Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Rose Mary Sargent for her 16 years working in my district office and serving the people of the Sixth District of Massachusetts.

Rose Mary came to work in my District Office soon after I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1997. Born in Costa Rica, Rose Mary grew up and attended public schools in San Jose, California. Having received her undergraduate degree at College Luis Dobles Segreda, she completed her secondary education at North Shore Community College in my district.

Rose Mary's intricate knowledge of the immigration system, her Spanish-speaking abilities, and her enthusiasm to assist others made her a perfect candidate for managing immigration and refugee casework. Throughout her tenure with my office, Rose Mary has assisted thousands of people and has not only guided constituents through the complex immigration system, but she has also contributed to public education regarding the benefits of immigration to our communities.

In what spare time she has, Rose Mary volunteers as an active member of the community of Lynn. She founded several organizations and currently serves as an Executive Board member for at least three others. Among the organizations she helped found are VOCES--Guardians Against AIDS, the Lynn Hispanic Festival, and Lynn's Cultural Diversity Task Force.

And she has done all of this while balancing her responsibilities as a mother of two adult daughters and a grandmother to five.

Rose Mary's dedication to the people of the City of Lynn and the entire Sixth District of Massachusetts is well-known. She has dedicated her career to improving her community and building ``ladders of opportunity'' for all.

I congratulate Rose Mary on her remarkable career and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose this amendment because it endangers education funding for sort of a political exercise here.

This amendment would actually require State legislatures to approve every single grant program from the Department of Education before States receive the money. So taking the authority from the local communities, local education agencies, putting it back into the State malaise of legislative process is overly burdensome on States, creates a mountain of unnecessary paperwork, and delays students and schools from receiving the much-needed funding. And when the shortsighted State legislatures may refuse that funding, this amendment would take the money and send it back, returning it to the deficit, as opposed to its intended use, which is the education of disadvantaged students.

I sometimes wonder if my colleagues remember why the Federal Government is involved in education K-12 at all, and that is the mandated addressing of a shortage of attention to disadvantaged students.

This is just another attempt by the majority to slash education funding. Mr. Chair, it's not the time to play politics now. Now is the time to increase our investment in education and in our children so that we can be competitive and so that they can have an opportunity moving forward.

This amendment is simply a distraction to the very real and very big problems that this entire bill, H.R. 5, has, and it lets students down. H.R. 5 guts education funding because it locks in that automatic cut of sequestration. It does nothing to ensure students improve learning, and it does nothing to ensure that they graduate from school. It lets students with disabilities be taught to a different, lower standard, and H.R. 5 block grants funds and forces States to give the money to private schools and for-profit companies instead of students.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge that my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Look, I just want to give a little historical perspective to this again. The whole reason that the Federal Government is involved in K-12 education is because States weren't doing the job when it came to addressing disadvantaged students. There was a judicial mandate that said that States had to step up and do that. They, the States, then had a problem with the fact of how much that was going to cost, so the Federal Government stepped forward and said you can have some Federal moneys if you do the job. So we've had that tension between how they'll do the job and how we'll hold them accountable for years.

But this notion of saying that the State government will now decide whether or not local communities will accept the grant--and if they don't, we're not going to apply that money to actually educating those children that are disadvantaged, we're going to toss it back into the Treasury--is no other than a way of cutting education funding. We don't need education cuts at this point in time. We need an investment in education.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but simply the notion is that States that were already at fault for not doing the job, now get to not do the job again as long as their State legislatures are the ones that make the decision. The language doesn't make it quite as simple as to how they'll vote in the State legislature. There will be a delay, if it's done at all. And if a State should make the unwise decision, as they have done historically, which gave the reason for us being involved at all in the first place at the Federal level, then you're cutting education money; you're not applying it to the use of educating disadvantaged students.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the essence of this provision is included in the Democratic substitute amendment that Mr. Miller is offering with the intent of protecting children's safety in all the schools throughout the country. Mr. Miller wants to thank the gentleman for joining the Democrats in this effort.

Congressman Fitzpatrick's amendment would require all schools to conduct comprehensive background checks for all of their employees, including FBI fingerprint checks, State criminal records, child abuse registries, and the National Sex Offender Registry.

The amendment also includes a critical provision that denies Federal funds to schools from employing any individual who is found by these checks to be a potential danger to children. Schools would also lose Federal funds if they transfer such employee to another school, which unfortunately happens too many times.

Tragically, the abuse of students by trusted adults has become a regular occurrence. We read about students being abused in the headlines. Every child deserves a safe and abuse-free learning environment. That's why we include a similar provision in the Democratic substitute and why earlier this session Mr. Miller introduced a similar bill, the Protecting Students From Sexual and Violent Predators Act, H.R. 2083. That bill overwhelmingly passed the House in a bipartisan fashion just 2\1/2\ years ago.

Mr. Miller's bill and his amendment are stronger versions of Mr. Fitzpatrick's amendment because his provisions also cover school contractors, and the checks also include any crime against a child, even if it's a misdemeanor. But this amendment is a step in the right direction.

This amendment and these provisions are needed in Federal law, Mr. Chairman, because according to a recent General Accountability Office study conducted by Mr. Miller's office, State laws are inconsistent in their coverage of the types of checks, types of crimes covered, and the individuals

who must be checked. Some States only check licensed employees, and some States don't check contractors, leading to some school districts unknowingly hiring offenders.

Children in school need to be safe from any adult who has access to them, regardless of their position.

The GAO investigations also highlighted a wide range of cases in numerous States where convicted sex offenders working in schools had previously targeted children. In other cases, the GAO found that districts knowingly passed a potential predator to another school district, allowing the offender to resign instead of reporting him. The inconsistencies and glaring holes in the way schools screen prospective employees lead to gaps in student protection and all too often to abuse.

A child's safety in school is too important to leave to chance. We must ensure all children, regardless of where they live, are free from the abuse of violent sexual predators. There is no place for this in our Nation's schools.

The vast majority of school staff is trustworthy and work hard every day to support students' learning needs. We honor and respect their work, which is so central to the success of the Nation. These criminal background checks are essential, however, to ensure that schools and school districts are doing everything they possibly can to protect children's safety. That is the most fundamental of our priorities.

Mr. Chairman, again we want to thank Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Meehan for offering this amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, right now, fishermen in Gloucester, Massachusetts--which is in my district--and across the country are facing dire circumstances. There have been devastating cuts to the allowable catch of a number of crucial stocks; for instance, a 78 percent cut in Gulf of Maine cod, a 61 percent cut to Georges Bank cod. Consequently, some of these fishermen already have been forced to sell their boats and their permits, while others feel that they will soon be out of business.

Many of my Massachusetts colleagues and I have been doing everything we can to help these fishermen and their families. We've offered amendments to last year's disaster relief appropriations bill for those fishermen in Massachusetts and the several other States that were officially declared fisheries disasters by the Department of Commerce, but to no avail.

I filed legislation to redirect a portion of the tariffs that the United States collects on imported fish to provide urgently needed financial assistance for our fishermen, but that matter has yet to come up.

A number of us are working to responsibly reform the underlying Federal statute--the Magnuson-Stevens Act--that governs our Nation's fisheries so the law is more flexible and fairer toward our fishermen, but of course that is somewhere down the road.

I don't think we can stop there, and that's why I--along with Mr. Markey, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Keating, Mr. Tim Bishop and Ms. Shea-Porter--am offering this amendment today to ensure our fishermen have access to the USDA's emergency disaster loan program.

We're essentially doing away with an inequity in the law that denies fishermen the ability to apply through the normal procedures for a loan under Federal emergency standards. A similar provision was included in the Senate-approved farm bill, and our work to provide financial relief to our fishermen and reform the law will certainly continue in the weeks and months ahead. But in the meantime, this is a small and important step that's intended to help those in our local community who are struggling.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are basically trying to settle an inequity here where the loans that are available to the fishermen of course are at 3 percent or 4 percent, not the 2.25 percent. That would make a substantial difference to them if they were there. And we're not giving them any preference over anybody else, they would just get the equitable right to apply for and seek those loans.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I just reiterate what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman. These people are in dire straits. There has been

nothing that we've been able to do. Even though they've been declared eligible for disaster relief, this Congress has yet to afford them any of that relief.

The fleets are shrinking. They are going out of business. They have all sorts of debt and problems with their gear and their property on that. They need the access to this low-interest loan at 2.25 percent. It gives them no more preference than anybody else on this, and it makes available to them a much needed supply. It is passed, it's in the Senate version. The Senate version score showed there was no increase in the scoring on that.

I would hope that my colleagues would have some compassion for the fishing industry as they do for others in this country that are in this type of situation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I draw the point that was mentioned earlier that the Democrats made a promise to keep these loans at 3.4 percent, and the promise is being broken. It's being broken by this bill, this proposal by the Republican Party. We kept our promise through the entire reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, and 2 more years in addition. This is the proposal now. We say stay at 3.4 percent. Republicans say, no, jack it up more than double on that basis.

I join with millions of students and parents and organizations that represent them in strong opposition to this Making College More Expensive Act that's before us here today.

My Republican friends talk about how this bill is simple and predictable. It's predictable all right. I predict the rates are going to go right up beyond the 6.8 percent rate. We've already seen

that from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group that says, if we pass this Republican bill, those rates will go up more than double on that basis. It is not simple.

They would have you believe through this debate that the rates are going to go down to market rates, which, at the current time, are lower. They would if you followed our bill at 3.4 percent. But if you went with this bill of Making College More Expensive Act, it sets it low for the first year but it rewrites the second year, and it resets the third year and it resets the fourth year. So at the end of 4 years, you get the whole package with the higher rate. And that is going to be almost $4 billion more in cost for these students and parents than it is for people right now.

The Congressional Budget Office said these interest rates would be almost $4 billion. We know that to be the case. These are the same people that tell us they don't want to burden our next generation with the debt, but they apparently have no problem at all burdening the next generation by burying them in student loan debt year after year after year.

I have been hearing from people all over my district. In fact, one woman from Wilmington wrote me and said that, when her son graduates from college, his loans will equal what her husband and she paid for their first home. With the interest rates he'll pay, it will be even more. Something is not right with the system, she says. Both college tuition costs and student loan interest rates are wrong.

She's right. This bill is wrong. Let's do the right thing. Let's have 3.4 percent now. In the interim, do a Higher Education Reauthorization Act that takes care of this problem going forward.

The student loan debt is a crisis in this country, Mr. Speaker. More and more students approach me in the district and post on my Facebook about their loan debt.

I would like to share an excerpt from the stories for those of my colleagues who may not fully appreciate why it's so critical that we provide our students and families with relief.

Sharyn Lawler says this:

Please, Congressman Tierney, we need you and your

colleagues to get to the crux of the student loan debt crisis

ASAP. Many students end up paying double or triple what they

actually borrowed to go to college. This is an outrage and

seems out of sync with the original mission of the student

loan program. People want to pay back fairly what they

borrowed, but the system actually seems rigged to make that

impossible.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the Federal Government will earn $51 billion in profit from student loan borrowers this year, which exceeds the earnings of the Nation's most profitable companies and is roughly equal to the combined income of the four largest U.S. banks by assets.

It's time we stop using the Federal student loan program as a profit center for the government. We need to pass legislation that stops the doubling of the student loan interest rate by July 1 and turn our attention to the long-

term solution that will help new borrowers as well as the estimated 37 million Americans that have existing student loan debt.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remember the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech. Seven years ago tomorrow our country lost more than 30 lives, many of them college students with their entire future stretching out before them.

One of those students was Ross Alameddine, who lived in Saugus, which is in my district. He was loved by his family and friends, and is remembered by countless more. I've had the honor to talk with his mother, Lynnette Alameddine, and have seen, firsthand, how she has turned her sorrow into action, working to prevent other tragedies like the one that took her child, and to protect all of our children, our sons and daughters.

And she's not alone. In recent months we've seen the strength of moms and dads across the country. Americans were mobilized in joining together to demand action, to ensure that Congress passes responsible legislation to reduce gun violence.

In my district alone, some 500 people in the last few days have joined me online to demand action on commonsense legislation. Through my Web site, Facebook, and Twitter, hundreds of parents and grandparents and students have added their names to the hundreds of thousands of voices across the country calling on Speaker Boehner to bring legislation to the House floor to reduce gun violence.

We cannot let some in Congress block action. We all deserve a vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We could have had a bipartisan bill, and that seems to be the real shame here. This has been historically a bill that has not been hyperpartisan as the one that's before us today, the one by which the parties have generally sat down together and considered each other's opinions in order to come to the best solution, but it didn't happen.

The underlying bill arbitrarily eliminates and consolidates all the programs and collapses them into one. It tries to substitute that, I guess, for an analysis of what ought to be done. It relies on the comments of a GAO report that said some of the programs may have overlapped somewhat, but it did not reach the conclusion that they were duplicative or that they didn't serve necessary and unique populations.

Instead, the majority has seized on that to collapse all of the programs together and to freeze the funding instead of doing what our bill would do, which is to provide for data and analysis in consideration of what programs ought to be sustained; to make them justify how they're improving and serving the populations; and to determine whether or not there need to be changes or whether some do, in fact, need to be terminated or consolidated. That process has been avoided and ignored throughout.

It's interesting to note that the administration is invoked from time to time as being opposed not just to this year's version but to last year's version, which was fairly identical and that it indicates that it doesn't meet the administration's goals set out for training in this country.

The underlying bill would dissolve youth training programs. I've heard comments about the seriousness of being involved with youths who are out of work, but the underlying bill dissolves youth training dedicated funds and other service delivery priorities, like to veterans and the disabled. It also has virtually no support amongst all of the people who are really involved in workforce development in this country. There was very little, if any, consideration of their views and their input into that despite the labor they put in and the policy decisions that they help make day in and day out. The substitute has broad support. It did go out and listen to the stakeholders on that, and it did get their opinions and incorporated them, and that's why a bipartisan discussion amongst Members would have benefited the bills on that.

We have better accountability. The main bill abdicates to the Governors who have taken Federal policy responsibility here where it's deserved. There are many, many, many other reasons to oppose this bill that we will get into when we talk about the substitute.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you very much.

I understand that much in the manager's amendment is technical and clarifying corrections, but it does make one notable substantive change to the underlying bill as it pertains to the designation of local workforce investment areas.

Current law calls for automatic designation of a local workforce area with a population of 500,000 or more. It also ensures that the voices of local elected officials, businesses, and workforce development officials, among others, are heard. That's a good thing.

Now, the underlying bill--the so-called SKILLS Act--radically changed this. It repealed the automatic designation that I just mentioned, and it essentially empowered the Governor to designate an entire State as one local workforce area if that Governor chose to do so. This is not viewed as sound policy.

Two days ago, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Workforce Boards sent a letter to the House leadership that expressed concerns with this particular provision. Specifically, they wrote:

H.R. 803 undermines existing governance structures by

virtually eliminating the input of local elected officials in

the decisionmaking process.

They also said:

H.R. 803 fails to promote intergovernmental collaboration

between State and local officials by eliminating prior

provisions relating to automatic designation of local

workforce development areas, effectively allowing State

boards to designate local areas in consultation with the

Governor, without considering input from local stakeholders.

Now, I think this mistake has been recognized, and we can see that by this manager's amendment where there is an attempt to try and address this situation. But it is further evidence of the deficiencies of a hyperpartisan bill that neglects the opportunity to sit down with others and work through these issues so that we can come up with the best solution on that. Now they're trying to get out of this hole they created by proposing a sort of solution in the manager's amendment that is still inadequate and certainly is worse than current law.

The manager's amendment provides an application process for local boards. So instead of being automatically designated if there are 500,000 in the population or more, they have to apply to be designated as a local workforce area. But that application still has to be approved by the State, which could totally reject it. And that's only for a period of 3 years, so they have to keep going through this process periodically. If I were a mayor or a business person who is chairing a local board, I don't think I would be very pleased with this provision--and in fact they're not.

I'm not sure how creating an unnecessary and bureaucratic process where locals would have to reapply continuously for their designation every 3 years squares with my Republican colleagues' supposed concern about duplication in the workforce.

Later this morning, we will be offering a substitute amendment that retains current law and protects the local individuals' role in the workforce system. Certainly, if we had the opportunity for a bipartisan bill, we could have worked through this issue and come up with what would be the best solution. This is just one example of the important policy provisions in this bill that could have been addressed in that way. This could have been a bipartisan bill, and we could have got the best product, and we didn't.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is an attempt to deal with the problem that was in the underlying bill, as pointed out by that letter, but an attempt that mirrors the process for the last session and this session. They didn't consult anybody. They didn't talk to anybody. They didn't say what would be the solution. They just went out and arbitrarily decided that, again, having once messed up, they thought they were the repository for all knowledge on this subject and went about setting on a course that still falls short.

Yes, current law allows for Governors to work with the consultation of others to set local designated areas, but areas of 500,000 population or more are already designated, and that's the point at issue here.

I think we've seen an example of the process--just deciding that all knowledge is reposited in one section; not wanting to discuss with others. We understand.

This could have been a good bill. This could have been a bill that went through the House, was taken up by the Senate, and then went on to the President's desk--a bill that the public could have been proud of, a bill that everybody could have got behind, but we didn't. We see a failed process, so we end up with a failed part of the provision of the original bill, and another failed attempt to fix it because there's no reaching out and no attempt.

Last time we had some hearings, very brief. Then we had a vote where partisan votes went all the way down the line. This time we have one hearing the day that the bill was filed, two out of three witnesses say they didn't read the bill, an immediate markup, where we chose not to go through the same faux hearing process of having all of the amendments just shot down on a partisan vote.

We're here. We always have been here. We want to work this through. This was not a hyperpartisan issue--it's just been made to be one.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No normal person would confuse being given an opportunity to have your amendment shot down on a party-line vote as a bipartisan process.

I remind the gentlewoman that it was her party, Mr. McKeon, who correctly stated it's the majority's obligation to reach across the aisle and seek compromise on that because they're the ones with the gavel on that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, but will not be opposing the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Essentially, I would like to reserve some time for someone we are expecting down to talk on that. But I do make note that in the gentleman, Mr. Young's, Dear Colleague letter regarding this particular matter, he makes note that the underlying bill does not accommodate the needs of this particular population, and that's why the necessity existed for him to bring this amendment that we support to the floor. But it's another example of how the process should have improved this bill all along had it been done in a bipartisan, consultative manner, as we had all hoped it would be.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would like to make the point that obviously there are certain populations within our society that deserve particular attention because they have unique needs. You don't accomplish that by arbitrarily taking all the programs and lumping them together without a full analysis and determination of which ones would be better served on that basis and which ones wouldn't. I think it further establishes our point that we made throughout.

I congratulate the gentleman on his amendment and support it fully.

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

I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time to a Member having arrived to speak on the amendment.

I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from Hawaii, Representative Gabbard.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment is offered in its entirety as a substitute for the underlying bill and the manager's amendment to it. I do it because I strongly believe that this is, in fact, a better proposal than the existing one, but would have preferred what could have been the best result in this bill, which would have been one where all of the Members had had consultation and where all of the negotiations had occurred and we were able to bring forth a bill with concessions by both sides to get a bill that would have been assured of passage in the Senate, or close to that, assured the President's signature and assured the support of the broad public.

Instead, just as in the last session, we end up with a proposal that ignores sound proposals from both sides and that goes with a hyper- partisan approach, and that's not going to serve the country or this process at all. Having a chance to present 18 amendments,

as was done in the last session, and having them all essentially shot down on a party-line vote is not an excuse or a substitute for having a process in which we really try to work out our differences and make reasonable concessions.

This bill that's before us today by the majority party was filed on February 25. A so-called ``hearing'' occurred on February 26, the very next day, at which two of the three Republican witnesses admitted they had never read the bill. Instead, of programs that exist right now, this bill proceeded with their arbitrary consolidation or elimination without any evaluation of their efficacy, of their effectiveness, of whether or not they ought to be consolidated or changed or terminated or kept intact as they are.

Reliance was made on the GAO report, which did not say anything about consolidating. All it said was that some of the programs duplicate some aspects and that only five programs had had a full evaluation, which would have begged the question for more hearings, more thorough evaluation, more data, and more consultation with the people involved-- the stakeholders--to, in fact, come to a conclusion of just how, and if, consolidation should have happened.

We've seen from some of the amendments made today, even by Members of the majority, that they thought that some of the populations should have gotten more attention than the base bill gives them. Essentially, here, we have a public policy that is dictated, not by Washington in the underlying bill, but is advocated to Governors so that instead of being accountable for the decisions we make of who we think needs job training in this country and what the national needs are, the Republican bill would just abdicate that to Governors, and they could decide to serve or not serve entire populations and afford them an opportunity to get the training that we believe as legislators they need.

This bill, as amended by the manager's amendment, creates a one-size- fits-all: it eliminates separate training funds for youth; it silences the voices of the community colleges, labor, economic development groups, and community-based organizations; it eliminates supported employment programs, like the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program; it eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth.

Perhaps that's why so many groups have expressed serious concern about this underlying bill. Groups like the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Workforce Boards, Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Goodwill Industries International, and so many others have expressed concern for this underlying bill or have expressed approval for the substitute that we offer. It's why the administration has filed a statement opposing this bill, just as it did last year, saying it doesn't meet the administration's goals and urging the Republicans to work with us to make a better bill on that.

Mr. Chairman, we could have had the best of all alternatives. We could have had a good bill for the American people. We could have had a bill that took the best aspects of all the proposals and put them together with consultation and presented that for the approval of this House, then had a signed signature by the President, and then had the support of the American people. Unfortunately, that process was not followed, and the arbitrary process was endured by all of us on that part.

I ask that the Members support this substitute as being better than the underlying bill; and then hopefully, we could get back to getting the best bill, which would be one done by collaboration and cooperation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a coauthor of the substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

I thank the Chair, first of all, for having the discussion on time. Apparently, the time was a little bit confused on that.

I ask unanimous consent that both sides be awarded an additional minute.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

The previous speaker, I don't know if he stayed or left or anything like that, but he talked about the environment being set. The environment of this was set in the hyperpartisan nature of the last session's presentation of the bill similar to this and of a bill this time giving no right to consult.

Showing up to participate in a so-called markup process where every vote would have been on a partisan basis and moved on, as it was last time, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people reach across the aisle. As our Republican friend Buck McKeon had indicated, it's the majority's responsibility to, in fact, do this.

It's one thing to listen; it's another to comprehend. GAO's report, if one listened to it being read on that, indicated that there were a number of programs, but only five have been evaluated. It would have begged for an evaluation that we never had about what we were going to do with the programs on that. It talked about the fact that some might have overlapped, but said nothing about programs needing to be eliminated or terminated or saying that they were duplicative on that. We needed to determine that.

The underlying bill fails on a number of reasons, as I stated earlier. The amendment improves that. But again, the best bill would have been a bill where people sat down, member to member, worked out their differences, and presented to the American public, and for the President's signature, a bill that was bipartisan in nature and served both the employers and the prospective employees.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. I heard comments over there from the chairman of the Rules Committee and others about how this was a fair rule and a fair process and how it's one nation under God and everybody trying to help everybody out, how they believe there's an opportunity for every Member to consider the matters that are in this bill.

That is simply not the reality that was expressed for the nine States that suffered from fishing quota failures and threats to their fishing that were declared disasters back in 2012, when the Commerce Department said that the fishery disaster in those nine States was leading to people losing their job and the collapse of an industry, one of the oldest and most historic industries in our country.

There was an opportunity for this bill to allow an amendment to be brought before the floor for a discussion about whether or not we ought not to do what the Senate did, which is put $150 million in that bill specifically for those States, specifically to deal with that aspect of disaster and move forward with that relief.

This Rules Committee in this House decided that Members would not have

the opportunity to take that vote. The Members in this House would not be able to work, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, to discuss a disaster that cut across at least nine States, that dealt with people who were going to lose their job, lose their industry and shatter communities. Instead, they would do this on a partisan basis.

Although this was a bipartisan amendment that was proposed to the Rules Committee, and although every one of those communities that are in that disaster-declared area have Republicans and Democrats, and although they have mayors and Governors that are from both parties, the Rules Committee, on a straight party-line vote, decided that this Congress would not have the opportunity to even consider and debate and discuss and then vote on whether or not we would follow the path of the Senate and allow for $150 million in disaster relief to those communities.

This is not acceptable. This is not acting like there is one country under God. This is not acting as if there is fairness and that every Member of this particular body is being allowed a voice to represent their constituents.

I think we should vote against this rule. I think we should allow for an amendment to be brought. We should have these amendments come to the floor and provide for an opportunity to debate and discuss and include in this disaster relief those people that are suffering the disaster in the fishing communities of our country.

I thank Mr. Markey for recognizing me at this point in time for the Special Order. You know, we did a little research so I wouldn't just stand up here, because I know John and Barney are sticklers for detail. So we did a little research. We found a Special Order of some time ago when Barney Frank, Congressman Frank, came down to the floor basically to chastise one of the colleagues who had made a false claim during their Special Order. What Barney had to say at that point:

Special Orders are a time when Members can fairly freely say things without fear of contradiction because there's generally no one there. And as you listen to many of the Special Orders, there is a very good reason why no one is here: no one ought to pay a lot of attention to them.

Well, Barney and John, today people ought to pay attention to what we are saying during this particular Special Order because you have both served the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States for a long period of time, ably, and in a way that nobody should forget and everybody should want to talk about and recount. There's a lot of years between the two of you.

John, 40 years in total, over 20 of them here in the United States House of Representatives. But I remember knowing you well before you knew me. Back when John Olver was a senator in the State of Massachusetts, as a young student at the time, I had the responsibility of janitorial services and cleaning up that State house. And I can remember going into his office. He was always busy, always had people in there, still working late into the night. But we were going around emptying barrels and vacuuming rugs, and he was always generous and kind to us at that point in time, but I noted how busy he was getting detail, and that never changed.

When I later had the opportunity to come here to the House of Representatives and be a colleague of John's, just as others have recounted before me, he is meticulous in his detail, knowledgeable about every subject matter upon which he spoke or upon which he acted, and he added so much. It would be unfair, after over 20 years, to say that John Olver had a specialty in just one area because like every Member, you have to know a lot about a lot of different subjects and work very well with your staff to make sure that you have all of the information that you need. And John was a leader and knowledgeable in a number of different areas. What he did for his part of the State will not be forgotten anytime soon by people there, whether it's getting designated an actual heritage area for his region, and so much more, but we will remember him for the work he did, particularly with appropriations on transportation matters.

And my district will remember John for the work he did because, as Richie noted, and Bill before me, he oftentimes knew exactly what your district needed and knew how to help you get it. And so I can go to various parts of my district now, John, and see projects that are there because of your help, because of your knowledge of what went on and your focus and persistence in making sure that they were funded.

Most recently was the city of Amesbury, which opened up a transportation center, which also houses its veterans office and its Council on Aging. And I mentioned to those folks who were there the work that you had done in helping us do that. They are all incredibly grateful, as are so many other people throughout my district and the districts of all of our colleagues here, for the work that you did and the time you spent on our districts' needs, as well as taking care of your district's needs. So I want to thank you for that and share the appreciation of all the people in my district.

Now, up until a couple of weeks ago, Barney's office was around the corner from mine, and so oftentimes we would have a steady stream of Barney visitors who found their way in there. If Barney could see them in the district, he wondered why they were taking up his time down here when he was busy doing things like the Dodd-Frank bill, fishing bills and other things of that nature, so they'd all come over and wander into my office.

But the fact of the matter is that Barney always was intensely involved with the matters that he was dealing with here. It reminded me of something else he said on the floor one time. He said that, when he was talking about one of our beloved former colleagues, Joe Moakley, he said that--what was true about Joe was, I think, also true about him. He said Joe Moakley was a great stereotype breaker. And Barney, you've been a great stereotype breaker as well in so many different areas it's countless on that.

But you said:

One of the things that we suffer from in this country is

the assumption that if we are A, we cannot be B; if we are X,

we cannot be Y.

You said Joe Moakley showed us that that could be and what it could be, and you have done the same.

Barney's been about one of the most fierce debaters down here. Used to be before I got to Congress, whenever I saw something going on in the House, I would always be anxious if Barney was up there, and I would watch other colleagues who might be in a colloquy with him sort of wince because they knew if they had misspoken or spoken out of line or out of turn they were going to get a comeuppance on that that they deserved, but done in a way that always had either good biting sarcasm or wit to drive it home on that basis.

You've been one of the most intense Members, and I say that in a good way, when you believe on the issues that were there, but always pragmatic enough to know the art of the deal. And Richie spoke to that, Richie Neal when he discussed things on the floor here.

It's important in this legislative body to not be so ideologically extreme that you cannot, at some point, make a compromise, not on your principles, but on other matters so that we can get the business of this House done. Barney Frank and John Olver always had that in mind, always knew how to treat their colleagues with respect, and always knew how to drive to a bargain that would represent all of their values, make sure that they weren't compromising their principles, but make sure that the business of this country

and the things that were important in their district and their State got done. Both of you deserve a great deal of credit, and we can only hope that this House finds its way back to those days, when the majority of this body finds all of that necessary and possible to do.

On a personal note, as Bill mentioned, Patrice and I were thrilled when Barney and Jim got married; another way of showing that you can be a leader at times.

I just recently saw a program on Cheryl Wright, a country western singer; and if anybody got a chance to see it, she went through how difficult it was for her to come out. And I was moved by that show because it reminded of what it must have been for Barney and for anybody else in public life to have to come out--not knowing what the reaction of your own family or your friends or their colleagues or anybody in public is going to think about that--and take the risk to do it. And that is certainly one thing that this body and this country will always remember.

Whether it was our fishermen, the gay, lesbian and transgender community, so many Massachusetts residents are going to remember Barney Frank for all that he did, as they are going to remember John Olver on that. We're going to miss both of you fellows down here.

And John, we wish you and Rose only the best in your future. I know you're going to keep busy in so many ways that you can.

And Barney, you and Jim are going to be busy, but not too busy, I hope, to come and share some dinners with Patrice and me.

The one nice part about that is Barney was never bashful about telling Patrice she could make what she made last time, that was just fine, but he and Jim weren't going to be doing the cooking.

So good luck to both of you, and thank you for letting us share your comradeship and be colleagues of yours. Thanks for all that you've done for the country and the Commonwealth and your districts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill to name the federal building located at the foot of Capitol Hill in honor of former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill.

I understand that above his desk Speaker O'Neill kept a framed copy of the famous Hubert Humphrey quotation--``The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' So it seems particularly fitting that this building being named after Speaker O'Neill is adjacent to the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters which bears Senator Humphrey's name.

Speaker O'Neill fought to expand opportunities for the poor, the disadvantaged and those working people who get up every day and do their best to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren.

Among Speaker O'Neill's many legacies is his commitment to public service--and I think public service has become his family's business.

Speaker O'Neill's children and grandchildren have continued his legacy of helping others and making the world a better place. Here in the House we have the pleasure of working with Speaker O'Neill's granddaughter, Catlin, who serves as Leader Pelosi's Chief of Staff.

I congratulate Speaker O'Neill's children--Tom, Kip, Susan, and Rosemary--and their entire extended family on this great honor, which comes just days before what would be Tip's 100th birthday.

And I hope this kind of bipartisan effort is not a one-time thing but a sign of how the majority will conduct legislative business in the 113th Congress.

I urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Sergeant Paul Atkinson of Marblehead, Massachusetts, for his efforts to assist hundreds of orphans in Afghanistan while serving with the Massachusetts National Guard.

It was brought to my attention by a fellow resident of Marblehead, Mark Brings, and highlighted in an article published in the Salem News, that while stationed as a sergeant in charge of maintenance at Camp Phoenix in Afghanistan, Sergeant Atkinson secured the delivery of hundreds of mattresses and bed frames to two orphanages in Afghanistan which care for more than 700 children.

The efforts of Sergeant Atkinson extended from Afghanistan to Marblehead where local residents, including Mark Brings and his family and Sergeant Atkinson's wife, Maria, worked to collect, clean and deliver hundreds of sheets and blankets to the orphanages.

I am pleased to recognize Sergeant Atkinson and the members of the community for volunteering their time providing these critical items to children in need, and I thank Sergeant Atkinson and all the members of our Nation's armed forces for their service to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and join my constituents in commemorating the 400th anniversary of the birth of Anne Bradstreet, who is considered by many to be America's first published poet.

Anne Bradstreet was born in England but is believed to have arrived in America in 1630. Her work, which includes such poems as ``To My Dear and Loving Husband'' and ``Verses Upon the Burning of Our House,'' has been taught in high school and college classrooms across the country. Anne Bradstreet reportedly lived for several years in North Andover, which is located in my district. In fact, some believe that Anne Bradstreet may be buried in the Old Burying Ground in North Andover.

On the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Anne Bradstreet's birth, Karen Kline of North Andover and other members of the Friends of Anne Bradstreet Steering Committee are continuing their efforts to raise awareness about Anne Bradstreet's work and her contribution to history and the literary canon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a gentleman and true public servant: Massachusetts State Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry. Several months ago, Senator Berry announced that he would be retiring from the Massachusetts Senate after 30 years of service. He will be sorely missed.

Fred Berry was born on December 20, 1949 with cerebral palsy. At that time, doctors said he would never walk or talk--but Fred proved them all wrong. He attended Massachusetts State Hospital School and later Bishop Fenwick High School in Peabody, where he graduated in 1968. He then attended Boston College, graduating in 1972.

In 1979, Fred was elected to the Peabody City Council, and, in 1982, he was elected to the Massachusetts Senate. During his tenure in the Senate, Fred served on multiple committees and assumed numerous leadership roles. In 2003, he was elected by his colleagues to be the Senate Majority Leader, which is a position he continues to hold today.

Fred's thirty year career is filled with memorable moments and achievements. His accomplishments are too long to list here, but they

include the following: creating separate Departments of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; providing crime victims the right to be heard during the judicial process, allowing victims to receive financial compensation and establishing the Massachusetts Victim and Witness Assistance Board; creating the Children's Trust Fund, a public-private partnership to create programs to end child abuse; founding the Massachusetts Legislative Children's Caucus; requiring insurance companies to cover Early Intervention benefits for children born with developmental delays; requiring private insurance companies to cover medically necessary autism treatments, including evidence-based behavioral health treatments; fighting against efforts to reduce Medicaid benefits for individuals with mental health and addiction disorders; and filing legislation that allowed Salem State College--my alma mater--to achieve university status.

In addition to his legislative work, Fred is a passionate advocate for children and families who are struggling. In 1982, shortly after he was first elected to the Massachusetts Senate, Fred established the Fred Berry Charitable Fund. Over the next thirty years, he would work tirelessly to raise over $1 million to benefit children and families in need. As Fred recently told the Boston Globe, ``I felt I could use my notoriety to help others. Nonprofits always need money, but never have the time to raise it. . . . To be honest, it hurt fund-raising for my campaigns. People said, `I already gave to Fred.' '' But in his heart, Fred knew it was the right thing to do.

I want to wish Fred and his wife Gayle all of the best. For those of us who know Fred, we anxiously await the next chapter in what has been a remarkable life.

I thank the gentleman.

It was interesting, we just had a hearing in one of the committees here in Congress, and we had four witnesses who were speculating about the fear and the myths and all the things that they hypothesize could be terrible if the Affordable Care Act were to go into effect. And then we had one witness who was the worst nightmare for those people, who was a Massachusetts businessperson with a thousand employees, president of the largest Chamber of Commerce in the country, was a member of the board of directors of one of the larger banks, and was in fact the regional consultant to the Fed in that area, who said that since Massachusetts accepted the equivalent of the Affordable Care Act, not only his business has done better and his employers have done better and his profits have gone up, but in Massachusetts the economy has done better, more people have been working, less people have been using the emergency room, and more employers are covering their employees. And in fact, that's what it is. The facts certainly outweigh all the speculation and the myth and the fearmongering that we see going on.

There are millions of people who are already taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act. One of those in my district is Terry Palary, whose son is a firefighter who's working towards his paramedic certificate and who has to spend hundreds of hours in an internship that's not paid for. He's 23 years old. He wouldn't have health insurance under his father's plan if this bill the Republicans propose were to go through. And some 3 million other young Americans wouldn't be covered on health insurance plans as well. This is misguided legislation that would end that kind of a benefit.

It would also mean the end of a meaningful consumer protection like the 80/20 provision, where we force insurance companies to actually do something they hadn't been doing: covering health care. Providing health care services instead of paying bonuses. Executive salaries that are through the roof. And advertising and other costs--anything but health care on that. It's estimated that some 12.8 million Americans are going to receive more than $1.1 billion in rebates because of that provision alone.

It would also see, if this bill to repeal passed, 360,000 small businesses would no longer get the business tax credits. They would no longer be able to cover some 2 million employees.

This list goes on and on. We can show you example after example of people who have fallen through the doughnut hole--those seniors--for coverage that are now being protected by the Affordable Care Act. Let's find out what we can do about jobs. Let's stop this 31st attempt to repeal an act that that's not going to be repealed and get the American people back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Nelson Benton, who will soon retire after 40 years of service at The Salem News in Salem, Massachusetts.

Since he was hired in 1972, Nelson has worked as a reporter, city editor, managing editor, and editorial page editor. Nelson's weekly political column, which has been a fixture in the paper for more than 25 years, is widely read and discussed throughout the region. Nelson was recognized by the New England Society of Newspaper Editors in 2008, when they awarded him the prestigious Yankee Quill award. He was also inducted into the New England Press Association Hall of Fame in 2009.

For four decades, Nelson has covered issues impacting our community, from the Blizzard of '78 to issues of education and transportation to the careers of Mayors, State Lawmakers, and Members of Congress. Nelson has been quick to adapt his content to new technologies and formats. Even in his upcoming retirement, I am confident that Nelson will be blogging and tweeting with the best of them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Nelson Benton, a seasoned journalist, on his retirement. I wish Nelson and his wife Laurie, who has served as a longtime public school teacher in our community, the best of luck as they move west to Arizona.