Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. I think, as Moody's indicated, with the fiscal cliff at the end of this year and with the sequestration on January 1, there really is only one place where this can get resolved, and it's right here in this room. There are ideas that are on the table which, I think, clearly show a middle ground--in fact, more than a middle ground--as a way of solving these problems. The President has put on the table an extension of the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans that would entirely protect their present tax status with no increase in taxes. Obviously, the cliff will cause middle class families all across America to pay more if there is no action in this Chamber. In fact, it provides for 100 percent of all Americans the extension of the Bush tax cuts on incomes up to $250,000. Any income above that would revert back to the Clinton era rates. That change would provide about $1 trillion of deficit reduction for our country at a time when the structural deficit that the Bush tax cuts created is obviously scaring investor services like Moody's. This is a proposal which is not a 50/50 deal. It's a 98 percent deal in terms of protecting those existing tax cuts, and it's a 100 percent deal in terms of protecting people's taxes up to $250,000.

Mr. COURTNEY. And I would just say that the inaction of this leadership--today we received an ominous warning from Moody's Investor Services which warned that basically that Congress's failure to strike a deal on the fiscal cliff some time within the next 6 months or so will lead to a downgrade of this country's financial rating. Again, Moody's preserved the Triple A status last August when we had the last self-induced crisis by the Republican majority on the default issue. And so the warning is out there. Incredibly, the Speaker, when he was asked about this later in the day today, basically said he has no confidence that we can strike a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. I mean, again, we're talking--it is September 11, a day when we should be coming together and reflecting on our unity as American people. And to have that kind of negativity at a time when we've been, the same day we were warned that the country could capsize into a downgrade, and just basically throw up his arms and say, well, he has no confidence we can put that deal together, I'm reminded of the old military saying, which is, you know, lead, follow, or get out of the way. And really, for a Speaker to basically say, at this early stage, that he has no confidence that this body, which has gone through world wars, depressions, a civil war, and has always been able to really show that the genius of the Founding Fathers to create a structure where decisions can be made is somehow incapable of dealing with the issue that we're confronted with today is just a, really, just shocking admission of abdication of leadership. And really, it just--it signals that, you know, we need to have a change here in this Chamber, one way or another if we're going to deal with the problems that are looming on the horizon, which was your opening comments.

Mr. COURTNEY. It is of course. And again, another example of a measure that really is just teed up and ready for action in the House is the postal reform. We have a postal system right now which is both technically and substantively in bankruptcy. The obligations of the postal system in terms of its expenses and pension costs now exceed the revenue that's coming in. And once again we have a situation where the Senate has already acted. They passed a bipartisan postal reform bill. My colleague from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, Senator Joe Lieberman is the chair of the committee that put together, again, a significant bipartisan coalition to get a postal reform bill through which would provide stability in the finances of this system, which, again, is in bankruptcy. Nothing has happened on this side of the campus, of the Capitol in terms of any action in terms of bringing a bill to the floor to make sure that, again, the postal system, which goes back to the birth of our country, is not going to capsize into hopeless bankruptcy. I mean, just totally inexcusable to have an issue like this, which, I challenge anyone to point to any time in American history where the postal service has become sort of a partisan political football. Yet this Republican leadership has done nothing to bring a postal reform bill to the floor. Violence Against Women Act, again, a measure which is really a law enforcement measure in terms of giving our police and court systems and victim advocates the tools they need to eliminate the scourge of domestic violence in this country. My wife is involved, actually, in multidisciplinary teams back in Hartford, Connecticut, in terms of dealing with this issue as a pediatric nurse practitioner. Again, the Senate passed a good, strong bipartisan bill. We had a partisan measure that just turned the clock back in terms of protecting victims who, again, are here on temporary visas, again, as some kind of statement, I guess, about immigration. And yet this is a measure which has not been sent to conference by this side of the Chamber, and we have a situation, a priority such as domestic violence which has traditionally been completely nonpartisan since it was first enacted back in the 1990s, and no action is being taken by this Republican leadership who seems intent on going home pretty soon and just basically leaving town until election time. I mean, it's just stunning that, you know, farm bill, postal reform bill, violence against women, we should be able to do these things tonight and give this country some confidence.

Mr. COURTNEY. And just to follow up on that point, again, the Senate farm bill included within it disaster relief assistance--not just for a short period of time, but for 5 years. Again, the House did bring up a so-called ``disaster relief'' bill right before the August break-- something which the American Farm Bureau dismissed as inadequate in terms of actual agricultural policy in this country--used as a pay-for taking money out of conservation, which, again, as critical a priority as almost anything else in the farm bill. Again, it was just an almost pathetic attempt to provide political cover for people who knew that, again, with the catastrophe happening out in the Midwest, they couldn't possibly leave town without at least trying to make some small gesture towards acknowledging that that was actually happening. But, again, the Senate measure includes a full disaster relief. The House committee bill which came out has full disaster relief. That's what, really, the American agriculture community is looking for. Tomorrow, on the steps of the Capitol, there will be a huge rally with farm groups from all across America gathering on the steps. Senator Stabenow and Congressman Collin Peterson from Minnesota are going to be out there leading the charge. We understand that some Republican Members are going to show some courage and get out there on those steps and join those farmers in saying we need a farm bill now to be voted on in the House of Representatives. And it's time for the Republican leadership to listen to the people who, again, are out there busting their tail every single day making sure that there's food on the table for this country.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. To follow up on that point, one of the aspects of this farm bill which I think is actually so exciting is that there's a major reform in terms of how we're going to reduce, to some degree, the American taxpayers' liability for crop production in this country. We are definitely eliminating crop subsidies once and for all, direct cash payments to farms, in both the Senate bill and in the House Agriculture Committee bill. We are eliminating direct payment subsidies. That's where the largest portion of savings are actually being generated, the $23 billion in the Senate and the roughly $33 billion in the House bill. We are basically going to be using much more of a crop insurance, risk insurance model where the farmers have a little more skin in the game. The producer is going to have a little more skin in the game and the taxpayer is going to have a little less. From almost every angle, when you look at the hard work that's been put into the measure this year in terms of, again, lowering costs, trying to wean the system away from direct cash payments, doing some important, I think, exciting reforms in terms of promoting farmers' markets and marketing specialty crops--which, again, I'm sure Iowa is just like New England and California and other places where there has just been this renaissance of local agriculture. Food security issues and the growing awareness about the fact that healthier foods for school cafeterias or family dinner tables is something that people are just really engaged in as almost never before. This farm bill promotes all of that positive change in terms of nutrition habits all the way to school cafeterias, but also, again, helping producers deal with a different structure in terms of how their business model is going to run. As you point out, you can't do that with a 3-month extension or a 9-month extension or a 12-month extension. We need a 5-year farm bill. We need something exactly along the lines of what the Senate produced on a bipartisan basis. Again, it is just incredible that this leadership, the Republican leadership, doesn't hear what is out there right now both on the producer side and on the nutrition side. People want this Congress to get this item done, and it just should not be a partisan issue.

Mr. COURTNEY. And it is a shame because really, if you look at the U.S. economy right now, particularly in terms of balance of trade, agriculture is probably the brightest spot, even with all the challenges that have happened this summer. I mean, export of American farm products, whether it's beef or commodities, is actually really helping the balance of trade for this country. There was a story this morning in The New York Times about Mexico, about how their rising middle class now--I mean, made in America, particularly for food products, is something that the consumer market is really stampeding towards. And again, to allow this September 30 deadline to happen and to suddenly, you know, have complete almost chaos in terms of pricing mechanisms, in terms of, again, insurance payments, in terms of cash payments, which, presumably, would somehow have to continue, really would hurt growth in this country, which American agriculture has actually been helping sort of pull up for other sectors. I want to thank the gentleman for joining me here this evening to talk about that point. Again, there was a Bloomberg News report also earlier today that said that telemarketers now have a higher approval rating than the U.S. Congress. And again, the colloquy we just listened to this evening about the farm bill, it's no wonder. The work schedule which the Republican majority has put forward over the last 18 months would make Homer Simpson blush. I mean, the fact of the matter is we've had repeated recesses. We've had a work product, in terms of actual numbers of bills that have been discussed and brought forward on the floor, at historic lows. We've had a shutdown crisis in April of last year where, literally, the country was on the edge of its seat in terms of whether or not the U.S. government was going to shut down last April of 2011. We had, for the first time in American history, the prospect of a default on the full faith and credit of this country, when the debt limit issue was run up to, again, the final seconds before Treasury would have no authority to sell bonds to pay the bills for this country. First time in American history we confronted that prospect. Under Ronald Reagan, the debt limit was extended 18 times with little or no fuss, yet this majority has intentionally sort of pushed these sorts of pressure points over the last 18 months, 2 years, to score political points. And that's something which Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority Leader, made very clear was the number one priority of the Republicans in Washington: to cripple this President and to deprive him of reelection in a second term. And now, as we stand here on September 10, we are now looking at another cliff that's facing this country, the fiscal cliff which is at the end of December, the Tax Code reverts back to pre-2001, raising taxes for middle class families all across the country. President Obama has put out a plan which would protect the income of all Americans up to $250,000. And I want to repeat that. Every American would still retain their tax cuts from 2001 up to $250,000. For those who are fortunate enough to be above that threshold of adjusted gross income, then the rates would revert back to the Clinton era for people to pay a little bit more. And the Congressional Budget Office has scored that change as helping the deficit by roughly 800 to $900 billion. You know, a couple of nights ago we had an opportunity, as a Nation, to listen to William Clinton, to President Clinton talk about his record in office, when his fiscal policies put the Nation's public finances in the black for the first time in decades. I mean, a lot of us who grew up in the fifties and sixties could not sort of remember a time when America was paying its bills and paying down its debt. President Clinton presided over policies which got us to that point. It was also an economy which produced 22 million jobs. We had unemployment rates below 4 percent in many States like my own, in the State of Connecticut, where unemployment was between two and three percent in 1998 and 1999. And he did it in way that was fair and balanced. And the speech that he gave in Charlotte the other night reminded us that when you actually invest in the middle class, when you make sure that middle class families have the tools to raise their family, to educate their children, to cover their health care needs, to buy a house and afford a house, to provide the means so that seniors over 65 won't be bankrupted by health care bills, the fact of the matter is that's the formula for success for growth in this country. And, again, the 1990s is Exhibit A for the success of those policies, which the President, when he gave his acceptance speech, reemphasized that, again, he is willing to extend the tax cuts for income up to $250,000 for all Americans, rich and poor, that we would revert the rates back to the Clinton era, which now even Mr. Romney is talking very positively about the Clinton years and praises President Clinton's tenure in office. Well, he ought to adopt the plan that President Clinton is suggesting. That's a plan which will put the public finances of our country back into better balance and which will provide a more solid footing. Even more than that, if we were able to come together with that reasonable compromise--averting the fiscal cliff--it would give this country and particularly the business community the confidence of knowing that their tax exposure--that the fiscal status of this country--is not literally going to be driven up to the cliff, up to the brink, over periods of short, monthlong time periods, just as it was in 2011 and 2012. That really, unfortunately, sadly, is the legacy of the 112th Congress under Speaker Boehner's tenure. That's why telemarketers are more popular than Members of the U.S. Congress, which is according to the Bloomberg News report that came out earlier today. We have a leadership which has shown itself quite willing to defy all of the hopes of the American people that we would get people working together and compromise and extend a horizon for people so that they can make decisions to invest and to hire. Rather, we have seen under the direction of folks like Mitch McConnell that the number one priority is not what matters for the American people; the number one priority is to bring down this President. That was the number one issue everywhere I went when I was home over the last 5 weeks: When are we going to see some compromise out of the Republican leadership to come together for fiscal policies that will avert the fiscal cliff? When are we going to come together to diffuse the sequestration chain saw that's sitting out there on January 1, which is going to cut through the Federal Government both on the defense side and on the nondefense side? I think it's important to remember nondefense interests, whether it's hospitals or medical providers, are looking at a 2 percent across-the- board cut in Medicare payments if sequestration goes into effect. Education, whether it's K through 12, whether it's student loans, are also going to get hit with that chain saw. We're going to see it with the National Institutes of Health, which is doing incredibly exciting work in terms of coming up with cures for cancer by using genome research. That chain saw is going to cut through NIH in terms of the great research projects that are going on in that institution. We would also see the chain saw hit defense. In industry after industry in which you need to have a horizon, whether it's building F-35 fighter planes, whether it's building surface ships down in Virginia or nuclear submarines up in the State of Connecticut, the fact of the matter is the sequestration option, as Secretary Leon Panetta--the Secretary of Defense--has said, would be catastrophic for the national defense of this country. There are proposals on the table which would avert the implementation of sequestration. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. We had a hearing with leaders from the aerospace industry. We had leaders from the administration--the head of the Budget Office, the Undersecretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who handles budget policy. If you look at the budget which President Obama put out in January and if you look at Paul Ryan's budget resolution in 2011, what you will see is, in fact, there is overlap between the two that could easily get us to the point of diffusing the sequestration chain saw that I mentioned out there. We have to hit a target of $1.2 trillion in terms of deficit reduction to avert sequestration from going into effect. If you look at the savings from the drawdown in Afghanistan, which Paul Ryan and the Republican majority put in their budget resolution in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it totals roughly about $800 billion, and that's post-2014. That was in the Ryan budget. President Obama, in his budget plan, had exactly the same measure, which would save roughly $800 billion. If the two sides would come together and agree that we could pass a measure that locks in those savings, then you've really gotten to about two-thirds of the sequestration target set up under the Budget Control Act. We can do this. We can do this this week if people would actually, basically, put down their cudgels--again, 8 weeks away from an election--and say: Let's do something that's for the benefit of the country; let's eliminate that uncertainty that's hanging out there; let's tell those firms that are wrestling with whether or not they have to issue WARN notices, layoff notices, to their workers because of sequestration sitting out there on January 1. Let's come together. Let's get this thing done. Let's look at the President's budget, and let's look at Paul Ryan's budget. Let's find the areas of common agreement, which do exist, and let's get this thing fixed so that the American economy is not facing another one of these runups. Unfortunately, the majority back in April of 2011 was willing to push this country to a government shutdown, and later, in August, was willing to default on the full faith and credit of this country. Let's not do that. Let's allow the American people the opportunity to have some security, which is that their jobs, that our national defense, that health care providers, that educators, that people who are in the critical areas of research and development over at NIH are not going to have the rug pulled out from under them because of sequestration, which was part of a package from which Speaker John Boehner proudly announced he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Again, when the Budget Control Act passed, the Speaker was interviewed, and he was boasting about the fact that the Republicans got 98 percent of what they wanted. Within that package was the sequestration mechanism. Mr. Ryan, the candidate for Vice President, actually also publicly boasted about the fact that sequestration was a compromise which the two sides agreed to. So everybody has got their fingerprints on it. The fact of the matter is that it's sitting out there, and it's creating uncertainty in the U.S. economy. There are measures that are both within the Ryan budget and the Obama budget which overlap and from which we could easily implement a compromise to diffuse that sequestration chain saw that's sitting out there. All it takes is the willingness of this Chamber, led by the Speaker, who is now trying to distance himself from the deal that he embraced back in August of last year, to come forward and say, okay, let's sit down and hammer this out. You could do it on the back of an envelope within a matter of a day or two in terms of the areas of agreement that exist between the Obama budget and the Ryan budget. The failure to do that--the failure to bring up a farm bill, the failure to bring up a postal reform bill, the failure to bring up a Violence Against Women Act for conference and for final resolution, the failure to implement budgets on the health and labor and education subcommittee, which the majority just basically, I guess, decided they're just not going to do--is why Bloomberg News came out with their report today saying that Congress is now less popular than telemarketers. This is one of the most despised Congresses in American history, and it has been led by Republican leaders who, again, have shown that they are more interested in trying to weaken this President than in trying to strengthen our country. This is with regard to issue after issue, whether or not it's the farm bill, whether or not it's the postal reform--where we have a system that is literally now technically in bankruptcy--whether it's the Violence Against Women Act, whether it's getting budgets done in regular order, whether it's diffusing sequestration, whether it's averting the fiscal cliff. We went home for 5 weeks without acting on any of these measures because of a recess motion that the Speaker put forward. The country is basically sitting there, waiting to see whether or not we have either a short-term future or a long-term future, which all of these issues are so critical to determining. We are going to be watching this agenda over the next few days. What we saw today from the majority leader's office indicated no farm bill, no postal reform bill, nothing related to any measures to try and deal with sequestration. We have seen a do- nothing agenda this week by the majority following 5 weeks of being back in the districts. The American Farm Bureau was doing a cross-country barnstorm about the fact that we need to get that measure passed so we can create some certainty and horizon for the men and women who are getting up every morning and milking cows and planting crops and harvesting crops, those who desperately, particularly with the drought conditions in the Midwest, need to have some certainty that there is going to be crop insurance in place to make sure that they are not going to go bankrupt. We have a measure which passed in the U.S. Senate--it's a bipartisan bill--which saves the taxpayer $23 billion, and yet we have a leadership which won't even bring up a farm bill for consideration. The bill that came out of committee wasn't perfect, but it is a measure which we need to act on to send to conference so that the agriculture sector of this country can have some confidence about what kind of future they're going to have beyond the next few weeks or until September 30, which is when the law of this country reverts back to that of the 1949 farm bill. So that's the message which I certainly heard on my break and that Mr. Braley heard on his break. I think we're going to hear it this week when representatives of commodity crop groups--the American Farm Bureau, the American Farmers Union--are going to be gathering in the U.S. Capitol and demanding action so that we can at least allow one sector the ability and the confidence to know that they have some future, both short term and long term. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here we are today on September 10, 5 weeks since Speaker Boehner pushed through a motion to recess for 5 weeks at a time when our Nation faces so many challenges, so many ticking clocks in terms of must-do items, some of which have already cleared the U.S. Senate, like the farm bill. And yet despite that need out there from the country, looking for some action and certainty out of this Chamber, the majority again said, Nope. We're going home for 5 weeks. And we're going to leave dairy farmers whose price supports expired on August 31 left hanging in the breeze--despite the fact that the U.S. Senate has passed a farm bill with Dairy Security Act provisions that reforms the price structure, saves the taxpayer money, and provides some horizon so that the folks who are getting up every morning and milking cows could have some certainty in terms of whether or not their business, their operations, have any sense of future. They are losing money every day in New England. The feed costs, the high energy costs. And the Dairy Security Act, which was part of the Senate farm bill, and by the way was also incorporated in the House Agriculture Committee in its committee bill, will, in fact, provide that sense of security and future for dairy farmers. Yet the Speaker put through a motion to recess for 5 weeks. August 31 has come and gone, and these guys and women are out there and they are faced with total fear, and those are the faces that I saw when I was home in August about the fact that this Congress, particularly the House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans, refused to take up a farm bill despite the fact that we had weeks of time to do it before the expiration of the price supports for dairy farmers. Obviously, American agriculture is far broader than just the dairy industry. It also includes commodity crops in the great Midwest, which are facing a historic drought right now where the security of crop insurance is so important. Joining me here this evening to report in from the Midwest is a great Congressman from eastern Iowa, my colleague and friend, Congressman Bruce Braley, and I would like to yield to him to talk about what the lack of a farm bill means in your great State.

Mr. COURTNEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COURTNEY. Just to kind of put the period on that is that right now the House Republican leadership is looking like we've only got 8 days of real, full floor action for the whole month of September. Again, incredibly, after basically leaving town and passing a motion to recess, the Republican leadership, now that we're back, has only scheduled 8 full session days, which, again, really shows why your discharge petition for the farm bill is so critical in that we really need to get this thing moving, because there clearly will be a conference. There's going to be some disagreement with the Senate. But on the fundamental structure of the bill there really isn't. I mean, the reform of subsidy payments, there's overlap in both bills. The savings that that will generate, the dairy issue which I mentioned earlier, how we are again going from a historic change in terms of an industry that's had total cash payment subsidies to a risk insurance model, which, again, commodity crop folks like yours have dealt with that for decades. We're now putting dairy into that same model. But 8 days does not give us much margin for error in terms of the way this place operates. And again, that's the Republican schedule which came out. I know, as far as yourself and myself and our colleagues on our side of the aisle, you know, we're prepared to roll up our sleeves and stay here as long as it takes, and frankly, we've got other issues which I think all of us would be more than happy to plunge into, whether it's the fiscal cliff, whether its sequestration, whether it's the postal reform bill, which the Senate has passed, whether it's the Violence Against Women Act that again, incredibly, even though law enforcement leaders all across the country are imploring Congress to move on the Violence Against Women Act, the leadership hasn't set a conference group to get that bill done. This is stuff that should be just baseline givens, in terms of just running the country. And yet we have got an agenda this week which, other than maybe doing a CR to keep the government from closing on October 1, that's it in terms of what the Republican leadership has put forward.

Mr. COURTNEY. I think your last point about the fact that we are now at a place where the Democratic minority is finding itself in a position where they really have almost no choice but to seek a discharge petition. The fact is is that this week the majority, Speaker Boehner's office and the House Majority Leader, Congressman Cantor, issued their agenda for the week which lists the bills that they are proposing to take up for votes. And for those listening around the country, I think it's important to remember that the Republican majority controls that agenda. I mean, that is something that we have no control in our caucus of adding or subtracting. Looking at that agenda this week, I was hoping when I got back from the 5-week break that the Speaker's office would have responded to what is happening all over the country, which is a hue and cry demanding action on a farm bill. But the fact is, as I think the gentleman from Iowa knows, is that there is nothing on that agenda that indicates we are going to take up a farm bill this week. Incredible. I mean, just amazing, that, you know, at a time when the American Farm Bureau has been doing a circuit throughout the Midwest holding hearings, holding events, drawing attention to this fact. Even in New England and Connecticut, which is not viewed as a sort of agriculture powerhouse, I mean the fact is I had roundtables with the Connecticut Farm Bureau who are just dumbfounded that an issue like this could get sort of swept up in just sort of the do-nothing record of the Republican majority in this Congress. I also think it's important for people to remember the Senate farm bill which passed, as the gentleman indicated, on a bipartisan basis actually saves the taxpayers $23 billion over the next 5 years. It came in with a lower cost than the baseline from the last farm bill, so it actually helps the deficit situation. The House Agriculture Committee bill that you mentioned that got reported out also reduces the deficit. Again, I think it went a little too heavy in terms of the reductions on the nutrition side, but I am confident that that can get worked out in a conference committee if the House would take up a bill and send a bill to a conference committee. But the fact of the matter is is your leadership, in terms of bringing out a discharge petition, is probably not something that you woke up thinking you'd love to do 6 months from now, but it's really an act of necessity because this majority will not even send a signal that anything is even being planned to take up a bill this week.

Mr. COURTNEY. This week, I think we are going to see the impact outside of the beltway, because it's my understanding that over 30 to 50 groups are going to be converging on Washington, advocates of American agriculture ranging from the real traditional American Farm Bureau to the Farmers Union, to specific commodity crop groups who, as you point out, sometimes have some pretty heated disagreements about regional issues and about allocations within the farm bill; and they may still have some today in terms of the way the Senate bill was voted out in the House committee, but they all agree on one item, which is that it is time for this House of Representatives to act. This is not a debate club here that people were sent to, and it's also not a place where political strategists can sort of play games with people's lives about how the agenda is handled. I mean, this is a place where so many sectors of American society depend on us, again, at the end of the day, rising to our constitutional duty, sometimes having to really compromise on some very difficult measures, but, nonetheless, we have a duty to act. We have a duty to really make sure that the people who sent us here can rely on the fact that we're not here just to fight and sort of try and get political gain out of every issue that comes to the floor. Again, what the Connecticut farmers were saying to me when I was back home is that they just cannot believe that the farm bill has now become a partisan issue, but the Republican leadership controlling this House apparently believes it is. They won't even bring up a bill for a vote.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in exactly 5-months' time, the tax rates for every tax filer in this country will go up in the event of the so- called ``fiscal cliff,'' which most mainstream economists believe would push our country back into a double-dip recession. There is hope, however. Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a measure which protects the incomes of every tax filer up to $250,000 and allows rates for incomes above that point to return to the Clinton-era rates. This is a plan which will protect 98 percent of the tax filers in this country from any tax increase. It will help balance the budget and will give confidence to the financial markets, which are terrified of the inability of this town to get its business done. We should act on the Senate's plan. The House Republican leadership has a choice: let's compromise; let's get something done; let's help the economy--or let's push this country into brinksmanship, which for the last year and a half has been the trademark of the 112th Congress. We can do better as the House of Representatives. Let's pass the Senate measure. Let's provide some confidence for the American people and for the U.S. economy to grow.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on the so-called regulatory freeze bill which will act as a chain saw, going through parts of the government that have absolutely nothing to do with small business or small business job creation. And I say that as a former small employer. One of the regulations which will be butchered under this law is the income-based repayment program which the Department of Education is now in the middle of fashioning, which will provide loan payment relief for people paying title IV student loans. For a teacher making $25,000 a year with maybe about $20,000 in student loan debt, that program will reduce monthly payments by $100 a month. That is real help for people who are contributing to the U.S. economy. Allowing that regulation to go forward will not hurt the U.S. economy. In fact, it will provide more basis for that teacher to go out and survive and spend money on housing, car loans, et cetera. Yet this bill, in the name of job creation, will knock down the income-based repayment program.

Mr. COURTNEY. The income-based repayment program is trying to provide student loan relief at a time when student loan debt in this country now exceeds $1 trillion--higher than credit card debt, higher than car loan debt. It is a commonsense program, fully paid for. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law in 2010, offset every nickel of cost in the income-based repayment program; and yet here we are, debating a bill at a time of crisis for middle class families because of student loan debt, denying them the needed relief which will help the U.S. economy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Protection Act. I also want to thank my colleague, Congressman Jim Langevin, for his unyielding efforts to introduce, promote and advance this important legislation. As you know, the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Protection Act would initiate an important first step to potential National Wild and Scenic River designation for portions of the Chipuxet, Queen, Wood, and Pawcatuck Rivers in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Launching a study by the National Parks Service, this legislation could help to verify the outstanding beauty, abundant fisheries, and historic character that these free-flowing rivers currently provide our local communities and put this designated area on a path towards greater preservation. Connecticut and Rhode Island are home to some of the most diverse habitats and natural resources, including the lands and waters of the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed. As stewards of this pristine 300 square mile area, it is our responsibility to ensure that these natural habitats are preserved and protected for generations to come. Our communities in Connecticut and Rhode Island have joined together to help protect this outstanding resource and preserve the area's biological diversity as well as its seemingly unlimited recreational opportunities. The relationship between the continued health of our local communities and the continued health of these waters is one that cannot and should not be overlooked. The Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association and the Nature Conservancy have done an outstanding job advocating for the need and passage of this legislation, garnering the support of every town in the surrounding areas. It is evident that this locally-driven priority would benefit greatly from the public-private partnership that the Wild and Scenic designation entails, and I encourage this body to look favorably on this legislation so that a study for potential designation can begin. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of H.R. 3388, the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed Protection Act.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great constituent. Charles ``Skip'' Russell of Enfield, Connecticut passed away earlier this week and will be interred with Military Honors at St. Patrick King Street Cemetery. Skip was a mentor and friend to many, coaching Little League for over ten years, and serving as the Past Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus Council 50. An Enfield resident since 1951, Skip began as an employee of Bigelow-Stanford Carpet Company. He later served as Sales Manager with Nutmeg Building Supplies for 35 years until his retirement in 1992. During World War II, Skip was also proud to serve his country in both the Merchant Marines and the United States Army. For his years of outstanding service, Skip was awarded the World War II Victory Medal. Committed to supporting veterans and their families, he remained a lifelong member of AMVETS. Even after his retirement, Skip was a dedicated and active participant in local grassroots politics of Enfield, Connecticut. As a member of the Enfield Democratic Committee, Skip contributed enthusiastically to local efforts. He was always the first at Headquarters to volunteer for projects, and he could always be counted on to have a car trunk full of signs and hand cards, and pockets stuffed with stickers and buttons. Skip was an eloquent supporter of Social Security and Medicare at numerous public forums in the Enfield area. His passion and energy for the political process will be fondly remembered by all his fellow campaigners, as well as the many elected officials and candidates who were fortunate enough to meet him. Skip Russell's legacy is not just that of a devoted father, husband, and servicemen, but also of an engaged and involved citizen in his local community. Skip will be dearly missed by his wife, children, grandchildren, great grandchild, and all those in Enfield whom he touched with his years of community service. I ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the loss and honoring the life of Skip Russell.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Seymour Pollock, who was raised in Brooklyn, Connecticut in my Congressional District and turned 100 years old on July 8th. Known by his friends and family as ``Sy,'' he is a straightforward man with a complicated backstory. Losing his mother as a young boy, he and his two brothers spent much of their childhood separated. The financial burden of caring for three sons forced his father to place his kids in foster homes, where Sy suffered abuse. Continued domestic instability prompted Sy to leave home and stow away on a cruise ship when he was 16. When he was discovered hiding on board, the teenager told the Captain that his name was Seymour, to which the captain replied ``Well, now you are going to see less.'' Sy worked in the galley until they returned to port. During World War II, Sy served in the United States Army, where he cleaned and repaired semi-automatic weapons for the troops on the frontlines. His unit was responsible for setting up the coastal defense for what is now Battery Park in New York. After the war, Sy's father bought a building in the Bronx and opened up a business there selling and repairing cash registers. He and his brothers eventually ran that business together. Sy retired to Florida at 82. He is the father of two daughters and a grandfather of two ambitious young men. I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the extraordinary life of this man who exemplifies the American dream.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Last Friday, President Obama signed into law a bipartisan compromise which extended a lower student interest rate of 3.4 percent. Incredibly, the ink was barely dry on that measure when the Romney campaign introduced their higher education plan, which would take us back to wasteful taxpayer subsidies to private student loan lenders. This is what the conservative Cato Institute said about that proposal: A meaningless change from a college affordability standpoint. Obviously, it would have an effect for banks, who would be happy to go back to that. It was a great gig for them. A Romney supporter at the new New America Foundation said on this issue: On this issue, Romney is just ridiculous. His campaign staff doesn't have any new ideas. So they just said, Let's go back to what we were doing before the Obama administration. For young Americans, the choice this fall is becoming clearer. We have a President who successfully challenged this Congress to protect the lower student loan interest rate, and his opponent, who is looking to take $60 billion in taxpayer funds and give it away to special interests.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Andrews, for your leadership in this debate here this evening. We've heard a lot of misleading comments about the so-called damage that has been done to U.S. employers as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Well, the people who make those statements forgot to ask the 5,200 American employers who stampeded into the Affordable Care Act's early retiree reinsurance program, over half of the Fortune 500 companies in this country included in that group, some of whose corporate logos are on the chart here. And rather than causing problems with new employment, again, just looking at Ford Motor Company, they've added 7,000 workers this year to the ranks of their assembly plants, obviously using the benefit of the early retiree program, which acts as a Federal backstop for high insurance claims, a principle and a pattern that we have used for flood insurance, that we've used for nuclear power plant insurance, again, using the Federal Government as a backstop for high cost claims. And again, companies like Comcast, who are hiring in my district, have all taken advantage of this program. Individuals who make these claims have also forgotten to ask the 360,000 small businesses that last year took advantage of the small business tax credit, a 35 percent tax credit on health insurance premiums. That number is going to go up to 50 percent starting in 2014. And as Mr. Andrews has repeatedly pointed out here tonight, there is no mandate on businesses or firms 50 or less. That's 96 percent of small businesses in America. But there will be a tax credit to help those firms actually defray the cost because, as a former small employer myself, small employers want to provide benefits. The problem is that they have trouble affording it, and the tax credit set up in the Affordable Care Act will help those small businesses defray the costs and entice and enroll new employees in their businesses who are looking for those types of the benefits. So the fact of the matter is that with the job growth that we have seen, again, we need more. But with the job growth over the last year and a half since the Affordable Care Act went into effect, we have helped businesses, 5,200 employers who are using the early retiree insurance programs, including nonprofits, religious institutions, and public sector employers across the country, and 360,000 small businesses who've taken advantage of that tax credit. We need to build on that success and grow this economy. Let's skip this debate and move on to real jobs legislation.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, with a few minutes to spare, we just voted to make sure that the interest rate for the Stafford student loan program was going to stay at 3.4 and avoid the doubling of rates, which would have happened Saturday night if we had not acted. This is an issue which took months to get to. President Obama challenged Congress back at the State of the Union in January, telling us that we must act. It took months to get any response. And I want to congratulate the 130,000 college students all across America who submitted a petition to the Speaker's office saying it was time to get moving. We started the countdown clock on that day at Day 110, and now we are officially defusing the time bomb that would have exploded with a higher interest rate if we had not acted. We have a lot more work to do with the high cost of college and student loan debt, which now exceeds credit card debt and consumer loan debt. But having said that, we saw today an honest compromise; people coming together to make sure that that lower rate was going to be extended. Let's use that example to move forward and solve this problem for middle class families all across America. Again, to those students who worked so hard to have their voices heard, congratulations. Let's roll up our sleeves and continue the great work.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the careers of Dr. John Gallacher and Anthony A. Torre. As they prepare to retire as the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Schools for the town of Enfield, respectively, they leave behind a legacy of excellence. Dr. John Gallacher's passion for education began in 1968, when he started his career as a sixth grade teacher for the Elmhurst U-205 School District in Elmhurst, Illinois. He moved to Iowa eight years later to become an Elementary School Principal: first for the Ponora- Linden Community School District in Panora, Iowa, and then for Washington and Torrence Schools in Keokuk. Dr. Gallacher continued his work in Keokuk until 1992, serving as the Instructional Services Coordinator and the Superintendent of Schools for the district. Having held a variety of positions within the public school system, Dr. Gallacher brought an impressive knowledge and diverse set of skills to Enfield, Connecticut. He has worked as the Superintendent for the past twenty years, where he earned the reputation of an astute problem solver and tireless worker. Like Dr. Gallacher, Anthony Torre served in different facets of education before becoming an administrator for the Enfield Public School System. In 1959, he started out a classroom teacher at A.D. Higgins Junior High School, working for six years before transitioning to the Chair of the Math Department at Enfield High. Mr. Torre went on to serve as the school's Assistant Principal and Principal, as well as the Principal of Enrico Fermi High School in town. He has remained at his current position of the Assistant Superintendent of Schools for nearly forty years, playing a key role overseeing the expansion of the town's High Schools and ensuring that technological advances were integrated into classrooms. These two men share nearly 100 years of experience between them that has been an invaluable asset to the children of Enfield. Both have been passionate advocates of education and have gone above and beyond the boundaries of their job description to transform the lives of thousands of youngsters. They will be missed greatly. I ask my colleagues to join with me to recognize the exemplary service that Dr. John Gallacher and Mr. Anthony Torre have provided to Connecticut's children.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts in the next 4 days, the subsidized Stafford student loan interest rate is going double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Despite the fact that that looming deadline which affects over 7 million college students all across American is staring us in the face, what we are debating here today is a rule which allows the House to go into recess for the 10th week since January, which is part of this rule. The good news is that a couple of hours ago it was reported that the Senate and Republican leadership have actually agreed upon a settlement of this issue which would allow the 3.4 percent rate to be extended for 1 year. But I would note that Mitch McConnell, who's the minority leader for the Republic Party, said that: Final approval of student loan legislation, which would prevent rates on Federal Stafford loans from doubling to 6.8 percent, depends on House Republicans. The fact of the matter is we have no idea whether or not the House Republican leadership is going to agree to this compromise which the Senate leadership reached a few hours ago, because all we're debating here today is another adjournment or recess motion before the House. The fact of the matter is it is time for us to focus on this issue which the President on January 25 challenged Congress to act on. I started this countdown chart at day 110. We are now down to the final hours before the interest rates double, which will cost thousands of dollars in more interest costs to college student across America, unless we act. The fact of the matter is that the House Republican bill that they rushed to the floor without a subcommittee, without a markup, was completely rejected by Republicans in the Senate. We now have the glimmer of a deal, a compromise. We should not be debating another adjournment resolution for the 10th week of recess this year until we get this work done. There are millions of college students all across America who are waiting for us to get this issue resolved so that they can plan their budget for the next fall semester. And the fact that we're here again with another adjournment resolution with the most unproductive Congress in recent memory is ridiculous. We should reject this rule. Let's focus on getting the work done that the American people are counting on.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Polis, for yielding and for, again, bringing this issue back to the floor, which, as my chart indicates, we're now down to 10 days. When this chart was first created, it was 110 days, and it coincided with the delivery of 130,000 petition signatures from college campuses all across America, pleading with Congress to listen to President Obama's challenge on January 25 right from that podium that we should block the increase from going through. My legislation, which was introduced at midnight the same night, had 152 cosponsors to lock in the lower rate. For 3 months, nothing happened. A bill was rushed to the floor by the majority without any consultation with the other side. It took money out of a fund to pay for cervical cancer screening and diabetes screening, a hyperpartisan measure which the President indicated he would veto even before the vote was taken. The good news is Mr. Boehner has already moved away from that proposal. He sent a letter with Senator McConnell to the Senate leadership offering new pay-fors and moving off the House bill. Again, that was rushed through with absolutely no consultation on any bipartisan basis. There are 7 million college students who are waiting for an answer in the next 10 days to this issue. The rates will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Senator Reid has talked already about a proposal which is a pay-for that, again, there appears to be some willingness to move forward on. We should be focused on that issue right now, not this measure on the floor which is going nowhere. It's another bill which will never see the light of day in the Senate. This issue, helping students pay for college at a time when student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion, is the issue that America is watching and waiting. And editorially, from Florida all the way to the west coast, newspapers are demanding bipartisan compromise, not the kind of measure which was rammed through this House a month and a half ago. The building blocks are there, but we have to focus on that, not the measure that's before us here today. And the Tierney bill is a perfect opportunity for us to do something which, again, has a balanced approach and which will protect students from the doubling of their student loan interest rates.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts in the next 11 days, the interest rates for the subsidized Stafford student loan program are going to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This is at a time when student loan debt now has topped the $1 trillion number, which is according to the Federal Reserve Bank. This is a program which will provide relief for over 7 million college students who literally today are already trying to budget for next fall's semester at colleges and universities--at 2-year colleges, at 4-year colleges. Yet this Congress left for 10 days, up until yesterday, for another recess--the ninth recess this year. This number, 11 days until the rate-hike increase, should probably be 6 days because that's all the number of days that the Speaker has scheduled between now and July 1. How did we get to this point? In 2007, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, we voted for the College Class Reduction Act, with Republican support, which cut the rate for the subsidized Stafford student loan program from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. That has helped over 15 million college kids over the last 5 years. It was a sunset measure, like many other bills that pass in this Congress; and last July 25, on that podium, President Obama challenged this Congress to avoid allowing that rate to double on July 1. For 3 solid months, we had absolutely no action in this Congress--no hearings, no markup, no bill. Luckily, external pressure was exercised on this Chamber. We had 130,000 college students drop off petition signatures to the Speaker, demanding action. Finally, the Speaker rushed a bill to the floor, without a hearing, without a markup--a totally hyper-partisan bill--that did delay the rate hike for 1 year, yet was paid for with a measure that was so unacceptable: cutting programs and funding for cervical cancer screening, diabetes screening, cardiac screening. It was a measure which was dead on arrival, but at least it was some response. It was at least a flicker of acknowledgment that there was a real problem out there for middle class families around the country. Now, on January 5, when the President announced his challenge to the Congress, I introduced legislation before midnight that night which would have locked in the lower rate at 3.4 percent. We have 152 cosponsors in the House for that measure, and in the Senate there is a back-and-forth going on right now about a 1-year extension. So, again, there actually are some hopeful signs. Leader Reid, Harry Reid, introduced a measure with a pay-for, which was not greeted with immediate criticism and denunciation, so there is actually a chance that between now and July 1 we can come together and do our jobs and actually be here to work on the people's business and to make sure that, again, 7 million college kids don't see their interest rates spike at a time when student loan debt has shattered all records. The stakes could not be higher. U.S. graduation rates now have fallen to 12th in the world. We were No. 1 in the 1980s. There are a variety of reasons which explain that, but certainly the high cost of college is one of those reasons. We are seeing now an alarming trend of individuals who take on debt to go to college and then never get their degrees. Debt without a degree is almost a death sentence--a lifetime of struggling in terms of trying to get ahead. We as the Congress have the responsibility to make sure that that doesn't happen or at least that we don't add to the problem by allowing these rate hikes to go into effect on July 1. Mr. Speaker, if you look historically at the Stafford student loan program, if you look historically at the Pell Grant program, if you look historically at the Land Grant College program instituted by President Abraham Lincoln, this is an issue on which we have always been able to put aside partisanship and move forward together in order to make sure that the real crown jewels of our country, which are our people--particularly our young people--are always protected. That test is now before us over the next 11 days. Let's do the right thing; let's work together; let's compromise; let's come up with a plan to protect 7 million college kids, and for once send a signal to the people of this country that we are listening and that we are actually responding to the critical needs that face this Nation's future.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts in the next 22 days, the interest rate for the subsidized Stafford student loan program is going to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Despite this approaching deadline, with over 7 million college students waiting for an answer, what is the House GOP leadership's response? To send us home today for the ninth week of recess since last January. Despite the fact that the Senate will be in session next week, and as was reported in the press last night, a real bipartisan compromise is going to be emerging. But, of course, we won't be able to act on it next week because we won't be here. The next time we're on the floor, this chart will be down to 11 days until the rate doubles. Mr. Speaker, this work schedule by the Republican leadership would make Homer Simpson blush. It is time for us to go to work and find a compromise that is going to fix this issue for 7 million college students waiting for an answer all across America.