Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a model for international cooperation that is said to hold promise and future opportunities for the United States. The City of Nanjing is working to improve the quality of life of its residents with a global initiative that has potential to create a great opportunity for some in the United States.

For over a decade, the City of Nanjing, China, under the leadership of Secretary Zhu Shanlu, has reached beyond the borders of the People's Republic of China to create new strategies in education, innovation and entrepreneurship, increasing the level of understanding between our two nations and stimulating U.S.-China idea exchange. It is expected that this international cooperative initiative will inure to the benefit of the residents of Nanjing as well to the residents of the United States, including businesses, residents and educational institutions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

To this end, Mr. Zhu in his role as Secretary for Education and Technology in Beijing traveled to many United States cities to discuss the growth of education collaboration. These meetings resulted in numerous programs that served global higher education, leading to a first-of-its-kind scholarship program offered through the New England Board of Higher Education providing annual scholarships for deserving students in the region. This work also forged new opportunities for United States colleges and universities with a strong focus on New England, specifically on Massachusetts, as representatives of several New England institutions were hosted by then Secretary Zhu at the Beijing Education Expo, a showcase of the promise of global education. Educational leaders exchanged ideas, and as a result, opportunities for educational exchanges were expanded creating new frontiers for American students to pursue studies in China and similar opportunities for Chinese students to benefit from programs offered in American colleges and universities from coast-to-coast.

Now under Mr. Zhu's leadership, the city of Nanjing has embarked on a new initiative in an effort to strengthen the bridge of partnership between the United States and China. Nanjing has created a number of avenues inviting United States companies and universities to expand opportunities into the Chinese market. In 2010, the City of Nanjing is scheduled to host conferences on Global Innovation in China, Global Entrepreneurship in China and Global University--R&D City. The conferences are expected to create special opportunities to develop concepts for development opportunities for green energy, life science and related industries. Small and mid size American companies may wish to explore offering technologies to improve the life of Chinese citizens and expand their business horizons.

One of the innovative American enterprises prepared to explore such potential opportunities calls Gloucester, Massachusetts and the 6th Massachusetts congressional district its home. Free Flow Power is looking to expand opportunities to develop and manage hydropower and hydrokinetic facilities to generate clean renewable energy from flowing water. They will join other companies from across the country in Nanjing.

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the City of Nanjing and its leaders as well as those of the American participants in the program for having a vision that looks to the future by supporting a stronger educational exchange and the potential for green energy and technology partnerships in a spirit of global cooperation between the United States and China.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following testimony on the National Mediation Board's proposed rule regarding union elections under the Railway Labor Act.

Changed Time and Circumstances Justify Amending NMB Representation Vote

Procedures

(by Frank N. Wilner)

By Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) dated Nov. 3,

2009, the National Mediation Board (NMB) proposes to amend

its rules interpreting and administering the Railway Labor

Act (RLA) ``to provide that, in representation disputes

[determinations as to who will be the bargaining agent for

airline and railroad and commuter railroad employees], a

majority of valid ballots cast will determine the craft or

class representatives.''

The long-standing procedure of the NMB requires a majority

of eligible voters (as opposed to those actually voting) to

vote affirmatively in favor of representation, meaning a

failure or refusal of an eligible voter to participate is the

equivalent of a ``no union'' vote.

The NMB proposes to change its procedure so that, in the

future, only ballots of those actually voting will be

counted, and each voter will make a choice between

representation by a specified union or ``no union.'' This

will comport with the long-standing procedures of the

National Labor Relations Board, which interprets and

administers the National Labor Relations Act.

The NMB has authority to make this change in policy. As the

Supreme Court observed:

[N]ot only does the statute [RLA] fail to spell out the

form of any ballot that might be used but it does not even

require selection by ballot. It leaves the details to the

broad discretion of the [National Mediation] Board with only

the caveat that it `insure' freedom from carrier

interference.

Says the NMB in its NPRM:

The Board's current policy requires that a majority of

eligible voters in the craft or class must cast valid ballots

in favor of representation. This policy is based on the

Board's original construction of Section 2, Fourth of the

RLA, which provides that,

`[t]he majority of any craft or class of employees shall have

the right to determine who shall be the representative of the

craft or class . . .'

This interpretation was made in the NMB's first annual

report in 1935 ``. . . not on the basis of legal opinion and

precedents, but on what seemed to the Board best from an

administrative point of view.''

In its November 2009 NPRM, the NMB says:

. . . under its broad statutory authority, [the board] may

also reasonably interpret Section 2, Fourth to allow the

Board to certify as collective bargaining representative any

organization which receives a majority of votes cast in an

election.

And the NMB has done just that in the past, although

infrequently. As the NMB said in its first annual report in

1935 that, ``Where, however, the parties to a dispute agreed

among themselves that they would be bound by a majority of

the votes cast, the Board took the position that it would

certify on this basis . . .''

The Supreme Court has held that while the words of Section

2, Fourth ``confer the right of determination upon a majority

of those eligible to vote,'' the statute ``is silent as to

the manner in which that right shall be exercised.''

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held, in 1936:

The universal rule as to elections of officers and

representatives is that a majority of the votes cast elects,

and that those not voting are presumed to acquiesce in the

choice of the majority who do vote.

And Chief Justice Morrison Waite held, in 1877:

All qualified voters who absent themselves from an election

duly called are presumed to assent to the expressed will of

the majority of those voting, unless the law providing for

the election otherwise declares. Any other rule would be

productive of the greatest inconvenience and ought not to be

adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is

clearly expressed.

Moreover, courts give the decisions of expert federal

agencies great deference; and are, in the words of the

Supreme Court (Chevron doctrine), ``reluctant to preclude any

federal agency's deliberations of policy because a federal

agency, which is controlled by the political branches of the

federal government, is constitutionally better suited than a

federal court to render policy decisions.''

The NMB enjoys even greater insulation from second-guessing

by the courts. The Supreme Court observed in 1943 that

Congress left to the discretionary authority of the NMB the

determination of certifying bargaining representatives.

Perhaps a more pregnant question is why the NMB for so long

has permitted its voting procedures in representation

elections to be out of sync with the standard for all other

democratic elections, where a majority of those voting makes

the determination. This is especially relevant where the

result of such a procedure is that the failure or refusal of

an eligible voter to participate is the equivalent of a ``no

union'' vote.

It makes for sound administrative procedure, however, to

provide reasonable justification--rather than willy-nilly

desire--for changing a long-standing public policy.

Determining a reasonable justification logically begins

with the NMB's observation, in its November 2009 NPRM, that

Section 2, Fourth ``was adopted in a much earlier era, under

circumstances that differ markedly from those prevailing

today.''

The Earlier Era

Time and circumstances have, indeed, changed since the NMB

adopted, during the 1930s, its current policy--not always

followed, as will be explained--that requires a majority of

eligible voters in the craft or class must cast valid ballots

in favor of representation.

Consider:

In 1930, there were 156 major (Class I) railroad systems.

In 2008, the number of major (Class I) railroad systems was

just 7, a 96 percent reduction since 1930.

In 1930, there were 1.5 million employees in the railroad

industry. In 2007, employment in the railroad industry had

declined to just 236,000, an 84 percent reduction since 1930.

In 1930, there were 249,000 miles of railroad line in the

United States. In 2007, the miles of railroad line in the

United States had declined to just 94,440, a 62 percent

reduction since 1930.

While it is instructive that there has been a significant

decline in the number of major railroads, railroad employees

and miles of railroad trackage, those considerations alone

are not enough to justify a change in the NMB's long-standing

voting procedures for representation elections, except to

demonstrate that the environment in which the NMB made its

initial determination to require a majority of eligible

voters was much different than today's environment.

However--and this is crucial--as the NMB conducted

representation elections during the 1930s, the Interstate

Commerce Commission was wrestling with a congressional

directive in the Transportation Act, 1920, to formulate a

plan of merging the nation's railroads into just 19 systems.

Thus, lurking in the shadows of each representation

election during the 1930s was, ``What is the mood of

employees on the other railroads that might become a merger

partner of the railroad on which employees were voting for

representation?'' This concern likely steered the NMB toward

seeking a demonstration in each representation election that

the outcome was a result of votes from a majority of those

eligible to vote.

There are more important facts of changed circumstances:

Company Unions

Among amendments to the Railway Labor Act in 1934 was one

outlawing company unions--a change intended better to protect

employee rights to organize. Company unions were under the

control of carrier officers, with the carriers paying the

wages of the employee representatives.

The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

observed at the time (1934) that ``a prolific source of

dispute'' between management and employees was ``the denial

by railway management of the authority of representatives

chosen by their employees.''

So substantial was this conflict that then-NMB Chairman

William M. Leiserson subsequently testified that, were there

a strike occasioned by a dispute over wages and hours, ``we

usually find we can settle those by arbitration or otherwise

. . . But if the issues involved were discrimination or

discharge of men because they had joined the organization, or

the question would be the right of the organization to

represent them, we could not have settled those strikes.''

Between 1933 (the year prior to an RLA amendment that

outlawed company unions) and 1935, some 550 company unions on

77 Class I railroads were replaced by independent national

unions. Indeed, two-thirds of the work of the NMB from 1934

until the start of World War II involved investigations and

purging of company unions.

This was no simple task, as railroads were not anxious to

cede negotiating power to an independent labor union. The New

York Times observed as early as 1922.

When the railroads were handed back to their owners by the

Government (following federal takeover during World War I)

they were working under national agreements made with union

representatives. That was a yoke from which the roads

constantly tried to escape.

Moreover, employees, fortunate to be working during the

Great Depression were frightened--if not terrified--over the

prospect of angering management by not supporting a company

union and, as a result, losing their jobs.

As the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in

1936.

. . . any sort of influence exerted by an employer upon an

employee, dependent upon his employment for means of

livelihood, may very easily become undue, in that it will

coerce the employee's will in favor of what the employer

desires against his better judgment as to what is really in

the best interest of himself and his fellow employees.

Although there is no accessible source to determine the

thinking of NMB officials at the time, it is logical to

conclude that requiring a majority of those eligible to vote

(as opposed to a majority of those voting) more conclusively

established on the part of the eligible employees a desire to

be represented by a labor union independent of company

influence.

This conclusion is given validity by a comment of the

nation's Federal Coordinator of Transportation (1933-1936),

Joseph Eastman, who proposed that in organizing employee

unions, ``a majority shall speak for all.''

Racial Discrimination

There was, during the 1930s, a national shame of racial

discrimination.

It was not until 1955 that the Interstate Commerce

Commission, taking instruction from Brown v. Board of

Education of Topeka, Kansas, ruled that the very practice of

segregation in interstate commerce was a violation of the

Interstate Commerce Act.

For sure, discrimination against African-Americans existed

also in railroad employment practices.

On Atlanta Terminal Co., for example, there was an effort

to separate, for representation, Caucasian and African-

American employees. Management said it wanted a demonstration

that the Brotherhood of Railroad and Steamship Employees

represented the ``white employees.'' The NMB ordered that one

ballot be issued ``among all the employees involved in the

dispute regardless of color to afford all of them an equal

opportunity to indicate their choice of representatives.''

As another example, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen

and Enginemen had an agreement with 10 railroads in the South

to restrict hiring and promotion of African-Americans, and

the BLF&E, according to President Roosevelt's Committee on

Fair Employment Practices, ``refuses to represent them with

respect to their grievances when such grievances are in

conflict with the interests of junior white firemen.''

The national shame of racial discrimination surely created

a unique challenge for the NMB--a challenge best met by

requiring that representation elections be determined by a

majority of those eligible rather than of those voting to

guard against racial discrimination in the voting process.

Conflict among labor unions and crafts

Also unique to the period of the 1930s was the large number

of competing labor organizations and crafts. Where

representation of craft and class today is generally

established in bright line fashion on the larger railroads

(which employ almost 90 percent of rail workers), that was

not the case during the 1930s.

In 1935, on New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, a

dispute arose between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

(BRT) and the Switchmen's Union of North America (SUNA)

regarding representation of switchmen. The BRT claimed

representation of switchmen systemwide; and the SUNA sought a

separate vote of switchmen in Buffalo and those in Cleveland,

rather than systemwide.

In 1937, on Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, a dispute arose

between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Order of

Railroad Telegraphers regarding representation of operators,

towermen, levermen, train directors and operator-

switchtenders.

In 1935, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen complained

that the NMB had denied certain brakemen a representation

ballot in a dispute involving road conductors.

The NMB observed in its first annual report in 1935:

[Representation disputes] arose mainly because of

overlapping jurisdiction . . . the antagonism engendered by

the contests has developed a tendency for employees who are

members of one organization to challenge the representation

of the other organization. . . .

The NMB since has made clear that Section 2, Ninth of the

RLA requires a systemwide election by craft or class; but, in

those early years, the NMB, in decisions of first impression,

surely recognized that to assure a perception of equity that

the vote results had to be based on a majority those eligible

to vote--that the NMB had to get it right.

Also, technology has eliminated what were some 291 crafts

or classes in 1935, and merger among unions reduced what had

been some 21 separate craft unions in 1935 to many fewer

today.

Also notable is that it was not until 1954 that the AFL

amended its constitution to prohibit raiding by AFL member

unions of other AFL-member unions (now memorialized by

Article 20 of the AFL-CIO constitution).

Communication and education

Times and circumstances also have changed with regard to

education and communication.

In 1930, only 30 percent of Americans were graduated from

high school, while, today, the number exceeds 70 percent.

During the 1930s, representation elections were carried out

by mail ballot, with each eligible voter being sent a ballot

along with an instruction sheet explaining the procedures for

a secret ballot election. A significant number of blue collar

workers during the 1930s may well have been unable to read at

a level sufficient to ensure they understood the ballot

procedures, much less the subject matter of the election.

It was not until 1943 that a single AT&T operator could

complete a long-distance telephone call; previously, as many

as five operators and 23 minutes were required to connect a

telephone in San Francisco with one in New York. As late as

1950, the cost of a five-minute long-distance telephone call

between New York and Los Angeles cost $3.70, which is

equivalent to $32.73 in 2009. This affected the ability of

independent unions--and union supporters--to communicate with

railroad employees over a wide geographic area.

Today, railroad employees have near universal access to

hard-wired and wireless telephones, as well as e-mail, with

the costs of communicating relatively insignificant. In the

words of former NMB Chairperson Maggie Jacobsen, the Internet

has become ``a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week union meeting.''

Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 74 percent of

Americans 18 years and older in the workforce use the

Internet. As airlines and railroads are among the most

computerized industries in America, the percentage of airline

and railroad employees who are Internet savvy is likely

higher than 74 percent.

During the 1930s, there was a communications challenge--in

employee reading comprehension as well as the ability to

communicate by electronic means (including telephone). That

communications challenge could well have affected the ability

of voting-eligible employees to be aware of the subject

matter, while lower standards of reading comprehension

impeded the ability of employees to understand the subject

matter, mechanics and rules of a representation election.

By requiring that a majority of eligible employees vote in

favor of representation, the procedure better assured that

the majority would be made aware of the election and for what

they were voting. The matter of employee reading

comprehension is far less a problem today, and there no

longer exists impediments to dissemination of information by

electronic means (including voice).

Conflicts in ideology

Not readily recognized today is that there was great social

upheaval during the period of the Great Depression.

Communism was viewed by many workers at that time as

superior to capitalism, and communists were active agents for

change. In 1938, for example, communist agitator William Z.

Foster advocated worker militancy.

The president of the Switchmen's Union of North America

responded that communist efforts are intended ``to create

disharmony, discord and disunity among the members of

standard railroad labor organizations.''

Here, again, was reason for the NMB to certify

representation votes on the basis of a majority of those

eligible to vote rather than to permit, perhaps, a handful of

agitators to determine representation votes for a radical

organization by intimidating a majority of workers from

casting ballots.

Conclusion

The National Mediation Board proposes to bring its 75-year-

old representation election voting procedures in sync with

those of the National Labor Relations Board, and what the

federal courts term, the ``universal rule as to elections of

officers and representatives.''

The change would provide that the outcome of an election is

determined by a majority of those voting, scrapping the

archaic majority-of-those-eligible rule, which arbitrarily

assumes that those not voting be counted as a ``no vote.''

Circumstances have changed since the NMB instituted such

voting procedures in 1934. The reasons then included:

An effort by the NMB to demonstrate to employers that their

employees overwhelmingly preferred an independent labor union

to a company union controlled and financed by management.

An effort to guard against racial discrimination in an

election and better assure access to ballots by African-

American workers.

An effort to resolve conflict among some 21 separate

independent labor unions seeking to represent some 291

separate crafts or classes at the time--to ``get it right''

by determining the desires of a majority of those eligible to

vote.

An effort to combat substantially lower levels of education

and reading comprehension among workers. By requiring a

positive vote among a majority of those eligible, it was

better assured that efforts would be made by those asking for

the election to reach and explain voting procedures to those

eligible.

An effort to combat technological difficulties in

communicating with potential voters. Again, requiring a

positive vote among a majority of those eligible better

assured that efforts would be made to reach out and

communicate with those eligible.

An effort to combat Communist agitators, who were using

intimidation and other tactics to encourage worker militancy

and workplace discord.

Today:

There no longer are company unions or the threat of company

unions.

Racial discrimination has been outlawed, and procedures are

in place to root out and prosecute racial discrimination in

the workplace.

Conflicts among RLA-covered labor unions are largely non-

existent today, and the number of crafts and classes of

workers has been reduced substantially. Moreover, by

including a ``no union'' choice on the ballot provides

eligible employees opportunity to cast a ``no vote.''

Levels of education, especially among railroad and airline

workers, have been dramatically improved, with most using

computers in their daily work routines.

Barriers to communication among workers, as well as between

workers and their employers and union organizers have been

almost entirely eliminated with near universal access to

telephone and e-mail. Also, today's railroad and airline

workers have substantially higher levels of education than

they did during the 1930s.

Because of changes in circumstance, 75-year-old NMB voting

procedures are ripe for change to bring them in sync with the

universal rule as to elections of officers and

representatives, which is a majority of those casting

ballots.

Mr. Speaker, today is an opportunity for this body to stand up for middle class families and small businesses.

Today, by passing this bill, no family will have to worry that their 20-something-year-old child will have a serious condition and not be covered or ever be refused coverage in their lifetime due to a preexisting condition. Insurance companies will no longer be able to limit coverage annually or over a lifetime just when serious conditions require care. They won't be able to rescind coverage in the middle of cancer or diabetes care, and they will have to spend a reasonable portion of premium dollars on actual health services.

We will be able to see our seniors affording both their groceries and their prescription medicines because we will close the so-called doughnut hole in their current coverage, and we will extend the life of Medicare for 9 years even as we improve its coverage.

Small business employers and employees will be better able to afford health care and will pay less in administrative costs while having the choices large companies and Federal employees have now.

All this, Mr. Speaker, and we will be making the largest pay-down on the Federal deficit in quite some time, reducing our debt by over $1 trillion in the next two decades.

No bill is perfect, but this bill is an enormous improvement of the status quo.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, if my previous colleague thought that the Democrats were going to get slaughtered for passing this bill, a few of them would cut out of the herd and help pass it. But that's absolutely not the case. This year-long debate and the bipartisan health care meeting show that Democrats and Republicans do agree in some areas. Both agree that the status quo isn't working for Americans; both agree that waste, fraud and abuse should be removed from the system; both agree that we should invest in prevention and wellness.

The bill has incorporated several Republican ideas into its proposal, but Democrats and Republicans have a profound disagreement on the proper oversight on insurance companies. We believe that insurance companies need to be held accountable with minimum commensurate standards to help keep premiums and industry abuses down. Republicans believe that insurance companies should have a freer hand and should be free to raise rates and reduce, and even eliminate, coverage. We believe that the most effective way to reduce premiums for all Americans and businesses, large and small, and the only way to cover all people with preexisting conditions is to make sure that everyone is in the insurance system. Republicans disagree, and their plan will not outlaw discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. Those are profound differences, Madam Speaker, and that's why we need health care reform.

I thank the gentleman.

Since 1995, when our Republican colleagues held the majority in the House of Representatives, until 2007 when they relinquished that and the voters threw them out, they had done exactly nothing, nothing, with respect to the health care crisis in this country.

Now they want to come in and they want to do something. They want to have you pay less for getting less. This is their great plan.

The one thing they tried to do in 2003 would put pharmaceutical prescription drugs in Medicare which they did by giving seniors a so- called doughnut hole they had to pay for and costing us $600 billion on our current debt.

My friends, the only ones they made happy then were the pharmaceutical companies, and the only ones they want to make happy now are the private insurance companies. They want to try to kill reform. If they can't kill reform, they want to give them this gift of a Republican substitute.

While they sat idle since 1995, family health insurance policies rose from 7 percent of median income to 17 percent. Sixty percent of families reporting bankruptcies did so in part because of health care costs. Forty-six million Americans went uninsured, 85 percent of those in working families.

Small business premiums went up 129 percent. Twenty-eight million of our uninsured are small business owners, employees or their families. Small businesses are projected to lose $52.1 billion going forward in the next decade if we continue on the Republican path of do nothing.

The question is, who is on our side? Who is on the side of the consumers, the individuals, the small businesses and the families, and that is the bill that the Democrats have put forward on this floor. It is affordable; it is health care for every American.

If you compare the two bills, you will see the Congressional Budget Office says the Republicans may--may--save you from 0 to 3 percent on 80 percent of the private premiums.

The Democratic bill saves you 12 percent. The Democratic bill covers 96 percent of Americans. The Republicans in 2019 will leave you exactly where you are today, covering only 83 percent of the people, leaving by that time 52 million uninsured.

We will end the discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They will study it.

We will have an exchange for small businesses and employees so they get better prices comparable to what large companies have now been able to get. They will do nothing of the kind except let you shop for a place, but to get your insurance it might cost you less because you get less, because you will have a race to the bottom, where insurance companies will be able to avoid consumer protections of States and practice fraud almost indiscriminately. There will be no way of cutting it back. You pay less because you get less.

I thank the gentleman for recognizing me and want to acknowledge before we start, Patrick, I know you're going to speak later, but I hope that this is somewhat fulfilling for you. It can never replace the loss of your dad, but hopefully it will at least let you know how much the people that served with him had the honor and pleasure of doing that, loved doing it and appreciated him every day. And my colleague, Bill Delahunt, was more than just the Congressman for the Senator, so I extend my sympathies to you as well; you were a friend, probably even closer than most of us were because you were there so often and spent so much time with him. And so I express those condolences to you. But it's a loss to all of us. The Dean of the delegation, Ed Markey, of course, served many, many years with the Senator. I looked at a little factoid the other day that indicated that Senator Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of George Washington's birthday. I thought if that's accurate, and I assume that it is, how interesting it was, because nobody appreciated history more than Senator Kennedy and nobody appreciated his role in history more than that.

I can remember Ed Markey at one point, at a function introducing Senator Kennedy as one of the best United States Senators, only to be corrected by the Senator saying, One of the best? The best. And while he was joking, I think he turned out to be absolutely right on that because he certainly has a record that you have heard from John Olver and others here that is just phenomenal. Jimmy McGovern expressed it as well.

I won't start to enumerate all of the things that the Senator did. We'd be here for far too long. And I think, after hearing my colleagues, most people finally start to appreciate that wherever you were in life, you benefited from him; whether you were cleaning hotel rooms or doing some other job that was difficult like that, you benefited from the minimum wage, health care, education, all the things that we care about. And frankly, when we are all looking to try and have the honor of serving here, listening to people in our constituencies, they're talking about those things that matter to them, the bread and butter issues, whether or not they're going to have a job, whether or not it pays well, whether or not they're going to be able to keep their family healthy; whether or not they're going to be able to give their children opportunity. This great Senator epitomized all of that.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned so far that I just want to hit on is the fact that the Senator used to tell a story about being lectured by his father when he turned 21 or so about the fact that he was going to be the recipient of some resources that other people didn't have the benefit of; he could choose to be idle and do nothing with his time, or he could choose to be of service to others and to mankind. We all know which route he took. But that remains an inspiring story to all people even to today.

And during the course of this summer when the President had his Service to America campaign going on, many of us had the opportunity to go and visit a lot of organizations that had volunteers in, and when you would remind them of that story and tell them about the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that was signed into law earlier in the year by President Obama and now their role in stepping into his belief of service and doing something for their fellow citizens, doing something for America and no matter how small or large, no matter where it was, you could see the inspiration that they got from the Senator, from his life, from his acts, and from the fact that this law had passed because he motivated people to pass it and get it through. This will remain as one of his great legacies, the fact that he spent his life serving others, that he was selfless in that regard, and that while he was serious about the business that he did, he was also never taking himself too seriously, and always willing to make people feel comfortable and to see the lighter side of things and to see the better part of humanity. In even people who were his political opponents, he saw a good part, and he was able to draw out of them a response that made them accept him and others and work on issues together.

I can remember being with the Senator when we would go out, particularly to senior citizen places where he just couldn't resist singing a song, particularly Irish song, couldn't resist getting out and dancing if there was a ballroom dance going on. And, of course, I guess I must take myself too seriously, or just know how bad a singer or bad a dancer I am. I was always looking for the door, and he would never let that happen. He'd be the first one to force you on the floor, make a fool of yourself, but have some fun and go on that. That's the humanity of the man; that he loved everybody, he loved having a good time with them, could get them to go along with him; and then when it was time to get serious, he could do that in a heartbeat. He could make the case. He had great oratorical skills that carried the day over and over again. And he truly is a giant. I know that the story of his life is just jumping off the shelves right now because people are starting to remember all that he did.

Sometimes in the hustle and bustle of political jargon, people making attacks and going back and forth, people forget that when you separate all that out, whether you are a conservative, or whether you are a liberal, whatever your political opinion, there are things in your life that you have that you're grateful for that are a result of the work of Senator Kennedy. I think that's the bottom line in all of this is that this Senator was a great Senator for America. He was a great friend to all of us. He was a great father and brother for people in Massachusetts. We sorely, sorely miss him. But none of us regret at all having had the opportunity to know him and to serve with him.

You know, to listen to this debate, Madam Chairwoman, you would think that we were disallowing banks and private lenders from lending. That's not the case at all. If they want to make private student loans, they can. The fact of the matter is that without a subsidy and without a guarantee, they probably won't find themselves very competitive. Right now, the government is providing 60 percent of all the capital that goes in because that market didn't have the liquidity it required in order to keep up those loans.

What we are seeing is the option here for the taxpayers--the same people who are trying to send their kids to school--transferring their money over to private lenders, guaranteeing the loans, giving them subsidies so they can make a profit that will be money that can't be used for Pell Grant scholarships and for low-interest loans.

The people in my district, 100,000 residents in Massachusetts will get more Pell Grant scholarships because we take that money and, instead of giving it to the lenders, we give it to the families. One hundred thousand people in Massachusetts will get lower interest rate loans because we don't take that money and transfer their tax money to private lenders; we, in fact, keep it in the system. So when all that is said and done and we've improved education, as the President has called on us to do, we will put $10 billion back in to pay down our debt.

This is a sad tale when they think that the only way they can keep private lenders in business is if we give them subsidies and then we guarantee their loans. If they want to compete, let them compete. They can make their loans. They can go out any time they want.

But I think the American families are saying they're hard-pressed. Some of them are out of work. Some of them are making less. All of them have more bills to pay for college for their students. They want to be able to have access to those Pell Grant scholarships. They want to have lower interest rate loans so that their children have the opportunity to move forward. Better the opportunity for them than for the private lenders to pad their Wall Street investors' pockets. And that's why we have to move forward on this. That's what is going to improve this country and make us competitive as we move forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Congressman Holt, and I are offering this amendment striking $80 million that's in the bill for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program. Mr. Holt and I believe that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program no longer warrants Congress' support, and we are not alone in that assessment.

The Bush administration made the initial decision to terminate the KEI program in its fiscal year 2010 Program Objectives Memorandum last fall. Then, President Obama did not include funding for it in his budget proposal, and both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee did not specify funding for it in their respective authorization bills.

Secretary Gates has testified that ``the missile's 38 or 39 feet long. It weighs 12 tons. There's no extant ship we can put it on. We would have to design a new ship.''

The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General O'Reilly, has said that the KEI program is being terminated because ``its capability is inconsistent with the missile defense mission to counter rogue nation threats.''

The KEI program was intended to be a 5-year development program that is now a 16-year development program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say the majority leader is fond of saying that it is never too late to do the right thing, and here is our opportunity to do the right thing.

We have to, at some point in time, start looking at all of our budgets, and that includes the Defense budget, to make sure that we're not putting money out that needs to be put towards other priorities.

Here you have the Missile Defense Agency's director itself saying that this program should be terminated. You have the Secretary of Defense in two administrations saying the program should be terminated. You have, from what I can hear from people, the silence of those that say they are against this amendment, not arguing that in fact this is a program that should move forward.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I am happy, I guess, to keep on talking. I think that the desire to have the final word without any rebuttal is somewhat indicative of the strength of an argument, but if that is the gentleman's choice, certainly you are able to do that.

I would note that the administration urges the Congress to support the President's initiative to terminate or reduce programs that fund narrowly focused activities and duplicate existing programs and that have outlived their usefulness. It particularly mentions the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program as one of those, indicating that we can better target scarce resources and redirect funds to programs with a greater potential for results. And that, of course, is in the Statement of Administration Policy with respect to this bill.

Let me, if I can, Mr. Chairman, just read what the Director of the Missile Defense Agency says about this, and he said this on May 21, 2009:

``The original KEI mission grew from a boost phase only mission to a boost and mid-course mission. The development schedule grew from 5\1/2\ years to 12 to 14 years (depending on spirals), program cost grew from $4.6 billion to $8.9 billion, and the missile average unit production cost grew from $25 million to over $50 million per interceptor. Technical issues delayed the first booster flight test date (established in 2007) by over a year,'' and this year any further testing is highly unlikely.

``Given the above and that 15 percent of the $8.9 billion worth of work on contract till 2018 has been accomplished, the KEI program was terminated.''

And further, you have the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, indicating that this is one decision that he didn't have to make or take credit for. The Missile Defense Agency itself, under the Bush administration, essentially eliminated the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, or thought that it had.

First of all, he said this has been a 5-year development program that now looks like it's about to be a 16-year development program. There has not been a single flight test. There has been little work on the third stage of the kill vehicle, which is obviously critical. A big part of the program is that it needs to be close to the launch site to be able to be effective, and the 38- or 39-foot size of the instrument and the weight of 12 tons means that we have no extant ship that could actually be used to get close enough. It would be virtually of limited or no use against Iran or Russia or the Chinese. It has very limited capability, and that is why this is not a productive way to proceed on this matter.

There may be some argument by some here--and we will never know

until after we're finished talking, of course--that we want to keep some of this money in for research purposes. Let me suggest to my colleagues that there is a significant amount of money in research, development and testing within the entire Department of Defense budget as well as within the budget for the Missile Defense Program.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion and thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 375th Anniversary of the founding of Ipswich, Massachusetts and to congratulate the residents of Ipswich, Massachusetts as they plan to gather to celebrate this momentous occasion in their historical town.

In 1633, English colonists from the Massachusetts Bay Colony decided to forge an outpost to the north at ``Agawam.'' These early settlers were led by John Winthrop, Jr., the son of Governor John Winthrop, and were charged with the responsibility of protecting the colony from threats to its destruction and opening up trade opportunities. Their success, in so doing, ensured the future of the nation. The new settlement was so successful as a military outpost and future center of law and culture that, on August 4, 1634, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted to name it ``Ipswich'' after Ipswich, England.

In 1638, the Reverend Nathaniel Ward of Ipswich was commissioned by colonial leaders to draft the Body of Liberties, which was adopted by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and published in 1641 as the first code of laws drafted in New England, and which was the colony's and--some would claim--the nation's first Bill of Rights.

In 1687, Ipswich citizens refused to pay new taxes instituted by Governor Edmund Andros and, in so doing, committed acts resisting taxation without representation now known as the ``Andros Rebellion'' that predated by roughly eighty years the episodes of the next century that led to the American Revolution.

Ipswich is home to America's oldest continuously working farm, Appleton Farms (1635); the Chebacco Parish of Ipswich (now Essex, Massachusetts) was one of the shipbuilding capitals of New England, thus securing the lucrative fishing industry of Massachusetts, its economic future and early maritime contributions to the nation and Ipswich's literary heritage includes the seventeenth-century resident Anne Bradstreet, America's first published poet.

Ipswich's eighteenth-century lace industry, acknowledged with appreciation by President George Washington during his 1789 visit to Ipswich, is considered the first women's industry in America, and Ipswich's nineteenth-century mills produced more stockings than any other place in America and transformed the town culturally by attracting new residents from all over Europe.

To honor Ipswich's proud heritage, Town officials and Ipswich residents have registered historic structures on the National Register, mounted plaques to mark historic sites and preserved thousands of acres of open space and the centrally-important Ipswich River. They have a deep appreciation for the town's architectural and historical significance in our nation's history and are committed to historical preservation so others can share the traditions of our nation's past. As a result, Ipswich currently contains more houses (fifty-nine at last count) built during the ``first period'' of American architecture (1625-1725) than any other town in America. Some town folks suggest that this makes Ipswich, ``America's Colonial home town.''

Today, Ipswich Clams are known throughout America with good reason, and Ipswich thrives as a diverse community of cultures and professions that lives comfortably with its history and welcomes visitors from around the world.

As they have been throughout 2009, the residents of Ipswich will continue celebrating the Town's 375th Anniversary while simultaneously honoring its 11,000-year Native American heritage (as documented by the Paleo-Indian site called Bull Brook).

As their representative in the United States House of Representatives, I salute the residents of Ipswich and Town leaders for their welcoming nature, their sense of community and their warm hospitality in opening their arms and doors to visitors from around this country and around the world.

As Ipswich celebrates its 375th Anniversary, I encourage my colleagues and their constituents to travel to the 6th Congressional District of Massachusetts to discover and celebrate the storied history of Ipswich, Massachusetts one of the founding cornerstones of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America. I assure you that you will enjoy Ipswich and its people and its natural, cultural and historic treasures.

I want to thank the chairman for the time and for the bill that he has put on the floor today.

I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, particularly because it includes two amendments that were made in order under the rule. The bill as reported by the committee specifies that no funds may be obligated for the deployment of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress certifying that the proposed interceptor that is going to be deployed has been realistically flight-tested and has demonstrated a high probability of working in an operational manner. That makes perfect sense.

In recent months, those studies have been conducted by various independent scientists, and they have shown that the radar proposed for the Czech Republic does not have enough range to perform effectively. As my colleagues know, the interceptors' capabilities are dependent on the ability and the accuracy of the radar. That is why I believe that it is imperative that the Secretary's report also certify about the proposed radars, and that first amendment requires just that.

The second amendment directs the JASON panel, which has been providing independent scientific advice and consultation to the government since 1960 on matters of defense, science and technology, to conduct a study on whether the discrimination capabilities being sought by the Missile Defense Agency are achievable.

The system has to be evaluated by its ability to successfully distinguish between an enemy's missile and any accompanying decoys countermeasures. And right now, there is little evidence to suggest that the system can make those kinds of distinctions.

Furthermore, this is a big challenge. As Dr. Phil Coyle, who was the former

director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon noted during a hearing that we convened, ``shooting down an enemy missile going 17,000 miles per hour is like trying to hit a hole-in-one in golf when the hole is going 17,000 miles per hour. If an enemy uses decoys and countermeasures, missile defense is like trying to shoot a hole-in- one while the hole is going 17,000 miles per hour and the green is covered with black circles the same size as the hole. The defender doesn't know what target to aim for.''

So this report should inform Congress on whether or not the ballistic missile defense system will actually be able to employ discrimination technology.

So I hope to thank Chairman Skelton for approving these amendments in the en bloc package. I believe they will provide important oversight over the missile defense system.

And finally, as one who has long believed Congress must reexamine how it funds this program, I'm delighted that it takes a small but important step in reducing by $1.2 billion the funding for these programs. I hope it is the beginning of a trend on the way we go.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder, listening to this particular substitute, whether some people here, whether it's the administration or whether it's our friends on the other side of the aisle, have been sleepwalking through history. If you want to see a repeat of the last 8 years then, fine, let's get rid of all the accountability.

A billion and a half dollars now for the next 5 years is going to be given to the Pakistanis on the civil side of things. In the past, there's been tens of billions of dollars since their independence. We have maybe a structure that's supposed to be a school or a structure that's supposed to be a clinic standing somewhere but no teachers, no nurses, no doctors, no systems that actually work because there's been a total lack of accountability. This substitute amendment would continue that lack of accountability.

On the security side of things, we have a situation where we have $6.2 billion given in the coalition support funds which, essentially, were a blank check to General Musharraf and the military over there. What we got in return, when we finally started doing some oversight in January of 2007 and afterwards, was a determination that some 40 percent of that had vaporized, cannot be accounted for. It was supposed to be going for things that are counterinsurgency, weaponry that would help fight a common problem of extremists in that country, and disappeared somewhere else.

This particular bill that the substitute is trying to undermine would put in place the accountability provisions. They are flexible enough. They simply say that you have to fight those extremists that are mutual problems. You have to make sure you stop people from going over the border to create problems in Afghanistan. You have to cooperate on nuclear nonproliferation, reasonable things.

The American people have a right to expect that their Representatives are going to be accountable for the billions of dollars. We are supposed to be having a partnership and a mature relationship with the Pakistanis. Then let's get over that notion that we're going to offend their sensibilities so that they won't actually cooperate with us if we want to put some conditions to make sure that our mutual problems are addressed with the billions of dollars of American citizens' money.

We've had 8-plus years of not having accountability on funds to that country and others. We've had times since 2002 where we had totally no accountability. Let's stop sleepwalking. Let's get the problem resolved. Let's make sure we have accountability.

I say vote against the substitute; vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that the rule and the process leading to its presentation are flawed and consequently, the underlying bill does not adequately serve our military forces or the taxpayers of this country.

Since 2002, billions of dollars have been given to the Pakistan military and much of that amount has not been accounted for.

Pakistani military commanders continue to consider certain extremists as their ``strategic assets'' in their seemingly never-ending security concerns involving fears about India; and the Pakistani military continues to fail to give proper attention to Pakistan's existential threat--the very extremists who associate with and harbor Al Qaeda and are also a threat to Afghanistan, our forces in Afghanistan, and others throughout the world.

I proposed, with a number of colleagues, and believe the bill must be improved by, an amendment establishing enforceable benchmarks on U.S. military assistance to Pakistan that would lead to the articulation of reasonable expectations.

Functionally, the amendment requires that the President make reasonable determinations about the state of mutual security objectives of Pakistan and the United States before any remainder of the military assistance for Pakistan can be obligated.

It does not seek to condition any civilian assistance to Pakistan. The American people and its government are the friends of Pakistan and its people, and we fully understand the crisis nature of the economy and civil governance status. The assistance in any measure should certainly be accounted for, and should be put to effect in such a way as to ensure it maximizes benefit to the Pakistani people. America is making a long term commitment to Pakistan, its democracy and its future prosperity.

Nevertheless, with respect to military funding, specifically, the amendment requires determinations on Pakistan--through its military--to make concerted progress toward:

(1) Ceasing of all support to groups presenting cross-border terrorist threats,

(2) Dismantling training facilities for such groups across Pakistan,

(3) Preventing and disrupting cross-border attacks,

(4) Strengthening and increasing counterterrorism prosecutions and extraditions,

(5) Degrading such groups' radio broadcast infrastructure, and

(6) Extending Pakistan's legitimate governmental writ across its territory and the protection of all its citizens' civil and human rights without discrimination.

As an oversight forcing function, the amendment requires written justification of the President's determinations and also tasks the U.S. Government Accountability Office with providing an independent analysis of the categories requiring Presidential determination.

Additionally, the amendment includes language allowing the President to waive the requirement if such action is certified to be vital to the national security interests of the United States. Finally, there is in the amendment a process for Congress to disprove of such certification if in its judgment such action is appropriate.

We must stop just handing out cash slush funds only to witness conduct not conducive to both nations' national security.

We have a right to expect that dangerous suspected terrorists will not just be set free as has reportedly happened with the Pakistani military's complicity; and a right to expect accountability for the hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars that should be targeted to effective security for our troops in Afghanistan and people here at home.

We must ensure resources are focused on Pakistan's and America's common security interests and the only really verifiable way to have that occur is to condition any funds sent to the Pakistani military in the way set forth in the proposed amendment.

For too long our military, and our government, have dealt directly with the Pakistani military and ignored the civilian government empowering their military to circumvent democratic accountability and hindering our ability to account for our investment. The way to resolve matters in Afghanistan relies heavily on circumstances in Pakistan. The situation in Pakistan cries out for accountability if we are to successfully protect our security.

I thank the Member for yielding me the time.

I want to congratulate the sponsors of this bill, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. Obviously, we have been proud to sponsor this bill and its previous iterations in past Congresses as well as this Congress.

People in my district are upset about what's been going on with this. A Gloucester, Massachusetts, resident says that his bank has raised rates to the 27 percent level. Now they have to use part of their retirement savings to pay off their cards. From North Andover, Massachusetts, rates going up as high from 12 percent to 29 percent. A 12-year customer of their bank never

late on a payment. Salem, Massachusetts, their interest rates were threatened to go up to 31.99 percent.

Cardholders need protection. They need protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. They need protection against being punished even when they pay on time. They need protection against due-date gimmicks. They need protection against excessive fees.

But we also take nothing from the underlying bill, which is a good piece of legislation, to say that we also need protection on interest rates, period. Usury has been with this country since its origination all the way through the end of the Carter years. It wasn't until the courts in 1978 indicated that companies should not have to deal with 50 different interest rates State by State. But Justice Black also said the Federal legislators could undertake to set a cap on interest rate fees, and we should have been doing that long ago. We should have taken this opportunity in this rule to allow an amendment to do just that. We've had usury rules since the Babylonian Empire. The fact of the matter is these credit card companies will go out and just raise those interest rates to try to make up on what they're losing and the other things that we're doing in this bill.

If we don't do it in this bill, we should do it soon in a freestanding bill to stop those usury rates. We have to find out whether the Members of this body and the Senate are standing with American families and businesses or whether they're going to stand with the companies as they take excessive profits and unjustly enrich themselves on the backs of our families and our neighbors.

So I want to thank you for the time and say this is a great bill. The rule is a good rule. We need to move forward, however. If we're not going to allow a cap on interest rates in this bill, then we ought to do it in a freestanding bill and do it as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McKeon. This was a cooperative effort, a bipartisan effort for sure focusing on access and affordability.

There's a partnership in education, higher education in particular, between parents and children, entire families, levels of government at both the State and Federal level, and the institutions. The families for too long have seen their share of that partnership go up and up in tuition and fees.

This Congress dealt with the reconciliation bill last year, putting $20 billion additionally in for Pell Grants, reducing the cost of loans. We needed to ask these institutions to step up to the plate, and we've done that in this bill. They have incentives to keep their tuition low and the incentives go to more aid to the students. They're going to be held accountable by being required to report any reasons for tuition increases.

States are going to have to maintain their investment in higher education so they can't supplant their responsibilities with either the money from the Federal Government or by charging students more in tuition and fees. If they do, they won't get access to a program. So they have that incentive to move forward.

We restore the integrity and accountability to the student loan programs, we've provided loan forgiveness for people, and all of this focuses, Mr. Speaker, on families and makes that partnership work.

I support the bill and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Marian Orfeo, a constituent from Lynnfield, Massachusetts and Director of Planning & Coordination with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), on being named the new President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). Marian will assume the Presidency at NACWA's Annual Conference, which convenes in Anchorage, Alaska this week.

Ms. Orfeo has served the MWRA in varying capacities for nearly two decades. The MWRA provides wholesale water and sewer services to 2.5 million people in sixty-one communities across eastern and central Massachusetts, including several in the sixth congressional district. As the Director of Planning and Coordination, her responsibilities include long-range planning to construct and renew MWRA's water and wastewater facilities and infrastructure as well as short-term strategic business planning for all agency functions.

Marian also manages the Authority's performance reporting system and is a member of the Steering Committee for the MetroFuture initiative of the Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Over her career, Ms. Orfeo has demonstrated leadership and committed countless hours and tireless energy to efforts dedicated to the improvement of Boston's water quality and public health. As a result, she has earned the trust and respect of her peers, who recognize her as an environmental champion.

Marian Orfeo's public service career predates her twenty years of service with the MWRA. She previously worked for the City of

Boston for sixteen years during which time she was engaged with operations, administration, finance and planning functions. Marian has been an active member of NACWA since 1994 and a Member of its Board of Directors since 2000. She continues to be an ardent advocate for the need to develop a new, holistic approach to the nation's complex 21st century water challenges.

It is appropriate that the House recognize this personal accomplishment of Marian Orfeo. I am confident that NACWA will flourish under her leadership, and I trust that Marian will bring her contagious energy and enthusiasm to the position and help secure NACWA's role as a leading advocate for responsible national policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment.