Providing for consideration of 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 for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 232 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman 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 232 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

As many of us know, on July 1, today's 3.4 percent subsidized Stafford loan interest rate is set to double to 6.8 percent for millions of current students, all because elected officials made a promise they couldn't afford to keep for the long haul. Student borrowers shouldn't have to ride the roller coaster of political largess, wondering every year whether Congress will intervene in time to keep their student loan rates low. And taxpayers shouldn't be expected to foot the bill whenever Members of Congress promise more than they can deliver.

For the sake of students, families, and taxpayers, before July 1 we need to move our Federal student loan programs away from politics. Student loan rates should not be subject to the whims of Washington or seized as bargaining chips.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act will remove politics, uncertainty, and confusion from the rate-setting equation and instead anchor student loan interest rates on the 10-year Treasury note, not just for 4 years, but for good. By tying rates to the market, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act establishes a predictable rate for loan calculation insulated from the politics and posturing of Washington.

House Republicans aren't alone in finding the answer for predictability in

the market. President Obama offered a similar market-based interest rate plan in his 2014 budget proposal, and some of my colleagues across the aisle have voiced openness to utilizing the market to set interest rates as well.

In developing this legislation, the committee has attempted to build on this common ground and work in good faith with the administration to improve the Smarter Solutions for Students Act and get it to the President's desk by July 1. Students, families, and taxpayers deserve a long-term solution, not more can-kicking from Washington. The Smarter Solutions for Students Act puts an end to the temporary fixes and campaign promises that have failed to deliver the best rates to students.

This legislation offers predictability, simplicity, and the ability for students to take advantage of low rates, even after graduation, a need particularly acute in today's jobless economy. The American people deserve the clarity, certainty, and protection the Smarter Solutions for Students Act offers.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

It's important to remember how we landed in this predicament to begin with. Why are we now facing this student loan interest rate cliff?

In a push to win votes during the 2006 campaign cycle, Democrats pledged to cut student loan interest rates in half across the board permanently. After gaining control of Congress in 2007, they realized this campaign promise was far too expensive. Instead, they championed legislation to phase down gradually the interest rate on one type of Federal student loan--subsidized Stafford loans made to undergraduates--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over 4 years. Once the law expired in 2012, the interest rates would jump back up to 6.8 percent.

Instead of working with Republicans on responsible solutions that would help make higher education more affordable for students in the long run, the Democrat Congress chose to make false promises to borrowers and kick the can down the road.

Democrats had an opportunity to fix this problem. In 2009, they passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which produced large budgetary savings by eliminating the private sector loan program. ``Savings'' should be in quotation marks, Mr. Speaker. But instead of making good on their campaign promises of lower student loan interest rates, Democrats spent all of the funds on other pet projects, including siphoning $8 billion from Federal student aid programs to pay for ObamaCare.

It is time for a long-term solution that gets politicians out of the business of setting student loan interest rates. That is why Republicans approved a 1-year extension of the 3.4 percent interest rate last year to allow time to work on a comprehensive solution. The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is the result of our efforts.

Republicans and Democrats should come together to pass this legislation and ensure students and families don't have to worry about politicians setting arbitrary interest rates or kicking the can down the road for years to come.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in my career before coming to Congress, I was the director of an Upward Bound special services program. I was an adviser for students at Appalachian State University. I was the president of a community college. For all of my life, I have devoted my time to helping students--particularly disadvantaged students--who wanted to go to college, who wanted to do the same kind of thing that I did as a disadvantaged person, and that is to get a great education and use that education to better my life.

I am offended that my colleagues would say that what I want to do is to stop people from going to college or to hinder them in any way from achieving the American Dream. My whole goal all my life has been to help other people, particularly young people, and I believe my experience shows that.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about taking away the arbitrary control of Members of Congress who think of themselves as smarter than everybody else in the world, and it is about allowing the market to work.

The current Federal loan program is broken. An overwhelming majority of students are stuck with interest rates on loans that do not match the current low interest rate environment because of failed Democrat campaign promises to cut student loan interest rates in half permanently. These students are also often confused about why most of their Federal loans are fixed at nearly 7 percent when the market rate is much lower, and they question why each type of student loan has a different rate. To put it simply, student borrowers are getting a raw deal, and they know it.

Under the legislation, student loan interest rates would reset once a year and move with the market, much like they did from 1992 to 2006. This bill is the only viable plan on the table that is fiscally responsible, that helps students and protects taxpayers. We should pass this bill immediately. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposal does not cost any additional revenue to implement over the next 5 or 10 years.

H.R. 1911 will provide stability and certainty for students making decisions about how to finance their postsecondary education. They will be assured year after year that the interest rate on their student loans will be similar to market conditions, and they won't have to wonder whether Congress is going to make arbitrary changes to interest rates. The bill offers students the ability to take advantage of interest rates when they're low, and it protects them with affordable caps in high-rate environments. The bill continues current law in which students have the option to consolidate their loans after graduation and to lock in a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan. Mr. Speaker, these are commonsense provisions that will benefit student borrowers greatly.

The legislation also ensures students can continue to take advantage of a number of generous Federal repayment options and debt management programs available to help those experiencing difficulty in repaying their loans. For example, students can enter one of the income-based repayment plans that caps their monthly payments at affordable levels and provides forgiveness after 20 or 25 years. For students in the public sector, the program allows loan forgiveness after 10 years. The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a long-term, comprehensive solution that gets Washington politicians out of setting interest rates on Federal loans, and it will better serve the interest of students. We should pass this rule and the underlying bill now.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

During the 2006 election cycle, Democrats made student borrowers a promise they did not keep. As a result, interest rates on student loans are set to

double in a matter of weeks. The Smarter Solutions for Students Act will provide student borrowers with the certainty and stability they need to finance their education.

Today's graduates are facing severe economic headwinds that make finding a job, repaying student loans, and starting a family extremely difficult. These students want nothing more than the opportunity to earn their own success. That's the American Dream. But for many of them, that dream seems hopelessly out of reach. We can do better, Mr. Speaker.

The overall unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. That's hardly better than the day President Obama took office. Twelve million Americans are unemployed and anxious to get back to work, and 7.9 million Americans are underemployed.

According to the Joint Economic Committee, the slight decline in the unemployment rate is largely a mirage created by declining labor force participation. If the labor force participation rate had not declined since January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.9 percent instead of 7.5 percent. As we all know, this is well above the officially reported rate and the stimulus promise of 5.1 percent.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of involuntary part-time workers increased in April by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These are people working part time because their hours were cut back or because they are unable to find a full-time job.

There were 835,000 so-called ``discouraged workers'' in April alone. Discouraged workers are those ``persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.''

Mr. Speaker, these people aren't just jobless; they're hopeless and they deserve better. It's time to get America working again. But the failed policies of President Obama and Senate Democrats--higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government--are designed to continue to fail to create jobs or spur economic growth. The effects of President Obama's runaway spending, spiraling deficits, and mounting debt are being felt by every American.

When President Obama took office, there were 31.9 million Americans using food stamps. Today, 47.3 million Americans use food stamps. That's an increase of 15.4 million people. Today, 15 percent of the entire U.S. population receives food stamp assistance. That is, by far, the largest number in history.

Mr. Speaker, the policies of this administration are taking us in the wrong direction. The Republicans are focused on creating jobs and making things better for all Americans, and we need to pay attention to those policies. We can pass this rule, pass this bill, and get us going in the right direction for college students.

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

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

In my last comments, I talked about statistics and the effect of the policies of this administration. These statistics ultimately say the same thing: the Obama economy is making life more difficult for all Americans, especially young people.

Fortunately, House Republicans have a plan to restore economic growth and spur job creation so that graduating students can find employment.

Job creators are being stymied by mountains of regulatory red tape, crippling tax rates, a perplexing Tax Code, needlessly high energy prices, and rampant uncertainty caused by the President's failed leadership. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way.

House Republicans are hard at work passing legislation to help grow the economy and create jobs. Our goal is to tear down the barriers to job creation and unleash the power of American ingenuity so that today's graduates can prosper and succeed and achieve the American Dream.

As part of this plan, we're working diligently to make life easier for student borrowers, cut job-killing red tape that costs small businesses $10,585 per employee each year, reduce gas prices, and create jobs by producing more American energy, which is important since every penny increase per gallon of gas costs consumers $4 million per day. We also need to simplify a job-killing Tax Code that cost Americans $168 billion in 2010 just to comply, prevent job-killing tax hikes on small businesses, and reduce uncertainty by tackling the debt crisis with responsible spending cuts.

The Republican plan will demolish Washington's self-made roadblocks to prosperity and put American job creators back on offense.

The trick to growing our economy is getting politicians out of the way and letting American workers and entrepreneurs do what they do best: create shared prosperity through freedom and innovation. The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is an important part of this plan. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is accusing Republicans of increasing taxes on students. That is a laughable accusation, especially when you look at the number of proposed tax increases included in the Democrat budget resolution. It's almost as disingenuous as their calling for dedicating the 10-year savings generated by the underlying bill to higher education. After all, in 2010, House Democrats passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, SAFRA, which included language that put $13 billion in savings toward deficit reduction. In the final version of SAFRA, Democrats siphoned approximately $9 billion of the $19 billion in savings to pay for ObamaCare. The rest of those savings went to deficit reduction.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a fiscally responsible plan that generates a small amount of savings based on CBO estimates. It stabilizes Federal loan programs for future generations of students and gets Washington out of the business of setting student loan interest rates.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are concerned about the predictability of the market. What about the predictability of Congress?

Congress is the source of this volatility. Our bill protects students if interest rates rise with caps. Not even President Obama's plan does that.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

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

America's college students, especially those who have studied math, understand that if Washington can't get its act together, their generation will be stuck paying the tab. So they have little sympathy for elected leaders who refuse to face reality by pretending that recklessly spending money we don't have will somehow translate into economic prosperity. It's time to face the simple truth: government spending won't fix our economy.

America's growing debt is real, and Congress has the responsibility to deal with it. The first step must be reining in government spending by passing a balanced budget. That is why House Republicans took the lead and passed H. Con. Res. 25, the Path to Prosperity Budget. Our budget brings spending discipline back to Washington, which balances the budget in 10 years, provides for comprehensive tax reform without raising tax rates, and removes many of the regulatory barriers that prevent employers from hiring new graduates. The House Republican budget stops spending money we don't have by cutting waste, fixing our broken Tax Code, and balancing in 10 years.

A balanced budget will promote a healthier economy, create more jobs for graduating students, and put more money in Americans' pockets. Our budget provides economic security for workers and families, ensures a secure retirement for the elderly, repairs the safety net, and expands opportunities for graduating students entering the workforce.

Republicans have passed a bold budget that tackles America's most pressing fiscal challenges and grows our economy today to ensure the next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America.

Mr. Speaker, one of the best things we can do for college students now and in the future is to provide a stronger economy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My colleagues allege, ``The Republican bill raises interest rates on students when we should be providing them with relief from their student loan debt.'' But let me respond to that, Mr. Speaker.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act will lower the interest rates for all new borrowers in the Stafford loan and PLUS loan programs rather than just extend an artificially low rate to a small subset of borrowers. This makes Federal loans more affordable for all incoming students and parents. The underlying bill helps all students, including those borrowers receiving subsidized loans, whose loans are slated to double, based on the irresponsible actions of the other side.

The bill includes a reasonable cap--something missing in the administration's budget--which protects borrowers in high interest rate environments. If Democrats think the 8.5 percent cap is too high, then let's see their fiscally responsible, paid-for proposal to back up their rhetoric.

The legislation also maintains current law allowing borrowers to take out a consolidation loan after graduation, where they can lock in their interest rate for the life of the loan. Students can also take advantage of a number of repayment plans and debt management initiatives such as the income-based repayment program, loan forgiveness programs, and opportunities for deferment or forbearance.

The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a comprehensive, responsible solution that will benefit all students and parents.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of the gentlewoman from New York if she is prepared to close.

I'll reserve the balance of my time and allow my colleague to close.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.

Student borrowers deserve more than platitudes and empty promises. They deserve real solutions that will improve their lives and help them achieve success.

Our conservative solutions to the challenges facing young Americans today are the right solutions, and the results will speak for themselves. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, 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, 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.

I thank the gentlelady from New York and the gentlelady from North Carolina. I thank the gentlelady from New York for her persistent leadership on this issue.

I rise today to first ask the question how you can have legislation that sounds positive, but in actuality literally puts the education system of America upside down.

First, let me tell you how frustrated Americans are as they see the drip, drip, dripping of the sequester; and I join the gentlelady in her frustration on why we have not gone to budget reconciliation. I just want to mention the pathway of education so we can see that families are being pounded upon. Sequestration is causing 70,000 children to lose Head Start and Early Head Start. And, unfortunately, 950,000 military children will lose teachers. I live in a State where we have a lot of military bases.

So when I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, I rise with a high degree of overwhelming frustration for the people who live in my State. I am sorry that this rule did not accept an amendment that I had that would have submitted a report to Congress on the feasibility of offering loan forgiveness for those who put businesses in economically depressed areas. That truly provides for jobs.

But then the real thing is to cap the interest rates at 4 percent. As was indicated by my colleague, Mr. Holt, he indicated how the numbers would go up for the students. Well, let me talk to you about Parent PLUS. Now, you can really see the oppression on parents who are trying to help their children go to school. In addition to the $100 billion of debt that students are carrying, we now eliminate the feasibility of Parent PLUS loans. Right now in current law, they're $27,956. But if we go into this bill, they'll go up to almost $36,000. Imagine a parent with four children.

I've spoken in the last couple of weeks at the University of Houston- Downtown, the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston Community College. I've spoken at Lone Star colleges, all of these colleges in our districts, St. Thomas.

All of this does not answer the question when this bill will be passed. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill. Cap this. This is not the President's message. The President had an extended life to be able to provide for parents and students. All you have to do is look at the red--$36,000 is what this bill is going to cost parents, and that means that we're going to close the door of opportunity for women, for minorities, and for Americans to get a higher education.

This is not the way in graduation season to say thank you to our children for being successful and graduating from college. Let's oppose this bill and do the right thing for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and the underlying legislation because H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act would cause financial hardship for students seeking a higher education.

The Rule for H.R. 1911 did not fix the underlying legislation. In fact, the Rule we are debating accepted no amendments that were offered by Members of the Congress. I offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #1 that would have capped student interest at 4 percent. This would have removed the threat of the cost of education doubling at the beginning of July.

I also offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which directed the Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of offering student loan forgiveness to those who start businesses in economically depressed areas such as HUBZones.

This amendment would have encouraged young people from low income areas who get college degrees to return home to start businesses. This would establish economic opportunities for young graduates as an option for employment and at the same time bring businesses and job opportunities to target areas.

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. As a direct consequence of a weak economy, more than ever students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher education.

The American family has been under financial pressure for twenty years resulting in longer hours, less pay and more debt. 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.

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.

On July 1, 2013 the student loan interest rate will rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. As Members of the Congress we know what this will mean for students in our districts and what it will mean for colleges and universities in our Congressional Districts.

Some may try to tell you this bill does what President Obama proposed to do, but it does not. The President's proposal would have fixed the rate on student loans based on the actual Department of the Treasury's cost of borrowing. The Administration's plan would set the repayment costs for the entire life of the student loan, which would have created certainty for the borrower. The President's plan would tie student loan repayments to what graduates were earning after starting their careers. This would have supported a student's dream to become a teacher, social worker, artist, lawyer, doctor or engineer.

Finally, President Obama would extend these favorable loan options to those already in the workforce who still have student loan debt. Paying a reasonable rate that is fixed over the life of the loan and would be based on what you can afford to pay--that is what the President proposed, but this is not what this bill does.

The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national priority, not an afterthought. This is a bad bill that will not solve the problem of out of control student loan debt. For all of these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the Rule for H.R. 1911, and the underlying legislation.

American Association of

University Women,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.

Re Oppose the Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911)

Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 150,000

bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association

of University Women (AAUVV), I urge you to vote against the

Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911). While AAUW

supports preventing the doubling of interest rates on

subsidized Stafford loans, scheduled to occur on July 1st,

the Smarter Solutions for Students Act fails to provide

stability in borrowing for students, and would not ensure

that rates stay low in the foreseeable future.

With changes in the workforce over the century, higher

education is becoming less of a luxury and more of a

necessity. At current rates, the U.S. will add over 16

million jobs by the year 2020 that require at least some

postsecondary education. Moreover, the number of jobs

requiring a graduate degree is estimated to grow by at least

2.5 million by that same year. Since many students cannot pay

for their degrees out-of-pocket, student loans are an

important option and a worthwhile investment. College

graduates have fared better in the recent recession and

current recovery, and have higher wages and better job

prospects overall. Students rely on Stafford loans as a part

of the financial aid they use to finance higher education.

Subsidized Stafford loans are only offered to students with

demonstrated need. Specifically, about 30 percent of

undergraduates in 2007-08 received a subsidized Stafford

loan, and a majority of those recipients were women.

Many graduates struggle to repay their loans. Loan

repayment is an even more significant burden for women, who

earn less on average over the course of their lives than

their male counterparts. AAUW's research report, Graduating

to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after

College Graduation, found that the median student loan debt

burden was slightly higher in 2009 for women than men. In

addition, among full-time workers who were repaying their

loans in 2009, nearly half (47 percent) of women one year

after college graduation were paying more than 8 percent of

their earnings toward student loan debt. Only 39 percent of

men were in the same position. Furthermore, just over half of

women (53 percent) and 39 percent of men, were paying a

greater percentage of their income toward student loan debt

than AAUW estimates a typical woman or man could afford.

Keeping interest rates low on student loans is important

and the Smarter Solutions for Students Act would fail to do

so. At the current interest rate of 3.4 percent the

government earns almost 12.5 cents per each dollar loaned in

the subsidized Stafford loan program. This underscores that

there is no reason rates should increase at all for students.

Under the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, over the next 3

years interest rates are projected to rise to as much at 7.36

percent. Not only would Fixed rates ensure that when students

borrow, they know upfront what their monthly repayment amount

will be, as the rate is consistent through repayment. AAUW

knows that this is a key component of ensuring students are

smart borrowers when it comes to financing their higher

education. If they must take out a loan, knowing the

repayment schedule of that loan is necessary for their

planning purposes.

Allowing the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans to

double on July 1 would have a real impact on students. The

interest rate increase could mean as much as $1,000 in

additional debt. But, the Smarter Solutions

for Students Act is not a real solution. Under this proposal

interest rates would be projected to increase, and students

and graduates would be faced with annual uncertainty as their

rates at origination and during repayment would vary based on

the market. I urge you to vote against the Smarter Solutions

for Students Act (H.R. 1911). Votes associated with this

legislation may be scored in the AAUW Action Fund

Congressional Voting Record for the 113th Congress. If you

have any questions or need additional information, feel free

to contact me or Anne Hedgepeth, government relations

manager.

Sincerely,

Lisa M. Maatz,

Director,

Public Policy and Government Relations.

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.