John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. I understand that much in the manager's amendment is technical and clarifying corrections, but it does make one notable substantive change to the underlying bill as it pertains to the designation of local workforce investment areas. Current law calls for automatic designation of a local workforce area with a population of 500,000 or more. It also ensures that the voices of local elected officials, businesses, and workforce development officials, among others, are heard. That's a good thing. Now, the underlying bill--the so-called SKILLS Act--radically changed this. It repealed the automatic designation that I just mentioned, and it essentially empowered the Governor to designate an entire State as one local workforce area if that Governor chose to do so. This is not viewed as sound policy. Two days ago, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Workforce Boards sent a letter to the House leadership that expressed concerns with this particular provision. Specifically, they wrote: H.R. 803 undermines existing governance structures by virtually eliminating the input of local elected officials in the decisionmaking process. They also said: H.R. 803 fails to promote intergovernmental collaboration between State and local officials by eliminating prior provisions relating to automatic designation of local workforce development areas, effectively allowing State boards to designate local areas in consultation with the Governor, without considering input from local stakeholders. Now, I think this mistake has been recognized, and we can see that by this manager's amendment where there is an attempt to try and address this situation. But it is further evidence of the deficiencies of a hyperpartisan bill that neglects the opportunity to sit down with others and work through these issues so that we can come up with the best solution on that. Now they're trying to get out of this hole they created by proposing a sort of solution in the manager's amendment that is still inadequate and certainly is worse than current law. The manager's amendment provides an application process for local boards. So instead of being automatically designated if there are 500,000 in the population or more, they have to apply to be designated as a local workforce area. But that application still has to be approved by the State, which could totally reject it. And that's only for a period of 3 years, so they have to keep going through this process periodically. If I were a mayor or a business person who is chairing a local board, I don't think I would be very pleased with this provision--and in fact they're not. I'm not sure how creating an unnecessary and bureaucratic process where locals would have to reapply continuously for their designation every 3 years squares with my Republican colleagues' supposed concern about duplication in the workforce. Later this morning, we will be offering a substitute amendment that retains current law and protects the local individuals' role in the workforce system. Certainly, if we had the opportunity for a bipartisan bill, we could have worked through this issue and come up with what would be the best solution. This is just one example of the important policy provisions in this bill that could have been addressed in that way. This could have been a bipartisan bill, and we could have got the best product, and we didn't. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like to make the point that obviously there are certain populations within our society that deserve particular attention because they have unique needs. You don't accomplish that by arbitrarily taking all the programs and lumping them together without a full analysis and determination of which ones would be better served on that basis and which ones wouldn't. I think it further establishes our point that we made throughout. I congratulate the gentleman on his amendment and support it fully. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We could have had a bipartisan bill, and that seems to be the real shame here. This has been historically a bill that has not been hyperpartisan as the one that's before us today, the one by which the parties have generally sat down together and considered each other's opinions in order to come to the best solution, but it didn't happen. The underlying bill arbitrarily eliminates and consolidates all the programs and collapses them into one. It tries to substitute that, I guess, for an analysis of what ought to be done. It relies on the comments of a GAO report that said some of the programs may have overlapped somewhat, but it did not reach the conclusion that they were duplicative or that they didn't serve necessary and unique populations. Instead, the majority has seized on that to collapse all of the programs together and to freeze the funding instead of doing what our bill would do, which is to provide for data and analysis in consideration of what programs ought to be sustained; to make them justify how they're improving and serving the populations; and to determine whether or not there need to be changes or whether some do, in fact, need to be terminated or consolidated. That process has been avoided and ignored throughout. It's interesting to note that the administration is invoked from time to time as being opposed not just to this year's version but to last year's version, which was fairly identical and that it indicates that it doesn't meet the administration's goals set out for training in this country. The underlying bill would dissolve youth training programs. I've heard comments about the seriousness of being involved with youths who are out of work, but the underlying bill dissolves youth training dedicated funds and other service delivery priorities, like to veterans and the disabled. It also has virtually no support amongst all of the people who are really involved in workforce development in this country. There was very little, if any, consideration of their views and their input into that despite the labor they put in and the policy decisions that they help make day in and day out. The substitute has broad support. It did go out and listen to the stakeholders on that, and it did get their opinions and incorporated them, and that's why a bipartisan discussion amongst Members would have benefited the bills on that. We have better accountability. The main bill abdicates to the Governors who have taken Federal policy responsibility here where it's deserved. There are many, many, many other reasons to oppose this bill that we will get into when we talk about the substitute.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. I heard comments over there from the chairman of the Rules Committee and others about how this was a fair rule and a fair process and how it's one nation under God and everybody trying to help everybody out, how they believe there's an opportunity for every Member to consider the matters that are in this bill. That is simply not the reality that was expressed for the nine States that suffered from fishing quota failures and threats to their fishing that were declared disasters back in 2012, when the Commerce Department said that the fishery disaster in those nine States was leading to people losing their job and the collapse of an industry, one of the oldest and most historic industries in our country. There was an opportunity for this bill to allow an amendment to be brought before the floor for a discussion about whether or not we ought not to do what the Senate did, which is put $150 million in that bill specifically for those States, specifically to deal with that aspect of disaster and move forward with that relief. This Rules Committee in this House decided that Members would not have the opportunity to take that vote. The Members in this House would not be able to work, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, to discuss a disaster that cut across at least nine States, that dealt with people who were going to lose their job, lose their industry and shatter communities. Instead, they would do this on a partisan basis. Although this was a bipartisan amendment that was proposed to the Rules Committee, and although every one of those communities that are in that disaster-declared area have Republicans and Democrats, and although they have mayors and Governors that are from both parties, the Rules Committee, on a straight party-line vote, decided that this Congress would not have the opportunity to even consider and debate and discuss and then vote on whether or not we would follow the path of the Senate and allow for $150 million in disaster relief to those communities. This is not acceptable. This is not acting like there is one country under God. This is not acting as if there is fairness and that every Member of this particular body is being allowed a voice to represent their constituents. I think we should vote against this rule. I think we should allow for an amendment to be brought. We should have these amendments come to the floor and provide for an opportunity to debate and discuss and include in this disaster relief those people that are suffering the disaster in the fishing communities of our country.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank Mr. Markey for recognizing me at this point in time for the Special Order. You know, we did a little research so I wouldn't just stand up here, because I know John and Barney are sticklers for detail. So we did a little research. We found a Special Order of some time ago when Barney Frank, Congressman Frank, came down to the floor basically to chastise one of the colleagues who had made a false claim during their Special Order. What Barney had to say at that point: Special Orders are a time when Members can fairly freely say things without fear of contradiction because there's generally no one there. And as you listen to many of the Special Orders, there is a very good reason why no one is here: no one ought to pay a lot of attention to them. Well, Barney and John, today people ought to pay attention to what we are saying during this particular Special Order because you have both served the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States for a long period of time, ably, and in a way that nobody should forget and everybody should want to talk about and recount. There's a lot of years between the two of you. John, 40 years in total, over 20 of them here in the United States House of Representatives. But I remember knowing you well before you knew me. Back when John Olver was a senator in the State of Massachusetts, as a young student at the time, I had the responsibility of janitorial services and cleaning up that State house. And I can remember going into his office. He was always busy, always had people in there, still working late into the night. But we were going around emptying barrels and vacuuming rugs, and he was always generous and kind to us at that point in time, but I noted how busy he was getting detail, and that never changed. When I later had the opportunity to come here to the House of Representatives and be a colleague of John's, just as others have recounted before me, he is meticulous in his detail, knowledgeable about every subject matter upon which he spoke or upon which he acted, and he added so much. It would be unfair, after over 20 years, to say that John Olver had a specialty in just one area because like every Member, you have to know a lot about a lot of different subjects and work very well with your staff to make sure that you have all of the information that you need. And John was a leader and knowledgeable in a number of different areas. What he did for his part of the State will not be forgotten anytime soon by people there, whether it's getting designated an actual heritage area for his region, and so much more, but we will remember him for the work he did, particularly with appropriations on transportation matters. And my district will remember John for the work he did because, as Richie noted, and Bill before me, he oftentimes knew exactly what your district needed and knew how to help you get it. And so I can go to various parts of my district now, John, and see projects that are there because of your help, because of your knowledge of what went on and your focus and persistence in making sure that they were funded. Most recently was the city of Amesbury, which opened up a transportation center, which also houses its veterans office and its Council on Aging. And I mentioned to those folks who were there the work that you had done in helping us do that. They are all incredibly grateful, as are so many other people throughout my district and the districts of all of our colleagues here, for the work that you did and the time you spent on our districts' needs, as well as taking care of your district's needs. So I want to thank you for that and share the appreciation of all the people in my district. Now, up until a couple of weeks ago, Barney's office was around the corner from mine, and so oftentimes we would have a steady stream of Barney visitors who found their way in there. If Barney could see them in the district, he wondered why they were taking up his time down here when he was busy doing things like the Dodd-Frank bill, fishing bills and other things of that nature, so they'd all come over and wander into my office. But the fact of the matter is that Barney always was intensely involved with the matters that he was dealing with here. It reminded me of something else he said on the floor one time. He said that, when he was talking about one of our beloved former colleagues, Joe Moakley, he said that--what was true about Joe was, I think, also true about him. He said Joe Moakley was a great stereotype breaker. And Barney, you've been a great stereotype breaker as well in so many different areas it's countless on that. But you said: One of the things that we suffer from in this country is the assumption that if we are A, we cannot be B; if we are X, we cannot be Y. You said Joe Moakley showed us that that could be and what it could be, and you have done the same. Barney's been about one of the most fierce debaters down here. Used to be before I got to Congress, whenever I saw something going on in the House, I would always be anxious if Barney was up there, and I would watch other colleagues who might be in a colloquy with him sort of wince because they knew if they had misspoken or spoken out of line or out of turn they were going to get a comeuppance on that that they deserved, but done in a way that always had either good biting sarcasm or wit to drive it home on that basis. You've been one of the most intense Members, and I say that in a good way, when you believe on the issues that were there, but always pragmatic enough to know the art of the deal. And Richie spoke to that, Richie Neal when he discussed things on the floor here. It's important in this legislative body to not be so ideologically extreme that you cannot, at some point, make a compromise, not on your principles, but on other matters so that we can get the business of this House done. Barney Frank and John Olver always had that in mind, always knew how to treat their colleagues with respect, and always knew how to drive to a bargain that would represent all of their values, make sure that they weren't compromising their principles, but make sure that the business of this country and the things that were important in their district and their State got done. Both of you deserve a great deal of credit, and we can only hope that this House finds its way back to those days, when the majority of this body finds all of that necessary and possible to do. On a personal note, as Bill mentioned, Patrice and I were thrilled when Barney and Jim got married; another way of showing that you can be a leader at times. I just recently saw a program on Cheryl Wright, a country western singer; and if anybody got a chance to see it, she went through how difficult it was for her to come out. And I was moved by that show because it reminded of what it must have been for Barney and for anybody else in public life to have to come out--not knowing what the reaction of your own family or your friends or their colleagues or anybody in public is going to think about that--and take the risk to do it. And that is certainly one thing that this body and this country will always remember. Whether it was our fishermen, the gay, lesbian and transgender community, so many Massachusetts residents are going to remember Barney Frank for all that he did, as they are going to remember John Olver on that. We're going to miss both of you fellows down here. And John, we wish you and Rose only the best in your future. I know you're going to keep busy in so many ways that you can. And Barney, you and Jim are going to be busy, but not too busy, I hope, to come and share some dinners with Patrice and me. The one nice part about that is Barney was never bashful about telling Patrice she could make what she made last time, that was just fine, but he and Jim weren't going to be doing the cooking. So good luck to both of you, and thank you for letting us share your comradeship and be colleagues of yours. Thanks for all that you've done for the country and the Commonwealth and your districts.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill to name the federal building located at the foot of Capitol Hill in honor of former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. I understand that above his desk Speaker O'Neill kept a framed copy of the famous Hubert Humphrey quotation--``The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' So it seems particularly fitting that this building being named after Speaker O'Neill is adjacent to the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters which bears Senator Humphrey's name. Speaker O'Neill fought to expand opportunities for the poor, the disadvantaged and those working people who get up every day and do their best to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren. Among Speaker O'Neill's many legacies is his commitment to public service--and I think public service has become his family's business. Speaker O'Neill's children and grandchildren have continued his legacy of helping others and making the world a better place. Here in the House we have the pleasure of working with Speaker O'Neill's granddaughter, Catlin, who serves as Leader Pelosi's Chief of Staff. I congratulate Speaker O'Neill's children--Tom, Kip, Susan, and Rosemary--and their entire extended family on this great honor, which comes just days before what would be Tip's 100th birthday. And I hope this kind of bipartisan effort is not a one-time thing but a sign of how the majority will conduct legislative business in the 113th Congress. I urge support of this bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Sergeant Paul Atkinson of Marblehead, Massachusetts, for his efforts to assist hundreds of orphans in Afghanistan while serving with the Massachusetts National Guard. It was brought to my attention by a fellow resident of Marblehead, Mark Brings, and highlighted in an article published in the Salem News, that while stationed as a sergeant in charge of maintenance at Camp Phoenix in Afghanistan, Sergeant Atkinson secured the delivery of hundreds of mattresses and bed frames to two orphanages in Afghanistan which care for more than 700 children. The efforts of Sergeant Atkinson extended from Afghanistan to Marblehead where local residents, including Mark Brings and his family and Sergeant Atkinson's wife, Maria, worked to collect, clean and deliver hundreds of sheets and blankets to the orphanages. I am pleased to recognize Sergeant Atkinson and the members of the community for volunteering their time providing these critical items to children in need, and I thank Sergeant Atkinson and all the members of our Nation's armed forces for their service to the country.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and join my constituents in commemorating the 400th anniversary of the birth of Anne Bradstreet, who is considered by many to be America's first published poet. Anne Bradstreet was born in England but is believed to have arrived in America in 1630. Her work, which includes such poems as ``To My Dear and Loving Husband'' and ``Verses Upon the Burning of Our House,'' has been taught in high school and college classrooms across the country. Anne Bradstreet reportedly lived for several years in North Andover, which is located in my district. In fact, some believe that Anne Bradstreet may be buried in the Old Burying Ground in North Andover. On the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Anne Bradstreet's birth, Karen Kline of North Andover and other members of the Friends of Anne Bradstreet Steering Committee are continuing their efforts to raise awareness about Anne Bradstreet's work and her contribution to history and the literary canon.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a gentleman and true public servant: Massachusetts State Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry. Several months ago, Senator Berry announced that he would be retiring from the Massachusetts Senate after 30 years of service. He will be sorely missed. Fred Berry was born on December 20, 1949 with cerebral palsy. At that time, doctors said he would never walk or talk--but Fred proved them all wrong. He attended Massachusetts State Hospital School and later Bishop Fenwick High School in Peabody, where he graduated in 1968. He then attended Boston College, graduating in 1972. In 1979, Fred was elected to the Peabody City Council, and, in 1982, he was elected to the Massachusetts Senate. During his tenure in the Senate, Fred served on multiple committees and assumed numerous leadership roles. In 2003, he was elected by his colleagues to be the Senate Majority Leader, which is a position he continues to hold today. Fred's thirty year career is filled with memorable moments and achievements. His accomplishments are too long to list here, but they include the following: creating separate Departments of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; providing crime victims the right to be heard during the judicial process, allowing victims to receive financial compensation and establishing the Massachusetts Victim and Witness Assistance Board; creating the Children's Trust Fund, a public-private partnership to create programs to end child abuse; founding the Massachusetts Legislative Children's Caucus; requiring insurance companies to cover Early Intervention benefits for children born with developmental delays; requiring private insurance companies to cover medically necessary autism treatments, including evidence-based behavioral health treatments; fighting against efforts to reduce Medicaid benefits for individuals with mental health and addiction disorders; and filing legislation that allowed Salem State College--my alma mater--to achieve university status. In addition to his legislative work, Fred is a passionate advocate for children and families who are struggling. In 1982, shortly after he was first elected to the Massachusetts Senate, Fred established the Fred Berry Charitable Fund. Over the next thirty years, he would work tirelessly to raise over $1 million to benefit children and families in need. As Fred recently told the Boston Globe, ``I felt I could use my notoriety to help others. Nonprofits always need money, but never have the time to raise it. . . . To be honest, it hurt fund-raising for my campaigns. People said, `I already gave to Fred.' '' But in his heart, Fred knew it was the right thing to do. I want to wish Fred and his wife Gayle all of the best. For those of us who know Fred, we anxiously await the next chapter in what has been a remarkable life.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman. It was interesting, we just had a hearing in one of the committees here in Congress, and we had four witnesses who were speculating about the fear and the myths and all the things that they hypothesize could be terrible if the Affordable Care Act were to go into effect. And then we had one witness who was the worst nightmare for those people, who was a Massachusetts businessperson with a thousand employees, president of the largest Chamber of Commerce in the country, was a member of the board of directors of one of the larger banks, and was in fact the regional consultant to the Fed in that area, who said that since Massachusetts accepted the equivalent of the Affordable Care Act, not only his business has done better and his employers have done better and his profits have gone up, but in Massachusetts the economy has done better, more people have been working, less people have been using the emergency room, and more employers are covering their employees. And in fact, that's what it is. The facts certainly outweigh all the speculation and the myth and the fearmongering that we see going on. There are millions of people who are already taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act. One of those in my district is Terry Palary, whose son is a firefighter who's working towards his paramedic certificate and who has to spend hundreds of hours in an internship that's not paid for. He's 23 years old. He wouldn't have health insurance under his father's plan if this bill the Republicans propose were to go through. And some 3 million other young Americans wouldn't be covered on health insurance plans as well. This is misguided legislation that would end that kind of a benefit. It would also mean the end of a meaningful consumer protection like the 80/20 provision, where we force insurance companies to actually do something they hadn't been doing: covering health care. Providing health care services instead of paying bonuses. Executive salaries that are through the roof. And advertising and other costs--anything but health care on that. It's estimated that some 12.8 million Americans are going to receive more than $1.1 billion in rebates because of that provision alone. It would also see, if this bill to repeal passed, 360,000 small businesses would no longer get the business tax credits. They would no longer be able to cover some 2 million employees. This list goes on and on. We can show you example after example of people who have fallen through the doughnut hole--those seniors--for coverage that are now being protected by the Affordable Care Act. Let's find out what we can do about jobs. Let's stop this 31st attempt to repeal an act that that's not going to be repealed and get the American people back to work.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Nelson Benton, who will soon retire after 40 years of service at The Salem News in Salem, Massachusetts. Since he was hired in 1972, Nelson has worked as a reporter, city editor, managing editor, and editorial page editor. Nelson's weekly political column, which has been a fixture in the paper for more than 25 years, is widely read and discussed throughout the region. Nelson was recognized by the New England Society of Newspaper Editors in 2008, when they awarded him the prestigious Yankee Quill award. He was also inducted into the New England Press Association Hall of Fame in 2009. For four decades, Nelson has covered issues impacting our community, from the Blizzard of '78 to issues of education and transportation to the careers of Mayors, State Lawmakers, and Members of Congress. Nelson has been quick to adapt his content to new technologies and formats. Even in his upcoming retirement, I am confident that Nelson will be blogging and tweeting with the best of them. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Nelson Benton, a seasoned journalist, on his retirement. I wish Nelson and his wife Laurie, who has served as a longtime public school teacher in our community, the best of luck as they move west to Arizona.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. At the end of this month, the student Federal loan interest rate is set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. It's an urgent deadline for more than 7 million American students and more than 177,000 students across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's an urgent deadline for students that I met with at Middlesex College all the way through to Endicott College in my district and elsewhere. These students are working many jobs. They're still carrying thousands of dollars in student debt, and they're deeply concerned about the doubling of the rate that will occur on July 1. Madam Speaker, this is urgent deadline for House Democrats. We've been on top of this issue for many, many months. Our colleague, Mr. Courtney of Connecticut, introduced legislation establishing a permanent fix back in January. Our colleagues, Mr. Miller of California and Mr. Hinojosa of Texas, sent a letter to Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Mr. Kline in February asking that the question be taken before the committee to prevent the student loan interest hike. It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that the majority in the House of Representatives does not appear to understand or share this urgency. There are 10 days left in June, and we're only scheduled to be in session for 5 of them. As of right now, taking action to stop the doubling of the student loan interest rates is still not on the House's legislative agenda between now and the end of the month. In fact, addressing the issue was not part of the majority leader's summer legislative agenda, and it was reported that Speaker Boehner privately called the issue a phony issue. So let's make no mistake about it. This is nothing phony for the millions of students who will be impacted and will see their rates double in July. Madam Speaker, since the House majority doesn't appear willing to move forward on this issue, we have to take this action today to defeat the previous question so the rule can be amended to allow for consideration of my bill, the Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012. That bill continues the current need-based Stafford loan rate at 3.4 percent for 1 year and offsets the cost by closing a tax subsidy for the oil industry, just one tax subsidy, one that they weren't originally intended to benefit from at any rate. I think that's a fair and reasonable plan for eliminating an unjustified giveaway to a hugely profitable industry so millions of our constituents do not see an increase in their student loans. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House can consider that bill and stop the student loan interest rate hike.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this final amendment improves the underlying bill and hopefully will garner bipartisan support. Let's take these additional threats to combat cyberthreats, but step up our efforts to protect our urban areas from terrorist threats. Please support the motion to recommit. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to offer the final amendment. I want to be clear that this is a final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee. If it's adopted, the bill will be voted on immediately as amended. Let me start by saying that it's unfortunate that the House Republicans unilaterally reneged upon the agreed upon discretionary caps that were established by the Budget Control Act. Their doing so-- just to finance more tax cuts for people that were already tremendously well-off--has resulted in the Appropriations Committee having to absorb $19 billion in reductions below the Budget Control Act. So I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that subcommittee Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price did the very best that they could with this bill given the subcommittee's allocation. Nevertheless, I offer this final amendment that focuses on two important areas: combating the increasing cyberthreat facing this country and protecting our urban areas from terrorist threats. This week's Washington Post pointed out that in recent years, there have been numerous revelations about how the unknown vulnerabilities of our networks and cyberinformation were used to break into systems that were assumed to be secure. One came in 2009 targeting Google, Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical and hundreds of other firms when hackers from China penetrated the targeted computer systems. Over several months, the hijackers siphoned off oceans of data, including the source code that runs Google systems. According to the same article, another attack last year took aim at cybersecurity giant RSA, which protects most of the Fortune 500 companies. But it's not only a problem for the largest companies. In fact, according to Reuters, 40 percent of all the targeted Internet attacks are directed toward more vulnerable companies with fewer than 500 employees. Mr. Speaker, I expect the chairman will defend this bill's investments in cybersecurity and, again, I appreciate that. He did what he could do, and we should be doing more. While we spend more than China, Russia, and the next eight countries combined ensuring that our military superiority is intact, we have not taken that same sense of purpose to cybersecurity. My amendment does precisely that, adding $17 million in new funding to the National Protection and Programs Directorate for additional cybersecurity personnel, including training and education opportunities to grow the future cybersecurity workforce. With repeated and increasingly dangerous threats to our Federal and private cybernetworks, it's critical that we have staff with the utmost up-to- date training and skills to address these threats. The final amendment also increases the bill's investment in Urban Area Security Initiative grants from $150 million to $490.3 million. This will not take money away from anybody; it just reallocates the distribution. This is the amount Secretary Napolitano devoted to the Urban Area Security grants in 2012. As my colleagues know, these grants are intend to protect the highest risk and highest density urban areas from terrorist threats. These grants have been substantially reduced under the Republican majority, and these reductions have put our Nation's most populated areas at greater risk. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New York.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, during the last 2 months, students from my district have spoken out about their struggles to afford college, to pay their loans, to keep up their grades, and to maintain their jobs. Many of them are working multiple jobs and still graduated with $20,000 to $30,000 in debt, and it's way too much for them. So now they're just watching as the days tick by, and we're getting closer to July 1, when student loan interest rates will actually double if Congress doesn't act. They are understandably scared and frustrated. At Middlesex Community College recently, the students that I met with added their voices to the debate and signed their names on the ``Wall of Debt.'' In the days following, hundreds of students, parents, and even grandparents added their names to what has now become the virtual ``Wall of Debt.'' They're letting Congress know that we can't let those interest rates double on July 1. So, again, I'm standing here today on behalf of 177,000 students from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and 7 million students across the country whose student loans rates are set to double if Congress doesn't act, and I call upon my Republican colleagues to put the partisanship and the political games aside and take real action on this important issue. While I believe the bill that I put forward a month ago to prevent the interest rate from doubling to 6.8 percent and was fully paid for by just one tax subsidy to Big Oil was fair and reasonable, I continue to be open to find other ways to compensate for that bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing that and make sure that this interest rate does not double.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The Paycheck Fairness Act deserves attention, and it deserves attention now. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act very quickly because it was essential. It shows that this House can work together when it wants to. We kept the courthouse doors open for recourse for pay discrimination. More has to be done to prevent that discrimination from happening in the first place. My mother worked split shifts when we were growing up. My father worked sometimes two jobs, but his income was limited. Every dollar my mother brought home was critical to our family and to our household, and that's true in so many households across this country today. A household's bills don't go down by $10,000 just because a woman is treated unfairly and paid less. The clothing bills don't go down; the gas bills don't go down; the food bills don't go down. So it's important that we get this bill moving at this point in time. The Paycheck Fairness Act reasserts the principle that women should get equal pay for equal work. It holds employers accountable if they discriminate. It puts an end to pay secrecy so women will be able to determine whether or not they are getting treated fairly. And it prohibits retaliation for someone who wants to talk about paycheck fairness. This bill is important for families across this country. It deserves attention. I urge my colleagues to take it up now and pass it.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman. There are three amendments that I speak to, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their support and for including these in the en bloc amendment. These amendments are examples of areas where we can work together to provide better information to this body about the status of our Nation's security. We can hold the administration and the executive branch accountable for the goals that are set, and we can make certain that these programs are more efficient. The Government Accountability Office report that I commissioned made a specific recommendation that the National Security Council complete its efforts to define the agency roles and responsibilities with respect to foreign policing and that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State establish mechanisms to better share and document information among these various agencies. The first amendment, No. 116, addresses that and holds them responsible to do just that. Secondly, the Department of Defense Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan is about energy security while saving lives, improving capabilities, cutting costs, and lowering risks for both our personnel and the Nation. We have to make sure that this amendment, No. 68, is passed to ensure that accountability.

Mr. TIERNEY. The third amendment, No. 58, is along the same line. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairwoman, this bipartisan amendment is offered with Mr. Gowdy of South Carolina. It provides very clearly $10 million for the John R. Justice Student Loan Repayment Program. It is unfortunate that we know many law school student graduates accept jobs as prosecutors and as public defenders, but they don't stay on the jobs very long because the compensation is at such a low level, and their debt burdens from college and from law school are so high that they end up leaving and going on to more lucrative pastures because the private firms, obviously, have more resources with which to recruit and retain than do public defenders and district attorneys' offices around the country. Oftentimes, the students tell me they would like to stay in these offices. Obviously, the district attorneys tell us on a regular basis that they have such a difficult time training people and getting them to stay so that they can do a good job. Both public defenders and district attorneys, people on both sides of any particular case, understand the importance of that judicial system work in that it's fair and in that everybody has the level of representation that makes our system work and be respected around the world on that. This would allow the tool of loan forgiveness for those district attorneys on that and those public defenders so that they can get people to stay at least 3 years so that the training doesn't just get turned around and go to waste. It allows people to stay on and use their experience and make the system work better. I believe that it's a good idea. It has worked in the past for the Federal agencies, for the executive branch attorneys. It has demonstrated great success in their recruitment and retention. When this aspect was funded just a couple of years ago, 1,647 prosecutors and 1,226 public defenders across the country received assistance under the program's 2010 allocation. That, in turn, is a claim by all of the people involved as having made a tremendous difference in their abilities to have their offices function at the high level that is necessary. Now, it's a difficult time. If we're going to take this money and appropriate it in this fashion, we, unfortunately, have to find those resources somewhere else. We have recommended an offset with a modest reduction to the Mars Next Decade program. That Mars Next Decade program will still get over $100 million more in the bill than it otherwise would have gotten. The House report notes a concern that there is a question about whether or not the Mars Next Decade program has actually accomplished one of the requirements of getting a sample and reporting. There is even language in the bill that puts off any expenditure of these moneys until such a report is made to the National Research Council and they're allowed to move forward. The $150 million that is in the Mars Next Decade budget is still sizeable and on board with what was in the President's request, and still allows the program to move forward. I think it is a tradeoff that's fair. And I think Mr. Gowdy agrees with me, that as painful as it may be to take from one area, that programs will still march on, we'll still have $78 million more than the President requested. But if we don't do anything, the John R. Justice program will have nothing. District attorneys and public defenders, our court systems across the Nation won't have the ability to have well-trained people being recruited and retained and making our system work. So that's the premise here. Madam Chairwoman, we ask that our colleagues support this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend, Tom Leonard, who will be receiving the 2012 Essex Heritage Hero Award tonight. Having championed heritage preservation and responsible stewardship of the region's historic, cultural, and natural resources during his eight-year tenure as the founding president of the Essex National Heritage Commission and now as its president emeritus, Tom is certainly deserving of this honor. However, those in attendance at tonight's award dinner will know that Tom's service to his community did not begin with nor is it limited to his work with the Essex National Heritage Commission. Throughout his life, Tom has been dedicated to making our neighborhoods better places to live, work, and raise a family as well as increasing opportunities for children and young adults, particularly those who attend his alma mater, St. John's Preparatory School in Danvers. Tom is a selfless leader, a man of integrity, and a true citizen. Tom's awards and accomplishments are too long to list, but I would be remiss if! did not mention that, in 2006, Essex Heritage established the Thomas M. Leonard Partnership Grant Program. This unique effort is focused on educating our youth and increasing their awareness about our region's natural and historic resources. Grants have been awarded to local schools and the National Park Service to enable more kids from outside of Salem to visit the Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works National Historic sites. Additionally, over the years, Tom has been recognized by the American Cancer Society, the Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation, the Salem Chamber of Commerce, the Salem Rotary Club, and the Danvers Community Council. Mr. Speaker, that impressive list will grow when Tom receives the 2012 Essex Heritage Hero Award this evening. I want to congratulate Tom and his wife, Marge, and their sons, Michael and Mark, and their entire extended family on this great honor.