Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act

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, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act because this bill becoming law would be worse than allowing student loan interest rates to double on July 1, 2013.

If Congress does nothing the student loan interest rate will rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1st. As Members of the Congress, we know what this will mean for students in our states and what it will mean for colleges and universities in our Congressional Districts.

The bill H.R. 1911 does not fix the problem of higher interest rates for student loans, but places a greater financial burden on young professionals just starting out in life. The Treasury 10 year rate over the last several years is abnormally low due to the weak economy, but in years when the economy was strong the rate was consistently above 6 percent or more. This is the rate that H.R. 1911 would use to calculate student loan repayment not over the life of the loan, but each time funds were provided.

I have a strong interest in how student loan repayment plans impact graduates. During the last Congress, I introduced the College Literacy in Finance and Economics Act of 2011 or College LIFE Act to address the challenges faced by African American and Hispanic students who sign loan agreements, but may not have the financial literacy to comprehend the significance of taking on long-term debt.

My bill directed that eligible institutions provide financial literacy counseling to borrowers within 45 days after students receive their loan.

Literacy counseling under the College LIFE Act would require: a minimum of two 4-hour counseling sessions, the first when a student receives a loan payment, and the second when student's complete their study.

The focus of financial literacy education under the College LIFE Act was to make sure students knew through counseling what they were agreeing to in signing up for and receiving a student loan.

Counseling would provide information on student education financial options that went beyond loans and included scholarships. Student financial literacy programs can provide insight into information on loan management and the basics of personal financial management.

The bill would have also provided financial education that taught students how to: make a budget, prioritize financial decision making related to how to balance income, expenses and personal spending, develop realistic goals based on income, and manage credit and debt.

Students would have learned how to understand credit scores, credit cards, and investing so that they could become better financial consumers.

The College LIFE Act would have benefited thousands of graduating students. In the City of Houston, this spring I have participated in commencement exercises for the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston Community College and Lone Star College North Harris. There are thousands of new graduates just in the City of Houston alone who are ready to pursue their dreams, but who will wake up to the reality of tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I am proud to call Texas Southern University a constituent of the 18th Congressional District of Houston Texas. Texas Southern University is the third largest Historically Black College and University in the Nation. I joined Texas Southern University's current president Dr. John Rudley at the school's commencement. Texas Southern University has a long proud history of success in the students it has sent forth.

The school was founded in September of 1927 with a loan from the Houston Public School Board. This was not a loan intended to saddle the school with a debt too great to survive. For this reason, along with hard work and the dedication of faculty, students and the Houston Community, the University will celebrate its 86th anniversary this year.

Texas Southern University's loan statistics for the 9700 students attending the school tells us why financial aid is important:

Eighty-one percent of the students attending the school receive some form of student financial assistance.

Texas Southern University received $85 million in student financial aid revenue for graduate and undergraduate students.

Due to a change in how the Department of Education determines eligibility for parent student loans, there are over 400 fewer students attending Texas Southern University this year.

Changes to student loan rules--no matter how minor--can result in major consequences for a young person's prospects for a college or university degree. A college degree can open up a world of opportunities that would otherwise not be available.

I spoke at Texas Southern University's commencement exercise and was pleased to be joined by Michael Strahan, a Texas Southern University Alum who is a co-host of Live with Kelly and Michael.

Not all Texas Southern University graduates are as famous as Michael Strahan, but many

of them pursue careers that lead to personal and professional success. The goal of attending a university should and ought not to be gaining fame and fortune.

The outcome of our work in Congress should not result in crushing financial debt, because that will end the dreams of college for otherwise college-ready students.

In 2008, 62 percent of students who graduated with a baccalaureate degree left college with more than knowledge--they were burdened with debt. Students of every race, ethnicity, and gender struggle with loans.

According to 2008 statistics: 92 percent of African-American students, 85 percent of Hispanic students, 85 percent of Native American students, 82 percent of multiracial students, 80 percent of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Island students, 77 percent of white students, and 68 percent of Asian students received financial aid.

Education is the surest path out of poverty. However, if the changes proposed by H.R. 1911, that would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 are allowed to become law, the cost of education will become more uncertain and much more costly.

The reason, I introduced the College LIFE Act was to deal with the issue of personal financial education that has to proceed or come as a requirement when students take on college education debt.

The bill directed that eligible institutions provide financial literacy counseling to borrowers within 45 days after students receive their loan.

The focus of the financial literacy education under the College LIFE Act was to make sure students knew what they were agreeing to in signing up for and receiving a student loan.

Counseling would provide information on student education financial options that went beyond loans and included scholarships. Student financial literacy programs can provide insight into information on loan management and the basics of personal financial management, such as how to make a budget, prioritizing income, expenses and personal spending, as well as how to develop realistic goals based on income.

These students would have also learned about credit and debt management by understanding the importance of credit scores. Counseling would make sure that students understood credit cards and investing.

The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national priority, not an afterthought. We know that the United States is behind in a wide array of areas related to Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics known as STEM education. The Republican leadership must make the national interest for STEM education a top priority.

Students who are graduating across the Nation are departing colleges and universities this spring with immense debt. Student borrowing is widespread with more than $100 billion in federal education loans distributed every year. In total student loan debt adds up to $1 trillion dollars. As a direct consequence of a weak economy more than ever, students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher education.

The only reliable way in today's economy to earn more is to learn more. During difficult economic times adults seek new careers by going back to school. Parents who want a better life for their children will take on college loan debt because the cost of education requires it.

This is a bad bill that will not solve the problem of out-of-control student loan debt. For the reasons stated, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1911--the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. Mr. Speaker, this terrible bill should instead be called the Making College More Expensive Act because that is exactly what it would do if passed through Congress.

Instead of making college more affordable for students, H.R. 1911 would burden students with an additional $4 billion in loan interest charges relative to current law. According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve, there is plenty of evidence that student loan debt has negatively affected a student borrower's participation in our economy. With the national student loan debt already topping $1.1 trillion, H.R. 1911 would only deepen the college debt crisis students are now experiencing in America.

Over the past couple of years, legislators have been repeatedly warned about the impacts student loan debt has on economic growth. Even the Federal Reserve has identified that student debt is the likely cause of delays by American college graduates in purchasing homes and cars or starting families.

H.R. 1911 is a bait and switch scheme that does nothing to remedy this issue. This bill only makes it more expensive to attend by forcing students and families to accept loans with skyrocketing interest rates that increase annually.

Just this past weekend, students from all over the country in the class of 2013 graduated with an average debt load of $30,000 (Source: Mark Kantrowitz--publisher of FinAid.org analysis). When adjusted for inflation, that's roughly double the average amount of debt students graduated with 20 years ago.

The passage of this bill would continue this trend by changing student loan interest rates from year-to-year based on the 10-year Treasury note, marked up by 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent. As a result of this variable rate, federal student loans taken out by incoming freshmen class of 2013 would at first be at a lower rate; however, by the time this class of freshman graduates in 2017, the interest rate on their loans is projected to be 7.4 percent, more than double today's current 3.4 percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, released a report this month citing the long-term impacts of high student loan debt. The CFPB found ``As a growing number of young consumers have been unable to participate more fully in the housing marketplace, the segment of young consumers that remains interested in becoming first-time homebuyers may face new barriers to homeownership. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) stated that higher student debt burdens ``impair the ability of recent college graduates to qualify for a loan.'' According to NAHB, high student loan debt has an impact on consumers' debt-to- income (DTI) ratio--an important metric for decisions about creditworthiness in mortgage origination.

I have long championed the importance of developing the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators to lead our country boldly in the 21st Century. Yet, the CFPB report found that student loan debt is poising a barrier to young entrepreneurs.

According to the report by CFPB ``For many young entrepreneurs, it is critical to invest capital to develop ideas, market products, and hire employees. Student debt burdens require these individuals to divert cash away from their businesses so they can make monthly student loan payments.'' Is this the future we want for our nation's student borrowers? Instead of building businesses, buying homes, and having families they are being crushed by the weight of student loan debt. This is not the future I want for current and future student borrowers.

Attaining an education is one of our Nation's founding principles. We should be working on finding solutions to lower the cost of education for our nation's youth rather than debating legislation designed to earn another $3.7 billion in revenue from struggling student borrowers. This bill is egregious.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to my Democratic colleagues and I that college affordability is still a pervasive issue in America. It is also clear, that this issue will require more than just a temporary fix. In order for us to maintain our competitive edge as a nation, we need to support every single American who desires to pursue a higher education. Congress needs to pass meaningful legislation that actually solves this problem and not perpetuate it. Let's start by voting no on H.R. 1911 and support our American students by not saddling them with insurmountable debt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, the so- called ``Smarter Solutions for Students Act''. I propose a more accurate title ``The Making Kindergarteners Pay for Our Mistakes Act of 2013.'' I must confess that every time I hear someone say they support austerity for the children, I am forced to question their understanding of economics. I try not to question their motives, but on a day like today--that is a struggle I am hard pressed to win. This bill does little more than turn the United States government into a payday lender--charging students interest that far outstrips the government's cost of lending. Instead of a fixed interest rate, that will let parents and students know how much their education costs, this bill sets interest at a variable, market rate--plus a nice little premium for the government. I wonder what fury my friends across the aisle would raise if we were to treat banks in a similar manner.

This fall's incoming class of students born in 1994 and 1995 was in kindergarten when Republicans seized control of our country and its surplus, and moved us quickly to deficit and debt. While these children were learning how rewarding it was to read, my colleagues across the aisle learned how remunerative it was to pass unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars onto those children. While they let wages stagnate--an act which continues to this day--and they cut funding to schools-- another policy which continues to this day--they reaped millions in campaign contributions from the billionaire's whose taxes they cut, the military contractors to whom they brought billions. Now, my friends across the aisle will vote to ensure students who were five when Republicans started running up the debt, will pay down that debt as the price of going to college.

Today a college degree is more necessary than ever, and more expensive than ever. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I remember that my own education was subsidized by the state. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I don't brag about paying for my college education during a time when our Federal and State governments looked out for students and the poor--when education was treated as a public good, and the minimum wage far outstripped its modern equivalent.

The modern Republican party--many of them bragging about their in- state educations when they want to stress how much they understand the common person's experience--have all but officially declared for the for-profit model of education. Cut funding, and cut funding, and cut funding to the school. Push more of the cost onto students. Use those students to profit. I apologize that we cannot politely agree to disagree, but treating our children as a cash cow while proclaiming concern about our children does not pass the test of well-meaning debate. If they want the government out of the educating children business, then say so. But don't treat public education as a chance to pay down the debt. Children born in 1995 aren't the reason for our problems--Republican policies are. Eighteen-year-old kids didn't force them to increase inequality; 18-year-old kids didn't force them to destroy American meritocracy by securing inherited wealth for the child of every billionaire and denying opportunity to low-income children; 18-year-old kids didn't make them destroy the middle class to secure greater wealth for those who line your pockets with contributions.

The promise of the American middle class was created when affordable education made the prospect of a good paying job possible for every child. If they want to destroy it, say so. If they want to take out on our children their own guilt about the haphazard, excessive spending of Republican administrations, say so. If they don't care about our children--at least not those who don't benefit from the millionaire tax cuts they pass at every opportunity--just say so.

I urge my friends across the aisle to look at their own actions, and reassess if they can in good conscience support taking more from children just entering into the adult world. I urge them to drop this bill and begin working on a real solution, one that provides the next generation the same opportunities they were provided.