John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which incorporates four of my amendments as part of the en bloc, and I want to therefore thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for the bipartisan approach in which they have dealt with these amendments today. One of my amendments officially recognizes Salem, Massachusetts, as the birthplace of the National Guard. Salem was the site where the country's first military regiment mustered in 1637. The militia was the foundation of what would become the National Guard. It is in commemoration of the celebration of the men and women who serve our country and those Salem residents who came together almost 375 years ago to protect our Nation that I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Next year will be the 375th anniversary of the first muster, and so it's particularly pleasing to see this matter passed in time to celebrate that. In my limited time, I also want to touch on the other three amendments that are included in the en bloc. Those are good government amendments, which were the result of oversight work done by the Subcommittee on National Security which I chaired in the last two Congresses, but which reflect a good bipartisan oversight effort. These amendments will be seeking to strengthen our manufacturing and defense industrial base, will be increasing coordination of foreign police training programs which currently involve efforts by no less than seven different United States Government departments and agencies, and we will be creating a new leadership position within the Pentagon to ensure appropriate oversight on wartime contracting. At a time when every line item in the budget is being scrutinized, these amendments are intended to make our country stronger, to make systems work better, and to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for some very good reasons on that. Let me explain what the medical loss ratio is. That is what the people in these private insurance companies call providing health care for the premium dollar you provide. For every time they give you a health service for your premium dollar, they think of it as a medical loss. The medical loss ratio is the amount of your dollar that they actually spend on health care versus CEO salaries, bonuses, stock dividends that are out of control, lobbyist costs that they might incur, advertisements, and so on down the line. The purpose of the medical loss ratio provision is in fact to make sure that they spend a higher percentage of your premium dollar on actual health care. In 1993, the average used to be about 95 cents of every dollar would be spent by private health insurance companies on health services. Now, however, recent studies indicate that some of these private insurance companies are spending as little as 60 cents of every health care dollar on actual health services and the rest on lobbyists--probably some of whom are down here arguing to kill this provision--on high CEO salaries and bonuses and advertisements, and so on down the line. The MLR, the medical loss ratio provision in this bill, says an insurance company for individuals or small company plans has to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on health care. And if you're in a large company plan, it's 85 cents. What a novel idea; you get some bang for your buck and the government would actually do something for you for a change, protecting consumer rights and making sure that companies do what they should be doing. This isn't about profits. The companies are extremely profitable, and this is not going to cramp their style. In fact, this is about greed. The profits for the 10 largest for-profit insurance companies in this country show a whopping $9.3 billion in profits for the first three quarters of 2010. That's $2.1 billion more than the first 9 months of 2009. So it's gone up 41 percent from 2009. What this is about is them avoiding having to pay premium dollars for health care. Another provision that I like in this is they're going to have to tell the American public, they're going to have to be transparent in identifying what it is they term as ``health services,'' so people would know if they're trying to put lobbyists fees under health services or excessive bonuses or CEO salaries or advertisements, things of that nature. And I don't think they have any will at all to make sure that people understand where their health care premium dollars are going. If you don't have a provision like this, we're going to return to what we were; you take the power away from the consumer and you put it with the insurance company. So how do they do it? They raise the premiums or they cut your health care. They take away health care for people that want to get on their parents' plan up to the age of 26 if they're working at a company that doesn't have coverage, or they don't have coverage otherwise. They put on caps annually or lifetime caps so you can't get coverage. They rescind your policy exactly when you're in the middle of your cancer or diabetes care. Or they make sure some other way that you don't get the coverage you ought to have. Wendell Potter, who was a whistleblower, used to be with CIGNA, one of the larger insurance companies, made it real clear when he was testifying before committees that in fact this is what companies want to do, they want to keep that medical loss ratio in place where they benefit and the consumer loses.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I think we're a little perplexed over here. There's nobody on this side of the aisle that doesn't feel regulations ought to be reviewed. I don't think there's anybody on the other side that feels that way, and I think that everybody understands it's one of the roles of Congress, and particularly one of the roles of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It's in our rules. Every committee has already passed an entire plan for doing oversight. So, essentially, the real question is we're spending 9\1/2\ hours here today to ostensibly give authority that already exists. So we're not spending 9\1/2\ hours on dealing with helping 14 million Americans who are out of work. Instead, we're not advancing any bill that would repair our economy or restore our manufacturing industry. We're not ensuring the country's global competitiveness. We're not enhancing our education system. We're not enhancing or reinvesting in our public infrastructure. We're spending 9\1/2\ hours allotting authority that already exists on that, and that just doesn't seem to be a good use of the time of this House. I think that's been noted over and over again. It didn't stop Chairman Issa from issuing 170 letters looking at the regulatory matters the other day. It didn't stop him from having hours of a committee hearing yesterday where we beat this same drum over and over again. Everybody understands that some regulation is sometimes taken to excess and sometimes the enforcements are taken in the wrong direction. I take a back seat to nobody. I spent 4 years as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Policy and National Security. We had hearing after hearing exposing fraud, waste, and abuse in the billions in the Defense Department and related activities. So, yes, let's do it; but let's not waste our time talking about what we're going to talk about. Let's get out there and have the hearings. The committee is set up for that. But let's also understand what's going on here. There's one side of this debate, my friends on the Republican side, who want to say the only factor to be considered when we're looking at regulation is its cost, and that's it. Well, if that were the case and we only focused on cost, there would probably be no regulations. But if we look at our history, we've found it important and that there was undeniable progress when we implemented the regulations on child labor, on civil rights protections, 5-day workweeks, cleaner lakes and rivers, clean air, seatbelts and air bags, child-proof medicine caps, fire safety codes, and on and on. There's value in some of these regulations that also have to be balanced against the cost. And when in fact the Office of Management and Budget did that, as Mr. Kucinich just noted, their report estimated that between 1999 and 2009 the cost of the regulations was about $43 billion to $55 billion, but they were outweighed by economic benefits that were between $128 and $616 billion. If you just look at the Clean Air Act, by some estimates that act accounted for $23 trillion in economic and health benefits. Thirty times higher than the cost to businesses. The Clean Air Act has created jobs--lots of jobs. In 2010, 1.7 million Americans were employed in environmental technology industries; 119,000 environmental tech companies produced $300 billion in revenues in 2010. And we're exporting these technologies. In 2008, the United States exported $43.8 billion in environmental technologies--more than any other country in the world. So, Madam Speaker, let's be serious about this. We're talking about regulations. We're talking about the costs and the benefits and doing an analysis. And let's not waste 9\1/2\ hours talking about what we already have the authority to do.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Leader: I agree to take a leave of absence from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with the understanding that I can be reappointed in the 113th Congress. Serving on the HPSCI has been a privilege, and I have appreciated the opportunity it has afforded me to ensure that appropriate oversight is conducted over our intelligence and national security programs. Like you, I believe rigorous congressional oversight is critical to the successful implementation of such programs and helps reassure our constituents that their hard-earned tax dollars are being well-spent. As you know, I am currently serving as a member of the House Committees on Education and the Workforce and Oversight and Government Reform. As such, and in light of the new Republican Majority's decision to reduce the number of members on standing committees in the House, I agree that it is appropriate at this time to take a leave of absence from the HPSCI with the understanding that I can be reappointed in the next Congress. I thank you for the courtesy you have extended to me, and I look forward to continuing our work together on addressing the important challenges confronting the American people. Sincerely, John F. Tierney, Member of Congress.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disappointing that, following last week's near universal calls for unity and cooperation and amidst all of the calls to lower the temperature of political discourse and to move to working together to solve America's pressing issues, the new Republican majority is moving full steam ahead with an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The health care law may not be perfect--that prospect would always certainly be open to debate and suggestions on how it might be improved might also be open to debate--but instead of working together and building on the work that has been done and the progress that has been made, we find ourselves here today, debating and voting on a bill, which, while it may pass the House, most certainly will never become law--nor should it. Some may call it political catharsis. Others may call it pure theater, plain and simple; but let's be clear: the positive impact the existing health care reform law is having on millions of residents and families in all of our districts is very real, and the law's important, commonsense consumer protections are very popular. Specifically, this misguided legislation will spell the end of one meaningful consumer protection which I and others fought to get into the law. This protection, the medical loss ratio requirement, holds insurance companies accountable and ensures consumers are receiving the health services for which they are paying top dollar. In 1993, many private companies routinely spent 95 cents of every dollar on health services. By 2008, in the absence of regulation otherwise, many had reduced their spending on health services to below 75 percent, some to even less than 60 percent of those premium dollars. That meant that companies could spend up to 43 cents of your premium dollar on executive salaries, advertising, lobbyists, bonuses, dividends, and other administrative costs instead of using it for what you had contracted for--health care. To keep their excessive profits up, you may have been charged ever- higher premiums or may have been denied care through a number of anticonsumer gimmicks. You might have been denied coverage because you or your family member had a preexisting condition or because you had coverage capped annually or in a lifetime, stopping coverage when it was most needed, or, as a parent, you were refused coverage for your children under 26 even if they were still unemployed or were working someplace where coverage wasn't available. All of these injustices are addressed in the bill. Its repeal would reverse that. I ask that this misguided bill fail, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting this resolution. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of residents and families I represent in Massachusetts, I respectfully offer my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of those who were killed last Saturday in Tucson, Arizona. I want to express my support for those who were injured. Let's hope their recovery is swift. Our focus right now must remain on honoring the lives that were lost and the lives that will never be the same as a result of this unspeakable attack. However, as we turn to each other, seek solace and mourn, we cannot lose sight of the fact that extraordinary heroism and selfless courage could be found amid the horror of that day. The worst of tragedies brought out the best of humanity, as it so often does. There were men and women of all ages, who, in some cases, were injured themselves, shielding children from harm, tending to the injured, and apprehending the gunman. All of them put their own lives at risk to help save others. I'd also like to convey the heartache and concern of my constituents--and all Americans--for my colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. As so many have noted, Gabby is a smart and honorable member of Congress, but even more so, she is a great person-- a warm, caring, thoughtful, and a hard-working public servant who strives and succeeds in making a real difference for the people and community she represents. Our hearts go out to Gabby's husband, Mark Kelly, her parents and family, and her dedicated staff in Washington and Arizona. It is well-known now that this shooting occurred while Congresswoman Giffords was conducting a ``Congress on Your Corner'' event, which gives her constituents an opportunity to meet directly with her and raise issues or ask questions of concern. All of us conduct events like this in some form as often as we can because it is such a fundamental aspect of our job. As Speaker Boehner said last week, ``this is the people's House.'' Moving forward, even in this time of grief and sadness, I believe it is important to keep it that way. Rather than inappropriately increasing the barriers between us and those who we represent, we must stay committed to engaging in precisely the kind of activities that Congresswoman Giffords and her staff undertook last Saturday. We must continue to travel around our communities and be in contact with those we represent. We must be more accessible, not less. Madam Speaker, as we struggle to make sense of these horrific events, one thing remains perfectly clear to all of us in public life: this type of incident cannot be condoned--and our accessibility to our constituents cannot be curtailed--if our nation is to endure as a democratic republic. Before I close, I again wanted to join my colleagues in remembering all the victims and rededicating ourselves to the enduring American values which Congresswoman Giffords and her staff embody: openness, accessibility, and a sincere commitment to serve those who we represent.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Nancy K. Kaufman. For the past 20 years, Ms. Kaufman has served as the Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, an umbrella group for 42 local and national Jewish organizations. She has been a charismatic leader for JCRC, for the Boston Jewish community and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have had the privilege of knowing Nancy for many years, and have traveled to Israel with her. Those who know Nancy can attest to her energy, effectiveness and enthusiasm for building a better world. Due to Nancy's efforts, JCRC's impact has been felt across the country. As a result of her vision, passion and determination, the organization has developed a national model for creating community cohesion and building bridges. As an advocate for those in need, a community organizer and one committed to maintaining strong ties between Israel and the United States, Nancy has led the Jewish community with distinction and passion, and has been an outspoken and effective advocate for issues of importance to the Jewish community at the state and federal level. Before joining the JCRC, Nancy worked for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Deputy Director of the Governor's Office of Human Resources, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Welfare. Starting in January 2011, Ms. Kaufman will join the National Council of Jewish Women as its new President. Ms. Kaufman is the recipient of several distinguished awards, including the Littauer Award for Excellence from the Kennedy School of Government and the Award for Greatest Contribution to Social Policy and Social Change from the Massachusetts chapter of National Association of Social Workers. Ms. Kaufman was also awarded the Warren B. Kohn Award for Jewish Communal Service in 2001, and was noted among the ``Top 50'' American Jewish leaders in the Forward Newspaper in 2000. As she concludes her tenure at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, I wish to recognize Nancy Kaufman for her outstanding achievements as a citizen and advocate and wish her continued success in her new position.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Monsignor Paul V. Garrity. For the past eighteen years, Monsignor Garrity has served as the pastor of St. Mary's Church in Lynn, Massachusetts. During those years, his contributions, not only to St. Mary's but to the city itself, have been numerous. Monsignor Garrity grew up in Somerville, Massachusetts. He is a graduate of St. John's College. In 1973, he was ordained a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston. Prior to coming to St. Mary's, he served parishes in Billerica and Malden. He was also Director of the Catholic Center and was Campus Minister at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. In 1992, he was appointed pastor of St. Mary's in Lynn. Since then, he has transformed the parish into a vibrant, welcoming and diverse community. He has breathed new life into the St. Mary's community and engaged support from hundreds of volunteers. During his tenure both a Haitian Community and a Congolese Community were established at St. Mary's parish. A strategic plan for St. Mary's High School was completed that led to a $10 million capital campaign and the opening of the William F. Connell Center--a new state of the art academic building, the refurbishment of the school campus and the doubling of enrollment. Monsignor Garrity's vision led to the conversion of a large, old convent building on the St. Mary's campus into 32 units of much-needed low income elderly housing with a service plan that is modeled like an assisted living arrangement. He was an advocate for the conversion of property located at the closed St. Jean Baptiste parish into low income housing to provide affordable home ownership opportunities. At the request of Cardinal Sean O'Malley, he is currently serving on three Archdiocesan task forces: the Improved Financial Relationship Committee (IFRC), the Clergy Fund Review Committee and the Elementary School Task Force. Monsignor Garrity is a regular panelist on the RUACH Program, an inter-faith dialogue program on local cable TV and is active in ecumenical and interfaith activities in the Greater Lynn community. His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, named Monsignor a Prelate of Honor with the title of Very Reverend Monsignor in 1998, and Monsignor Garrity was made a Knight of the Holy Sepulcher in 1999. Through his work, Monsignor Garrity has made a difference in the lives of so many in Lynn, and he will leave behind him an indelible imprint on the community. I join my friends in the greater Lynn community and the St. Mary's parish family in extending my best wishes to Monsignor Garrity as he embarks upon his next assignment hoping that he understands that he will always be welcome ``home'' to St. Mary's and Lynn whenever he ventures this way.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of working men and women of the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I rise today to commend Ron Gettelfinger for his extraordinary service and leadership during his recently completed tenure as president of the United Auto Workers of America. Over the last 8 years, Ron Gettelfinger has helped steer his brothers and sisters in organized labor through one of the most difficult economic periods in history with great statesmanship and considerable care. And despite the unprecedented challenges the auto industry has faced, the UAW has emerged from the recent crisis well-positioned for the future thanks in no small measure to Ron's vision and leadership. Ron's tenure at the UAW was marked by a string of victories for American workers and their families. An outspoken advocate to make health care accessible and affordable for all Americans, Ron played a critical role in helping to see health care reform enacted into law. He fought for children's health insurance and fair pay legislation, labor protections in fair trade agreements, and championed retaining manufacturing jobs here in the United States through investments in advanced technology vehicles. And through the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression and the loss of thousands of jobs to companies overseas, Ron Gettelfinger always worked to ensure that UAW workers and their families were treated fairly. Though he rose to the very top of the UAW leadership, Ron Gettelfinger never forgot where he came from. He was most proud simply to be known as a chassis line repairman. A member of UAW since 1964, it was the needs and perspectives of the workers at Ford's Louisville Assembly plant with whom he worked side-by-side for so many years that always shaped his priorities and concerns. With profound appreciation for Ron Gettelfinger's consensus-building among business and labor leaders that has helped to preserve a vibrant American auto industry for millions of American workers and their families, I join my colleagues in thanking Ron for his service and wishing him and his family well in the years ahead.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are instances when, after we have done all the research and completed all other options and exhausted them, a legislative remedy may still be required in order to help our constituents in our district offices with a particular problem. Those occasions give us the opportunity to evidence how Congress can work on their behalf, how Congress can help solve problems, and how Congress could have a direct and positive effect on people's lives. This is one of those times, and I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee has made this amendment in order. This amendment seeks to assist those people who, while they were in the process of pursuing their dream of homeownership, were unfairly impacted by a statutory change to HUD's upfront mortgage insurance premium refund policy. Now, under HUD's Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium Refund policy, borrowers paid an upfront mortgage insurance of 1\1/2\ percent of their FHA loan amount, and if they prepaid their loans, the borrowers could be due refunds on that prepaid insurance amount. However, in 2005, with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress included language directing that the mortgages after the time of that date of enactment, which was December 8, 2004, that would no longer be true. Borrowers would no longer be eligible for refunds of their prepaid insurance. So now there are about 15,000 people in this country who tried to do the right thing and play by the rules. They are constituents of all of ours who closed on their mortgage before that December 8, 2004, date in order to be able to get their refund. But, regrettably, they were prevented from receiving their refund because HUD didn't endorse their loan until after December 8, 2004. Now the constituents tell us they were never adequately informed by the lender of those potential provisions, and the lenders tell us they didn't do it because they weren't told by HUD until after the effective date, in fact, not until January of 2005. I know of one particular family in my district from Gloucester, Massachusetts, who were harmed by that new provision in the law. They did everything right. They played by the rules. They closed their loan in November of 2004 without notice of the change of law, but they have been prevented from receiving their refund of some $4,200 because HUD didn't do their mortgage until after December 10 of 2004. Certainly, that's an unintended consequence of the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005. This amendment makes a meaningful first step toward helping certain eligible homeowners and borrowers, many of whom are low-income families, as I say, who played by the rules. I say this is a first step because we later have to go to Appropriations to get money to fulfill this policy. But this clearly is the right policy. It is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do, and we have to discuss and argue about the money to appropriate in order to make whole these people at a later date. But I suggest that if we all want to do the right thing by policy, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, 15,593, according to the Department.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank you for raising that point that this is a two- step process. This part of the process, in fact, talks about whether we will have a policy that will enable us at some appropriate time to appropriate the money.

Mr. TIERNEY. We are not appropriating the money now, and I think that's a debate for another day and another time if we decide whether we want to be fair to these people or put it off for some other time, but the total for that 15,593 people, according to the Department, would be $10,372,661.61, more or less.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that $10 million is $10 million, and that's a lot of money to each one of us individually and, of course, we should be concerned. It's not proportionately a lot in our $1.7 trillion budget. But I think the real number to look at here is what does it mean to these individuals who are harmed by government policy on no doing of their own. So if it's $4,200 to a family in my district or $4,200 to a family in the gentlewoman's district, that's what's driving our economy right now. For people to have every expectation of getting the return of that money and to play by the rules only to have the bureaucracy undercut them, I think that's the issue of fairness that we are dealing with here. Now, we will have an issue later on about whether or not we think now is the appropriate time to put $10 million on the floor to help people out, and that will be a day for them. But I think we should deal with the policy now and authorize that to be done at some date either this year or next year, or whenever we can make the argument in Congress that it's time to be fair. I think we can all say in this amount, given the huge meaning this is to individuals, now is the time to be fair; 15,000 people wronged by government bureaucracy in amounts that are every bit as significant to them individually, the $4,200, as $10 million may be to all of us in the aggregate. It's an impact on their lives. It's whether or not their families are going to be able to make it through this crisis, whether or not they are going to be able to meet the everyday needs of food, health care, education, clothing and those things that are important to their family. Again, in closing, I just reiterate, this is the authorization process. Let's set the policy of fairness. We can debate the other later. And let's keep in mind these people played by the rules, did what was right, and deserve to know, at least as a policy matter, Congress will stand with them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a model for international cooperation that is said to hold promise and future opportunities for the United States. The City of Nanjing is working to improve the quality of life of its residents with a global initiative that has potential to create a great opportunity for some in the United States. For over a decade, the City of Nanjing, China, under the leadership of Secretary Zhu Shanlu, has reached beyond the borders of the People's Republic of China to create new strategies in education, innovation and entrepreneurship, increasing the level of understanding between our two nations and stimulating U.S.-China idea exchange. It is expected that this international cooperative initiative will inure to the benefit of the residents of Nanjing as well to the residents of the United States, including businesses, residents and educational institutions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To this end, Mr. Zhu in his role as Secretary for Education and Technology in Beijing traveled to many United States cities to discuss the growth of education collaboration. These meetings resulted in numerous programs that served global higher education, leading to a first-of-its-kind scholarship program offered through the New England Board of Higher Education providing annual scholarships for deserving students in the region. This work also forged new opportunities for United States colleges and universities with a strong focus on New England, specifically on Massachusetts, as representatives of several New England institutions were hosted by then Secretary Zhu at the Beijing Education Expo, a showcase of the promise of global education. Educational leaders exchanged ideas, and as a result, opportunities for educational exchanges were expanded creating new frontiers for American students to pursue studies in China and similar opportunities for Chinese students to benefit from programs offered in American colleges and universities from coast-to-coast. Now under Mr. Zhu's leadership, the city of Nanjing has embarked on a new initiative in an effort to strengthen the bridge of partnership between the United States and China. Nanjing has created a number of avenues inviting United States companies and universities to expand opportunities into the Chinese market. In 2010, the City of Nanjing is scheduled to host conferences on Global Innovation in China, Global Entrepreneurship in China and Global University--R&D City. The conferences are expected to create special opportunities to develop concepts for development opportunities for green energy, life science and related industries. Small and mid size American companies may wish to explore offering technologies to improve the life of Chinese citizens and expand their business horizons. One of the innovative American enterprises prepared to explore such potential opportunities calls Gloucester, Massachusetts and the 6th Massachusetts congressional district its home. Free Flow Power is looking to expand opportunities to develop and manage hydropower and hydrokinetic facilities to generate clean renewable energy from flowing water. They will join other companies from across the country in Nanjing. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the City of Nanjing and its leaders as well as those of the American participants in the program for having a vision that looks to the future by supporting a stronger educational exchange and the potential for green energy and technology partnerships in a spirit of global cooperation between the United States and China.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following testimony on the National Mediation Board's proposed rule regarding union elections under the Railway Labor Act. Changed Time and Circumstances Justify Amending NMB Representation Vote Procedures (by Frank N. Wilner) By Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) dated Nov. 3, 2009, the National Mediation Board (NMB) proposes to amend its rules interpreting and administering the Railway Labor Act (RLA) ``to provide that, in representation disputes [determinations as to who will be the bargaining agent for airline and railroad and commuter railroad employees], a majority of valid ballots cast will determine the craft or class representatives.'' The long-standing procedure of the NMB requires a majority of eligible voters (as opposed to those actually voting) to vote affirmatively in favor of representation, meaning a failure or refusal of an eligible voter to participate is the equivalent of a ``no union'' vote. The NMB proposes to change its procedure so that, in the future, only ballots of those actually voting will be counted, and each voter will make a choice between representation by a specified union or ``no union.'' This will comport with the long-standing procedures of the National Labor Relations Board, which interprets and administers the National Labor Relations Act. The NMB has authority to make this change in policy. As the Supreme Court observed: [N]ot only does the statute [RLA] fail to spell out the form of any ballot that might be used but it does not even require selection by ballot. It leaves the details to the broad discretion of the [National Mediation] Board with only the caveat that it `insure' freedom from carrier interference. Says the NMB in its NPRM: The Board's current policy requires that a majority of eligible voters in the craft or class must cast valid ballots in favor of representation. This policy is based on the Board's original construction of Section 2, Fourth of the RLA, which provides that, `[t]he majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class . . .' This interpretation was made in the NMB's first annual report in 1935 ``. . . not on the basis of legal opinion and precedents, but on what seemed to the Board best from an administrative point of view.'' In its November 2009 NPRM, the NMB says: . . . under its broad statutory authority, [the board] may also reasonably interpret Section 2, Fourth to allow the Board to certify as collective bargaining representative any organization which receives a majority of votes cast in an election. And the NMB has done just that in the past, although infrequently. As the NMB said in its first annual report in 1935 that, ``Where, however, the parties to a dispute agreed among themselves that they would be bound by a majority of the votes cast, the Board took the position that it would certify on this basis . . .'' The Supreme Court has held that while the words of Section 2, Fourth ``confer the right of determination upon a majority of those eligible to vote,'' the statute ``is silent as to the manner in which that right shall be exercised.'' The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held, in 1936: The universal rule as to elections of officers and representatives is that a majority of the votes cast elects, and that those not voting are presumed to acquiesce in the choice of the majority who do vote. And Chief Justice Morrison Waite held, in 1877: All qualified voters who absent themselves from an election duly called are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting, unless the law providing for the election otherwise declares. Any other rule would be productive of the greatest inconvenience and ought not to be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed. Moreover, courts give the decisions of expert federal agencies great deference; and are, in the words of the Supreme Court (Chevron doctrine), ``reluctant to preclude any federal agency's deliberations of policy because a federal agency, which is controlled by the political branches of the federal government, is constitutionally better suited than a federal court to render policy decisions.'' The NMB enjoys even greater insulation from second-guessing by the courts. The Supreme Court observed in 1943 that Congress left to the discretionary authority of the NMB the determination of certifying bargaining representatives. Perhaps a more pregnant question is why the NMB for so long has permitted its voting procedures in representation elections to be out of sync with the standard for all other democratic elections, where a majority of those voting makes the determination. This is especially relevant where the result of such a procedure is that the failure or refusal of an eligible voter to participate is the equivalent of a ``no union'' vote. It makes for sound administrative procedure, however, to provide reasonable justification--rather than willy-nilly desire--for changing a long-standing public policy. Determining a reasonable justification logically begins with the NMB's observation, in its November 2009 NPRM, that Section 2, Fourth ``was adopted in a much earlier era, under circumstances that differ markedly from those prevailing today.'' The Earlier Era Time and circumstances have, indeed, changed since the NMB adopted, during the 1930s, its current policy--not always followed, as will be explained--that requires a majority of eligible voters in the craft or class must cast valid ballots in favor of representation. Consider: In 1930, there were 156 major (Class I) railroad systems. In 2008, the number of major (Class I) railroad systems was just 7, a 96 percent reduction since 1930. In 1930, there were 1.5 million employees in the railroad industry. In 2007, employment in the railroad industry had declined to just 236,000, an 84 percent reduction since 1930. In 1930, there were 249,000 miles of railroad line in the United States. In 2007, the miles of railroad line in the United States had declined to just 94,440, a 62 percent reduction since 1930. While it is instructive that there has been a significant decline in the number of major railroads, railroad employees and miles of railroad trackage, those considerations alone are not enough to justify a change in the NMB's long-standing voting procedures for representation elections, except to demonstrate that the environment in which the NMB made its initial determination to require a majority of eligible voters was much different than today's environment. However--and this is crucial--as the NMB conducted representation elections during the 1930s, the Interstate Commerce Commission was wrestling with a congressional directive in the Transportation Act, 1920, to formulate a plan of merging the nation's railroads into just 19 systems. Thus, lurking in the shadows of each representation election during the 1930s was, ``What is the mood of employees on the other railroads that might become a merger partner of the railroad on which employees were voting for representation?'' This concern likely steered the NMB toward seeking a demonstration in each representation election that the outcome was a result of votes from a majority of those eligible to vote. There are more important facts of changed circumstances: Company Unions Among amendments to the Railway Labor Act in 1934 was one outlawing company unions--a change intended better to protect employee rights to organize. Company unions were under the control of carrier officers, with the carriers paying the wages of the employee representatives. The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce observed at the time (1934) that ``a prolific source of dispute'' between management and employees was ``the denial by railway management of the authority of representatives chosen by their employees.'' So substantial was this conflict that then-NMB Chairman William M. Leiserson subsequently testified that, were there a strike occasioned by a dispute over wages and hours, ``we usually find we can settle those by arbitration or otherwise . . . But if the issues involved were discrimination or discharge of men because they had joined the organization, or the question would be the right of the organization to represent them, we could not have settled those strikes.'' Between 1933 (the year prior to an RLA amendment that outlawed company unions) and 1935, some 550 company unions on 77 Class I railroads were replaced by independent national unions. Indeed, two-thirds of the work of the NMB from 1934 until the start of World War II involved investigations and purging of company unions. This was no simple task, as railroads were not anxious to cede negotiating power to an independent labor union. The New York Times observed as early as 1922. When the railroads were handed back to their owners by the Government (following federal takeover during World War I) they were working under national agreements made with union representatives. That was a yoke from which the roads constantly tried to escape. Moreover, employees, fortunate to be working during the Great Depression were frightened--if not terrified--over the prospect of angering management by not supporting a company union and, as a result, losing their jobs. As the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in 1936. . . . any sort of influence exerted by an employer upon an employee, dependent upon his employment for means of livelihood, may very easily become undue, in that it will coerce the employee's will in favor of what the employer desires against his better judgment as to what is really in the best interest of himself and his fellow employees. Although there is no accessible source to determine the thinking of NMB officials at the time, it is logical to conclude that requiring a majority of those eligible to vote (as opposed to a majority of those voting) more conclusively established on the part of the eligible employees a desire to be represented by a labor union independent of company influence. This conclusion is given validity by a comment of the nation's Federal Coordinator of Transportation (1933-1936), Joseph Eastman, who proposed that in organizing employee unions, ``a majority shall speak for all.'' Racial Discrimination There was, during the 1930s, a national shame of racial discrimination. It was not until 1955 that the Interstate Commerce Commission, taking instruction from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, ruled that the very practice of segregation in interstate commerce was a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. For sure, discrimination against African-Americans existed also in railroad employment practices. On Atlanta Terminal Co., for example, there was an effort to separate, for representation, Caucasian and African- American employees. Management said it wanted a demonstration that the Brotherhood of Railroad and Steamship Employees represented the ``white employees.'' The NMB ordered that one ballot be issued ``among all the employees involved in the dispute regardless of color to afford all of them an equal opportunity to indicate their choice of representatives.'' As another example, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen had an agreement with 10 railroads in the South to restrict hiring and promotion of African-Americans, and the BLF&E, according to President Roosevelt's Committee on Fair Employment Practices, ``refuses to represent them with respect to their grievances when such grievances are in conflict with the interests of junior white firemen.'' The national shame of racial discrimination surely created a unique challenge for the NMB--a challenge best met by requiring that representation elections be determined by a majority of those eligible rather than of those voting to guard against racial discrimination in the voting process. Conflict among labor unions and crafts Also unique to the period of the 1930s was the large number of competing labor organizations and crafts. Where representation of craft and class today is generally established in bright line fashion on the larger railroads (which employ almost 90 percent of rail workers), that was not the case during the 1930s. In 1935, on New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, a dispute arose between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (BRT) and the Switchmen's Union of North America (SUNA) regarding representation of switchmen. The BRT claimed representation of switchmen systemwide; and the SUNA sought a separate vote of switchmen in Buffalo and those in Cleveland, rather than systemwide. In 1937, on Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, a dispute arose between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers regarding representation of operators, towermen, levermen, train directors and operator- switchtenders. In 1935, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen complained that the NMB had denied certain brakemen a representation ballot in a dispute involving road conductors. The NMB observed in its first annual report in 1935: [Representation disputes] arose mainly because of overlapping jurisdiction . . . the antagonism engendered by the contests has developed a tendency for employees who are members of one organization to challenge the representation of the other organization. . . . The NMB since has made clear that Section 2, Ninth of the RLA requires a systemwide election by craft or class; but, in those early years, the NMB, in decisions of first impression, surely recognized that to assure a perception of equity that the vote results had to be based on a majority those eligible to vote--that the NMB had to get it right. Also, technology has eliminated what were some 291 crafts or classes in 1935, and merger among unions reduced what had been some 21 separate craft unions in 1935 to many fewer today. Also notable is that it was not until 1954 that the AFL amended its constitution to prohibit raiding by AFL member unions of other AFL-member unions (now memorialized by Article 20 of the AFL-CIO constitution). Communication and education Times and circumstances also have changed with regard to education and communication. In 1930, only 30 percent of Americans were graduated from high school, while, today, the number exceeds 70 percent. During the 1930s, representation elections were carried out by mail ballot, with each eligible voter being sent a ballot along with an instruction sheet explaining the procedures for a secret ballot election. A significant number of blue collar workers during the 1930s may well have been unable to read at a level sufficient to ensure they understood the ballot procedures, much less the subject matter of the election. It was not until 1943 that a single AT&T operator could complete a long-distance telephone call; previously, as many as five operators and 23 minutes were required to connect a telephone in San Francisco with one in New York. As late as 1950, the cost of a five-minute long-distance telephone call between New York and Los Angeles cost $3.70, which is equivalent to $32.73 in 2009. This affected the ability of independent unions--and union supporters--to communicate with railroad employees over a wide geographic area. Today, railroad employees have near universal access to hard-wired and wireless telephones, as well as e-mail, with the costs of communicating relatively insignificant. In the words of former NMB Chairperson Maggie Jacobsen, the Internet has become ``a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week union meeting.'' Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 74 percent of Americans 18 years and older in the workforce use the Internet. As airlines and railroads are among the most computerized industries in America, the percentage of airline and railroad employees who are Internet savvy is likely higher than 74 percent. During the 1930s, there was a communications challenge--in employee reading comprehension as well as the ability to communicate by electronic means (including telephone). That communications challenge could well have affected the ability of voting-eligible employees to be aware of the subject matter, while lower standards of reading comprehension impeded the ability of employees to understand the subject matter, mechanics and rules of a representation election. By requiring that a majority of eligible employees vote in favor of representation, the procedure better assured that the majority would be made aware of the election and for what they were voting. The matter of employee reading comprehension is far less a problem today, and there no longer exists impediments to dissemination of information by electronic means (including voice). Conflicts in ideology Not readily recognized today is that there was great social upheaval during the period of the Great Depression. Communism was viewed by many workers at that time as superior to capitalism, and communists were active agents for change. In 1938, for example, communist agitator William Z. Foster advocated worker militancy. The president of the Switchmen's Union of North America responded that communist efforts are intended ``to create disharmony, discord and disunity among the members of standard railroad labor organizations.'' Here, again, was reason for the NMB to certify representation votes on the basis of a majority of those eligible to vote rather than to permit, perhaps, a handful of agitators to determine representation votes for a radical organization by intimidating a majority of workers from casting ballots. Conclusion The National Mediation Board proposes to bring its 75-year- old representation election voting procedures in sync with those of the National Labor Relations Board, and what the federal courts term, the ``universal rule as to elections of officers and representatives.'' The change would provide that the outcome of an election is determined by a majority of those voting, scrapping the archaic majority-of-those-eligible rule, which arbitrarily assumes that those not voting be counted as a ``no vote.'' Circumstances have changed since the NMB instituted such voting procedures in 1934. The reasons then included: An effort by the NMB to demonstrate to employers that their employees overwhelmingly preferred an independent labor union to a company union controlled and financed by management. An effort to guard against racial discrimination in an election and better assure access to ballots by African- American workers. An effort to resolve conflict among some 21 separate independent labor unions seeking to represent some 291 separate crafts or classes at the time--to ``get it right'' by determining the desires of a majority of those eligible to vote. An effort to combat substantially lower levels of education and reading comprehension among workers. By requiring a positive vote among a majority of those eligible, it was better assured that efforts would be made by those asking for the election to reach and explain voting procedures to those eligible. An effort to combat technological difficulties in communicating with potential voters. Again, requiring a positive vote among a majority of those eligible better assured that efforts would be made to reach out and communicate with those eligible. An effort to combat Communist agitators, who were using intimidation and other tactics to encourage worker militancy and workplace discord. Today: There no longer are company unions or the threat of company unions. Racial discrimination has been outlawed, and procedures are in place to root out and prosecute racial discrimination in the workplace. Conflicts among RLA-covered labor unions are largely non- existent today, and the number of crafts and classes of workers has been reduced substantially. Moreover, by including a ``no union'' choice on the ballot provides eligible employees opportunity to cast a ``no vote.'' Levels of education, especially among railroad and airline workers, have been dramatically improved, with most using computers in their daily work routines. Barriers to communication among workers, as well as between workers and their employers and union organizers have been almost entirely eliminated with near universal access to telephone and e-mail. Also, today's railroad and airline workers have substantially higher levels of education than they did during the 1930s. Because of changes in circumstance, 75-year-old NMB voting procedures are ripe for change to bring them in sync with the universal rule as to elections of officers and representatives, which is a majority of those casting ballots.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today is an opportunity for this body to stand up for middle class families and small businesses. Today, by passing this bill, no family will have to worry that their 20-something-year-old child will have a serious condition and not be covered or ever be refused coverage in their lifetime due to a preexisting condition. Insurance companies will no longer be able to limit coverage annually or over a lifetime just when serious conditions require care. They won't be able to rescind coverage in the middle of cancer or diabetes care, and they will have to spend a reasonable portion of premium dollars on actual health services. We will be able to see our seniors affording both their groceries and their prescription medicines because we will close the so-called doughnut hole in their current coverage, and we will extend the life of Medicare for 9 years even as we improve its coverage. Small business employers and employees will be better able to afford health care and will pay less in administrative costs while having the choices large companies and Federal employees have now. All this, Mr. Speaker, and we will be making the largest pay-down on the Federal deficit in quite some time, reducing our debt by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. No bill is perfect, but this bill is an enormous improvement of the status quo. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, if my previous colleague thought that the Democrats were going to get slaughtered for passing this bill, a few of them would cut out of the herd and help pass it. But that's absolutely not the case. This year-long debate and the bipartisan health care meeting show that Democrats and Republicans do agree in some areas. Both agree that the status quo isn't working for Americans; both agree that waste, fraud and abuse should be removed from the system; both agree that we should invest in prevention and wellness. The bill has incorporated several Republican ideas into its proposal, but Democrats and Republicans have a profound disagreement on the proper oversight on insurance companies. We believe that insurance companies need to be held accountable with minimum commensurate standards to help keep premiums and industry abuses down. Republicans believe that insurance companies should have a freer hand and should be free to raise rates and reduce, and even eliminate, coverage. We believe that the most effective way to reduce premiums for all Americans and businesses, large and small, and the only way to cover all people with preexisting conditions is to make sure that everyone is in the insurance system. Republicans disagree, and their plan will not outlaw discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. Those are profound differences, Madam Speaker, and that's why we need health care reform.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman. Since 1995, when our Republican colleagues held the majority in the House of Representatives, until 2007 when they relinquished that and the voters threw them out, they had done exactly nothing, nothing, with respect to the health care crisis in this country. Now they want to come in and they want to do something. They want to have you pay less for getting less. This is their great plan. The one thing they tried to do in 2003 would put pharmaceutical prescription drugs in Medicare which they did by giving seniors a so- called doughnut hole they had to pay for and costing us $600 billion on our current debt. My friends, the only ones they made happy then were the pharmaceutical companies, and the only ones they want to make happy now are the private insurance companies. They want to try to kill reform. If they can't kill reform, they want to give them this gift of a Republican substitute. While they sat idle since 1995, family health insurance policies rose from 7 percent of median income to 17 percent. Sixty percent of families reporting bankruptcies did so in part because of health care costs. Forty-six million Americans went uninsured, 85 percent of those in working families. Small business premiums went up 129 percent. Twenty-eight million of our uninsured are small business owners, employees or their families. Small businesses are projected to lose $52.1 billion going forward in the next decade if we continue on the Republican path of do nothing. The question is, who is on our side? Who is on the side of the consumers, the individuals, the small businesses and the families, and that is the bill that the Democrats have put forward on this floor. It is affordable; it is health care for every American. If you compare the two bills, you will see the Congressional Budget Office says the Republicans may--may--save you from 0 to 3 percent on 80 percent of the private premiums. The Democratic bill saves you 12 percent. The Democratic bill covers 96 percent of Americans. The Republicans in 2019 will leave you exactly where you are today, covering only 83 percent of the people, leaving by that time 52 million uninsured. We will end the discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They will study it. We will have an exchange for small businesses and employees so they get better prices comparable to what large companies have now been able to get. They will do nothing of the kind except let you shop for a place, but to get your insurance it might cost you less because you get less, because you will have a race to the bottom, where insurance companies will be able to avoid consumer protections of States and practice fraud almost indiscriminately. There will be no way of cutting it back. You pay less because you get less.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me and want to acknowledge before we start, Patrick, I know you're going to speak later, but I hope that this is somewhat fulfilling for you. It can never replace the loss of your dad, but hopefully it will at least let you know how much the people that served with him had the honor and pleasure of doing that, loved doing it and appreciated him every day. And my colleague, Bill Delahunt, was more than just the Congressman for the Senator, so I extend my sympathies to you as well; you were a friend, probably even closer than most of us were because you were there so often and spent so much time with him. And so I express those condolences to you. But it's a loss to all of us. The Dean of the delegation, Ed Markey, of course, served many, many years with the Senator. I looked at a little factoid the other day that indicated that Senator Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of George Washington's birthday. I thought if that's accurate, and I assume that it is, how interesting it was, because nobody appreciated history more than Senator Kennedy and nobody appreciated his role in history more than that. I can remember Ed Markey at one point, at a function introducing Senator Kennedy as one of the best United States Senators, only to be corrected by the Senator saying, One of the best? The best. And while he was joking, I think he turned out to be absolutely right on that because he certainly has a record that you have heard from John Olver and others here that is just phenomenal. Jimmy McGovern expressed it as well. I won't start to enumerate all of the things that the Senator did. We'd be here for far too long. And I think, after hearing my colleagues, most people finally start to appreciate that wherever you were in life, you benefited from him; whether you were cleaning hotel rooms or doing some other job that was difficult like that, you benefited from the minimum wage, health care, education, all the things that we care about. And frankly, when we are all looking to try and have the honor of serving here, listening to people in our constituencies, they're talking about those things that matter to them, the bread and butter issues, whether or not they're going to have a job, whether or not it pays well, whether or not they're going to be able to keep their family healthy; whether or not they're going to be able to give their children opportunity. This great Senator epitomized all of that. One thing that I don't think has been mentioned so far that I just want to hit on is the fact that the Senator used to tell a story about being lectured by his father when he turned 21 or so about the fact that he was going to be the recipient of some resources that other people didn't have the benefit of; he could choose to be idle and do nothing with his time, or he could choose to be of service to others and to mankind. We all know which route he took. But that remains an inspiring story to all people even to today. And during the course of this summer when the President had his Service to America campaign going on, many of us had the opportunity to go and visit a lot of organizations that had volunteers in, and when you would remind them of that story and tell them about the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that was signed into law earlier in the year by President Obama and now their role in stepping into his belief of service and doing something for their fellow citizens, doing something for America and no matter how small or large, no matter where it was, you could see the inspiration that they got from the Senator, from his life, from his acts, and from the fact that this law had passed because he motivated people to pass it and get it through. This will remain as one of his great legacies, the fact that he spent his life serving others, that he was selfless in that regard, and that while he was serious about the business that he did, he was also never taking himself too seriously, and always willing to make people feel comfortable and to see the lighter side of things and to see the better part of humanity. In even people who were his political opponents, he saw a good part, and he was able to draw out of them a response that made them accept him and others and work on issues together. I can remember being with the Senator when we would go out, particularly to senior citizen places where he just couldn't resist singing a song, particularly Irish song, couldn't resist getting out and dancing if there was a ballroom dance going on. And, of course, I guess I must take myself too seriously, or just know how bad a singer or bad a dancer I am. I was always looking for the door, and he would never let that happen. He'd be the first one to force you on the floor, make a fool of yourself, but have some fun and go on that. That's the humanity of the man; that he loved everybody, he loved having a good time with them, could get them to go along with him; and then when it was time to get serious, he could do that in a heartbeat. He could make the case. He had great oratorical skills that carried the day over and over again. And he truly is a giant. I know that the story of his life is just jumping off the shelves right now because people are starting to remember all that he did. Sometimes in the hustle and bustle of political jargon, people making attacks and going back and forth, people forget that when you separate all that out, whether you are a conservative, or whether you are a liberal, whatever your political opinion, there are things in your life that you have that you're grateful for that are a result of the work of Senator Kennedy. I think that's the bottom line in all of this is that this Senator was a great Senator for America. He was a great friend to all of us. He was a great father and brother for people in Massachusetts. We sorely, sorely miss him. But none of us regret at all having had the opportunity to know him and to serve with him.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. You know, to listen to this debate, Madam Chairwoman, you would think that we were disallowing banks and private lenders from lending. That's not the case at all. If they want to make private student loans, they can. The fact of the matter is that without a subsidy and without a guarantee, they probably won't find themselves very competitive. Right now, the government is providing 60 percent of all the capital that goes in because that market didn't have the liquidity it required in order to keep up those loans. What we are seeing is the option here for the taxpayers--the same people who are trying to send their kids to school--transferring their money over to private lenders, guaranteeing the loans, giving them subsidies so they can make a profit that will be money that can't be used for Pell Grant scholarships and for low-interest loans. The people in my district, 100,000 residents in Massachusetts will get more Pell Grant scholarships because we take that money and, instead of giving it to the lenders, we give it to the families. One hundred thousand people in Massachusetts will get lower interest rate loans because we don't take that money and transfer their tax money to private lenders; we, in fact, keep it in the system. So when all that is said and done and we've improved education, as the President has called on us to do, we will put $10 billion back in to pay down our debt. This is a sad tale when they think that the only way they can keep private lenders in business is if we give them subsidies and then we guarantee their loans. If they want to compete, let them compete. They can make their loans. They can go out any time they want. But I think the American families are saying they're hard-pressed. Some of them are out of work. Some of them are making less. All of them have more bills to pay for college for their students. They want to be able to have access to those Pell Grant scholarships. They want to have lower interest rate loans so that their children have the opportunity to move forward. Better the opportunity for them than for the private lenders to pad their Wall Street investors' pockets. And that's why we have to move forward on this. That's what is going to improve this country and make us competitive as we move forward.

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Congressman Holt, and I are offering this amendment striking $80 million that's in the bill for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program. Mr. Holt and I believe that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program no longer warrants Congress' support, and we are not alone in that assessment. The Bush administration made the initial decision to terminate the KEI program in its fiscal year 2010 Program Objectives Memorandum last fall. Then, President Obama did not include funding for it in his budget proposal, and both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee did not specify funding for it in their respective authorization bills. Secretary Gates has testified that ``the missile's 38 or 39 feet long. It weighs 12 tons. There's no extant ship we can put it on. We would have to design a new ship.'' The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General O'Reilly, has said that the KEI program is being terminated because ``its capability is inconsistent with the missile defense mission to counter rogue nation threats.'' The KEI program was intended to be a 5-year development program that is now a 16-year development program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say the majority leader is fond of saying that it is never too late to do the right thing, and here is our opportunity to do the right thing. We have to, at some point in time, start looking at all of our budgets, and that includes the Defense budget, to make sure that we're not putting money out that needs to be put towards other priorities. Here you have the Missile Defense Agency's director itself saying that this program should be terminated. You have the Secretary of Defense in two administrations saying the program should be terminated. You have, from what I can hear from people, the silence of those that say they are against this amendment, not arguing that in fact this is a program that should move forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.