Interest Rate Reduction Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, I thought, not to speak personally, but as I listened to the gentleman from Florida, as I have listened to Members as they've taken the floor today, I thought I'd like to share a story with the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it's my own story.

I went to college at Wake Forest University. I remember the day I was accepted, I was so excited. My parents were excited, too, but we knew, as a family with six children, my father having served in the United States Air

Force for 30 years, that they wanted for me what they wanted for all of us, and that was the chance for the American Dream in a different way than they had.

We knew that in order to do that, that it would take a combination of academic scholarships, grants, loans, and savings to put together what it would take to receive a college education, and so that's what we did as a family. I stand here today to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it gives me great sadness to know that Republicans on the other side of the aisle would have student loan interest rates increase, double, by July 1 without acting in this Congress.

Today, very sadly, what we did was we said to families--and particularly to women, girls who want to go to school--that you have a choice: We'll either double your interest rates to 6.8 percent beginning in the first year of your college loan or you can have preventive health care services. Imagine for the young women across this country that their choice is preventive health care services or the ability to go to school on a student loan, have that loan, the interest rate low, and then pay back that loan over a period of time. What a horrible choice.

Now, we've listened earlier as people talk about building the American Dream and climbing the ladders of opportunity to success, but that ladder has rungs. One of the rungs of that ladder, as my family well knew when I became a freshman in college, is the opportunity to get a college education, to do better than the previous generation. It's what we want for all of our children.

I went to school on student loans, and I went to school on student loans at a time when, between undergraduate school and then law school, I effectively had almost $100,000 in student loans. A quarter of that, about $25,000 of that, was paid out to some bank that made a profit.

Instead, what we have done as Democrats is we, in 2010, passed a package of reforms for student loans, lowered the interest rate of student loans so that it was affordable, made those loan payments affordable and manageable, made sure that when you were coming out of school, if you had a job that didn't pay you as much as you needed or wanted, that your student loans would be able to be managed and at an interest rate that was affordable. That's not what I had, but it's what we were able to give our young people today.

It's what Republicans in this Congress have decided to take away. So, then in 2007, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. It provided relief to students from high interest rates by lowering those interest rates. When I came out of undergraduate school and law school, I had this array of student loans that had different interest rates. Little did I know that when I tried to consolidate those loans, I actually ended up paying the higher interest rate.

Today, when students are graduating from college under what Democrats did in 2007, we actually, in this Congress, made sure that the interest rates would be affordable, that students would then be able to manage them, and that they would be able to pay their loans back. So I want to tell you something that I'm not really proud of, and that's that I also got in trouble paying my loans back. I didn't make as much as I needed to pay those and to balance my other responsibilities. It was difficult, but over a period of time, because the program, in fact, was affordable, because I knew that we all had--my neighbors--we all had my back, that I could pay those student loans back over a period of time.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, just 1 month before I was elected to Congress, I paid my last student loan? I can still remember that day in January writing that check to pay the last of my student loans. Do you know how proud I am to have been able to do that? The reason is because I knew that when my son was going to college, we were doing the same things that my parents did when I went to college, collecting the savings and academic scholarships, but also putting together a package of loans that would be affordable for him to go to school.

It's what we do. It's sort of that contract that we have from one generation to the next generation. I borrowed for my student loans; I paid those student loans off. My son borrowed some for his student loans and is now in the process of paying those off.

But let's look at what Republicans would have us do. First of all, we know that if we don't act by July 1 that interest rates will, in fact, double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for 7 million students across this country. Already, students across our country bear nearly $1 trillion in student loan debt, and they struggle in this difficult economy, as many are struggling, to pay those loans. But think what would happen if the interest rate on those loans was allowed to increase to 6.8 percent, to effectively double that interest rate.

Well, what does that mean for your average student? Well, Mr. Speaker, what it means is that a student on average coming out with $23,000 in debt would have to pay roughly an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan period to make up for that additional interest. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that students across the country must be wondering what it is that Republicans are doing here in Congress that would have them double their interest rate, especially when we're talking about a part of our population that's done everything that we've asked of them. They succeeded in high school. They're going on to college. They are coming out with a promise of a hope for a good job and to be able to do better than the previous generation. And we're saying to them--Republicans in this House are saying to them, instead, we want to double your interest rate. We want you to pay not just the $23,000 that you owe, but an additional $11,000 in interest.

More than that, what we've heard from some even on this House floor is that there are many on the other side of the aisle who don't believe that we should have a federally subsidized student loan program at all, education for those who are wealthy who can afford it, but for middle class families, not the ability to get a student loan and to pay that loan back in a manageable way over a period of time.

So we stand united as Democrats and say we are not going to sacrifice middle class families and stack them up against women's health care. We want to make sure that we pay for these lowered student loan interests by ending a corporate tax break. That seems fair enough. Yet, Republicans on the other side of the aisle will simply not be reasonable and agree with what the overwhelming majority of American people agree to, and that is that we should have student loans that are available and accessible to middle class families.

So I'll have more to say on this, Mr. Speaker, but at this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, new to the Congress, who will join me in this discussion about student loans and student loan interest, Ms. Bonamici.

I thank the gentlelady from Oregon, and I was just reminded as I listened to her that in her State of Oregon, something on the order of 119,000 students will see an increase of about $93 million in interest rates if this takes place on July 1.

In my own home State of Maryland, 103,400 students would see an increase in interest rates if the rate is allowed to go up from 3.4 percent now to double at 6.8 percent, and in Maryland, that would be to the tune of $80 million. These are extraordinary numbers, and that burden would be borne by those to whom we've said, you've done the right thing, you've gone to college, you've paid for your college, and now you're going to be able to repay your loans, but we want you to pay additional student loan interest because the Republicans have refused to act without also taking away preventive health care.

These are really extraordinary numbers, Mr. Speaker, and I think when the American people hear about the danger that is afoot come July 1 with the increase in student loan interest, middle class families all across this country will be completely outraged.

With that, I'd like to yield a few minutes of time to my colleague from New York (Ms. Clarke).

I thank the gentlelady from New York. And I just wanted to point out to her, as she well knows from New York, that 422,000 students, if this is allowed to happen on July 1, would see an increase of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. For those 422,000 students in New York, that would mean $340 million in increased interest rates.

So I think we can see all across the country and, just really, Mr. Speaker, would like to urge our students out there and our families to think about what this would mean for them, 7 million students across this country doing exactly what we ask them to and facing a doubling of interest rates on July 1.

I notice that we've been joined today by my colleague from Ohio, who's going to help us understand also what's happening in the State of Ohio--the home of Ohio State, where I know a lot of students must be paying attention to the fact that their interest rates will double on July 1.

Mr. Ryan.

I'd like to thank the gentleman. And I'm reminded as he's speaking that there are middle class families in Ohio and all across this country for whom this isn't just about feeling good about making sure that young people can go to college. It's about making certain that our middle class families aren't just struggling, but they're really surviving in this economy and in the economy going forward.

I was reminded again that in Ohio 379,000 students would see an increase of about $294 million if this increase in student loans is allowed to go forward. And I think about those students at Ohio State University, at Oberlin College, at Xavier. I could name a lot of them.

I remember, as a second grader, living on Wright Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, and there was not a moment in second grade that my parents didn't impress on me that one day I would go to college. My mom and dad didn't know how I would go to college, but they knew that I had to go. And at the time I was such a fan of all those great Ohio universities.

But I also knew that were I to go then or to go now, that in addition to our savings and to academic scholarships, and maybe even Pell Grants, I would also need to take out student loans. And that's the situation that students in Ohio and across this country face, in realizing that on July 1, without action by this Congress, Republicans and Democrats owe it to middle class families to make sure that those student loans don't increase. Everything else is increasing. Let's not increase the interest rate on student loans. And I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. Yet again, here we are, we're talking about a situation where, since January, the President and congressional Democrats, since January of this year, have been urging Republicans to please act so that we don't see an increase in student loan interest from 3.4 percent, a doubling, to 6.8 percent.

And here we are in April; and April is a time when many families, young people have received their notification that they've been accepted into college. They've received maybe notification of a scholarship opportunity.

They also know that their families may have to dig into their savings, or they'll have to get a job; and then they begin to think too about applying for and receiving that student loan so that it puts together the full package of what's needed to go to college. Those are the decisions that here, in April, families all across this country are making. And they're making those decisions, not knowing whether this Congress is going to fail to act that would result in an increase and a doubling of student loan interests, that would cost students not just the $23,000 in debt that they're likely to graduate college holding on to and needing to repay, but an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan, over the history of that loan and the repayment. I think it's really shameful.

I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to worry about how to pay for college. I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to wake up and know that they had to get into a work-study program, or do like I did, wait tables in addition to going to class, in addition to receiving loans, in addition to receiving scholarships to pay to go to school. But that's the exception in this country; it's not the rule.

The overwhelming majority of students across this country who go to college, who want to do better because their parents want them to do better than they did, have to do a combination of things in order to afford college, whether it's a 4-year institution or community college and getting those skills to put you into the workforce or an apprenticeship program. This is the situation that our students and their families are facing.

With that, I'd like to yield time to my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and just want to point out to him, as I've pointed out to others of my colleagues here, and thank you so much for your eloquence, not just about what those loans mean to individual families, but what they mean as an economic imperative for the 21st century. As Democrats, we recognize that.

I would note that in the great State of Rhode Island, we have an opportunity for 43,000 students in your State, Mr. Cicilline, to make sure that students aren't facing an additional $34 million in increase because of what might happen on July 1.

As Republicans and as Democrats, we can do something about this. We don't have to get to a point where we're saying to students for the future that we really don't care about you. We don't care about the fact that we helped you do and be all that you can through high school, but now we're going to dump you when it comes to going to college.

So I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Up until today, the Republican majority has simply refused to acknowledge that this hike would affect millions of students and families, 7 million students across this country. Perhaps today after a reversal by the assumed Republican Presidential nominee, we voted on a bill that would finally address the issue. But it's so sad that they did that at the expense of health care for working families.

No one understands that more than the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, my friend and my neighbor. I'd like to take a moment to recognize her and her leadership. If I recall, she taught at a law school and understands those students who really struggle to get through and make sure they're doing what they need to do academically, but that they're able to pay for a quality education; and I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I want to thank the gentlewoman and thank her especially for her leadership.

As you were speaking, I was doing a little calculating. I went to undergraduate school at Wake Forest University. I had academic scholarships and some student loans, and I also waited tables in order to pay for my expenses. Had I not been able to get those student loans, having only the combination of academic scholarships and waiting tables, I would not have been able to have afforded to go to school. I came out with student loan debt from undergraduate school, and then I worked for a time, saved a bit, and went to law school. But even out of law school, I still couldn't pay all of my living expenses and all of my tuition without also taking out student loans.

When I finished law school, the combination of my loans from undergraduate school and my loans from law school totaled about $75,000 plus. Over the period of time that I paid that back, I paid back a total of about $100,000 because of the combination of interest rates over the period of time. I paid my last student loan payment almost 1 month to the day before I was elected in my primary election in coming to Congress.

My mother raised six children. We knew almost from the time that we could speak a word that we would go to college. My father was in the United States Air Force. He served for nearly 30 years. We lived all over the country and around the world. They worked really hard, but with six children on a military income and retirement, they knew that they wouldn't be able to fully pay out of savings--what savings with all those mouths to feed?--in order for us to go to college. They wanted their children to go to college. They wanted their children to have the kind of opportunities for the future that they did not have for themselves.

My story, though it happened some time ago, is the story of American families today, whose young people are preparing to graduate from high school. They're preparing for high school graduations over these next couple of months. They want to go to college, and many of those students right now, today, in having received those April notices of college admissions and financial aid determinations, know that through some combination of savings and loans and Pell Grants and work and work study that they will put together the puzzle pieces of a college education so that they can afford it. Parents and students all across the country are making this decision.

For those students who are coming out of high school in this season, July 1 is our deadline. July 1 is our deadline to ensure that interest rates will not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent because, by August 1 and late in August, those students will have to pack their trunks and their bags in order to go away to college. We owe them the commitment to know what their obligation is going to be for the repayment of those student loans and to know that they will not be faced with a doubling of interest rates over the course of their period of time in college.

Let's think of what this means to them. What it means is that we're saying to our students, we want you to study engineering and science and math and technology. We want you to come out of school and to be teachers and to be inventors and innovators and entrepreneurs. But we are unwilling to

make sure that you're able to do that by giving you the tools that you need for success.

One of those things for some students across this country--for many students, for 7 million students--is the ability to get student loans that are affordable, and to have some sense that over the period of time that they're in college and they graduate college and the economy is better and they get jobs that they will be able to repay those loans so that some other generation of students can also go to school and do the same thing.

So why am I passionate about this? I am passionate about it because it's my story, and because it's the story of middle class families all across this country who know that they want to do better, who struggle to do better, and who experience the rug being ripped out from under them because we want to ask our middle class families to either double your interest rates or sacrifice your health care. Those are the choices we're asking our middle class families to make. In today's economy, there is not a greater predictor of individual success than a good education. This is a fact. But if it's a fact, then we need to make the investment that makes that fact a reality for our students across this country.

Right now, as many have pointed out on this floor, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half of the national average. That means that, when you graduate, even if you have student loans that are affordable and can be repaid, you have some opportunity to do that because you will have done better, and you will have had the opportunity to do better than the student who only gets a high school education. The incomes for those who graduate from college are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma.

Higher education, whether we're talking about a 4-year institution or a 2-year institution at a community college, is the clearest path that we have to middle class success. If we are going to build a ladder of opportunity for the American people, then one of those rungs has to be student loans and another rung is a Pell Grant; another rung is job training; another rung is to make sure that our families are eating and that our children are immunized. There are many rungs. And this Congress has an obligation to make sure those rungs of that ladder are available to the American people.

Democrats and Republicans both say they want to build a competitive workforce, but let's be clear that it's the Democrats--my colleagues here in the Congress--who time and time again actually stand up for the students with the skills that will be needed to comprise that competitive workforce.

So I look at the things Democrats have done over this period of time. We've increased the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 in 2006 to $5,550 in 2010. We created the American Opportunity Tax Credit that provides a maximum of $2,500 in a tuition tax credit to eligible families and students. We created income-based repayment to ensure that graduates can manage their loan repayments during stressful economic times.

I remember when I came out of undergraduate school and law school and really wanted to work in the public-interest sector, and I did. But I wasn't paid as much as some of my colleagues who were going into law firms and other kinds of practice. Would that I could have paid my student loans back based on my income.

Well, that's the kind of opportunity that we've provided for students for the future. We've provided loan forgiveness for graduates who actually go into public-interest careers, who go into teaching careers after 10 years of loan payments. We've required schools to have an online calculator so that students and families can estimate their costs based on their family's financial situation. We've supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. This is the way that Democrats have supported middle class families and poor families in their ability to achieve the American Dream. I would only ask that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do the same.

With that, we have about 5 minutes left to continue our conversation with the American people. So I will yield just a moment to the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I thank the gentlewoman.

Now I would like to recognize for a moment the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of our participants today in calling attention to the fact that Democrats have proposed ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies so that we can use those savings and actually help to pay for need-based college loans where they are and to help pay down the deficit.

Republicans are cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and they're throwing that debt onto students and families.

To be clear, this is not a partisan issue. It's a student issue; it's a family issue; it's an American issue. It's about our competitiveness in the economy. And I want to call all young people across this Nation of all political persuasions to reach out to their Members of Congress and say, stop the increase on student loans from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, costing millions of dollars to students across this country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's always an honor to be able to speak here in the House of Representatives.

It has been a good day because here in the House, despite what some may think, we voted overwhelmingly to

leave student loan rates at the same rate they are right now, 3.4 percent. If the government had had to subsidize a rate, if interest rates were higher, that would be more difficult to justify because of how much overspending this administration has had as dictated during the time when Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid had full control over all of the spending.

But while the President was very busy running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about student loan rates and the plight of students, we were busy here at work making sure that student loan rates did not increase. While the President was out there telling students that Republicans don't care about you, that they're going to double the interest rates of your student loans, he didn't bother to come check and find out what was happening in Washington. If he had, he would have found out we felt the same way about the student loans.

Let's see which Democrats were as concerned as we were today about the student loan rates going up. This was bill H.R. 4628, and it's basically two pages, not 25 pages or 2,800 pages. It is two pages, and it keeps the rates at the same rate so they won't go up.

One of our clerks just brought the printout of the Democrats that voted with the Republicans to extend the current interest rates, and there were 13 Democrats who voted with Republicans to keep the interest rates where they are. All that's on the printout are the last names: Barrow, Bishop of New York, Boren from Oklahoma, Donnelly, Higgins, Hochul, Kissell, Lipinski, Matheson, McIntyre, Owens, Peterson, and Walz.

Those are the Democrats that voted today with the Republicans to keep the student loan interest rates the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's my great hope that while the President is running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about the plight of students who have to pay student loans and about the fact that he says Republicans are going to double the student interest rate, I hope that somebody who's not out campaigning--like the President, as he flies around at government expense--I hope somebody down Pennsylvania Avenue, right down the street that way, will get something into the President's teleprompter that advises him, Hey, you may want to back off of that.

The Republicans, with only 13 Democrats voting with them, actually voted to extend the same interest rates. Now, I feel like the Democrats would agree with the fact that we believe that in order to keep from having expenses continue to go out of sight, as they did during the 2 years that Congress was completely controlled by Democrats and they had the White House, they did whatever they want, they passed a rule, pay- as-you-go.

Actually, I broke ranks and voted with them. Others told me they don't really mean this pay-as-you-go thing. Yes, they're going to pass it, but they don't mean it. I go, But I do believe in pay-as-you-go. I do believe things should be paid for.

I found out from those who had been here longer than I had that they were right in their cynicism, because over and over big bills that our friends across the aisle brought when they were in control of things, they would make an exception. So this bill and that bill and this bill and that bill weren't paid for, so the pay-as-you-go didn't mean much.

But some of us believe that when we create a law we ought to either abide by the law or change it. This needed to be covered. In looking for ways to come up with funds to cover these current interest rates, some of us were reminded of the fact that ObamaCare, that most of the country didn't want--most of the country begged Congress, under Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid, not to pass--and that Americans, even in Massachusetts and other places normally controlled by Democrats, expressed their will by electing Democrats, this time elected Republicans so they could stop ObamaCare. It took a procedural twist that was quite unseemly in order to get it passed, but the American people didn't want it.

I realize that since President Obama sees ObamaCare as his defining issue, his biggest issue, that he would not ever sign a bill that repealed ObamaCare in its entirety. I can get that. I understand that. I respect that. But it seemed to some of us that surely, as the President in every speech talks about being financially responsible, surely he would see that we shouldn't spend the $105 billion implementing ObamaCare until we find out if it's constitutional; because to use $105 billion to implement a bill, actually a takeover of people's rights, to implement that only to have it struck down would mean we had wasted tens of billions of dollars. My thought was, surely--surely--President Obama would be willing to meet us at that point. Sure, he won't agree to a complete repeal, but let's just suspend the spending until we find out whether the Supreme Court says it's constitutional or not. How could you be against that?

Well, he was, because as the bill was shoved down the throats of Americans, it became very evident that they didn't care what Americans thought, don't really care what the Supreme Court thinks. Apparently, many don't even know what the Supreme Court thinks or says because the President, himself, said it would just be such a fundamental change from what the Supreme Court had ever done before.

Obviously, he was not aware of recent cases like Marbury v. Madison. I think that was around 1803. Not all schools have copies of those newer cases like that.

Anyway, it's not fundamentally different from what the Supreme Court has done in the past. What's fundamentally different is to have a Congress push through a bill like ObamaCare that's about one thing, the ``GRE,'' the government running everything, with a majority, a big majority of Americans saying, Please, don't do this. So it was done.

In looking for ways to pay for this bill today, it seemed to many of us that a good and appropriate course would be to say let's take some of that money, a tiny, tiny bit of that money from ObamaCare that many of us think will be struck down, that shouldn't be spent till we find out if it's going to be struck down, and let's use that to pay for the $6 billion for this program. It made sense to some of us.

But as I have already read, there were 13 Democrats that stood up and said, Okay, we can go along with that. Let's wait and see if ObamaCare is struck down or not before we spend any more of that money on ObamaCare. In the meantime, we will use it to pay for the student loan rates that we're out there blasting Republicans for not caring about.

This was a way to be bipartisan, and 13 Democrats were bipartisan, and we appreciate them reaching across the aisle to pass this bill with us with a big majority. The President, on the other hand, apparently did get word that despite all his rhetoric that we don't care about the student loan rates on our side of the aisle, we don't care about students, as he runs around the country condemning us, somebody at the White House got word, because there was the issue of a veto threat if we passed this bill that keeps student interest rates where they are.

Now, when I first heard that we were going to potentially pass a student loan bill that would affect interest rates, I considered that I may have to vote ``present'' because my wife and I have student loans for our children that we are paying back. Well, it turns out this bill will not help me one bit. My interest rates are still way above this.

My wife and I took out student loans for our children. They're way above this. This doesn't affect our loans that we have, and, therefore, I was able to vote for this bill to help those students that are getting loans in the present.

The reason I feel compelled, my wife and I felt compelled to start taking out student loans and to take responsibility for paying those loans, was because, before I ever ran for office as a judge, my wife and I had set aside money in accounts that would pay for our kids' college when they got there, would increase in value, increase in value. By the time they got ready for college, the money would be there to pay for it.

But when we took, we believed it was, a calling for me to run for judge--they badly needed a new judge--we knew it would be a big hit financially. Just as when I ran for Congress, we had to really feel compelled that this was the course for our lives.

Once we felt that, we cashed out every asset except our home, our retirement accounts, everything. Now, a little scarier to some than others, I knew I could make a lot more money because I did before. I made a number of times more in the private sector a couple years before I started running. The practice was going good. I didn't want my children to have to be encumbered with massive college debt for one reason, because I felt called to be a public servant. So we've taken on those student loans.

So it doesn't go over too well with a person like me who has sacrificed all our assets except our home to come be a part of Congress and to try to get things on track. It doesn't make me feel too pleasant when people say that I don't care about students, student loans and their rates. We get it. We understand. We want students to do well. But more than that, we want them to have a vibrant economy and a job waiting for them when they get out of college.

And it should be an exciting time of renaissance and economic boon in America, except for this President. If he would simply get out of the way. We have found that we can be energy independent, and we don't have to send billions and billions of dollars, 42 cents out of every dollar of which we're borrowing, we don't have to send all that money to the Solyndras and all the cronies of this administration, if he could just get out of the way and allow the market to work and collect the revenue that comes pouring in from the income tax, from the businesses, including the oil companies and the independent oil and gas companies as they start producing more of our own energy.

It should be a new day in America. It should be a time of renaissance here. Instead, people are struggling to figure out how much food can I afford for my family when I'm paying $70 and $80 to fill up my gas tank when it shouldn't be more than $40, because this administration has given every indication by its actions--not its words but by its actions--that it will do nothing to help us become energy independent.

We talk about, gee, natural gas, from this administration, natural gas can really help out. I'm for all of the above. Well, apparently that means the President is for all of the above up in the sky somewhere because he's doing everything he can to keep us from drilling and producing the energy we've got.

We should be thanking God every day for blessing this country with more energy than any country in the world. And people like the Chinese are wondering: What is going on with these people? They've got more energy than anybody in the world. We're having to run to South America, Africa, and other places to buy their energy because we just don't have enough. They've got all they'll need, but they're putting it off-limits and won't produce it.

It's kind of strange to thinking people that we're not utilizing the blessings that are found in this country. Well, it's time we started, and if we do that, then the students will have jobs, and they can pay them back more quickly. We do care, and this bill today shows that.

Now, I want to take up another topic right quickly here, something called the United States Post Office. Now, there are some who think we ought to just get the government out of the post office business altogether, and normally I'm a guy that believes, if a private entity can do a better job than the government, then let's let the private entity do it. But there's a problem here, and it's called the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have power to-- and you go through the listed empowerments--establish post offices and post roads.

If you go through our history, you will find out that actually they were quite concerned about the King being able to prevent them from sending newspapers, news and messages around that could inform people of what was really going on. They thought it was so important that there be a government post office, and I do think. But we can't be stupid about the way it's running, and we have people in management positions in the United States Post Office who have been worse than stupid. Incompetent doesn't begin to touch what some in management of the U.S. Post Office have been doing. It's as if they want to kill it off.

Now, there are a lot of issues, but I think the biggest issue is in the middle and upper management of the post office. Because I've seen, on more than one occasion, an announcement by the United States Post Office that we are going to close this post office, we're going to close this facility, and that was followed with a statement that, and therefore we are going to pay for an independent study to show that we should close these facilities.

Well, duh. If you go pay somebody to do a study to justify the decision you've already made, you've got no business being in a management position because you're not using the facts and information at hand to make your decisions. You make your decisions willy-nilly regardless of what the facts dictate should occur.

We got a good indication of that recently in east Texas. We got a map sent out by these brilliant managers of the U.S. Post Office explaining a decision they had made.

I'm going to get this up here because it's important that the management that sent this out understands how silly and how ridiculously incompetent they are.

Now, they were making a decision with regard to a postal processing facility near Tyler, Texas. Tyler, Texas is located in Smith County. Now, in Texas, though, we do have a Tyler County, and in Tyler County you find towns like Woodville, Chester, and Warren, places like that; but you don't find Tyler, Texas, or the Tyler, Texas, processing facility in Tyler County. It's in Smith County. Yet we had a determination by the management of the U.S. Post Office that it would be more effective to shut down the Tyler processing facility, and they sent out this map to show this.

This is an exact enlargement of the map the U.S. postal management sent out to justify their closing a processing facility near Tyler, Texas. In the center of this circle is Tyler County. It's not near Tyler, Texas. It's not near the processing facility.

Now, you might say, well, surely they went out and talked to the people at the processing facility, looked to see if there were decisions that could made to make it more efficient and more economically viable, those kinds of things, and the answer would clearly be: How can they go out and talk to them when they don't even know where Tyler, Texas is? They think it's in Tyler County.

We've got some morons. Maybe they're just incompetent. Who knows?

But when we look to see, okay, how is the post office adjusting, we figure, well, as any business would know, you don't want to hurt the retail business and you don't want to make it more difficult for people to use the retail end of your business. That would be the local post offices. So what have these mental giants done? They've said, We're going to close lots of post offices and make it much more difficult for you to use our services.

Not only that, we're going to close processing facilities that make the mail move many times more quickly, more efficiently, and save tremendous amounts of gasoline because we do the processing close to where it occurs. They're talking about closing a processing facility in Lufkin, Texas--I'm sure they don't know where that one is either. But when you look at what they've done, it makes no sense.

Now, this is the map they sent out with Tyler County as the center. This tells you, down here is Tyler County; up here is Tyler, Texas. They're not even close. They don't cover the same areas. And yet they were using information down here about Tyler County to justify closing a facility up here. Surely, they found their error, but they don't care because they're in middle management. What difference does it make? They're not accountable. They don't have to show a profit. They don't have to show efficiency.

So what do they do? Here's part of what's going on with the post office. Well, times are tough, so let's create more senior management staff. How about that. Percent management change from 1997 to 2012, up 41.25 percent. Wow, that's some smart folks. Gee, we need more retail, we need people using our services more; let's close

retail facilities, make it more difficult to use them. Let's get more senior management in there, and gee, that will make a lot of difference. We've gone up 1,006 percent on inspector generals, and local management losses have been rather dramatic. That's not the way to become more efficient.

Not only that, they could take a clue from what America is doing. It used to be that you pulled into a service station and you got service. Now you pull into a service station, the only service is what you get out of the car and do yourself. I prefer to do that anyway. I've worked in service stations, and I actually enjoyed it. So I don't want anybody else pumping my gas. When I finish and the thing clicks off, I raise the hose up and I get every bit of the gas that I've got in that hose.

Well, let's look at the routes. Right now, if you mail a letter in Tyler, Texas, to go to Lufkin, Texas, it will travel 84 miles. You mail one from Tyler to Palestine--and it is Palestine in East Texas--total is 47 miles. You mail a letter from Tyler to Longview, it's 38 miles.

Under the new plan--that's certainly not going to save any gasoline-- our brilliant postal management will have you mail a letter from Tyler that's going to Longview, the 38 miles, now it will go to the Dallas area, then over to Shreveport, then back to Longview. We're not going to process it here. We're going to go from 38 miles to 389 miles to deliver a letter.

If you're going to send a letter down here, let's see, I can't tell where that is. It looks like down 35, so maybe that's to Waco or Austin. So you want to send it there--oh, I see. If you want to mail a letter from Tyler to Palestine, instead of 50-something miles, it will go Tyler to Dallas, down here to Austin, then back to Palestine. If you want to mail a letter the short distance to Lufkin, well, we're going to make it go 10 times further. We're going to go to Dallas, and then clear down--I guess that's to Houston, and then back up to Lufkin. We're going to go about 10 times as far to deliver a letter as we did before. This is nuts.

What we've seen in America is, as times got tough, service stations said, you know what, we're going to let you do your own pumping. That will help us save and be more efficient. As time has gone on, they said you know what, let's put other services in this gas station, so you see banks, you see other things. In some post offices, they were beginning to do that. They have agreements with the State. Let's let the State lease or pay us to do some of the State services here. Let's allow them to come in and get passports here. There were some people that were thinking--and thinking right--you combine other services, this post office will be the center of the community. It will be efficient, it will be local, it will bring people to our retail outlet, and they will have more people using our services at the post office.

Not the way these mental giants figure it; oh, no. We're going to close post offices. We're going to close processing facilities and make it cost a tremendous amount more. We're going to make these decisions, and then we're going to go out, and we're going to hire people to do a study to come to a conclusion--we tell them, all in the name of making the post office more efficient. That is nuts.

It's time to clean out the management of the United States Post Office. I've dealt with postal employees all my adult life. Those are hardworking folks. People that deliver the mail, people that stand there behind the counter, take abuse all day, lines getting longer because we're not replacing the people when they leave, they're good people. They're hardworking people. There are some issues with pensions, we can deal with those. But for heaven's sake, it's time to get rid of top-heavy management making ridiculous decisions, and we can improve our lot here.

One other thing. Last night, I was on a telephone town hall with Rusty Humphries and a lot of Tea Party folks. A question was asked-- they slipped in a ringer in there, a Democrat, who said: Gee, you say you're a Christian. How could you vote to take money away from helping seniors with their health care? And how could you help the major oil companies by giving money to them? Quickly let me just say, a subsidy is a gift or grant of money. Look it up. No oil company is getting a gift or grant of money. They're getting deductions.

If you forget what the President said, he said he's going after major oil, declaring war on them. Ridiculous. We have, in the President's jobs bill, exactly what he's doing. He's eliminating the deductions that will bankrupt the independent oil and gas companies in America. It won't affect the major oil companies. He says he's declaring war on the major oil and big evil oil, but the truth is he's going to bankrupt the independent oil and gas producers that produce and drill and maintain 95 percent of the wells in America.

So what will be the effect of this President's so-called ``war'' on major oil? It will put the independents out of business, 95 percent of the wells will not be drilled and maintained. That will mean more profit than any time in the history of the world for the major oil companies. It's time to get that under control.

And to the gentleman that we got cut off with last night because we were out of time, let me just say: Son, dumb, dependent, and Democrat is no way to go through life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 631. The rule provides for consideration of multiple pieces of legislation meant to provide solutions to some of today's most pressing threats and concerns. House Resolution 631 ensures that we'll be able to have a robust debate on important issues facing our Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure while also providing the path forward for student loan legislation that reflects quick action we need to take on this pressing issue.

First, House Resolution 631 gives this House the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to our Nation's cybersecurity needs. The rule also sets up the opportunity for us to vote tomorrow on a measure that addresses our Nation's student loan programs. Without this legislation, Americans with Federal student loans will see their rate double starting in July.

These are issues that cannot wait. Our Nation's security cannot wait. At a time when our workforce is so bleak and President Obama's policies keep digging us deeper and deeper into a financial hole, we cannot wait on finding a solution for those young people with student loan debt who are still trying to find a place in our workforce.

We all know that the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we live our lives day-to-day. I think it's safe to say that even 20 years ago, many of us in this room couldn't have imagined that one day we would live in a world where we could do almost anything we wanted, be it buy groceries, run a business, or talk to a loved one serving our country overseas, through a computer. The Internet has made all this possible.

But for all the ways the Internet has made life, business, and even government, to some extent, faster, more responsive, and more transparent, it has also opened us up to new threats. U.S. companies report an onslaught of cyberintrusions that steal sensitive information. Even our own government has suffered from cyberattacks. This type of rampant Internet theft not only costs American companies valuable information, intellectual property, and research and development work, it also costs American workers their jobs. It's hard to say exactly how much cyberattacks cost our Nation's economy, but they could cost as much as $400 billion a year, according to one report from the Computer Security Institute and the FBI.

Today, the House will begin consideration of a bill that will help protect our Nation from these kinds of threats. H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, would allow private companies to voluntarily share information with each other and with the government in a sort of public-private Internet security partnership. The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private information. It significantly limits the Federal Government's use of that information that the private companies voluntarily provide, including the government's ability to search data.

It requires that the independent inspector general for the intelligence community audit information shared with the government and report the results to Congress to ensure regular oversight. It also encourages the private sector to make the information it shares with others, including the government, as anonymous as possible.

This is a strongly bipartisan piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was passed out of the Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17 1. In the Rules Committee yesterday, we heard testimony from both sides, speaking to the cooperative, bipartisan work that was done in this piece of legislation. I commend the work that the Intelligence Committee did with members on both sides of the aisle, as well as with private sector companies, trade groups, privacy and

civil liberty advocates, and the executive branch. It's because of these efforts that virtually every sector of the economy supports this legislation. It's also why there are more than 100 cosponsors of this legislation, including 11 committee chairmen.

But recognizing that we don't always face one problem at a time, this rule also provides for consideration of a measure to address student loans. Our legislation, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, would prevent federally subsidized student loan interest rates on new loan disbursements from doubling to 6.8 percent from the current 3.4 percent on July 1 of this year. This 1-year measure would cost the government $5.9 billion.

Now, you all probably heard me talk again and again about bringing our Nation back to its core mission. You've also heard me talk about how we need to cut back on the ``nice-to-haves'' and make hard choices of what we will and won't pay for. Back when the previous majority passed their health care takeover in 2010, they paid for it, in part, by taking $9 billion from college financial aid trust funds. Now that they've robbed Peter to pay Paul, they're realizing Peter still needs that money, too. To resolve the problem, the Interest Rate Reduction Act pays for this stopgap measure by taking some of that stolen money back from the ObamaCare slush fund and redirecting it to student financial aid.

Sometimes this House has to multitask, Mr. Speaker. As we face an economy that can't afford to lose any more jobs to cyberattacks and college loan recipients who can't find a job thanks to President Obama's failed policies, that is one of those times. House Resolution 631 provides the House with a way forward on both of these critical measures.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying pieces of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, if he needs it.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I've been here now 1 year and 4 months, and I'm always amazed at what we hear from the other side. I hear about how this is supposed to be an attack on women's health. You know, it's interesting because that's the position that President Obama's taken. I understand that that's the position that my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken, but it's not true.

You know, yesterday in markup in Energy and Commerce in regards to this pay-for, they talked about a number of issues in regards to this slush fund that HHS has. Now, it's interesting, part of that slush fund comes out to a partly paid for by the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, the Department's Communities Putting Prevention to Work campaign.

It's $100 million. Part of it was in spaying and neutering pets, which I agree with, but I don't see how that is taking money away from women's health. If you go on to HHS' Web site, where they actually chronicle the spending from this slush fund, not one place does it talk about cervical cancer or breast cancer in regards to the dollars spent. So to stand here on this floor and accuse Republicans of being against women and women's health when the facts don't back it up--if you go to HHS' Web site, you will see specifically where the money has been spent. Like I said, in one area it is $100 million. The other area that they've gone after is media campaigns as they relate to soda, fast- foods, and others. That's not women's health.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats would like you to forget that in 2010, they took over $9 billion away from student financial aid. The same argument that they're making today, they took it away. I wasn't here in 2010, so it's kind of hard to have your cake and eat it, too. When we say robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and now Peter needs the money, those are students that need the money. Those are students that can't afford to pay additional interest on loans that they're already having a hard time paying off because they are trying to find a job.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard so much about cybersecurity today, but remember that the committee started their work on cybersecurity over a year ago in regards to hearings and working in a bipartisan way that produced a bill that was overwhelmingly bipartisan, 17 1. In this Congress, that's pretty difficult to do. But they saw the need based upon their experience within where we stand today as it relates to threats against our infrastructure, those people that actually create jobs, and against our government.

Not only have they worked tirelessly amongst themselves, but they reached out to other stakeholders in a way that I believe has been unprecedented in regards to trying to craft a bill that, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

This isn't about government coming in--you heard one gentleman up here talking about how government should tell businesses what to do. Folks, this is America. This is about freedom for businesses. If they don't act upon information, shame on them. It's not about

government takeover of private businesses that tells them how to operate. It is about, though, the ability of government to help formulate the aspect of protecting our cybersecurity. It's all about that. It's about sharing of information. It's about right now the Federal Government is precluded from sharing information to help alert those businesses out there to protect themselves. We know about it, and we can't even tell them.

That was one of the inherent problems we had back in 9/11, the fact that we couldn't talk to each other, that agencies didn't talk and share information. Now we want to set ourselves up for a greater catastrophe, one that could bring this Nation down to its knees or worse.

You heard about regular order or not regular order. We had regular order on the cybersecurity bill, and it's not enough. Sixteen amendments were made in order. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment was made in order. Five privacy-related amendments were made in order, two Republican and three of those bipartisan. Of the total of those 16 amendments made in order, eight were Republican, four were Democrats, and four were bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I believe in regular order, and I think that was a perfect example of how this House is supposed to work. That was regular order at its best.

We talk about a fair and open process. I want to make sure that we protect the American people; that when you go to bed tonight, your financial information is still going to be secure tomorrow, that you're going to have the ability to protect yourself financially. One of those is to allow businesses to share cyberthreats that are made against them and others, and also for the Federal Government to share when they see a cyberthreat coming that could affect a business today in America.

HHS has discretion on how they spend that slush fund. Remember, that money was stolen from students back in 2010 to provide for their education. It was stolen. Call it what you want, but now it's just righting a wrong. It's about making sure that our students have the ability to get an education and hopefully get a great job.

I also heard my good friend from Colorado mention about how we're going to make a decision as to who's a national security threat. He mentioned the Tea Party in the same word with Communists. I think it's pretty clear that the Tea Party is not a national security threat and communism is. I don't think that takes a whole lot of rocket science.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I get what you're saying. But at the end of the day when you're trying to say, I guess, a description in regards to that, and you say Communists and then you say Tea Party, I think it's pretty clear. The Tea Party is not a threat to national security. Communism is and has been.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

We're talking about two issues here today that have a lot of bipartisan agreement. Our Nation's cybersecurity is just an integral part of our national security as a whole. It's part--not all--but part of our national security as a whole. And we agree something must be done with our Nation's students as it relates to the loan debt that they have. These are issues that I think we all agree on, Democrats and Republicans alike.

I know from some of our previous conversations that my friend, Mr. Polis, is a fan of NPR. So I wanted to let him know this, just in case he didn't. This morning NPR did a story about the fact that China and Russia aren't the only threats to our Nation's cybersecurity anymore. In fact, according to the story today, the newest cybersecurity threat we face today is going to continue and grow, and it's from Iran. Even though Iran may not have as strong a cyberpresence now as Russia and China do, it's continuing to grow. It's growing at the same time as their nuclear program is growing, too. Iran has learned how to manipulate the Internet to shut down protesters in their own country, to hack Web sites that have antigovernment messages, and carry out sophisticated cyberattacks in their own country to identify those dissidents who may disagree with the government. With threats like that growing every day, we need to make sure our networks here at home in America are safe and secure.

This bipartisan--I can't stress this enough--this bipartisan Rogers cybersecurity bill is critical. It's a critical step in ensuring America and our private industry are safe from cyberattacks. We talk about bipartisan a lot in this Chamber. We don't always practice it. This committee not only practiced it, but they reached outside of the committee itself to those that may be supportive and may be opposed, and they tried to work and put forth amendments that would make this a better bill.

That's what it's all about, the amendment process, is to make something better, nor tear it down. So I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly bipartisan legislation both on cybersecurity and protecting our students and student loans.

As the President begins his taxpayer-funded college tour, which is really more like a reelection tour, he's going to be talking a lot about student loan debt. Well, he can talk all he wants because in this House we're going to act--and we're going to do it in a way that fixes a problem that was a temporary fix for 5 years.

Well, guess what. We're going to fix it again. We're going to make sure that our students have the ability to get a college education and be able to pay it back in a way that they can be successful in the future. We're going to make sure that the ratio of the student loan rates don't double come this July 1.

In Washington-speak, to a lot of people, that's a ways off. But up here, this House, this Congress has kicked cans down the road before to the tune of 20 years when they're looking out and saying, oh, we've got plenty of time, and all of sudden we have other issues facing this country--and now we have one here.

This House is taking action to correct a wrong or a problem that exists today in America, both in cybersecurity and in student loans, and we're going to do it without costing the taxpayers anything by taking money out of the ObamaCare slush fund, which was funded by cuts to student loan programs to begin with, and sending it back to our student loans.

Now remember, this slush fund can be used for anything. As we saw, they used it for a whole bunch of things. As they tried to link us to women's health issues, not one of those were related to that. Not one nickle or dime was spent on those, even though they would like to say it was.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final--it's the only--amendment to this bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. Instead, if the House adopts this amendment, it will immediately move to final passage.

It appears that we now all agree that we cannot let student loan rates double

come this July--that's good--but I wish we were also looking for a bipartisan solution to funding the continuation of low rates on student loans. Instead, the majority is engaging in another partisan attack on public health funding, funding that improves the lives of Americans and the productivity of our workforce.

I strongly oppose this position and the proposed cuts to the prevention fund, funds that will make women and children healthier, and that's why I've offered this straightforward amendment. It would ensure that poor policy decisions made here in Congress, namely, to get rid of the only dedicated funding we have for public health and prevention, do not give insurance companies an excuse to cut benefits or to increase the costs of preventative services for women and children. These services include critical access to contraception, mammograms, cancer screenings, and immunizations.

Whatever our strong disagreements are about the underlying bill, we surely can agree that no insurance company should use this as an excuse to hinder access to basic preventative services. The Public Health and Prevention Fund is a critical investment in both our Nation's health and our economic future, especially for women and children.

Its value cannot be understated. A healthy mother is better able to raise a child; a healthy child will be ready and able to learn in school; and a healthy worker is more productive for American businesses.

Moreover, this fund is critical to bringing down health care costs. It targets the most prevalent and preventable of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. The fund has been used to ensure that our children have the vaccines they need to avoid painful and expensive childhood illnesses. It supports programs to prevent birth defects and autism surveillance. And the fund supports critical women's health screenings. There will be 600,000 screenings cut with the repeal of this fund.

These are not frivolous programs. As mothers and grandmothers, we know the importance of preventing birth defects and having access to vaccines, knowing we're doing everything we possibly can to ensure that our children have a healthy start. As a nurse, I know the importance of preventing chronic diseases and catching cancer early. As a taxpayer, I surely know that we cannot afford to keep ignoring the cost benefit of prevention, programs that have a 5-to-1 return on our smart investments. States and counties all over the country are realizing the importance of prevention programs. That's why they've all embraced the prevention fund that this bill wipes out, and it wipes it out completely. In fact, 760 nonpartisan groups across the country have signed on in support of the prevention fund.

I would like to insert this list of organizations for the public record, 760 nonpartisan groups. This investment in public health has been a long time coming. To abolish it now will send us back to square one, just when we can least afford to do that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the women of this country are watching. They're watching us here today. They have watched as countless bills and budget proposals have moved through this House attacking and zeroing out programs that keep women healthy, their children fed, and families above water.

Now is the time to stand up for women. Vote for this final amendment to this bill to show the women of America that we support them and we support their families and we support the services that they need to lead a happier and healthier life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Groups Supporting the Prevention and Public Health Fund

[Total count: 760 (3/26/2012)]

National Organizations

317 Coalition; A World Fit for Kids; AARP; AcademyHealth;

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; Action for Healthy

Schools; Active Network; Adapted Physical Activity Council;

Adult Congenital Heart Association; Adventist HealthCare,

Inc.; Advocates for Better Children's Diets; AIDS Alliance

for Children Youth & Families; AIDS Foundation of Chicago;

AIDS United; Alliance for a Just Society; Alzheimer's

Foundation of America; American Academy of Family Physicians;

American Academy of HIV Medicine; American Academy of

Pediatrics; American Academy of Physician Assistants.

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,

Recreation, and Dance; American Art Therapy Association;

American Association for Health Education; American

Association for International Aging; American Association for

the Study of Liver Diseases; American Association of Colleges

of Nursing; American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic

Medicine; American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy;

American Association of People With Disabilities; American

Association of Poison Control Centers; American Association

of School Administrators; American Association on Health and

Disability; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network;

American College of Cardiology; American College of Clinical

Pharmacy; American College of Gastroenterology; American

College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine; American

College of Preventive Medicine; American Congress of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Council on

Exercise.

American Counseling Association; American Dental Education

Association; American Diabetes Association; American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American

Federation of Teachers; American Foundation for Suicide

Prevention; American Health Planning Association; American

Heart Association/American Stroke Association; American

Hiking Society; American Journal of Health Promotion;

American Kidney Fund; American Liver Foundation; American

Lung Association; American Medical Student Association;

American Muslim Health Professionals; American Nurses

Association; American Organization of Nurse Executives.

American Physical Therapy Association; American Psychiatric

Association; American Psychological Association; American

Public Health Association; American Sleep Apnea Association;

American Social Health Association; American Society for

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; American Society of Clinical

Oncology; American Thoracic Society; amfAR, the Foundation

for AIDS Research; Aniz, Inc.; Applied Research Center;

Arthritis Foundation; Ascension Health; Asian & Pacific

Islander American Health Forum; Association for Prevention

Teaching and Research; Association for Professionals in

Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.

Association of American Medical Colleges; Association of

Black Cardiologists; Association of Community Health Nursing

Educators; Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs;

Association of Public Health Laboratories; Association of

Population Centers; Association of Schools of Public Health;

Association of State & Territorial Health Officials;

Association of State & Territorial Public Health Nutrition

Directors; Association of State and Territorial Dental

Directors; Association of State and Territorial Directors of

Nursing; Association of University Centers on Disabilities;

Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses;

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention; Bazelon Center

for Mental Health Law; Building Healthier America; Campaign

for Community Change; Campaign for Public Health Foundation;

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; Campaign to End Obesity

Action Fund; Caring Ambassadors Program; C-Change; Center for

Adolescent Health & the Law; Center for Biosecurity,

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Center for Health

Improvement; Center for Science in the Public Interest;

Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder; Children Now; Children's Dental Health Project;

Children's Health Fund.

Coalition for Health Funding; Coalition for Health Services

Research; Colon Cancer Alliance; Columbia University Mailman

School of Public Health; Commissioned Officers Association of

the U.S. Public Health Service; CommonHealth ACTION;

Community Access National Network; Community Action

Partnership; Community Catalyst; Community Food Security

Coalition; Community Organizations in Action; Consortium of

Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine; Council of

State and Territorial Epidemiologists; Crohn's and Colitis

Foundation of America.

DC Breastfeeding Coalition, Inc.; Defeat Diabetes

Foundation; Defeat Diabetes Fund; Dialysis Patient Citizens;

Digestive Disease National Coalition; Directors of Health

Promotion and Education; Disability Policy Consortium;

Doctors for America; Epilepsy Foundation; Every Child By

Two--Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunizations; Faces &

Voices of Recovery; Families USA; Family Violence Prevention

Fund; Family Voices; Federation of Associations in Behavioral

& Brain Sciences; Fight Colorectal Cancer; Friends of AHRQ.

Friends of NCHS; Friends of SAMHSA; Global AIDS Alliance;

Grassroots Organizing; Health Care for America Now; Health

Promotion Advocates; Health Rights Organizing Project;

Healthcare Leadership Council; HealthHIV; Heartland Alliance

for Human Needs and Human Rights; Hep C Connection; Hepatitis

B Foundation; Hepatitis B Initiative of Washington, D.C. (HBI

DC); Hepatitis Foundation International; HIV Medicine

Association; HIV Prevention Justice Alliance; Immunization

Action Coalition; Infectious Diseases Society of America.

INSPIREHealth.org.; Institute for Alternative Futures;

Institute for Public Health Innovation; Institute of Social

Medicine and Community Health; Integrated Healthcare

Policy Consortium; International Association for Indigenous

Aging; International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium

(IC&RC); International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub

Association; Interstitial Cystitis Association; Iron

Disorders Institute; Laotian American National Alliance;

League of United Latin American Citizens; Lung Cancer

Alliance.

Lymphoma Foundation of America; Main Street Alliance; March

of Dimes Foundation; Media Policy Center; MedImmune; MEND

Foundation; Mended Little Hearts; Mental Health America;

Metropolitan Community Churches; National Alliance of Multi-

ethnic Behavioral Health Associations; National Alliance of

State and Territorial AIDS Directors; National Asian American

Pacific Islander Mental Health Association; National Assembly

on School-Based Health Care; National Assoc. of Area Agencies

on Aging (n4a); National Association for Public Health

Statistics and Information Systems; National Association for

Sport and Physical Education; National Association of Chain

Drug Stores.

National Association of Children's Hospitals; National

Association of Chronic Disease Directors; National

Association of Community Health Centers, Inc.; National

Association of Counties; National Association of County and

City Health Officials; National Association of County

Behavioral Health & Developmental Disability Directors;

National Association of Hepatitis Task Forces; National

Association of Local Boards of Health; National Association

of People with AIDS; National Association of Public Hospitals

and Health Systems; National Association of School Nurses;

National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Directors; National Association of State Head Injury

Administrators; National Association of State Mental Health

Program Directors; National Athletic Trainers' Association;

National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS; National

Business Coalition on Health.

National Center for Healthy Housing; National Coalition for

LGBT Health; National Coalition for Promoting Physical

Activity; National Coalition of STD Directors; National

Coalition on Health Care; National Committee for Quality

Assurance; National Council for Community Behavioral

Healthcare; National Council of Asian Pacific Islander

Physicians; National Council of Jewish Women; National

Council of La Raza; National Council on Aging; National

Education Association; National Environmental Health

Association; National Family Planning & Reproductive Health

Association.

National Federation of Families for Children's Mental

Health; National Forum for Heart Disease and Stroke

Prevention; National Health Council; National Health Equity

Coalition; National Indian Project Center; National

Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality; National Kidney

Foundation; National Korean American Service and Education

Consortium; National Latino AIDS Action Network; National

Latino Tobacco Control Network (NLTCN); National League of

Cities; National Minority AIDS Council; National MS Society;

National Network of Public Health Institutes; National

Nursing Centers Consortium; National Nursing Network

Organization; National Patient Advocate Foundation.

National Physicians Alliance; National Psoriasis

Foundation; National REACH Coalition; National Recreation and

Park Association; National Rural Health Association; National

Viral Hepatitis Roundtable; National WIC Association;

National Women and AIDS Collective (VT); Nemours; North

American Management; North American Quitline Consortium;

Northeast Business Group on Health; Northwest Federation of

Community Organizations; Novo Nordisk; OCA; Oncology Nursing

Society.

Out of Many, One; Pacific Business Group on Health;

Partnership for Prevention; Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy

Group; Pew Children's Dental Campaign; Physician Assistant

Education Association; Physicians for Social Responsibility;

Planned Parenthood Federation of America; PolicyLink;

Population Association of America; Prevent Blindness America;

Prevent Cancer Foundation; Prevention and Public Health Fund;

Prevention Connections.

Prevention Institute; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses

Association; Professional Association of Social Workers in

HIV and AIDS; Project Inform; Public Health Foundation;

Public Health Institute; Public Health Law and Policy; Public

Health Management Corporation; Public Health Solutions;

Pulmonary Hypertension Association; Rails-to-Trails

Conservancy; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We

Need; Rescue Social Change Group; Research Institute for

Independent Living; RWJF Center for Health Policy; Safe Kids

USA; Safe Routes to School National Partnership; Safe States

Alliance.

Samuels and Associates; Service Employees International

Union; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the

U.S.; Small Business Majority; Society Against STI's & HIV;

Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine; Society for

Advancement of Violence and Injury Research; Society for

Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Society for Public Health

Education; Society for Vascular Surgery; Society of General

Internal Medicine; State and Territorial Injury Prevention

Directors Association; State Associations of Addiction

Services; Strategic Health Concepts; Sudden Cardiac Arrest

Association; Summit Health Institute for Research and

Education, Inc.; Tethys Bioscience, Inc.; The AIDS Institute;

The Arc of the United States; The Center for HIV Law and

Policy. The Corporate Hepatitis Alliance; The Global Justice

Institute; The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent

Health; The National LGBT Cancer Project--Out With Cancer;

Treatment Access Expansion Project (MA); Trust for America's

Health; U.S. PIRG; United Church of Christ, Justice and

Witness Ministries; United Fresh Produce Association; United

Ostomy Associations of America; United States Breastfeeding

Committee; United States Conference of Mayors; United Way

Worldwide; Up2Us; Upstream Public Health; Urban Coalition for

HIV/AIDS Prevention Services; U.S. Soccer Foundation; Voices

for America's Children; VSP Vision Care; WomenHeart: The

National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease. YMCA of the

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills: H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, and H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act.

Both bills are being brought to the House under a hyperpartisan, closed process that limits debate and discussion that can improve the legislation and allow the House to work its will. Many of the meaningful amendments that would have protected privacy under CISPA were not allowed under this rule, and under the Interest Rate Reduction Act, no amendments were allowed.

I want to address both of the bills that are contained in this underlying rule. First, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. This is a bill of rather mysterious origin that appeared in the Rules Committee yesterday mere hours after having been introduced by its lead sponsor, Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. No regular order was followed for this bill. This bill received no hearings and no markups by the committee of jurisdiction, and within hours of its being introduced, it was brought immediately to the Rules Committee with direction to go to the floor of the House of Representatives without a single member of either party having any opportunity to amend the bill and with only 1 hour of debate.

What is new about this cliff with regard to student loan rates? This was a well-known fact with regard to the expiration date that, in fact, the Stafford student loan interest rate would increase from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. I've joined my colleague, Mr. Courtney, who will later address these issues as a sponsor of his bill that would address extending the lower student loan rate, and yet, there had been no interest from the committee chair or Republicans with regard to this issue until yesterday afternoon, when a new bill, without the benefit of a markup, was presented in committee and to the Rules Committee, going completely around the committee of jurisdiction.

Look, there is a legitimate issue here. Middle class families are having a tougher and tougher time affording college for their kids at the same time that a college education is more necessary than ever for young people to have the skills they need to compete in the global economy. It's a serious issue that deserves serious treatment. There's a lot of cost drivers with regard to education. Some have commented about a higher education bubble that has led to higher and higher tuition rates. Certainly, how the State and Federal share of higher education funding is targeted and the manner in which it's spent absolutely affect tuition rates and whether there's a bubble.

But instead of a thoughtful approach, an approach that looked at drivers of cost, an approach that looked at outcomes from higher education, and an approach that looked at employment levels pre- and post-higher education, a bill was immediately created and brought to the floor within a day. Again, there is technically a 3-day rule that the majority has said that they would follow. They would give Members of this body on both sides 3 days to consider legislation, but they calculate 3 days in a very funny way. There were, as far as I know, no Members of this body who saw that particular student loan bill before yesterday afternoon. Here we are today on the rule, with final passage vote--without any opportunity to amend--expected to occur midday tomorrow.

By most calculations, it sounds like, well, less than 3 days. They had maybe 6 hours, 7 hours yesterday, 24 today, and maybe 10 tomorrow. It seems like, in fact, less than 48 hours, less than 2 days. But, nevertheless, it's yet another example of only governing out of a sense of crisis, and with regard to this issue one in which we do have time, fundamentally, to follow regular order, and even more importantly, we did have time. This is not an issue that appeared from nowhere. Why has the chair of the committee of jurisdiction not been working on this issue for weeks or months? While many of us on our side, including myself, appreciate the sudden interest in helping middle class families afford college, it would be good to do so in a more thoughtful manner that truly addresses the cost drivers of education.

I also take issue with the other underlying bill, the initial bill that we thought would be debated under this rule before this other mysterious bill appeared out of nowhere and came to the Rules Committee. This was a bill that did follow regular order in the Intelligence Committee, and while a number of amendments that are meaningful are included in this rule, several of the most meaningful amendments that truly would have addressed the privacy concerns with regard to CISPA are not allowed under this rule.

CISPA asks Americans, once again, to make a false choice between security and liberty. Now, we all agree, on both sides of the aisle, Americans in general, that cybersecurity is an important issue that needs to be addressed. That's why it's critical that we get information-sharing correct. This bill in its current form before us is an unprecedented, sweeping piece of legislation that would waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity. It would even waive the terms of service and would supersede the terms of service that most American consumers, American people, believe they are entering into in a contract with a provider of a Web site or service of their choice. That information, without any safeguards, would be shared with the government.

As a former tech entrepreneur myself, I know very well how important cybersecurity is. Frankly, it's something that I've never thought we could rely on the government to do for us, and I think a lot of tech companies feel the same way. But that doesn't mean that in the effort for expediency we should give up our privacy rights and liabilities to protect online networks.

While I appreciate the efforts the sponsors of the bill have made to improve the bill slightly in the direction that people can have more comfort with, they haven't gone nearly far enough to ensure that customers' private information remains just that, private. There's nothing in this bill to stop companies from sharing their private information with every branch of the government, including secret, unaccountable branches, including the military. And allowing the military and the NSA to spy on American citizens on American soil goes against

every principle that this Nation stands for.

A lot has been made of saying, oh, it's optional. Well, it may be optional for the corporations to share information, but is it optional for their users, whose information they have, who entered a specific terms of service agreement, to have their information shared without their consent? In many cases, under a terms of service agreement, the users, in fact, may be the owners of the information. The company that it's hosted on may, in fact, merely be a host or provider. But, again, outside of any legal process, this gives that company, whether it's hosting or providing, the ability to share wholesale information that can include health records, that can include firearm registration information, that can include credit card information, that can include account information, and that can include political information, with secret government authorities.

Now, we have government authorities that have the responsibility and are charged with keeping America safe on American soil, namely, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. They've worked hard over decades to strike a fine balance between protecting our liberties and security. The military and the NSA are unaccustomed to that balance. That's why even within the military many from DOD have expressed opposition to this bill. Eric Rosenbach, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy within DOD, said that a civilian agency, and not an agency within DOD, should be responsible for securing the domestic civilian Internet.

According to Mr. Rosenbach:

It's almost certainly not the right approach for the United

States of America to have a foreign intelligence focus on

domestic networks, doing something that throughout history

has been a domestic function.

So, not only will the military and the NSA be able to receive private information if CISPA passes, but they'll be able to use it for almost any justification. Now, while ostensibly a cybersecurity bill, CISPA allows information-sharing ``for the protection of national security,'' a broad and undefined category that can include practically everything under the sun. Is a Tea Party activist a threat to national security? Is a Communist activist a threat to national security? The danger that this can be used for political oppression and to stifle political speech is very real under this bill.

In addition, because of the immunity clauses of this bill, there's no incentive at all for companies to withhold their customers' sensitive private information. Companies are exempted from any liability for violating their own terms of service and sharing information with secret government agencies. In fact, given the high compliance cost for this sort of sharing, CISPA actually incentivizes companies to dump all of their information on the government so they can take advantage of this blanket immunity that this bill includes.

This legislation also has glaring omissions when it comes to the Nation's future capacity to be competent in cybersecurity. The bill lacks adequate support and direction for paths that can actually improve the cybersecurity of our Nation: Training in the pipeline for cybersecurity experts, including STEM programs in our K 12 schools in computer science; embedding cybersecurity in computer science; and providing scholarships and ways that students can attain the highest levels and enter public service to support the cybersecurity of the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there should be an open rule for both of the underlying bills to give Members of this House across the ideological spectrum the opportunity to address the deficiencies in both these bills.

Now, we've heard from supporters of the cybersecurity bill that privacy concerns are overblown. ``Trust us,'' they've said. Republicans say: Trust Big Government bureaucrats. Trust anonymous intelligence officers to use that information responsibly.

Well, under this bill, we have no choice but to trust them, because the bill imposes no serious limitation on what corporations or secret government agencies can do with our private information.

It's outrageous to have a closed rule on the student loan interest bill--a bill that no Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, has had any opportunity to amend. And it is also outrageous to not allow a full discussion of the thoughtful amendments brought forth by Members of both parties that would remedy some of the very severe deficiencies in the cybersecurity bill.

I, therefore, cannot support this rule or these flawed bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, we will bring up H.R. 4816, Mr. Tierney's bill, to prevent the doubling of student loan interest rates, fully paid for and then some, reducing the deficit by $7 billion by repealing tax giveaways for big oil companies.

To discuss our student loan bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has or is expecting any additional speakers.

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment of Mr. Tierney's bill into the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Tierney's bill will not only provide the House, as was passionately argued by the leader, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Tierney, the opportunity to decide between women's health or special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, but will also reduce the deficit by $7 billion. The time of record deficits when restoring the fiscal integrity of our Nation is critical to our competitiveness in job creation. I hope that this House acts boldly by defeating the previous question and allowing us to vote on reducing the deficit by $7 billion.

With regard to CISPA, it simply strikes the wrong balance between security and liberty. Information-sharing is important. I think a bipartisan consensus can be reached. And while I appreciate the spirit with which CISPA was offered and members of both parties worked on it, the bill is so far from perfect, we need to continue to work on it and defeat this rule and allow more amendments.

Any American who values his or her privacy should be concerned by the implications of this bill trusting Big Government and secret agencies with our most personal information. The reality is that CISPA represents a massive government overreach in the name of security. We need accountability and we need oversight. We can't have secretive agencies accountable to no one with vast powers over American citizens on our soil.

For these reasons, I oppose the underlying pieces of legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The point being made is that it depends on one's political perspective where one sees a national security threat. Some see it on the left, some see it on the right. I don't trust Big Government decisionmakers to decide who is and isn't a threat to security.

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

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