Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 878) expressing support for the goals and ideals of National Family Literacy Day.

Madam Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous materials on H. Res. 878 into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 878, which recognizes November 1, 2009, as National Family Literacy Day and acknowledges the benefits of parent involvement in their child's education.

Family literacy programs address the literacy needs and challenges children and families in our country deal with every day. These programs provide parents with knowledge and skills that allow them to be their child's first and most important teacher. Family literacy programs also help parents to be active participants in their child's education. For children, family literacy programs help increase children's literary and oral skills. In addition, research has shown these programs can help improve children's scores on standardized tests.

National Family Literacy Day promotes the importance of literacy for both children and adults. According to the National Center for Family Literacy, parent-child literacy activities, such as parents reading to their children, improve children's language skills and increase their interest in books.

Parent-child literacy activities also benefit low-literacy adults. It helps adults build confidence and develop their literary skills and contributes to self-sufficiency for adults and families across the Nation, leading to better jobs, workforce readiness, and higher education degrees.

In honor of National Family Literacy Day, approximately 8,000 literacy programs and schools will hold workshops, book drives, and family reading activities in libraries and community centers across the Nation.

Madam Speaker, once again I express my support for National Family Literacy Day. I thank Representative Platts for bringing this resolution forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Frankly, I am surprised. Over the last 2 days we have heard a great deal from our friends on the other side of the aisle about the deficit, about which we should all quite correctly be concerned. And, frankly, I thought that their substitute amendment would address that issue in a very forceful way.

This amendment does not. This amendment leaves in place a program that is wasteful and expensive. It leaves in place a program that costs approximately $8 billion to $9 billion more per year than that which we are proposing to take its place, the Direct Loan Program.

What this amendment essentially says is that over the next 5 years, the Federal Government gets to do the heavy lifting of this loan program. The Federal Government gets to do the heavy lifting of providing the capital, it gets to do the heavy lifting of guaranteeing the amounts that are loaned, and the private lenders get to walk away with the profits. I don't see how any reasonable person can think that that is a situation that we can allow to stand.

What the amendment also says is, it says to needy students, Hope you can get by, hope you can make it as you try to pay your bills. We would love to help, but we have got these lenders that are counting on huge profits, and we have got to make sure that we provide for them.

Our proposal, the underlying bill, says quite the opposite. Our proposal says that we are going to pay, take Federal tax dollars and put them to their highest possible use in this circumstance, and that is helping needy students go to college.

Every one of us, virtually every one of us that has the privilege of serving in this Chamber, is here because we had the opportunity to seek a higher education. What our bill does, the underlying bill does, is it says to everyone else that's out there, that has aspirations of their own, that we are going to help you get your slice of the American dream.

In doing so, we build a stronger Nation, because we build a Nation that can compete on equal footing with the rest of the world.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to make three quick points, but first I want to say that I rise in support of this rule and, more importantly, in support of the underlying legislation.

Three quick points. The ranking member of the Rules Committee spoke with great reverence for private markets and talked about how we are eliminating any private role in the student loan program. The truth is that, were it not for the intervention of the Federal Government this year, there would be virtually no private student loan market.

We passed last year a piece of legislation called the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans, and we did so so that students could continue to borrow because of a lack of liquidity in the student loan market. Had we not acted, the private student loan market would have been severely diminished, if not nonexistent. In fact, 60 percent of the $85 billion that students were borrowing this year, they are borrowing as a result of the intervention of the Federal Government.

So we can't rely on the private loan market. And one of the reasons we are taking this action is because students need to have a source of funding that they can rely upon.

So it's very important that we pass this legislation to address the issue of the lack of liquidity in the student loan market and to give students a source of financing that they can rely upon.

The second point. We talk constantly in this Chamber about waste, fraud, and abuse. And the simple fact is that we are supporting a private loan program, the FFEL program, that wastes $8 billion to $9 billion a year in taxpayer dollars, and we are making the judgment that those taxpayer dollars would be much better spent if we took that $8 billion or $9 billion and used it to help students attend college, to improve community colleges, to expand other student aid programs, to help students graduate, something that's very, very important.

So we are attacking the waste, fraud, and abuse that exists.

We are attacking the waste, fraud, and abuse that exists, and doing so in a way that helps students.

Lastly, my friend from Minnesota, the ranking member of the Education Committee, just said that we are pursuing a partisan goal. I would take issue with that and say that what we're pursuing is a very practical goal.

The practical goal we're pursuing is to help young people go to college. We are not going to be able to compete as a Nation in an increasingly competitive global marketplace unless we have an educated workforce. Higher education is the key to that educated workforce.

So, from a very practical perspective, not partisan perspective, we need to pass this legislation.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this very important piece of legislation to the floor. I want to amplify what the chairman just said because I think it's important for all of us to understand how the FFEL program works right now.

The way it works right now is that the Federal Government is providing approximately 60 percent of the capital that the private lenders provide to needy students. We do so because of the lack of liquidity in private credit markets.

So what we are doing is, we are paying private lenders a subsidy so that they will have the privilege of lending federally-originated money to their borrowers. We guarantee repayment of that money to the tune of 97 percent of the amount outstanding and the private lenders reap whatever interest payments are paid by the borrowers.

This is a really, really good deal for private lenders. It is a deal that costs the American taxpayer approximately $8 billion to $9 billion a year that we don't need to spend in that fashion. We can provide--we, the Federal Government--can provide the loan capital that students need. In fact, we now provide approximately 30 percent of the schools in the country that participate in the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, participate in the Direct Loan Program.

I used to work at a school that participated in the Direct Loan Program. We made the transition from private lending to direct lending early on, and it was an absolutely seamless transition. We did not have to add a single staff person. Our students felt very advantaged by the change that we made. And we are now asking that all schools make that change, and we are doing so so that we can redirect that $8 billion or $9 billion that right now goes to pad the profit margins of the private lenders and direct that money primarily to needy students.

Let me put that in context. We right now rank sixth in the world in terms of the college-going rate for our population. We used to be first. Approximately only one out of every two students that enter college ever graduates. Those are two pretty daunting statistics if we are going to remain competitive in a very difficult global marketplace.

We need to have an educated workforce. We need to have a workforce that can be competitive. And the pathway to that is access to college-- and not just access to college, but degree attainment.

This bill provides at least the financial mechanism for students to be able to achieve that goal. We dramatically expand the availability of the Pell Grant and increase the Pell Grant maximum in a way that it keeps pace with inflation so that it maintains its buying power.

We guarantee access to capital in the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, a subject I just talked about. We dramatically expand the availability of Perkins loans. Right now, students borrow $1.5 billion in Perkins loans. We would increase that amount to $6 billion a year, dramatically expanding both the number of students that can benefit and the number of schools that participate.

We also simplify the financial aid process. This is a process that has proven very daunting to many, many students. I used to administer that process. I recognize firsthand how difficult it can be. We simplify the financial aid process, particularly the administration of the so-called FAFSA form, and we remove that barrier, that roadblock that has prevented many students from pursuing their dreams. And we do all of this by not adding a dime to the bill that the taxpayers will be asked to carry. We redirect money, as I say, from the banks. And we do so in a fashion that helps needy students.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me make a couple of points.

First, the section that the amendment seeks to strike is essentially a bill passed by the House earlier this year with broad bipartisan support, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act. It passed with very good bipartisan support. We are seeking simply to fund that bill in part.

It is estimated that the backlog of unmet needs for K-12 educational facilities amounts to some $255 billion. This is a very modest effort on the part of the Federal Government to help local school districts deal with that need.

I was frankly surprised to hear the gentleman from Michigan say that his school districts and his school superintendents are saying enough. I have had the exact opposite experience. I would say that rarely does a week go by that some school superintendent or some school board members do not come to my office seeking Federal help with their facility's needs. Their budgets are strained, particularly in these

tough economic times. They have real bricks-and-mortar needs. They are unable to address them without hurting their academic programs, and they are seeking the help of the Federal Government, quite the contrary to the experience that the gentleman from Michigan has had.

So I urge we reject this amendment, and I would urge that we support the facilities needs of K-12 education as well as our community colleges.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor former Suffolk County Legislator John J. Foley, who passed away this week at the age of 90.

Mr. Foley served from 1976 to 1993 in the Suffolk County legislature, longer than any other Democrat. Before this, he served on the Brookhaven Town board from 1959 to 1967. In office and out, he fought to improve health care, education, and the environment in order to make life better for the Long Island residents he represented.

He was succeeded in the legislature by his son, Brian X. Foley, who said that his father's personal creed was ``people not politics.'' Today, Brian carries on his father's work as a member of the New York State Senate.

A man of strong personal faith, John Foley believed that every person had dignity and sought to treat every person with respect. He believed that the government could play a positive role in the lives of individuals and communities.

Mr. Foley earned the respected of colleagues on both sides of the aisle in New York as he fought to increase funding for open space, health centers, community college, mental health and services for the disabled. In the 1980s, he was a delegate to the White House Commission on Aging. In 1990, he led the effort to save the county infirmary and replace it with a modern $34-million nursing home, which was named in his honor. A strong supporter of education, he served for 25 years on the Eastern Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services and was a trustee of Suffolk Community College.

John Foley served as a role model to me and so many others who have entered into public service. His voice will be sorely missed.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, his sons Brian, Dennis and Michael, daughters Mary Ann Hughes and Patricia Kuhn, 12 grandchildren and three great grandchildren.

This Friday, we remember the Americans whose lives were taken 8 years ago as well as those sickened by the ensuing rescue and recovery efforts.

In the wake of that horrific crime, America's first responders did not back down or turn away. However, we as a Nation have not honored them with the same care and commitment and have yet to repay their sacrifices.

I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues and the entire Nation the services of firefighter and 9/11 first responder, John McNamara. A 10-year veteran of the New York Fire Department, John was a first responder who assisted the rescue efforts following September 11 and answered the call again for the citizens of Louisiana during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

For years John fought for the passage of legislation to help his fellow sick first responders even as he himself was dying from colon cancer, which he was diagnosed with in 2006. John was 44 when he passed away earlier this year, leaving behind his wife, Jennifer, and 2-year- old son, Jack.

Like John McNamara, many of the brave first responders who served at Ground Zero are struggling with debilitating diseases as a result of their courageous efforts. Too many people have moved on from 9/11, but the first responders and their families whose health is suffering cannot move on, and neither should we until we have kept our promise. We must pass the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act this year and take care of these heroes.

In the words of one of John McNamara's fellow first responders, ``Until his last day, John made us promise that we would carry on what he started. John's work is not done, and neither is ours.''

Madam Speaker, on July 27, 2009, I was unavoidably detained en route to the Capitol from New York. Due to my absence, had I been here, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 647, I would have voted aye; rollcall No. 648, I would have voted aye; rollcall No. 649, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I will be even more brief than Mr. Pallone.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply thank Mr. Pallone, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Boozman, Chairman Oberstar, and Chairwoman Johnson for their leadership on this issue.

This bill builds on the successes of the original BEACH Act. It implements rapid testing procedures which are vitally important. It provides a significantly larger authorization for the grants, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of eastern Long Island, I would like to commend Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson and Congressmen Pallone and Bilbray for their leadership and unwavering dedication to clean water issues. I would also like to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff for their hard work and commitment to advancing this legislation to the full House today.

My district encompasses 300 miles of coastline, and I'm very proud to represent some of this country's most popular and beautiful beaches. Maintaining coastal health is an integral objective toward preserving the Nation's environment and sustaining the tourist economies of our States. The beach-going public that flocked to our Nation's shores this summer reminds us that we deserve pristine waterways to enjoy with our families and that we need to preserve them for future generations of Americans.

The water quality monitoring and notification grants established in the original BEACH Act have been absolutely vital to protecting the health of beachgoers on our shores. Today, with the consideration of H.R. 2093, the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009, we can continue to assure the American public that preserving healthy shores is a priority of our environmental agenda.

After EPA reports marked progress but raised questions about the implementation of the BEACH Act, it has become clear that further development of the legislation was needed. That is why Mr. Pallone, the author of the original BEACH Act, and I decided to pool our resources to advance better legislation to fix problems and fund grant programs.

The Pallone/Bishop/Bilbray legislation reauthorizes the BEACH Act through fiscal year 2013 and increases authorization for funding from $30 million to $40 million, annually. This bipartisan legislation requires development and implementation of rapid testing methods to ensure that the public is notified of potential health concerns related to water quality in hours rather than days and enhances existing public notification requirements.

In the 110th Congress, a nearly identical bill was agreed to by this committee and passed on the House floor--both by voice vote. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill.

One in ten tourists is destined for the beach this summer--providing our travel and vacation industries with customers and business. I hope my colleagues agree that the BEACH Act is an excellent example of an effective government program that benefits communities in every region of the country and has yielded tremendous progress in restoring healthy shores.

Mr. Speaker, with the leadership and support of this body, we can ensure that beach visitors throughout the country are assured that local governments have all the resources they need to monitor recreational waters and alert the public of potential health hazards.

Madam Speaker, it is with great appreciation for his service to the people of my congressional district that I bid farewell to Colonel Aniello L. Tortora, commander of the New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I have known Colonel Tortora since he assumed command of the New York District in August, 2006, and have been proud to work with him on Long Island to improve navigation, protect our shores and energize the local economy.

Covering not only Long Island, the New York District is responsible for the Corps' water resource development, navigation, and regulatory activities in northeastern New Jersey, eastern and south-central New York State, and parts of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The District is also responsible for design and construction at Army and Air Force installations in New Jersey, New York, and overseas in Greenland. Colonel Tortora also holds the title of Supervisor of New York Harbor.

Colonel Tortora, a native of southern Florida, was commissioned an engineer officer from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1985. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the U.S. Military Academy, a Master of Science in Engineering from the University of Texas, and a Master of Science in National Security Strategy from the National Defense University.

Throughout his career, Colonel Tortora has served in a variety of operational, command and staff assignments in the United States and overseas. He has commanded at every level from platoon to battalion. His most recent assignment was Senior Joint Engineer, Defense Continuity and Crisis Management, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense) in Washington, DC.

Colonel Tortora's previous assignments include: platoon leader and company executive officer, 43rd Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), Fort Benning, Georgia, and Honduras; B Company commander, 16th Engineer Battalion (Combat), 1st Armored Division in Nuremberg, Germany, and for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm; project engineer, Omaha District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; battalion S-3, 588th Engineer Battalion (Combat) and brigade S-3, Engineer Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; and staff officer, Futures Directorate, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia. He also commanded the 2nd Engineer Battalion (Combat), 2nd Infantry Division, at Camp Castle, Korea.

Colonel Tortora is a graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced courses, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the National War College. He is a member of the Association of the United States Army, the Society of American Military Engineers, the Army Engineer Association, and the National Engineering Honor Society, Tau Beta Pi.

His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three awards of the

Army Meritorious Service Medal, three awards of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal, and Saudi Arabia Liberation Medal.

Madam Speaker, it is evident from his long list of accomplishments and accolades that Colonel Tortora's has dedicated his life to service to his country. I am honored to have worked with him to improve and protect the lives of Long Island residents. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors and thank him again on behalf of the First Congressional District of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation, and I thank Leader Hoyer and Chairman Spratt and Chairman Miller for their leadership on budget enforcement.

The issue is very simple. Congress must pay for what it spends. Pay- as-you-go budget enforcement rules in the nineties helped to balance the budget, realize consecutive surpluses, and project a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus, all the while tough decisions were being made by the Congress and the Clinton administration during a decade of increasing defense, health care and infrastructure costs.

In 2007, our new majority immediately renewed PAYGO, a great step towards fiscal responsibility, but not enough by itself. We need statutory authority, as this legislation and the President proposes, to guarantee PAYGO is enforced.

While the minority is quick to blame the administration and our majority for the current state of the Federal budget, it is important to remember that we didn't get here overnight or by accident. When PAYGO was allowed to expire by the Republicans in 2002, so also did budget discipline. The administration and Republican Congress made conscious decisions to enact the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, while fighting two wars and expanding entitlements without paying for them, except by increasing the deficit.

These fiscally irresponsible decisions, among others, turned the surplus into the $1.3 trillion annual deficit President Obama inherited on the day he took office.

Over the last several months we have been forced to invest to arrest an economic collapse. But we must quickly return to sound fiscal discipline with PAYGO as a firm pillar of rebuilding our economy. This priority is already evident in commitments by the President and our leadership to pay for the health care reform, the highway bill, and other priorities that are currently working their way through the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, in these fast-moving times, it is a comfort to know that some wonderful places are in no hurry to change. I rise today to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the community of Quogue, a picturesque village on the South Shore of Long Island.

European settlement in Quogue began in 1649 when Englishman John Ogden purchased a large tract on Shinnecock Bay from Chief Wiandance Sachem to establish farming and grazing lands. By the 1800s, residents of New York City had begun to discover Eastern Long Island's rustic natural beauty and pleasant climate, establishing summer communities and boarding houses.

While Quogue prospered with the arrival of seasonal visitors, it retained a quaint charm and family atmosphere that is still recognizable today. In fact, Quogue is known as the ``Quiet Hampton'' to distinguish it from its more famous--and hectic--neighbors to the east.

Madam Speaker, small towns like Quogue represent the best of the American community spirit. I am happy to offer its citizens my best wishes for a successful anniversary celebration and for a long future as a true American original.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise to join my colleague, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, in urging my colleagues to support our amendment which would ban the use of open burn pits in war zones.

Disturbing reports are coming to light every day about the reckless disposal of hazardous waste in open burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan and the devastating toll they are taking on the health of hundreds of our service men and women. It is encouraging that Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Gates have responded to our questions and stated they have taken seriously our concerns about the danger of burn pits, but this legislation is necessary to see to it that this action takes place.

The legislation is endorsed by the American Legion, by the DAV, by the IAVA, by the National Guard Association, and by the VFW. I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, on June 19, 2009, I was detained by a previously scheduled commitment in my district. Due to my absence, I request unanimous consent for the record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted in the following manner:

Rollcall No. 409, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 410, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 411, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 412, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 413, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 414, I would have voted ``present'';

Rollcall No. 415, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 416, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 417, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall No. 418, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

On behalf of eastern Long Island, I commend Chairman Obey and Chairman Mollohan for their leadership on the underlying bill, and I thank them on behalf of the taxpayers' best interests.

As many of my colleagues know, the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Science conducts urgent research to revive and manage fisheries, including summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region.

I requested this, project along with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats from New Jersey and New York, because the research to be conducted will help stimulate an industry that is critically important to my region--precisely what our economy is calling for and precisely the opposite of what has been suggested by the gentleman from California, whose district could not be further away or more detached from the jobs and families this research benefits. In fact, on Long Island, the fishing industry is a source of $2 billion to the local economy and sustains more than 10,000 full and part-time jobs.

I do not presume to know what is of critical importance to the people and economies of Newport Beach or Laguna Beach and I doubt the gentleman from California has spoken to fishermen in my district who are struggling with outdated catch limits and quotas, and thus as a result, struggling to make a living.

This request is not a typical earmark. It does not serve only a single district. It was not requested by one member or one party. It is not a crutch for a fading industry. Rather, the Partnership for Mid- Atlantic Fisheries Science is a reputable organization--with well- established federal and regional partnerships, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission committees and assessment programs.

Additionally, the Partnership will serve critical needs in the region known as the Mid-Atlantic Bight, where the recreational and commercial fishing industries--and the jobs and families that support them--depend on summer flounder and black sea bass for their livelihood.

Providing data based on the best possible science--as this research funding provides--is vital to the health of our fisheries and the economic well-being of our fishermen.

If you support a down-payment on job creation and a prudent investment of taxpayer dollars in the future of this economy, vote against this misguided amendment and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment No. 13, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

I want to start by thanking Chairman Berman for his leadership on this very important legislation.

My amendment is very straightforward. It directs the Government Accountability Office to study the effects of USAID's Buy America waiver on U.S.-based manufacturers seeking to provide the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, with HIV test kits. The study will also examine the waiver's impact on the availability of HIV testing for at-risk populations in low-income countries. To be clear, this amendment does not propose any policy changes.

This study will help us to examine the use of waivers and determine if hardworking American manufacturers of HIV test kits are being undercut by foreign competitors. It is important for the U.S. to lend a hand in fighting this deadly epidemic, but we should do everything possible to preserve American

jobs in the process, particularly when spending taxpayer dollars.

When PEPFAR was created in 2003, it was believed that American companies did not have sufficient capacity to manufacture or supply the program with quality HIV test kits. To fill that void, a waiver of the longstanding Buy America policy was extended so that USAID could immediately provide testing, counseling and treatment assistance to countries in most dire need of help. Foreign companies already producing HIV test kits and related products were able to step in and supply PEPFAR with the resources necessary to combat the spread of HIV/

I yield the balance of my time to the chairman.

I thank the chairman for his support. I thank the ranking member for her support, and I yield back the balance of my time.