Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this misguided piece of legislation, which would erect new obstacles and red tape to protecting American lives.

At the outset, let me just reiterate what Mr. Cohen said earlier in his opening remarks, which is that Congress already has the power to disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act, through the appropriations process, and through other authorizing legislation.

H.R. 367, let's face it, is essentially an attempt to impose a procedural chokehold on protecting American citizens. I want to talk about one of those proposed rules, which is now pending at OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is a rule to prevent the continuing litany of workplace fire and explosions from combustible dust.

Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't see fit to allow an amendment offered by Representative George Miller to exclude that rule from the underlying bill. It has been abundantly clear for a decade that Federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires.

In 2003, the Chemical Safety Board found that protections to stop these explosions were grossly inadequate. The Board identified hundreds of other combustible dust fires and explosions, causing at least 119 fatalities and 715 injuries over the last 15 years.

The investigators themselves are not alone in demanding action. Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress recently about how her brother Shawn was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us how he was left lying on a smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle tissue. And each breath caused his internal organs to be burned even more.

Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been the last. It has been more than 5 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia, an explosion that killed 14 workers. It caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because an unchecked accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions, leveling the plant.

These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 49 major combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 18 and injured 131 workers since Imperial Sugar.

More recently, five workers were killed in three separate events at a factory north of Nashville because an iron powder processing plant failed to abate repeated dust hazards. Each of the five left behind a wife and child; one had four children under 11, another became a grandfather the day before he was killed.

Widows have called on their government to protect them, and that's where OSHA comes in. In 2009, OSHA finally started work on a rule to reduce the risk of these explosions. There will be small business panels, risk assessments, public hearings, and plenty of opportunities for comments.

Despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special interests a new way to block needed protections, and they are already lining up to kill a rule they dislike.

The sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working families and their widows.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.

If I have another few seconds, I just want to say we are now hours away from a 5-week recess. 640,000 DOD civilian employees are looking at Congress, asking why they should be furloughed for the next 8 weeks, losing 20 percent of their pay, some of whom are doing critical work for our national security, and yet not once in the over 200 days since this Congress was sworn in, has the governing majority brought a bill to this floor to turn off sequester and make sure that these people who are doing critical work for our national security can do their job. That's what we should be focused on. We should cancel the recess, turn off sequester, and end the endless debate about bills that are headed nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I insert this letter from myself to Under Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert F. Hale.

Hon. Robert F. Hale,

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),

Pentagon,Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Hale: Thank you for providing me and members

of the Readiness Subcommittee a briefing on the

implementation of civilian furloughs at the Department of

Defense. I appreciate your first-hand view of the policy and

its impacts on our defense civilian workforce and our

military readiness, and I benefitted from your candid remarks

about the challenges that sequestration continues to present

to the department.

While I continue to believe that the best way to address

furloughs and other impacts to our military readiness is for

Congress to pass a comprehensive and balanced plan to end

sequestration, I also believe that the department must

continue to evaluate all options available to it in reducing

or eliminating furloughs this year. During our briefing you

indicated that the department was evaluating whether

additional reductions in furlough days can be made. It is my

hope that the department will finish that analysis and make a

positive public announcement on that matter as quickly as

possible in order to provide furloughed employees the

greatest possible certainty as to their financial outlook for

the rest of the year.

Additionally, as I and several of my colleagues mentioned

in our session, there are a number of specific aspects of the

current furlough policy that continue to frustrate those

individuals facing loss of pay through no fault of their own.

For example, I believe that the individual military services

and agencies can be provided with greater flexibility to pay

down or eliminate furloughs under their purview.

Additionally, further consideration must be given to the

status of dual status technicians and those whose work is

funded through the defense working capital funds--both

workforces are critical to the day-to-day needs of our

military, and I continue to believe that exceptions must be

made for these personnel.

Just this past Saturday, I attended a welcome home event

for the 1109th TASMG of the Connecticut National Guard, who

spent the last year in Afghanistan providing critical

maintenance for our helicopter fleet. Their joy at being home

with family was undermined with the reality that nearly a

third of the 100 returning members are dual status

technicians and therefore hit by furlough. After serving in a

war zone away from family, it was a bitter pill for these

patriots to lose 20 percent of their pay almost immediately

upon return.

As I also mentioned in our briefing, the department must

better quantify and communicate the cuts that have already

been made in attempting to avoid furloughs. When I recently

met with furloughed personnel at Naval Submarine Base New

London, I received many questions about whether the

department made any attempts to cut back on contracting for

services, returning outsourced work to federal employees and

other potential ways to find the savings necessary to reduce

or eliminate furloughs. It is my hope that you will provide

members of this committee, as well as the workforce at large,

with additional information on the extent to which the

department has, or plans, to cut in other areas to limit the

reach of furloughs.

Finally, let me thank you for your positive words about the

work that our DOD civilians do each and every day in support

of the defense of our nation. As you shared in our meeting,

one of the most disappointing impacts of the furloughs has

been giving our defense civilians the impression that they

are not important to or valued by the department, by Congress

and by our fellow Americans. That these furloughs, and the

greater budget uncertainty at large, is causing long-serving

and hard working civilian professionals to question whether

they want to stay at the defense department is one of the

most insidious impacts of this budget impasse. That is why I

hope you and Secretary Hagel will continue to do all you can

to reduce or eliminate furloughs, revisit specific unique

exemptions, and provide more detailed information about the

steps you have, and will continue to take, to limit furloughs

through reductions in areas like service contracting and

reversing outsourcing decisions.

Thank you, again, for taking the time to meet with me and

my colleagues on the Readiness Subcommittee, and I sincerely

thank you for your service to our country in these

challenging times.

Sincerely,

Joe Courtney,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote the following letter to the Under Secretary of Defense a few days ago:

Just this past Saturday, I attended a welcome home event

for the 1109th TASMG, the Connecticut National Guard, who

spent the last year in Afghanistan providing critical

maintenance for our helicopter fleet.

Their joy at being home with family was undermined by the

reality that nearly a third of the 100 returning members are

dual-status technicians and, therefore, hit by furlough.

After serving in a war zone away from family, it was a bitter

pill for these patriots to lose 20 percent of their pay

almost immediately upon their return.

I do believe that the Department of Defense can do a better job managing the furloughs. However, the real responsibility rests in this Chamber to turn off sequester. It has been 210 days since the governing Republican majority took power, and 81 legislative days that we have not taken up one measure to turn off sequester during that time. Incredibly, in 3 days, we are going on a 5-week recess, and on Friday we're going to vote for the 40th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I have a news flash: it's not going anywhere.

We should cancel the recess, and we should focus on making sure that these patriots are not treated so shabbily. We should make sure that the 600,000-plus civilian DOD Federal employees have their furloughs turned off.

Cancel the recess. Let's turn off sequester. Let's stand up for America's middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of the Student Loan Certainty Act and again want to emphasize the fact that, compared to the product that came out of this Chamber on May 23 that the majority passed on a partisan, party-line vote, on which the White House issued a veto threat, the final bill that's before us here today is a far superior piece of legislation that protects students.

Again, as Mr. Miller said, the numbers don't lie. The bill that the Republicans passed on May 23 had a 4.3 percent interest rate, which was a teaser rate. The bill that's being passed here today is 3.86 percent, and over time, that nets about $5,000 of additional savings for students. That's real money, and that certainly is something that's worth the wait.

But what I want to point out is that there is actually, in my opinion, a more fundamental difference which is so critical for borrowers, which is that this piece of legislation will fix the rate at time of origination. In other words, when students take on these 10- year notes, which is what Stafford student loans are, the rate is fixed at the time the note is written.

The bill that came out on May 23 was a floating variable rate product which would not be set until the time that students commenced payment. Some students take Stafford loans out over a period of 5 and 6 years, so the rates that they were touting back on May 23 were an illusion. They were not what the rate was that the student actually was going to be paying.

And again, for this country, which went through the trauma of the subprime mortgage variable rate fiasco, this is a critical difference which provides greater protection for the borrower.

If you go online today, a 30-year mortgage for a house is about 4 percent, for an auto loan it's about 3.8 percent. They are fixed loans if you took those loans out today. And that's exactly what this compromise creates is that there will be real borrower certainty and protection, unlike the bill that recklessly, and on a partisan, party- line basis, flew out of this Chamber on May 23.

This is a better deal for America's students. It's why, again, the process that we went through was worth it. And again, it's certainly worth people's support.

At the end of the day, though, let's remember, students are still paying

into the deficit of this country. The Congressional Budget Office has told us over 10 years, $184 billion of revenue is going to be generated through this program towards the deficit.

We need to change that. That's not the purpose of the Stafford student loan program. When Senator Stafford from Vermont passed it many years ago, it was about providing an affordable system of access for higher education, not a cash windfall for the coffers of the government.

And that's why we have more work to do. That's why we need to pass a Higher Education Authorization Act which, again, balances these priorities in the right direction for students, not for government coffers. And again, this legislation gives us the time to address that issue and come out with an even better program for students which, again, is good for them and good for our country, to make sure that we have a workforce which is ready for the challenges of the future.

Mr. Speaker, 48 years ago today, Lyndon Johnson, in Independence, Missouri, signed into law the Medicare program in the presence of former President Harry S. Truman.

It's important when you think about that event, which I would argue transformed our country, to go back in time and remember that seniors in 1965, only half had health insurance of any sort; 30 percent of America's seniors lived in poverty; and life expectancy for America's seniors was age 70. If you fast toward today, 48 years later, we have universal health insurance coverage for all seniors, life expectancy is now age 79, and only 7 percent of seniors live below the poverty line.

The decision by Congress earlier that year--it was April of 1965 when our colleague, Congressman John Dingell, was sitting in the Speaker's Chair and brought the gavel down when the Medicare law was passed--has, again, paid off huge dividends in terms of transforming America's health care system.

Back then, Medicare only covered doctor visits and hospital visits. Today, it covers a broad range of services for seniors--dialysis, medical equipment, outpatient services, such as prescription drug coverage--and as a result, the health care sector of our country has grown. For many, it has created literally careers and opportunities to pursue a system which, again, has produced great results for the folks who live in our country over age 65 and people on disability.

Today, we have challenges that Medicare faces, but there is good news. The Trustees for Medicare recently issued their annual report, and it showed that the solvency of the Medicare trust fund this year was extended out an additional 2 years to 2026. And beyond that date, Medicare does not go bankrupt to zero. There is a shortfall, in terms of the projections by the Trustees, of roughly about 10 percent--a serious problem, but one that we can manage using smart changes to the system. And the Trustees, in their reports, pointed to the Affordable Care Act, when it was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, as extending by 9 years the solvency of the Medicare system.

For seniors, under the Affordable Care Act, they are now getting more help with prescription drug assistance. They were stranded in the doughnut hole prior to 2010. Now they get over half of the cost of those prescription drugs while they're in the doughnut hole discounted. They are also getting free preventive care services--whether it's colonoscopies, annual checkups, smoking cessation programs. All of those essential services for primary care now carry no out-of-pocket costs because of the Affordable Care Act.

The fact is that those changes have extended the solvency of the Affordable Care Act. We have not cut benefits for seniors. We have not made unwise choices, such as the Ryan budget, which proposed raising the eligibility age for seniors to qualify for Medicare to age 67 and would butcher the program into private health insurance for people under age 55, in other words, turning the clock back to where we

were 48 years ago when President Johnson signed that measure into law.

The best way to celebrate Medicare's birthday--which, again, has transformed the lives of every American family since it was enacted in 1965--is to make smart changes to the system, to build on the progress of the Affordable Care Act, to make sure that it's going to be there for our children and our grandchildren, just like the people who had the wisdom to vote for that program 48 years ago and signed it into law--again, with the vision and prophesy of Harry S. Truman, who, as a Senator representing the State of Missouri, had proposed Medicare as a law and then saw, before his time on Earth ended, it actually come to fruition.

Medicare is a wonderful program. It is a program which every family is touched by and has experienced and benefited from. Our best way to celebrate its birthday today is to redouble our efforts to extend its solvency and to make sure that all American families, today and in the future, are able to enjoy its wonderful benefits.

Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2013, the State of Connecticut and our nation lost an extraordinary man, David McCourt. A New London native, David's life served as a beacon of hope and wisdom in our difficult times. David was a highly successful businessman who took over a family business, ABCO Welding Supply, in 1986 with his brother Bill. Through hard work and entrepreneurial skill, they grew the business and achieved a comfortable station in life.

Tragically on September 11, 2001, that idyllic story was violently upset when his wife Ruth and four-year-old daughter Juliana died aboard United Flight 175 that crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. The horror and pain of that loss was devastating to David and any person would be forgiven for reacting to such a loss with anger and depression. David, however, responded differently. After a period of mourning he sought heal the division and conflict which are part of modern existence, rather than inflame violence and hate.

After a spiritual awakening, he helped found B.R.A.V.E. Juliana, a program of HELP USA. He devoted his time to teach children nonviolence and conflict resolution. He said ``what we have to do is start with the children in this country and teach them tolerance, compassion, and understanding.'' In 2002, he also founded the Juliana Valentine McCourt Children's Education Fund. Each year the fund gives out funding to local youth organizations.

Each year the New London Police Department and Fire Department host a benefit softball game to remember the events of 9/11 and raise donations for the McCourt Fund. The Juliana Valentine McCourt Memorial Softball game brings the whole community together in remembrance of the victims. New London was very pleased and excited when David attended the 2012 game, which raised over $1,000 for the McCourt fund.

New London's Lyman Allyn Art museum established a garden to honor the memories of Juliana and Ruth. The McCourt memorial garden according to David serves as a ``metaphor for seasons and renewal and healing for those who are left behind.'' David spoke powerfully at the 10 year commemorative event held at the McCourt memorial garden.

Mr. McCourt passed away on July 11 after a courageous battle with metastic melanoma. He leaves behind his current wife, Mary Bryant McCourt, his four children, and nine grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of David McCourt, and sharing our condolences with the family he leaves behind.

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

I'd like to just sort of add a few points to the gentleman's prior comments.

First of all, the fleet is not being replaced one to one--the current fleet size is 14, and the new fleet will be 12. The program has already been delayed by 2 years because of earlier reductions in the defense budget. That 2-year delay is going to push us right up to 2021, which is when the aging fleet which is in play right now is going to start being decommissioned over time in terms of the reduction. Because of investment in design and development, which is what this amendment is focused on, we have saved $2 billion per vessel from where the Navy started when this project first commenced a number of years ago. It was $7 billion, and we are down to $5 billion per boat in terms of the projected costs that the Navy has actually come forward with.

I would just lastly note that the strategic review, which has been done under Secretary Gates and under Secretary Hagel, has repeatedly put SSBN replacement at the absolute apex in terms of national defense priorities, again, for a lot of the reasons the prior speaker indicated. Sea-based nuclear deterrence fits in perfectly well with the START Treaty, but as for the math of eight subs for 1,000 warheads, if you're going to have sailors being back home after deployment and if you're going to have repairs and maintenance, you'll need 12 as a bare minimum--a far cry from the Cold War days when 41 for Freedom was actually the size of this fleet.

We are now down to the bare bones, and we should not cut it any further. I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the re-launching of the Charles W. Morgan this weekend at the Mystic Seaport: The Museum of America and the Sea.

The Morgan, a 172-year-old whaling vessel, was built and launched from New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1841. For more than 200 years, vessels like her were the economic backbone of New England. Since its retirement from the whaling industry in 1921, the Morgan has served as a living artifact and a testament to the ingenuity, risk, and entrepreneurship of the United States. Today, the Morgan is a National Historic Landmark vessel, the only remaining wooden whaleship in the world, and the oldest commercial vessel in the United States.

The Morgan has completed a 5-year, multi-million dollar restoration at the Preservation Shipyard of Mystic Seaport and the Sea and will be relaunched this weekend. Individuals and organizations from 22 States have contributed materials and expertise to make this launch possible. From educational curriculum to whaleboats, research to anchors, the contributions to the restoration of the Morgan represent a truly national effort and will help make the Morgan's mission that much more meaningful. The reach of these efforts touch literally every region and corner of our nation, with contributions from the following states: Alaska Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Next summer, the Morgan will embark on a ceremonial 38th voyage, embarking on a new mission devoted to history, education, science, and ocean awareness. Most notably, the Morgan will sail with the wood from trees blown down from recent hurricanes in her frame and decks--giving new life to these trees as the Morgan embarks on her own new life. For instance, live Oak wood from trees in Texas damaged in Hurricane Ike is used in the ship's frame, live oak trees from Florida blown down in Hurricane Ivan, White Oak and White Pine wood blown down by Hurricane Sandy in New York, and live Oak wood from trees in Mississippi damaged during Hurricane Katrina. That we can turn the devastation of these storms in to a positive outcome that will have lasting impact is a unique and special part of this weekend's ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, there is an understandably high level of excitement for this weekend's festivities and the Morgan's upcoming mission of education, exploration and discovery next summer. I ask all my colleagues to join me in offering our congratulations to the Mystic Seaport and all those who made the restoration of the Morgan possible.

Mr. Chairman, as the poison of sequestration is now seeping through America's economy, society, and national defense, there's a lot of folks in this city who are suddenly running around saying that they oppose sequestration. But I think if you look closely at this legislation, it bakes in sequestration funding levels for education--not just for next year, but for the next 6 years.

Mr. Chairman, I supported the defense authorization bill, along with the chairman of my committee, a few weeks ago, which actually used pre- sequestration levels for our national defense. Yet here today we are voting on a bill which tells America's children: sorry, you're stuck with sequestration. You have to allow, basically, this chain saw which is going through Federal programs to continue for the next 6 years at exactly the time when we should, as a national priority, be investing more in education.

We heard from the prior speaker about the need for STEM. Absolutely.

There is nothing in this bill that prioritizes or focuses on the need for this country to step up the STEM education curriculum in this country. This bill is the wrong direction for people who care about upgrading America's competitiveness.

Again, if you think about it, is China really going to sequester its education funding over the next 6 years? Are any of our other large economic competitors doing that? Of course not.

This bill is a retreat; it is a surrender to sequestration--not for ourselves, but for our children. It is shameful. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, on July 1, the front page of The Washington Post had a headline which showed in many respects just, again, the disconnect between this town and the rest of the country. It said: ``They said the sequester would be scary. Mostly they were wrong.''

I would like those reporters to have joined me on July 3, 2 days later, when I went to the Groton Navy Base in southeastern Connecticut to talk to over 100 civilian DOD employees who were on the verge of being furloughed because of sequestration. Again, under sequester, 650,000 civilian DOD employees, for 1 day a week for the next 11 weeks, will be furloughed, or lose 20 percent of their paycheck, despite the fact that they contribute enormous value to the military readiness of this country.

Again, at that meeting, where I was joined by Captain Carl Lahti, who is the commander of the sub base, he talked about the fact that among the furloughed employees are crane operators, folks who install torpedoes, Tomahawk missiles, all the supplies to make sure that our attack sub fleet is ready to go at any given time. Again, losing them 1 day a week just pushes back the readiness of the submarine fleet.

I talked to Adam Puccino, who is the head of the Metal Trades Council and represents the maintenance crews on the base to make sure that the tip of the spear of America's Navy is ready to go. Again, losing those folks 1 day a week is going to slow down and retard the ability of that fleet to be ready.

Rob Faulise, who is the head of the NAGE force, talked about the staff that provides critical services, whether it's health care, firefighter services, clerical work, to make sure that that subbase is ready to accomplish its mission.

In every case, they all confirm the fact that not only is this going to cause personal hardship, but it's also going to harm the military capability of that base.

I received a number of emails from folks who were there that day or whose coworkers told them about that meeting. Here is what some of them said.

Kimberly from Ledyard, Connecticut, said:

I am a Federal employee working on the Navy base in Groton.

I am a GS-5 step 2, which means I make $17 an hour and am

paid biweekly. I am married with three children, ages 6, 4,

and 1. My husband works part time, and is already capped at a

salary range of $16.54 an hour. It's already hard enough to

make ends meet as it is, and now, with the furlough, I'm

losing $226.44 every pay period.

Robert from North Stonington:

As a member of DOD, specifically the Department of the

Navy, working in Groton, I am now in the second week of

furloughs. As a civilian employee for the past 39 years, I

have never seen our government in such disarray. My command,

supervisor of shipbuilding, performs extremely important jobs

of government oversight of the design, construction and

repair of our country's nuclear submarine fleet.

John from Groton:

Furloughs will immediately manifest themselves in the local

economies around every U.S. military base in the form of 20

percent fewer goods, gas and groceries being bought and in 20

percent fewer taxes being paid into town and State coffers

that are already at an all-time low.

Lastly, Aurela from Gales Ferry, Connecticut, said:

As a result of the civilian furloughs at the Navy branch

health clinic, I believe our patients' access to care and

continuity of quality care will be severely hampered. Our

military and their dependents don't have the option to be

sick or injured on a non-furlough day. Clinic staff has been

trained to refer patients to urgent care facilities and to

emergency rooms as a last resort, largely due to the

sequester. Where is the wisdom of forcing the use of higher

cost facilities in a fiscal crisis?

Thank you, Aurela, because it shows that, in fact, these furloughs don't really save anything structurally or long term for government. What is clearly needed is for Congress to respond to sequester based on what its original intention was. If you go to Phil Gramm, the granddaddy of sequestration--the Gramm-Rudman sequester act of 1985, which today sequester is verbatim based on--he stated in a speech in Washington not too long ago:

It was never the objective of Gramm-Rudman to trigger the

sequester. The objective of Gramm-Rudman was to have the

threat of the sequester force compromise and action.

Again, that's from the inventor of sequestration.

Seven times, Chris Van Hollen and the House Democratic minority have tried to get the Rules Committee to allow a vote to be taken on a measure to turn off sequester, replacing it with smarter cuts and smarter revenue to achieve the goal of deficit reduction, but to do it without a chain saw that is disrupting the lives of those individuals whose stories I just described. In every single instance, the Rules Committee denied the ability of this House to vote on a commonsense measure to turn off sequester.

Folks, we are now 4\1/2\ months into sequester. Its impact extends even beyond the Department of Defense. In Head Start programs, kids are losing slots, and NIH research grants are being canceled. It is time for Congress to listen to Phil Gramm, to compromise, to act to turn off sequester,

and to represent these hardworking Americans who every single day are serving our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the premise of H.R. 2667, the employer mandate bill, which is part of the rule here today, is that somehow the administration overreached by announcing this postponement of the employer tax measure which was part of the Affordable Care Act.

The fact of the matter is, if the proponents had picked up the phone and called the Congressional Research Service and asked them if the IRS has postponed imposition of statutorily required requirements, the fact of the matter, they would have found out what I hold in my hand, which is a memo that was issued today that cites four examples, just within the last 2 or 3 years, where the IRS delayed statutory reporting requirements because of the fact that comments from private sector voices around the country warned that it needed more time to be implemented.

The 2006 law imposing a 3 percent withholding requirement effective December 31, 2010, was delayed till 2012. The 2009 Worker Home Ownership and Business Assistance Act was delayed for a year for a statutory electronic filing requirement.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Withholding Act was postponed 2 years, again, because of a comment that came in from the private sector.

And the FAA law, which was passed in 2011, which had a retroactive collection of excise tax, that was waived by the IRS, again, because of the fact that, after passage of the act, they listened to the American people and to the American business community about the fact that there were some honest-to-God logistical issues that needed to be worked out.

That's exactly what was announced right before the July 4 weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Congressional Research Service memo be admitted to the Record so that we at least have some reality basis about what exactly occurred here. This is totally within the IRS's province of authority, with well-established precedent.

The fact of the matter is that this vote is a nullity. It does nothing as a matter of law. CBO has scored it as zero. So the fact of the matter is we're just filling up more time here.

The fact is that we've got people all over this country whose paychecks are being furloughed because of inaction by this Congress.

Because of inaction of this Congress, people are losing 20

percent of their paycheck. That's what's hurting the American economy right now.

We have a bipartisan immigration bill which cleared the Senate which we know, from CBO, would actually reduce the deficit and grow the economy. That's what we should be voting on.

We had a bipartisan farm bill which passed the Senate which, again, provides a real horizon for rural America. That's what we should be voting on.

Instead, we are filling this Chamber up with more of the tired rhetoric for a bill that does absolutely nothing and which the Congressional Research Service shows us is completely, totally outside of well-established precedent of American law.

Congressional Research Service,

Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.

Memorandum

To: Honorable Joe Courtney--Attention: Maija Welton

From: Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney; Carol A. Pettit,

Legislative Attorney

Subject: Recent Examples of IRS Postponement of Statutory

Effective Dates

This memorandum responds to your request for examples of

instances in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has

postponed statutorily imposed effective dates. This

memorandum does not discuss the July 2013 announcement by the

Obama Administration to delay implementation of the employer

reporting responsibility requirements in the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act. Four recent examples

where the Treasury Department, through IRS, has postponed

statutorily imposed effective dates are detailed in this

memorandum.

1. The IRS postponed the effective date for a requirement

that federal and state governments, along with their

political subdivisions and instrumentalities, withhold 3% of

payments to persons providing property or services. The 2006

law imposing the requirement stated the withholding provision

``shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.'' In

2008, the IRS issued proposed regulations that would

``generally be effective for payments made after the later of

December 31, 2010, or the date that is 6 months after the

publication of final regulations.'' In 2009, and prior to the

regulations being finalized, Congress extended the effective

date in the original Act, from December 31, 2010, to December

31, 2011. In May 2011, the IRS issued final regulations,

which provided that the withholding requirements would

``apply to payments made after December 31, 2012.'' The IRS

explained the reasons for the postponed effective date:

Numerous commenters indicated that an extended period of

time following the issuance of final regulations would be

necessary for government entities to adopt the systems and

processes necessary to comply with the Sec. 3402(t)

withholding and related reporting requirements. Noting the

necessity to formulate government acquisition rules that are

consistent with the final regulations, as well as the

infrastructure needed to apply those rules, some commenters

stated that government entities would need at least 18 months

from the issuance of final regulations under section 3402(t)

to be able to comply.

In response to these practical considerations, the final

regulations provide that the withholding and reporting

requirements under these regulations apply to payments made

after December 31, 2012, subject to an existing contract

exception . . . With respect to payments before January 1,

2013, government entities are not required to apply section

3402(t) withholding and the related reporting, and

accordingly will not be subject to any liability, penalties

or interest for failure to do so.

In November 2011, Congress repealed the 3% withholding

requirement, so it never went into effect.

2. The IRS provided a transitional period for the

electronic filing mandate enacted by the Worker,

Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. As a

result, the effective date of the provision was postponed for

one year for preparers who anticipated filing more than 10

but fewer than 100 returns during calendar year 2011.

As enacted, the provision generally required that tax

return preparers who anticipated filing more than 10

individual tax returns during a calendar year must file those

returns on magnetic media. The requirement was statutorily

effective for returns filed after December 31, 2010. However,

on December 2, 2010, the IRS issued both a notice and

proposed regulation postponing the electronic filing mandate

for those otherwise affected preparers who anticipated filing

fewer than 100 individual tax returns. Those preparers

generally would only be required to electronically file

returns that they filed after December 31, 2011. The reason

given for the transition period was ``to promote the

effective and efficient administration of the electronic

filing requirement in section 6011(e)(3).'' The final

regulation basically adopted the proposed regulation and was

effective March 30, 2011.

3. The IRS has extended various deadlines under the Foreign

Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). FATCA imposes reporting,

withholding, and other requirements on certain foreign

financial institutions (FFIs) and payments. The 2010 law

enacting FATCA provides that, in general, ``the amendments

made by this section shall apply to payments made after

December 31. 2012.'' In July 2011, the IRS released a notice

that provided a timeline for implementing some of the Act's

requirements. For example, the notice provided that certain

reporting requirements would start in 2014, and that the

withholding requirements would begin on January 1, 2014, and

be fully phased in on January 1, 2015. The notice explained

the reasons for the phased-in implementation:

Treasury and the IRS have received numerous comments

concerning the practical difficulties in implementing aspects

of the Chapter 4 rules within the time frames provided in the

Act and under Notice 2010-60 and Notice 2011-34. The

challenges identified relate to the time to develop

compliance, reporting, and withholding systems necessary to

comply with Chapter 4 and the implementing notices. In

addition, a number of stakeholders have noted that complying

with certain provisions may require coordination with a

number of foreign governments. Treasury and the IRS have met

with stakeholders and foreign governments to understand the

specific administrative and legal challenges that must be

addressed and the time necessary to do so. While the Act

provides that the provisions of Chapter 4 are effective

beginning in 2013, Treasury and the IRS have determined that

because Chapter 4 creates the need for significant

modifications to the information management systems of FFIs,

withholding agents, and the IRS, it is reasonable for

regulations to provide for a phased implementation of the

various provisions of Chapter 4.

The IRS subsequently issued proposed regulations in

February 2012, and in October 2012 released an announcement

that extended an additional deadline, citing to practical

concerns with the proposed regulations' time frames. The

announcement explained that:

The Treasury Department and the IRS have received comments

identifying certain practical issues in implementing the

chapter 4 rules within the time frames prescribed in the

proposed regulations. In particular, comments have noted that

the chapter 4 status of entity account holders may change

during 2013 as FFIs enter into FFI agreements with the IRS,

with the result that withholding agents that put in place new

account opening procedures by January 1, 2013, could be

required to undertake duplicative efforts to verify an FFI's

status as a participating, deemed-compliant, or

nonparticipating FFI. Furthermore, comments have indicated

that global financial institutions intend to implement

uniform due diligence procedures for all affiliates.

Accordingly, these comments have suggested aligning the

timelines for due diligence for U.S. withholding agents, FFIs

in countries with Intergovernmental Agreements, and FF Is in

countries without Intergovernmental Agreements in order to

significantly reduce administrative burden.

On July 13, 2013, the IRS issued another notice, which

extended the effective date for withholding on some payments

to July 1, 2014.

4. The IRS extended the effective date of legislation that

had provided for retroactive application of several aviation-

related taxes. On July 23, 2011, the federal excise taxes on

amounts paid for air transportation of people and property

expired, and the tax rates on aviation fuel and gasoline were

reduced. The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011,

enacted into law on August 5, 2011, extended the two taxes

and the prior rates, retroactive back to July 23, 2011. On

August 5, 2011, the IRS announced that it would not require

the payment or collection of the two air transportation taxes

until August 8, 2011, due to the administrative burden that

would arise from requiring payment and collection on past

purchases, and would provide penalty relief for taxpayers

paying the fuel taxes until that same day.

Mr. Speaker, in 2 days, at midnight, by law, the interest rates for the subsidized Stafford student loan program will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, raising interest rates for 7.5 million college students at exactly the time they are taking out loans for next fall's semester.

What a terrible statement about this Congress that we failed to move forward with legislation to protect those rates. My legislation, H.R. 1595, which had 195 discharge signatures, would have protected that rate.

Again, the leadership of this House turned a deaf ear and insisted that their bill, passed on May 23, somehow protected those college students. The Congressional Budget Office looked at that bill that passed that day, and it concluded that that bill was worse than doing nothing and allowing the rates to double to 6.8 percent. It is, again, a bill which will put kids into a variable rate system that, over time, we know will be higher than 6.8 percent.

I think of the disgust that America will feel on July 1 when they see that a critical need--higher education--was overlooked and ignored on top of the failure to turn off sequester and to pass a farm bill. It is time for this Congress to act and to protect the lower interest rates for America's college students.

Mr. Speaker, as the chart next to me clearly states, we are now 4 days and counting until, by law, the interest rate for the subsidized Stafford student loan program will double--from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The real chart should probably be 3 days because that's how many legislative days the House and the Senate are in session. Incredibly, we are debating issues which hardly have the same time sensitivity and which clearly are tone deaf to what American families all over the country are really concerned about.

There are 7.5 million college students who use the subsidized Stafford student loan program. They are going to see their rates double. The total gross cost in terms of added interest is about $4 billion. This is at a time when student loan debt is $1.1 trillion-- higher than credit card debt, higher than car loan debt. Incredibly, this deadline is just being completely ignored by the majority despite the fact that millions of students are making life decisions as we speak as they begin to enroll for next fall's semester.

The bill which the House majority passed on May 23 is a bill which tied rates on a variable basis to Treasury notes, which, by the way, have been going up like crazy over the last 3 weeks and which the Congressional Budget Office has now analyzed and told us will result in debt costs that will be worse than if Congress did nothing and allowed the rates to double to 6.8 percent.

The solution is obvious. Extend the lower rate, 3.4 percent. My bill, H.R. 1595, which is the subject of the previous question, has 195 signatories for a discharge petition. A substantial group of Members in the House is ready and poised to move. It did get 51 votes in the Senate. It did actually move in the Senate, and the President has said he will sign it. If there is any path forward for those 7.5 million students, it's H.R. 1595. Let's do it. Let's act. Let's turn this countdown clock off. Let's help America's young students afford and pay for a critical need for their future--higher education.

Mr. Speaker, in 5 days, unless Congress acts, the Stafford student loan program, which helps 7.5 million students pay for college, is set to see its interest rates increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Again, this is at a time when student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion. It's the highest form of consumer debt in the economy. It exceeds credit card debt and car loan debt. And yet, despite the fact that, again, students and families are facing this mounting, crushing burden, unless we move in a very short period of time, we are going to add to that burden by allowing the interest rates to go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

Six years ago, this Congress acted to pass the College Cost Reduction Act, which cut that rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. It was a 5- year bill tied to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. Last year, with minutes to spare, we extended that lower rate for 1 additional year. Again, here we are today, 5 days away from this rate doubling.

I've introduced legislation, H.R. 1595, the Student Loan Protection Act, and 196 Members of the House signed a discharge petition demanding that the Speaker of the House bring this bill up for debate and passage, which will protect that lower rate for an additional 2 years. We need that time so that we can pass a new Higher Education Authorization Act, which will deal with the broad range of issues that surround how we pay for college and access to higher education, which includes the Stafford student loan program, the workhorse for families to pay for college. It deals with Pell Grants and Perkins loans. It also deals with the obstructions and hurdles that people face when they want to refinance student loan debt after they have left college. Again, that's a big part of that $1 trillion debt burden that's out there in society.

We need a broad, long-range plan to pay for higher education because the stakes are huge. We know that the U.S. economy needs critical skills in our workforce if we are going to continue and grow and prosper. The baby boomers are now hitting retirement age at increasing numbers, and in a whole range of critical occupations, from medicine to science to engineering, we need to refill the ranks. And higher education is the avenue that we can continue to succeed as a country and as a nation. Our competitors know this. They are investing in higher education at a much higher rate than we are in the U.S. We must act to make sure that, again, we don't go backwards on July 1.

The House passed a bill on May 23. The Republican majority pushed a bill through which they claim solves the problem. It changes the fixed rate loan program to an adjustable rate tied to 10-year Treasury notes, which is roughly now at about 2.6 percent. It adds an additional 2.5 percent to that. They claimed when they passed that bill that that solves the problem. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office drilled down deeper and analyzed what the real net impact would be on students. The problem with that variable rate program is that for a freshman entering this fall, like my daughter, who doesn't use the Stafford loan program, if some of her fellow students sign up for the Stafford loan program, under the Republican bill they really don't know what the rate is because it will reset over the 4 years that freshman is in college. Looking at where Treasury notes are projected over the next 4 years, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that, in fact, for that graduating student, 4 years from now the interest rate on the loan that they will graduate with will be over 7 percent.

So, in other words, as CBO told us, if we allow the Republican bill to go forward, it's actually worse than doing nothing and allowing the rates to double to 6.8 percent. President Obama has proposed a different version, which would, again, use the cheap cost of money today with an inflation add-on. But that plan that the President put forward locks in the rate for the student who takes that loan out next year. So, in other words, that freshman who signs up for a Stafford student loan that will go to school with my daughter next year, their rate will not reset from one year to the next. They will have at least the protection of a fixed rate based on the calculation using the Treasury note baseline. It is

a better proposal. The Republican bill has a cap in terms of how high these rates can go over time. The President's does not.

We need, obviously, to get both sides to come together and come up with a real compromise which comes up with an affordable, sustainable way for the Stafford student loan program to work. With only 5 days to go, I would argue that the better course now is just protect the lower rate, give us some time to come up with, again, overlapping good ideas from both sides of the aisle to fix this problem.

Let's not let the rates double. Let's pass H.R. 1595. Let's help 7.5 million college students pursue their goals and dreams and help the U.S. economy.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment, which I've introduced with my friend, Mr. Wittman from Virginia, is a budget neutral amendment. It does not change any authorized level of spending. It very simply adds shellfish farming to the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act programs, the block grants and the crop research initiative, which is again, I think, a reasonable addition given the history of the block grants and the research initiative program prior to 2004.

Again, I want to just emphasize at the outset what we're talking about here is shellfish farming. We are not talking about fishing. Shellfish farming is a cultivated process from seed which in many instances starts offshore and proceeds to harvest in beds just adjacent to a coast. It actually goes back into antiquity in terms of the process and the farming technique that surrounds shellfish farming.

Again, prior to 2004, the specialty crop programs were administered through the USDA to States, and States had discretion to determine specialty crop programs which they wanted to fund. In some instances, shellfish farming was included along with fruit and nuts and other forms of specialty crops.

In 2004, Congress changed the program and gave specific definitions which take away that discretion to States in terms of the block grants program. And the block grants in many instances provide marketing assistance.

Shellfish farming--oysters, clams, mussels--is a growing industry. In fact, for people who have become exposed to it, it is considered a very high quality industry in terms of U.S. shellfish that actually provides opportunities for export growth around the world. And what this amendment will do is to give that growing area of aquaculture an opportunity to expand and grow. It affects the Pacific coast, gulf coast and the eastern coast.

Again, this is a cost neutral amendment to extend very important marketing assistance and research assistance to a part of American agriculture, which clearly aquaculture is. Again, this is cultivated growing of food, unlike fishing. And I think for the hardworking men and women who get up every single day, just like dairy farmers or people who pick apples or other forms of specialty crops who pay taxes, they should be allowed to have access to this program, a competitive grant program, which they would have to demonstrate their eligibility for.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Again, first of all, I just want to salute the great work the chairman of the committee has done. It has been magnificent to see regular order in this Congress.

Secondly, I would just point out that the 2004 specialty crop law was amended in the last farm bill in 2008 to add horticulture. So again, what was done in 2004 is hardly a sacred text. We have the ability to, again with good reason and evidence, to amend this law. And again, I think given the history of it pre-2004, this is not an unreasonable change.

To help make that point, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), for such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.