Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, the premise of H.R. 2667, the employer mandate bill, which is part of the rule here today, is that somehow the administration overreached by announcing this postponement of the employer tax measure which was part of the Affordable Care Act. The fact of the matter is, if the proponents had picked up the phone and called the Congressional Research Service and asked them if the IRS has postponed imposition of statutorily required requirements, the fact of the matter, they would have found out what I hold in my hand, which is a memo that was issued today that cites four examples, just within the last 2 or 3 years, where the IRS delayed statutory reporting requirements because of the fact that comments from private sector voices around the country warned that it needed more time to be implemented. The 2006 law imposing a 3 percent withholding requirement effective December 31, 2010, was delayed till 2012. The 2009 Worker Home Ownership and Business Assistance Act was delayed for a year for a statutory electronic filing requirement. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Withholding Act was postponed 2 years, again, because of a comment that came in from the private sector. And the FAA law, which was passed in 2011, which had a retroactive collection of excise tax, that was waived by the IRS, again, because of the fact that, after passage of the act, they listened to the American people and to the American business community about the fact that there were some honest-to-God logistical issues that needed to be worked out. That's exactly what was announced right before the July 4 weekend. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Congressional Research Service memo be admitted to the Record so that we at least have some reality basis about what exactly occurred here. This is totally within the IRS's province of authority, with well-established precedent. The fact of the matter is that this vote is a nullity. It does nothing as a matter of law. CBO has scored it as zero. So the fact of the matter is we're just filling up more time here. The fact is that we've got people all over this country whose paychecks are being furloughed because of inaction by this Congress.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 1, the front page of The Washington Post had a headline which showed in many respects just, again, the disconnect between this town and the rest of the country. It said: ``They said the sequester would be scary. Mostly they were wrong.'' I would like those reporters to have joined me on July 3, 2 days later, when I went to the Groton Navy Base in southeastern Connecticut to talk to over 100 civilian DOD employees who were on the verge of being furloughed because of sequestration. Again, under sequester, 650,000 civilian DOD employees, for 1 day a week for the next 11 weeks, will be furloughed, or lose 20 percent of their paycheck, despite the fact that they contribute enormous value to the military readiness of this country. Again, at that meeting, where I was joined by Captain Carl Lahti, who is the commander of the sub base, he talked about the fact that among the furloughed employees are crane operators, folks who install torpedoes, Tomahawk missiles, all the supplies to make sure that our attack sub fleet is ready to go at any given time. Again, losing them 1 day a week just pushes back the readiness of the submarine fleet. I talked to Adam Puccino, who is the head of the Metal Trades Council and represents the maintenance crews on the base to make sure that the tip of the spear of America's Navy is ready to go. Again, losing those folks 1 day a week is going to slow down and retard the ability of that fleet to be ready. Rob Faulise, who is the head of the NAGE force, talked about the staff that provides critical services, whether it's health care, firefighter services, clerical work, to make sure that that subbase is ready to accomplish its mission. In every case, they all confirm the fact that not only is this going to cause personal hardship, but it's also going to harm the military capability of that base. I received a number of emails from folks who were there that day or whose coworkers told them about that meeting. Here is what some of them said. Kimberly from Ledyard, Connecticut, said: I am a Federal employee working on the Navy base in Groton. I am a GS-5 step 2, which means I make $17 an hour and am paid biweekly. I am married with three children, ages 6, 4, and 1. My husband works part time, and is already capped at a salary range of $16.54 an hour. It's already hard enough to make ends meet as it is, and now, with the furlough, I'm losing $226.44 every pay period. Robert from North Stonington: As a member of DOD, specifically the Department of the Navy, working in Groton, I am now in the second week of furloughs. As a civilian employee for the past 39 years, I have never seen our government in such disarray. My command, supervisor of shipbuilding, performs extremely important jobs of government oversight of the design, construction and repair of our country's nuclear submarine fleet. John from Groton: Furloughs will immediately manifest themselves in the local economies around every U.S. military base in the form of 20 percent fewer goods, gas and groceries being bought and in 20 percent fewer taxes being paid into town and State coffers that are already at an all-time low. Lastly, Aurela from Gales Ferry, Connecticut, said: As a result of the civilian furloughs at the Navy branch health clinic, I believe our patients' access to care and continuity of quality care will be severely hampered. Our military and their dependents don't have the option to be sick or injured on a non-furlough day. Clinic staff has been trained to refer patients to urgent care facilities and to emergency rooms as a last resort, largely due to the sequester. Where is the wisdom of forcing the use of higher cost facilities in a fiscal crisis? Thank you, Aurela, because it shows that, in fact, these furloughs don't really save anything structurally or long term for government. What is clearly needed is for Congress to respond to sequester based on what its original intention was. If you go to Phil Gramm, the granddaddy of sequestration--the Gramm-Rudman sequester act of 1985, which today sequester is verbatim based on--he stated in a speech in Washington not too long ago: It was never the objective of Gramm-Rudman to trigger the sequester. The objective of Gramm-Rudman was to have the threat of the sequester force compromise and action. Again, that's from the inventor of sequestration. Seven times, Chris Van Hollen and the House Democratic minority have tried to get the Rules Committee to allow a vote to be taken on a measure to turn off sequester, replacing it with smarter cuts and smarter revenue to achieve the goal of deficit reduction, but to do it without a chain saw that is disrupting the lives of those individuals whose stories I just described. In every single instance, the Rules Committee denied the ability of this House to vote on a commonsense measure to turn off sequester. Folks, we are now 4\1/2\ months into sequester. Its impact extends even beyond the Department of Defense. In Head Start programs, kids are losing slots, and NIH research grants are being canceled. It is time for Congress to listen to Phil Gramm, to compromise, to act to turn off sequester, and to represent these hardworking Americans who every single day are serving our Nation.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 2 days, at midnight, by law, the interest rates for the subsidized Stafford student loan program will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, raising interest rates for 7.5 million college students at exactly the time they are taking out loans for next fall's semester. What a terrible statement about this Congress that we failed to move forward with legislation to protect those rates. My legislation, H.R. 1595, which had 195 discharge signatures, would have protected that rate. Again, the leadership of this House turned a deaf ear and insisted that their bill, passed on May 23, somehow protected those college students. The Congressional Budget Office looked at that bill that passed that day, and it concluded that that bill was worse than doing nothing and allowing the rates to double to 6.8 percent. It is, again, a bill which will put kids into a variable rate system that, over time, we know will be higher than 6.8 percent. I think of the disgust that America will feel on July 1 when they see that a critical need--higher education--was overlooked and ignored on top of the failure to turn off sequester and to pass a farm bill. It is time for this Congress to act and to protect the lower interest rates for America's college students.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the chart next to me clearly states, we are now 4 days and counting until, by law, the interest rate for the subsidized Stafford student loan program will double--from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The real chart should probably be 3 days because that's how many legislative days the House and the Senate are in session. Incredibly, we are debating issues which hardly have the same time sensitivity and which clearly are tone deaf to what American families all over the country are really concerned about. There are 7.5 million college students who use the subsidized Stafford student loan program. They are going to see their rates double. The total gross cost in terms of added interest is about $4 billion. This is at a time when student loan debt is $1.1 trillion-- higher than credit card debt, higher than car loan debt. Incredibly, this deadline is just being completely ignored by the majority despite the fact that millions of students are making life decisions as we speak as they begin to enroll for next fall's semester. The bill which the House majority passed on May 23 is a bill which tied rates on a variable basis to Treasury notes, which, by the way, have been going up like crazy over the last 3 weeks and which the Congressional Budget Office has now analyzed and told us will result in debt costs that will be worse than if Congress did nothing and allowed the rates to double to 6.8 percent. The solution is obvious. Extend the lower rate, 3.4 percent. My bill, H.R. 1595, which is the subject of the previous question, has 195 signatories for a discharge petition. A substantial group of Members in the House is ready and poised to move. It did get 51 votes in the Senate. It did actually move in the Senate, and the President has said he will sign it. If there is any path forward for those 7.5 million students, it's H.R. 1595. Let's do it. Let's act. Let's turn this countdown clock off. Let's help America's young students afford and pay for a critical need for their future--higher education.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 5 days, unless Congress acts, the Stafford student loan program, which helps 7.5 million students pay for college, is set to see its interest rates increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Again, this is at a time when student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion. It's the highest form of consumer debt in the economy. It exceeds credit card debt and car loan debt. And yet, despite the fact that, again, students and families are facing this mounting, crushing burden, unless we move in a very short period of time, we are going to add to that burden by allowing the interest rates to go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Six years ago, this Congress acted to pass the College Cost Reduction Act, which cut that rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. It was a 5- year bill tied to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. Last year, with minutes to spare, we extended that lower rate for 1 additional year. Again, here we are today, 5 days away from this rate doubling. I've introduced legislation, H.R. 1595, the Student Loan Protection Act, and 196 Members of the House signed a discharge petition demanding that the Speaker of the House bring this bill up for debate and passage, which will protect that lower rate for an additional 2 years. We need that time so that we can pass a new Higher Education Authorization Act, which will deal with the broad range of issues that surround how we pay for college and access to higher education, which includes the Stafford student loan program, the workhorse for families to pay for college. It deals with Pell Grants and Perkins loans. It also deals with the obstructions and hurdles that people face when they want to refinance student loan debt after they have left college. Again, that's a big part of that $1 trillion debt burden that's out there in society. We need a broad, long-range plan to pay for higher education because the stakes are huge. We know that the U.S. economy needs critical skills in our workforce if we are going to continue and grow and prosper. The baby boomers are now hitting retirement age at increasing numbers, and in a whole range of critical occupations, from medicine to science to engineering, we need to refill the ranks. And higher education is the avenue that we can continue to succeed as a country and as a nation. Our competitors know this. They are investing in higher education at a much higher rate than we are in the U.S. We must act to make sure that, again, we don't go backwards on July 1. The House passed a bill on May 23. The Republican majority pushed a bill through which they claim solves the problem. It changes the fixed rate loan program to an adjustable rate tied to 10-year Treasury notes, which is roughly now at about 2.6 percent. It adds an additional 2.5 percent to that. They claimed when they passed that bill that that solves the problem. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office drilled down deeper and analyzed what the real net impact would be on students. The problem with that variable rate program is that for a freshman entering this fall, like my daughter, who doesn't use the Stafford loan program, if some of her fellow students sign up for the Stafford loan program, under the Republican bill they really don't know what the rate is because it will reset over the 4 years that freshman is in college. Looking at where Treasury notes are projected over the next 4 years, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that, in fact, for that graduating student, 4 years from now the interest rate on the loan that they will graduate with will be over 7 percent. So, in other words, as CBO told us, if we allow the Republican bill to go forward, it's actually worse than doing nothing and allowing the rates to double to 6.8 percent. President Obama has proposed a different version, which would, again, use the cheap cost of money today with an inflation add-on. But that plan that the President put forward locks in the rate for the student who takes that loan out next year. So, in other words, that freshman who signs up for a Stafford student loan that will go to school with my daughter next year, their rate will not reset from one year to the next. They will have at least the protection of a fixed rate based on the calculation using the Treasury note baseline. It is a better proposal. The Republican bill has a cap in terms of how high these rates can go over time. The President's does not. We need, obviously, to get both sides to come together and come up with a real compromise which comes up with an affordable, sustainable way for the Stafford student loan program to work. With only 5 days to go, I would argue that the better course now is just protect the lower rate, give us some time to come up with, again, overlapping good ideas from both sides of the aisle to fix this problem. Let's not let the rates double. Let's pass H.R. 1595. Let's help 7.5 million college students pursue their goals and dreams and help the U.S. economy.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Again, first of all, I just want to salute the great work the chairman of the committee has done. It has been magnificent to see regular order in this Congress. Secondly, I would just point out that the 2004 specialty crop law was amended in the last farm bill in 2008 to add horticulture. So again, what was done in 2004 is hardly a sacred text. We have the ability to, again with good reason and evidence, to amend this law. And again, I think given the history of it pre-2004, this is not an unreasonable change. To help make that point, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), for such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment, which I've introduced with my friend, Mr. Wittman from Virginia, is a budget neutral amendment. It does not change any authorized level of spending. It very simply adds shellfish farming to the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act programs, the block grants and the crop research initiative, which is again, I think, a reasonable addition given the history of the block grants and the research initiative program prior to 2004. Again, I want to just emphasize at the outset what we're talking about here is shellfish farming. We are not talking about fishing. Shellfish farming is a cultivated process from seed which in many instances starts offshore and proceeds to harvest in beds just adjacent to a coast. It actually goes back into antiquity in terms of the process and the farming technique that surrounds shellfish farming. Again, prior to 2004, the specialty crop programs were administered through the USDA to States, and States had discretion to determine specialty crop programs which they wanted to fund. In some instances, shellfish farming was included along with fruit and nuts and other forms of specialty crops. In 2004, Congress changed the program and gave specific definitions which take away that discretion to States in terms of the block grants program. And the block grants in many instances provide marketing assistance. Shellfish farming--oysters, clams, mussels--is a growing industry. In fact, for people who have become exposed to it, it is considered a very high quality industry in terms of U.S. shellfish that actually provides opportunities for export growth around the world. And what this amendment will do is to give that growing area of aquaculture an opportunity to expand and grow. It affects the Pacific coast, gulf coast and the eastern coast. Again, this is a cost neutral amendment to extend very important marketing assistance and research assistance to a part of American agriculture, which clearly aquaculture is. Again, this is cultivated growing of food, unlike fishing. And I think for the hardworking men and women who get up every single day, just like dairy farmers or people who pick apples or other forms of specialty crops who pay taxes, they should be allowed to have access to this program, a competitive grant program, which they would have to demonstrate their eligibility for. With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so that the House can take up the Student Loan Relief Act, H.R. 1595, which is a bill that the American people are truly concerned about and watching Congress to see whether or not we do the right thing. In 12 days, as this chart shows, the subsidized Stafford student loan rate will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This will add to the debt burden of the average college student with a Stafford student loan portfolio of about approximately $5,000. Today, the average student is leaving college with an average debt level of about $25,000 to $26,000. We know the big numbers: $1.1 trillion in student loan debt now in the U.S. economy, more than credit cards and more than used cars. Yet we are standing here 12 days before the doubling of this rate and we are debating a bill which is right in the middle of the polarized gridlock politics that the American voters rejected soundly in the last election rather than dealing with the bread-and-butter issues that really matter to young Americans and to middle class families all across this country. The fact of the matter is we know young people in this country need to get a post-high school degree, whether it's a 2-year degree or a 4- year degree. The Stafford student loan program is the workhorse of providing affordable loans for millions of students, and 7.5 million students use the Stafford subsidized loan program. Yet, if we don't act in 12 days, those 7.5 million are going to see their interest rates double to 6.8 percent. Now, we may hear from the other side, well, we took up a bill on May 23, H.R. 1911, a bill with a variable rate that we now know from the Congressional Budget Office who issued a report this past Monday will be, in fact, worse than if we did nothing and allowed the rate to go to 6.8 percent. That's been not only verified by the Congressional Budget Office but also by the Education Trust and The Institute for College Access and Success, a nonpartisan group funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Trust, and it states very clearly: If passed, it will lead to higher rates on all types of Federal student and parent loans than if Congress did nothing at all. We need to act on H.R. 1595. 187 Members have signed a discharge petition, and it is time to act to protect America's college students.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Wood- Pawcatuck Watershed Protection Act. The measure would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize a study for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system. The catalog of lands and rivers that carry this designation would surely benefit from the inclusion of this watershed, an area identified as containing the last large forested track south of Boston. While a 300 square mile area of land may not sound like a large area to some of my colleagues, open space in New England has come under increased pressure from development. Conducting a study with the potential of inducting into or including this watershed in the wild and scenic river system would significantly ease these development pressures. In fact, the National Park Service has already conducted studies on this watershed. These past studies have identified the Wood and Pawcatuck Rivers as ``unique and irreplaceable resources.'' But even today the level of flora, fauna, reptiles, fish, and mammals found within the Wood-Pawcatuck boundaries is staggering for this region of the country. It includes the New England Cottontail an animal listed under the Endangered Species Act. The range of the cottontail historically included most of New England and parts of New York, yet today the watershed is one of only five locations this species can be found. The watershed is one of the few remaining relatively pristine natural areas along the northeast corridor between New York and Boston. In fact, forest and wetlands comprise 60 percent of this land, which helps maintain its high water quality. This landscape provides vast recreational opportunities: 57 miles of rivers, mostly flat-water paddling on the rivers; numerous streams in pristine forest for fishing native brook trout and stocked brown and rainbow trout; and five state management areas for hiking, biking, hunting, birding and natures studies. My district is already home to another watershed that carries the wild and scenic designation, the Eightmile River. I have seen firsthand the importance associated with this status. A partnership between the Eightmile River Wild & Scenic Coordinating Committee and the National Park Service has developed and carried out strategies for ensuring the watershed ecosystem is protected and enhanced for generations to come. The involvement at the federal, state, and local levels has been invaluable to this resource. Expanding these same opportunities to Wood-Pawcatuck is critical. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, for his leadership in introducing this bill and ushering it successfully through this chamber again this year. Lastly, I would like to recognize the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association who has promoted and protected the integrity of the lands and waters of the watershed since 1983. Their dedication to this invaluable natural treasure must be applauded. I urge passage of this legislation and thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, as long as we are on the subject of the Navy, the Navy actually did report to Congress in February 2013 with their force structure assessment, which called for 11 carriers to be in the force, which followed the strategic review which President Obama and Secretary Gates conducted in 2011, reported in early 2012, which talked about the repositioning to the Asian Pacific, which my friend, Mr. Wittman, talked about. And, in fact, articulated the fact that we are going to need more naval projection with that shift in strategy and focus for our country's future national security needs. Strategy should drive decisions here in Congress, both in terms of the defense bill and our budgets. The Navy has spoken, in fact, as recently as February of this year, with a report which I would be happy to share with any of my colleagues, which clearly articulated an 11- carrier force is what we need today and fits within the strategic review, which we have just exhaustively conducted under the leadership of Secretary Gates and President Obama. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 17 days, unless Congress acts, the Stafford student loan program--which is the workhorse loan program for millions of college students all across America--is going to see the interest rate double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Stepping back for a moment, 6 years ago, the Democrats passed the College Cost Reduction Act, which cut that rate from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. It was a 5-year bill concurrent with the Higher Education Authorization Act. Last year, with minutes to spare, we extended that lower rate of 3.4 percent for an additional year. And now, once again, we are hours away from students who are about to embark on life decisions, in terms of which college to attend, which course to follow; and they need to know with some certainty the borrowing cost, which for many is now a stark reality in terms of paying the cost of higher education. This morning in The New York Times, there was a very encouraging story about the fact that the number of college degrees in the U.S. has hit an all-time high. Students are now completing college, and it's just in time in terms of the workforce needs of our country. The same study which was released yesterday shows that in fact we have workforce needs for high-degree skills for which the education system is still scrambling to catch up. So there is no question for young people in America. This question of protecting the affordability of higher education is of critical importance to both their future and to our Nation's future. Unfortunately, the only action in the House of Representatives was a measure which the majority party rammed through a couple of weeks ago, which the Congressional Budget Office Monday issued an analysis of. What CBO told the country is that the House Republican bill--which is a variable interest rate program--would actually cost students more than if we did nothing and let the rates double to 6.8 percent. I want to repeat that. That measure actually worsens the situation if we did absolutely nothing and allowed the rate to go to 6.8 percent. It's obvious what we need to do. As a Congress, we need to recognize the fact that we have a national interest in terms of maintaining access to higher education. We also need to recognize that families are being crushed with the cost of higher education when we need to protect the lower interest rate. I have a bill, H.R. 1595, which has over 150 cosponsors in the House--it received 51 votes in the Senate--that would protect that lower rate for 2 years and allow us to do a new Higher Education Authorization Act. This morning, just a few minutes ago, I executed a discharge petition for Members of Congress to sign to get H.R. 1595 on the floor immediately so that we can protect the lower interest rates for young people embarking on next year's college curriculum and semester. So I would urge all Members to sign the discharge petition, H.R. 1595, which will protect the lower rate so that we can, in a measured, intelligent way, come up with a Higher Education Authorization Act, which will go through the whole gamut of issues for college costs-- whether it's the Perkins loan program, Pell Grants, allowing students to refinance after they leave college, giving high school students better information as they make a decision that really is almost the equivalent of buying a house when you go to college in modern day America. Again, the stakes are huge, but the payoff is even greater for students, which that report issued yesterday documents. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to join some of my colleagues who are going to speak later this morning who will note the fact that it is now 6 months ago to the date that my State, the State of Connecticut, saw a horrible tragedy, young children who were slaughtered in an act of senseless gun violence. And today, survivors of the Newtown massacre are all across Capitol Hill urging Congress to act. Congressman Thompson and Congressman King painstakingly worked out a compromise bill to strengthen background checks in our country, balancing constitutional concerns, again, totally consistent with the Heller decision, which sets forth the individual right to gun ownership. It is time for this Congress to act. We should pass the Thompson-King bill. We should listen to those families, the survivors of the Newtown massacre, who are begging Congress to move forward and act on this measure. It will protect the rights of gun owners, but it will also protect the public safety of this country, which is so long overdue. I want to salute Congressman Thompson, Congressman King, Congresswoman Esty, who represents the Newtown district in Connecticut, all of my colleagues from my State, and all across the country who have come together in response to this horrible event to make sure that it will not just be a passing memory, but that we will build something from that event that will protect Americans from the epidemic of gun violence that unfortunately goes on every single day in this country.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 and, again, I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and the committee staff for a process that was really a breath of fresh air in this Congress--a long meeting, lots of hot debates and passionate debates, many opportunities, frankly, for the polarization that seems to dominate this Congress to break down the process. But at the end of the day, we had a strong vote, 59-2, obviously very bipartisan, and we came together as a committee to make sure that core functions of the government, our national defense are, in fact, going to be advanced. In particular, I want to focus for a moment on the bipartisan effort made in the Seapower and Projection Force Subcommittee to support our Nation's shipbuilding priorities. This bill supports the President's budget request for continued projection of two Virginia-class submarines in 2014, building on our efforts last year to restore a boat that had been removed from the shipbuilding plan. This measure also continues investment in critical undersea capabilities, such as the replacement of our SSBN fleet and the Virginia Payload Module. In particular, and also, the bill supports construction of eight battle force ships, four littoral combat ships, a DDG 51 destroyer, as well as continued work on a new aircraft carrier and vital seapower programs. To put that in context, the build rate in 2006 was only four battle force ships; in 2008, it was only three battle force ships. As we have heard firsthand in our subcommittee, a stable, predictable, and robust shipbuilding plan is the best way to ensure that our taxpayers are getting cost-effective ships with the block grant fixed price model that is producing ships ahead of schedule and below price. I know this is an issue that our panel will continue to look at closely as we move forward. In 2011, in Libya, we saw firsthand the value of a strong Naval force, where Operation Odyssey Dawn used seapower to wipe out the air defense system of Muammar Qadhafi. Again, using surface ships and submarines firing Tomahawk missiles, in a matter of hours we had advanced the cause for our NATO allies to finish up the work. So this is, again, critical to the refocus of our naval and strategic plan in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Again, we need a strong shipbuilding plan and naval force structure, which this bill will provide strong resources, again, far greater than in past years. So, again, I want to close by saluting the chairman's tremendous work and our staff, in terms of making sure that both sides of the aisle came together to protect core functions of our government, which, again, the Seapower Subcommittee, in particular, will advance.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 19 days, unless Congress acts, the subsidized Stafford student loan program interest rate is going to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Six years ago, we cut that rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. So far, the House Republican majority has issued a bill which the Congressional Budget Office yesterday determined would actually be worse than if we did nothing and allowed the rate to double to 6.8 percent. It would add $4 billion in added higher interest rate costs to students. The Senate Republican bill would add $16 billion in interest costs, from the Congressional Budget Office. It is obvious what we must do. We must pass H.R. 1595, my bill, which has 150 cosponsors, and extend the lower rate of 3.4 percent. It obtained 51 votes in the Senate. Last time I checked, that's a majority. It's time to stand up for college students and families all across America, protect the lower interest rates, and get off this kick that a variable rate somehow is a solution to the problem. CBO told us yesterday it's not. It's worse than doing nothing.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Fire Police Captain John Jones for his 50 years of dedicated service to the Colchester Hayward Volunteer Fire Company. As a charter member of the Fire Company since 1963, Captain Jones has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to keeping his community safe and secure. This commitment has led to tremendous growth of John's role and leadership within the company. Captain Jones was the organization's first Emergency Medical Technician during his early days, and moved up the ranks to become Fire Police Captain, a role in which he has served for 30 years. In addition to countless hours spent training his fellow volunteers so that future generations will maintain the legacy of the Colchester Hayward Volunteer Fire Company, Captain Jones has been recognized as an elite member of his community's volunteer protection service. Awards include several merit awards, Firefighter of the Year in 1986, Fire Police Officer of the Year in 2004, and the Stephen Smith Memorial Award in 2012. In recognition of his service, the Town of Colchester has designated June 15, 2013, as Captain John Jones Appreciation Day. With roots dating back to 1854, the Colchester Hayward Volunteer Fire Company has provided fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to residents of the Colchester area of eastern Connecticut. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Captain John Jones for his selfless service to his community and to hold him up as an example of our core community values for all Americans. We thank him for his decades of hard work and dedication to the Colchester community.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Marc Denno, United States Navy, as he concludes his service as the 49th Commanding Officer of Naval Submarine Base New London. On behalf of southeastern Connecticut, I thank Captain Denno for his service, his leadership and his friendship to our community. A native of Minnesota, Denno graduated from the Naval Academy in 1985 and went on to serve in a number of capacities throughout the Submarine Force, including Damage Control Assistant on the USS George Bancroft (SSBN 643), Engineer Officer on the USS Bluefish (SSN 675), Executive Officer of USS West Virginia (SSBN 736) (Blue) and Commanding Officer of Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Jimmy Carter (SSN 23). He served as Commanding Officer of the USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705), which, while under his command, was twice awarded the Battle ``E'' and earned the Meritorious Unit Commendation and Navy Unit Commendation. Captain Denno's shore assignments include the Shift Engineer and Material Officer at Nuclear Power Training Unit Charleston, as well as Chief Staff Officer and Director of the Tactical Analysis Group on the staff of Commander, Submarine Development Squadron Twelve. It was during his tour as Commanding Officer of Submarine Base New London, however, that I got the chance to work closely with Captain Denno. Known both as the ``First and Finest'' submarine base in our Navy and the ``Submarine Capitol of the World,'' Submarine Base New London is a military installation that is closely tied to the fabric of the community that surrounds it. In a region that follows developments on the base like a box score, Captain Denno's four year tour at the base was distinguished by a focus on the fundamentals of supporting the submarine force, a focus on the vitality and viability of the base, and deepening the connections between the base and its host community and state. During his tenure, Captain Denno was an active leader in tending to the base's key mission area: the support and operation of the submarines assigned to New London. Under Captain Denno's leadership the base undertook close to $200 million in major infrastructure projects and capital investment. Infrastructure improvements included the recapitalization of Pier 31 and the construction of a new Port Operations Center, a new Indoor Smalls Arms Range, and a new synthetic Track and Field, among other projects. As important, he led the demolition of 450,000 square feet of excess and outdated buildings and infrastructure that have reduced the footprint and operating costs of the base. And, working joining with the State of Connecticut, Captain Denno deepened the relationship between the base and its host state through a unique partnership. Under Captain Denno's command and through his collaboration with State officials, Connecticut invested unprecedented resources into the future of the base, supporting new projects like a new diver facility, an up to date boiler for the power plant, critical additions to training facilities, and a joint project with the local communities to address encroachment issues. Beyond the nuts and bolts of base infrastructure, Captain Denno prioritized efforts to deepen the connection between the sailors assigned to New London and the surrounding community. Under his watch, 9,000 members of the base community contributed 47,000 community service volunteer hours in the region in local schools and in a number of organizations like the American Red Cross, the Boy and Girls Scouts of American, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the Special Olympics. And, Captain Denno was instrumental in broader regional events like OPSAIL Connecticut 2012, in which he helped to coordinate Navy involvement in this daunted undertaking, from working with the local community to support the event to coordinating naval vessel participation--and many things in between. From being a constant presence as community meetings to spearheading stakeholder orientation tours of the base, leading key military education initiatives and being the public face of the base, Captain Denno was a fixture in the southeastern Connecticut community during his four years at SUBASE New London. It is no wonder then that SUBASE New London was selected from among the region's more than 20 other installations and activities as the unprecedented winner for two consecutive years of the annual Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic's Award for Installation Excellence, in 2010 and 2011. As you might imagine, a good working relationship with SUBASE New London and its Commanding Officer is a prerequisite for anyone in the position of representing eastern Connecticut in Congress. However, I consider myself privileged to have worked so closely with Captain Denno over the last four years not just in his capacity as a Navy officer, but as a friend and occasional golf partner. He and his team have never been more than a phone call or email away, and the connection between his office and mine has been nothing short of a two way street as we tackled the key challenges facing the base. I am grateful for his time, his advice, his counsel and most of all, his unflagging commitment to Connecticut's base and the sailors and submarine stationed at it. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Captain Denno for his service to SUBASE New London and wishing him and his family ``fair winds and following seas'' as he heads to his next assignment in service to our country.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly today to honor Vice Admiral Kevin M. McCoy, United States Navy, who is retiring after more than 34 years of faithful service to our nation, culminating in his service as the 42nd Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA. A graduate of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Vice Admiral McCoy held several key leadership positions over the course of his distinguished career, including the NAVSEA Deputy Commander for Ship Design Integration and Engineering, NAVSEA Deputy Commander for Industrial Operations, and the 80th Commander of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire. He also served aboard USS Daniel Webster, USS L.Y. Spear, and at the naval shipyards at Mare Island, California; Charleston, South Carolina; Puget Sound, Washington; Norfolk, Virginia and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Vice Admiral McCoy's initiative, vision and wise counsel were of extraordinary value to the Department of the Navy during a period of significant change and challenge. Leading the Navy's largest Echelon II Command, he oversaw more than 60,000 civil service and military personnel at 38 major shore locations nationwide and an annual budget of more than $30 billion. A leader in the acquisition community, McCoy stewarded NAVSEA's associated Program Executive Offices through the design, contracting, construction, testing, and delivery of the San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock program, the Virginia-class submarine program, the Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship program, the Lewis and Clark-class Dry Cargo Ammunition program, the Mobile Landing Platform program, the Joint High Speed Vessel program, the Zumwalt-class DDG 1000 program, the Gerald R. Ford-class Next Generation Carrier program and the USS George H.W. Bush. Vice Admiral McCoy was integral to successfully transitioning the Littoral Combat Ship from concept to first deployment in a fraction of the time required for earlier ship classes. Most notably, he was the driving force behind significant improvements in performance across the shipbuilding industrial base, the execution of maintenance and modernization in both public and private shipyards, process changes to improve the overall readiness of the Fleet, innovative business practices to garner savings for Navy leadership to reinvest in high priority requirements and human capital strategies designed to continue the development of the future workforce. Under his leadership, the naval shipyard community experienced the highest workload faced by the four Naval Shipyards in two decades, resulting in the execution of 72 major depot-level availabilities, 8 submarine refueling overhauls and an additional 31 minor maintenance periods all supported by a $15.2 billion operating budget. Vice Admiral McCoy's leadership and focus was directly responsible for the successful execution and completion of the bow wave of submarine depot maintenance work begun ten years earlier resulting from an overlap in the life cycle maintenance plan of submarine refueling and depot maintenance work. The annual rate of submarine days lost due to depot availability delays at Naval Shipyards dropped during this period to an all time low of 205 days--the lowest value ever achieved. Compared to historic averages in the 900-plus day range, this is the equivalent of providing the fleet with an additional two submarines for their use every year. However, his acheivements did not stop there. Vice Admiral McCoy led a number of wide-sweeping improvements to ensure that our surface and submarine fleets can reach their expected service lives. For example, he led a series of initiatives to increase support and improve maintenance practices across ship classes, while also modernizing the fleet to keep pace with mission requirements. Vice Admiral McCoy was also the driving factor within the Navy to improve surface ship material readiness. He developed an end-to-end surface maintenance, modernization, and sustainment process to better ensure readiness and meet service life and total ownership costs. This process led to the development of the Surface Ship Maintenance Engineering Planning Program, SURFMEPP, which re-established surface ship maintenance requirements similar to those used by carrier and submarine communities, and the reconstitution of the Regional Maintenance Centers. He also spearheaded the stand up of Surface Team One, which brought together maintenance and modernization stakeholders, operating as a single community, to measure surface fleet materiel readiness. Similarly for submarines, Submarine Team One was chartered to develop, champion, and improve cross-organizational processes for the planning and execution of submarine depot availabilities and provide a structure for the management and long term systematic improvement of cost, schedule, and quality performance. The cornerstones of Vice Admiral McCoy's corporate operations were sound corporate strategy, mission focus, a dedicated attention to detail, and a devoted commitment to meet fiscal and technical goals. Demonstrating a consistent drive to streamline the organization, he instituted a process for services contracting reviews that ensures constant vigilance of contracting and respect for the tax dollars that fund it. This process is now in use across the Navy. Additionally, through his efforts as the NAVSEA commander, his organization has offered the Navy more than $2.7 billion in Future Year Defense Program savings in response to calls for cost reduction through Total Ownership Cost reduction projects and corporate efficiencies. As important as his achievements in the shipbuilding maintenance area, Vice Admiral McCoy also took a leading role in the Wounded Warrior Program to offer education counseling, internships, apprenticeships and employment to injured veterans culminated in the hiring of more than 1,500 Wounded Warriors in the NAVSEA enterprise-- the largest single-organization Wounded Warrior hiring effort in the nation. Under his leadership, NAVSEA was recognized as a Top 50 Employer Award winner four times. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been fortunate to work closely with Vice Admiral McCoy both at many appearances before the committee, and working with him and his great staff directly to address workload shortfalls in our submarine maintenance programs. He has consistently been accessible, thoughtful and forthright, and I am grateful for all his assistance. With his retirement, our Navy--and our nation--will lose a tremendous leader and friend both to our men and women in uniform and our defense industrial base. I am sure though that he will write a new, interesting chapter in his life of amazing service to our nation. I thank him and his family for his honorable service in the United States Navy and ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him ``fair winds and following seas'' as he concludes a distinguished naval career.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. At a time when we know that student loan debt now has skyrocketed above all other forms of consumer debt--credit card debt, car loan debt--and students are now graduating, on average, with over $25,000 of student loan debt, a ticking clock 38 days away where the rates are going to double, the bill that the majority has come forward with makes the problem worse, not better. Again, the analysis from independent sources--the ones that we rely on to make decisions in this body, the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Office--make it clear that if we do nothing, the interest costs for the average Stafford loan will add $4,000 in interest payments. If we pass this bill, the interest will rise by $5,000. So the notion that this is somehow a solution to the problem, the misnomer that this bill is given, the reverse is true. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Senate is not going to move over the next 38 days; they're doing the farm bill, they're doing immigration reform. It is time to protect students by extending the 3.4 percent rate, a rate, which I hasten to add, that was passed in 2007 with a large bipartisan majority, signed into law by George Bush, was extended again last year with large bipartisan majorities, signed by President Obama. Let's do a 2-year extension, and then let's get to work with a 5-year Higher Education Reauthorization Act. The problem with higher ed is not about Stafford loans only; it's about Pell grants, it's about Perkins loans. It's about students not being given good information in high school. It's about allowing graduates to refinance their debt, which they are now confronted with large barriers to. That's the real work to solve the higher education challenge and issue in this country. In the mean time, let's extend the 2-year rates. Mr. Speaker, I have letters from 21 campus-based organizations representing real live college students all across America who support the Democratic measure to extend those rates, get a good higher education authorization bill, and totally--totally--reject the measure that's on the floor today, the Make College More Expensive Act.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, announced that the furloughs of civilian DOD employees will be 11 days for the balance of this fiscal year. This decision, driven by sequestration, is damaging and degrading the military readiness of our country. These are individuals who provide critical services for the men and women in uniform who serve all across America and all across the world. Sequestration is acting like a slow-acting poison, which is now affecting the economy. Moody's Investor Services announced last week that it will take a full point off of GDP growth this year and will result in, over time, the loss of 700,000 jobs. It is time for this institution to focus on this self-inflicted damage that Congress caused by not turning off sequester as previous Congresses back in the eighties and nineties did when sequestration was in effect. We should stop wasting our time on repeal debates for health care--37 times as of last week--and focus on what's really important in the immediate future. It's to turn off sequester. It is time for the leadership of this House to stop wasting our time and get focused on the issue that matters the most to the American people.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Gilman family and the employees of the Gilman Brothers Company on receiving the President's ``E'' Award for achieving significant export successes. The Gilman Brothers Company is based in Gilman, Connecticut and is one of North America's leading manufacturers of foamboard products for signage, display, and graphics. Since its founding in 1897, the company has since been instrumental in developing and introducing innovative products that fit the ever-changing needs of the visual industries. With over a century of rich history, the Gilman Brothers Company has been able to produce world-class and high quality products that are also environmentally friendly. Over the past few years, Gilman Brothers has won assistance from the U.S. Export Import Bank to expand their export sales abroad. I was pleased to tour their factory in 2010, and later that year Gilman Brothers joined me on a Connecticut Trade Mission to Israel. Through the contacts the company made in Israel, Gilman Brothers has been able to increase significantly their exports to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. The President's ``E'' Award was created by Executive Order of the President on December 5, 1961 to recognize persons, firms, or organizations which contribute significantly in the effort to increase United States exports. As a recipient of this prestigious award, the Gilman Brothers Company has proven to be one of the top export leaders in the country. Deputy Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank will present Gilman Brothers with the ``E'' Award on May 20, 2013. The success of small and family-owned business like the Gilman Brothers Company in the international market demonstrates the dynamism of our nation's economy. Small businesses are key to our economic recovery and the successes of companies like the Gilman Brothers help move our economy forward. The Gilman family and their employees are true assets to our region and our state, and I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the Gilman Brothers Company on receiving this well-deserved award.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. This is now number 37, the 37th time that we have debated this issue. We have now built up quite an archive of hysterical predictions by the Republicans during all these debates and 3 years of experience to see how those predictions have actually panned out. Prediction number one, ObamaCare was going to kill Medicare Advantage plans. Has that happened? No. In 2013, this year, 14.5 million Americans have enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, up from last year, which was 12.8 million. And while the enrollment is up, the cost has stayed flat, even. The monthly premium, average monthly premium for Medicare Advantage this year versus last year, went up $1 a month. Health savings accounts, the GOP said that ObamaCare would kill health savings accounts. This year, in 2013, health savings accounts have never been higher. 13.5 million Americans are in a health savings account, up from 11.4 million in January 2011. The President of the Health Savings Administrators was quoted recently as saying, ``You're going to see an explosion of health savings accounts assets.'' We have heard that it is going to kill jobs. We have already heard from Mr. Andrews 6.7 million new private sector jobs have been created since March of 2010, many of them, by the way, in health care--over 800,000. But, lastly, all the predictions about busting the budget and creating higher new costs. We heard yesterday from the Congressional Budget Office that Medicare cost growth has been at the most moderate level since Medicare was created in 1965. The index of per capita Medicare expenditure last month rose less than 1 percent, again, shattering records over the history of the Medicare program. And it is doing it the smart way, by greater oversight of fraud, by better coordination of care, by more preventive care such as giving seniors the prescription drugs that the Republican prescription drug program denied them back in 2003. This program, like any program, can always be improved, and I have worked with Dr. Roe in terms of the IPAB repeal. Let's do that. Let's stop wasting our time on a mindless repeal of measures that are working.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Martha McLeod and to celebrate her distinguished career in advance of her upcoming retirement as president of Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, Connecticut. Under Dr. McLeod's leadership, Asnuntuck Community College has maintained a strong commitment to eastern Connecticut's students. Through the school's professional programs such as manufacturing technology and allied health, students have developed skills that have matched the needs of local employers. Asnuntuck's transfer programs have prepared students to continue their education at Connecticut's world class four year universities and colleges. Dr. McLeod's administrative and leadership expertise have guided many students to rewarding careers in growing fields throughout the state. Throughout her career, Dr. McLeod has advanced opportunities and the quality of education in Native American communities across the country. She was the founding president of Bay Mills Community College, a tribal college, in the upper peninsula of Michigan. Dr. McLeod has also applied her expertise at the national level, by serving as an evaluator for tribal programs for the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. Dr. McLeod has also served on the President's advisory board for the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities. Highly engaged in the local business community and committed to economic growth, Dr. McLeod is an active member of Rotary International and serves on the Board of the North Central Connecticut Chamber of Commerce (NCCCC). She also serves on the Economic Development Commission for the city of Enfield and has previously served on as Chairperson for Enfield's 10 Year Plan of Conservation and Economic Development. She has worked with the Connecticut Department of Labor and the Connecticut Director of Economic Development, to work with incoming European businesses to identify needed workforce skills and provide appropriate preparation and training to potential employees. During her long career, Dr. McLeod has empowered students across Connecticut and the nation through her many contributions to education and economic development. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the career of Dr. Martha McLeod.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.