Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. As the gentlelady said, defeat of the previous question will allow her to propose, instead, an amendment to the rule to a bill that intentionally degrades the full faith and credit of our country, sets that aside and instead allows for consideration of the Student Loan Relief Act, a measure which will prevent the subsidized Stafford student loan program from doubling in 53 days. Let me again reiterate that point. On July 1, if Congress does not act, the subsidized Stafford student loan program, which provides student loan assistance to over 7 million young Americans, will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We have heard a lot of talk on the floor here today about debt and about trying to protect the young people of this country. Well, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently issued its latest update regarding student loan debt in this country, which is now $1.1 trillion. It's higher than credit card debt, and it is higher than car loan debt. When we talk about the challenges facing, particularly, young people in this country who are trying to get the opportunity to upgrade their skills, something that this recession has taught us painfully is necessary because the unemployment rate of people with high school degrees or less is three times as high as people with 4-year degrees, the fact of the matter is that the subsidized Stafford student loan program is a lifeline in terms of young people being able to pay the rising cost of tuition. Despite the fact that we have a ticking clock of 53 days and only 24 session days scheduled between now and July 1, the majority has not brought a single proposal forward to avoid this catastrophe from happening to young people all across the country. The Student Loan Relief Act, which I am the lead cosponsor of, has over 125 cosponsors here in the House, will extend the lower rate for 2 years, and will allow this Chamber to once and for all get its arms around this serious, critical problem for the future of this country. The fact of the matter is that the student loan debt issue requires a comprehensive rewrite of the Higher Education Authorization Act which will give tools to young people, starting in high school, to make better choices about where they go to school, how they're going pay for it, with better awareness and information. It would also allow people who have graduated to be able to refinance their debt so they can lower those monthly payments. Again, talk to the Realtors in this country about what's holding back the housing market. Young people in their twenties and thirties who are carrying student loan debt of 60, 70, $80,000 are not in a position to go out and buy a house because they can't qualify for a mortgage because of these high payments. It is time for Congress to focus on what people are really waking up in the morning thinking about and worrying about, which is how to pay for college. Mr. Speaker, on May 1, we just celebrated decision day, which is the day when young people make the choice about where they're going to college. Unfortunately, they have no clue about whether or not their subsidized Stafford loan rate, which has been in place for the last 6 years, is going to continue beyond July 1. It is time for this Chamber to focus on what's important for American families. Let's take up the Student Loan Relief Act. Let's pass a higher education authorization bill which deals with this issue from soup to nuts, and let's set aside this crazy bill which intentionally degrades the full faith and credit of our country.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this legislation, which, again, is no stranger, sadly, to this Congress. This is the fifth time that the majority party has introduced it, going back to 1997; and each time, the huge flaws in this legislation have resulted in its complete collapse in terms of getting anything close to real support through both Chambers and through the executive branch. And once again, it doesn't deserve that support in this case. Despite the representations made in its title, that it promotes workers' flexibility, that it gives workers choice, the fact of the matter is, a closer examination of the bill shows the opposite is true. The better way to describe this bill is the More Work, Pay Less bill because what it does is take the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which created a bright line to protect people's right to a 40-hour work week, and make sure that that next hour after 40 hours is paid for with the time-and-a-half of wages. And, again, that created the weekend in America. That created the time off that families have taken for granted as middle class Americans for decades. What this bill does is it blurs that line; it creates total chaos in terms of trying to come up with a system to set up ground rules with a case-by-case contract, written contract, that's mandated by the language of the bill, and then leaves it to the enforcement of State Labor Departments Wage and Hours Divisions, which are totally incapable of going into the tens of thousands of workplaces all across America and trying to figure out whether or not, in fact, the rules have been followed. A closer examination of the bill shows, on page 8 of the bill, in lines 7-10, that, in fact, all these representations that the worker gets to choose are, in fact, not correct. At the end of the day, the employer has the right to veto any comp time that this bill has allowed to accrue over any period of time. So the notion that somehow a person has that choice to accumulate comp time and then be able to use it for a family vacation, or a family emergency, in fact, does not meet the actual plain language of the bill that is before us today. And that is why organizations that represent working families, organizations that represent women, organizations that have been part of employment law for years and years and years in this country have resoundingly come out in opposition to this legislation. Over 160 various organizations of every stripe representing religious groups, women's groups, labor groups, groups that, again, deal with employment law have basically looked at this legislation for the fifth time and given it thumbs down. The fact is we should do that. There's no question, however, that workers do, in fact, need more help in terms of making sure that the wages that have stagnated over the last three decades get more support. And families, again, are strained by the fact that those stagnating wages have required second jobs and multiple spouses in the workforce. But the fact is that there are much better solutions than this legislation, the More Work Pay Less Act. In fact, what we should do is set up a standard for paid sick leave in this country so that a single parent waking up with a child whose temperature is over 100 degrees doesn't feel that they have no choice in terms of how to deal with that situation, that they have some guaranteed opportunity without losing the pay that they need to put food on the table or put gas in the tank, that they, in fact, have that choice which so many of us here as Members of Congress and our staffs certainly take for granted. We should apply the same standards in terms of sick pay that we enjoy to the working people of this country. This bill doesn't do it. This bill does not meet that test. Again, it sets up a system that is completely unworkable and unenforceable. It butchers the Fair Labor Standards Act's bright line that has protected the American weekend for decades and decades in this country, and in the name of workplace flexibility, in fact, tips the scales of power within the American workforce, once again against the worker, against the employee, who basically for far too long has suffered in this economy. We need better solutions. This is not the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, as somebody who was a private sector small employer for over 25 years, I just have to say that today, under existing law, employers already have the flexibility to give workers paid time off. The only new flexibility this bill gives is flexibility for employers to not pay people overtime. The fact is employers have that choice to give their workers paid time off. With that, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the esteemed chairman of our committee, who has led the fight for working families for over 30 years in this Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Representative from Oregon, a colleague on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, Ms. Bonamici.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield now to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Ms. Lujan Grisham) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. I yield now to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. COURTNEY. I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.