land, and preaching $70 million per guest: and after, it destroyed the japanese-american community. host: that is it for our time as we close. thank you for adding some history to it and congratulations to our grand prize winner and all the studentcam winners and the competitors this year. thanks for all your hard work. we will have the next competition announced soon. now for the house of representatives live session. thanks for this new day of what is and what is to become. we pray that you help us draw

closer to you that we may bear witness to your presence among us and face the day with courage and confidence. send your spirit upon the members of this assembly. may your grace descend upon them as they meet the difficult task of worksing for the common good. they may -- working for the common good. may they be blessed with wisdom and compassion, enough to serve their fellow citizens with dignity and humility. provide them with the strength to be faithful to their duties and to serve honorably, always remembering the sacred trust they have with their fellow citizens. may all that is done this day be for your greater glory and honor , amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today

will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to address the house? does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to address the house? so ordered. mr. barletta: in a minute or so i am speaking this morning two more illegal aliens will be added to our nation. maybe they'll sneak off a boat, skwlofere stay an expired visa. all expect to find a better life here in the united states, but all are breaking the law. the millions of illegal aliens in country right now impose a

huge burden on their cities, one is my city, hazelton, pennsylvania. that's why i was one of the first mayors to crack down on illegal immigration. now other states have taken up that fight. i'm reminded how the federal government has failed to stop illegal immigration. states like arizona and cities like hazelton are forced to act because this administration and prior administrations refused to enforce immigration laws. on wednesday, chief justice john roberts said it best, quote, it seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not. well, mr. speaker, take it from someone who has been fighting against illegal immigration for six years now, sadly that sounds just about right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia eke wreck -- seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, it's with sadness i rise to honor the life of otis brock iii who passed away tuesday at the age of 41. otis' time with us was too brief, but his life serves as a shining example to others. a leader from the beginning, otis was inspired by the examples set by his parents, both educators. after graduating from high school, otis rose to become the savannah chatam public county schools systems operation chief. mr. bar row -- mr. barrio: the role he enjoyed the most was father. they are the proud parents of two young daughters and are awaiting the birth of their third child. otis, we thank you for your life and legacy. you'll be missed w that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize john

allen and his lifetime of service to his community and the state of arkansas and our country. john currently serves on the board of directors for the lawrence county children's shelter. in the past he served as an alderman, chairman of the lawrence county chamber, a lay leader at the united methodist church and president of the lion's club. in 1980 he served on the arkansas transportation commission and national motor safety regulatory review panel. during this time he was instrumental in obtaining funding for arkansas state university to start a transportation related program with the college of business. thanks to john's efforts, a.s.u. now has logistics and supply chain management program. additionally john served as director of the arkansas assessment coordination department and arkansas state director for usda world development. john has achieved much as a public servant, but he'll be the firts to say his family is center of his life. mr. crawford: they have been married for 49 years. together they have three children, andy, andrea, and matt. he's also the proud grandfather

of anna and ella. mr. speaker, today i honor him for his lifetime of service, arkansas and our nation is a better place to live because of his efforts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. ask permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman ask unanimous consent? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition of h.r. 4628, known as the interest rate reduction act. keeping student loans rates at a current level should be an easy, bipartisan bill. however it should not be at the cost of an assault on women's health. of all the offsets available to the majority, they chose to undermine the well-being of america's women and children by gutting investments in screening for breast and cervical cancer, in childhood immunizations. in initiatives to reduce birth defects.

i remain committed to preventing an increase to student costs for over 7.4 million americans. i'd like to see a new, bipartisan bill sent to the president's desk well in advance of july 1 deadline where the rates are scheduled to go up. any student loan relief should not come at the expense of funding for childhood immunization, screening programs for breast and cervical cancer, and birth defects. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this flawed legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize thomas c. debt wiler, a constituent from ridgeway, pennsylvania. he's the mail manager of john tar's mill and he was awarded the mill macker of the year award from the paper management association at their international conference. he was named vice president and mail manager on july 1, 2006,

the pinnacle of a professional journey that began over 38 years ago at the same facility when he was hired. over the years he became a recognized leader in the industry. his work and dedication is an inspiration to all of us and his concern for the mill and employees offer the years is commendable. while being diagnosed with a severe health issue that began six years ago, thomas devoted to the mill and especially the 378 employees. a graduate of johnsonburg high school, he holds a bachelor of science degree in medical technology from penn state university. he resides with his wife, they have two grown daughters. i want to thank tom for his service to the community and congratulate him on this he esteemed award. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, when the door bell rang at 5:00 a.m., kimberly

met calf of florida knew her worst fear had come true. mr. deutch: her only child, 22-year-old michael, u.s. army private first class, died in afghanistan on sunday following an ied attack. he was killed at the wheel of his vehicle while trying to rescue other soldiers. described by his mother as tough and strong with a sensitive side, he performed this one last act of bravery came as no surprise to all who knew him. he attended park vista high school and graduated from st. john's northwestern military academy. he loved serving, skim boarding, and spending time by the water. on monday his friends and family gathered at the inlet to light cans on the sur board. winds blew all out but one. the candle wouldn't go out, he wanted to hang out with us all night. we'll never forget his sacrifice and the nation is grateful for his service. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek

recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, most people can point to at least one or two years historical figures or personal mentors who significantly affected their lives or calling. chuck coleson was all three of these things to me and many others. charles w. coleson went to be with his lord on april 21, 2012. chuck was a profound example of one saved by grace. as a slate legislator, i was greefed by oiler recidivism race and got involved in several prison ministries. mr. hultgren: the year before i ran for congress, i was part of his fantastic discipleship program. my wife and i chose to name our youngest son coleson. i pray for my cole that his life like chuck's would reflect the

life changing grace and redemption offered to us by the cross. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kosta: mr. speaker, i rise today no recognition of national crime victims rights week. as co-founder and co-chair with congressman ted poe of the bipartisan congressional victims rights caucus, we are well aware far too often that the victims of crime suffer in silence. just last week members of the caucus honored advocates nationwide for their work in supporting crime victims, including the university of california merced. candy owe donald brown of the mountain services center and the good work that she and her folks have done. every day these advocates worked tirelessly to guarantee every survivor has a place to turn for support in the aftermath of crime.

though we wish that commemorative weeks such as this were not necessary, they help educate the public and remind survivors that they are not and never will be forgotten. all of us have a responsibility to give voice to the challenges crime victims face. not just this week, but for every week of the year. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: thank you. i rise today with a heavy heart as the delivery ceremony of the last f-22 raptor will take place next wednesday in marietta, georgia, my hometown. tail number 195, far short of what our air force needs. over the last three decades the could be county community has watched the f-22 grace the skies as thousands of our citizens have worked steadfastly to make the production a model of

flying. many of our neighbors had a direct hand in producing most capable fighter jet in history. the program has been a critical component of america's industrial base and a source of economic strength creating 25,000 american jobs in 44 states and representing more than $112 billion in annual economic activity. the f-22 projects our citizens and our soldiers and deters americans -- america's enemies. its legacy will be a credit to our community for years to come. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues join me in recognizing lockheed martin and the f-22 program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. himes: i rise today on workers memorial day because 25 years ago in bridge port, connecticut, 28 construction workers lost their lives.

building a building using the controversial lift slab construction technique which even at the time was subject to controversy and is now subject to very significant regulation. this sad accident could easily have been avoided, but because the proper safety regulations were not in place, 28 men did not go home that day. when i attended a ceremony earlier this week to commemorate it, i met with some of the families, the men were husbands, fathers, brothers, and neighbors. day in and day out in this chamber we hear about job-killing regulations from the other side. and, yes, we must make sure our regulations are finely balanced, it has become religious in this chamber that all regulations whether they are there to preserve the lives of construction workers or keep children from dying of asthma are job-killing regulations. if this stays ideological and this religious, we will see more

killing of the real kind. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone questions if the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. votes will be taken later today. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the house suspend the rules h.r. 2096, the cybersecurity enhancement act of 2011, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2096, a bill to advance cybersecurity research, development, and technical standards, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

mr. mccaul: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in this bill, as amended, now under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, today congress has historic opportunity to lay the groundwork to defend our nation against cyberattacks. we are not talking about mischievous online activity but action that can bring america to its knees. unfortunately, this is not science fiction. america is under attack, not by armys advancing on our beaches or planes overhead, but in the virtual world where those who intend to do us harm have already penetrated our federal and private computer networks and continue to plot relentlessly to bring down our critical infrastructure, our water supply, nuclear facilities, air traffic control

systems, electrical grid and defense and banking systems are all vulnerable to a crippling attack. general keith alexander, director of the national security agency, said it is not a matter of if but when a cyberpearl harbor occurs. we are simply fortunate that a computer-based attack has not yet brought physical harm to americans. but that is not for lack of trying. china has already successfully stolen some of our biggest military secrets such as information about the f-35 joint stryke fighter, the department of defense's biggest weapon ever. now they know the program well enough not only to copy it but to guard against it. similar attacks continue unabated on our military's computer systems. hackers trick soldiers into downloading software into their

computers. imagine if agents of a foreign government were breaking into the pentagon and stealing top-secret documents, paper files. it would not be tolerated. it would be all over the front page of "the washington post," and yet in the virtual world that is occurring. in fact, october, 2011, report to congress on foreign economic collection and industrial espionage states as part of china and russia's national policy to try to identify and take sensitive technology which they need for their own development. in fact, they train and have a cyberwarfare college. the degradation of our intellectual property threatens to weaken us where we have historically been strong. the n.s.a. calculates that russia and china has stolen $1 trillion in american

intellectual property, the biggest transfer of wealth in history. their philosophy is why invent if you can steal it? groups such as unanimous, anti-sec who indulge in nonstate hacktavism, they steal from those whom they disagree with. they think of nothing of closing down websites, hacking into email and voicemails, taking sensitive information from those who don't do their bidding. there's been a lot of hard work going into this week, this cyberweek and a lot of thought to find solutions. as co-chair of the center for strategic and international studies commission on cybersecurity for the 44th president, i helped draft recommendations for securing the country's government networks and critical infrastructures. as a member of the speaker's cybertask force and chairman of the house cybersecurity caucus,

i helped present those recommendations to congress in the legislation we have seen this week. the historic legislation the house votes on this week incorporates many of these recommendations. this bill, the cybersecurity enhancement act, gives the national institute of standards and technology the authority to set security standards for federal computer systems and develop checklists for agencies to follow. why is that important? it hardens our federal networks. every federal agency has been hacked into by agents of a foreign power, by hactavists, every federal agency, including the pentagon, has been hacked into. this bill will make them less vulnerable to such an attack. it also creates a federal university private sector task force to coordinate research and development. it establishes cybersecurity research and development grant

programs and improves the quality of our cyberwork force by creating a scholarship program. importantly, it creates an education and awareness program for computer hygiene. when you talk to the n.s.a., they tell you that computer hygiene accounts for the majority of cyberattacks. this would remedy the majority of vulnerabilities that we face. and finally, it sets forth procurement standards for hardware and software that will minimize security risks. this will also have a ripple effect in the private sector so that they will also adopt such procurement standards. other legislation we saw that passed yesterday facilitates the sharing of information, of threat information between the public and private sector which controls most of our critical infrastructure. i think it's important to make the analogy that what we did yesterday was simply -- simply allow the federal government to share signature threat information with the private

sector. similar to a police officer sharing with a homeowner a threat that they see of someone breaking into their house and then telling them how they can better protect their house and lock the door without the door being opened. these commonsense reforms are a baseline of what we need to secure our infrastructure. we must take action before life is lost and our economy and defenses have been weakened to the point of damaging our country. one of the biggest failures after 9/11 was the knowledge that the attacks could have been prevented with better intelligence information sharing and protective measures. it is also lack of imagination. and while we can't change the past, we can use it as a lesson as we go forward in our modern cyberworld, a world in which our water supply, defense systems, nuclear power plants, electrical grid, banking

systems, f.a.a. and other critical infrastructures are vulnerable to cyberthieves, attacks and terrorists. we know what has to be done. mr. speaker, the time to act is now. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. lipinski: i rise in support of h.r. 2096, the cybersecurity enhancement act. i would like to thank my colleague, mr. mccaul, for his hard work on this critical piece of national cybersecurity policy. as co-founder of the house cybersecurity caucus, mr. mccaul has become increasingly important to our nation. our work together on this legislation, which began last congress, demonstrates that this bill is good bipartisan

public policy that should receive overwhelming support in this house. in 2009 the president called for a comprehensive 60-day review of u.s. cyberspace policy. that call in the subsequent expert recommendations contained in the report led to a series of hearings on cybersecurity r&d, and it resulted in the cybersecurity enhancement act of 2010 which i sponsor and worked on with mr. mccaul in the science and technology committee last congress. that bill passed this chamber by a vote of 422-5. unfortunately, it was not taken up by the senate. since that time, cyberthreats have only increased. so last may, mr. mccaul and i introduced this bill once again to address the pressing education, research and development and standards and practices aspects of

cybersecurity. in america every individual and every organization, including the federal government, is vulnerable to cybercrime. our most sensitive data is stored on computers. there are countless individuals, groups and nations relentlessly focused on exploiting gaps in our cybersecurity system. the federal trade commission estimates that identity theft costs consumers $50 billion annually. there was a cyberattack that required the economic development administration to unplug from the network. and just yesterday, the homeland security committee heard from witnesses about iran's development of a cyberarmy. cybercrime evolves as quickly aztec nothing itself. it will take a collective effort by the federal government, the private sector, our scientists and engineers

and every american to defeat it. and h.r. 2096 will help to do this. the first stop is education. this bill builds on existing partnerships such as the n.s.f. center for system security and information insurance at marine valley community college in illinois. this community college has trained hundreds of teachers and college faculty in cybersecurity related areas since 2003. individuals who are now teaching at colleges and technical training programs nationwide. h.r. 2096 also provides scholarships to students pursuing a degree in cybersecurity in exchange for their service in the federal i.t. work force. this approach not only provides for the immediate network needs for the federal government but also builds aline for private industry. now, in addition to the skilled i.t. work force, our nation also needs advancements in

basic r&d. cyberthreats are constantly evolving and cybersecurity r&d must reflect a comprehensive effort that builds towards a more secure foundation in the short and long term. so this legislation requires relevant federal agencies to work with the national science and technology council to develop a national strategic plan for cybersecurity r&d that sets priorities based on risk assessments, focuses on transformational technologies and technology programs. it will build on infrastructure that we need to get the best ideas out of the lab and into the marketplace. and because people are perhaps the weakest link in many i.t. systems, the reerch strategy will include the social sciences to help us better understand how humans interact with technology. promoting public awareness of good computer hygiene can go a long way to protecting our

systems. the dissemination of simple concepts, such as installing anti-virus software and not opening email from unknown sources can go a long way in reducing the threat of cybercrime. the legislation also calls on the national institutes of standards and technology to be the leader in both the domestic and international cybersecurity standards. as mr. mccaul said, h.r. 2096 passed -- developing a comprehensive international cybersecurity strategy that defines what working and i.t. technical standards we need determines where they're being developed, it ensures the united states is represented. and finally, recognition of the federal government's increasing efforts to utilize remote data centers. in this coping, i worked to add language so that the bill now directs them to work with other

agencies and with experts in the private sector to ensure that consistent and secure standards on cloud computing are put in place across the federal government. as cloud computing is used more and more by the federal government, we must make sure that this data is safe. mr. speaker, this bill is a necessary and vitally important step toward securing a public-private and personal i.t. systems. it is a good bipartisan bill, and i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i rise to yield to my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the science and technology committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hall: i thank you. i want to thank my fellow texan, representative michael mccaul, for his very capable leadership, for his wonderful

opening statement. it allows me to expect less time. . his knowledge of cybersecurity issues is a very important asset to this congress and benefit to the nation and i'm pleased to join him as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2096, the cybersecurity enhancement act of 2012. as he stated so eloquently, as i rely on information technology expands, so do our vulnerabilities. protecting the nation's cyberinfrastructure is a responsibility shared by a number of different federal agencies, including the national science foundation and national institute of standards and technology. h.r. 2096 primarily addresses cybersecurity research and development efforts conducted at or led by these agencies. it re-authorizes existing by expired research and education programs at n.s.f. while eliminating two unnecessary programs and enhances scholarships to increase the size and skill to the federal

cybersecurity work force. it strengthens the cybersecurity r&d education, and awareness of nist and it provides for strategy planning for cybersecurity r&d across the federal government. this is a good fiscally responsible bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. it represents a modest but critical of congress' overall efforts to address the cybersecurity in the united states. this bill has the support of numerous organizations, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, which caused h.r. 2096, an important step toward improving federal cybersecurity r&d activities to improve the security, reliability, of america's digital infrastructure in partnership with industry, unquote. i support the passage of h.r. 2096 and encourage my colleagues to do the same. i thank you again. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. lipinski: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from rhode island, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to rise today in strong support of the cybersecurity enhancement act offered by my good friend and colleague, the co-chair of the cybersecurity caucus, mr. mccaul. the gentleman and i have been at this issue for several years now, when we first began the effort back in 2006 or 2007, i think for the most part most people we talked about cybersecurity it was cyber what? oh, how things have changed.

i think we certainly collectively between he and i and many others have raised the awareness of this issue and importance and challenges we face in securing our nation in cyberspace. i'm deeply grateful for his efforts. it is impossible to overstate the importance of a cyberdomain to our national security infrastructure and our economic competitiveness. clearly we all recognize how much we use the internominate every day in our daily lives, whether it's for our commerce, our communication, social networking, or national security issues. it really has become part of our daily lives. but in securing the cyberdomain, we also face immense challenges. cyberthreats are clearly growing more numerous, sophisticated, and successful. we all know of someone who perhaps has had their bank accounts hacked and money stolen or their identity stolen or

their credit card number or social security number stolen because of a cyberattack on a company or government institution. we also have heard numerous attacks, we see them daily, on cyberespionage. the gentleman did -- from texas did a great job of outlining some of the specific challenges, the f-35 is one case in particular that comes to mind. billions of dollars in r&d is stolen on a daily or weekly basis by our adversaries. of course we have heard and documented numerous issues of cyberattacks. thankfully nothing major yet in this country. as the director of the n.s.a. has outlined, these days perhaps are common. reneed to do all we can to avoid them. well-intentioned technology -- technological changes that

create efficiencies through auto miization can leave us for vulnerable to cyberexploitation. clearly these efishenscies -- efficiencies have helped us to be much more efficient. as the test from idaho national labs, which sew showed how easily -- easy it would be to conduct a scare attack that penetrated systems that are government safety systems on pumps, val fls -- valves, and generators could cause the generator to blow itself up. these things can happen and we need to do all we can to avoid them. make sure that day never comes. obviously we have to tap into our creative and innovative spirit to address today's challenges. agile facing tomorrow's threats. i'm pleased this bill helps us to make this need a reality by strengthening the coordination and cooperation among the various research and development

efforts across the federal government. the fruits of that research will be critical to our nation's future defense and cyberdomain. additionally i'm pleased to highlight this bill enhances programs that increases size and skills of our nation's cybersecurity work force. we have a critical shortage of qualified cyberexperts and we need to address that need. the director of the c.i.a. clandestine information technology office estimates that we only have about 1,000 people that can operate in the country at world class levels in cyberspace. what he says is we need someone between 20 and 30,000 people. we all heard about the skills gap we face in this country. we are taking high tech companies having a real difficult time finding qualified workers to fill those jobs of the 21st century. we need to do better in closing our skills gap. to this end last year the national defense authorization

act commissioned a study that the pentagon had to conduct to determine its cyberwork force needs, and give them a situational awareness about who they have with those capabilities and what those needs will be now and in the future. there's been a successful study, the pentagon is putting that plan and information into action to close that gap. at the high school level in rhode island and several other states we have worked with the standards institute to create a cyberchallenge. we need to focus on our young people and get them focused on a potential career in cybersecurity. and that program has been incredibly successful. in closing that gap and developing cyberwork force, this legislation is an important step in that effort. i want to thank the gentleman from texas for his leadership on this issue and i'm pleased to support this bipartisan legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. let me point of personal

privilege give me thanks to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, my good friend, colleague, co-chair of the cybersecurity caucus. through your vision, your leadership on this very, very important issue as you and i know, we were into this issue of cybersecurity six years ago before it was really cool to be into cybersecurity. thank you so much for your leadership. with that, mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from texas, my good friend and colleague and also the chairman of the speaker's cybersecurity caucus, mr. thornberry, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. thornberry: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate the chairman of the science committee, mr. hall, and the ranking member, ms. johnson, for bringing this bill and the next bill to the floor. this will mean the house will have passed four bills this week related to cybersecurity, taking important steps in the right direction. i particularly appreciate the work of the gentleman from

texas, mr. mccaul, mr. lipinski, for bringing this bill to the floor. as they have said they have been working on it for a while, and i appreciate their persistence and also the substance of the bill. of course the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, as you have heard has been working in this area for a number of years and the study that he co-chaired with mr. langevin with remains one of the leading studies in this field. mr. speaker, this bill is important. you have heard about the education and awareness. it also helps make sure that the research and development is coordinated so that we don't duplicate within the federal government but also that it is complementary to what the private sector is doing because i think it's important to family size that the answer to cybersecurity is not a government program, it is our people and innovation.

that is really the key. and so others may steal information from us. they may even copy some of the things they steal, but what they can't do is produce the sort of innovation and new approaches that are absolutely essential to our future. that's why -- that's part of the reason this bill is important. it's part of the reason we have to be careful about new regulations and other things that some people want to do because nurturing the innovation that comes from this country at the private sector and government, is absolutely essential to our future. so so i appreciate all of the work the gentleman from texas and others have done not only this bill but the larger scheme of things as it cuts across a number ever committees. it takes our country a few steps in the right direction, but it's important that we take those steps and -- for our future security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i

yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from texas, the ranking member of the committee, ms. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. johnson: thank you very much. let me express my appreciation to the leaders on this bill. this is a good bipartisan bill and it is nearly identical to the legislation that passed the house by an overwhelming majority last congress. and i'd like to certainly cite mr. lipinski and mr. mccaul for their leadership and work on this bill. the internet and our access to the internet through computers, tablets, smart phones, etc. has greatly increased our productivity and our connectivity. unfortunately this connectivity and dependence on our infrastructure, our commerce,

and great deal of our day-to-day lives on information technology has increased our vulnerability to cyberattack. for example, you may recall last year the networks of 48 companies were penetrated for at least six months by a hacker and who was looking for intellectual property to steal. and it was reported that the personal information of nearly 80 million video game users was compromised. so we need to do what we can to help ensure that these sorts of intrusions are minimized. to do this we need to build a strong partnership between us allowing agencies, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and educational institutions. so i'm pleased that h.r. 2096 strengthens the public-private partnerships, guarantees the

comprehensive several cybersecurity portfolio, trains the next generation of cybersecurity professionals, and ensures the development of cybersecurity technical standards. these activities are essential to our efforts to advance the security of our current information and communication systems and to build future systems that are more security from the outset. i would ask at this time, mr. speaker, that the remainder of my statement be placed in the record and simply close by saying thank you, mr. mccaul and mr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, does the gentleman from illinois have any additional speakers? mr. lipinski: just myself to close. i'm ready. mr. mccaul: i will close as

well. i yield to you for your closing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i want to thank mr. langevin, the other co-chair of the cybersecurity caucus, for all his work. thank ranking member johnton -- johnson for her work, chairman hall, especially mr. mccaul for coming to the on this bill. we started this last congress, hopefully we'll get it finished in this congress. we know that cyberthreats are everywhere from cyberarmy threatening our nation to cybercrime that threatens the financial security of all americans. this bill addresses three key pieces of protecting our nation. improving education, r&d, and development of standards. all of these are key pieces.

we have to continue to develop as the threats develop. and this will help us to do that. so i want to urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, let me first -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. mccaul: i want to thank mr. lipinski for his great leadership. we've been pushing this bill, the second congress we've pushed this. i hope this goes to the senate and gets signed into law. but you've been a real leader on cybersecurity. it's been an honor to serve with you on the science and technology committee together, and just let me again thank you for all your great efforts. at a time with intense partisanship where there's so

much acura moany on both -- so much ack row moany on -- acramony on both sides, we can come together and do something that's right. cybersecurity is in the best interest of the nation. defending the united states is a fundamental element under the constitution, and so for me personally to see us come together like we have today is, again, a very refreshing thing. you know, my father flew in a b-17 over europe, 35 bombing missions. he was a bombadder. at the time the state of warfare was very kinetic. they had -- we are faced with a new threat. there are not bombs of his era, of his day, but rather digital

bombs. they can be dropped at any time. they have dropped on this government, on the federal government, in our private sector. bombs that have strollen $1 trillion of intellectual property, bombs that have committedies peenage and stolen our -- committed espionage and stolen our military secrets, and bombs that could be conducted in a cyberwarfare attack. i think the thing that keeps me most at night is cyberwarfare because we know what our offensive capability is. we know what we can do and conduct as a nation against another nation. that technology in the wrong hands like a country like iran could cause great devastation against the interest of the united states, bringing down power grids, bring down financial institutions. every critical infrastructure

tied to the internet is vulnerable to this type of attack. so i believe that this legislation will protect this nation in such -- from such attacks. you know, we all came up here to serve not for ego, not for title, but at the end of the day to make a difference, to make a fundamental difference in the lives of americans. so i believe a moment like this is a great moment that we can reflect back later in our lives and think, you know, i made a difference. this bill protects americans and future generations, and so with that, let me thank all those who have been involved in this critical legislation and particularly mr. lipinski, for your patriotism to this country and what you've done getting this to move forward. and with that, mr. speaker, i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time has been yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2096. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2096, as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hall: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3834, advancing america's networking and information technology research and development act of 2012, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 289, h.r. 3834, a bill to amend the high-performance computing act of 1991 to authorize activities for support of networking and information technology research, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. johnson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 3834, as amended, the bill now under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hall: as sponsor of h.r. 3834, the advancing america's networking and information technology research and development act of 2012, i rise today in strong support of this legislation. before i dive into the details of the bill, i want to thank the leadership to address our serious cybersecurity challenges.

this task force, led by representative mac thornberry, set the direction for all the bills we're considering this week. the science committee started our cybersecurity work early in congress, so i was very pleased to see the task force embrace both mr. mccaul's bill, h.r. 2096, and h.r. 3834 as necessary steps to improve the u.s. cybersecurity. i'd like to also thank my texas colleague, ranking member johnson, my neighbor, for joining me in co-sponsoring h.r. 3834, which updates the program. the program is an important component of our nation's cybersecurity efforts and it is critical to our overall networking and information technology research and development in general. it's a product of the high performance computing act of 1991 and coordinates the government's r&d investment in

unclassified networking computing software, cybersecurity and related information technologies. the bill before us today updates the underlying high-performance computing statute that's been in place for 20 years and codifies the work national coordination office already undertakes. specifically h.r. 3834 improves program statistic planning and coordination and rebalances r&d portfolios to focus less on short-term goals and more on long-scale, long-term interdisciplinary research. it updates research to reflect newer technologies like, quote, big data, unquote and cyberphysical systems. also convenes an interagency working group to identify gaps in cloud computing research and examines and the potential for using the cloud for federally funded research and codifies and emphasizes the role of the

national coordination office. networking and information technology includes a broad range of technologies from smartphones to cloud computing. these innovations stems from many disciplines and led advance to search and rescue robots, unmanned aerial vehicles, near real-time weather forecasting. these types -- devices for assisted living and computer-based education and training, r&d in this field seeks to minimize and prevent disruptions to critical infrastructure like power grids and emergency communication systems. this essential r&d is part of the reason that the house republican cybersecurity task force identified this program as important to our nation. other cybersecurity agencies is research to detect, prevent, resist, recover from actions that compromise our threaten the availability, ingenuity or

security of computer and network basic systems. currently 15 federal agencies are contributing members of this program with an additional 20 or so participating in the program. coordination increases the overall effectiveness and productivity of our information technology and cybersecurity r&d, leverages our strength of voice duplication and improves interoperability of r&d product. more importantly, networking and information technology r&d supports and boosts u.s. competitiveness, enhances national security and helps strengthen the economy through the creation of high-level jobs. h.r. 3834, the house passed twice in the last congress only to see it languish in the senate. i urge passage of this and once again hopes the senate will act accordingly. as with all the cybersecurity bills before us today, h.r.

3834 enjoys the support of numerous industry supporters and technology stakeholders. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. johnson: i rise in support of h.r. 3834, the advancing america's networking and information technology research and development act of 2012. h.r. 3834 is a good bipartisan bill which i was pleased to join chairman hall in introducing. it is largely based on the 2009 house-passed bill which was then introduced by then chairman gordon and ranking member hall, but the current bill also includes some updates from the 2009 bill that

approximately reflect -- appropriately reflect changes to the network and information technology landscape as well as policy and management recommendations made by an outside panel of experts charged with evaluating the mitrd program. it involves the collaboration of 15 federal research and development agencies each contributing its own unique expertise. to ensure that we make the most effective use of our federal r&d resources and remain a leader in these fields, h.r. 3834 requires that all 15 agencies come together to develop and periodically update a stra t.j. inc. plan for r&d. h.r. 3834 calls for increased support for large-scale,

long-term interdisciplinary research and n.i.t. that will help us tackle challenges, such as improving the effectiveness and efficiency of our health care and energy delivery system. the bill also promotes partnerships between the federal government academia and industry to foster technology transfer. in particular, i'd like to highlight this bill's role in ensuring that the education of future n.i.t. work force is a major component of the program. i'm hearing every day from small and large companies alike that the demand for skilled american i.t. professionals is higher than the supply. we hear the same message from university faculty who tell us that computer science graduates are snatched up the moment they graduate. even while we are in the midst

of a recession. this gap between supply and demand exists despite the fact that these jobs are among the highest paying and the most stable jobs out there. it is imperative that we encourage more young americans to pursue studies in i.t. fields. in fact because of the stark gender and racial gaps we see in computer science programs, it is imperative that we encourage more young women and students of color to enter these fields. we simply cannot afford to ignore more than 50% of our nation's brainpower. h.r. 3834 doesn't go quite as farther as i'd like for it to go in addressing these education challenges, but it still sends an important message about the need to educate more of our students in n.i.t. fields and provides the national authority for the agencies to play an appropriate

role here. finally, since this is cyberweek, i'd like -- i would be remiss not to mention that these programs serve as a coordinating and planning umbrella for all unclassified federal cybersecurity r&d. our committee addressed specific needs in cybersecurity r&d in a separate bill being considered -- just considered today, but in doing so we made sure that both the intellectual and financial resources for cybersecurity r&d are appropriately integrated into the rest of the n.i.t. portfolio. . it builds on all network and information technologies. in closing, n.i.t. technology gis cut across every sector of our economy and national defense infrastructure. our relatively modest 20-year investment has contributed

immeasurably to our economic and national security by enabling innovation and job creation in i.t. and providing american students with the skills who fulfill these jobs. let's thors this program today and ensure -- authorize this program today and ensure it remains strong. i want to thank my friend, chairman hall, and his staff, especially annette for working so collaboratively and openly with us on this good bipartisan bill. i'd also like to thank my staff and in particular dahlia for their hard work on the bill. i urge my colleagues to support 3834. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i rise today in support of h.r. 3834.

also own as the networking and information technology research and development act. this program provides critical support and coordination for some of the most promising research and development on the computing horizon. namely protection for our cybernetworks and next generation of supercomputing. information technology research plays a critical role in the u.s. economic strength. according to the council on competitiveness, our country's ability to outcompete other nations will be determined by our ability to outcompute. america's scientists, businesses, and manufacturing already use computing technologies to accelerate the pace of research on everything from new energy sources, new medicines, intellectual property, and national security. by passing this bill today, we

maintain our leadership and focus in technology, innovation, and information security. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3834, advancing america's networking and information act of 2012. i'd like to thank ranking member hall -- chairman hall and ranking member johnson. as a co-sponsor of the bill in 2009, while the senate never acted on it, i'm hopeful this will be a first step in taking action this year. the nitrd program evolved from the high performance computing act of 1991 which funded the

development of mosaic, the first commercial web browser which made internet user friendly and facilitated the cyberrevolution in the 1990's. this innovation was created by a team of programmers at the national center for supercomputing applications at the university of illinois. mark, one of the lead programmers on this project and founder of netscape, summed up the importance of the investment in his research saying, if it had been left to the private industry, it wouldn't have happened. at least not until years later. innovate great things like mosaic changed our everyday lives and established the united states as the world leader in networking and information technologies. today we find ourselves in a world in which we can no longer take u.s. supremacy for granted. we must make measured choices to prioritize cutting-edge large-scaled r&d and effective

technology transfer policies, focus on most advanced areas of network and information technology. h.r. 3834 achieves these ends through the development of a coordinated federal r&d investment strategy. this bill requires federal agencies in the nfpc to develop five-year plans, justifying a long objective, to ensure we maintain u.s. leadership in these fields. in order to guarantee groundbreaking advancements, the strategic plans will be required to encourage innovative and high-risk research projects that address long-term challenges of national importance. increasingly complex chal lection we face requires ficted -- sophisticated solutions not just from expertise, and also the public and private sectors as well. this legislation encourages

collaboration among universities, industries, nonprofit research institutions, and federal laboratories to take our biggest challenges. it provides the impetus needed for research in high-risk areas that might not otherwise be taken up. we also need to be cognizant upon the r&d we fund will actually impact and benefit our economy and our society. while basic research is critical, the effective transfer results of research into product companies and jobs is necessary for our nation to remain a leader in networking and information technology. this bill promotes effective technology transfer policies by requiring strategic plans and larger scale research projects to incorporate plans and policies that promote commercialization. it is vital that we get our scientific development out of the lab and into the marketplace . we put a lot of investment into

our labs. we need to make sure that this provides the economic engine of growth for our nation. mr. speaker, this legislation will focus our scientific community through innovative large scale and collaborative r&d. we need to remain a leader in networking and information technologies. this is a good bipartisan bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from tfpblgts miss johnson: mr. speaker, i have no more requests for time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hall: ms. johnson, you yielded back the balance of your time?

miss johnson: i just urged passage and yielded back. mr. hall: thank you. i'd like to point out our efforts on this bill have been a really true illustration of the bipartisan work which the science committee and this congress is capable of. i believe ms. johnson will attest our staffs work well together to ensure this measure replaced good policy coordinations, networking, and information technology. i want to thank her and i want to thank her staff for the work on this bill. actually and additionally i'd like to also thank the chairman of the research and science education subcommittee for his leadership on the bill and mrs. biggert for her many years of championing this issue. i encourage my deletion join me in support -- colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 3834, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. all time's expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

3834 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hall: object to the to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, -- the gentleman from texas requested the yeas and nays? mr. hall: yes. now i object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman makes a point of order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on natural resources be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4849, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4849, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to issue commercial use authorizations, to commercial stock operators for operations in designated wilderness within the sequoia and kings canyon national parks and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? mr. miller: i won't object i yield to the gentleman from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized on his reservation. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this legislation addresses an urgent need at the sequoia and kings canyon national parks in california. because of a lawsuit, the

national park service has chosen not to issue commercial packer permits this year. these permits allow mules and horses into the park to carry visitors and supplies. unfortunately this not only means the loss of 100 or so jobs, it also canceled long-planned family vacations into the outdoors. for many americans whether elderly or handicapped, stock animals are the overwhelm option if they want to visit our national parks. today we have an option to right a wrong to allow these permits to be awarded to responsible stewards of our parks. this bipartisan legislation was worked out between members of both parties in a california delegation. time is very crucial here. this only extends what has been happening for decades in sequoia and kings canyon national parks. we must act now if there is any hope of preserving the season for those individuals who planned and paid for their visit in the national park. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. miller: i yield -- mr.

speaker, members of the house, the bill before us today as amened this morning gives the secretary of the interior the authority to reopen the wilderness areas in sequoia and kings canyon national parks to pack and saddle animals for the 2012-2013 season earlier this week i joined my colleagues joim kosta, john garamendi, and sam farr in leather to chairman hastings and ranking member markey of the natural resources committee. we asked the committee on behalf of our california constituents to resolve this situation that's already affecting families and businesses and harming the regional economy. in response to the court order, the national park service has not been allowing pack animals into the park wilderness areas this year. this suasion has caused economic harm to out fitters, packers, guides, and other permit holders who rely on the income park visitors bring to the area and causing visitors to reconsider trips to the park and wilderness areas. today the house is taking this

action and i want to thank mr. markey an chavepl hastings. i spoke to chairman hastings less than 24 hours ago on the content of our letter and both he and mr. nunes came forward and asked whether or not we could do this by unanimous consent. that's why we are here this morning. i want to thank the staffs of both the majority and minority side of this committee for all their work. they worked overnight because very early this morning we all signed off on this legislation. i think that this legislation is a very good deal for families and visitors to the park. it's a good deal for the businesses who depend upon spring and summer wilderness trips for their livelihood. the high country wilderness in the sierras is one of the premiere experiences the national park service has to offer and for many the only way to have this experience is through the use of pack animals for whatever personal reasons either frailty, age -- age would be my reason, i think it's important. i have hiked. i have not had the pleasure to

hike the high country in kings canyon and seeya and yosemite, it's a unique experience. i hope that the senate will be able to take this up by unanimous consent quickly so, again, the people planning to take their trips, the panningers will have certainty, and the surrounding businesses around sequoia, kings canyon park will have certainty that the summer trade will be there. i want to thank the chairman of the committee for his immediate response to our concern. i want to thank my colleagues who joined me on that. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve my objection. i believe the gentleman has an additional motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his reservation? mr. miller: i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of washington, page 2, line 5--

mr. hastings: ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the amendment is agreed to. the bill is engrossed, read a third time, and passed. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 631, i call up h.r. 4628 and i ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4628, a bill to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate federal direct stafford loans. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 631, the bill is considered as read. the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4628. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, when i talk to students and

families, it's clear today's economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it once did. our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are moving back home after college only to find washington's tax and spend policies have made it even harder to find a job. in fact, according to a recent associated press report, at least half of recent graduates are unemployed or underemployed. that's unacceptable. under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only gets worse as interest rates on subsidized stafford student loans are set to spike from 3.4% to 6.8% on july 1 of this year. that's why i've introduced h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act, a bill that would avert this interest rate increase because the last thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it much -- that much harder to afford a high-quality education.

unfortunately, that's exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in a bipartisan way to pay for this critical instant rate fix. under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the president earlier this year. just three months ago, members on both sides of the aisle came together and the president signed a bill that extended unemployment benefits in the payroll tax cut. the legislation i offer today would use as an offset the exact same source that we all agreed to use just three months ago. the bill would eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called prevention and public health fund, which in truth is nothing more than an open-ended fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. at best this fund serves only to sir cuck vent congress' annual appropriations responsibilities by granting in

perpetuity the secretary of health and human services' unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the loose label of prevention programs. i should note that the president himself acknowledged the prevention fund is -- when he requested a $4 billion cut to the program in his f.y. 2013 budget. by reclaiming a portion of the administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of this blank check program, the legislation would extend lower rates for college loans, granting relief to our young people without raising taxes on their potential employees -- employers. it's a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. i ask my colleagues to step forward today and show the american people that we can solve this problem immediately without the drama of a last-minute ondeadline fix. it's my hope that our colleagues in the senate as well will work with us to send it to the president

immediately. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the instant rate -- interest rate reduction act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. tierney: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's nice to have our republican friends finally agree the interest rates will be a problem if they rise and doubled. 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, 2011 and this has been raised to a degree where students and families started to really get involved and engaged that our friends on the other side of the aisle decided, well, they don't want the rates to go up either. but cynically, some might say, the only way they can find a pay-for is to attack women's health and children's health. women don't want this bill that way. children -- students don't want

the bill this way. public health groups don't want the bill this way. the senate said they won't accept the bill this way. it's dead on arrival. and the white house sees it this way. if we want to set aside partisanship, let's pick a pay-for that the american people can get behind and we can all agree on. let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games and do the right thing. let's make sure the interest rates stay at 3.4%. let's make sure that 177,000 students in massachusetts and seven million nationwide have affordable access to college and be 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. his trump tower leasing company. to give to other people that already had millions of dollars and didn't pay for it. this week they finally get around to the issue trying to

help students and come up with a cynical aspect of paying for it by once again attacking women's health, adding children on. immunization, screenings for breast cancer and birth defects. this is ridiculous. we should move forward and do the right thing. the fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little bit in the last two times, as the speaker mentioned on that, but left largely intact. this one would wipe out the entire fund. twice the amount 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 of the senate will have to work in conference to make sure we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense. 250 tax expenditures in the tax code.

$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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 43, providing for a condition adjournment or recess of the senate and adjournment of the house of representatives in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the gentleman from new jersey that we also for prevention, but we have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of

what we do and not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person who is not -- when there is no oversight by congress. and with that i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan for two minutes. and a member of our education and work force committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, just a bit of history lesson. we hear a lot of demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land about the unwillingness for republicans to help our students, our college students receive the education that they need by having the loans that they deserve. going back to 2006, as part of the democrats' six in 2006 campaign agenda, the democrats promised to cut student loans interest in half. when they took the majority and i sat on the house education

and labor committee at the time, they gained control of congress, all of a sudden they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do so they put in place, against our opposition, saying that the private sector still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it fluctuate and flow at a variable rate with the market, ultimately reducing the overall cost of interest over the course of time for our students. they chose not to do that. they put in a place the plan that we have right now, a democrat plan that said in fact we will go to 6.8% in july of 2012. after dropping it back because they knew they couldn't afford it. they did it at a short-term process and ultimately it comes to fruition now that we are at a cost problem. and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. it is their plan that we're dealing with. it is their mess that we're asked to fix at this point in

time. the college cost reduction access act incrementally reduced to 3.4% that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place of what we're looking at. as the expiration date crept closer, democrats did nothing in the 111th congress, despite knowing this would take place, and now we have a problem. mr. speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation garb and on one of the top of the motor boards it says, hire me. that's the issue we're talking about, an economy that doesn't offer jobs. and so what we ought to be looking at here is growing economy, not on obamacare fix that will cost reasonable programs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. biggert: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. walberg: we ought to be looking for ways for growing an economy that gives the opportunity for students to get

jobs, pay off loans at whatever rate it will be and there is a much better way to do it than the way it's been done. we ought to be growing a economy for job providers as opposed to what the senate sent over to us, their solution to whack at more job providers, make it more difficult to find stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply the opportunity to be hired. i thank the speaker and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield -- reminding the gentleman in 2007 the bill was paid for. in fact it was paid for with 77 members of the republican party agreeing to it and now it's time to pay for it in an intelligent and correct manner. i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the fix that the republicans are in and after a week ago you almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4%

interest rate to students and in adopting the ryan republican budget agreeing to let it go out to 6.8%. in fact, they used that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy that they anticipate in their budget, so they took students' money and the families and the savings they were made out of this, almost $16 billion over the last four years, and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8%. president obama went on the road for three days and all of a sudden the republicans have decided that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4%. you can say all of this is cynical. i believe it is on their part because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. they see their position in being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer. to attack the ability of public

health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects. to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. so now on the cover of being for student health -- i mean, for student loans, they are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion. you know, every now and then in this place where it's terribly partisan, it can be very cynical as we see with this action today, with this bill, a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and understanding, and we see today that we have statements by almost all of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4% but we do not want kept it at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parent's health, our mother's health, our sister's health, our friend's health.

i ask for one minute. so we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a time-out and say, find another way to pay for this but don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants, don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease, don't it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer where the difference can mean life or death for those women. don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the backs of our students. don't do it in our name. in our name, don't do this legislation. vote no against this. we'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. that's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire,

charlie bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for two minutes. mr. bass: i thank the speaker and i thank my colleague from illinois for recognizing me. there's a little disagreement between republicans and democrats over the need to extend the subsidized interest rates for student loans for at least another year. student loan debt now in america exceeds $1 trillion which i believe is more than the entire nation's credit card debt. it's a very serious national priority that needs to be addressed and should be resolved into a bipartisan fashion. as you can tell from the tenor of the debate this morning, it is the issue how we are going to come up with the money to pay for this. first of all i think it's a miracle we are debating that. prior administration in this congress wouldn't even have brought the subject up how to pay for it. at least the democrats now want to pay for it by raising prices on gasoline through higher taxes on oil companies, and i believe

that taxation of oil companies should be on the table in tax reform not an education bill. we have a proposal that would reduce the funding in the prevention to public health fund account, and of course our friends on the other side of the aisle are right on message on their national message of tying everything that republicans want to do to be some sort of a battle against women. let me just point out that i believe there is already about $119 million in f.y. 2011 for the c.d.c.'s earlry breast and cervical cancer and early detection program. i know my friend from illinois will probably enumerate on this further. i would point out that the program or the funds that the democrats are trying to protect actually is providing money for early detection, but it's for free spaying and neutering for dogs and cats around the country. this money comes out of

communities work campaign and that's receiving money from health and human services secretary slush fund. i would also point out to my friends that this fund has already been reduced in order to pay for the payroll tax deduction. it's not setting a precedent. i would suggest that a fund that's funded at $17.75 -- can i get 30 seconds? i would suggest a fund that's funded at $17.75 billion for the first 10 years and then automatically advance appropriated for $2 billion a year, i never heard of that in the congress. that means that we are turning over our authority to raise and appropriate money to the tune of $2 billion a year to the health and human services secretary with no oversight from congress at all. i want student loans to remain at their lower rate and i want to do it in a fiscally responsible fashion. that's what this bill does. i yield back to my friend from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. tierney: address the fact that the elimination of the need is on an annual basis, $326,000 fewer women will be screened for breast cancer. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. terny -- tierney. you want to first of all recognize your leadership and george miller's leadership back in 2007 when we passed the college cost reduction act which reduced an interest rate of 67.8% -- 6.8% which was set as a result of a republican congress in 2002 which passed a budget reconciliation act locking in that higher rate. it has saved 15 million students in this country higher debt levels because we cut that rate from 3.4%. sadly the speaker of the house, john boehner, voted against that measure. sadly my good friend from men mb, the chairman of the house education and work force committee, voted against that

measure in 2007. it was well understood it had a five-year sunset, like a lot of programs in tax policies in this congress. people were complaining about the clip we created. how about the bush tax cuts? that's got a $4 trillion cliff on december 31 because the majority party when they enacted the tax cuts sunset that measure. here we are today, 64 days away, and we are now suddenly seeing the majority party nudging on this subject. as mr. miller pointed out, the ryan budget, which the republicans lined up as a party to pass two or three weeks ago. they locked in the higher rate, built into the ryan budget. in addition in doubled down on higher education affordability by cutting the pell grant award from $6,000 to $5,000. that is the republican higher education platform. thankfully we have a president who stood on the platform on

january 24 and challenged this congress to protect that lower rate and because we did not get a healing, we didn't get a will, we didn't get a markup, we got no flicker of action by the leadership of this chamber, he went on the road and talked to the people of this country like presidents before him, like harry truman and others, because that was the only way you are going to turn this body around was with external pressure to make sure that middle class families knew what the heck was going on. which was nothing. i started this countdown clock at 110 days when we were waiting for this debt level to go up. and there was a reason for that, because 130,000 petition signatures were dropped off at the speaker's office at day 110. we heard nothing from that date when again overwhelming college campus signatures arrived at this congress and now today we are down to day 64. they are feeling the political heat. good for you, mr. president, for

raising this issue and forcing this body to address one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. and they come up with a pay for that is a disgraceful, grotesque pay for that goes after women and children in the name of protecting student loans. as mr. miller said thank goodness the student leaders who have been leading fight to protect this lower rate have stood up and said, no way. 30 seconds more? i would just--mr. tierney: another 15 seconds. mr. courtney: i would just say that the president responded to that call a few minutes ago by indicating that this measure is dead. it will be vetoed. it's not going anywhere. let's get back to work and come up with a real fix and solve this crisis for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to remind the gentleman from connecticut that he was one of 157 -- 47 members

on that side of the aisle voting for taking money out of this -- out of the protection of -- for health care. i would now yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, our esteemed chairman of the education. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding the time and for introducing this legislation. i rise in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. we seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we've got an economy in shambles. we've got unemployment rate above 8% now for over three years. we got college graduates who graduate from college and can't get a job. after of them can't get a job or

get the right job. they are underemployed or unemployed. and we've got by law the interest rate on subsidized stafford student loans going from 3.4% to 6.8%, by law. a law drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. it was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this was going to happen. we were going to get to the point where interest rates were going to double. nevertheless, it's the law. and so what do we do about it? it seems to me, and i think we get some agreement on this, we ought to have a long-term fix so we are not doing this again next year and the next year, and the next year. make it a decision, we need a long-term fix.

so today we are trying to stop up -- step up and address the immediate concerns of our students, our graduates that go into this shaky economy. so we are moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4% for one more year. and i look at this as the opportunity for them -- us to get together and make a long-term fix. a fix that is much more driven by the market rather than the politics of the day or the year. by election year, we need a long-term fix. this will give us the opportunity to do that. our students deserve -- another 30 seconds if i could. mrs. biggert cloverpb another 30 seconds. -- mrs. biggert: another 30 seconds. mr. kline: we have got proposals from the other side of the aisle from friends in the senate that

want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very time when our economy is in touch trouble. and there are other proposals that says let's tax all companies. let's drive up the price of gas. we can talk about cynicism. what we are talking about is using a slush fund that is provided to the secretary to spend as she sees fit. that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. what a surprise in this election year. another 30 seconds, please. there are multiple, multiple sources of funding, of programs that can address women's needs. i think it is cynical to suggest that we are somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly give. the president himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the slush fund. this is the way to go.

let's address the immediate needs of our students and work together on a long-term solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: the republicans' long-term fix was voted on a couple weeks in their budget which allowed the rates to go up to 6.8% an took away the in-school subsidy for interest rates, driving students' costs further up. that's why we are here today. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: a college student sits in the financial aid office worried about her interest rate doubling on july 1. a woman sits in the waiting room of a health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. and a corporate executive sits in the boardroom of an oil company waiting to get his tax break from the federal government. everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid the loan increase. the bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the interest rate

increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic and deny her the cancer screening. we say the way to do it is to go to the corporate executive and the oil company boardroom and deny him his tax give away from the federal treasury. the way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down health for the women of this country. the way to pay for it is to shut down the give away of taxpayer dollars for the oil industry of this country. that's the way to fix the problem and that's the way we eventually will. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. buerkle, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: good morning, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan initiative that will

save our country's future leaders billions of dollars. economists have resoundingly predicted that a student loan crisis may soon end america's fragile, and i stress fragile, factor into shambles if it is not soon addressed. the new york federal reserve has reported that student loans are the leading cause of this debt. with $870 billion last month alone. this tops even credit card debt. my friend in illinois has proposed a commonsense solution to halt an increase in federal loan rates that everyone agrees is needless. but, mr. speaker, i must say to you, i was stunned to hear that leaders on the other side of the aisle, our good friends on the other side, were attempting to take this issue hostage. our sons and daughters' pursuits have been hydrogened -- hijacked

for political gamesmanship. let me be clear, mr. speaker, the fund which is offsetting this looming rate hike is nothing more than a slush fund. the h.h.s. secretary has authority to use it without congressional discretion. . it was giving to an unelected bureaucrat that used things for bike paths, lobbying efforts. i am a woman who has worked for years as a woman's health care practitioners and on behalf of women's health care patients. i will tell you for the other side, mr. speaker, to manipulate this issue does nothing to advance women's interests but in fact demeans the accomplishments made in women's health over the past decade. mr. speaker, i implore my colleagues who are playing games with this critical issue

to grow up. this is not kindergarten. this is the reality of crushing debt college costs. this bill will help our future by making colleges more affordable by leaving them with a country that is not unindated in debt. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: thank you. before i yield any further i am going to take 15 seconds and yield to myself, mr. speaker. this supposed slush fund that people are talk about is a fund giving the appropriations committee the authority to designate where it will be spent. that authority was advocated by our friends on the other side. and the secretary specified every year where it will be spent. 326,000 screenings for breast cancer, 284,000 cervical cancer screenings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tierney: and so on down the line. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority -- minority leader of the house from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is

recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in july and to pay for that by cutting subsidies to big oil instead, as the republicans do, making it -- continuing their all-out assault on women's health. so much of the time we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to america's working families that are struggling to make ends meet. imagine them around their kitchen table as we talk about this, that and the other things seems disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. what we're talking about today directly relates to what keeps people up at night -- their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families.

the list goes on. some of those -- some of those are addressed in this legislation. i think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children. imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family as we are and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college we're not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventive care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, the list goes on and on, for your mom or any other preventive care for men and women in our family. it just would be wrong. who are we as a nation than to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family?

it's just not right. especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over again. will you tell me put it in context. in 2007 the democratic majority in the house, working in a bipartisan fashion with our republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rates to 3.4%. we were very proud of that legislation, passing with 77 members of the republican vote -- voting with the democratic party. the bill was signed by then president george w bush and we all celebrated -- george w. bush and we all celebrated that legislation. if no action is taken, those interest rates at 3.4% will go back to the level of 6.8%. we had been making that argument over and over again that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of

our children in a way that enables them to acquire higher education, should they desire and be qualified to do so. that's in their family and their family's priorities. the republicans have grown impatient, they said, with hearing about student loans. don't look at us. until the president went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, that in the republican budget, the ryan republican tea party budget, there was -- it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. and our house budget, house democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4%. a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table. and you have a college-age child. it's about the children and the debt they incur and the families and the debt they incur. because the president took the

issue to the american people, he made the issue too hot to handle, so the republicans this week are doing an about face for what they did last week which was to vote overwhelmingly for their budget which will allow the student loans, the stafford loans to double. an about face. what do they do? they say, ok, we won't allow it to double, but we're going to take the money from women's health. should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing assault on women's health, and this is in their budget and this is just a continuation of that. but i think it's important to note the following -- that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the from rate at 3.4%, they say while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund.

let's eliminate the entire fund for prevention, for the immunization, for the screening and the rest, for the c.d.c. to do its public health work. let's eliminate it. that should tell you something about where their priorities are that they're saying, we stand here once again handmaidens of the oil industry, protecting subsidies for big oil, and instead we want mom and the children to pay the price with their health. that's just not right. it's just not right. the president made it clear to the public the difference in our approach on the student loan issue. now he has made it clear that ell veto this bill -- that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for. unfortunately, rather than finding common ground and a way to pay for this critical

policy, the statement of administration policy says, this bill includes an attempt to repeal the prevention in public health fund created to help prevent disease detected early and manage conditions before they become severe. women in particular will benefit from this prevention fund which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer. this is already happening. this would have to stop under this bill. so let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillment, whatever they decide it is, so we can be competitive in world markets, so we can have an informed electorate. in the spirit of the g.i. bill, which educated the -- our soldiers when they came home, created a middle class in our country which is the backbone of our democracy, and in a global economy even more

necessary for us to be able to have the skills and trained work force in order to compete. let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people, whether it's early childhood, k-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning, nothing brings more money to the treasury. so it will be a false economy to deter people from seeking more education and it's adding insult to injury to say now that we finally had to fold on the issue and agree with the democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4% instead of doubling at 6.8%, we will put women and children first as those who will pay for that. that's just not right. i congratulate the president for his message to the american people, for the message of his administration and statement of administration policy that a veto would be recommended. i urge my colleagues to vote no

and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: three minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. i apologize. mr. woodall: i rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. we got caught up in politician today. i am so angry i could spit. i am trying to bring my blood pressure around. i am the key note speaker tonight for the georgia college republicans statewide convention, and i'm going to go down there and proudly tell them i voted no on this bill today that is pandering on their interest, not because i don't love people in education, it's because i love young

people in education. we are paying for a piece of legislation, every oil industry tax you want to raise, every millionaire tax you want to raise, you know, that could be paying down the deficit that we're borrowing from these young people that you purport to -- that you support here today. every new piece of obamacare that we want to abolish and should be aabolished, we could put that money toward the $1 trillion we're borrowing from our children and asking them to pay back. i am not embarrassed what we do to serve our young people. congratulations on our subsidies for our young people. we've now driven our student loan debt higher than the credit card debt in this country. congratulations. congratulations that we now have a 3.4% so one out of two people who come out of college and can't find a job can default on those loans at a lower rate instead of a higher rate. congratulations. what about focusing on the

jobs? what about focusing on our children's future? what about focusing on the better tomorrow that we owe to these young people? there's a choice of two futures here. a choice of two futures. and the committee, as everyone in this house knows, is working on a fermnant solution, a permanent solution. we -- permanent solution. a permanent solution. we subsidize institute loans today. 6.8%. that's below market interest rates. we subsidize student loans today with an above-the-line deduction on the 1040. everybody can take that today. already today. and here we are in the midst of the largest economic crisis in our nation's history saying once again let's spend the money instead of putting the money towards these children's future. there is no free lunch in this town. every single penny that we spend we're spending from them. you're not subsidizing these people. you are asking them to pay more

with interest in their future. one out of two kids can't find a job graduating from college. student loans higher than credit card loans for the first time in american history. are we headed in the right direction? are we headed in the wrong direction? i say, focus on what this committee on labor and education is doing. look at what they are doing for a permanent fix to provide certainty. this is another short-term fix. and i know my colleagues on the left and on the right are trying their best to do what they believe in their heart that's going to serve our young people, but short-term fixes aren't the answer. there's a better answer and it's coming from the committee later on this year. i hope my colleagues will oppose this bill today and support that bill going forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. just before i yield i want to correct the gentleman. there is somebody that would get the free lunch and that is the oil companies that made $80 billion in profits last year.

i recognize the gentleman from illinois for unanimous consent. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to robbing health and education to pay for oil. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tierney: with that, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the majority's faulty attempt to extend current student loan interest rates. the ryan budget, which most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for, allow those interest rates to expire. it was only when they started getting criticized by the press they decide to offer an alternative to our proposal. even then it took yet another shot at the health care law while keeping big oil subsidies intact. mr. speaker, this year a mammogram has saved my wife's

life. they have chosen the wrong priority. at the end of the day, the american people cannot afford to see their interest rates double on their student loans. . i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in offering a legitimate source of funding that doesn't put anyone's health in jeopardy. this congress needs to find an equitable solution to this problem before july 1. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. banks offer car loans at 3.99% interest rate. banks also offer 30-year fixed mortgages on homes with an interest rate of 3.8%. student loans are currently at

3.4%, but if we don't do something it's going to jump to 6.8%. it seems to mekong can handle this and do something about it -- it seems to me that congress can handle this and do something about it. recent graduates from college are unemployed or underemployed. i received an email from a high school student today encouraging to do a commonsense thing to put the student loan rate at 3.4%. why don't we do that? student loan debt has reached $1 trillion. why would you want to strap students going into college with more debt by increasing the student loan rate in this current economic climate? you can get a car or home loan rate very low. in fact you can get some car loans with zero%, but not so with students. why is that? we should maintain low interest rates for student loans. cars and homes are important, but students going to college on investment in our future. education is important tool for

our young people to be able to contribute to america's competitiveness worldwide. also the bill is paid for and some of the money that's coming out of this unconstitutional health care mandate will go to deficit reduction. we need to support our students and encourage young people to go to college. not discourage them by increasing their student loan rate because of politics. this is a commonsense idea, extend the student loan low interest rate, we should do it today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i note, mr. speaker, it was common sense about two weeks ago along with the entire republican party to let the rate go to 6.8%. it's nice to see they have found reality here. this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. following up on my friend from texas, i served on the labor health committee for 23 years. bill from kentucky used to say

this, if you take care of the health of your people and invest in the education of your young people, you'll continue to be the strongest and best nation on the face of the earth. i agreed with the gentleman from kentucky then and i agree with him now. everybody says on this floor, although everybody didn't vote that way, mr. boehner voted against this reduction in interest rates, mr. cantor voted against this reduction in interest rates, and mr. kleine voted in 2007 against this reduction in interest rates. what we are saying is we need to invest, we talk about subsidies, this isn't a subsidy, this is an investment in a wetter -- better, stronger, more growing america. that's what this is. but what do we say? natcher said remember if we take care of the health of our people this undermines the health of our people. it takes away preventive assistance so that women, families, children can get preventive care which so many republicans have said is a more efficient and effective cost

saving way to address the health of our country. bill natcher was right. bill natcher was right. conservative democrat from kentucky who said, if you take care of the health of your people and educate your young people, you will be the strongest nation on earth. this bill goes in the wrong direction trying to do the right thing. let us reject this bill and if in fact you are for investing in our young people and bringing these interest rates down, which is so absolutely essential, then bring back a bill you know will pass because you know this bill will not pass. the president has issued a statement of administration policy that says he will veto this bill because they do not want to undermine the health of women, family, and children while at the same time they want to invest in the college education for our country, young people, and our future.

reject this bill. bring back a new bill, the courtney bill, which does in fact invest in our children and take care of the health of our people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you. mr. speaker, as we have noted before, in february congress took action to stop a payroll tax increase on working families and ensure the tax increase did not add to the deficit. the legislation cut $5 billion from the prevention fund. and the bill received the support of 149 house democrats, including democrat leaders such as ms. pelosi and mr. kildee, and mr. courtney. i guess that the democrats were in favor of raiding the slush

fund before they were against it. with that i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: thank you so much. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. i have a prepared speech but in sitting here listening to the debate i really want to focus in on one specific issue. american students should not be fearful to attend college due to the crushing weight of student loans weighing them down after their graduation, but as is suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this preventive care finds reduction would deny access to individuals for these health care screenings, and i had the privilege, mr. speaker, just yesterday, to have a conversation with the secretary

see we'llous -- sebelius directly as it relates to this fund. i asked her very specifically, madam secretary, will the reduction in the preventive fund cause a child to be denied access to a health screening? and by her own admission she said, and i quote, absolutely not. so as i am listening to this debate and hear the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle i'm dismayed to hear some of the things being said that quite frankly by the secretary's own admission just quite are not true. and so i stand today in support of this bill and i want to also point out that by the secretary's own admission as well she acknowledged that in fact the president of the united states himself in his own budget put reductions to this fund. the interest rate reduction act will repeal the slush fund, the $5.9 billion will be used to offset the cost of maintaining the one-year extension as we move towards a meaningful

response to our young people. congress must put washington politics aside and take action. it is time to stop piecing together temporary solutions to the problems that exist in our student aid programs. i fully support the interest rate reduction act and i encourage my colleagues to join me. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. madam speaker, i note i was at that education meeting and heard the secretary say quite clearly that no child would get immunization under this program will get immunization under this program if the fund is eliminated. mr. speaker, of course taking a little bit of the money and taking that and equating it to wiping out the entire fund. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the cynicism of the debate today is why congress is held in such low repute.

we hear republicans saying that a public health fund is a slush fund. this is a fund set up to keep us healthy, prevent diseases as long as possible, immunize our kids, provide mammography and pap smears to women in need, find wirt defects early on, help stop smoking, they call this a slush fund. they are not trying to reduce this fund, their proposal is to eliminate it. and the argument from the other side of the aisle is, well, we'll still get those services. i don't know whether we'll get those services if the fund is eliminated and appropriations are being squeezed down. so they call this a slush fund, but they are using it as a slush fund because they took the elimination of this fund to pay for this extension of student loan interest rates, and they eliminated this fund so they could use it for their

reconciliation to the budget in order to make sure defense is adequately funded, to make sure the tax cuts are kept in place. they are using it as a slush fund and they are using the student loan issue to drive their agenda. i find that very cynical. i find that, in fact, quite repulsive. and i hope we will reject this bill. we are all for, according to the debate, making sure that we maintain the current interest rates for the 7.4 million students depending on these loans, but i don't find much sincerity when we see a proposal coming from the republican majority to pay for that by cutting out preventive services. there's got to be a better way to do it. they are not looking for a better way, they are just looking for a way to cover their rear ends. i urge people to vote against this bill. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this time i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. stearns: i thank my distinguished colleague. let me just say to the gentleman from california who just getting ready to leave the floor, when he mentioned that republicans are going to prevent tobacco prevention of our youth today, he and i both know there's a separate program in c.d.c. just for tobacco prevention. and in fact in this so-called pphf which all of us have called the slush fund which is the prevention of public health fund, there is right now $191.685 million for this spending for tobacco prevention. and after this amendment passed there would be $109 million

still remaining in this for that smoking and health component of cdc. i say to the gentleman from massachusetts and mr. hoyer from maryland, i mean you're yelling fire and there's no fire. i could go through all these things to show you that your arguments are wrong. the fact that see we'llous -- sebelius, the head of the health and human services said publicly, she in fact pointed out that this so-called slush fund is not going to impact what mr. hoyer says dealing with women and families and children. and they bring up mr. hatcher. mr. hatcher says is very noble, very good. and you constantly hues that. i'm going to take you through these different areas where you say that it's going to be unable to provide supports for the family and women and children. cancer prevention and control

which includes breast and cervical cancer screening, it's funded at $205 million in f.y. 2005 budget and f.y. 2013 budget goes up to $261 million. it goes up almost 60 million. no prevention funds are being used for free cancer screening. and will not be affected. let's take birth defects and developmental disabilities. in f.y. 12 the program was $138 million. it's now going to be $125 million. again, these funds would continue to receive discretionary funding, nutrition, physical, activity, obesity activity again will continue to receive funding. viral hepatitis screening. c.d.c. health care statistics and surveillance, and prevention research center. all of these things, i say to the folks on this side, are going to continue to receive base discretionary funding. and i challenge you, the

gentleman from massachusetts, to point out where and each one of the ones i talked about, all these programs are going to remain in exist ens. how in the world can you -- existence. how in the world can you come to the floor and constantly say -- i'm almost ready -- the point is that you folks are not actively portraying what this bill does, so i support h.r. 4628 and i agree with secretary sebelius, the slush fund will not affect women, family, and children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair not to others in the second person. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i would have addressed my remarks to the chair and taken the challenge anything other than an empty challenge they would have noted secretary see bell us and administration clearly those funds would have been diminished in the screenings for wrest cancer and cervical cancer would have been passed by hundreds of thousands in the

administration's own analysis. i ask the chair for the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from illinois has 514r3/4 minutes remaining. mr. tierney: with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. . mr. holt: think of the great moments of american public policy, creation of land grant colleges, the g.i. bill, providing student loans, all directed toward increasing access to higher education. four years ago we, the democrats, lowered interest rates for students to 3.4%, saving today's typical student borrower a couple thousand dollars. so two days ago the speaker, cornered by student outrage, said the majority always intended to keep these rates low. if the republicans were interested in keeping the

student interest rates low, why did their budget double it? they voted twice to let rates double and collect $166 billion more from students so they could preserve tax giveaways for big oil. now they come and propros canceling preventive health care funding, not preventing cervical cancer, not preventing tobacco-related diseases, eviscerating the centers for disease control to preserve tax giveaways for big oil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me thank congressman tierney for yielding and for your tireless leadership on this important issue. it's clear to me the republicans are not serious about addressing the student a lot interest rate hikes with their so-called interest rate

reduction act. their bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing and would permanently end the prevention in public health fund established by the affordable care act. this is the first mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving public health. it is extremely important in our fight to prevent chronic diseases, h.i.v. and aids and women's health. this is such a sad and sinister ploy. instead of pitting student loan relief against critical critical preventive health for middle and low-income families, we should be working toward real solutions. instead of paying for subsidies to big oil, we should invest in our students who are our future. this bill jeopardizes, mind you, jeopardizes the health of our nation. it uses our students as pawns, and it is morally wrong. i hope we defeat this insincere proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: the republican majority in this house is involved in the political shell game on this issue. they have voted to eliminate the prevention and public health fund. they voted two days ago to end it. today they want to tell you they are going to take money from it to pay for student loans. you can't end the fund and then talk about taking money to use it. in addition to that, the gentleman from california a moment ago talked about money in the appropriations bills for these health care programs. what he doesn't tell you that the majority in the committee are voting to cut the money for the centers for disease control , for the screening for breast

and cervical cancer, for all these efforts. they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. this majority passed a budget that has asked families to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, slash pell grants for nearly 10 million college students, allow interest rates on student loans to double in july. and after there was an outpouring of concern about the doubling of interest rates, they switched course. this apparent moment of conscience was too good to be true. instead of ending oil subsidies, closing corporate tax loopholes, what they now have done, they eliminate, eliminate the prevention in public health fund what that fund does is -- i'll be brief in this -- it is about providing screening for breast and cervical cancer.

women die every year from kembcal cancer. isn't it worth trying to prevent cervical cancer and not eliminate it? it works to prevent coronary heart disease, the leading killer of women in america. it has the potential of mitigate othio pour owe cis, arthritis, mental illness. this would disproportionately protect the women. there is a level of hypocrisy on this floor that is staggering. instead of taking the money from health care for education, a false choice, vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. without objection. mr. levin: the republicans have taken a 180-degree turn on helping with student loans.

the republican budget said no. in february, governor mitt romney said this, the right course for america is to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn't have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to college. want to go to school. now he and the republicans here have shifted. shifty indeed. now they're doing so is not only politically expedient but extremely harmful. they hit health care. health care. they refuse to end a tax break for bill oil that never should have been given in the first place. even though the big five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the fourth quarter of last year alone.

this bill is shameless. it is shameful. vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentlelady from illinois continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: yes, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yold one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, in my dictionary a slush fund is defined as a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda. yet, the speaker of the house used that term, the chair of the education and labor committee used that term slush fund to describe the prevention of public health fund which has screenings for cervical cancer and birth defects and immunizations. we are the most wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. i refuse to accept the idea

that to solve one problem we have to create another. the democrats propose writing the ryan budget wrong by taxing oil company profits. therefore, their suggestion that we go from a 3.4% interest to 6.8% can be paid for out of the wealth of oil companies that benefit from our country so tremendously. mr. speaker, i reject the blackmail inherent in h.r. 4628. i don't want anybody to know that it's ok to pit one group against another and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. we have to do the right thing and we have to choose both. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: yes, i continue to reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: yes, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, unless college acts -- congress acts, stafford loan rates will double. i spoke to some students at san diego state university just just the other day worried about their day-to-day needs and they asked us not to play politics with this issue. new grads should have increased opportunities, not bills they can't pay. a college degree should invite calls from job recruiters, not from collection agencies. i'm glad that the majority has abruptly changed course by agreeing to stop the interest rate hike, but it is unacceptable this this bill proposes to pay for this by repealing the prevention fund. the bill creates a choice between funding cancer screening for a mother or making college more affordable for her daughter. would you want to be that mother? that sends the wrong message to the american people about our

priorities. i urge my colleagues to support a more equitable solution that promotes the health of the american families and the future of our bry minds. i -- bright minds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i'd ask the gentleman, does he have more -- mr. tierney: at least five more speakers. mrs. biggert: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clarke: i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. we talk about the cost of capping student loan interest rates. well, i think we should extend the cap for longer than a year, and we don't need to cut people's health care screenings in order to do it. let's create jobs. that's how we can create the economic revenue. and one of the best ways for us to create jobs is to allow student loan borrowers the

ability to pay down their loan according to their income for 10 years and then making them eligible to have the balance of their student loans if they own any, to be forgiven. that's the best economic stimulus. you know, these loans are not just for the benefit of the borrower. it also makes our country stronger. the more our people are trained and educated, we can sell the best products overseas and create the best technology. that creates jobs for this country. it's in our national interest to help pay down these debts and forgive certain student loans. let's redirect some of our money from afghanistan and iraq and use the savings to forgive student loans. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: you know, once again

the republican leadership has shown it's more interested in playing political games than it is in getting things done. we're talking about student loans here. we should be putting our heads together and coming up with a better way to pay for lowering student loan rates, not eviscerating health care prevention. this is nothing more than a cynical ploy. you know, the american people want us to work together. we have an opportunity to do this. this is what we really should be doing. there are lots of loopholes that we could close. my colleagues have mentioned big oil and big gas. we could close those loopholes. we have corporations making lots of money. we could close those loopholes. but what do the republicans decide to do? they decide to hurt health benefits and prevention benefits. this is not the way we should be going. we need to put our heads together and help these students. the democrats have side time and time again that this is our priority. we have voted against republican budgets that raise the amount that students have

to pay in loans. stop playing your cynical games and let's get to work for the american people. let's put our heads together. let's help these students and let's not eviscerate health prevention. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlelady continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. peters: i rise in opposition to h.r. 4628, a misguided, deeply partisan bill which would cut $6 billion from the prevention and public health fund. for months i have been proud to help lead the charge to prevent student loan rates from doubling on july 1, so please excuse my surprise when i hear the majority talk about their strong support for keeping college loans affordable. this is a position that they have repeatedly rejected. apparently republicans have no interest in trying to prevent

serious diseases. surely if republicans can ram a $46 billion tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, they can find a way to pay for both education and health care. i urge my colleagues to vote for defeat of this bill, stop protecting tax giveaways to big oil and pass a possibly bill to stop the doubling of student loan rates. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to enter into the record several documents. one is from the american council on education, representing 37 education associations and they say education has never been this important to america's economy as it is now. as we are encouraged by the proposals we have seen. administration, both parties have expressed strong support for keeping the interest rate at 3.4% without cutting other forms of student aid.

enter that. another one is from lewis university in illinois saying doubling the interest in the subsidized stafford loans will discourage students in need who are striving to continue their degree study during these difficult economic times. thank you for your support for these students. and finally from joliet junior college saying that the college has -- serves population of seven counties in illinois. . college students were awarded $23 million in total financial aid. because of this the institution supports h.r. 4628, legislation that would prevent the scheduled rate hike. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reference material will be entered into the record.

the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. as long as we are taking unanimous consent, i would like to internear the record letters from groups opposing the republican bill, h.r. 462, the american federation of teachers, american diabetes association, american federation of county and state employees, american lung association, american public health association, campaign for america's future, campaign for tobacco free kids, national association of county and city hospitals. afl-cio. trust for america's health. ussa. young inconvincibles, campus progress, ussa, young inconvincibles, national partnership of women and families. association of state and tear torial health officials. american public health association, mr. speaker, some 760 groups that support the prevention of public health fund. thank you. with that i'd like to yield one

minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, last week the republican majority was adamantly opposed to this legislation. this week we are rushing it through on the floor today. that's a good thing. we are on the same page. the majority and the minority want to preserve student interest rates at 3.4%, not let them double to 6.8%. so if that is the case, why are we selecting mutually unacceptable ways to pay for this? it's as though we are resorting to the trick bags. you raid the health fund that's so important to us, we present the oil company provision that is so unacceptable to you. what we should do is find a way to put some limits, some incentives to keep tuition increases at our below the rate of inflation. they were up 8.4%.

if we work together, that would be a double win for students and parents. we could keep those interest rates low and we could start bringing down the escalation and tuition increases that are unacceptable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding and his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many other issues in education. mr. speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate on student loans to more than double. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4628. while congress must prevent the

stafford loan from doubling, it is unconscionable that republican leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care. too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college degree. it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in their education and health. republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for this by gutting the prevention in public health fund, the so purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up the cost of health care in the first place. instead of sacrificing our public health to score political points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue their dreams without the burdens of a necessary cost and debt. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: is the gentleman ready to close? mr. tierney: we have one more

speaker to close. does the gentlewoman have more speakers? mrs. biggert: no. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve? the gentlelady reserves her time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend from massachusetts. just a few weeks ago on this very floor our republican colleagues voted for the republican budget that called for a doubling of interest rates on student loans. on seven million american students and they voted against the democratic alternative budget which would have prevented that increase in student loan interest rates. so what's happened over the last couple weeks? well, president obama has gone to the country, gone to students, he's told the story about what the republican budget would do. so we are here today. but make no mistake, mr. speaker , our republican colleagues

haven't changed their minds about this. they have changed their tactics. if they really wanted to prevent student loans from increasing, they wouldn't seek to cover the costs by by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening, by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, by cutting other women's health care measures. they wouldn't push a measure the president has already said he would veto. mr. speaker, we have a proposal, let's cover the costs by getting rid of the subsidies for big oil companies. that's the real slush fund around here. the big taxpayer subsidies go for that purpose. let's get the job done and let's not play political games. unfortunately what we are seeing here, mr. speaker, is an effort to seek political cover. let's get the job done for real. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: to close. it seems like came in and i

think the first thing that i talked about here is how i hoped that we would be able to work together on a bipartisan basis. it just seems like this is so hard to do in this political time and i just -- i really think that in major legislation we really have to work together to make -- to find a solution. but it seems like the other side is always ready to tell us what we think and what we are doing and why we are doing it. we are doing this because we really want to have our students have the ability to have a quality education. it just seems like we are so different on the pay-fors. i know that everybody agrees on the program itself and how we have to do it, but we can't seem to do anything without giving us a cynical view, it bothers me.

it seems like we were talking about the pay-fors, the other side of the aisle first reaction is to raise taxes for everything. and ours has always been to reduce spending. we think this is the way to go. i think we have just got to find a way to get together. i have said in my opening statement that i hope that we would be able to get together and work together. i also the senate, and i hope that when this bill goes over to the senate that there is a negotiation, that there is a conference so that we really can iron this out and make sure that there is not a raising of the -- to the 6.38%. it kind of makes you wonder it just seems like the political maneuvering certainly is continuing on the student loan

issues and i guess today when we have this vote we'll see what happens, but i really hope that when we get to the senate so that we have the opportunity to do this. i know that -- i just want to go back a little bit to what happened in the education committee yesterday. mr. roby talked about and so did mr. tierney. i think that the secretary sebelius did say that there were services outside the prevention and public health fund that will remain available to individuals who seek preventive care, such as cancer prevention and care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, screenings for birth defects and develop disabilities, tobacco prevention

at the c.d.c., and efforts that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity to prevent obesity. i think it's really a lot that we believe in for prevention and we heard from mr. stearns of the appropriations and how that takes care of a lot of the prevention issues. i think that the american people are really very knowledgeable now about prevention and what they need to do and have the ability to do this on their own as well. i hope that this political bickering is not what the bill is all about. what the bill is all about is to reduce to 4% the interest rates on the subsidized stafford loans.

i hope that this bill will pass. i urge my colleagues to vote for it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 631 the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate federal direct stafford loans. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 4628 is postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule to, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion by the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2096 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2096, a bill to advance cybersecurity research development and technical

standards and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 395, the nays are 10. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 4628 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 4628, a bill to extend student loan interest rate for federal stafford loans. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

would members please take their conversations from the floor, clear the well, clear the aisles . for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? mrs. capps: i am opposed to the bill in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the chair: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4628 to the committee on education and the work force and the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthdid with with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add at the end of the bill the

following new section, section 5, prohibition against cuts in health insurance benefits for women and children. nothing in this act shall endorse or result in the reduction of or increase cost for benefits in health insurance coverage offered by health insurance companies for women and children. including benefits for commonly prescribed contraceptions, mammograms, cervical cancer screens, childhood immunizations, and health screenings for newborns. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, this is the final, it's the only amendment to this bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. instead, if the house adopts this amendment we will immediately move to final

passage. mr. speaker, it appears that we now all agree that we cannot let student loan rates double come this july. that's good. but i wish we were also looking for a bipartisan solution to funding the continuation of student loans. but instead the majority is engaging in other partisan attack on public health funding. funding that improves the lives of americans and the productivity of our work force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. mrs. capps: i strongly oppose this position and their proposed cuts to the prevention fund. funds that will make women and children healthier and that's why i ever offered this straightforward amendment. it would ensure that poor policy decisions made here in congress, namely to get rid of the only dedicated funding we have for public health and prevention, that these decisions do not give

insurance companies an excuse to cut benefits or increase costs of preventive services for women and children. these services include critical access to contraception, mammograms, cancer screenings, and immunizations. whatever our strong disagreements are about the underlying bill, we surely can agree that no insurance company should use this as an excuse to hinder access to basic preventive services. the public health and prevention fund is a critical investment in both our nation's health and our economic future, especially for women and children. its value cannot be understated. a healthy mother is better able to raise a child. a healthy child will be ready and able to learn in school. and a healthy worker is more productive for american businesses. moreover, this fund is critical to bringing down health care

costs. it targets the most prevalent and preventable of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. the fund has been used to ensure that our children have the vaccines they need to avoid painful and expensive childhood illnesses. it supports programs to prevent birth defects and autism surveillance. and the fund supports critical women's health screening, 600,000 screenings will be cut with the repeal of this fund. these are not frivolous. as mothers and grandmothers, we know the importance of preventing birth defects and having access to vaccines, knowing we are doing everything we possibly can to ensuring that our children have a healthy start. as a nurse i know the importance of preventing chronic diseases and early cancers catching it early. and as a taxpayer i surely know that we cannot afford to keep

ignoring the cost benefit of prevention. programs that have a five to one return on our smart investment. states and counties all over the country are realizing the importance of prevention programs. that's why they all embrace the prevention fund that this bill wipes out. it wipes it out completely. in fact, 760 nonpartisan groups across the country have signed on in support of the prevention fund. i would like to insert this list of organizations for the public record. 760 nonpartisan groups. this investment in public health has been a long time coming. to abolish it now will send us back to square one just so we can least afford to do that. now, finally, mr. speaker, the women of this country are watching. they are watching us here today. they have watched as countless bills and budget proposals have

moved through this house, attacking programs that keep women healthy, their children fed, and families above water. now is the time to stand up for women. vote for this final amendment to this bill to show the women of america that we support them and we support their families and we support the services that they need to lead a happyier and healthier life. -- happier and healthier life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. without objection, the gentlelady referenced material is entered into the record. let the house be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, seek recognition? mr. -- the speaker: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the speaker: how in the world did we ever get here?

think about this. a fight being picked over an issue that everyone knew was going to be resolved. a fight being picked over an issue that there is no fight over. democrats five years ago put this cliff in the law that would require student loan interest rates to more than double on july 1. i don't know why they did it, but they did it. nobody wants to see student loan interest rates go up. especially when you got recent college graduates, 50% are either unemployed or underemployed as a result of the president's economic policies. so, we got democrats and republicans for months who have been talking about trying to fix this problem. and while we don't yet have the

solution to the long-term solution to this problem, the chairman is continuing to work on it, we believe that we shouldn't put students at risk and that we ought to make sure that their interest rates don't go up. so we developed the short-term policy to solve this problem for the next year while the committee has time to look at a long-term solution to this problem. le why do people in-- why do people insist that we have to have a political fight on something where there is no fight? there is absolutely no fight. people want to politicize this because it's an election year, but my god, do we have to fight about everything? and now, now we are going to have a fight over women's health. give me a break. this is the latest plank in the so-called war on women. entirely created, entirely

created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain. now let's review the facts. let's review the facts. the president in his budget called for reductions in spending in this slushed if fund that's given to the secretary of h h.s. the president called for retux in spending. -- reduction in spending. you may have already forgotten that several months ago you voted to cut $4 billion out of this slush fund when we passed the pafrle tax bill. so to accuse us of wanting to gut women's health is absolutely not true. but why -- ladies and gentlemen, this is beneath us. this is beneath the dignity of

this house and the dignity of the public trust we enjoy from our constituents. they expect us to come here and be honest with each other, to work out these issues and to pick this political fight where there is no fight is just silly. give me a break. vote no on this motion to recommit, vote yes on the final bill, let's send it over to the senate now. the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 3538, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 178. the nays are 231. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 215 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 215, the nays are 195. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the

table. the unfinished business is on the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3834 as amended, which the clerk will report think bititle. the clerk: union calendar number 289, a bill to amend the high performance computing act of 1991 to authorize activities for support of networking and information technology research and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent to be removed

as co-spon or -- co-sponsor of h.r. 1588. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the engrossment of h.r. 4849, the clerk be authorized to make the change that i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the change. the clerk: motion by mr. hastings of washington in section 2-b-1 strike c-90-4621 and insert c-09-4621. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a privileged senate concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 43, resolved, that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from thursday, april 26, 2012, through sunday, may 6, 2012, on

a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader of his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on may 7 or such other time on that day as may be designated by the majority leader or his designee and the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con curnt resolution, whichever occurs first, and when the house adjourns from any day from friday, april 27, it stad adjourned until monday, may 2,2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to this resolution, whichever occurs first. the majority lead ore they have senate or the spoke ore they have house, or their designees,

acting jointly in consultation with the minority lead ore they have senate and the minority leader of the house shall notify members to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate, if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes at this time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will be recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, popeye the sailor has advocated for 08 years that spinach gives energy. now the e.p.a. wants -- wants to use this food as green energy. but does that idea make any sense? after the administration spept hundreds of millions of dollars

of taxpayer money on other failed green initiatives, the e.p.a. awarded $90,000 to a group of students to designed a solar panel that uses spinach to produce a very slight energy charge. a slight electrical charge is not enough to supply the united states with even a fraction of our energy needs. nor will it leave blue toe -- bluto shaking in his boots. meanwhile, what was ready for the keystone x.l. pipeline sit idle, the gull of mexico sits, waiting for more permits and the procedures in place have slowed drilling on land to a halt. what we need are ways to bring down the cost of gasoline. we don't need nor taxpayer spinach subsidies, leave spinach for popeye and the

supper table. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so moved. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the question before the house today was whether we would take money for preventive services from women and children and give it to college students. that's a dumb question. not dumb because of the resip cent of the money. mr. murphy: we need to make a change so millions of college students don't see a dramatic increase in the cost of college. my wife and i are amongst those paying back our student loans today. we know what those college student nose that $5,000 over the next 10 years could break the bank. it was a dumb question because there was another question we could have asked. we could have asked whether we should take billions in tax subsidies for oil companies and instead turn those dollars around to needy college

students. that is a smart question. a smart question with a pretty ease question answer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, dick clark is a name that is synonymous with the american spirit. he was an entrepreneur, an entertainer, and a patriot. for decades, americans of all stripes welcomed him into their living rooms to hear new music, to be entertained, and to ring in the new year. dick had that uniquely american ability to be forward thinking while grounded in tradition. he had a passion for the universal appeal of music and understood that it could unite people across barriers of both

age and race. he knew this country to be a land of opportunity, and he in turn created opportunity for countless others. in fact, he was such a tremendous mentor to so many that spending time with dick came to be known as attending clark yufrlte. -- university. in 2004, he suffered a stroke. but the indomitable dick clark never slowed down. thousands of americans found yet another reason to draw inspiration from america's oldest teenager. he continued to work hard and take pleasure in every single day. i remember thinking on the last night i spent with him, shortly before he died, that dick would live to be 100. sadly, i was wrong. within hours of his unexpected passing, the white house called and asked that i convey the

condolences of president and mrs. obama to dick's wife carrie and his children, rack, dwayne, cindy, and their families. dick clark enriched -- enriched the lives of millions and leaves a legacy that will no doubt touch generations to come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cohen: julian bond was a civil rights leader. he was a georgia state senator for 28 years and had to fight to go to the supreme court to get a seat for first amendment rights. he was chairman of the board for the national association of the advancement of colored people for many years. he's been a civil rights

professor at the university. there'll be a din for the new york to raise money for the julian bond civil rights history chair at the university of virginia, an opportunity for people to see that civil rights history is taught at the university of virginia for time immemorial. after julian retires, civil rights history will continue to be taught at the university of virginia, as it should be taught at every school, not just in february, black history month. i commend julian bond and commend the university of virginia for having hired him to teach the course and for having a chair in his honor. i encourage all to support it. thank you, mr. bond. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lankford: july, 1843, a new painting was placed under the old rotunda under the old dome. it was the embarkation of the

pilgrims. it depicted our country as a small set of puritans under the sail of "god with us." the most prominent feature of the painting is the people on that ship in prayer. the painting still hangs in the rotunda and it says we began as a people of prayer and we will only succeed as we continue as a nation that prays. in a day when families are falling apart, when drug use is rampant, when pornography is rampant, when the economy is failing, when debt is at an all-time high and people have lost hope in government, they move from disappointment to frustration to anger to fear to apathy. we will be wise to remember next week, may 3 of this year the national day of prayer. for a nation to stop and hesitate again and remember our hope does fought come from washington. maybe this is a good moment to read again luke 22:46 when

jesus said, while you're sleeping, get up and pray. so that you will not fall into temptation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to ask my colleagues to move as quickly as possible to pass the violence against women's act, legislation that i was happy to be an early supporter of in the early stages of my honor of serving in this house. i remember as a young member of the house judiciary committee standing alongside of chairman henry hyde, a republican, as we stood in the senate to push for the passage of the violence against women's act. over the years we have seen the saving of women's lives. now it is important that we not

stall and take the senate act which in fact has broaden its coverage of native american women, immigrant women and women of different lifestyles because it includes everyone. do we have to wait while in texas where a man goes in and kills his wife and children? violence. or the man who is charged with killing jennifer hudson's family, his family looking for his ex-wife? violence that must stop. pass the violence against women's act now. take the senate bill that was bipartisan and save the lives of women and men who are subject to violence in their life. america, you can do better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, under the fourth amendment, if the

government wants to snoop through a person's email it must first convince a job that there's probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime and it must specify the documents they believe are relevant to that charge. mr. mcclintock: yesterday, the house passed a measure which makes a mockery of this cherished protection. under the guise of cybersecurity, it allows the government to pressure and conjoel internet providers to turn over that you are subscriber's data and allows the government to use that data without the knowledge of the individuals affected unrelated to cybersecurity all without a warrant. this is a truly orwellian measure that our bill of rights was specifically written to prevent. i hope the house will have second thoughts it as it re-- thoughts as it reflects on the ramifications of this act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 201-b of the international religious freedom act of 1998, 22 u.s.c. 6431 note, as amended, and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, of the following member on part of the house of the commission on international religious freedom for a term ending may 14, 2014. the clerk: mr. samuel davidson of branford, connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from florida, mr. west, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. west: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and

extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. west: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as we end our congressional session for the month of april, i think it's very important to have an honest conversation about taxation in america. the united states constitution clearly states in article 1, section 8, that the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impose and excises to pay for the debts and the common defense and general welfare of the united states. unlike in great britain, the framers bestowed this power to a congress directly representative of the people. men, religious men like benjamin franklin and john adams were taught the ideals that all men and women are created equal and that there is no divine right of a king's rule. moreover, our framers believed in the social contract, an

intellectual device used to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their government. the social contract our framers envisioned was one in which legitimate government was defined by government operated and derived from the consent of the governed. in other words, the government envisioned by our framers will be answerable to those that elected them through regular elections. one of the most famous social contract thinkers, john locke, believed if a government were to abuse that relationship the governed had the natural right to overthrow their leaders. our framers lived under the rule of king george iii, a man of a small mind, according to one british historian, at a time when republicanism defined as the protection of liberty through the rule of law, was sweeping across the british empire. the british empire, extending to the americas, ruled by king

george, was one where high taxes without representation was the rule of law and were ascension was met with the noose. following on the heels of the ma lasas tax -- set to expire in 1763, the british parliament passed the sugar act in april of 1764. the following year parliament passed the staff act stating that all printed materials within the colonies needed to be on taxed and stamped paper from london. in response to the stamp act, the american colonials formed the stamp act congress held in new york. in 1765, this assembly was seen as the first true collective dissension shown towards the british crown in colonial history. what followed throughout the rest of the country, well, mr. speaker, that is a lesson in the early beginnings of

american exceptionalism. learned from the lesson of taxation without representation, a gallery was built in our first house of representatives so that any citizen may bear witness to the decisions made on their behalf. following the american revolution, very few taxes were enacted and imposed on the american people such as modest taxes on alcohol, sugar and tobacco to pay for the simple workings and infrastructure of government. the war of 1812 brought on new taxes on luxury goods such as gold and jewelry. and after on again off again taxes for the next half century, congress passed the revenue act of 1862 under the tute ledge of president abraham lincoln. in 1913, the 16th amendment replaced a large exeyes tax from alcohol that was re-- excise tax from alcohol that was repealed after prohibition.

and a federal income tax was permanent. after the war was over and prohibition was repealed, with this fax still necessary -- was this tax still necessary? did the permanent incomes tax -- at the time a very controversial amendment, the 16th amendment has been cited in multiple supreme court cases. most significantly brush vs. union pacific railroad and stanton vs. baltic mining company. the court ruled it was never the intent of congress to place a direct tax upon the american people. mr. speaker, that's the decision we now see being debated again in the supreme court with the patient protection affordable care act. these direct taxes such as a direct tax on property ownership were seen to be apportioned for the states to

decide. and since its induction, we have seen a mass exploitation of the income tax. no longer is the tax code used simply to pay for the workers of government. today we see tax dollars wasted on such egregious projects as $150,000 to the institute of the museum and library services funds for an american museum of magic in marshall, michigan. $175,000 in national institute of health funds for the university of kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of japanese quayle. and a national science foundation grant of $198,000 for the university of california-riverside for research on whether using social media makes one happy. but, mr. speaker, why are we here today? we are here because millions of americans have just filed their federal taxes and i wonder how

many of those americans actually understand their taxes. how many of those americans have to pay someone hundreds of dollars who can understand a seemingly unending webb and thousands of -- web and thousands of pages of tax code? as a matter of fact, america, the american people know that even some of our colleagues here on capitol hill in this very body have had some issues with the tax code to include our own secretary of the treasury. most alarming might be the fact that the commissioner of the internal revenue service claims he uses a tax preparer. mr. speaker, this is simply ridiculous. there is ramifications of the tax code that is over 67,000 pages. how many small and large business owners are not hiring because they are constantly being told they are not paying their fair share of taxes and cannot predict how much they will pay in the future? mr. speaker, i reject this progressive mantra that we need

to raise taxes so the government can waste more hard-earned american taxpayer dollars. so now is an absolutely important time that we go back and examine our tax code, move away from the progressive tax code system and simplify it for the american people. milton fredeman famously quiped, if you put the federal government in charge of the sahara desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand. president obama has increasingly uped his rhetoric by suggesting that higher income taxpayers are avoiding their responsibility and not paying their fair share. instead of resorting to manipulative rhetoric, pitting one working american against another, the president and congress should work together to enact pro-growth economic policies to help put americans back to work. one of the biggest reasons our economy continues to struggle

is because employers, both large and small, are filled with uncertainty. they look to washington to see more government spending, the desire for more taxes and more government regulations on the horizon. washington spending has been out of control for years, mr. speaker, and republicans and democrats certainly could have done more in the past to stop it. but the spending bin g that has occurred under -- binge that has occurred under president obama is truly unprecedented. president obama's proposed tax hikes buried in the patient protection and affordable care act, increasing regulation, government intervention into the private sector and skyrocketing debt have created economic uncertainty, freezing investment and hiring. the solution for reviving our economy is straightforward. cut wasteful government spending and remove the unnecessary tax and regulatory barriers that caused the uncertainty that prevents employers from hiring americans

, understand you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with higher taxes. . they know historic debt levels will lead to historic job destroying tax increases. if we raise taxes on the very people we need to deprow and invest in our economy, our economy will continue to spiral. if we do not have economic growth, we will never balance the budget. nearly 75% of america's small business the economic engine of growth, pay their taxes through their owners' personal, individual income. half of those small businesses would suffer from a higher tax burden under the president's proposed tax increases. those proposed tax increases will limit their ability to hire more workers and invest. raising taxes on small businesses where a majority of americans go to work every day

will not put american families back to work. instead, these tax increases will hamper these job creators' ability to keep workers on their payroll, expand their business, hire new employers, and invest. these tax increases will hurt economic recovery and growth because they suppress incentives to save and invest at a time when investments in capital are desperately needed to recover our economy. mr. speaker, since moving into the white house, just over three years ago, president obama has been -- has spent millions of dollars campaigning around this great nation, pushing a so-called buffett rule. the president claimed the buffett-rule would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. mr. speaker, i would like to know why the president continues to mislead the american people. the bipartisan joint committee on taxation stated that the buffett rule would only raise

$46.7 billion over the next 10 year rerks deuce our deficit by less than .4%. in other words, the so called buffett rule would only raise enough revenue to keep the federal government's lights on for 11 days. just a couple of weeks ago, the president was in the congressional district that i represent, touting his political divide and rule gimmick that would collect almost $47 billion through the year 2022, but when you look at comparison of the $7 trillion in federal budget deficits that will come in that exact same period, we are not making progress. clearly, mr. speaker, we have a spending problem in washington, d.c., and not a revenue problem. mr. speaker, the president should stop trying to score these cheap political points and work toward solutions that will actually solve our nation's debt crisis. his claim that the buffett rule is something that will get us

moving in the right direction toward fairness would be more convincing if he took other steps in that direction too. three years into his presidency, president obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform, arguably the most important vehicle for fixing the nation's finances and boosting long-term economic growth. when you look at the progressive tax code system we have in the united states of america, we hear a lot of talk today about fairness and fair share and economic equality and shared sacrifice. one of the things we must understand, mr. speaker, is that the top 1% of wage earners in the united states of america are paying close to 40% of federal income taxes. the top 5% of wage earners in the united states of america pay close to 58% of federal income taxes. and the top 25% of wage earners in the united states of america

pay 86% of federal income taxes. mr. speaker, to make matters worse, a large percentage of wage earning households, about 47%, are paying absolutely nothing in federal income taxes. i would also like to speak to the other side of that equation, and that is how we are using the tax code as a weapon for behavior modification. one of the things we have to be very concerned about is all the new taxes that will kick in with the patient protection and affordable care act from january of 2013 out to january of 2018. one of those taxes even includes a real estate tax as well as an insidious tanning tax at a time when the housing market is still in free fall, why would the president tax people for purchasing or selling their homes. it is not only unfair, but immoral, to leave these types

of policies as our legacy to our children and grandchildren. also within this new government takeover of health care, is the federalization of student loans. and we just voted about keeping those loan rates for our college students at 3.4%. not realizing that the federal government has now taken over the management of college loans. this completely cuts out any competition to help lower student loan interest rates. the federalization of these loans has done nothing but drive up interest rates on our young people and president obama himself even said that this will do nothing to help solve the problem of ever-increasing college tuition costs. this equates to a tax on the american dream of higher education, which is so crucial to success. unfortunately, the economy and job market that the obama administration is fostering is just pouring salt on an open

wound, mr. speaker. not only will recent graduates see themselves paying higher interest rates on their loans, they will also enter a job market that is seeing some of the highest unemployment rates for recent graduates in our history. nearly half of all recent college graduates cannot find jobs after graduation. mr. speaker, the rate we are going, our children will be the first generation to not live a better life than their parents. this is simply unacceptable. what is the president's response to this crisis? introduce hisphysial -- fiscal year 2013 budget that spend an obscene $47 trillion over the next 10 years. higher taxes on individuals to pay for increased government spending. higher taxes on small businesses, stifling new jobs. higher taxes on investors to ensure our innovation lags behind the rest of the world.

the president's planned tax increases seem to de-- seem designed to demonize the so-called rich and use them as a propaganda tool to score political points but the fact is, next year, unless changes are made to the tax code, americans will be subject to the largest tax increase in our nation's history. if the obama-bush tax cuts expire, a typical family of four in south florida, with a household income of $50,000 per year, would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes each year. senior, mr. speaker, who count on dividends and investments to cover expenses during retirement would have to pay higher tax rates. even if they have a modest income. children of farmers and small business owners who wish to continue the legacy of their parents will find it increasingly difficult to do so

and the death tax exemption will shrink from $5 million to $1 million. further, inherited assets exceeding that amount will be taxed at a maximum rate of 55% with a 5% surcharge on estates over $10 million. investors will be battered with a capital gains tax increase from 15% to a top level maximum of 25.8%. seniors who rely on those dividend returns will also be hammered. stock dividends currently at 15% will be taxed as ordinary income at a top rate of 43.4%. the president, mr. speaker, is also going after our military families. if he were to have his way, all military families would see their tricare health care fees triple above the current rates they are already paying. all while leaving civilian, unionized health care completely untouched. so mr. speaker, why?

why is the president targeting some of the most vulnerable groups in our society, like our young people, seniors, and those who have risked their lives to protect our freedoms? this certainly isn't right. this certainly is not fair. it is, mr. speaker, down right immoral. in the last few months, we have heard a lot about this fairness from the president, especially when it comes to the so-called rich. and president obama's own message about his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013, he says, everyone must shoulder their fair share, but how does the president define fair, when 47% of wage earning households pay zero federal income taxes while the top 25% pay 86%? does president obama think it's fair that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with debt because of his unprecedented reckless spending because washington current

libor rows 42 cents of every dollar it spends? does the president think it's fair to pile another $40,000 of debt onto every household in the united states of america over the last three years? is it fair for every american to have a $50,000 debt obligation on them right now? does the -- does the president think it's fair to use college students as props for these campaign-style rallies without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in deeper debt? does the president think it's fair to force hardworking american taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person's purchase of a hybrid luxury car just because it fits his idea of american energy? does the president think it's fair to hand out millions of tax dollars to politically correct solar energy companies that then go bankrupt, and we've seen five so far. does the president think it's fair to tell thousands of

workers they won't have jobs because he blocked the keystone x.l. pipeline to solidify the support of the far left radical environmentalists and how does the president feel about the fact that three years of his policies have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices, and higher unemployment? is this fair, mr. speaker? and that's why we must simplify this tax code. mr. speaker, this great constitutional republic simply needs a flat tax. a flat tax would dramatically reduce the ill effects of our tax code and perhaps more important it would reduce the federal government's power over the lives of taxpayers and get the government out of the business of trying to mick ro manage the economy. the major features of a flat tax include a single flat rate, all flat tax proposals have a single rate that is usually

less than 20%, the low flat rate solves the problem of high marginal tax rates by reducing penalties against productive behavior such as work, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. elimination of special preferences, flat tax proposals would eliminate provisions of the tax code to give preference rble treatment on certain behaviors and activities. getting rid of deductions, credits and exemses also helps solve the problem of complexity, allowing taxpayer to -- taxpayers to file their tax returns on a simple form. there should be no double taxation of saving and investment. flat tax proposals would elimine the tax code's bias against capital formation by end the double taxation of income that is saved in investment. this means no death tax, low or perhaps no capital gains tax, no double taxation of savings

and no double taxation on dividends. by taxing income only one time, a flat tax is easier to enforce and more conducive to job creation and capital formation. now there are two principal argument farce flat tax, growth and fairness. many economists are atracked to the idea because the current tax system, with its high rates and discriminatory taxation of savings and investment reduces growth, lowers jobs and lowers income. it would not -- a flat tax would eliminate the damage of taxes altogether but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the bias against savings and investment, it would boost the economy's performance, especially when compared to the current tax code. under a flat tax system, i believe in only three taxable deductions a child tax credit a mortgage interest tax deduction

and a charitable contribution deduction. mr. speaker, we want families to have children. and we want children to have homes. but most importantly, we want americans helping americans. this system would end the class warfare rhetoric perpetrated by president obama and eliminate many, if not all, special interest loopholes that have been created over decades of tax code manipulation. look at other countries around the world that have implemented and are in the process of implementing the flat tax. economic growth increases, unemployment drops and we see more compliance with the tax law. nations such as estonia and slovakia are widely viewed as role models since both have engaged in dramatic reform and are reaping enormous economic benefits. since instituting the flat tax,

estonea has thrived and become a member of the european union. the flat tax was implemented in 1994 at 26% and has since fall ton 1% of income. from 2001 to 2007, esteena's economy grew by an average of 9% per year, which, as we just saw with our recent g.d.p. growth statistics for the first quarter 2,.2%, we are severely lacking. in 2003 its unemployment rate was in excess of 12%, just five years later, only 4.5% of its population was without jobs. compare that, mr. speaker, to the anemic g.d.p. in the economic recovery from president obama. we have to understand that this time in history truly does belong to the american people. the money, the resources belong to the american people.

the liberal progressive approach that wants to give more money to the government in order to better society is a flawed approach. and please, mr. speaker, tell me where a social well fair-managed state has ever been successful in the world. thomas sewell said if you don't believe in their particular political solutions then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help. i do not believe that i can spend the money of over half a million people i represent in south florida any better than they can themselves. we should be coming up with ideas how to keep more money in the american pockets, to invest in our economy, instead of propaganda, divisive rhetoric separating the american people for the spoils of politicians. let's start treating the american people as adults and find our own integrity and

character, mr. speaker. the key thing that has to accompany this is that we must reduce the size and scope of government. as well because as we start to focus more on main street, as we start to focus more on the hard working american taxpayers and what is truly best for them, then we can have that investment at their level. we can have the growth at their level. when president obama talks about increasing investments in government, i must simply inquire, what is the rate of return? we grew the bureaucracy of education and the standards of education in the united states of america dropped. we created the department of energy and still we are not energy independent. we bail out private sector industries yet experience the slowest economic recovery in u.s. history. mr. speaker, one of the reasons that i came to the united states congress is to begin

sweeping reforms to show that we are serious about turning this economy around and we are serious about creating the right set of policies that set the conditions for job creation. we're talking about economic freedom for the american people. as opposed to economic dependency upon government. this incredible exosh tent system is complex to the -- exorbitant system is complex to the point where we are not letting the freedom the american people deserve or faith in any of us. mr. speaker, i reject the notion that fairness comes from wealth redistribution. true fairness rewards merit, creating the conditions for economic success and achieving your goals. that is the american way. to promote individual industrialism, to honor the entrepreneurial will and spirit of our countrymen.

mr. speaker, simple question. why did your ancestors come to this country? did they come to get a fairer system of forced income redistribution? the government cannot and never will save our country nor our economy unless we let our children earn their successes, we will hand them a country in decline, one where they will need to rely on government for their success. it is immoral to pull the ladder of success out from under our children's feet like this. and how can i explain this to my children, my two daughters, aubrey and austin, how would you explain this to your children, mr. speaker? we have never done less with more in our history, and i believe here in washington, d.c., we need to try doing a lot more with less of the resources of the american people. in conclusion, mr. speaker, let

us show the american people that we stand steadfast and loyal to this constitutional republic and to the preservation of a legacy of liberty, freedom and democracy for subsequent generations. and to all others who would stand contrary to those simple beliefs. well, mr. speaker, in the words of the great philosopher, mr. t, i say that i pity the fool. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today -- i thought not to speak personally, but as i listened to the gentleman from florida, as i've listened to

members as they've taken the floor today, i thought i'd like to share a story with the american people, mr. speaker, and it's my own story. i went to college at wake forest university. i remember the day i was accepted. i was so excited. my parents were excited too but we knew as a family with six children, my father having served in the united states air force for 30 years, that they wanted for me what they wanted for all of us and that was the chance for the american dream in a different way than they had. and we knew that in order to do that that it would take a combination of academic scholarships and grants and loans and savings to put together what it would take to receive a college education. and so that's what we did as a family. and so i stand here today to say to you, mr. speaker, that it gives me great sadness to

know that republicans on the other side of the aisle would have student loan interest rates increase, double by july 1 without acting in this congress. and today very sadly what we did was we said to families and particularly to women, girls who want to go to school that, we'll double your -- you have a choice. we'll either double your interest rates to 6.8% beginning in the first year of your college loan or you can have preventive health care services. imagine for the young women across this country that their choice, preventive health care services or the ability to go to school on a student loan, have that loan -- the interest rate low and then pay back that loan over a period of time.

what a choice. now we listened earlier about people talking about building the american dream and climbing the ladders of opportunity to success, but that ladder has wrung. and one of the wrungs of that ladder as my family well knew when i became a freshman in college is the opportunity to get a college education, to do better than the previous generation. it's what we want for all of our children. and so i went to school on student loans, and i went to school on student loans at a time when between undergraduate school and then law school i effectively had almost $100,000 in student loans. a quarter of that, about $25,000 of that was paid out to some bank that made a profit. and instead what we've done as democrats is we in 2010 passed

a package of reforms to student loans, lowered the interest rates of student loans so that it was affordable, made those loan payments affordable and manageable, made sure that when you were coming out of school, if you had a job that didn't pay as much as you needed or wanted that your student loans would be able to be managed. and then at a interest rate that was affordable. that's not what i had, but it's what we were able to give our young people today. and it's what republicans in this congress have decided to take away. and so then in 2007 we passed the college cost reduction and access act. it provided relief to students from high interest rates by lowering those interest rates. when i came out of undergraduate school and law school, i had this array of student loans that had different interest rates and

little did i know that when i tried to consolidate those loans i actually ended up paying the higher interest rate. today, when students are graduating from college, under what democrats did in 2007, we actually -- and this congress, we made sure that the interest rates would be affordable, that students would then be able to manage them, and that they'd be able to pay their loans back. and so i want to tell you something that i'm not really proud of and that's i also got in trouble paying my loans back. didn't make as much as i needed to to pay those and to balance my other responsibilities. and it was difficult, but over a period of time because the program in fact was affordable, because i knew that we all had -- my neighbors and we all had my back that i could pay those

student loans back over a period of time. and you know, mr. speaker, just one month before i was elected to congress i paid my last student loan. i can still remember that day in january, writing that check to pay the last of my student loans. and you know how proud i am to have been able to do that and the reason is because then i knew that when my son was going to college and we were doing the same things that my parents did when i went to college, collecting the savings and academic scholarships but also putting together a package of loans that would be affordable for him to go to school. it's what we do. it's sort of that contract that we have from one generation to the next generation. i borrowed from my student loans. i paid those student loans off. my son borrowed some for his student loans. and is now in the process of paying those off.

but let's look at what republicans would have us do. first of all, we know that if we don't act by july 1 that interest rates will in fact double from 3.4% to 6.8% for seven million students across this country. and already students across our country bear nearly $1 trillion in student loan debt. and they struggle in this difficult economy as many are struggling to repay those loans. but think what would happen if those loans were allowed -- if the interest rates on those loans were allowed -- was allowed to increase to 6.8% to effectively double that interest rate. what does that mean for your average student? well, mr. speaker, what it means is that a student on average coming out with $23,000 in debt would have to pay roughly an additional $11,000

over the course of that loan period to make up for that additional interest. this makes no sense whatsoever. i think that students across the country must be wondering what it is that republicans are doing here in congress that would have them double their interest rates. especially when we're talking about a part of our population that's done everything that we asked of them. they succeeded in high school. they're going on to college. they are coming out with a promise of a hope for a good job and to be able to do better than the previous generation. and we're saying to them, republicans in this house are saying to them instead, we want you to double your interest rate. we want you to pay not just the $23,000 that you owe but an additional $11,000 in interest. and more than that, what we've

heard from some even on this house floor is that there are many on the other side of the aisle who don't believe that we should have a federally subsidized student loan program at all. education for those who are wealthy and who can afford it, but for middle-class families, not the ability to pay for -- to get a student loan and to pay that loan back in a manageable way over a period of time. and so we stand united as democrats and say we are not going to sacrifice middle-class families and stack them up against women's health care. we want to pay, make sure that we pay for these lowered student loan interest by ending a corporate tax break. that seems fair enough, and yet republicans on the other side of the aisle will simply not be reasonable and agree with what

the overwhelming majority of the american people agree to and that is that we should have student loans that are available and accessible to middle-class families. i have more to say on this, mr. speaker, but at this time i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from oregon, new to the congress, who will join me in this discussion about student loans and student loan interest. ms. bonn meche. -- ms. bonamichi. ms. bonamici: thank you to my colleague for yielding. i'm happy to be here in support of my colleague supporting fighting against this drastic hike in student loan interest rates. education is the key to improving our economy. but current barriers to higher education jeopardize those goals for too many.

education needs to be accessible to every, not just those who can pay tuition out of their pockets. i'm proud to be a co-spon or of -- co-sponsor of the stop the rate hike act which will prevent a jump in student loan interest rate bus not at the expense of health care for vulnerable populations and women. federal student loans play a significant role in improving access to education. if we allow interest rates to double on july 1, this key component of college affordability will become an increased burden on millions of students across the country who currently have student loans. the average amount of loan debt for these students is more than $23,000 and if we don't prevent this hike in interest rates, they will see their debt burden increase by an average of $1,000 just this year. now, i'm pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance

of preserving affordable interest rates for students. but i'm disappointed in proposals that would guarantee these rates at the expense of other struggling populations. the prevention and public health fund is a critical tool that decreases costs and improved access to health care for a number of populations, including women and children. if fully funded in 2013, women and children will have access to many lifesaving screenings and preventive care like funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings and childhood vaccinations woufment this important fund, many women and children would not be able to act sees -- act sees these -- access these tests, leading to poorer outcomes and increased costs on our health care system in the future. i'm hope they feel senate will act to prevent a jump in loan interest rates and sent a --

send a bill back to the house that does not cut preventive health care funding. i look forward to working with my colleagues to improve our education system, create jobs and improve the economic recovery without reversing the important steps forward we've made to improve access to health care. with that, i yield back to my good colleague. ms. edwards: i thank the gentlelady from oregon. i was just reminded as i listened to her that in her state of oregon, something on the order of 119,000 students will see an increase of about $93 million in interest rates if this takes place on july 1. in my own -- my home state of maryland, 103,400 students would see an increase in interest rates if the rate is allowed to go up from 3.4% now

to double at 6.8% and in maryland, that would be the -- to the tune of 80 -- of $80 million. these are extraordinary numbers and that burden would be borne by those who -- to whom we've said, you've done the right thing, you've gone to college, you've paid for your college, and now you're going to be able to repay your loans but we want you to pay an additional in student loan interest because the republicans refuse to act without also taking away preventive health care. these are really extraordinary numbers, mr. speaker and i think when the american people hear about the danger that is afoot come july 1, with the increase in student loan interest, middle class families all across this country will be completely outraged, and with that, i'd like to yield a few

minutes of time to my colleague from new york, ms. clarke. ms. clarke: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. today the house passed h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act or as i like to refer to it, the take from the poor, give to the poor, not in our interest act. this republican-led bill will prevent the student loan interest rate from doubling to 6.8%, but in doing so, would effectively gut the prevention and public health trust fund, a key component of the preventive care act. when my republican colleagues acknowledge the need to prevent student loan interest rates from rising on july 1, i had a glimmer of hope, hope that somewhere in their hearts remained some small bit of

compassion for their fellow americans. but as i was quickly slapped back into reality, when i saw the republicans intended to pay for this bill as they usually do on the back of middle class families and the poor. the prevention and public health trust fund was created to ensure adequate funding for preventive health niche dives. these initiatives help to improve the health of poor and middle class families and by improving health, also help lower health care costs. initiatives supported by this fund are successful because they are community-based and as such are ewe leek -- uniquely tailored to the needs of targeted communities. already there are several key initiatives supported by the fund that benefit americans. two of the initiatives, which directly benefit the 11th congressional district of new york are the chronic disease

prevention act which enable communities to use evidence-based interventions to reduce chronic conditions and prevent heart attacks, diabetes, stroke, and other conditions and the h.i.v.--- and the h.i.v.-aids prevention act which focusing on h.i.v. prevention in high-risk communities, linking h.i.v. positive persons with needed services and filling critical gaps in data collection. to eliminate funding for programs that improve the health and lives of millions of americans and lower health care costs is not prudent. while -- which is why this ill-conceived bill is the wrong way to address the -- this crisis. luckily, there are two ways that this crisis can be averted. specifically, i ask that speaker boehner bring to the floor either h.r. 3826, a bill

introdussed -- introduced by my friend and colleague, representative joe courtney, or h.r. 4816, a bill introduced by another of my democratic colleagues, john tierney. while both bills would prevent an increase in the student loan interest rates, h.r. 4816 would also pay for this by decreasing the amount of subsidies given to big oil companies. so as opposed to paying for the interest rate freeze on the backs of middle class and the poor, the democrat-sponsored h.r. 4816 would require that big oil companies pay their fair share. in closing, i'm issuing a call to action to all students, post-graduates and their families, pick up the phone. email. tweet. and send a facebook message to speaker boehner and demand that he immediately either bring h.r. 3826 or h.r. 4816 to the

floor for a vote. so, my colleagues, we have a challenge ahead of us. do we take from the poor to give to the poor? or do we do what is right by the american people? and that is to make sure that our students' interest rates do not increase and that we meet the demands for mcin our civil society. with that, i yield back to the gentlelady and thank you for the time. ms. edwards: i thank the gentlelady from new york and i just wanted to point out to her, as she well knows from new york, that 422,000 students will see an increase, if this -- if this is allowed to happen on july 1, would see an increase of interest rates from 3.4% to 6.8% and for those 422,000 students in new york, that would mean 340 million --

that would mean $340 million in increased interest rates. so i think we can see all across the country and just really, mr. speaker, would like to urge our students out there and our families, to think about what this would mean for them. seven million students across this country doing exactly what we asked them to and facing a doubling of interest rates on july 1. and i notice that we've been joined today by my colleague from ohio who is going to help us understand also what's happening in the state of ohio, the home of ohio state where i know a lot of students must be paying attention to the fact that their interest rates will double on july 1. mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i thank the gentlelady, who is also a graduate of the university of new hampshire law school, two

proud graduates. i would just like to chime in and talk a little bit, because ohio is a state that since the inception of the state into the union, we have always in ohio made investment into our schools. our colleges, our universitys, through the land grant system and what not, because there was always a deep appreciation for education. knowing as we move -- as this country moved throughout the industrial age into the information age now, how essential it is for our kids to be able to go to school. and to be able to go to community college. and to be able to go to college and be able to take a loan out which many, many years ago, they really didn't have to do because the pell grant was at a level that they didn't really necessarily need a loan. you could get a part-time job or summer job or work for the -- wherever, back in your

community, throughout the year, over the holidays and p able to supplement and your parents cowl help out a little bit and you'd be able to get an education. today because of the explosion in education costs, many of us believe there is a responsibility for all of us collectively as a society to do something that we can't do on our own and that's make investments in education. and allow every citizen in this country, they want to, to go to college. but knowing that not everyone wants to go to college, maybe they want to go to community college, which is fine. but it's about ramping up the education level in the united states of america and it's about making sure that it's affordable. and this is kind of a decisive issue here in congress today, it came to a head right here on the house floor where there was one side of the aisle that said, we want to make these investments and make sure that the student loan rates don't double to 6.8% from 3.4%, because that will be a burden

on middle class families, and that will be a burden -- a further burden on parents who are co-signing or paying these student loans, or more of a burden for the student who wants to graduate from college and then maybe go out and have a decent start in life without a 20 -- without a $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 debt hanging over their head, that would stimulate the economy and the other side said we don't want to do that. but the political pressure got so hot that they said, we're going to do that and take it out of screen frgs poor and middle class women to get cancer screenings. now, what i really dislike about what's happened in this country in the last few years, it's come down to either screw the little guy or screw the little guy. we can't do one or the other. we can't ask for the buffett rule, we can't is -- we can't

ask for a little more money from warren buffett to informs in these kinds of things. we certainly can't ask the oil and gas industry to pay a little more and close a loophole to afford to pay for education for all our citizens, we can't restructure the tax code. and make investments that are going to yield a huge benefit for early childhood, for example. so what are we doing? this doesn't make any sense. because america hasn't become successful because we failed to invest. we became successful because america always invested. we always put money into education. we always put money into research and dwofmente always made sure our education level was to the level of the technology of its time. and that's what we're talking about here. and in ohio, we need these investments. because the middle class in ohio has been squeezed. consistently squeezed for 30