John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Look, I just want to give a little historical perspective to this again. The whole reason that the Federal Government is involved in K-12 education is because States weren't doing the job when it came to addressing disadvantaged students. There was a judicial mandate that said that States had to step up and do that. They, the States, then had a problem with the fact of how much that was going to cost, so the Federal Government stepped forward and said you can have some Federal moneys if you do the job. So we've had that tension between how they'll do the job and how we'll hold them accountable for years. But this notion of saying that the State government will now decide whether or not local communities will accept the grant--and if they don't, we're not going to apply that money to actually educating those children that are disadvantaged, we're going to toss it back into the Treasury--is no other than a way of cutting education funding. We don't need education cuts at this point in time. We need an investment in education. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose this amendment because it endangers education funding for sort of a political exercise here. This amendment would actually require State legislatures to approve every single grant program from the Department of Education before States receive the money. So taking the authority from the local communities, local education agencies, putting it back into the State malaise of legislative process is overly burdensome on States, creates a mountain of unnecessary paperwork, and delays students and schools from receiving the much-needed funding. And when the shortsighted State legislatures may refuse that funding, this amendment would take the money and send it back, returning it to the deficit, as opposed to its intended use, which is the education of disadvantaged students. I sometimes wonder if my colleagues remember why the Federal Government is involved in education K-12 at all, and that is the mandated addressing of a shortage of attention to disadvantaged students. This is just another attempt by the majority to slash education funding. Mr. Chair, it's not the time to play politics now. Now is the time to increase our investment in education and in our children so that we can be competitive and so that they can have an opportunity moving forward. This amendment is simply a distraction to the very real and very big problems that this entire bill, H.R. 5, has, and it lets students down. H.R. 5 guts education funding because it locks in that automatic cut of sequestration. It does nothing to ensure students improve learning, and it does nothing to ensure that they graduate from school. It lets students with disabilities be taught to a different, lower standard, and H.R. 5 block grants funds and forces States to give the money to private schools and for-profit companies instead of students. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge that my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. I just reiterate what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman. These people are in dire straits. There has been nothing that we've been able to do. Even though they've been declared eligible for disaster relief, this Congress has yet to afford them any of that relief. The fleets are shrinking. They are going out of business. They have all sorts of debt and problems with their gear and their property on that. They need the access to this low-interest loan at 2.25 percent. It gives them no more preference than anybody else on this, and it makes available to them a much needed supply. It is passed, it's in the Senate version. The Senate version score showed there was no increase in the scoring on that. I would hope that my colleagues would have some compassion for the fishing industry as they do for others in this country that are in this type of situation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we are basically trying to settle an inequity here where the loans that are available to the fishermen of course are at 3 percent or 4 percent, not the 2.25 percent. That would make a substantial difference to them if they were there. And we're not giving them any preference over anybody else, they would just get the equitable right to apply for and seek those loans. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, right now, fishermen in Gloucester, Massachusetts--which is in my district--and across the country are facing dire circumstances. There have been devastating cuts to the allowable catch of a number of crucial stocks; for instance, a 78 percent cut in Gulf of Maine cod, a 61 percent cut to Georges Bank cod. Consequently, some of these fishermen already have been forced to sell their boats and their permits, while others feel that they will soon be out of business. Many of my Massachusetts colleagues and I have been doing everything we can to help these fishermen and their families. We've offered amendments to last year's disaster relief appropriations bill for those fishermen in Massachusetts and the several other States that were officially declared fisheries disasters by the Department of Commerce, but to no avail. I filed legislation to redirect a portion of the tariffs that the United States collects on imported fish to provide urgently needed financial assistance for our fishermen, but that matter has yet to come up. A number of us are working to responsibly reform the underlying Federal statute--the Magnuson-Stevens Act--that governs our Nation's fisheries so the law is more flexible and fairer toward our fishermen, but of course that is somewhere down the road. I don't think we can stop there, and that's why I--along with Mr. Markey, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Keating, Mr. Tim Bishop and Ms. Shea-Porter--am offering this amendment today to ensure our fishermen have access to the USDA's emergency disaster loan program. We're essentially doing away with an inequity in the law that denies fishermen the ability to apply through the normal procedures for a loan under Federal emergency standards. A similar provision was included in the Senate-approved farm bill, and our work to provide financial relief to our fishermen and reform the law will certainly continue in the weeks and months ahead. But in the meantime, this is a small and important step that's intended to help those in our local community who are struggling. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I draw the point that was mentioned earlier that the Democrats made a promise to keep these loans at 3.4 percent, and the promise is being broken. It's being broken by this bill, this proposal by the Republican Party. We kept our promise through the entire reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, and 2 more years in addition. This is the proposal now. We say stay at 3.4 percent. Republicans say, no, jack it up more than double on that basis. I join with millions of students and parents and organizations that represent them in strong opposition to this Making College More Expensive Act that's before us here today. My Republican friends talk about how this bill is simple and predictable. It's predictable all right. I predict the rates are going to go right up beyond the 6.8 percent rate. We've already seen that from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group that says, if we pass this Republican bill, those rates will go up more than double on that basis. It is not simple. They would have you believe through this debate that the rates are going to go down to market rates, which, at the current time, are lower. They would if you followed our bill at 3.4 percent. But if you went with this bill of Making College More Expensive Act, it sets it low for the first year but it rewrites the second year, and it resets the third year and it resets the fourth year. So at the end of 4 years, you get the whole package with the higher rate. And that is going to be almost $4 billion more in cost for these students and parents than it is for people right now. The Congressional Budget Office said these interest rates would be almost $4 billion. We know that to be the case. These are the same people that tell us they don't want to burden our next generation with the debt, but they apparently have no problem at all burdening the next generation by burying them in student loan debt year after year after year. I have been hearing from people all over my district. In fact, one woman from Wilmington wrote me and said that, when her son graduates from college, his loans will equal what her husband and she paid for their first home. With the interest rates he'll pay, it will be even more. Something is not right with the system, she says. Both college tuition costs and student loan interest rates are wrong. She's right. This bill is wrong. Let's do the right thing. Let's have 3.4 percent now. In the interim, do a Higher Education Reauthorization Act that takes care of this problem going forward.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. The student loan debt is a crisis in this country, Mr. Speaker. More and more students approach me in the district and post on my Facebook about their loan debt. I would like to share an excerpt from the stories for those of my colleagues who may not fully appreciate why it's so critical that we provide our students and families with relief. Sharyn Lawler says this: Please, Congressman Tierney, we need you and your colleagues to get to the crux of the student loan debt crisis ASAP. Many students end up paying double or triple what they actually borrowed to go to college. This is an outrage and seems out of sync with the original mission of the student loan program. People want to pay back fairly what they borrowed, but the system actually seems rigged to make that impossible. Earlier this week, it was reported that the Federal Government will earn $51 billion in profit from student loan borrowers this year, which exceeds the earnings of the Nation's most profitable companies and is roughly equal to the combined income of the four largest U.S. banks by assets. It's time we stop using the Federal student loan program as a profit center for the government. We need to pass legislation that stops the doubling of the student loan interest rate by July 1 and turn our attention to the long- term solution that will help new borrowers as well as the estimated 37 million Americans that have existing student loan debt.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remember the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech. Seven years ago tomorrow our country lost more than 30 lives, many of them college students with their entire future stretching out before them. One of those students was Ross Alameddine, who lived in Saugus, which is in my district. He was loved by his family and friends, and is remembered by countless more. I've had the honor to talk with his mother, Lynnette Alameddine, and have seen, firsthand, how she has turned her sorrow into action, working to prevent other tragedies like the one that took her child, and to protect all of our children, our sons and daughters. And she's not alone. In recent months we've seen the strength of moms and dads across the country. Americans were mobilized in joining together to demand action, to ensure that Congress passes responsible legislation to reduce gun violence. In my district alone, some 500 people in the last few days have joined me online to demand action on commonsense legislation. Through my Web site, Facebook, and Twitter, hundreds of parents and grandparents and students have added their names to the hundreds of thousands of voices across the country calling on Speaker Boehner to bring legislation to the House floor to reduce gun violence. We cannot let some in Congress block action. We all deserve a vote.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. The previous speaker, I don't know if he stayed or left or anything like that, but he talked about the environment being set. The environment of this was set in the hyperpartisan nature of the last session's presentation of the bill similar to this and of a bill this time giving no right to consult. Showing up to participate in a so-called markup process where every vote would have been on a partisan basis and moved on, as it was last time, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people reach across the aisle. As our Republican friend Buck McKeon had indicated, it's the majority's responsibility to, in fact, do this. It's one thing to listen; it's another to comprehend. GAO's report, if one listened to it being read on that, indicated that there were a number of programs, but only five have been evaluated. It would have begged for an evaluation that we never had about what we were going to do with the programs on that. It talked about the fact that some might have overlapped, but said nothing about programs needing to be eliminated or terminated or saying that they were duplicative on that. We needed to determine that. The underlying bill fails on a number of reasons, as I stated earlier. The amendment improves that. But again, the best bill would have been a bill where people sat down, member to member, worked out their differences, and presented to the American public, and for the President's signature, a bill that was bipartisan in nature and served both the employers and the prospective employees. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the Chair, first of all, for having the discussion on time. Apparently, the time was a little bit confused on that. I ask unanimous consent that both sides be awarded an additional minute.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. TIERNEY. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a coauthor of the substitute amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 3 minutes. This amendment is offered in its entirety as a substitute for the underlying bill and the manager's amendment to it. I do it because I strongly believe that this is, in fact, a better proposal than the existing one, but would have preferred what could have been the best result in this bill, which would have been one where all of the Members had had consultation and where all of the negotiations had occurred and we were able to bring forth a bill with concessions by both sides to get a bill that would have been assured of passage in the Senate, or close to that, assured the President's signature and assured the support of the broad public. Instead, just as in the last session, we end up with a proposal that ignores sound proposals from both sides and that goes with a hyper- partisan approach, and that's not going to serve the country or this process at all. Having a chance to present 18 amendments, as was done in the last session, and having them all essentially shot down on a party-line vote is not an excuse or a substitute for having a process in which we really try to work out our differences and make reasonable concessions. This bill that's before us today by the majority party was filed on February 25. A so-called ``hearing'' occurred on February 26, the very next day, at which two of the three Republican witnesses admitted they had never read the bill. Instead, of programs that exist right now, this bill proceeded with their arbitrary consolidation or elimination without any evaluation of their efficacy, of their effectiveness, of whether or not they ought to be consolidated or changed or terminated or kept intact as they are. Reliance was made on the GAO report, which did not say anything about consolidating. All it said was that some of the programs duplicate some aspects and that only five programs had had a full evaluation, which would have begged the question for more hearings, more thorough evaluation, more data, and more consultation with the people involved-- the stakeholders--to, in fact, come to a conclusion of just how, and if, consolidation should have happened. We've seen from some of the amendments made today, even by Members of the majority, that they thought that some of the populations should have gotten more attention than the base bill gives them. Essentially, here, we have a public policy that is dictated, not by Washington in the underlying bill, but is advocated to Governors so that instead of being accountable for the decisions we make of who we think needs job training in this country and what the national needs are, the Republican bill would just abdicate that to Governors, and they could decide to serve or not serve entire populations and afford them an opportunity to get the training that we believe as legislators they need. This bill, as amended by the manager's amendment, creates a one-size- fits-all: it eliminates separate training funds for youth; it silences the voices of the community colleges, labor, economic development groups, and community-based organizations; it eliminates supported employment programs, like the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program; it eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth. Perhaps that's why so many groups have expressed serious concern about this underlying bill. Groups like the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Workforce Boards, Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Goodwill Industries International, and so many others have expressed concern for this underlying bill or have expressed approval for the substitute that we offer. It's why the administration has filed a statement opposing this bill, just as it did last year, saying it doesn't meet the administration's goals and urging the Republicans to work with us to make a better bill on that. Mr. Chairman, we could have had the best of all alternatives. We could have had a good bill for the American people. We could have had a bill that took the best aspects of all the proposals and put them together with consultation and presented that for the approval of this House, then had a signed signature by the President, and then had the support of the American people. Unfortunately, that process was not followed, and the arbitrary process was endured by all of us on that part. I ask that the Members support this substitute as being better than the underlying bill; and then hopefully, we could get back to getting the best bill, which would be one done by collaboration and cooperation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from Hawaii, Representative Gabbard.

Mr. TIERNEY. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time to a Member having arrived to speak on the amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Essentially, I would like to reserve some time for someone we are expecting down to talk on that. But I do make note that in the gentleman, Mr. Young's, Dear Colleague letter regarding this particular matter, he makes note that the underlying bill does not accommodate the needs of this particular population, and that's why the necessity existed for him to bring this amendment that we support to the floor. But it's another example of how the process should have improved this bill all along had it been done in a bipartisan, consultative manner, as we had all hoped it would be. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, but will not be opposing the amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. No normal person would confuse being given an opportunity to have your amendment shot down on a party-line vote as a bipartisan process. I remind the gentlewoman that it was her party, Mr. McKeon, who correctly stated it's the majority's obligation to reach across the aisle and seek compromise on that because they're the ones with the gavel on that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an attempt to deal with the problem that was in the underlying bill, as pointed out by that letter, but an attempt that mirrors the process for the last session and this session. They didn't consult anybody. They didn't talk to anybody. They didn't say what would be the solution. They just went out and arbitrarily decided that, again, having once messed up, they thought they were the repository for all knowledge on this subject and went about setting on a course that still falls short. Yes, current law allows for Governors to work with the consultation of others to set local designated areas, but areas of 500,000 population or more are already designated, and that's the point at issue here. I think we've seen an example of the process--just deciding that all knowledge is reposited in one section; not wanting to discuss with others. We understand. This could have been a good bill. This could have been a bill that went through the House, was taken up by the Senate, and then went on to the President's desk--a bill that the public could have been proud of, a bill that everybody could have got behind, but we didn't. We see a failed process, so we end up with a failed part of the provision of the original bill, and another failed attempt to fix it because there's no reaching out and no attempt. Last time we had some hearings, very brief. Then we had a vote where partisan votes went all the way down the line. This time we have one hearing the day that the bill was filed, two out of three witnesses say they didn't read the bill, an immediate markup, where we chose not to go through the same faux hearing process of having all of the amendments just shot down on a partisan vote. We're here. We always have been here. We want to work this through. This was not a hyperpartisan issue--it's just been made to be one. I reserve the balance of my time.