Student Loan Relief Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York, my friend (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 202 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 807. This rule provides for discussion opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States for generations to come by ensuring that our Nation will never default on our debt obligations.

Functionally, H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act of 2013, ensures that the Treasury Department will continue to make payments on the principal and interest of our debt, including debt held by the Social Security trust fund, in the event that the statutory debt limit is reached. Requiring the Treasury to make good on its obligations to the Social Security trust fund will ensure that those funds are available to honor our commitment to seniors and disabled Americans.

Moreover, H.R. 807 provides certainty to investors, small businesses, retirees, pension beneficiaries, and international markets that we will never negatively impact our economy by allowing this Nation to default on its debts.

In the larger sense, it is our opportunity to engage, in a public forum, the Treasury Department and the administration on what we believe is the right way to engage in discussions about how we will move forward in uncharted territories as it's dealing with the financial difficulties of our country.

However, today's debate is symptomatic of the larger problem. For far too long, our Federal Government has spent too much money and borrowed too much. We have spent money and not listened to the American people, nor looked ahead at the consequences of spending too much, saving too little, and not creating jobs that will help to sustain the American Dream, the next generation, and the systems which we hold so dear to the American system.

House Republicans however, today, come to the floor, under the leadership of our great Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, and some ideas that have come from Congressman Tom McClintock of California, and we are working on ideas with commonsense solutions to cut wasteful spending, reform entitlement programs, and balance the budget in a way that furthers our country, strengthens what we do, and makes sure we are ready for tomorrow.

Yet at almost every turn, including yesterday, up in the Rules Committee upstairs, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opposed pro-growth agendas and pushed for higher taxes and more spending. It happens almost every single day, every single bill that we bring before the Rules Committee, a demand to increase spending and increase taxes.

Our Nation does not have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem; and until we enact meaningful reforms, we will not improve our dire financial dilemma and the circumstances that come with trying to manage a problem instead of a growth opportunity to make our country stronger.

Today, the American economy is struggling and has been struggling now in our fifth year to regain momentum and is burdened by massive amounts of Federal spending and Federal debt. Allowing our Nation to default would severely hinder what little growth there is, potentially causing the U.S. to slip back into another recession and risk another downgrading of our credit rating.

For these reasons, default is unacceptable; and that is why House Republicans, we think weeks, perhaps months ahead of trying to finally address this issue, we think it's time that our ideas are on the floor of the House of Representatives, talking openly, not just among ourselves and with the administration, but also the American people. And that is the purpose of us being here today.

House Republicans are willing to work with our colleagues in the Senate, as well, and also at the White House; and we'd like to find a compromise that would raise the debt limit, while simultaneously enacting meaningful legislation that will fix our Nation's broken tax system.

We need to create jobs through job enrichment, through a Tax Code that is vibrant and does not harm job creation, that does not do things that would cause people to want to not invest in this country because of taxes that are out of control and spending that harms their business.

So we want to rein in our out-of-control spending and reform our ballooning entitlement programs to preserve them for generations to come. It should be our responsibility.

We, as Members of Congress, were elected by the people, and we should be able to come and face tough issues with good answers. We should not try and scare people back home. We should be able to tell the truth about the legislation, and we need to be honest about the circumstances of the pathway that we remain on because of our President's and the Democrats' agenda.

So, unfortunately, President Obama has already stated that he is unwilling to negotiate with the House or the Senate over the debt limit.

It is this President when he was a Senator who voted repeatedly against a debt limit increase, called it irresponsible and a lack of leadership; and yet today he says just give him all the power, he'll take care of this himself. As such, the bill before us today is a necessary and prudent safety net designed to avoid economic calamity

should we reach the debt limit and not have resolved that between the House, the Senate, and the President.

I applaud Congressman Tom McClintock, my dear friend from California, and our great young chairman from Michigan, Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Each of them brings their work product to the floor today, as well as many of our other colleagues such as my Rules Committee member, the young man from Orlando, Florida, Dan Webster, who brought forth ideas that would help shape not only the legislation that we have today, but the desire of the Republican conference to make sure that we continue to talk about the issues and problems that we see before they become a crisis, before they become something that is unworkable and rather to share our great ideas now. So for the timeless work on this issue, I thank all three of them for working on this bill today.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on the rule, I encourage them to be thoughtful and truthful about the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the Members of Congress that I spoke about that not only brought pieces of this legislation to the Ways and Means Committee but really as part of the debate for our conference and to the American people is our next speaker.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Elk Grove, California (Mr. McClintock).

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

We've had an opportunity once again today, as we did yesterday, to hear from the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. He brought his ideas, the best ideas he had, up to the Rules Committee yesterday on this same issue.

But the issues that the gentleman speaks about are attacking our answers. Their answer that they propose is tax increases and spending increases, and that way we'll simply have more money into the system. Because as we've already heard today just a few minutes ago, the more money we give in unemployment compensation, the more vitality is in our cities, more spending takes place, more unemployment compensation, more vitality, more spending in our cities.

Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to go. The Republican Party does not believe that we should create a permanent underclass of people who receive unemployment compensation or who are afraid of facing the truth about where this country is headed.

The facts of the case are other countries are ahead of us on this curve. Most of them are in Europe, and they ignored the signs that Republicans are here talking about today, the signs of spending too much, relying on its people to raise taxes for them to bring money in, and a big government continuing to put rules and regulations and impediments in front of people.

The facts of the case are simple. We are here today because it is President Obama and the Democrats who spent too much money, who are destroying jobs, and who even today are holding back the Keystone pipeline, what could be thousands of jobs for people in this country, lessen our reliance on other parts of the world for our energy, and bring back American-made jobs. This is exactly why we are having problems.

So, it's the Republican Party that is trying to offer a public discussion, a public debate, including our great Speaker, John Boehner, who says we need to make sure that part of the debate comes down to, if we get to that point, that we pay back the people who loaned us money in the first place. They need to have confidence that they can continue loaning us money because we are still having to borrow a lot of money.

I can think of few things that would be worse than to publicly announce we are going to pay somebody else before we pay back our creditors. That is how creditors no longer lend any money to you.

So, what Republicans are doing is having a public debate. We are bringing this to the floor. And I do recognize our friends on the other side, our Democrat friends, that they want to spend more and tax more. They have never seen enough spending in this place. They want more and more. They are like our President--they have an insatiable appetite to spend people's money. And then, like, literally, somebody who started a fire, is an arsonist, show up as the firefighter, the hero, to say, but I want to save our country.

They created the economic malaise that we have. It is overspending, it's holding back job creation, and Republicans are going to stand on the floor and have this debate with the media and the American people and the administration and say, let's know what we are going to do when we get there months ahead of time so that we don't falter like we did some time ago, and take on the President's idea again of sequestration only to have him argue against his own idea later and then try to mislead the American public what this whole issue is about. It's about the economic demise of the United States of America and how we are having to work here to make sure that we publicly discuss this before it becomes too late.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge Mr. Cooper's presence here today. His idea was valid and, in fact, was utilized in what we have done.

The slight difference of how I'd like to describe this to the gentleman is: we did not say that Members cannot be paid. What we said is that no new debt can be used to pay Members. So, if we're spending 40 percent too much money today and if 60 percent were coming in, we could be paid out of that amount, but we could not be paid out of the debt-side amount, which is what this legislation is about and why this legislation is germane.

I do thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for his idea that Members of Congress should equally suffer or equally gain as the American people have. In this circumstance, it's a loss for all of us, and that is why Chairman Camp included this as an amendment. It was to make sure that we clarified: As part of this bill, Members of Congress could not be paid with new debt that was being brought to the United States.

So I hope that clarifies not only the success that we believe that Mr. Cooper brought with his ideas but also the intent of what this legislation actually does, what we spoke about in the Rules Committee and the fine line between paying a Member and whether it comes from new debt or whether it comes from operating entities that would be within the 60 percent that would not be the new debt. I hope this clarifies not only what we are trying to do but that we speak forthrightly to Members about what this legislation actually is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the Member from the Fifth District of Texas, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Except for my final close, I do not. And I thank the gentlewoman.

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

I have been around this place a long time, and I've heard of people who did not read bills. I have heard of people who did not understand bills, but I have never seen a circumstance such as today where the truth was being held hostage.

The facts of the case are very simple. Republicans today are offering a mechanism to the President of the United States and the American people that says, if we do get in a circumstance where we do not extend our debt to further allow the Federal Government to buy more debt to pay its obligations, then we offer this opportunity, and that is that the government can, even when we're in a circumstance where we cannot borrow more money, and let's say we spend 60 percent that we get money in but 40 percent is the debt that we can no longer have available to pay our obligations, about a 60/40 split, then we're allowing the Federal Government to go borrow more debt to pay its obligations so that it doesn't compete against the money that does come in to pay the bills of the United States as the President of the United States would choose.

I've never heard of a more reasonable option. We're not telling the President how to spend the money. We're giving authorization for new debt to pay our debt obligations. That's not cutting people off. It's not truthful to say we're going to do that. Anybody that tells you that didn't read the bill.

What this is about is to say, if we go into a debt circumstance where we cannot come to an agreement, then we are authorizing the Federal Government, the Treasury, to go get more debt, only enough to pay debt obligations to where we do not default, and then we work on the circumstances of how much money comes in.

This has been miscast. The truth has been held hostage, and I am disappointed in Members of Congress who came down here and misled the American people about what this bill is. It is nothing more than allowing the Treasury to go borrow money to pay its already obligations to people who loaned us money. It says nothing about how they will pay normal bills to people. And to come to this floor and to suggest this is simply a disservice to the obligations I think that we have to be open and honest about what our job is.

I urge my colleagues to understand the simplification of what this bill is about, to not try to twist it to have it become something that it is not. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in little more than a month, the interest rates on loans to millions of the neediest students will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. With that doubling, those that can afford it least will be burdened with more debt. With total student loan debt already surpassing $1 trillion, this Congress needs to stop that interest rate hike, that doubling of the interest rates.

But rather than make it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, this Congress this day in this Chamber is debating a bill--I know people won't believe this--but we're debating a bill to make it more expensive for families and students to achieve a college education. At a time when college costs are rising and historic low interest rates, the majority is asking us to accept a bill that would increase interest rates. And even though the student interest rate is scheduled on July 1 to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, the bill presented on this floor today is worse than that for students and their families. It increases the drag on the economy that the student debt is to families and to young people trying to seek a job and to seek to form family.

This bill is so bad that it means more than the doubling of the interest rates. How do you think that has anything to do with the market rates? According to the Congressional Research Service, when they look at this bill, you can see that under current law interest rates, they would pay $4,000. And they are doubling to 6.8 percent, so they'd pay $8,800 in interest rates. And under the Republican bill, families would pay more than $10,000 in interest. How can that possibly be in the interest of these families? How can that possibly be happening in this economy when people are struggling with interest rates? It cannot be allowed.

You can see here that the parents who may have to contribute something, they would take out a loan to

help their child complete a college education, they are going to pay more than $35,000 over the life of those loans than under the current law, and that's what we've got to stop from happening.

And so what you see is when it is all said and done, this bill asks students over the next few years to pay more than $3.7 billion, almost $4 billion, in increased interest rates. No wonder this poor student has a headache. No wonder this parent is pounding on his head thinking, What am I going to do?

But what do they say? They say we have a market rate here. We have a market rate. Well, many in America, certainly middle class families and many low-income families, will remember the last time when we had this kind of market rate because what they have, they have a teaser rate. For your first year, they'll have a lower interest rate. So you have a teaser rate. But you know that next year that teaser rate adjusts so you don't get that rate because next year you get a new rate. And when you're a sophomore in college and you take out another loan, you get a new rate, a higher rate. And when you're a junior, you take out a loan, and you get a higher rate. And when you graduate, they take all of your loans together and give you a higher rate. Does that sound familiar to people? That's the marketplace. That's the marketplace when you choose to crush the people who are borrowing the money.

The President has the market rate. The chairman has said many times the President is looking to use the markets to set a realistic rate. But as he sets the rate, it's deficit neutral. As he sets the rate, the amendment we tried to offer was deficit neutral. He saves those students and families about $30 billion over the life of those loans. You get the difference? Yes, the market's the market. But you can pick the worst of the market, and you can pick the best of the market. They've chosen to pick the worst of the market for these students.

Now they had options. Republicans last night in the Rules Committee had options. Mr. Courtney offered an amendment to keep rates at 3.4 percent. They rejected it.

I offered the President's market approach. They rejected that.

Then Mr. Heck from the Republican side of the aisle from Nevada offered to say let's provide an incentive to make sure that students in fact continue to pay on time, as they should, as the market would do because you want to incent good behavior because you get more of it. They rejected that.

Mr. Rice of South Carolina went before them. He's a member of the Republican caucus, very concerned about interest rates in this legislation, very concerned about what's going to happen to these families. He thought he could lower the interest rates within their bill, within the market rates, stick with the market principle. They said ``no.''

So all you get today is whether or not you want a solution that is worse than the doubling of the interest rates on July 1. That's not an answer for America's families. That's not an answer for America's students.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee.

May I inquire of the Chair of the time remaining on both sides?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

I have no further speakers.

Is the chairman the last speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank all of my colleagues who entered into the debate here this morning on this legislation. I think it is clear that there is a very big difference between our positions on this legislation; there's a very big difference between the President's bill, who is trying to use a market system, and this bill before us, Mr. Kline's bill, that uses a market system.

The fact is that the President's bill saves students billions of dollars, but the Republicans would not make President Obama's bill in order for consideration. Why not? They say it's like they're doing the same thing as the President. Well, they're not. In fact, they're adding $4 billion worth of debt onto the backs of students over their program.

And how can they possibly do that? You've heard my colleagues on this side of the aisle speak to the issues that we hear all of the time when we go home. The struggle of students, the struggle of families, be they low-income, be they middle-income, to get access and to be able to complete a college education, to get access to a community college, to a State college system, to get a certificate, to get a degree that will allow them to participate in the American society, in the American economy. That's part of the American Dream.

Yes, we lowered the interest rates to 3.4 percent, and they've held over a period of years. And they held over those exact same years when families were under the most stress because of this recession that was created on Wall Street and the scandals that took away 70 percent of the wealth of African American and Hispanic families in this country, that destroyed the equity and good chunks of middle America because of teaser rate loans, subprime loans.

And what is happening today in the private market? The banks are getting money from the Treasury at 0.75 interest, and they're loaning it to families in private student loans. If you have good credit, they'll loan it to you for somewhere around 7 percent.

Bankers used to go die and go to heaven if they could get a 7 percent spread. That's how you become a billionaire. Get it at 0.75 and put it out at 7. And if your credit rating is not so good, those statistics sort of suggest you drift towards 13 percent.

Obviously, the students and middle class can't survive in that market for the most part, and that's why we have a student loan program. That's why we took this program away from the banks a number of years ago. We took the $60 billion that we were giving to the banks to loan the public's money to students and we said why don't we put that to use for families, and we did.

And we lowered the interest rates, and we increased the participation in the Pell Grants, made it available. We increased some loan limits. We gave people a chance to manage their debt after they graduated, so the more you earn, the more you pay, but you don't get crushed on your first job that may not have the best salary, even though it's the career you want to go in and it takes time to get that salary. We made it more affordable for America's families.

Yes, we lowered the debt to 3.4 percent. It was paid for, and that's all we could afford. Congress will make that decision. Last year, the Congress made a decision to extend it. This year, they've decided that they don't want to extend it on the other side of the aisle. So, fine, come up with a plan. But the plan they came up with is worse than having the 3.4 percent double on July 1.

How can you develop a plan that's worse for students? I guess maybe if you go home and everybody in your district is working and everybody is participating in this slow-growing economy that's getting better. I don't know. Families I represent, they're still struggling. The recession hasn't left town. The recession hasn't left the country.

If you pick up The Wall Street Journal today, there's greater concern about what's happening in China dragging down the world economy, there's greater concern about the Europeans dragging down the world economy. America is trying to struggle and the students are trying to struggle, and we're going to come along and more than double the rate.

We're going to give them a teaser rate, though. This next September when families go out and they get a rate, it will be probably somewhat lower than the current rate. But that loan will be adjusted, and they don't know what those rates are going to be. As long as they're paying on that loan, that loan will continue to be adjusted. We just saw that history in America. We saw what that did.

I don't have a problem going to a market system. How about a fair one? When the President went to a market system for the subsidized Stafford loan, he said on the market system we'll go to 0.9. They said they would go to 2.5--10 years plus 2.5. The President said 10 years plus 0.9.

There are a lot of ways to go to a market system. You don't have to punish the American family. You don't have to punish the students in school to go to a market system. I wish the President had a cap. The gentleman has a cap. This could be worked out, but we don't do things bipartisanly anymore in the Congress of the United States. So, because we can't get the President and the majority on the Education and the Workforce Committee to sit down and work out the market system--because that's not allowed and

we don't do bipartisan work--the victims are going to be the families and the students, and, in the long term, our Nation.

Every Member of Congress has come to this floor and has said how important this education system is to our future economic growth, to competing in a globalized world, to have innovation, to have discovery, to have job creation. We're now creating a drag on job creation. We're now creating a drag on the opportunities for families. We are creating a drag on the ability to achieve the American Dream--and a college education is part of that dream, but a college education is also critical to keeping this economy and this society moving.

I would hope that my colleagues, whether they are committed to a market rate or not, would understand that this is a very flawed market rate.

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

I want to congratulate the gentlewoman for offering this motion to recommit. I think she goes right to the heart of the matter, and that is the uncertainty that is being presented by the legislation on the floor today.

Other Members tried to deal with this issue of uncertainty. Mr. Heck from Nevada tried to deal with this uncertainty by providing an incentive for those students who borrowed money and were able to pay 4 years on steady payments to give them incentive to continue to do that. Mr. Rice of South Carolina sought to have a lower rate.

This lower rate isn't chiseled in granite. This isn't the market rate. This is a choice of the Republican Members of the committee to choose these rates. Mr. Rice thought this time couldn't we have the lower rate to begin with, but the Rules Committee turned that out. Then Obama's plan was offered, and they turned that out.

So now we're stuck, and that's why we need this motion to recommit, to do as the gentlewoman from Arizona has said: to protect the students from the escalation of their interest rates, to protect the students from the escalation of the cost of college.

These are families and students. Companies and colleges create calculators to try to show students what it will cost over 4 years. This legislation takes all of that uncertainty out for families: how they set money aside, how they save money, how they borrow money. Those calculators don't work with this variable rate, and this variable rate can go on and on and on and on. That's the problem here.

This is a big choice for most families. I appreciate for some families that it's not a big deal as they've got enough money. From where I live, my family, people around me, my neighbors, this is a big choice and commitment to finance the education of your children. That's why this motion to recommit from the gentlewoman from Arizona is so important. There should be truth in lending for America's students, truth in lending for America's families, and we should get rid of the rates that will just punish them and crush them into the future as they graduate from college and they seek to participate in the American economy and in a career of their choice with the talents that we need as a Nation.

I want to thank the gentlewoman so very much.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 266 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dilatory tactic and has nothing to do with our bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 266? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is a dilatory tactic.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before. This is a dilatory tactic, and we should be moving on to the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking the question.

What I think most Americans would wonder, Mr. Speaker, is where is the due process for the millions of babies who are murdered every year in this country by these unconscionable tactics of abortion.

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 266 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and general debate for H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for general debate of H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the FARRM Bill. This legislation provides for a 5-year authorization of Federal agriculture and nutrition policy.

H.R. 1947 makes necessary reforms and updates to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, as well as Federal agriculture policy. It is important to make commonsense changes to these programs to ensure their viability and that they remain targeted to those most in need of assistance. This year's version of the farm bill has gone through regular order, including numerous hearings at the Agriculture Committee, a full committee markup and amendment process.

Additionally, the Rules Committee has received hundreds of amendments from Members seeking to further improve the bill during floor consideration. House Republicans remain committed to an open, transparent process; and I am pleased to say we're continuing that commitment with the consideration and process for the FARRM Bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that my colleague from New York knows this, but I will make sure it gets into the Record.

In the 2007 case of Gonzales v Carhart, the Supreme Court made clear that there is a ``legitimate interest of the government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.'' The Supreme Court has also made clear that ``the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,'' and that Congress may show such respect for the unborn through ``specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.''

Mr. Speaker, I am really troubled by the fact that so many of my colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge that we're dealing with human life in this situation, in the situation of abortion. My heart goes out to any woman who is facing a situation where they're considering abortion. I think every member of our conference feels that way--men and women. Nobody takes the issue of abortion lightly. Unfortunately, not enough attention is being paid to the unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield, now, 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.--Congressman--Fleming.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are accusing us of, we're talking about the beginning of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Madam Speaker, there's a lot of talk about rights here today and very little talk about the right to life for the babies that are being aborted.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Madam Speaker, this bill is not borne of ignorance but of extremely deep-felt concern for unborn children who suffer pain as they are being murdered.

Madam Speaker, I fear for the conscience of our Nation because the termination of unborn children for any reason is tolerated in some parts of our country throughout pregnancy, even though scientific conclusions show infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks' gestation. That means literally that a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion, the most common second-trimester abortion wherein a steel tool severs limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed.

Madam Speaker, it's even difficult for me to describe this procedure without getting emotional. These procedures are horrific, and in terms of pain, like torture to their infant subjects. As

a country, we should leave this practice behind. That's why I'm a cosponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions in the United States past 20 weeks. Since 1973, approximately 52 million--52 million, Madam Speaker--children's lives have been tragically aborted in the United States. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us.

H.R. 1797 rejects that hypocrisy and provides commonsense protections for unborn children who feel pain, just as you and I do. My colleague and friend from Arizona, Representative Trent Franks, is a champion for the unborn, and I commend him for authoring this legislation, which prohibits an abortion of an unborn child that has surpassed 20 weeks after fertilization.

In light of the recent conviction of Philadelphia-based, late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of first-degree murder in the case of three babies born alive in his clinic and then killed through a procedure he called ``snipping,'' which involved Gosnell inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord, a procedure that was reportedly routine in his clinic, we cannot stand idly by.

Madam Speaker, some would have us think that Gosnell is an anomaly or an outlier. However, after his conviction, more individuals have stepped forward to expose similar practices in other States. Americans should be asking how different are these snipping procedures from abortions performed throughout clinics in the country. Unfortunately, there is little difference between these procedures. The practice of murdering viable, unborn children who can feel pain must end. I urge my colleagues to join me in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves and vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, even Kermit Gosnell's own defense attorney, having gone through all the evidence at trial, said:

I've come out of this case realizing that 24 weeks is a bad

determiner. It should be more like 16, 17 weeks. That would

be a far better thing, and I think the law should be changed

to that. I think pro-choice would have still the right to

choose, but they've got to choose quicker.

We are talking here, Madam Speaker, about the beginning of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we will use the balance of our time.

No, Madam Speaker. I'm not just yet ready to close, but if my colleague is ready to close--

Is the gentlewoman from New York ready to close? I thought that was the question she was asking.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as advances in medical science result in improved treatments and personalized medicine, the development of unborn children is further understood. Doctors can perform lifesaving surgeries on babies still in the womb at earlier points in the pregnancy than ever before.

When a baby is born prematurely, medical innovation is increasing the likelihood of that baby's survival. Babies born as early as 20 weeks post-fertilization are being cared for in neonatal units across the country.

By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. The baby responds the same way you and I respond to pain, by recoiling from it.

As Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, who is considered the leading expert in the field of fetal pain, stated in a report accepted by a Federal judge as expert testimony:

It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability

to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not

earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more

intense than that perceived by term newborns or older

children.

Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and injections. Recognizing this discomfort, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgeries.

According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to a painful dismemberment abortion, which involves inserting a long steel tool into the woman and grabbing, usually an arm or a leg, tearing it from the baby's body and pulling it out of the mother. The procedure is repeated as the baby is torn, limb from limb, until his or her entire body has been removed and the head is finally crushed and removed. The dismemberment abortion is the most common method of abortion in the second trimester.

Another abortion procedure involves injecting digoxin and/or potassium chloride into the baby's heart, which induces cardiac arrest, and the baby's killed.

Madam Speaker, it's important that the American people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' It is a heart-wrenching, painful procedure that tears a baby limb from limb before crushing his or her head, or it is a poisonous chemical injection.

A March 2013 poll conducted by a polling company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger.

Supporters included 47 percent of those who identified themselves as pro-choice in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain.

Madam Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb by limb in the womb is performed in our country. That is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 1797 and protect the lives of these unborn children from this excruciating pain.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the evidence of the unborn pain research.

Madam Speaker, I now reserve the balance of my time.

Fetal Pain: The Evidence

[From www.doctorsonfetalpain.org, Mar. 14, 2011]

The eleven points below summarize the substantial medical

and scientific evidence that unborn children can feel pain by

20 weeks after fertilization.

1: Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child's entire body by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization and

nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical

plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization.

Madam Speaker, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well and as our colleague from Connecticut has acknowledged, the House has passed a bill to take care of the issue of student loan rates doubling on July 1; however, the Senate has refused to act on the bill. What we passed was what the President asked for in his budget, and he has suddenly flip-flopped on the issue and doesn't support it anymore.

The House has done its job. We're now waiting for the Senate and the President to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area. We've not been frivolous about this. We are not ignoring the issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Texas, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I really begin, I want to make clear that what the President said in his statement of disapproval and veto, that he would not negotiate over this foolish bill, that he was not going to negotiate what to do if we go into default because his intent, as well as the intent of the Democratic Party, is not to default.

It's right honest, but instead of really talking about today lifting the debt limit, we're going to discuss the usual do-nothing legislative agenda: let's fiddle while Rome burns and pass a one-House bill that the Senate will never touch and the President will never see, which is what we do here once, sometimes twice, a week.

But today, I think they've really outdone themselves. Instead of wasting time on a bill that can be characterized as redundant like we do the 35, 36 times that we vote against health care, the majority is now considering legislation that treads into the realm of the precarious.

Regardless of whether the legislation before us is approved by this Chamber, the very fact that the majority is proposing policies to manage the economic default is by itself a threat to our economy. Both the Treasury and outside experts have made clear that picking and choosing which debts we pay is legally questionable and logistically impossible.

The President has, as my colleague said, warned that in the highly unlikely event that this bill reaches his desk, he will unequivocally veto it. But instead of listening to this fact, the majority is moving ahead with a proposal and a debate that puts us on the road to default. They do so even as The Washington Post reports this morning that the economy is improving, revenues are up and spending is down, which undermines the stream of doom that we hear. But today the irresponsible actions of the majority are, once again, needlessly encouraging the economic recovery.

Let me be clear: the legislation does not raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way to take away the threat of default; but, instead, the bill guarantees that when we hit the debt ceiling, our foreign creditors and the Social Security trust fund will be paid in full while the well-being of millions of Americans--vendors and people we owe legitimate debts to--are left to chance.

Under this legislation, the majority is actively putting the interests of China before millions of Americans, including Active military servicemembers, veterans, and even the men and women who clean the floors of the Capitol and fold napkins in the Members' dining room. Every single one of these citizens relies upon their paycheck and upon the United States Government to pay the debts in order to put the food on their tables and to make ends meet.

With today's bill, the majority is proposing that the welfare of these Americans be left to chance while they protect China and foreign bondholders from the threat of default. In addition, the majority is endangering the regular payments owed to infrastructure projects, food safety inspectors, education programs, and public health research. It is a reckless plan that would directly hurt the most vulnerable members of society who already struggle in the sequestration to get by.

Furthermore, the act of choosing whom we will repay when we default on our debt is in and of itself an act that will threaten to throw our economy back into recession. During the recent hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, the MIT economist Simon Johnson warned that if we default on even a portion of our debt, the unemployment rate would more than double, countless companies would go out of business, and investors would flee the United States.

Meanwhile, The Economist magazine has written:

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would force immediate

spending cuts equal to 6 percent of GDP. Not only would that

threaten to send the economy back into recession; it would

also deprive doctors, pensioners, contractors, and millions

of others the money needed to meet their own obligations and

set off a chain reaction of defaults. Even a few days'

default would roil the global financial system which relies

on Treasuries in countless transactions. The mere possibility

could incite skittish investors to dump their holdings,

driving up interest rates.

Tony Fratto, a former spokesperson for President George W. Bush, said:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contractual payments, and so forth in order

to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political

catastrophe.

It should be clear by now that the act of even bringing a bill such as this to the floor for debate can scare investors and endanger our economy. This type of economic brinksmanship is extremely dangerous. The majority's games are compounded by their uninterest in repealing the sequester. As we speak, the sequester is preventing thousands of cancer patients from receiving lifesaving treatment and keeping thousands more children from receiving the education--I think 70,000 is the figure--through the Head Start program. These are some of the devastating cuts that don't go away simply because the majority refuses to take action and repeal the sequester in full.

Tragically, the majority's willingness to endanger our economy is not new. In August of 2011, the majority headed down the road to default for the first time in our history by threatening to default on our debts. Despite the opportunity to reach compromise with the administration, the majority claimed a zero-sum political game that had serious consequences. And because of their actions, August 2011 was the worst month for job creation in 3 years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 2,000 points, and our Nation's credit rating was downgraded for the very first time. The effects were very real and very dangerous. A responsible legislative body would never head down that road again a second time. But that's exactly what we're doing here today.

For more than 225 years, this Chamber has been dedicated to preserving the order and stability of our government even in the most partisan of times. Despite their differences, generation after generation of legislators has known that when it comes to the integrity of our Nation, we must succeed together or else fall alone.

Dangerously in the last 2 years, the majority has taken step after step to undermine the central pillar of our government, including the proposal that they put forward today. We've frequently done so through a closed legislative process. And while the majority states that today's legislation is moving forward under a structured rule, it is only structured for the Members of the majority.

For the second time this week, the majority is bringing forth a rule that denies consideration of a single Democrat amendment. As a result, we debate a dangerous proposal and one that puts the interests of China before the welfare of the American people and the economic stability of the United States.

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House was asked if the proposal laid before us would indeed pay China before paying U.S. troops. He admitted that it would and said:

Listen, those who have loaned us money, like in any other

proceeding, if you will,

court proceeding, the bondholders usually get paid first. The

same thing here.

That simple statement tells us what we need to know.

I refuse to put China's interests before the interests of the American people, and I refuse to sit silently as the majority moves us one step closer to default.

I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on Ways and Means.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, one of our impressive freshmen, Mr. Huffman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to talk about what it is we're trying to pay for on our side:

Pay and benefits for 1.4 million active duty troops and 780,000 troops in reserves will not be paid while China is paid;

Benefits to 3.4 million disabled veterans;

1.3 million veterans receiving education or home purchasing assistance;

Earned payments to American small businesses;

Payments to 1.1 million doctors and health care practitioners who provide care to seniors with Medicare;

Payments to schools for nutritious lunches served to 32 million children;

Payments to 44,000 National Institutes of Health grantees.

With that, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time?

I thank the gentleman.

Let me introduce the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act.

If Congress doesn't act, next month undergraduate students across the country will see a hike in their student loan interest rates. If my Republican colleagues want to talk about debt priority, this should be a part of the dialogue.

To discuss the proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

The fact that this Chamber has dedicated valuable time and resources to the consideration of an unconstitutional bill that will put our Nation on the road to default is regretful. The fact that this legislation puts the economic interests of China before paying our soldiers' salaries and providing benefits to our veterans is a disgrace.

The plan presented by the majority fails to raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way that we can prevent economic default. Instead, it simply wastes another week of valuable time and the $24 million that it costs to run this House of Congress for a week and moves us that much closer to yet another downgrade in our Nation's credit rating, something that had never happened until this majority assumed control of the House. And now it is actually possible the majority would lead us to the second downgrade of the Nation's credit over the course of 2 short years.

On May 19, our Nation will reach its debt ceiling, and emergency measures would be put into place to delay default. We've seen this film before, and we know how the movie ends--a twisted plot with terrible consequences that come by refusing to pay our bills. I urge my colleagues not to walk down that road again.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues most enthusiastically to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I would like to see this bill withdrawn.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 232, I call up the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, 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. 1911.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

We're here today to address a crisis of Washington's own making. Several years ago, Congress decided politicians, not the free market, were better equipped to set student loan interest rates. Politicians set a fixed rate of 6.8 percent for all loans and then decided to advance legislation based on a campaign promise that would temporarily phase this rate for subsidized Stafford loans down to 3.4 percent.

Last summer, with the expiration of the lower rate scheduled for July 1, 2012, debate about student loans reached a fever pitch. The President began touring college campuses, calling on Congress to prevent the increase that his own party set in motion back in 2007.

As I said at the time, no one wanted to see interest rates double-- particularly at a time when one out of every two college graduates was struggling to find a full-time job. But we need to move away from a system that allows Washington politicians to use student loan interest rates as bargaining chips, creating uncertainty and confusion for borrowers.

When Congress approved legislation to temporarily stave off the Stafford loan interest rate increase, my colleagues and I lent our support with the promise that we would use this time to work toward a long-term solution that better aligns interest rates with the free market.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act accomplishes this goal by simply moving all Federal students loans, except Perkins loans, to a market-based interest rate system. This responsible legislation builds upon a proposal that was actually put forth by the President earlier this year.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a narrow piece of legislation that will provide a lasting solution to the problem facing the Federal student loan program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some critics would rather kick the can down the road and simply extend the current arbitrary rates at a taxpayer cost of roughly $8 billion. They want to continue the failed status quo and leave politicians in charge of setting rates.

Earlier this week, The Washington Post called it a ``weird fact'' that student loan interest rates:

Aren't pegged to anything real, just to the whims of

Congress, which inevitably uses student loans as political

playthings.

Students deserve better. They shouldn't have to watch as Washington holds their interest rates hostage each election year. They shouldn't have to deal with the uncertainty that comes with waiting for politicians to cobble together another temporary fix to keep interest rates in line with the market.

We have an opportunity today to get politicians out of the business of setting student loan interest rates. We have an opportunity to provide students with more stability in the long run by putting an end to quick fixes and campaign promises, and we have an opportunity to build upon common ground with the administration and advance a bipartisan solution that's a win for both students and taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to support the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the vice chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Dr. Roe), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, in order to balance the speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

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

I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as always in these debates, there is a lot of confusion, and there is a lot of misinformation. We are using that old thing about ``figures lie and liars figure,'' and you've got different guesses for interest rates and reports and all those sorts of things, and I want to get into some of that, but some of it is at the core of our differences here. Let's get a couple of things straight.

We watch what has happened as Congress tries to chase an interest rate and gets in political battles year after year. You'll remember that the 6.8 percent that was put in law was considered a good deal. Then there was the plan to take it from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for all loans. It didn't work. It costs a lot of money, and it's added to the debt, which is a problem that is still nagging us to this day. So interest rates were taken from 6.8 to 3.4 percent gradually over years. It got down to the point where, for 1 year, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans--not the unsubsidized Stafford loans, not the PLUS loans, because we didn't have the money for that--took it down to 3.4 percent for 1 year, and then there wasn't enough money. So, by law, the interest rates on those loans went back up to 6.8 percent, and last year, an election year, we had a big political fight, and that's what you can anticipate, apparently, forever as politicians try to use this as a political pawn and fight over what the student loan interest rates ought to be and what can be afforded.

Mr. Speaker, what can be afforded counts because a problem, as I said, that is continuing to nag us is we have a mountain of debt in this country. We've been running deficits year after year of over $1 trillion. We've got over $16 trillion in debt. We have to face that issue here coming before us. So, while we would like all student loan interest rates to be low and as we want to get them as low as we can, we don't want to add to the mountain of debt that's out there.

We thought that it would be a good idea to let the free market determine what those rates ought to be, and we came forward with a proposal, and we talked about our proposal with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--staff to staff, hour after hour--trying to beat this out staff to staff and in talking to the White House and the Department of Education about what we're doing and what they're doing and what might work out. I talked to the Secretary of Education before this bill was ever introduced because I agreed with the President and the Secretary that we needed a long-term solution and to get out of kicking this can down the road with annual--or maybe it's semiannual or biannual--political battles.

So we moved to the market. We used a 10-year Treasury that the White House was proposing using--center Republicans wanted to use a 10-year Treasury--and then we worked it, Mr. Speaker. We worked it and worked it to get it as close to budget-neutral as we could possibly get it because we want to help students, and we wanted to give them certainty, and we wanted them not to rely on the whims of politicians here, and we wanted also not to put the burden on the American people and the taxpayer, and we wanted not to add to that debt. So we tried to get it close to zero.

We've seen charts down here--I love charts, particularly colored charts. We've seen charts down here that say that our bill is adding billions of dollars to student debt. Well, we've got a counterproposal over there. I think the gentleman from California offered it. It's the President's proposal, President Obama's plan. That additional debt to students is $3.1 billion--ours is $3.7 billion--over 10 years. We tried to come together on this. Mr. Speaker, I think we can continue to try to come together on this, and we need to move this forward.

There are a lot of things we need to do to help students. Certainly, one of them is to help graduates get to work. Half of all college graduates now are underemployed or unemployed, doing things, working in places, employing none of the skills that they learned in college. We need to get the economy going. We're still asking, Where are the jobs? We need to get Americans back to work. You can't get Americans back to work if you just keep piling on mountains and mountains and mountains of debt and piles of regulations, but that's a fight for another day. Income-based repayment systems we didn't touch in our bill, but there are some interesting proposals out there we want to look at. Right now, with this bill, we're just trying to determine who is going to set interest rates--politicians here or the market.

So here is what we've heard from the other side today: that Washington should be in charge of setting interest rates on student loans, that Washington should be in the business of creating confusion and uncertainty for student loan borrowers. Washington cannot agree to a long-term solution that will serve the best interests of students and taxpayers. I think we need to keep working to do that.

It was pointed out that the Senate won't act. Well, for many of us in this body, that's not a lot of news, but July 1 is still July 1, and there is an incentive over there, and I believe the Senate must take action. I look forward to working with them to achieve the long-term solution that I think that we all need to see.

It was pointed out that we have a variable rate. The President has a variable rate but then his fixes. Certainly, under our law, when you graduate, if you're in a low-interest environment, you can consolidate those loans and fix them for the duration of however long you're taking to pay off those loans. If it's in a high interest rate environment, you may not want to do that. In the other plan, you've already got a fixed rate.

We believe we can work together. The only way we can continue to work together to solve this is to pass this legislation. Pass it today. I urge my colleagues to reject the failed status quo and to embrace a responsible long-term solution on behalf of students, families, and hardworking American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we're trying to get to a long-term solution on how student loan interest rates are set. I believe the process for that is to pass the underlying legislation here, talk to our Senate colleagues, get them to act so that we can come together and come to a long-term solution.

The gentlelady's motion puts Washington squarely back in the middle of setting student loan interest rates. It's the wrong thing to do. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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