Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great urgency for America's students and their families.

In just 3 months, if Congress does not act, millions of Americans will be thrown deeper into debt. That's because on July 1 the interest rates on need-based student loans will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This interest-rate hike will hit 7 million Americans who are already in financial need.

With rates at historic lows, for the Congress to let these interest rates double is highway robbery. Congress should not require students and families who can least afford it to pay twice as much in interest on the same loans they got a year before at lower rates. Congress should help make college more affordable, not more expensive. Congress should help families to get out from under the crushing debt, not pile on more.

Tens of thousands of students have asked Congress to act, but their pleas to help have been met with silence from the Republicans in Congress. Silence. Silence is not what they need. Action is what they need. Only Congress can set the rates for these student loans. The clock is ticking. Applications are being made to college, and the time to act is now. Congress should not let the interest student rate loans go up. Congress should not let the interest rates double on these families and these students.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and congratulate the men and women of the Richmond Police Activities League as they celebrate 30 years of public service.

The Richmond Police Activities League was first established in 1982 to offer positive and proactive activities for local boys and girls between the ages of 5 and 18. Over the past three decades, Richmond PAL's programs have expanded to serve over 3,000 youth annually with excellent recreational, educational, social, and spiritual activities. Basketball, soccer, track, golf, baseball, football, and games like pool and ping-pong are great favorites at the PAL Center. They even have a state of the art recording studio which provides a unique opportunity for members to develop and showcase their talents.

Furthermore, Richmond PAL's after school programs have helped increase the number of Richmond students staying in school, and have encouraged students to strive for academic excellence. With the help of volunteer teachers and tutors, many of these students have dramatically improved their reading and writing skills.

In addition to the programs available at the Center, Richmond's Police Activities League offers field trips to local institutions such as the Lawrence Hall of Science, a ferry boat ride to San Francisco, or a visit to Fresno State University to explore the options of higher education. These field trips have encouraged many students to broaden their imaginations and have motivated them to achieve their goals.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Richmond Police Activities League and the dedicated men and women who have made it a success over the past thirty years. These programs have made a difference in the lives of countless children, and PAL continues to be a positive force in our community and a priceless benefit to all residents. I am pleased to congratulate the organization for its accomplishments in public service and wish them well with all their future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And just like last year, some Members of Congress and beltway talking heads are declaring the Republican budget proposal as bold and courageous. But just like last year's Republican budget, this budget proposal is neither bold nor is it courageous.

It's not bold to balance your budget on the backs of working families, low-income families, and the children of this Nation. This Republican budget, in fact, mortgages an entire generation of children's education and young people's education. It mortgages their educational opportunities by making cuts at the very earliest of early childhood education, at the elementary level of education, the secondary level of education; and it's going to allow the doubling of interest rates on student loans that families have taken out to provide for the higher education that these young people need to get jobs in this economy, to get the skills that they need to be able to go to work in this economy. Yet that is going to be slashed with their cuts, with their increased costs to those individuals.

It also sacrifices the health care benefits of a generation, of these same people, because under their proposal they envision the Affordable Care Act somehow going away, that they can repeal it, they can get rid of it. And that means that young people will not be able to stay on their families' policies as they finish their education or they seek out their first job, their first beginning of a career.

It also ends the Medicare guarantee. It follows the path that George Bush followed when he wanted to privatize it and then again in last year's budget, when they sought to end the guarantee. They're back again to end that guarantee to our senior citizens. It's not bold. It's just plain wrong.

The Affordable Care Act, in fact, strengthened Medicare. It made it more sustainable for seniors and sustainable for the taxpayers. It extended the Medicare trust fund.

But that's not what the Republican budget's about. It's about extending the deficits out until sometime in 2014, while at the same time not looking at the impact of military spending or continuing the war in Afghanistan, as they accept it in their budget.

And what it says is, therefore, we will shift the entire cuts to the young, to the old, to middle class families. But that cannot be allowed. The Republican budget must be rejected by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Congressman John Garamendi to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Contra Costa County District 2 Supervisor Gayle Uilkema as she retires after 37 years of public service.

Supervisor Uilkema began her long career in 1975 as a Lafayette Parks and Recreation Commissioner, and was soon elected to the Lafayette City Council. She served five subsequent terms on the City Council, where she left a strong legacy, after which she proudly served four terms as Mayor of Lafayette.

As the longest serving member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Gayle Uilkema has worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents. Her knowledge and experience was integral in developing Lafayette's Veterans Memorial Building and the Lafayette Library and Learning Center, two projects which provided access to resources previously unavailable to many in the community. She was also instrumental in establishing the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, which helped pass the first Road and Drain Bond in the area.

Gayle has accumulated numerous awards in the course of her career, including recognition from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the American Association of University Women. Gayle was named Alumna of the Year by California State University--East Bay and was honored as Co-Citizen of the Year by the West County Business & Professional Association. Most recently she was recognized as the 2012 Lafayette Citizen of the Year Award for her outstanding dedication and contributions to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Supervisor Gayle Uilkema for her committed and diligent service to Lafayette and Contra Costa County. I am pleased to join her family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating her on an outstanding career and wish her the very best as she begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and congratulate Larry Sly, Executive Director for the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano, as he retires after 35 years of public service.

A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Larry began his career as an Executive Director with the Food Bank of Contra Costa in 1976. Starting with just two employees, Larry brought the organization a truck and trailer, where he stored bread that he picked up from a local grocery store. Soon, people in the area from local churches began distributing this bread to underprivileged people of the community.

In Larry's first year as Executive Director of the Food Bank of Contra Costa, the organization distributed approximately 36,000 pounds of food to people in need of assistance in the local area. Eventually, the Food Bank would merge with a struggling Solano County Food Bank and develop a greater outreach program within the region. Every year, with Larry's leadership, the Food Bank steadily increases the number of families who received food donations and groceries; last year they distributed over 14 million pounds of food.

During his time with the Food Bank, Larry has developed successful programs to help locals and agencies distribute food in a cheaper, more efficient manner. One such program, the Senior Food Program, provides low income senior citizens the opportunity to receive free groceries each month. Another, the Farm to Kid Program, provides five pounds of food every week for low income families as well as three to five pounds of fresh produce for every child in after school programs at low-income schools.

Throughout his career in public service, Larry has served at a number of statewide and national organizations, He served as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Feeding America and the National Food Bank Network, as well as on the Board of Directors at the California Association of Food Banks and the Emergency Food and Shelter Board in Contra Costa County. In 2009, Larry also served as Interim Executive Director for Feeding America San Diego, where he helped improve and manage the organization.

Mr. Speaker, I invite this chamber to join me in recognizing Larry Sly for his commitment

and significant service to the people of Contra Costa and Solano Counties. I applaud Larry's contributions on behalf of the underprivileged, and his efforts to increase awareness of hunger and food security issues throughout California and the Nation. Larry's leadership throughout his career provides a positive example for those planning to serve their communities. I am pleased to join his family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating him as he retires from the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I came to Congress in 1975. Since that time, I've been involved in the debate over national health reform proposals. Throughout these debates, lawmakers struggled with how to control costs without sacrificing quality care. Unfortunately, for decades, Congress chose to kick the can down the road while costs continue to climb and to soar. This trend ended with Affordable Care Act.

For the first time, Congress put in place specific and identifiable measures that will make our health care system more transparent and efficient. This includes the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This board will be a backstop to ensure that Federal health programs operate efficiently and effectively for both seniors and taxpayers. We need to give these innovations a chance to work. Because without these innovations, there's little hope to get health care costs under control.

Five hundred thirty-five Members of Congress cannot be nor should they be the doctors who think they know best of the practice of every medical field. Five hundred thirty-five Members of Congress are not immune to special interests that have a financial stake in the decisions that are made--not necessarily in the best interest of the seniors, the taxpayers, or the delivery of medicine in this country, but perhaps in the best interest of their companies. That's why the Affordable Act created an independent board of health experts to make the recommendations to improve the system. It does not usurp the role of Congress. It simply acts as a fail-safe in case government spending exceeds benchmarks. Under the law, doctors will retain full authority to recommend the treatments they think are best for patients. The law also prohibits recommendations that would ration care, change premiums, or reduce Medicare benefits.

In short, this independent board is about strengthening Medicare with evidence-based decisionmaking. Without innovative reforms like the board, Medicare's future will be put in jeopardy. Kicking this can down the road any further will only bolster those who seek to kill Medicare. We must strengthen Medicare, not end the Medicare guarantee.

The Affordable Care Act strengthened Medicare. It extended the life of the trust fund and has already lowered costs for millions of seniors. However, without innovation, our current system will be unsustainable for our Nation's families, businesses, and taxpayers.

The Republican plan to end the Medicare guarantee is no alternative. Innovation is the alternative. I urge my colleagues to support the Independent Payment Advisory Board and reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson to recognize Dr. William Eisenhardt, President of the California Maritime Academy, as he retires after nearly 46 years of public service and 11 years as President of the Academy.

Dr. Eisenhardt is a native of Baltimore, Maryland, and a 1966 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, where he earned academic stars in engineering. During the Vietnam War, he served as a naval flight officer, earning the Air Medal and Navy Commendation Medal among other personal and unit decorations. After his active duty service he attended Duke University, where he earned his Masters and Ph.D. degrees while also teaching as a visiting professor.

Before coming to the California Maritime Academy, Dr. Eisenhardt spent 18 years at the Maine Maritime Academy as a faculty member, Commandant, and then Provost. Upon leaving, he was awarded an honorary doctorate of science in recognition of his accomplishments in international maritime education and his service to the Maine Maritime Academy.

Dr. Eisenhardt is a career educator with a lifelong dedication to maritime education. He began his 11 year Presidency at Cal Maritime in July 2001 and his accomplishments are numerous. Under his leadership, the Cal Maritime Academy has increased its exposure to a variety of external audiences. Dr. Eisenhardt's efforts have resulted in Cal Maritime being listed by both U.S. News and World Report and

Forbes magazines as among the top public colleges in the country. During his tenure, Dr. Eisenhardt has doubled and diversified the academic offerings and enrollment at Cal Maritime. The campus has now become the most culturally diverse maritime academy in the U.S. with 20 percent of the cadets being women and over 30 percent from minority groups.

Cal Maritime's operating budget has also increased by nearly 50 percent and major capital improvements have exceeded $39 million with another $46 million in the planning and construction phase. Dr. Eisenhardt has overseen a five-fold expansion in charitable giving to the campus from alumni, industry, parents and friends. He was also responsible for securing the largest charitable donation in the Academy's history: $3 million from the American Bureau of Shipping, used to establish the ABS School of Maritime Policy and Management. Cal Maritime also boasts the world's finest Maritime Simulation Center, a new $15 million facility for which he led the planning and development. In the 2008 2010 academic years the Academy was awarded just under $11 million in federal grants and special project allocations, the most ever in the history of the institution.

Dr. Eisenhardt currently serves as a board member of the Solano County Economic Development Corporation and is the former Chair of the Council of State Maritime Academies & Colleges Consortium. He was active in the founding of the International Association of Maritime Universities and currently serves on its Executive Board. In addition, he serves on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Marine Exchange and the Northern California Maritime Security Committee wherein he was awarded a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Merit in 2005 for providing leadership in helping to set up maritime security protocols.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. William Eisenhardt for his tireless and dedicated service to his country and higher education. I also join his wife Kathryn, two daughters Elizabeth and Kristin, colleagues, and friends in congratulating him on a successful and fulfilling career, and a very well-deserved retirement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the legislation.

There is going to be an argument today about science. This bill makes it very simple. It ends that argument. It simply says that we will use the science that was in effect in 1994.

We use the science that's what, 18 years ago? That will be the science for the purposes of this legislation. You might as well tell the people of California to use the same telecommunications systems they had in 1994, no iPhones, no BlackBerries, no advancement in knowledge, skills, training, or technology.

It's a pretty simplistic approach to science. You might say it's mindless. The Federal Government is going to come in and tell the State of California that it cannot use its regulatory process or scientific process to determine what's best for its State.

As the Attorney General of our State says and the Supreme Court says, the Federal Government simply cannot commandeer the legislatures of the States, but that's what this legislation does. I love the fact that we have people here with wonderful conservative credentials who are now suggesting the Federal Government should preempt California law, preempt the California Legislature, preempt the Federal law, and go back to 1994.

Where else would you take America back to 1994 in terms of imposing the will of the Congress on the States, and that's why almost all of the Western States, their water agencies, their executive offices, oppose this legislation, because this is the greatest preemption of State water rights in the history of this country.

The people who are supporting this, these heavily subsidized farmers who have more than one or two or three subsidies from the Federal Government to grow their crops, are now insisting that the Federal Government take what is a contract right. It's a contract

right, that's it. They want to turn it into perpetuity. They want the water in perpetuity, and the hell with the rest of the State of California. That obviously isn't acceptable.

That is not acceptable to any Member of this Congress about their own State. Why is it acceptable all of a sudden to do that to the State of California?

You simply cannot do this. We have in place a process that is working today for the first time in 40 years, and that's why the resources director of the State of California, that's why both of our Senators oppose this process, because this group of people had never come together in the last 40 years to work on California problems.

The urban users, the rural users, the agricultural interests, the manufacturing interests, the municipal interests, with the blessings of the State legislature that set out the guidelines, that set out the goals, that set out the purposes--that's going on today. Every party to that agreement except for this select few of special interests. This party is the only party that says ``blow it up.'' Use the United States Congress to blow up a process that for the first time has the possibility of solving the water problems in this State and making it sustainable for agriculture, for the environment, for manufacturing, and for municipal use in our State. Yes, we have a tough problem. We have 30 million people. The drought that they talk about, that was imposed.

That was a Statewide drought. Yes, they lost some employment in farm work, but, in fact, agricultural employment, even through the drought, was pretty stable.

The big employment in the Central Valley came because we were selling homes to people who couldn't pay for them. That was the crash. It was first place and the longest crash that we had in this country in terms of mortgages and the loss of the people who were working in those trades.

But that drought was still felt across the State. Thousands of people lost their jobs in tourism in northern California, in commercial fisheries, in recreational fisheries, in the bait shops and the support services all across our State. That drought was an equal destroyer of this California economy from north to south.

Don't wreck this opportunity for California to settle California's problems.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.

Let us understand what is taking place here. In California, for the first time in 40 years, all of the various water parties have gotten together to try to work out these disagreements and come up with a sustainable water policy that serves all of the needs of all Californians--agriculture, manufacturing, municipal uses, environmental uses--all of that together. For the first time, the State legislature passed historic legislation empowering these negotiations to take place in order to take care of disparate interests.

But there are two parties in that negotiation that keep threatening to walk out of the room. They're going to walk out, walk out, walk out. Apparently, they did walk out. They walked out, and they came back to Washington, D.C., to cut a separate deal. These are among the largest water users in the State. These are among the most highly subsidized users in the State. One of our conservative friends on the other side was complaining about the deficit when he started to talk on this bill. These are people who are getting a $400 million interest-free loan from the taxpayers of this country. These are the people who are getting $400 million in subsidies every year from the taxpayers of this country.

And what do they do?

In this bill, they have an earmark. You gave them 40 years and these rights in perpetuity to get at least $400 million a year from the taxpayers of this country. That's not on top of the crop subsidies. That's not on top of the insurance payments, disaster payments. This is just in subsidized water that goes to these people who are crying poor. The largest users have decided they want two negotiations--one in California and one in Washington. To do that, they want to overturn the California laws, the California legislature, the Supreme Court decisions, and the science. We'll go back in time 18 years and say that this science is good enough.

But the heart of this, more than water, is money, and the money sits there, and it flows with the water. Every drop of water that goes to the San Luis Unit and others is subsidized. Right now, they only have a year-to-year contract. They'd have a 20-year contract possibly if they reach agreement. You give them 40 years, and then 40 years in perpetuity: $400 million a year times perpetuity. You figure out what this earmark is worth. You figure out what this special treatment is worth.

Do you want to know who is driving this process?

It's those very, very special interests that are moving this process, and apparently, they can move our friends on the other side to overturn Supreme Court opinions. They can overturn the State legislature. They can overturn these negotiations. There used to be a saying around here that said that it takes some skill and talent to build a barn, but that any damned fool can kick it down. So what these people have decided is that they're just going to kick over those negotiations in California, those negotiations in which people have invested a huge amount of time and talent--from the legislature, to the agencies, to the farmers, to the environmentalists, to our cities, to our counties--all of whom oppose this legislation.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Chair and Members of the House, we are now considering legislation that would significantly compromise the Department of Education's ability to oversee and safeguard our Federal investment in higher education and safeguard and protect the taxpayers who are paying for that investment in higher education.

This legislation couldn't be more ill-timed. In this tough budget environment, we should be concerned with how the Federal Government spends the limited resources we dedicate to Federal student aid. During the 2009 2010 school year, students relied on nearly $200 billion in Federal student aid to prepare for jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow. That's the money that they borrowed, and that's the money that was given to them in grants. If that money is not spent in a responsible way, and if it's not protected, it goes down the drain. It's lost forever, and the students are left with the debt.

Two years ago, the Department of Education's inspector general exposed a loophole that allowed a higher education institution to award more credits to get more student financial aid than was appropriate. They were charging for nine units a day that they said was graduate work. It turned out when the accreditors went through and looked at it, they deemed it was really the equivalent of 3 hours of credit work, and the level of work was at the undergraduate level. But they were able to charge the students, students had to borrow money, and at the end of the day they ended up with units that were worth nothing. Students attending this institution, many of whom were relying on Federal aid programs, were paying double the price because the school inflated the number of credits charged.

In response to the inspector general's findings and recommendations, the Department of Education promulgated rules defining a credit hour and providing other protections for students, including ensuring students have access to a complaint process if there's fraud involved. What the Department of Education did was necessary and narrowly targeted to address a very costly problem.

However, the bill before us today seeks to prevent the Department from protecting taxpayers and students. It would blow open the loophole that the inspector general concluded led to the inappropriate Federal spending. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today explicitly increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in our Federal student aid programs.

At a time when the higher education market is in so much flux, with new kinds of programs popping up around the country and online, this is the wrong time to open this loophole against the taxpayers' best interest.

The Department of Education should have tools to ensure that students who are eligible to receive Federal student aid are receiving it, and that the institutions that serve these students are upholding the integrity of the programs. This seems like a simple proposition: making sure taxpayers and students aren't getting ripped off.

This legislation eliminates those important consumer protections, and it does so under the banner of academic freedom. But the Department's protections do not interfere with academic freedom. Colleges and universities will continue to be free under the Department's rule to set whatever higher standards they see fit for their students as long as the accreditors agree. In this economy, millions of students rely on Federal student aid programs to make the college dream a reality. This is exactly why the Department of Education has moved to ensure greater accountability and taxpayer protection. And it's exactly why the legislation is misguided.

Now more than ever, we need accountability in higher education that works in the best interests of students who use Federal aid programs.

In the last Congress, Democrats worked to make sure that our student aid programs worked in the best interest of students, families, and taxpayers. We also worked hard to make higher education more accessible for families for whom degrees may have been out of reach.

One way we helped to make higher education more accessible and affordable and financially manageable for students and families was to lower the interest rates on loans. Specifically, we lowered the interest rate on need-based student loans to 3.4 percent, almost cutting the cost to those borrowers in half. The interest rate reduction is scheduled to end this summer. It will bounce back to where it was before the Democrats acted to reduce it. For the sake of our students, low rates should be extended. If Congress fails to act, interest rates on need-based student loans for more than 7 million students will double this July. This increase will cost an average borrower almost $2,800 in additional interest payments.

At a time when our economy is on fragile footing, we shouldn't be building more hurdles for young people to get the education and the skills they need to succeed. When interest rates are at historic lows, we should not be asking students to pay more on their student loan debt just because Congress failed to act.

Earlier this month, Mr. Hinojosa and I asked the committee's majority to take immediate action on this important issue. The President has called for action as well. But just like with other economic issues that are vitally important to the American people, those requests have been met with silence.

So today, instead of saving students from interest rate hikes, we are here debating a bill that will take away the tools the Department of Education needs to oversee and protect our investment in higher education, to protect those students who are borrowing money to go to college.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I urge the majority to take up a bill to make sure that interest rates don't double come July.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the senior Democrat on the Higher Education Subcommittee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

We have no further speakers, Madam Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I would just conclude that I think, when you consider the $200 billion that the taxpayers of this country provide through the Federal Government student aid programs to the institutions of higher education all across the country, all of different dynamics, that before we throw out what modest accounting system we have for trying to make sure that we buy value for each and every student who spends their money, the money that they borrow, the money that their parents borrow to try to provide them the educational opportunities so that they can participate in the greater American opportunity all across this country, we ought not to be throwing this system out.

As Mr. Bishop pointed out, this is a minimum requirement. It's a requirement that many people will recognize. When you sign up for a three-unit course, very often you find you spend 3 hours a week in that class. If you sign up for a five-unit course, you're spending more time.

The question really becomes--now as we see a lot of different institutions mixing into this space and receiving and living off almost 85 to 90 percent of their revenues that come from the Federal taxpayers--do these courses really have value? Are they giving the student the value for which they're signing up?

The record is replete that in many instances that's not the case, that in many instances the students have been defrauded. In many instances, it was represented that this was all transferable to the State colleges and to the university systems when, in fact, it turned out not to be true.

I think that we ought to make sure that we don't throw out that current accounting system to make sure that taxpayers and students are getting value for the money that they spend and the money that they work hard to pay back at a time when we have nothing to take its place.

The idea now that in the future you need no accreditation in a State to start up an institution and then you have access to all of the revenues you can grab from the Federal Government makes no sense to me at all. We ought to have accountability in this system, and that accountability runs to the students and it runs to the taxpayers in this country. I would hope that we would reject this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just quickly, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, well, a lot of States are already doing this, but now we don't want to add a burden. This simply says the State has to have a process. If the State has a process, it's over, it's done. So why would we take away that voice in those States that don't have a process?

Let's make sure that students have a place to go. As we know, many of these financial scandals have been brought to us by students because they can't get redress anywhere else. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

This amendment is absolutely consistent with this legislation. What it does is just simply make it easier for any institution to maximize the amount of Federal aid they get.

Under this amendment, they would be able to choose whether or not they want to be a clock-hour or a credit-hour institution, and that would depend really on how they could game the reimbursement that's available to them again without checking whether or not this provision allows for the student to receive value for that money which they borrow to pay for their education. I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for offering this motion to recommit.

I say to my colleagues here in the House, this is a very simple proposition. If Congress fails to act in July of this year, interest rates on student loans will double. And if those interest rates on student loans double, that means that the average borrower will pay another $2,800, almost $3,000, in additional interest.

At a time when families and students will be paying higher interest rates than any time in the recent past, we ought to make sure that the Secretary has the authority to make--that they understand that they get value for what they're buying, that they don't get overcharged, and that they're not the subject of fraud, abuse, and waste in the system when people try to overcharge them for the number of units that they are offering them. We cannot let these students go into areas unprotected when interest rates are about to double.

Congress can solve this problem by retaining the interest rates at three-quarters percent and be done with this issue, and the legislation will go forward. But if we don't protect the students and their families from the increase in interest rates, then the Secretary retains the authority to make sure that they are not subject to waste, fraud, and abuse when they are borrowing money to pay for their education.

I thank the gentlewoman for introducing her legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today with my colleagues Congressman Pete Stark, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Jerry McNerney, and Congressman John Garamendi to honor our friend, Hulet Hornbeck, who passed away on January 7, 2012. The State of California has lost a tireless leader whose many contributions to the East Bay Regional Park District will be remembered and revered by the residents of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and by all who knew him.

Hulet relocated to California soon after the end of World War II and began his career at the East Bay Regional Park District. He enjoyed a distinguished career as Chief of Land Acquisition for the East Bay Regional Park District from 1965 through 1985, serving with legendary leaders William Penn Mott and Richard Trudeau. Hulet is credited with overseeing the acquisition of 49,000 acres of parkland and expanding the District's land holdings from eight parks of 13,000 acres to 46 parks of 62,000 acres. His acquisitions elevated the East Bay Regional Park district to the largest regional urban park district in the nation, a unique distinction it still holds today.

A lifetime conservationist and outdoorsman, Hulet held many positions in local trail and conservation organizations and received countless honors and awards as a result of his work. He provided leadership and advice for organizations, including the California Conservation Council, the American Hiking Society, the National Trails Council, the Martinez Land Trust, the Trails and Greenways Foundation, American Trails, Heritage Trails Fund, Amigos de Anza, the California Recreational Trails Committee, the East Bay Area Trails Council, the American Trails Association, Solano County Farmlands and Open Space Foundation, and the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club.

In 2005, on Hornbeck's 88th birthday, the California Riding and Hiking Trail in the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Park was renamed the Hulet Hornbeck Trail, ``in recognition of [his] tireless efforts in parkland development and management on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District,'' according to the National Trails Training Partnership.

Hulet was one of the most creative land acquisition agents in the country; on behalf of the public he partnered with private companies, individuals, non-profits, and all levels of government. We owe him and the East Bay Regional Park District a great debt of gratitude for creating the largest urban regional park district in the nation.

Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in offering our condolences to Hulet's family and friends. Hulet will be sorely missed, but his contributions toward environmental conservation and dedication to public access to open spaces will be enjoyed for generations to come. His legacy lives on in the heart of every resident and visitor who seeks solace in the thousands of acres of wild greenbelts that grace the East Bay.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. This compromise stands as an example of why it is counterproductive to negotiate with hostage takers.

Initially, the Republicans insisted that to keep the FHA up and running we make union elections as unfair as possible. For instance, they said that in a union election we should count anyone who did not vote in that election as a ``no'' vote. Members of Congress immediately recognized that none of us would win those elections and none of us would be here today; and if it is unfair for us, it must also be unfair for the workers of this country. The Republicans gave up that demand thanks to the Democrats. The rule providing for fair elections is protected.

Instead of succeeding at making union elections unfair, this conference report makes these elections difficult, if not impossible, to hold at all. This report contains numerous statutory changes, not rules changes, but statutory changes, that will make it harder for workers to get an election and have a voice at work. A voice at work is a fundamental right granted to every worker in this Nation by the laws of this Nation. These changes will require an act of Congress to undo.

The compromise leads to absurdities. Under the election rule, which is safe for the time being, workers need a majority of actual votes to win in a union election, and that is fine. Under the conference report, to even hold an election, workers must first get a majority of all of the eligible workers to sign cards supporting the unions. These are nationwide units stretched across the country. You don't have access to all of those workers. You don't even know where many of them are. In the airlines, many of them may have been furloughed for a number of years.

Imagine if a congressional election were run this way. To get on the ballot, you first need a majority of all of the voters in your district to sign cards saying they supported you, but you didn't know who those voters were and you didn't know where they lived. None of us would be elected.

None of us would be elected under this requirement. In fact, there probably wouldn't even be an election.

Once again, we wouldn't run under these conditions. We wouldn't participate in an election under these conditions, and yet we are insisting that American workers have their elections rigged in this fashion. At this point, especially when you see how it might work in airline mergers, there again this rule works against the workers in trying to assemble the election unit.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill. It undermines the rights of American workers for no purpose other than to satisfy the ideological demands of the Republicans and their special interest backers.

I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressman Pete Stark, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Mike Honda, Congressman Jerry Mcnerney, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, and Congressman John Garamendi to recognize Will Travis, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) of 17 years, as he retires after 42 years of public service.

Will ``Tray'' Travis, holds a Bachelor of Architecture and a Master of Regional Planning degree from Pennsylvania State University. From 1970 to 1972 he served as BCDC's first Bay Development Design Analyst, after which he spent 12 years with the California Coastal Commission, holding a number of positions, including heading the agency's offshore oil drilling permit staff, directing its public access program, and overseeing its budget and administrative functions. He returned to BCDC in 1985 as Deputy Director and was later appointed Executive Director in 1995.

Travis has written many articles on coastal issues, has provided advice on coastal matters to other states and nations, and has been a university lecturer throughout North America. He was appointed Chairman of the Shell Oil Spill Litigation Settlement Trustee Committee, which administered a multimillion dollar settlement fund to settle claims resulting from a 1988 oil spill. In that capacity, he spearheaded the public acquisition of 10,000 acres of privately owned salt ponds along the northern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay in one of the largest coastal wetland restoration projects in California's history.

Over the years Travis has been a tremendous leader in protecting San Francisco Bay while balancing the difficult roles of conservation and development. He has established himself as a leading advocate for a regional strategy to address climate change and sea level rise in the Bay Area. My colleagues and I, as well as over 7 million residents in the Bay Area, owe him a great debt of gratitude for protecting our quality of life.

Travis was the 2009 recipient of the Jean Auer Environmental Award and is a member of the National Research Council Roundtable on Climate Change Education. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, the EcoAdapt Climate Change Adaptation Innovation Center, the Executive Management Committee of a Joint Policy Committee of four regional agencies, the Community Advisory Board of KB Home Corporation and Friends of One Bay Area. Furthermore, Travis is a member of Lambda Alpha, the honorary society for the advancement of land economics, he has chaired a special committee established by the City of Berkeley to work with the University of California to develop a new plan for downtown Berkeley, and has served on the project team of ``Saving the Bay,'' a public television documentary film.

Mr. Speaker, we invite this chamber to join us in honoring Will Travis for his tireless and dedicated service to the people of California and the San Francisco Bay Area. We also join his family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating him on a successful and fulfilling career at BCDC and wishing him well on his new initiative as a senior policy advisor for the Bay Area's Joint Policy Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Novelean ``Mother'' Harris of Richmond, California, who passed on January 11, 2012 at the age of 95. Mother Harris was a deeply religious and caring woman who fed and clothed the unfortunate and those in need, and a pioneering business owner in her community.

Mother was the second child born to the late Charlie and Lillie Turner on Thursday, June 15, 1916 in Bernice, Louisiana. She came to know Christ at an early age when her family moved to El Dorado, Arkansas, and joined the New Bethel Baptist Church. Later, Novelean married the love of her life, the late George H. Harris, and had two sons, James and George, and a daughter, Carolyn.

George moved his family to Richmond, California, in 1943 to seek better opportunities. Soon afterwards, George and Mother joined North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, under the late Reverend F.W. Watkins, where they were active participants in their church and their community. George opened one of the first successful insurance businesses in Richmond. He was also one of the first African Americans to serve on the Contra Costa County Grand Jury. With the goal in mind to also own a business, Novelean enrolled at the Charm Beauty School in Oakland, obtained her state cosmetology license, and opened the first African American owned beauty salon in North Richmond. She later established Novelean's Beauty Salon on the Southside of the city where she mentored and trained other women to become licensed cosmetologists. At the time of her death, Mother Harris held one of the oldest business licenses in the City of Richmond.

Mother Harris served in many capacities at North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church, but she will be most remembered for running the church's Soup Kitchen. Mother Harris never turned away a hungry person. She and her volunteer staff provided nutritious meals to countless people and ensured that the needy received a bag of groceries and clothes. She ministered to the homeless who came to eat. Each day at noon, Mother Harris would stop whatever she was doing to lead a prayer. Her passion for feeding the hungry extended beyond her service in the church. Mother Harris often prepared large pots of soup in her own kitchen and delivered meals to the homes of seniors and the disabled.

Mother Harris was a strong pillar in her city. She encouraged others in the community to vote and supported the campaigns of many who sought elected office by giving advice, raising contributions, and feeding candidates in local, state, and national elections.

The City of Richmond declared May 5, 2007, ``Mother Harris Day'' in honor of her contributions to the community. A bench was dedicated to her outside of North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church. Mother Harris was a life member of the Richmond Branch NAACP and was a founding member of the Cosmetology Organization of the Greater Bay Area.

Simply stated by Mother Harris, ``God gave me a vision early in my life to reach out and help those in need.'' She leaves a legacy for us all to follow.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in offering sincere condolences to her children, family, and friends.