come. The committee would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I join my friend from Minnesota in supporting this amendment. I know that my friend from Minnesota speaks as a father and as a veteran when he speaks in favor of this amendment. We salute his service.

This amendment is part of a series of amendments that carry forth a bipartisan tradition of this House that says that we don't want to simply welcome our troops home with welcoming ceremonies; we want to really welcome them home with services and respect and resources that they so richly deserve.

This amendment carries forth that tradition by emphasizing that our veterans who choose to pursue a higher education and who would benefit from the full range of health services that are available to veterans need to have those services.

The amendment requires an active liaison process between the veteran service officer on a campus and the health care people at the Veterans Administration so that veterans can have the full range of services and, frankly, try to make as much one-stop shopping as we can. So a veteran who is trying to balance his or her family obligations and work obligations and school obligations, who has some health care

issues, is able to get services in one place, maybe, instead of two or three.

It makes a lot of sense for people. I think the author has reflected the views of his constituents not only in his district, but veterans around our country.

The majority on the committee is strongly in favor of this proposal because it recognizes not only the service that our veterans have given us, but the needs they have. And we would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank my friend for yielding, and the committee expresses its strong support and appreciation for your good work. We support it and would urge a ``yes'' vote. Again, this follows in the tradition of doing things for our veterans, not just talking about them.

With respect to the underlying bill and addressing the two points made by my friend from Delaware, first, with respect to job loss. The concern that we all share about job loss is one of the reasons why. This bill makes provisions for loan providers, private loan providers who presently originate and service loans to continue to have a robust role in the servicing and processing and collection of loans. We believe that the record will show as the years go through on this that the opportunities will, in fact, expand for those in that field.

Second, with respect to the issue of the cost of this bill, as the Members know, under our rules, we have an agreement that the Congressional Budget Office is the authoritative source, and the Congressional Budget Office has given an authoritative analysis of this bill. That authoritative analysis says that the change that's made, which is the cessation of the process of rewarding private institutions to take risk with taxpayers' money, a very logical change, that that change generates gross savings of $87 billion over the years that are subject to the analysis, and that in this bill $10 billion of that is dedicated to deficit reduction.

So I think the issue is clear. The bill provides for a continuing robust role for private sector firms and workers, and the Congressional Budget Office has authoritatively stated the savings generated by this bill are $87 billion.

The underlying bill is strong. The gentleman from New Jersey's amendment strengthens the bill. We would urge a ``yes'' vote on his amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

The committee expresses its strong support for the gentlelady's amendment. The amendment is very much about a person who's not simply seeking a new job, like the story the gentlelady told about Ryan, but who is seeking a new career. And frankly, this is the difference between the issues raised in the Workforce Investment Act, which we should reauthorize, and this bill. The Workforce Investment Act really focuses on switching from job to job and helping someone do that.

The gentlelady's amendment and this bill focus on building a whole new life and a whole new career, which is necessary for many of our people. They have to do it involuntarily, but it also makes that available for the person who perhaps is doing it voluntarily.

The gentlelady's amendment properly focuses on the 55,000 people in her district and the millions of people across this country who find themselves involuntarily in a position where they must build a new career and a new life. Her amendment rewards institutions that are most innovative and creative in achieving that goal. For these reasons, we enthusiastically support the gentlelady's amendment and would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the author of the amendment for yielding.

The committee strongly supports his amendment and commends him for his excellent work.

No student should pay twice for the same course. If someone takes an English course and excels in it and learns a certain set of skills, he or she should then not have to pay again and consume his or her time again a second time around at a different institution. This is even more true for the men and women who volunteer to serve this country in the Armed Forces. I think it's very important that the House understands the benefits of Mr. Minnick's very wise amendment.

If a young American today who's serving in Afghanistan is able to access college credits whether online or in person and then he or she returns to his or her hometown and wants to transfer those credits so he or she can then build on their education, what Mr. Minnick says is that's one of the standards that we're going to hold these institutions to to see how well they cooperate with that veteran who has returned home. What it really does is make sure that the veteran has extra leverage, that if the course meets reasonable academic requirements and if the student really learns what he or she should, they're going to get the credit; so the veteran is not going to pay twice, nor is he or she going to have to spend as much time on their course. This is a very important to a lot of our returning veterans.

The committee enthusiastically embraces and supports this amendment by Mr. Minnick.

I thank my friend for yielding and express the committee's strong support for his well-thought-out amendment.

The amendment reflects embracing three principles. The first is deficit reduction, because the underlying bill reduces the deficit by $10 billion. The second is the value of high-quality pre-kindergarten education for the children of this country. And the third is the principle of fairness. The quality of a child's education should not depend on his or her zip code. What Mr. Perriello's amendment does is to say that States who receive these early learning grants will have to pay attention to that fact, to discern any patterns of inequality that exist and talk about what they're going to do to fix them. We think that's a very important point, and we commend Mr. Perriello for listening to people in his district. I know he represents a lot of very small counties and local subdivisions, but I know that he doesn't treat anyone's concerns as small. And by raising this amendment, he is raising the concerns of those constituents.

The committee enthusiastically supports this amendment.

I thank the author for yielding, and the committee strongly supports his amendment.

This is another example of making sure that the educational opportunities in this bill are focused on American workers who most need the help, those who find themselves with their lives disrupted, their finances in tatters, and in a lot of trouble. The author just told a very moving story about one of his constituents who fit that description. What we want the House to do is move his legislation to success today and move forward so we can help the kind of individuals that the author of the amendment talked about. We thank him for offering it and express our support.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, the author of the amendment, for yielding.

The committee strongly supports his very well-thought-out amendment.

Madam Chair, one of the things that I think we need to highlight about this amendment is its wisdom in understanding that perhaps the people who are best suited to work in our VA system are those who served the country themselves in the Armed Forces.

The gentleman talked about the fact that perhaps some of our returning veterans will be trained to work in mental health services for work in VA clinics and VA hospitals. And who would better understand the challenges and issues that one of our returning vets is facing than someone who has walked in his or her shoes?

So we think that among the many good ideas in this amendment, that focus on training people for the VA system makes an awful lot of sense. Obviously, as well, the energy component of the gentleman's amendment makes a great deal of sense.

So the committee thanks the gentleman for offering this amendment and would urge people in both parties to vote ``yes'' and support it.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are in strong support of his amendment.

Since his very first day in the House, the gentleman has worked diligently on the issue of addressing our deficit and reducing our debt. By supporting this amendment and by supporting this bill, he is following that course in a couple of ways. First, he is understanding that reducing entitlements is a key to reducing the deficit. And this bill has a net reduction of $10 billion in mandatory spending, as validated by the Congressional Budget Office. It is one of the single most significant entitlement reductions in several years, and the gentleman is to be commended for supporting it.

Second, the amendment shows understanding that economic growth is a powerful way to reduce our deficit and, therefore, our debt. And by supporting the investment in the education of the American people, we are supporting more jobs and more economic growth.

Finally, I would commend the gentleman for making sure that every dollar of that $10 billion in entitlement reduction will in fact be dedicated to deficit reduction.

The gentleman has offered a very good amendment. The committee strongly supports it and urges a ``yes'' vote.

I rise to claim time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the committee supports the amendment. The clear intention of the underlying spending bill is that the funds be awarded on the formula and competitive basis stated in the bill. There is no intention that any be earmarked.

For the record, I would just say that our support of the amendment should not be read to imply that we do not support congressionally sponsored projects in other contexts, but on this one, I agree with the gentleman's amendment and would urge its acceptance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I will oppose the amendment

Mr. Chairman, this amendment recognizes the need for substantial reform in the Federal student loan program. It recognizes that the practice of using taxpayer money to reward private institutions that take risks, not with their own money but with taxpayer money, doesn't make any sense. So there is recognition of this problem, and that recognition is shared by the underlying bill, but here is where the underlying bill parts company from the amendment, and it's why we oppose it.

There is a huge difference between these two approaches on what to do. The approach that the minority favors saves about $17 billion less than the approach that the underlying bill favors. It's a reform that continues, unwisely in my judgment, the practice of using taxpayer money to subsidize private institutions that take a risk with taxpayer money. So, rather than continue those subsidies, the underlying bill makes some very different choices, and here is the difference on what the choices are in the $17 billion difference.

The underlying bill says let's spend that money so returning veterans could get Pell Grants in addition to their GI benefits and continue their educations. They would spend the $17 billion on bank subsidies.

Our bill recognizes the fact that community colleges are burgeoning with new enrollees who need an education because of the tumultuous circumstances in our economy. Our bill says let's spend the $17 billion to strengthen those community colleges. The amendment says let's spend it on bank subsidies.

There are students, as we speak, who are attending schools. They're taking classes in broom closets, in former boiler rooms because their schools don't have adequate places to teach children. There are schools that are more than 100 years old where children are learning about the Civil War in buildings that were built at the time of the Civil War. Our bill says let's invest some of that $17 billion in upgrading the quality of those schools and in putting Americans back to work. The amendment says, no, let's spend it on bank subsidies.

Finally, there is a choice about early childhood. Our bill says that we value and want to invest in the reading and math skills of a 4-year- old or a 5-year-old so he or she can excel as a student, can climb the ladder as a student and can succeed as a worker and as a taxpayer. So it makes an historic investment in quality early childhood education around this country. Their bill favors bank subsidies. We think our approach is right.

At this time, I yield to the chairman of the full committee to continue the argument, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

We reserve the balance of our time.

I would inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining on our side?

Before I yield to the gentleman from New York, it is very important for the Members to understand the alternative proposal substitute guts the early childhood investment, guts the increase in Pell Grant, guts the aid to community college and guts the other investments in education, the historically black colleges, the Hispanic-serving institutions, it takes away that investment. We think that is very unwise.

At this time I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

We would respectfully ask that the House disapprove this amendment, vote against it.

I did want to return to one of the fiscal arguments we heard from my friend from Minnesota, that he is right, that the idea of borrowing money from central banks around the world is not desirable to anyone here. And he is right that we should embark on an effort to reduce our deficit and eventually reduce that debt.

But I would respectfully say he is wrong with his further characterization of this issue.

What the status quo does is to borrow that very same money, which none of us wants to borrow, and then turn around and use it to reward private lending institutions who are taking risks with taxpayer money. The issue is not whether the taxpayers are at risk, the issue is how they will be at risk.

The existing status quo, which I believe the minority, through this amendment, shows that it understands needs change, puts the taxpayers' money at risk and then rewards private institutions for putting the taxpayers' money at risk. That simply makes no sense.

With respect to the fiscal argument about the $87 billion and the cost in discretionary spending, there is one that is something that is clearly known, and something that is subject to dispute. What's clearly known is that the Congressional Budget Office has said there will be $87 billion in gross savings under this bill. What happens each year under the discretionary side is for this House to work its will and decide.

So we would urge defeat of this amendment. If you believe in investment in early childhood education, in Pell Grants, in community colleges, in our Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and in our Hispanic-serving institutions and other minority-serving institutions, and if you believe in $10 billion of deficit reduction, the right course is to vote against this substitute, vote for the underlying bill.

We yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Chair, I thank our chairman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this bill.

The issues before the House, tonight, Madam Chair, are these: Do you agree or disagree that the time has come to make college more affordable for men and women around this country, by making Pell Grant scholarships more available, student loans less expensive, more available. I think most people would say, Yes, we do agree with that.

The issue before the House tonight is, is it time for the country to make an investment in the youngest Americans, 3- and 4- and 5-year-olds who have yet to go to formal school so they get the highest level of achievement early in their lives. I think most people would say yes, the answer is yes.

The question before the House tonight is that at a time when many of our schools are inefficient, falling apart, badly in need of repair or replacement, is it time to put Americans back to work in repairing and rebuilding some of those schools? I think, Madam Chair, most people would say, yes, it is time to do that.

But they are worried about the fiscal crisis that this administration and this Congress inherited. So maybe we shouldn't do those things.

But if there is a way to reduce the deficit and achieve the things I just talked about, wouldn't it make sense to do that? And I think most would say, yes, it most certainly would, and that is precisely what the bill before us tonight does.

The Congressional Budget Office, a fair, nonpartisan arbiter of the facts, said the following: The status quo student loan program that takes taxpayer money and gives it to private lenders and then rewards them to take a risk, not with their money, but with ours, doesn't make any sense.

Let me say that again. The way the present program works is that private lenders get money from the taxpayers, take a risk with the taxpayers' money, and get paid a reward for taking that risk.

Now, it is fine to take a risk with your own money--and we should encourage that in this country. But when you are taking a risk with the taxpayers' money, you shouldn't be rewarded for it. This bill stops that practice, and the Congressional Budget Office says that yields $87 billion in savings over the next few years.

Here's what we do. We invest $77 billion of that in the education of the people in this country, the strongest engine of economic growth known to this country, educating men and women to be scientists and teachers and engineers and craftsmen and craftswomen, educate our young children, repair our schools that are in need of repair.

But then, the bill also takes $10 billion and reduces the deficit that we inherited. This is a chance to vote ``yes'' for college scholarships and loans. It's a chance to vote ``yes'' for educating the youngest Americans. It's a chance to vote ``yes'' to rebuild our crumbling schools and vote ``yes'' for deficit reduction.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment does not pose a choice between those who support bureaucracy and those who support education. It poses a choice between those who wish to see economic growth by investing in the most important aspect of economic growth, our workforce, and those who would prevent such a thing.

I would not rely on this argument on, frankly, my colleagues here in the House, although I commend them for putting this in the bill. I would rely instead upon this statement from the Business Roundtable, which is the association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with more than $5 trillion in annual revenues and 10 million employees. So this is not the community colleges speaking. This is not those of us on the majority side speaking. It is the CEOs of the leading companies in America, and here is what they said:

``On behalf of the Business Roundtable, I want to commend you''--it's addressed to Chairman Miller--``for inclusion of the Community College Initiative in H.R. 3221. This Community College Initiative and the President's American Graduation Initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions where acquiring skills for new jobs and new careers will take place.''

The United States cannot compete without the most highly skilled and motivated workers in the world, and I dare say that our odds of achieving that goal in the workforce are severely compromised if our community college sector is not strengthened.

The community colleges that I represent are overwhelmed with new applicants. They're overwhelmed attempting to find facilities and resources to deal with the education of those new applicants. That's why my colleges would agree with the CEOs of the biggest companies in this country who say that the Community College Initiative is so important for community colleges to reach their potential.

Let us not unduly constrict these fine institutions. Let us not listen to Republicans or Democrats. Let's listen to the leaders of corporate America who say, vote ``yes'' and oppose this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Trevor L. James, who resided in Hammonton, New Jersey for 22 years. His life was tragically cut short in a motorcycle accident.

As a child Trevor loved to laugh and play like all children, but he also had a passion for all things mechanical. He would spend endless hours figuring out how things could be put together and taken apart.

When he was 12 years old, Trevor was struck by a car while riding his bicycle. As a result of the injuries from the accident he was unable to participate in sports and other physical activities. Despite this obstacle, James kept a positive attitude. He lived his life according to his parents' philosophy; act with conscience and always with motivation.

At the age of 20, Trevor was blessed with the birth of his son Dylan. Trevor instantly matured the day Dylan entered this world. Trevor bought and restored a home in order to better care for his son. He devoted his life to being the best father he could be.

On August 1st, 2006, Trevor was in a motorcycle accident in Sicklerville, New Jersey. While driving down the road he was blindsided by another vehicle and the promise of his young life was ended. Since the accident his mother, Mrs. Janet James, has dedicated her efforts to the memory of her son Trevor. She is now a major advocate for motorcycle safety in New Jersey. Members of the community have donated a billboard to commemorate Trevor's life. The billboard is located on the highway where Trevor was struck. It shows a picture of Trevor and his son Dylan, reminding drivers to remain alert on the roadways.

Madam Speaker, Trevor James' life must not be forgotten. I want to personally thank Mrs. James for keeping her son's memory alive. As Mrs. James says, her son will be remembered for the characteristics he demonstrated everyday: truth, love, and justice.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rock School for Dance Education of Philadelphia, PA. The Rock School helps its students succeed academically as well as artistically. For many years, the Rock School has helped prepare students both in the performing arts world and the educational world.

Initially called the School of Pennsylvania Ballet, the Rock School changed its name in 1992 to become an independent institution. During this time, the school became one of the nation's top-five pre- professional training programs. Its reputation continues to grow as it attracts more international students while acquiring exceptional faculty and great successes from its alumni.

The Rock School engages and enriches local communities through its comprehensive outreach programs. More than 10,000 inner city children and their families take part in the School's outreach program annually. The Rock School and its Rock Reach program create positive opportunities for inner city children to participate in productive, stimulating activities. Rock School serves the Philadelphia and Camden community by teaching dance lessons and making dance facilities accessible to local citizens. The Rock Reach program, directed by Sarah Cooper, brings dance to life for Philadelphia and Camden students. Dancers from the school perform at local schools, teach dance lessons, and open their faculties up to the local community

In addition, the Rock School awards over $500,000 in academic scholarships annually. The scholarships are given to talented students who need financial assistance. Scholarship students attend a pre- professional dance training program while also giving outstanding college-preparatory classes. These students dedicate themselves to dance, and the discipline they learn while dancing carries on in everything they do for the rest of their lives.

Madam Speaker, the Rock School for Dance Education instills a quality of thought and action that enriches its students' lives and the local community. I hope to see the school continue along this path of success for years to come. It is an honor to pay tribute to such a fine institution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Dick and Mrs. Tommie Ridinger, residents of Woodbury, NJ for the past five decades. Dick and Tommie are 86 and 89 years old respectively, and have been married for the past 61 years. They met each other in Southern France while serving in the United States military during World War II.

Mr. Ridinger was a second lieutenant and Mrs Ridinger was a nurse on the front lines in Marseilles, France. Mr. Ridinger is a short man, and when he was young he was self-conscious about his height. During combat in France, an enemy soldier fired a bullet at him. It skimmed off the top of his helmet, just barely missing his forehead. Never again has Mr. Ridinger complained about his height.

At another point, Nazis attacked a house while Mr. Ridinger's platoon was inside. While seeking shelter inside a closet, he found a French book. The book contained a poem titled, in English, ``I Know Something Good About You.'' From that day forth, he embraced the teachings of the book and modeled his life philosophy after it.

In Marseilles, France, Mrs. Ridinger aided wounded soldiers on the front lines back to health. When the war ended, Tommie returned home to New Jersey with Dick. Tommie was a nurse at Redbank and Oakview elementary schools for over 20 years.

After the war, Mr. Ridinger served as a teacher, vice principal and a high school football coach at Paulsboro and Collingswood High Schools. His success led to his induction into the High School Coaches Hall of Fame in Canton, OH.

Madam Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Ridinger have served their country in extraordinary ways. Assisting our country both in World War II and in their community for decades, they deserve tremendous recognition for their service. I congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Ridinger and wish them best of luck.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Johnson of John's Friendly Market. John has served the local residents of Haddon Heights, New Jersey for over 50 years. He has continuously provided customers with fresh food and convenience store items. Recently, John celebrated his 90th birthday and this milestone deserves acknowledgment.

When customers of John's Friendly Market walk in the front door, they know two things for sure: that their hunger will be satisfied by the delicious food that the market provides and that they will see a friendly man sitting behind the counter waiting to take their order. Customers not only love the food at John's, but they love knowing John will brighten their day.

The residents of Haddon Heights, New Jersey consider John a celebrity. His kindness is legendary. For instance, John opened up his store for a family after he had closed, simply because their dog was sick and the vet recommended a meat only diet. People gather at John's to shop for groceries, to fill their stomachs, and to take a break from their fast paced lives. John's Friendly Market is an integral part of the Haddon Heights community.

Madam Speaker, John Johnson's service to New Jersey's First Congressional District should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank John Johnson for the food he provides, the service he performs, and the lives he has touched.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman and friend for yielding.

The proposition before the House today I think is rather direct, and here's what it is. If the House is going to vote for automatic spending for a proposition that spends the taxpayers' money every year without a separate vote, then it must offset that spending either by raising more revenue or cutting other automatic spending. If the House is going to reduce taxes on people, if the House is going to say that we're going to ask less of the American people in a given tax, then we must either raise some other source of revenue or reduce some other automatic spending in order to pay for that.

Now, I don't know why this is controversial in the sense that it seems logical if we're locking ourselves into higher spending or locking ourselves into lower revenue, whatever the purpose of that may be, that we should only borrow the money to do that under extraordinary circumstances.

The Education Committee yesterday gave a good example of how this ought to work. A lot of Members of the House want higher Pell Grant college scholarships and less expensive student loans, and so we passed a bill yesterday that does that, but we paid for the bill by reducing spending that I believe is corporate welfare to the banking system.

So here's what we did: we reduced that corporate welfare, increased Pell Grant scholarships, lowered the cost of student loans, and did some other things in education and had $10 billion left over to reduce the deficit. That's what pay-as-you-go yields. Rather than simply spending the money and borrowing to cover it, rather than simply reducing taxes and borrowing to cover it, it forces us to do what the sensible and rational thing is to do, and that's pay for it as you go.

This is not a Republican or Democratic idea. It's a commonsense idea, and I think the Members should all vote ``yes.''

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

The issue is not whether the country will have a missile defense; the issue is whether the country will have an effective missile defense.

Ninety-nine percent of the threat comes from regional missiles, so this budget increases by about 50 percent the amount of money that we spend on effective regional defense systems.

But let's talk about what we would do if the Pyongyang threat came true and a missile was fired from North Korea. Here is the first thing we would do: We would rely upon the ground-based systems in Alaska. We put nearly a billion dollars into improving those systems. The Secretary of Defense has testified that the 30 interceptors in place are plenty, that they are enough. We improve upon them, and we use that system.

Second, we look to a system that we frankly think will work better because the testing has been more promising and more accurate, the SM- 3, Block 2A interceptors, funding for which is increased by 50 percent in this bill.

The issue is not whether we have a missile defense; it is whether we have one that works. I will requote the Secretary of Defense: ``The security of the American people and the efficacy of the missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs that in terms of their operational concept are fatally flawed, or research programs that are essentially sink holes for taxpayers' dollars.''

We would not invest in Civil War-era technology that doesn't work to defend our country. We would invest in the 21st-century technology that does work, and that is what we are doing.

We should oppose this amendment.

I thank the chairman. I rise in opposition. Here's the concern that we have about this amendment. Let's say that we have a servicemember who is suspected of sharing sensitive information with another country or someone they shouldn't share it with, and those investigating the alleged offense enter into a confidentiality agreement not to share any information about the investigation because it would impair the investigation.

As I read this amendment, within 2 weeks of entering that agreement it would have to be reported to the committees of the Congress substantial information about it. I don't see any protections in the amendment that would say that the disclosure of the agreement would have to be done in such a way so as not to impair the investigation.

Look, there's a difference between transparency and redundancy. There's a difference between transparency and paralysis. We need to have transparency so we can do our constitutional job. But if we have paralysis, we impair the executive branch from doing its job.

We share the goal of this amendment, but we reject the means, and we would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague, the outstanding new Member from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady who is the Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Richard E. Murray, FACHE. He has played an integral role in New Jersey's First District through his administration of multiple health care systems. Mr. Murray has demonstrated a history of compassion throughout the community and for this he deserves great praise.

Mr. Murray has served as the President/Chief Executive Officer of Kennedy Memorial Health System since 1980. Kennedy Memorial Health System consists of three acute-care hospitals, multiple outpatient clinics and various wellness programs.

Mr. Murray's leadership has led to many advances within the Kennedy Memorial Health System. Since 1998, Kennedy Memorial Hospital has opened a free-standing outpatient Dialysis Center, a Sleep Center, a 10-bed Ronald McDonald House Pediatric Unit, a Cancer Center and Outpatient Medical Imaging Center, an Emergency Department, a Center for Wound Healing, a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, a 40-bed Progressive Care Unit, a 12-bed Innovative Hospice Care Center, a Stroke Program, a Maternity Center, a PET/CT Center, a Family Health Services Center, a Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit, a Surgical Unit, and an Intensive Care Unit.

Aside from the structural upgrades, Mr. Murray has overseen multiple projects that have improved the quality of care within the Kennedy Memorial Health System. These projects include the creation of an ``Invensivist Program'' to ensure the oversight of health care providers and patient safety, the purchase of the high-tech DaVinci Robot for use in minimally invasive surgical procedures, and the creation of programs for diabetes control and a smoke free environment at all facilities. Without the hard work and exceptional guidance provided by Mr. Murray, none of these things would have been possible.

Mr. Murray has received multiple awards commemorating his service to the South Jersey community. In 2005, he received the New Jersey Hospital Association's Distinguished Service Award, presented annually to an individual with more than 15 years of service in health care who ``consistently demonstrates strength, integrity, professionalism and a relentless commitment to a hospital or health care system.'' In 2006, he was honored by

March of Dimes for his positive influence and contribution to the community. In 2007, he was honored with the New Jersey Institute for Nursing EPIC Award, which honors exceptional individuals for their contributions to New Jersey communities and the advancement of health care for the profession of nursing.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Murray's service to New Jersey's First Congressional District should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank Dick Murray for the exceptional guidance he has provided his staff, the community service he has provided to members of the community, and the lives that he has changed throughout New Jersey. I congratulate Mr. Murray and wish him the best of luck in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to introduce the ``Prosthetic and Custom Orthotic Parity Act of 2009 (PCOPA).'' At a time when health care costs are rising by about 7 percent annually, the financial hardship on those in need of prosthetic and custom orthotic devices is devastating. Yet, by expanding coverage for prosthetic and custom orthotic devices so that it is on par with other types of essential care, not only will provide amputees with proper treatment, which will allow them to experience a better quality of life, but save our health care system money in the long-term. That is, prosthetic and orthotic devices often dramatically decrease secondary health problems for those in need of such a device.

The Prosthetic and Custom Orthotic Parity Act would address the significant health insurance inequity that amputees in our society currently face by requiring insurance companies that offer prosthetic and custom orthotic services to provide the same level of coverage as they do for medical and surgical services. Specifically PCOPA would provide coverage of prosthetic and custom orthotic devices, as well as their repair and replacement, under the same terms and conditions applicable to the other medical and surgical benefits provided under the health insurance policy.

Currently, eleven states have addressed this problem and have enacted prosthetic and/or custom orthotic ``parity'' legislation. Furthermore, prosthetic and/or custom orthotic parity legislation has been introduced and is being actively considered in thirty other states.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation that will help put an end to the inequity many Americans who have lost a limb by way of a tragic event as well as those living with cerebral palsy and alike, experience when denied coverage by their insurance company.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank my friend from California and all the members of the Rules Committee for their cooperation in bringing this conference report to the floor.

We will later speak about the merits substantively on this legislation, but I do think my friend from California's remarks merit a comment because I think this is a victory for the institution as well. This is an institutional process that benefits us as an institution.

There was a panel created by Chairman Skelton and Mr. McHugh that Mr. Conaway and I were fortunate enough to lead that helped generate this legislation. We had open hearings. It was followed by two full committee hearings that touched on the subject, followed by an open, full committee markup in the Armed Services Committee, followed by an opportunity on the floor under the suspension rules because it was not controversial for us to go forward, followed by very diligent work in the conference committee, for which we'd like to thank from the other body Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and their colleagues, followed by this floor debate.

The media dwell on our situations where we disagree with each other, and disagreement is healthy in democracy. It's very important for us to highlight times when we agree with each other, when the process works as it should. This is one of those times, and I would like to thank and congratulate all Members of both bodies, particularly the Rules Committee, for facilitating this success here today.

Thank you.