To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, I thought, not to speak personally, but as I listened to the gentleman from Florida, as I have listened to Members as they've taken the floor today, I thought I'd like to share a story with the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it's my own story.

I went to college at Wake Forest University. I remember the day I was accepted, I was so excited. My parents were excited, too, but we knew, as a family with six children, my father having served in the United States Air

Force for 30 years, that they wanted for me what they wanted for all of us, and that was the chance for the American Dream in a different way than they had.

We knew that in order to do that, that it would take a combination of academic scholarships, grants, loans, and savings to put together what it would take to receive a college education, and so that's what we did as a family. I stand here today to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it gives me great sadness to know that Republicans on the other side of the aisle would have student loan interest rates increase, double, by July 1 without acting in this Congress.

Today, very sadly, what we did was we said to families--and particularly to women, girls who want to go to school--that you have a choice: We'll either double your interest rates to 6.8 percent beginning in the first year of your college loan or you can have preventive health care services. Imagine for the young women across this country that their choice is preventive health care services or the ability to go to school on a student loan, have that loan, the interest rate low, and then pay back that loan over a period of time. What a horrible choice.

Now, we've listened earlier as people talk about building the American Dream and climbing the ladders of opportunity to success, but that ladder has rungs. One of the rungs of that ladder, as my family well knew when I became a freshman in college, is the opportunity to get a college education, to do better than the previous generation. It's what we want for all of our children.

I went to school on student loans, and I went to school on student loans at a time when, between undergraduate school and then law school, I effectively had almost $100,000 in student loans. A quarter of that, about $25,000 of that, was paid out to some bank that made a profit.

Instead, what we have done as Democrats is we, in 2010, passed a package of reforms for student loans, lowered the interest rate of student loans so that it was affordable, made those loan payments affordable and manageable, made sure that when you were coming out of school, if you had a job that didn't pay you as much as you needed or wanted, that your student loans would be able to be managed and at an interest rate that was affordable. That's not what I had, but it's what we were able to give our young people today.

It's what Republicans in this Congress have decided to take away. So, then in 2007, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. It provided relief to students from high interest rates by lowering those interest rates. When I came out of undergraduate school and law school, I had this array of student loans that had different interest rates. Little did I know that when I tried to consolidate those loans, I actually ended up paying the higher interest rate.

Today, when students are graduating from college under what Democrats did in 2007, we actually, in this Congress, made sure that the interest rates would be affordable, that students would then be able to manage them, and that they would be able to pay their loans back. So I want to tell you something that I'm not really proud of, and that's that I also got in trouble paying my loans back. I didn't make as much as I needed to pay those and to balance my other responsibilities. It was difficult, but over a period of time, because the program, in fact, was affordable, because I knew that we all had--my neighbors--we all had my back, that I could pay those student loans back over a period of time.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, just 1 month before I was elected to Congress, I paid my last student loan? I can still remember that day in January writing that check to pay the last of my student loans. Do you know how proud I am to have been able to do that? The reason is because I knew that when my son was going to college, we were doing the same things that my parents did when I went to college, collecting the savings and academic scholarships, but also putting together a package of loans that would be affordable for him to go to school.

It's what we do. It's sort of that contract that we have from one generation to the next generation. I borrowed for my student loans; I paid those student loans off. My son borrowed some for his student loans and is now in the process of paying those off.

But let's look at what Republicans would have us do. First of all, we know that if we don't act by July 1 that interest rates will, in fact, double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for 7 million students across this country. Already, students across our country bear nearly $1 trillion in student loan debt, and they struggle in this difficult economy, as many are struggling, to pay those loans. But think what would happen if the interest rate on those loans was allowed to increase to 6.8 percent, to effectively double that interest rate.

Well, what does that mean for your average student? Well, Mr. Speaker, what it means is that a student on average coming out with $23,000 in debt would have to pay roughly an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan period to make up for that additional interest. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that students across the country must be wondering what it is that Republicans are doing here in Congress that would have them double their interest rate, especially when we're talking about a part of our population that's done everything that we've asked of them. They succeeded in high school. They're going on to college. They are coming out with a promise of a hope for a good job and to be able to do better than the previous generation. And we're saying to them--Republicans in this House are saying to them, instead, we want to double your interest rate. We want you to pay not just the $23,000 that you owe, but an additional $11,000 in interest.

More than that, what we've heard from some even on this House floor is that there are many on the other side of the aisle who don't believe that we should have a federally subsidized student loan program at all, education for those who are wealthy who can afford it, but for middle class families, not the ability to get a student loan and to pay that loan back in a manageable way over a period of time.

So we stand united as Democrats and say we are not going to sacrifice middle class families and stack them up against women's health care. We want to make sure that we pay for these lowered student loan interests by ending a corporate tax break. That seems fair enough. Yet, Republicans on the other side of the aisle will simply not be reasonable and agree with what the overwhelming majority of American people agree to, and that is that we should have student loans that are available and accessible to middle class families.

So I'll have more to say on this, Mr. Speaker, but at this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, new to the Congress, who will join me in this discussion about student loans and student loan interest, Ms. Bonamici.

I thank the gentlelady from Oregon, and I was just reminded as I listened to her that in her State of Oregon, something on the order of 119,000 students will see an increase of about $93 million in interest rates if this takes place on July 1.

In my own home State of Maryland, 103,400 students would see an increase in interest rates if the rate is allowed to go up from 3.4 percent now to double at 6.8 percent, and in Maryland, that would be to the tune of $80 million. These are extraordinary numbers, and that burden would be borne by those to whom we've said, you've done the right thing, you've gone to college, you've paid for your college, and now you're going to be able to repay your loans, but we want you to pay additional student loan interest because the Republicans have refused to act without also taking away preventive health care.

These are really extraordinary numbers, Mr. Speaker, and I think when the American people hear about the danger that is afoot come July 1 with the increase in student loan interest, middle class families all across this country will be completely outraged.

With that, I'd like to yield a few minutes of time to my colleague from New York (Ms. Clarke).

I thank the gentlelady from New York. And I just wanted to point out to her, as she well knows from New York, that 422,000 students, if this is allowed to happen on July 1, would see an increase of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. For those 422,000 students in New York, that would mean $340 million in increased interest rates.

So I think we can see all across the country and, just really, Mr. Speaker, would like to urge our students out there and our families to think about what this would mean for them, 7 million students across this country doing exactly what we ask them to and facing a doubling of interest rates on July 1.

I notice that we've been joined today by my colleague from Ohio, who's going to help us understand also what's happening in the State of Ohio--the home of Ohio State, where I know a lot of students must be paying attention to the fact that their interest rates will double on July 1.

Mr. Ryan.

I'd like to thank the gentleman. And I'm reminded as he's speaking that there are middle class families in Ohio and all across this country for whom this isn't just about feeling good about making sure that young people can go to college. It's about making certain that our middle class families aren't just struggling, but they're really surviving in this economy and in the economy going forward.

I was reminded again that in Ohio 379,000 students would see an increase of about $294 million if this increase in student loans is allowed to go forward. And I think about those students at Ohio State University, at Oberlin College, at Xavier. I could name a lot of them.

I remember, as a second grader, living on Wright Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, and there was not a moment in second grade that my parents didn't impress on me that one day I would go to college. My mom and dad didn't know how I would go to college, but they knew that I had to go. And at the time I was such a fan of all those great Ohio universities.

But I also knew that were I to go then or to go now, that in addition to our savings and to academic scholarships, and maybe even Pell Grants, I would also need to take out student loans. And that's the situation that students in Ohio and across this country face, in realizing that on July 1, without action by this Congress, Republicans and Democrats owe it to middle class families to make sure that those student loans don't increase. Everything else is increasing. Let's not increase the interest rate on student loans. And I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. Yet again, here we are, we're talking about a situation where, since January, the President and congressional Democrats, since January of this year, have been urging Republicans to please act so that we don't see an increase in student loan interest from 3.4 percent, a doubling, to 6.8 percent.

And here we are in April; and April is a time when many families, young people have received their notification that they've been accepted into college. They've received maybe notification of a scholarship opportunity.

They also know that their families may have to dig into their savings, or they'll have to get a job; and then they begin to think too about applying for and receiving that student loan so that it puts together the full package of what's needed to go to college. Those are the decisions that here, in April, families all across this country are making. And they're making those decisions, not knowing whether this Congress is going to fail to act that would result in an increase and a doubling of student loan interests, that would cost students not just the $23,000 in debt that they're likely to graduate college holding on to and needing to repay, but an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan, over the history of that loan and the repayment. I think it's really shameful.

I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to worry about how to pay for college. I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to wake up and know that they had to get into a work-study program, or do like I did, wait tables in addition to going to class, in addition to receiving loans, in addition to receiving scholarships to pay to go to school. But that's the exception in this country; it's not the rule.

The overwhelming majority of students across this country who go to college, who want to do better because their parents want them to do better than they did, have to do a combination of things in order to afford college, whether it's a 4-year institution or community college and getting those skills to put you into the workforce or an apprenticeship program. This is the situation that our students and their families are facing.

With that, I'd like to yield time to my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and just want to point out to him, as I've pointed out to others of my colleagues here, and thank you so much for your eloquence, not just about what those loans mean to individual families, but what they mean as an economic imperative for the 21st century. As Democrats, we recognize that.

I would note that in the great State of Rhode Island, we have an opportunity for 43,000 students in your State, Mr. Cicilline, to make sure that students aren't facing an additional $34 million in increase because of what might happen on July 1.

As Republicans and as Democrats, we can do something about this. We don't have to get to a point where we're saying to students for the future that we really don't care about you. We don't care about the fact that we helped you do and be all that you can through high school, but now we're going to dump you when it comes to going to college.

So I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Up until today, the Republican majority has simply refused to acknowledge that this hike would affect millions of students and families, 7 million students across this country. Perhaps today after a reversal by the assumed Republican Presidential nominee, we voted on a bill that would finally address the issue. But it's so sad that they did that at the expense of health care for working families.

No one understands that more than the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, my friend and my neighbor. I'd like to take a moment to recognize her and her leadership. If I recall, she taught at a law school and understands those students who really struggle to get through and make sure they're doing what they need to do academically, but that they're able to pay for a quality education; and I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I want to thank the gentlewoman and thank her especially for her leadership.

As you were speaking, I was doing a little calculating. I went to undergraduate school at Wake Forest University. I had academic scholarships and some student loans, and I also waited tables in order to pay for my expenses. Had I not been able to get those student loans, having only the combination of academic scholarships and waiting tables, I would not have been able to have afforded to go to school. I came out with student loan debt from undergraduate school, and then I worked for a time, saved a bit, and went to law school. But even out of law school, I still couldn't pay all of my living expenses and all of my tuition without also taking out student loans.

When I finished law school, the combination of my loans from undergraduate school and my loans from law school totaled about $75,000 plus. Over the period of time that I paid that back, I paid back a total of about $100,000 because of the combination of interest rates over the period of time. I paid my last student loan payment almost 1 month to the day before I was elected in my primary election in coming to Congress.

My mother raised six children. We knew almost from the time that we could speak a word that we would go to college. My father was in the United States Air Force. He served for nearly 30 years. We lived all over the country and around the world. They worked really hard, but with six children on a military income and retirement, they knew that they wouldn't be able to fully pay out of savings--what savings with all those mouths to feed?--in order for us to go to college. They wanted their children to go to college. They wanted their children to have the kind of opportunities for the future that they did not have for themselves.

My story, though it happened some time ago, is the story of American families today, whose young people are preparing to graduate from high school. They're preparing for high school graduations over these next couple of months. They want to go to college, and many of those students right now, today, in having received those April notices of college admissions and financial aid determinations, know that through some combination of savings and loans and Pell Grants and work and work study that they will put together the puzzle pieces of a college education so that they can afford it. Parents and students all across the country are making this decision.

For those students who are coming out of high school in this season, July 1 is our deadline. July 1 is our deadline to ensure that interest rates will not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent because, by August 1 and late in August, those students will have to pack their trunks and their bags in order to go away to college. We owe them the commitment to know what their obligation is going to be for the repayment of those student loans and to know that they will not be faced with a doubling of interest rates over the course of their period of time in college.

Let's think of what this means to them. What it means is that we're saying to our students, we want you to study engineering and science and math and technology. We want you to come out of school and to be teachers and to be inventors and innovators and entrepreneurs. But we are unwilling to

make sure that you're able to do that by giving you the tools that you need for success.

One of those things for some students across this country--for many students, for 7 million students--is the ability to get student loans that are affordable, and to have some sense that over the period of time that they're in college and they graduate college and the economy is better and they get jobs that they will be able to repay those loans so that some other generation of students can also go to school and do the same thing.

So why am I passionate about this? I am passionate about it because it's my story, and because it's the story of middle class families all across this country who know that they want to do better, who struggle to do better, and who experience the rug being ripped out from under them because we want to ask our middle class families to either double your interest rates or sacrifice your health care. Those are the choices we're asking our middle class families to make. In today's economy, there is not a greater predictor of individual success than a good education. This is a fact. But if it's a fact, then we need to make the investment that makes that fact a reality for our students across this country.

Right now, as many have pointed out on this floor, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half of the national average. That means that, when you graduate, even if you have student loans that are affordable and can be repaid, you have some opportunity to do that because you will have done better, and you will have had the opportunity to do better than the student who only gets a high school education. The incomes for those who graduate from college are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma.

Higher education, whether we're talking about a 4-year institution or a 2-year institution at a community college, is the clearest path that we have to middle class success. If we are going to build a ladder of opportunity for the American people, then one of those rungs has to be student loans and another rung is a Pell Grant; another rung is job training; another rung is to make sure that our families are eating and that our children are immunized. There are many rungs. And this Congress has an obligation to make sure those rungs of that ladder are available to the American people.

Democrats and Republicans both say they want to build a competitive workforce, but let's be clear that it's the Democrats--my colleagues here in the Congress--who time and time again actually stand up for the students with the skills that will be needed to comprise that competitive workforce.

So I look at the things Democrats have done over this period of time. We've increased the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 in 2006 to $5,550 in 2010. We created the American Opportunity Tax Credit that provides a maximum of $2,500 in a tuition tax credit to eligible families and students. We created income-based repayment to ensure that graduates can manage their loan repayments during stressful economic times.

I remember when I came out of undergraduate school and law school and really wanted to work in the public-interest sector, and I did. But I wasn't paid as much as some of my colleagues who were going into law firms and other kinds of practice. Would that I could have paid my student loans back based on my income.

Well, that's the kind of opportunity that we've provided for students for the future. We've provided loan forgiveness for graduates who actually go into public-interest careers, who go into teaching careers after 10 years of loan payments. We've required schools to have an online calculator so that students and families can estimate their costs based on their family's financial situation. We've supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. This is the way that Democrats have supported middle class families and poor families in their ability to achieve the American Dream. I would only ask that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do the same.

With that, we have about 5 minutes left to continue our conversation with the American people. So I will yield just a moment to the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I thank the gentlewoman.

Now I would like to recognize for a moment the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of our participants today in calling attention to the fact that Democrats have proposed ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies so that we can use those savings and actually help to pay for need-based college loans where they are and to help pay down the deficit.

Republicans are cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and they're throwing that debt onto students and families.

To be clear, this is not a partisan issue. It's a student issue; it's a family issue; it's an American issue. It's about our competitiveness in the economy. And I want to call all young people across this Nation of all political persuasions to reach out to their Members of Congress and say, stop the increase on student loans from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, costing millions of dollars to students across this country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today, Tuesday, April 24, to talk about an issue which, again, middle class families all across America are watching very closely. As the chart next to me indicates, in 67 days, the interest rates on the Stafford student loan program, a loan program which serves over 7 million college students all across America, is slated to increase its interest rate from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

This program, which over time today has served roughly about 35 to 40 million Americans, is a critical component for middle class families to provide affordable higher education, which today, in the 21st century, is almost as important as having a high school education.

The Stafford student loan program's interest rate was cut in 2007 as a result of the passage of the College Cost Reduction Act, a measure which cut the rate from 6.8 percent down to 3.4 percent. Unlike this Congress, it was a bipartisan effort--77 House Republicans voted for that measure; 35 Republican Senators voted for that measure. George W. Bush signed it into law, President Bush, to his credit, and it provided, again, great relief for students all across America for an issue which we now know from the Federal Reserve Bank threatens, really, the financial solvency of America's middle class.

College student loan debt today now exceeds credit card debt. It exceeds car loan debt. One of the few safe harbors that exists in the system for students is, in fact, the Stafford student loan program. It has great bipartisan genealogy and sources.

Stafford was actually a Senator, Robert Stafford, from Vermont, a Republican, who, again, believed in education and was somebody who understood that the cost of college and university education is not what it used to be and that we had to give, again, middle class families better tools to pay for it.

Anyone who has dealt with the private student loan market knows that the rates today are roughly about 9 to 10 percent. Interest accumulates from the day the loan is taken out. If you're a freshman at a 4-year university, you accumulate interest for the entire time that you are in college using those loans. There is no forbearance. There is no timeframe in terms of repayment. Again, it is nondischargeable in bankruptcy if a person gets into great financial difficulty.

The Stafford student loan program, in contrast, has affordable rates--3.4 percent. There is a forbearance period, after a student graduates, of 6 months before payments commence, and no interest accumulates during the time

that the student is actually in college. If there are financial problems that occur, again, there are systems for deferring payments. In fact, there is an income-based repayment formula so that no more than 10 percent of your income can be devoted to the repayment of Stafford student loans.

So this is really, again, a measure which affects a broad swath of America in terms of millions of students, millions of families. It is really about the only avenue that young people facing the formidable challenge--almost like buying a house when you go to college. Yet we stand here today, 67 days away from having these rates increase.

Now, for those who have been watching this issue, President Obama, right from that podium at the State of the Union address, challenged this Congress back in January to address this issue to avoid a doubling of interest rates. To date, the majority party in this House, the Republican majority, has not taken up a single bill. Even though we hear some nice words on the other side, there is no measure with which they have come forward.

The chairman of the Education Committee last week was quoted in The New York Times as saying that protecting this rate at 3.4 percent was bad policy. We have the words of the chairwoman of the House Education Subcommittee, from North Carolina, who stated on a radio program a couple of weeks ago:

I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that

they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt,

because there's no reason for that.

I would challenge that Member to talk to a new dentist or a new dental student graduating, or a nurse anesthetist who was in my office the other day who was carrying over $80,000 in debt. The fact of the matter is, in terms of trying to get, again, skills for this, the modern American workforce, that is a reality that students and families confront day in and day out.

Yet the leadership of the majority of this Congress is basically turning its back on the bipartisan tradition of the Stafford student loan program with its really pioneering Member of the Senate, Robert Stafford, with the bipartisan support for the College Cost Reduction Act passed with strong bipartisan votes and signed into law by a Republican President, George Bush, and basically saying it's bad policy and we're not going to do it.

Since last week--and again we did one of these Special Order 1-hour sessions with a countdown clock--some things are starting to change.

Yesterday, the Republican frontrunner, effective nominee for President, Mitt Romney, during the middle of a press conference, finished up, turned around, was walking away and turned on his heel and said, Oh, by the way, I want to say that I support President Obama's proposal to block the increase in interest rates of 3.4 percent. This is the leader of the Republican Party, nationally.

There does seem to be some hope. Now, it may be connected to the fact that the President, yesterday, was at the University of North Carolina, talking to young people in this country who know exactly what he is talking about in terms of higher education costs and the need to protect affordable loan programs to pay for college. Later tonight, he is going to be at the University of Colorado, talking to students at Colorado about exactly the same issue. Tomorrow, he is going to be at Iowa State University.

There is clearly a bit of politics swirling around here, because if you look at Mr. Romney's comments on this issue over the last few months or so, he has, in fact, said exactly the opposite. Indeed, he has come out in support of the Ryan budget, the Republican budget resolution, which was passed in this Chamber a few weeks ago. In that budget resolution, that 6.8 rate increase is locked in under the Ryan budget plan. Not only does it lock in the higher cost of the Stafford student loan program, it cuts the Pell Grant program.

That's the other workhorse of economic affordability in this country, named after Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. Again, it is a grant program that helps the most needy students pay for college. It's up to $6,000--hardly enough to fully pay for most colleges in the country, but nonetheless is essential for college students across this country.

The Ryan budget cuts the grant level for the Pell program down to $5,000--unbelievable--at a time when we're seeing college student loan debt skyrocket in this country and, sadly, at a time when America's graduation rate, which was number one in the 1980s, has now fallen to number 12. For the folks who are listening here today, that is a trend of mediocrity for this country. That is not a trend of growth. That is not a trend of innovation for the future. That is a trend which basically says we are basically going to surrender to the forces of mediocrity in this country. And that is not acceptable to this country, and it's certainly not acceptable to all of us as Americans, and it resonates all across America. Again, I come from the Northeast, up in Connecticut.

We're joined here today by a great Congresswoman from the State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, and I'd like to yield to Congresswoman Lee to talk about her perspective from the great State of Texas.

Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

Again, just to follow up on one quick point, which is that there is legislation that is now pending in the House, H.R. 3826. A few minutes ago, we got our 146th cosponsor. To this date, though, we are still waiting for any Members on the majority side to join us in this effort. Again, 77 of them voted in 2007 to support this measure to cut the interest rates. It's time. It's time for them to listen to what their presumptive nominee is saying. It's time to join the Members on this side of the aisle and prevent the damage that this would do to middle class families.

And no one knows that issue better than a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, who has, again, done great work in terms of education issues and higher education affordability. Congressman Davis, thank you for joining us here this evening.

That is high praise from you, Congressman Davis. When I was a freshman, brand new to the Capitol, the Education and Labor Committee, which you've been serving on for a number of years, it was a great honor to really observe you and to see that the College Cost Reduction Act was one of the first things that came out of the chute in January of 2007. And, again, your words tonight show that this has been a lifelong priority and mission for you to make sure that that happens.

You mentioned Abraham Lincoln from your great State of Illinois. It is interesting to note that the College Land Grant system, the Morrill Act, was actually passed in 1862 in the middle of the Civil War, the most catastrophic threat to our country's existence ever. And yet we had a President from your great State who had the vision to understand that every State should have a land grant college, which is what that bill did, and created a national commitment to higher education. Again, it was committed to agricultural sciences and mechanical engineering.

What an amazing story about somebody who, gosh knows, could have been distracted with whatever was happening in that terrible conflict, and yet he still understood that we can never, ever, ever lose sight of the importance of investing in our people. That's what has made our country great, and you know that better than anyone.

I look forward to working with you over the next few weeks on this issue.

Now we're joined by a gentleman from the great State of Michigan, Congressman Hansen Clarke, who is a relatively new Member but who has, again, jumped right in on this issue. Thank you for joining me here this evening.

Thank you, Congressman Clarke, and thank you for sharing your personal story.

What has been sort of extraordinary to me is that over the last few months, as we've been working on H.R. 3826, our office has received communications from all over the country from folks talking about the importance of the Stafford program in terms of really transforming their lives. I'll be at Chamber of Commerce meetings; I'll be at Rotary Club meetings; I will have people who are not on my side of the aisle politically but coming up to me afterwards and saying this is something that the Congress absolutely has to pay attention to, that it has to protect that lower rate, and thank God this person had the Stafford loan program available to him just like you did.

To see that rate go up to 6.8 percent at a time when our economy-- Treasury bonds are being sold at a 2 percent yield. You can get a 30- year fixed mortgage for, really, under 4 percent right now, variabilities at much lower. When you tell people that this rate is going to double to 6.8 percent for this one segment of the population, young Americans who really are doing it for the purpose of improving their own situations, it's greeted by just absolute utter disbelief.

At a time when, as you point out, debt levels--and I've got a little chart here from the Federal Reserve which shows where we're headed right now in this country. We have got to, number one, not make the condition worse by increasing the interest rate--and again, we've run the numbers.

Over a 5-year period of time, somebody who has got a Stafford loan portfolio is looking at an additional $5,000 in interest payments. It's $11,000 for over a 10-year period, which is quite normal, as you said, for people paying back their student loans. We are compounding the trend lines for which the Federal Reserve Bank has, again, put up the warning flags to tell us that we're just creating crushing debt.

The Wall Street Journal had a story, which I was thinking of it as you were speaking earlier, about a young couple with student loan debts who basically were putting off starting a family and buying a house because of the debt levels, that they were basically just working to pay for every month in terms of their burdens there.

We need to be, frankly, A, dealing with the issue of the rate increase obviously in the next 67 days; but, secondly, we need to have a much bigger national conversation to talk about measures like your bill to create, again, a system that rewards people who are current with their payments, who are making progress in their lives but that are not going to have a ball and chain around their necks in terms of debt levels that, again, as you point out, at the end of the day really inhibit creativity and investment and innovation for people at a time in life when they really should be just spreading their wings, not dragging these huge burdens of debt that really hold them back and hold our country back.

So, again, I really appreciate your contributions here this evening. The clock is ticking, 67 days and counting.

Mr. Romney yesterday basically put up a strong signal to the congressional majority in the House here, the Republican congressional majority, that this is something that we must do. And we're still waiting. 146 cosponsors on H.R. 3826.

I'm not somebody who has a big ego. If somebody has a counterproposal to come up with a different way to do this, we're all ears. But what we don't need are the comments of the chairwoman of the Higher Education Subcommittee basically saying she has no tolerance for students with $80,000 in student loan debt. That is a Congress which is out of touch with the reality that young people are confronting these days, who are really trying to improve themselves and fill the workforce needs of this country.

We cannot afford that type of leadership here in this Congress. We need to have people who are focused on the real condition of the middle class in this country, but also really focused, like Abraham Lincoln was back in 1862, about what's important in terms of the future of this country.

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

In closing, I just want to end where we began, which is that it's 67 days and counting.

Today, all across America, there are high school seniors who are experiencing probably one of the most exciting moments in their lives, which is that they're going to the mailbox to find out whether or not they've been accepted to a 2-year school or a 4-year school. I remember those days. I have a son who just finished up college--and remember how exciting that was--and a daughter who's in high school and who's hopefully going to hear soon when her turn comes. But the fact of the matter is they need to have some horizon, some predictability at this critical moment to make sure that they can plan and budget to pay for college.

Financial Aid offices all across the country are putting up warning flags for students and their families that interest rates are going to double unless Congress acts. And the fact of the matter is that creates an instability about planning for what college to go to, what kind of budget a family can really accommodate in terms of paying for student loan debt. And that's wrong.

I mean, we can do better than that as a Congress. We can do better than that as a Nation.

Again, we're glad to see that Mr. Romney finally came around, even though he had sent out signals in opposition to this type of approach by supporting the Ryan budget which locks in the 6.8 percent interest rate.

But you know what, this issue is too important to get sucked into sort of partisanship here. It is time to move forward, just like we did in 2007, when 77 Republicans voted in favor of the College Cost Reduction Act; 35 Republican Senators supported it. President George Bush signed it into law, a program named after Republican Senator Robert Stafford from Vermont.

I mean, come on. You know, people are sick and tired of the fact that every single issue, whether it's a highway bill, a payroll tax cut extension, or education assistance for middle class families gets sucked into this partisan maelstrom in Washington, DC.

And the fact of the matter is there's 146 Members on our side that have cosponsored H.R. 3826 that are looking for a signal from the Republican majority to say, you know what, it's time to look at our history. It's time to look at the genealogy of the Stafford student loan program and the great bipartisan support to cut those rates 5 years ago.

Let's come up with a solution. Let's move. Let's help those families whose students are being accepted into college and those financial aid offices that are trying to help families budget and plan for the next academic school year.

Sixty-seven days is really not enough time, even today, but we should at least not compound it by delay and, hopefully, not compound it by letting just a totally unacceptable increase in interest rates for Stafford student loans to go into effect.

And I look forward to working with you, again, in the next hours and minutes and days to make sure that that doesn't happen. Thank you for joining me here, Congressman Clarke.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend some time on the floor this evening. I will be joined by other colleagues, we anticipate, to talk about an issue which is front and center for millions of families all across the country.

As my poster next to me indicates, there is actually a very critical deadline that's approaching this country in terms of the issue of higher education

affordability, about helping families pay for college, one of the biggest challenges that middle class families face today.

Back in 2007, Congress made a very positive, progressive move when it enacted the College Cost Reduction Act, a measure which addressed issues that had been long neglected by prior Congresses in terms of helping students and families pay for college. The College Cost Reduction Act, in particular, took aim at the Stafford student loan program, a loan program that helps lower-income and middle-income students pay for college. It's a program which has been on the books since the 1960s; but over the late 1990s into the early 2000s, the interest rate in the Stafford student loan program had fluttered upwards to 6.8 percent, almost the same levels at what private banks were offering for student loans.

The College Cost Reduction Act in 2007 correctly moved forward to cut the interest rate for that program to make it more affordable for students, again, who are facing ever rising tuition increases in both public and private universities and colleges--2-year programs, you name it--all across the country. As a result of that measure, which passed by a bipartisan vote in this House--we had 77 Republicans who joined the Democratic majority that was in control at that time--it was sent to the Senate. Approximately two dozen Republicans voted in favor of the Stafford student loan program, and it was sent to President Bush, who signed it into law. That measure has helped 15 million students with lower interest rate costs pay for college.

That measure was sunset. It had an expiration date of July 1, 2012. As my poster indicates, that's a date which, today, is 73 days away for families and students who today are trying to budget for next year's school year. That deadline will, in effect, return the interest rate back to where it was back in 2007. It will double the interest rate from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent unless Congress acts.

President Obama, during his State of the Union Address, alerted this Congress and the Nation to the fact that at a time when student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt and car debt, we must, as a Congress, move quickly to make sure that we lock in that rate at 3.4 percent; otherwise, students who use this program, it's been calculated, will have added debt levels of between $5,000 and $10,000.

Now, in terms of the stakes that exist right now for what that means, this chart--which is from a figure that was produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York--shows again, vividly, the challenge that we face as a Nation, that student loan debt now, as I mentioned earlier, exceeds credit card debt. It exceeds car loan debt. For many families, particularly if you're talking about going to a 4-year private college, it literally is like buying a house to try and figure out ways to pay for college.

So if we do not act, if we do not lock in that lower rate of 3.4 percent between now and July 1--the 73-day deadline that we face, literally, as we stand here today--we will, in fact, compound that bar graph which shows, again, rising debt levels for students who are trying to pay for college.

The stakes could not be bigger for our Nation.

Back in the 1980s, America was number one in terms of graduation rates across the world. Today, the national College Board--which tracks this data and has been doing it for decades--reports to us that the U.S. now ranks 12th in the world in terms of graduation rates. That is a dynamic for mediocrity. That is a dynamic that says that our country is not going to be able to produce the workforce that we need for the future in terms of facing all the technological challenges, all the competitive challenges that we face as a Nation. We here in Congress have that power within our hands to at least avoid worsening the situation that, again, has now, in my opinion, reached epidemic, critical proportions in terms of this country's capacity to refresh its workforce.

The Republican majority has leadership which recently talked about this issue. The chairwoman of the Higher Education Subcommittee, when asked last week on a radio program about the issue of student loan debt, basically stated very clearly that she has very little tolerance for people who tell her that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there's no reason for that. Well, this morning's Wall Street Journal had a very long story about a couple who are exactly in this predicament, where they are carrying $74,000 of student loan debt, making monthly payments of approximately $900 a month. The headline basically is that student loan debt is deferring marriage and children for young people.

Frankly, that is an issue which is being compounded in terms of young people being able to go out and look for work and not be haunted or burdened--almost smothered and buried--by student loan debt. That affects the vitality of our economy. It affects, really, the career path of many of our young people who, at that point in life, really should be maximizing their attempts to really experiment and to innovate and to be, again, the leaders of a new generation in terms of taking this country to new heights.

This is a sad statement of the priorities of the majority that's controlling this Congress, which, again, at a point where we literally have before us in 73 days a choice to make in terms of whether or not we are going to avoid this explosion in interest rates, we have a leadership which basically says they have no sympathy or tolerance.

You know, as we're sitting here tonight, Capitol Hill is being visited in Members' offices hour after hour by organizations like dental students, nursing students, folks who, again, are very excited about starting their careers and have issues about policy that we're taking up here in their different professions. In each instance, when you asked a dental student, ``Well, what kind of student loan debt do you have?'' or a nurse anesthetist, ``What kind of student loan do you have?''--and they were in my office a couple days ago--in every instance, their debt levels exceeded the levels that the chairwoman of the Higher Education Subcommittee was talking about.

We need a Congress which is not out of touch with middle class families and young people in this country. We need a Congress which is ready to move forward with the need to lock in that lower interest rate so that, again, we do not compound this problem of student loan debt skyrocketing in increases.

There is legislation which is pending, H.R. 3826, a measure which I introduced, and now we have over 120 cosponsors in the House Democratic Caucus--I'm joined here this evening by some of the folks who have joined in that effort--that would lock in that rate, that would say that, You know what? This is a priority that really matters in terms of the future of this country, which is to invest in young people, to help middle class families deal with, again, probably as big a challenge as either buying a home or trying to save and prepare for retirement.

For us, at a time when the Federal Reserve is lending money almost for free, when home mortgage interest rates are about 3.1 percent for a 30-year mortgage and even lower for a variable rate, to say that we are going to stand here and turn our backs and allow interest rates for the Stafford student loan program--one of the workhorse, bedrock programs for middle class families to pay for college--to go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent is unconscionable. It is unforgivable. We cannot let this happen.

Here this evening on the floor I've been joined by some Members who agree and have been working hard on this issue back home, getting the word out in their States, and also have cosponsored this legislation and have joined us to talk a little bit about this issue from their perspective.

Congressman Cicilline from Rhode Island was here first, and I am pleased to yield to my neighbor from Rhode Island. Thank you, sir, for joining us here this evening.

Thank you, Congressman Cicilline. And I'm glad you mentioned Senator Reid. Actually, we had an event in front of the Capitol a couple of weeks ago where Public Interest Research Group dropped off 130,000 petition signatures from college campuses all across America, and they are going to go out and get even more because, as I said, 15 million college students benefited from that rate cut in 2007; 8 million will be impacted if we do nothing with higher interest rates.

Someone who can speak on this issue as knowledgeably as almost anyone, literally, in the House or Senate, in the U.S. Congress is Congressman Bishop, again, my neighbor across Long Island Sound in the State of New York. Again, thank you for joining us here tonight, Tim, and I yield to your comments.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, someone who's been a leader on this issue, first sponsor after we introduced the bill is Congressman Gary Peters from Michigan, so we're not all from New England and New York on the floor here this evening because this is a national issue; and thank you for joining us, Congressman Peters.

Mr. Peters, as to your comment about why this should not be a partisan issue, I just want to reiterate the fact that when we cut the rate back in 2007, 77 Republicans in the House voted with the Democratic majority to implement that law, and

there were over two dozen Republican Senators in the Senate who voted for it. George W. Bush signed it into law.

Ironically, the Stafford student loan program, which we've talked about a lot here this evening--and a lot of people are familiar with it, but some, I think, would be interested to know--was named after a Republican Senator, Robert Stafford from Vermont, who was a passionate advocate for education just like Senator Pell from Rhode Island was. This, again, used to be an issue that was nonpartisan totally. Abraham Lincoln was the force that started land-grant colleges in the middle of the Civil War. I mean, it's amazing to think about that, that he just had such vision during the worst conflict in American history to say, you know, we still need to be investing in the future of this country and so started the land-grant process. Stafford from Vermont was another guy who certainly represented a party that, at that time, would have easily understood the fact that we cannot create new barriers at a time when historic levels of debt are rising to a point which exceed credit card debt and student loan debt.

Mr. Bishop, in your experience as a college administrator, you know. I mean, we are now in late April, and kids are literally getting notices from colleges in their mailboxes today. People are going to have to start planning in terms of how to pay for college. Again, notices are already being sent out to people, saying, you know, you may or may not have this rate right now. So it's changing family decisions literally by the inaction. Frankly, we should not have to wait 73 days. We should do this this week. We shouldn't go home until this gets done, because families need to have some horizon in terms of planning a decision that literally is almost as big as buying a house.

Then I know, Mr. Cicilline, you were up on your feet, and I just want to keep contact.

Just for our viewers, FTE is an acronym.

Again, a true college administrator.

Congressman Bishop was around before the 2006 election and was there when we passed the 2007 College Cost Reduction Act. I believe, frankly, that it is because there was an unprecedented boost in involvement by young people. The 18- to 29-year-old voter turnout in 2006 was a

historic high for a midterm election. Frankly, it did slip in the last cycle.

When I'm out at the University of Connecticut or other State universities in higher education, I tell that story about how in 2006, the issue of higher education was front and center. It was an issue that was a national issue in the 2006 campaign that we put forward to cut the interest rate. And frankly, I think the power of that issue and the message of that election from young voters turning out in record numbers basically kind of shook this place up, and people recognized that they've got to start doing something for higher education. I think in 2010, there was a bit of a slip and this issue kind of lost focus.

Again, I think as we get closer to this incredible doubling of interest rates on July 1--when I talk to people back home when I've done a number of events like you and others have, people greet that with absolute disbelief because they know how mortgage interest rates are, they see what banks are getting from the Federal Reserve, they see what the Treasury bonds are selling for. To say that this one segment of the economy--college students--is going to have a 6.8 percent rate in terms of a loan program is totally unacceptable. That's why, I think, this event we're doing here this evening--and certainly the efforts from PIRG with 130,000 petition signatures--is a way, again, that we can shake this place up again and avoid this catastrophe.

I can give a local example of an employer in our area, which Mr. Cicilline knows well--and so do you, Tim--which is Electric Boat, which has a new design project where they're going to be hiring about 300-plus new engineers and draftsmen.

They are scouring the countryside trying to find mechanical engineers. Again, these are high-value jobs. The fact of the matter is that it's a struggle out there to get these folks with hard science degrees for, again, really good openings that exist in our economy right now. They're going to get there. There is no question that's going to happen.

The fact of the matter is that opportunities like that are going to definitely continue to grow as this economy heals and recovers. We want to make sure these young people, again, have not been discouraged from having that chance to take hold of that opportunity when that time comes because of really just the indifference of this body to deal with an issue which, again, just goes to the heart of creating opportunity.

This chart, sadly, when we started it, it was 75 days when the rate was going to go up. Obviously, yesterday, it was 74, today is 73. We are going to continue to make sure that this countdown clock is front and center before the people of this country so that they know that here in this body we have control of this issue, direct control of this issue. Many other issues are so complex and affect a small part of the economy and the country. This is a broad-based issue that affects 8 million college students across America that we have a set deadline. Either we do it or we don't and, again, this colloquy this evening, again, I think is going to be part of the effort to build the noise to make sure that we do it.

Well, again, I think you are going to have a really powerful event when you do that. Again, I think the media who have been covering this issue, in many instances they either have children in college or they themselves are still carrying student-loan debt. This issue touches really just a huge cross-section of the country.

To say and to point out the fact which, again, a lot of people aren't aware of, interest rates are going to double on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent unless Congress acts. Again, it is something that people just can't even comprehend the fact that at this moment in the economy, when interest rates are so much lower across the board, that this one segment, college students, particularly entering college students, kids who are in high school today, frankly, have almost as much, if not more, at stake than kids who are presently enrolled in college to make sure that this place hears their voices and listens and, most importantly, acts to avoid this totally unwarranted increase in college borrowing costs from a program which has a proud bipartisan history. Thank you both for joining me here this evening.

I look forward to getting a bill signing soon to protect these interest rates.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I will not use the full 60 minutes, but there is an issue that I wanted to spend a few minutes discussing today because it is extremely time sensitive.

As the chart next to me indicates, we are today on June 1, twenty- nine days away from the increase in interest rates for the subsidized Stafford Student Loan Program, a program which today presently offers middle class college students loans at a rate of 3.4 percent, and on July 1, by law, that number will double to 6.8 percent unless Congress acts.

The situation right now is the result of a measure that was passed in 2007, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which at that time-- again, the statute under the Stafford program required a 6.8 percent interest rate. I was part of a group that passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act that cut that rate down to 3.4 percent. For an average student using the Stafford Student Loan Program, which carries a loan limit up to $23,000 a year for a student, that cut in interest rate saved the average student who uses this program about $5,000 to $10,000 in added interest cost, obviously a huge number for young people in this country who are struggling to try to deal with the costs of higher education.

Again, it was a 5-year bill, and it has a sunset date of July 1. That is not uncommon in terms of the way legislation is designed in Washington. But in January, President Obama, while he was standing at that podium right behind me, reminded the Congress during the State of the Union address that this doubling of rates was a few months away. Up to this point, we still have not dealt with this issue. And for young people who are trying to budget in terms of the upcoming school year, young seniors who got their acceptance letters to go to college, the failure of this Congress to address this issue and get it done is, frankly, completely unacceptable. And the schedule that we've been following in this House--for example, this week we had only one full session day. At a time when so many issues like this are piling up and crying out for action, that is really just unacceptable.

The good news is that there has been some movement. Since the President made his call in January, I introduced legislation to lock in the lower rate the following day. We have 152 cosponsors to lock in the lower rate at 3.4 percent. About 3 weeks ago, the Republican majority did move a bill forward. It was paid for, I think, completely inappropriately by dipping into a fund to pay for preventive health care. In other words, it took money out of a fund to pay for cervical cancer screening, diabetes treatment, all the measures that are preventible illnesses in this country. Again, many uninsured individuals need that fund to operate to get those tests done and avoid higher health care costs.

Yesterday, there was again additional movement where the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate acknowledged that that's not going to work in terms of a way to pay for it, and two additional ideas have been put forward on the table to deal with the way to offset the cost of cutting that rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. We'll see. Next week, the Senate is back, and that really is the Chamber where we may see some movement forward in terms of this issue.

I think it's important to note that this is only a 1-year fix that is being proposed right now. For families out there dealing with the cost of college, saying that we're going to only provide relief for 1 year for interest rates is not a good enough answer.

We know that because the Federal Reserve--which tracks the amount of consumer debt that families are accumulating in this country--just yesterday reminded us that student loan debt now exceeds all other forms of consumer debt. It exceeds credit card debt. It exceeds car debt.

This is a trajectory which is just going up and up and up. And adding to that debt level by allowing interest rates to be at a ridiculous level in the economy that we're in right now--you can go out and get a 30-year fixed rate mortgage on a house for about 3 percent or 4 percent right now. Certainly in Connecticut those kinds of loans are being offered. There are 10-year Treasury notes being sold at record lows. Yesterday, it was reported that 1.45 percent was the yield rate that Treasury was selling 10-year notes.

To have 6.8 percent, with this picture in our economy here today, is just unacceptable. The impact it's having in terms of the higher education system is tragic for our country. In the 1980s, we were number one in the world in terms of graduating people with either 2- year or 4-year degrees. Today we are 12th. Think about that. The United States of America now is 12th in terms of graduating people with 2-year and 4-year degrees, and cost is the biggest driving factor that is preventing people from going to college and getting degrees.

When we look at the workforce needs in this country in terms of medical professions, in terms of research, in terms of engineering and science, the fact of the matter is this country is in an almost crisis situation right now in terms of being able to refresh and replenish the workforce needs of this country.

Now, how did we get here? The Stafford student loan program, which was created in 1965, was an attempt to try and reach out to families and give them more affordable interest rates so that they could pay for colleges. From the 1960s to the 1990s it was a variable rate interest program that went up and down with interest rates in the economy. In 2002 the Congress passed a budget law which locked in a fixed rate at 6.8 percent.

Why did they do that? Well, that interest revenue, when people pay back their loans, actually goes into the Treasury. It goes into the coffers of this country. It's almost like a tax, essentially. To cut that rate to a lower level requires other places in the government to sort of offset the reduction

of 6.8 percent to a lower rate. The measure that we passed in 2007 accomplished that with a pay-for because it eliminated a lot of wasteful bank subsidies and fees to make sure that that cut from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent was actually going to take place.

We are here today in a situation where student loan debt now is the largest challenge that faces middle class families who are trying to just do the right thing and give their children the opportunity to get the skills that they are going to need to compete in their lives and help our economy, by the way, perform in a very competitive global environment.

Yet we have still not come up with a sustainable, long-term path in terms of trying to make college affordable. We need to address this.

My bill, H.R. 3826, locks in the lower rate at 3.4 percent, not just for 1 year, but permanently. We also need to look at the issue of college costs. We need to start putting incentives out there in terms of Federal programs to make sure that colleges are not running wild with tuition increases. I think it's important to note that President Obama, when he gave the State of the Union address and challenged Congress to protect this lower interest rate, he coupled it with a number of reforms to the title 4 programs that pay for higher education from the Federal Government.

That basically tells universities and colleges if your tuition rates go up at an unacceptable level, you're going to be basically disqualified from participating in these programs. That is the first time that has ever been cited or suggested as a way of trying to put some carrots and sticks into the system right now. Because college costs are driving, again, that affordability challenge.

To some degree they are driving that high loan level, those high debt levels that families are almost forced to take on to pay for college. It's almost like buying a house now, if you are going to a 4-year private college, in terms of paying the bills.

We need to again not just look at this issue in terms of protecting lower interest rates, which again it looks like we may have a glimmer of hope of a 1-year fix coming up in the Senate next week, but we also need to frankly have a longer-term strategy for providing lower interest rates on a longer term basis for middle class families, and we need to be looking at what's the driving factor in terms of college costs. We need to start creating incentives within the financing system to make sure that colleges are doing a better job of managing their overhead so that they again aren't just shifting that cost on students and their families.

Again, the stakes could not be higher in terms of success of this country. We must as a Nation make sure that we continue to invest in our education system, in our higher education system.

I would close by just citing another benchmark that's coming up in a short period of time. Again, as my chart indicates, on July 1, we are going to hit the doubling of the interest rates unless Congress acts.

What's also going to happen, though, on July 2 is that we are actually going to observe an anniversary in this country. It will be the 150th anniversary of when Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act. The Morrill Act was a law that was passed during the darkest days of the Civil War, again a time when we were literally going through an existential crisis in this country about whether or not we were going to survive as a republic.

Despite all that challenge, President Lincoln was able to look above and beyond the immediate and look in the long term and sign into law this measure which created the land grant college program. That is the program which basically said that each State must establish an institution of higher education for the purposes of propagating agricultural sciences and engineering.

What an amazing act for someone, again, whose Nation was fighting for its life to see that long term we must continue to look forward, and we must invest in our future. Over time, since the Morrill Act was signed, we, on a bipartisan basis, have passed the Stafford Act, the Stafford student loan program, which I mentioned here. It was sponsored by a Republican Senator, Robert Stafford, from Vermont.

We passed the Pell grant program, named after Claiborne Pell, a Democratic Senator from Rhode Island. We passed the Perkins Loan Program, which is named after Carl Perkins, a Democrat from Kentucky.

But over time and even the darkest, most challenging, critical days of our Nation's history, we have had leadership in Washington which understood that we must keep our eye on the real crown jewels of our country, which is our people. We are a Nation that is blessed with great material wealth. We are a Nation that is blessed with the greatest military fighting force in the world. We are blessed with great financial institutions.

What really makes this country tick is our people, is investing in future generations. That is, at the end of the day, what's at stake with this issue, which has 29 days for Congress to act and fix.

I'm an optimist. I think we can do this. I think we have seen some movement--took a little external pressure on the political system here, with the President's visits to college campuses in Iowa, North Carolina and Colorado, and the ticking clock that I have been putting on this floor day in and day out, and the 130,000 petition signatures from colleges all across the country. We brought those to the Speaker's office on day 110. That external pressure has finally gotten some movement on this issue. Hopefully next week we are really going to see the glimmers of a real solution to making sure that families are not going to see their rates double to 6.8 percent.

Again, our work is not done if we get that measure passed. We must deal with long-term sustainable solutions to the issue of higher education costs if we as a Nation are going to have any viable future and success. We can do this, but it's going to take a lot of bipartisan concerted effort to come together and solve this critical problem.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4628.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to students and families, it's clear that today's economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it once did. Our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are moving back home after college only to find Washington's tax-and-spend policies have made it even harder to find a job. In fact, according to a recent Associated Press report, at least half of recent graduates are unemployed or underemployed. That's unacceptable.

Under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only gets worse as interest rates on subsidized Stafford student loans are set to spike from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 of this year. That's why I've introduced H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, a bill that would avert this interest rate increase, because the last thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it that much harder to afford a high-quality education. Unfortunately, that's exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in a bipartisan way to pay for this critical interest rate fix.

Under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the President earlier this year. Just 3 months ago, Members on both sides of the aisle came together and the President signed a bill that extended unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut.

The legislation I offer today would use, as an offset, the exact same source that we all agreed to use just 3 months ago. The bill would eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund, which, in truth, is nothing more than an open-ended fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. At best, this fund serves only to circumvent Congress's annual appropriations responsibilities by granting, in perpetuity, the Secretary of Health and Human Services unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the loose label of prevention programs.

I should note that the President, himself, acknowledged that the prevention fund is bloated when he requested a $4 billion cut to the program in his FY13 budget. By reclaiming a portion of the administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of this blank-check program, my legislation would extend lower rates for college loans, granting relief to our young people without raising taxes on their potential employers.

It is a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to step forward today and show the American people that we can solve this problem immediately, without the drama of a last-minute, on-deadline fix.

It is my hope that our colleagues in the Senate as well will work with us to send it to the President immediately.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Interest Rate Reduction Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that we also are for prevention, but we have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of what we do, and not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person when there is no oversight by Congress.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of our Education and the Workforce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentleman from Connecticut that he was one of 147 Members on that side of the aisle voting for taking money out of the privatization protection for health care.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), our esteemed chairman of the Education Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, as we've noted before, in February, Congress took action to stop a payroll tax increase on millions of working families and to ensure that the tax increase did not add to the deficit. The legislation cut $5 billion from the prevention fund, and the bill received the support of 149 House Democrats, including Democrat leaders such as Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Courtney. I guess that the Democrats were in favor of raiding the slush fund before they were against it.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I would ask the gentleman how many speakers does he have?

I would continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to enter into the Record several documents. One is from

the American Council on Education, representing 37 education associations. They say:

Education has never been as important to America's economic

health as it is now. That is why we are encouraged by the

proposals we have seen. The administration and both parties

have expressed their strong support for keeping the interest

rate at 3.4 percent without cutting other forms of student

aid.

Another one is from Lewis University in Illinois, saying that:

Doubling the interest in the subsidized Stafford loans will

discourage students in need who are striving to continue

their degree studies during these difficult economic times.

Thank you for your support for these students.

Finally, from Joliet Junior College, saying that the college serves a population of seven counties in Illinois.

In the 2010 2011 school year, JJC students were awarded

over $23 million in total financial aid. Because of this, the

institution supports H.R. 4628, legislation that would

prevent the scheduled rate hike.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

April 27, 2012.

Kelly Rohder,

Director of Communications and External Relations, Joliet

Junior College, Joliet, IL.

Joliet Junior College is a comprehensive community college

that not only helps students transfer to complete their

bachelor's degrees, but provides occupational education

leading directly to employment, adult education and literacy

programs, and workforce development services.

We serve the populations of seven counties that cover a

1,442-square-mile district. While the principal mission of a

community college is to be a resource to the populations it

serves, access to quality education is equally important. In

the 2010 2011 school year, JJC students were awarded over $23

million in total financial aid. Because of this, the

institution supports H.R. 4628, legislation that would

prevent the scheduled rate hike on certain federal student

loans and extend lower rates for an additional year. It is

our goal to help students--whatever their educational goals

are--be successful in achieving them.

Debra S. Daniels, Ed.D.,

President,

Joliet Junior College.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

It seems like we came in, and I think the first thing that I talked about here is how I hoped that we would be able to work together on a bipartisan basis. It just seems like this is so hard to do in this political time. I really think that, in major legislation, we really have to work together to find the solutions, but it seems like the other side is always ready to tell us what we think and what we are doing and why we are doing it. We are doing this because we really want to have our students have the ability to have a quality education, and it just seems like we're so different on the pay-fors.

I know that everybody agrees on the program itself and how we have to do it, but we can't seem to do anything without giving us a cynical view, and it bothers me. It seems like when we were talking about the pay-fors, the other side of the aisle's first reaction is to raise taxes for everything and ours has always been to reduce spending, and we think that this is the way to go. I think we have just got to find a way to get together.

I had said in my opening statement that I hoped that we would be able to get together and work together, and also the Senate. I hope that when this bill goes over to the Senate that there is a negotiation, that there is a conference so that we really can iron this out and make sure that there is not a raising to the 6.8 percent.

It kind of makes you wonder. It just seems like the political maneuvering certainly is continuing on the student loan issue. I guess today when we have this vote, we'll see what happens. But I really hope that we get to the Senate so that we have the opportunity to do this.

I just want to go back a little bit to what happened in the Education Committee yesterday that Mrs. Roby talked about and so did Mr. Tierney. I think Secretary Sebelius did say that there were services outside the prevention and public health fund that will remain available to individuals who seek preventive care, such as cancer prevention and care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, screenings for birth defects and developmental disabilities, tobacco prevention at the CDC, and efforts that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity to prevent obesity.

So I think that this really is a lot that we believe in for prevention. And we heard from Mr. Stearns all of the appropriations and how that takes care of a lot of the prevention issues.

I think that the American people are really very knowledgeable now about prevention and what they need to do and have the ability to do this on their own as well.

This political bickering is not what the bill is all about. What the bill is all about is to reduce to 3.4 percent interest rates on the subsidized Stafford loans. And I hope that this bill will pass. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.