Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

At the end of this month, the student Federal loan interest rate is set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It's an urgent deadline for more than 7 million American students and more than 177,000 students across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's an urgent deadline for students that I met with at Middlesex College all the way through to Endicott College in my district and elsewhere. These students are working many jobs. They're still carrying thousands of dollars in student debt, and they're deeply concerned about the doubling of the rate that will occur on July 1.

Madam Speaker, this is urgent deadline for House Democrats. We've been on top of this issue for many, many months. Our colleague, Mr. Courtney of Connecticut, introduced legislation establishing a permanent fix back in January. Our colleagues, Mr. Miller of California and Mr. Hinojosa of Texas, sent a letter to Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Mr. Kline in February asking that the question be taken before the committee to prevent the student loan interest hike.

It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that the majority in the House of Representatives does not appear to understand or share this urgency. There are 10 days left in June, and we're only scheduled to be in session for 5 of them. As of right now, taking action to stop the doubling of the student loan interest rates is still not on the House's legislative agenda between now and the end of the month. In fact, addressing the issue was not part of the majority leader's summer legislative agenda, and it was reported that Speaker Boehner privately called the issue a phony issue.

So let's make no mistake about it. This is nothing phony for the millions of students who will be impacted and will see their rates double in July.

Madam Speaker, since the House majority doesn't appear willing to move forward on this issue, we have to take this action today to defeat the previous question so the rule can be amended to allow for consideration of my bill, the Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012. That bill continues the current need-based Stafford loan rate at 3.4 percent for 1 year and offsets the cost by closing a tax subsidy for the oil industry, just one tax subsidy, one that they weren't originally intended to benefit from at any rate. I think that's a fair and reasonable plan for eliminating an unjustified giveaway to a hugely profitable industry so millions of our constituents do not see an increase in their student loans.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House can consider that bill and stop the student loan interest rate hike.

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

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to offer the final amendment. I want to be clear that this is a final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee. If it's adopted, the bill will be voted on immediately as amended.

Let me start by saying that it's unfortunate that the House Republicans unilaterally reneged upon the agreed upon discretionary caps that were established by the Budget Control Act. Their doing so-- just to finance more tax cuts for people that were already tremendously well-off--has resulted in the Appropriations Committee having to absorb $19 billion in reductions below the Budget Control Act. So I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that subcommittee Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price did the very best that they could with this bill given the subcommittee's allocation. Nevertheless, I offer this final amendment that focuses on two important areas: combating the increasing cyberthreat facing this country and protecting our urban areas from terrorist threats.

This week's Washington Post pointed out that in recent years, there have been numerous revelations about how the unknown vulnerabilities of our networks and cyberinformation were used to break into systems that were assumed to be secure.

One came in 2009 targeting Google, Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical and hundreds of other firms when hackers from China penetrated the targeted computer systems. Over several months, the hijackers siphoned off oceans of data, including the source code that runs Google systems. According to the same article, another attack last year took aim at cybersecurity giant RSA, which protects most of the Fortune 500 companies.

But it's not only a problem for the largest companies. In fact, according to Reuters, 40 percent of all the targeted Internet attacks are directed toward more vulnerable companies with fewer than 500 employees.

Mr. Speaker, I expect the chairman will defend this bill's investments in cybersecurity and, again, I appreciate that. He did what he could do, and we should be doing more. While we spend more than China, Russia, and the next eight countries combined ensuring that our military superiority is intact, we have not taken that same sense of purpose to cybersecurity.

My amendment does precisely that, adding $17 million in new funding to the National Protection and Programs Directorate for additional cybersecurity personnel, including training and education opportunities to grow the future cybersecurity workforce. With repeated and increasingly dangerous threats to our Federal and private cybernetworks, it's critical that we have staff with the utmost up-to- date training and skills to address these threats.

The final amendment also increases the bill's investment in Urban Area Security Initiative grants from $150 million to $490.3 million. This will not take money away from anybody; it just reallocates the distribution. This is the amount Secretary Napolitano devoted to the Urban Area Security grants in 2012. As my colleagues know, these grants are intend to protect the highest risk and highest density urban areas from terrorist threats. These grants have been substantially reduced under the Republican majority, and these reductions have put our Nation's most populated areas at greater risk.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this final amendment improves the underlying bill and hopefully will garner bipartisan support. Let's take these additional threats to combat cyberthreats, but step up our efforts to protect our urban areas from terrorist threats. Please support the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, during the last 2 months, students from my district have spoken out about their struggles to afford college, to pay their loans, to keep up their grades, and to maintain their jobs. Many of them are working multiple jobs and still graduated with $20,000 to $30,000 in debt, and it's way too much for them.

So now they're just watching as the days tick by, and we're getting closer to July 1, when student loan interest rates will actually double if Congress doesn't act. They are understandably scared and frustrated.

At Middlesex Community College recently, the students that I met with added their voices to the debate and signed their names on the ``Wall of Debt.'' In the days following, hundreds of students, parents, and even grandparents added their names to what has now become the virtual ``Wall of Debt.'' They're letting Congress know that we can't let those interest rates double on July 1.

So, again, I'm standing here today on behalf of 177,000 students from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and 7 million students across the country whose student loans rates are set to double if Congress doesn't act, and I call upon my Republican colleagues to put the partisanship and the political games aside and take real action on this important issue.

While I believe the bill that I put forward a month ago to prevent the interest rate from doubling to 6.8 percent and was fully paid for by just one tax subsidy to Big Oil was fair and reasonable, I continue to be open to find other ways to compensate for that bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing that and make sure that this interest rate does not double.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

The Paycheck Fairness Act deserves attention, and it deserves attention now. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act very quickly because it was essential. It shows that this House can work together when it wants to. We kept the courthouse doors open for recourse for pay discrimination. More has to be done to prevent that discrimination from happening in the first place.

My mother worked split shifts when we were growing up. My father worked sometimes two jobs, but his income was limited. Every dollar my mother brought home was critical to our family and to our household, and that's true in so many households across this country today.

A household's bills don't go down by $10,000 just because a woman is treated unfairly and paid less. The clothing bills don't go down; the gas bills don't go down; the food bills don't go down. So it's important that we get this bill moving at this point in time.

The Paycheck Fairness Act reasserts the principle that women should get equal pay for equal work. It holds employers accountable if they discriminate. It puts an end to pay secrecy so women will be able to determine whether or not they are getting treated fairly. And it prohibits retaliation for someone who wants to talk about paycheck fairness.

This bill is important for families across this country. It deserves attention. I urge my colleagues to take it up now and pass it.

I thank the gentleman.

There are three amendments that I speak to, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their support and for including these in the en bloc amendment. These amendments are examples of areas where we can work together to provide better information to this body about the status of our Nation's security. We can hold the administration and the executive branch accountable for the goals that are set, and we can make certain that these programs are more efficient.

The Government Accountability Office report that I commissioned made a specific recommendation that the National Security Council complete its efforts to define the agency roles and responsibilities with respect to foreign policing and that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State establish mechanisms to better share and document information among these various agencies. The first amendment, No. 116, addresses that and holds them responsible to do just that.

Secondly, the Department of Defense Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan is about energy security while saving lives, improving capabilities, cutting costs, and lowering risks for both our personnel and the Nation. We have to make sure that this amendment, No. 68, is passed to ensure that accountability.

The third amendment, No. 58, is along the same line.

I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend, Tom Leonard, who will be receiving the 2012 Essex Heritage Hero Award tonight.

Having championed heritage preservation and responsible stewardship of the region's historic, cultural, and natural resources during his eight-year tenure as the founding president of the Essex National Heritage Commission and now as its president emeritus, Tom is certainly deserving of this honor.

However, those in attendance at tonight's award dinner will know that Tom's service to his community did not begin with nor is it limited to his work with the Essex National Heritage Commission. Throughout his life, Tom has been dedicated to making our neighborhoods better places to live, work, and raise a family as well as increasing opportunities for children and young adults, particularly those who attend his alma mater, St. John's Preparatory School in Danvers. Tom is a selfless leader, a man of integrity, and a true citizen.

Tom's awards and accomplishments are too long to list, but I would be remiss if! did not mention that, in 2006, Essex Heritage established the Thomas M. Leonard Partnership Grant Program. This unique effort is focused on educating our youth and increasing their awareness about our region's natural and historic resources. Grants have been awarded to local schools and the National Park Service to enable more kids from outside of Salem to visit the Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works National Historic sites. Additionally, over the years, Tom has been recognized by the American Cancer Society, the Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation, the Salem Chamber of Commerce, the Salem Rotary Club, and the Danvers Community Council.

Mr. Speaker, that impressive list will grow when Tom receives the 2012 Essex Heritage Hero Award this evening. I want to congratulate Tom and his wife, Marge, and their sons, Michael and Mark, and their entire extended family on this great honor.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, this bipartisan amendment is offered with Mr. Gowdy of South Carolina. It provides very clearly $10 million for the John R. Justice Student Loan Repayment Program.

It is unfortunate that we know many law school student graduates accept jobs as prosecutors and as public defenders, but they don't stay on the jobs very long because the compensation is at such a low level, and their debt burdens from college and from law school are so high that they end up leaving and going on to more lucrative pastures because the private firms, obviously, have more resources with which to recruit and retain than do public defenders and district attorneys' offices around the country.

Oftentimes, the students tell me they would like to stay in these offices. Obviously, the district attorneys tell us on a regular basis that they have such a difficult time training people and getting them to stay so that they can do a good job. Both public defenders and district attorneys, people on both sides of any particular case, understand the importance of that judicial system work in that it's fair and in that everybody has the level of representation that makes our system work and be respected around the world on that.

This would allow the tool of loan forgiveness for those district attorneys on that and those public defenders so that they can get people to stay at least 3 years so that the training doesn't just get turned around and go to waste. It allows people to stay on and use their experience and make the system work better.

I believe that it's a good idea. It has worked in the past for the Federal agencies, for the executive branch attorneys. It has demonstrated great success in their recruitment and retention. When this aspect was funded just a couple of years ago, 1,647 prosecutors and 1,226 public defenders across the country received assistance under the program's 2010 allocation. That, in turn, is a claim by all of the people involved as having made a tremendous difference in their abilities to have their offices function at the high level that is necessary.

Now, it's a difficult time. If we're going to take this money and appropriate it in this fashion, we, unfortunately, have to find those resources somewhere else. We have recommended an offset with a modest reduction to the Mars Next Decade program. That Mars Next Decade program will still get over $100 million more in the bill than it otherwise would have gotten. The House report notes a concern that there is a question about whether or not the Mars Next Decade program has actually accomplished one of the requirements of getting a sample and reporting. There is even language in the bill that puts off any expenditure of these moneys until such a report is made to the National Research Council and they're allowed to move forward.

The $150 million that is in the Mars Next Decade budget is still sizeable and on board with what was in the President's request, and still allows the program to move forward. I think it is a tradeoff that's fair. And I think Mr. Gowdy agrees with me, that as painful as it may be to take from one area, that programs will still march on, we'll still have $78 million more than the President requested. But if we don't do anything, the John R. Justice program will have nothing. District attorneys and public defenders, our court systems across the Nation won't have the ability to have well-trained people being recruited and retained and making our system work. So that's the premise here.

Madam Chairwoman, we ask that our colleagues support this amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman.

I think it is reprehensible, actually, that the majority has chosen to go with the Ryan budget numbers over the agreement that was reached last August. I think it has put the chairman and ranking member and the members of that committee in a terrible position. We can see it just by the juxtaposition of two programs here that obviously people think have merit on this aspect.

As much as taking $10 million from the amount of money that otherwise would have gone to the Mars program would leave them $10 million less than they would have had, but $78 million more than otherwise was in there. Doing nothing with respect to this motion would lead to our Justice program with zero dollars in the House budget.

So I am thinking that we'll take a vote here; and if we pass, I hope that the committee is able to work with the Senate to bring the Mars program back to where people want it to be. I am hoping from what I have heard here that people think there is merit to our district attorneys and our public defenders as having some money in their accounts so that they can have good qualified people moving our justice system forward, and they will take care of that in conference.

But one way or the other, we need to know that taking a program and putting it down to zero at a time when our justice system is crying out for fairness and crying out for the tools to operate appropriately for our district attorneys throughout the country as well as public defenders who are saying that this is essential, that maybe at least having a debate on this issue and talking about it will make sure that we can get all the programs that we need funded to the level that we're able to do so that we can move both of those things.

So either way this motion goes, I hope that if we win on this case, that we argue strongly to hold that number in the conference and then work to do something with the Mars program.

People feel strongly about that. Should this motion not prevail, then I hope that our chairman and our ranking member and others will work hard in conference to make sure that the John R. Justice Program is not reduced to zero because I have heard everybody here talk now about how they think it is a good program and that we move forward and we fund it so that the system can work the way it was intended to work.

Madam Chairwoman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Tierney

Amendment No. 53: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

I thank the gentleman for acknowledging this.

Americans need to know that their family member is going to be able to afford a college degree, whether it is a 2-year degree or a 4-year degree. Too many people are afraid that their child is not going to be able to get through college. Too many students don't think they can meet the cost of it. And that's what we need to deal with.

Public dollars for schools, Pell Grants, lower interest rates, work- study, those are things that we've done together to allow people to have the opportunity of college so that everybody can try to achieve their goal, to have an equal opportunity to achieve those goals with things we have done together in the past.

We have been helping businesses find very educated and skilled people to drive our economy. It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000, $30,000, $60,000 or if you are suddenly unemployed because you lost a job. It feels the same if your kids are pushed out of school if they can't afford to pay for it. Getting a degree really makes a difference for

many people, whether or not they're going to be able to get a good job. And helping them do that is something we've all decided to invest in.

Carrying a huge loan debt, it may mean that you have to delay starting a family, delay buying a house, taking a job that you otherwise wouldn't take. Pell Grants, work-study, lower interest rates, all of those things for higher education, one of the opportunities that we all helped to create so that people that have long been benefiting from special favors, from tax loopholes, corporations and people that are extremely wealthy, they need to do their part. That's simply what we're asking them to do.

We can keep this country moving forward if we can invest in our future. What we want to do is find a way and make a time that those who have benefited so extraordinarily realize that they too have to step up to the plate and join the rest of us to help pay for those opportunities to make sure that we can move forward.

This is a good time to invest in America and Americans. We have 250 tax expenditures in the Tax Code. Those are special tax rates, special favors, credits, deductions. Our friends on the other side of the aisle apparently think that's what America should borrow for, that that is what they should borrow for and pay corporations that made $130 billion last year, to give them more money instead of helping people get through college and get a degree that they need to get a good job.

I filed a bill last week that would have lowered the interest rates, back at a time when the Republican budget would have let it double, back when the Speaker and the chairman of the Education Committee and the second-ranking Member of the Republican Party all voted to keep it at 6.8 percent. I filed a bill, and I found a way to pay for it. It was paid for by taking one tax credit from Big Oil that made $130 billion last year, one tax credit that they weren't originally intended to have even benefited from but had managed to sort of squeak their way into eventually.

So there's a way to pay for it. Now, if you didn't agree with it, the Republicans didn't agree with it, then they could have found one that wasn't noxious, one that everybody could agree on. But instead, they finally came around to deciding that they wanted to lower the interest rates because they couldn't take the political heat when the President was out there talking to American families. And American parents and American students said, What are you doing? Why are you borrowing and giving oil companies $130 billion of profits plus tax credits when we could be having a way to make sure that our family members get the education they need to get a job and move forward in their lives?

So the Republicans finally came along and said, Okay, we will lower the interest rates. We can't take the heat. But we are going to find a poison pill. We are going to look at what the President has planned to do with preventive funds, which are screenings for breast cancer, screenings for cervical cancer, immunizations for children; and we'll use that.

I will suggest to my friends on the other side, stop waiting for the Senate. Use some leadership. Come across the aisle and look at those 250 tax expenditures. Let's find one we can agree on, not wait for the Senate and not blame it on them. Let's move forward on that. Stop being so partisan and stop being so ideological. And let's move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it's nice to have our Republican friends finally agree that the interest rates would be a problem if they rise and double.

Since 2007, when the rates were first reduced when the Democrats were in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the Republican side--resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. And not until recently, when the profile of this issue had been raised to a degree where students and families started to really get involved and engaged, did our friends on the other side of the aisle finally decide that, well, they now don't want the rates to go up either. But cynically, some might say, the only way they can find to pay for it is to attack women's health and children's health.

Now, women don't want this bill that way. Children and students don't want the bill this way. Labor doesn't want the bill this way. Public health groups don't want the bill this way. The Senate has said that they won't accept the bill this way; it's dead on arrival. And the White House senior staff says they'll advise the President to veto the bill this way.

If we really want to set aside partisanship and do this, let's pick a pay-for that the American people can get behind and that we can all agree on. Let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games, and let's do the right thing. Let's make sure the interest rates stay at 3.4 percent. Let's make sure that 177,000 students in Massachusetts and 7 million nationwide have affordable access to college and are able to pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. Let's start doing the right thing.

Last week, our Republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge fund managers in a tax cut, to give to Donald Trump in his Trump Towers leasing company, to give to other people that already had millions of dollars and didn't pay for it. This week, they finally get brought around to the issue of trying to help students and come up with this cynical aspect of paying for it by, once again, attacking women's health, in this case adding children on--children's immunizations, women's screenings for breast and cervical cancer and birth defects. This is insidious. This is ridiculous on this. And we should move forward and do the right thing.

The fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little bit the last time, as the Speaker mentioned, but left largely intact. This one would wipe out the entire fund, twice the amount of money necessary in order to fund what they're purporting to do because they are ideologically going after the health care bill.

We need to make sure that women's health care and children's health care is protected. We need to make sure the interest rates stay low. We are certain we can do that. It won't be done by doing it this way. And Members in the Senate will have to work in conference to make sure that we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense, and it's something we can do. There's 250 tax expenditures in the Tax Code, 250--$1.3 trillion. We can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction here and do it in a way that all of America can get behind and both parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that in 2007, the bill was paid for. In fact, it was paid for, and 77 members of the Republican Party agreed as well. Now it is time to pay for it in an intelligent and correct manner.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to address the fact that the elimination of the fund would mean that on an annual basis, 326,000 fewer women would be screened for breast cancer.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' long-term fix, of course, was voted on a couple of weeks ago in their budget which allowed for the rates to go up to 6.8 percent and took away the in-school subsidy for interest rates, driving students' costs even further up. That's why we're here today.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Before yielding further, I'm going to take 15 seconds and yield that to myself.

Mr. Speaker, this supposed slush fund the people are talking about is a fund identified and given Appropriations Committee authority to designate where it would be spent. That authority was advocated by our friends on the other side, and the Secretary has in fact specified every year where the money be spent: $326,000 in screenings for breast cancer; $284,000 for cervical cancer screenings; $10,000 for breast and cervical cancer; and so on down the line.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader of the House from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Before I yield, I do want to correct the gentleman. There is somebody around here who gets a free lunch under your bill, and that would be the oil companies, which made $80 billion in profits last year.

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I just note that it was common sense about 2 weeks ago and almost the entire Republican Party voted to let the rate go to 6.8 percent. It's nice to see that they've found some reality here.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I note that I was at that education meeting and heard the Secretary say very quite clearly that no child who gets an immunization under this program will get an immunization under this program if the fund is eliminated. Mrs. Biggert, of course, analyzed the taking a little bit of the money and equating that with taking and wiping out the entire fund.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Will the gentleman yield? That is an empty challenge.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have addressed my remarks to the Chair and taken the challenge if it had been anything other than an empty challenge and would have noted that Secretary Sebelius and the administration know clearly that those funds would have been diminished and that thousands of screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer would have been passed by, hundreds of thousands, in the administration's own analysis on that.

With that, I ask the Chair for the time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I have at least five more speakers.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

Congress Must Not Eliminate Prevention and Public Health Fund

Statement of the American Lung Association

Washington.--Some in Congress are trying to force the

nation to choose between health and education. The House of

Representatives is poised to vote on a measure to eliminate

the lifesaving Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for

keeping student loan rates down. The American Lung

Association fiercely opposes any attempts to divert or cut

the Prevention Fund. The Affordable Care Act established the

Prevention Fund to promote wellness, to prevent disease, and

to protect against public health emergencies.

America should not have to choose between protecting the

health of its citizens and making higher education more

affordable. Congress must reject this ill-conceived approach.

The student loan interest rate issue can and must be resolved

without undermining the health of millions of Americans.

The Prevention Fund is already helping Americans across the

country to make healthier choices and to take responsibility

for their own health and the health of their families.

Because of the Prevention Fund, states and communities are

now able to help more people quit smoking through cessation

programs and improve lung health by preventing and treating

lung diseases, including COPD, lung cancer, and asthma. It is

also allowing states and communities to monitor outbreaks of

infectious diseases, such as influenza, and enhance

prevention services in low-income and underserved

communities.

Quitting smoking is the single most important thing a

smoker can do to improve their health status. The Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Tips from Former

Smokers media campaign, which was underwritten by the

Prevention Fund, has already resulted in tens of thousands of

additional calls to 1 800 QUIT NOW by smokers seeking help

with quitting. This is tangible evidence of the Prevention

Fund having a positive impact.

Prevention programs work. Prevention save lives and helps

keep people healthy. Congress must not play politics with our

nation's health. The American Lung Association strongly urges

Congress to reject this absurd choice.

Erika Sward,

Director, National Advocacy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this House take action to stop the need-based student loan interest rates from doubling at the end of June. If we defeat the previous question, the House will have an opportunity to take up a bill that I have filed and introduced that will keep those interest rates at 3.4 percent for 1 year.

My Democratic colleagues and I recognize the importance of being fiscally responsible, so our bill is completely paid for. We pay for it by ending unnecessary tax subsidies for big oil and gas companies. These are the same companies that took home $80 billion in profits last year. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour.

We have to make choices here in Congress. Our side of the aisle believes that it is a fair and reasonable choice to eliminate an unjustified subsidy to hugely profitable industries so that 7 million students, including some 177,000 in my Commonwealth of Massachusetts alone, will not see an increase in their student loans. Our side of the aisle believes that encouraging middle class students and their families to be able to pay for college educations should be a bigger priority than continuing tax subsidies for Big Oil.

Now, the other side of the aisle has been tremendously late to this issue. I know the presumptive nominee for the Presidential race has changed his mind and has come around to believing that this is important--a practice that he does on a regular basis. They've come around to the side of knowing that we should keep these interest rates low, and we welcome that; but the fact of the matter is that they have decided to make the wrong choice in how we're going to pay for it.

The bill that is expected to come to the House floor tomorrow includes a short-term fix for the student loan issue, but it will do it at the expense of women and children. What is it with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with the knee-jerk reaction of,

every time they have to do something, they take a gratuitous swipe at women's health benefits and women's health choices? Their bill would end funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings for women, and their bill would end funding for child immunizations. Their bill makes the wrong and the reckless choice.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion so that we can consider my bill for a vote on the floor, a bill that makes the right choice, that makes sure we keep the rates low, that makes sure the oil companies get rid of that subsidy they no longer need or should have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dick Wylie for his 25 years of service as President of Endicott College in Beverly, Massachusetts.

Receiving a bachelor's degree from Plymouth State College and a master's and doctorate from Boston University, Dr. Wylie has led by example as a professor and administrator at several notable institutions, including the University of Connecticut, Temple University, the University of Colorado, and Lesley University.

Thanks in part to Dr. Wylie's leadership and dedication to higher education, Endicott College grew from a small, two-year women's college into the esteemed four-year coeducational institution it is today. Specifically, when Dr. Wylie arrived in spring of 1987, Endicott College had an enrollment of fewer than 600 students. Its campus consisted of 28 buildings on 140 acres; the College's operating budget was $7.7 million; and its endowment was $3.9 million dollars. Today--25 years later--almost 5,000 students are enrolled at Endicott College, which now has 51 buildings on 235 acres of land. The College's operating budget is now over $85 million, and its endowment is more than ten times what it was in 1987.

In 1996, Dr. Wylie helped found the Van Loan School of Graduate and Professional Studies, which currently offers Master of Business Administration, Master of Science in Technology and Nursing (M.S.), Master of Arts, Master of Fine Arts, and Master of Education degrees as well as accelerated bachelor's degrees for adult learners. In December 2011, the College received approval to offer its first doctoral program, a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership, which is reportedly the first approved doctoral program on the North Shore of Massachusetts.

Throughout his tenure at Endicott College, Dr. Wylie has never lost sight of the school's philanthropic duty to give back to its community. Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that, just this past year, Endicott College's study body put in 15,000 hours of community service, an achievement which earned them recognition from the White House.

Dr. Wylie also established Endicott Colleges ``Keys to Degrees'' program. This forward-thinking program seeks to provide young, single parents the opportunity to receive a college education. Providing an environment that supports not only their needs but their children's as well, the Keys to Degrees program allows our young parents to have a better life and in turn offer a better life to their children.

Dr. Wylie's vision for providing single parents the services they need and deserve did not begin and end with the ``Keys to Degrees'' program, but it continues with a variety of educational services including internships and mentoring programs as well as weekend retreats on campus for both the students and their children. His stewardship in intergenerational education has recently earned him the distinct honor of being named a fellow at the Aspen Institute.

On May 5, Endicott College will be formally celebrating Dr. Wylie's remarkable 25 years as president. I look forward to being with him and his colleagues that night. In the meantime, I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Dr. Wylie as well as thank him for his efforts to educate and provide opportunities for students of all ages.

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

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the final amendment to this bill that will give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the resources that it needs to put an end to the speculation that's contributing to the high gas prices across this country.

I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker. This amendment will not kill the bill, and it will not send it back to committee. If this amendment is adopted, the House will still immediately proceed to a vote on the final passage of the bill, and it should.

Today, estimates are that speculators control about 70 percent of the open interest in commodity markets--70 percent. Ten years ago, that number was 30 percent. These speculators are essentially large banks and hedge funds. They never actually take control of the oil. They just flip the contract, make their quick profit and get out. However, unlike trading in the stocks and bonds of traditional companies, commodities speculation has a real and big-time effect on Americans, driving up the price of gas. It creates undue hardship whether you are a business owner with a small fleet of cars or a large fleet of trucks or are a homeowner who is taking his kids back and forth to school, doing your shopping or running other essential errands. This hurts people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

According to one official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, speculation, not the lack of production, has increased the price of gas by at least 22 percent, and today's price is about 56 cents per gallon. This should be unacceptable to every single one of us.

What is needed is for this Congress to make a concerted effort to curb speculation and Wall Street's anticonsumer practices. This amendment will do just that, and it will ensure that the CFTC has the resources it needs to carry out investigations and enforcement activities to stop commodity markets fraud, excessive speculation, and market manipulation. The President has recognized the importance of this issue and, just today, has called on this Congress to support increases in the CFTC's surveillance and enforcement staff for oil futures market trading, among other things. We need to give American families the confidence that illegal manipulation, fraud, and market rigging are not contributing to these high prices of gas. This House can take the first step and approve this amendment.

The amendment also ensures that nothing in the underlying bill allows, promotes, or facilitates lobbyist junkets related to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting activities on Federal lands. I would hope that we can all agree that this bill should not create any loopholes to lobbying restrictions that are currently in place, and my amendment simply ensures that this is the case. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding, as well as for taking the time to help manage this bill and for being an original cosponsor; and I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, as well, for cosponsoring this bill and for his kind words in discussion of what it is and how meaningful it is not just to Salem, Massachusetts, but to the country as well.

I rise in support of this bill to officially recognize Salem, Massachusetts, as the Birthplace of the National Guard. Salem was the site where our country's first military regiment mustered. This militia was the foundation of what would eventually become the National Guard.

Last year, I offered a version of this legislation as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, and it was approved by a voice vote. Unfortunately, my amendment was not included as part of the final conference report. So for the past several months, we've been working together to bring this bill to the floor.

Next month is the 375th anniversary of that first muster on Salem Common, and it's being commemorated; so I'm particularly pleased that the House is considering this bill at this time. I want to be clear: consideration of this bill today is made possible because of bipartisan support; and just like my two colleagues here, there are a number of people, over 116 cosponsors from both parties, who participated in bringing this bill. I want to thank the majority leader, as well as the leadership on both sides, for his courtesy given to the staff as well as to me. I also want to thank the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Buck McKeon, as well as the ranking member, Adam Smith, and their staffs; and I want to note the 116 colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, all the Democrats on the Armed Service Committee and a substantial number of Republicans on that committee for their support.

This kind of consideration is just the way this House should behave and should act, and I'm glad that we were able to do it on this bill.

So today is an important day for the City of Salem and for the National Guard and for local residents like Larry Conway and many others who have been advocating for this designation for years. Designating Salem as the Birthplace of the National Guard will pay tribute to those who first organized to defend our country almost 375 years ago, and it will also honor those men and women who continue to serve in the National Guard today.

We are working closely with our Senate counterparts to ensure that that Chamber acts quickly in time for the 375th anniversary next month. I won't recount all of the details my colleagues here were so kind to enumerate, but I do note that the bill itself sets forth all the important benchmarks and the progress that we've made.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues, and I urge all the colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support legislation that I, along with Congressman George Miller of California and Ruben Hinojosa of Texas, are introducing later today to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act.

The Workforce Investment Act, or WIA as it is commonly known, is the primary Federal law governing how employment and training services are provided to adults, youth, and dislocated workers. It was enacted in 1998 when unemployment was below 5 percent and before many of today's high growth industries even existed. It is long past time for WIA to be modernized and retooled to address our country's current challenges.

The bill I'm introducing today does just that. This bill increases access to training and improves the delivery of employment services. It strengthens the law's accountability standards to better evidence program effectiveness and provide assurances that our taxpayer dollars are being well spent.

My bill ensures that the kind of innovative work that's being done by the North Shore Workforce Investment Board in my district and elsewhere across the country can be replicated and taken to scale, and it expands the role of community colleges in job training.

This is the kind of commonsense legislation on which this Congress should be acting. We need to make sure we provide the training and education so that Americans have the skills to fulfill the jobs of today and tomorrow. Too many businesses have job vacancies because they can't find qualified candidates. Working together to help workers and those looking to hire them should not be a partisan issue. We need to find those qualified candidates and put them to work.

Modernizing and strengthening WIA will help both workers and employers, and it will ensure that our country can remain competitive in this global economy. I urge my colleagues' support for it.