To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it's nice to have our Republican friends finally agree that the interest rates would be a problem if they rise and double.

Since 2007, when the rates were first reduced when the Democrats were in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the Republican side--resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. And not until recently, when the profile of this issue had been raised to a degree where students and families started to really get involved and engaged, did our friends on the other side of the aisle finally decide that, well, they now don't want the rates to go up either. But cynically, some might say, the only way they can find to pay for it is to attack women's health and children's health.

Now, women don't want this bill that way. Children and students don't want the bill this way. Labor doesn't want the bill this way. Public health groups don't want the bill this way. The Senate has said that they won't accept the bill this way; it's dead on arrival. And the White House senior staff says they'll advise the President to veto the bill this way.

If we really want to set aside partisanship and do this, let's pick a pay-for that the American people can get behind and that we can all agree on. Let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games, and let's do the right thing. Let's make sure the interest rates stay at 3.4 percent. Let's make sure that 177,000 students in Massachusetts and 7 million nationwide have affordable access to college and are able to pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. Let's start doing the right thing.

Last week, our Republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge fund managers in a tax cut, to give to Donald Trump in his Trump Towers leasing company, to give to other people that already had millions of dollars and didn't pay for it. This week, they finally get brought around to the issue of trying to help students and come up with this cynical aspect of paying for it by, once again, attacking women's health, in this case adding children on--children's immunizations, women's screenings for breast and cervical cancer and birth defects. This is insidious. This is ridiculous on this. And we should move forward and do the right thing.

The fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little bit the last time, as the Speaker mentioned, but left largely intact. This one would wipe out the entire fund, twice the amount of money necessary in order to fund what they're purporting to do because they are ideologically going after the health care bill.

We need to make sure that women's health care and children's health care is protected. We need to make sure the interest rates stay low. We are certain we can do that. It won't be done by doing it this way. And Members in the Senate will have to work in conference to make sure that we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense, and it's something we can do. There's 250 tax expenditures in the Tax Code, 250--$1.3 trillion. We can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction here and do it in a way that all of America can get behind and both parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that in 2007, the bill was paid for. In fact, it was paid for, and 77 members of the Republican Party agreed as well. Now it is time to pay for it in an intelligent and correct manner.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to address the fact that the elimination of the fund would mean that on an annual basis, 326,000 fewer women would be screened for breast cancer.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' long-term fix, of course, was voted on a couple of weeks ago in their budget which allowed for the rates to go up to 6.8 percent and took away the in-school subsidy for interest rates, driving students' costs even further up. That's why we're here today.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Before yielding further, I'm going to take 15 seconds and yield that to myself.

Mr. Speaker, this supposed slush fund the people are talking about is a fund identified and given Appropriations Committee authority to designate where it would be spent. That authority was advocated by our friends on the other side, and the Secretary has in fact specified every year where the money be spent: $326,000 in screenings for breast cancer; $284,000 for cervical cancer screenings; $10,000 for breast and cervical cancer; and so on down the line.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader of the House from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Before I yield, I do want to correct the gentleman. There is somebody around here who gets a free lunch under your bill, and that would be the oil companies, which made $80 billion in profits last year.

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I just note that it was common sense about 2 weeks ago and almost the entire Republican Party voted to let the rate go to 6.8 percent. It's nice to see that they've found some reality here.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I note that I was at that education meeting and heard the Secretary say very quite clearly that no child who gets an immunization under this program will get an immunization under this program if the fund is eliminated. Mrs. Biggert, of course, analyzed the taking a little bit of the money and equating that with taking and wiping out the entire fund.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Will the gentleman yield? That is an empty challenge.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have addressed my remarks to the Chair and taken the challenge if it had been anything other than an empty challenge and would have noted that Secretary Sebelius and the administration know clearly that those funds would have been diminished and that thousands of screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer would have been passed by, hundreds of thousands, in the administration's own analysis on that.

With that, I ask the Chair for the time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I have at least five more speakers.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

Congress Must Not Eliminate Prevention and Public Health Fund

Statement of the American Lung Association

Washington.--Some in Congress are trying to force the

nation to choose between health and education. The House of

Representatives is poised to vote on a measure to eliminate

the lifesaving Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for

keeping student loan rates down. The American Lung

Association fiercely opposes any attempts to divert or cut

the Prevention Fund. The Affordable Care Act established the

Prevention Fund to promote wellness, to prevent disease, and

to protect against public health emergencies.

America should not have to choose between protecting the

health of its citizens and making higher education more

affordable. Congress must reject this ill-conceived approach.

The student loan interest rate issue can and must be resolved

without undermining the health of millions of Americans.

The Prevention Fund is already helping Americans across the

country to make healthier choices and to take responsibility

for their own health and the health of their families.

Because of the Prevention Fund, states and communities are

now able to help more people quit smoking through cessation

programs and improve lung health by preventing and treating

lung diseases, including COPD, lung cancer, and asthma. It is

also allowing states and communities to monitor outbreaks of

infectious diseases, such as influenza, and enhance

prevention services in low-income and underserved

communities.

Quitting smoking is the single most important thing a

smoker can do to improve their health status. The Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Tips from Former

Smokers media campaign, which was underwritten by the

Prevention Fund, has already resulted in tens of thousands of

additional calls to 1 800 QUIT NOW by smokers seeking help

with quitting. This is tangible evidence of the Prevention

Fund having a positive impact.

Prevention programs work. Prevention save lives and helps

keep people healthy. Congress must not play politics with our

nation's health. The American Lung Association strongly urges

Congress to reject this absurd choice.

Erika Sward,

Director, National Advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in July, and to pay for that by cutting the subsidies to Big Oil instead of, as the Republicans do, continuing their all-out assault on women's health.

So much of the time that we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to America's working families as they're struggling to make ends meet. Imagine them around their kitchen tables as we talk about this, that, and the other thing that seems disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. What we're talking about today directly relates to what keeps people up at night: their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families. The list goes on. Some of those are addressed in this legislation.

I think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children.

Imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family, as we are, and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college, we're not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventative care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer--the list goes on and on--for your mom or any other preventative care for men and women in your family. It just would be wrong.

Who are we as a Nation, if that's a statement of our values, to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family? It is just not right. Especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over again.

But let me put it in context. In 2007, the Democratic majority in the House, working in a bipartisan fashion with our Republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rate to 3.4 percent. We were very proud of that legislation passing with 77 members of the Republican Party voting with the Democratic majority. The bill was signed by then-President George W. Bush, and we all celebrated that legislation.

That is expiring in July, and if no action is taken, those interest rates of 3.4 will go back to the level of 6.8 percent. We had been making that argument over and over again, which is that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way that enables them to acquire a higher education should they desire and be qualified to do so and if that is in their interests and in their families' priorities.

Republicans have grown impatient, they've said, with hearing about student loans--don't look at us--until the President went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, which is that in the Republican budget--the Ryan-Republican-Tea Party budget--it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. In the House Democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4 percent--a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table and if you have a college-aged child.

It's about the children and the debts they incur. It's about the families and the parents and the debts that their families incur. Because the President took the issue to the American people, he made the issue too hot to handle, so the Republicans this week are doing an about-face for what they did last week, to vote overwhelmingly for their budget, which now has enabled the interest rates on student loans, the Stafford loans, to double. An about-face.

But what did they do? They said, Okay, we won't allow it to double, but we're going to take the money from women's health.

It should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing assault on women's health. This is in their budget, and this is just a continuation of that; but I think it's important to note the following: that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent; they say, while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. Let's eliminate the entire fund for the prevention, for the immunization, for the screening, and for the rest--for the CDC to do its public health work. Let's eliminate it.

So that should tell you something about where their priorities are if they're saying, We stand here, once again, handmaidens of the oil industry, protecting subsidies for Big Oil, and instead we want Mom and the children to pay the price with their health. It's just not right. It's just not right. The President made it clear to the public the difference in our approaches on the student loan issue. Now he has made it clear that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for.

Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground in a way to pay for this critical policy, the Statement of Administration Policy says:

This bill includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and

Public Health Fund, which was created to help prevent

disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they

become severe. Women, in particular, will benefit from this

prevention fund, which would provide for hundreds of

thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer.

This is already happening. This would have to stop under this bill. So let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillments, whatever they decide those are; so we can be competitive in the world market; so we can have an informed electorate in the spirit of the GI Bill, which educated our soldiers when they came home and created a middle class in our country, which is the backbone of our democracy. In a global economy, it is even more necessary for us to be able to have the skills and trained workforce to compete.

Let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the education of the American people. Whether it's early childhood, K 12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning--nothing brings more money to the Treasury. So it would be a false economy to deter people from seeking more education. It's also adding insult to injury to say, now that we've finally had to fold on the issue and agree with the Democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4 instead of doubling them to 6.8, we're going to put women and children first as those who will pay for that. It's just not right.

I congratulate the President for his message to the American people and for the message of his administration in his Statement of Administration Policy that a veto would be recommended. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand the fix that the Republicans are in after just over a week ago almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4 percent interest rate to students, and in adopting the Ryan Republican budget, agreeing to let it go out to 6.8 percent. In fact, they use that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy they anticipate in their budget. So they took students' money, and the families and the savings that they were made out of--almost $16 billion over the last 4 years--and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8 percent. President Obama went on the road for 3 days, and all of a sudden Republicans have decided that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent.

You can say all of this is cynical, and I believe it is on their part, because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. They see their position of being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer, to attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects, to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. So now, under the cover of being for student loans, they now are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion.

But you know, every now and then in this place--where it's terribly partisan; it can be very cynical, as we see with this action today with this bill--a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and understanding. We see today that we have statements by almost all of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4 percent, but we do not want it kept at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parents' health, our mothers' health, our sisters' health, our friends' health.

So we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a timeout and they say find another way to pay for this.

But don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants. Don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease.

Don't do it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer, where the difference can mean life or death for those women. Don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the backs of our students. Don't do it in our name. In our name, don't do this legislation.

Vote ``no'' against this. We'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. That's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

American Diabetes Association,

April 26, 2012.

Tomorrow, Friday, April 27, your Representative will cast a

vote that will impact the future of programs that improve

public health and prevent diabetes.

Take action now to protect vital public health and

prevention programs!

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in

2010 as a national investment in prevention and public health

programs over ten years. It is from this fund that the

National Diabetes Prevention Program received its initial

funding. But Members of Congress will be voting tomorrow on

whether to fully repeal this vital fund, gutting efforts to

prevent diabetes and improve our nation's overall health!

We need to make sure diabetes programs and prevention

efforts don't get slashed. Tell your legislators RIGHT NOW to

oppose HR 4628!

Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and another 79

million are on the brink of developing the disease.

Prediabetes, diabetes and its complications already cost the

nation an estimated $218 billion annually and this cost is

expected to grow. If current trends continue, by the year

2050 one in three American adults will have diabetes.

Diabetes prevention is an example of an effort that can save

both lives and money. If brought to scale, it is estimated

that the NDPP will save $191 billion in health care costs

over ten years! The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a

critical source of potential funding for the NDPP.

Take this chance to make your voice heard and tell your

Representative to oppose any efforts to eliminate the

Prevention and Public Health Fund!

Sincerely,

L. Hunter Limbaugh,

Chair of the Board,

American Diabetes Association.

A college student sits in the financial aid office worried about her interest rate doubling on July 1. A woman sits in the waiting room of the health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. A corporate executive sits in a boardroom of an oil company waiting to get his tax break from the Federal Government.

Everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid the loan increase. The bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the interest rate increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic and deny her the cancer screening. We say the way to do it is to go to the corporate executive in the oil company boardroom and deny him his tax giveaway from the Federal Treasury.

The way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down health for the women of this country. The way to pay for it is to shut down the giveaway of taxpayer dollars to the oil industry of this country. That's the way to fix the problem, and that's the way we eventually will.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

Campaign for

Tobacco-Free Kids,

Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: We are

writing to express our opposition to eliminating the

Prevention and Public Health Fund, a provision in H.R. 4628,

the Interest Rate Reduction Act. Eliminating this funding for

evidence-based prevention programs is an unwise choice for an

offset for this legislation. Only by investing in prevention

can the nation reduce the burden that preventable diseases

are placing on our families, health care system, and

government budgets.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund was created to

transform our nation's health system into one that values

prevention of disease as highly as treatment of disease. It

was intended to provide a stable source of funding for

prevention programs, which have been chronically underfunded

despite their capacity to avert disease, save lives, and

restrain the rate of growth of health care costs.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death and

disease in the United States. More than 400,000 people die

each year because of tobacco use, and more than 8 million

Americans are currently living with a tobacco-caused disease.

Tobacco use is responsible for nearly $100 billion in health

care costs each year. Reducing tobacco use would reduce

premature deaths and the costs of treating tobacco-caused

cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

Fortunately, there are proven programs and policies to

reduce tobacco use, such as telephone-based quitlines that

provide counseling and cessation products to people who want

to quit, public education media campaigns that educate about

the dangers of tobacco use, and state and community-based

programs that involve community organizations and businesses

in prevention efforts. Investing in comprehensive tobacco

control programs pays dividends. The state of Washington's

tobacco control program saved more than $5 for every $1 it

spent between 2000 and 2009 by reducing hospitalizations for

heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and cancer caused

by tobacco use.

In March, the CDC used the Prevention and Public Health

Fund to launch the government's first-ever, paid, nationwide

media campaign to encourage smokers to quit and prevent

children from starting to smoke. Public health authorities

such as the Surgeon General, the National Cancer Institute,

and the Institute of Medicine have all concluded that media

campaigns work. The first results of the new CDC media

campaign are promising: calls to state quitlines more than

doubled during the two weeks after the ads began running.

We urge you to oppose H.R. 4628 and its elimination of the

Prevention and Public Health Fund. The Prevention Fund was

already cut by more than $6 billion by Congress earlier this

year. Cutting prevention funding is penny wise and pound

foolish. Not investing in prevention now will mean higher

medical bills later. We urge you to protect the Prevention

and Public Health Fund.

Sincerely,

Matthew L. Myers,

President.