Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in 29 days, the interest rate for the Stafford student loan program is going to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This will add thousands of dollars of additional debt costs for middle class students all across America.

Yesterday, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Speaker Boehner called this issue a phony issue and a distraction from the real issues. There is nothing phony about adding thousands of dollars of added debt to middle class students. There is nothing phony about the Federal Reserve Board report that came out yesterday that showed that student loan debt increased by $30 billion in the first quarter of this year, surpassing credit card debt. The only thing, frankly, that is a pretense around here is the work schedule: in this week, only 1 full day, 2 part-time days, and 40 days for the next 5 months.

It is time for us to get to work in this Chamber and to fix problems like the Stafford student loan interest rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exemplary accomplishments of William Czmyr. A longtime resident of Jewett City and a Veteran who served in the United States Navy during the Korean War, Mr. Czmyr has recently been named Veteran of the Year of the Jewett City VFW Post 10004. Based on Bill's many years of tireless service to his community, for this award could not have gone to a more worthy recipient.

As President of the Veterans Housing Project in Jewett City, Bill Czmyr has worked tirelessly over the last decade to secure critical resources for his fellow veterans. Earlier this month, Mr. Czmyr was finally able to see the result of his hard work as he walked through the apartments that 18 veterans will soon call home. Not only will these formerly homeless vets have a place to live, but thanks to Bill, they will have also have access to counseling and mental health services.

Mr. Czmyr was also fundamental in securing the funds to make this dream a reality. By coordinating with my office, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, he won vital grants to bring hope and peace of mind for the men and women who are set to move into the apartments this June. I urge my colleagues to join with me in congratulating William Czmyr for being named Veteran of the Year. His patriotism and dedication to veterans inspire us all.

Mr. Speaker, in a few hours, one of the least productive, most unpopular Congresses in American history is going to go on another recess, despite the fact that in 43 days interest rates for the Stafford student loan program will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, 43 days away from today.

What's happened in the last week or so? The Senate Republican leadership led a filibuster to block not only the consideration of a bill to prevent this, but discussion or debate on a bill. In this House, after 3 months of stonewalling, Speaker Boehner brought a bill to the House which cynically took money out of a preventive health care fund for cancer and heart disease screening to pay for a 1-year

Band-Aid for Stafford student loans, a measure which the Hartford Courant this morning--the oldest published newspaper in America-- described as ``just sick.''

My bill, H.R. 3826, will lock in the lower rate at 3.4 percent, providing students and families with a real horizon to budget for college. It has over 150 bipartisan cosponsors. It is time for us to move, fix this issue, and allow students and families the ability to plan for next year's college year.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to my friend Mr. Bartlett's amendment, which, in fact, does the opposite of what it was purported to do.

Presently the status quo allows the Department of Defense to have two choices: yes, they can use a project-labor commitment or a prehiring- labor agreement that establishes terms and conditions of employment, or now they can elect not to enter into a PLA. The effect of this amendment would, in fact, remove the Department's ability

to have a PLA requirement in terms of hiring terms and conditions.

The reason why those models work right now and have worked for decades is it gives the Department of Defense the opportunity to set conditions regarding security screening, apprenticeship programs, veteran hiring programs. The Helmets to Hardhats program--which is one of the most successful programs of integrating veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan into the building trades--is done under a PLA arrangement. It also allows local job markets to be incorporated into military construction projects. Again, the Department now presently has the option not to use PLAs. This amendment would, in fact, rob the Department of that opportunity.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, again, there is a myth that somehow President Obama's executive order has swept through all the Federal agencies, and PLAs are now a mandated requirement. The fact of the matter is that is not the way the executive order reads. The Department of Defense has, in fact, granted only one PLA since President Obama's executive order was issued in January of 2009. As Mr. Lynch said, that executive order exempts projects $25 million or less.

I would be happy to invite Members to my district to a military base where there has not been one PLA contract; although, we've done a number of projects on our Navy base.

So the fact is that the option exists today. This amendment would remove that option to the Department of Defense, which, again, has obviously exercised it very judiciously because they've only done one PLA since January of 2009.

Again, I urge Members to reject this amendment which handcuffs the Department of Defense to set up prehiring agreements that can help veterans, the local workforce, and apprenticeship programs for young Americans who want to get an opportunity to learn a building trade.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 1 minute.

Again, all of the points about why this program, which was struggling a couple of years ago, has now really shown great promise in terms of the tests that show that a lot of the criticisms that we've heard on the floor are, to some degree, out of date, with all due respect to the proponents.

I think it is important for people to recognize that we made a decision as a

country a number of years ago to cancel the F 22 program, that the fifth generation program of the future is going to be the F 35. And there are many other nations around the world, frankly, that are watching this debate--Australia, our European allies--who are all going to participate in the Joint Strike Fighter program. I think it is critically important that we make a statement that we are going to move forward with this program. Their navies and their aircraft carriers are also going to be investing in these platforms. And, again, with the progress that is being made, I think it is important for us to send a strong signal internationally that this is a program that America is going to continue to invest in.

Again, I respectfully rise to oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, in 45 days, the interest rate on the Stafford Student Loan program is going to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

As millions of American families know, the Stafford Student Loan program is the workhorse for middle class students trying to pay for college. It is a program which has an affordable interest rate. It provides protections for students so that interest doesn't accumulate while you're actually in school. It provides a grace period after you graduate. And it also has a cap in terms of how much of your income has to be devoted to Stafford loan repayments.

In 2007, as a freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to have been a cosponsor of the College Cost Reduction Act, which cut that rate from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. It was a 5-year bill, like many measures that Congress passes; and that expiration, that sunset, will occur on July 1, 45 days from today, when that rate will double back to 6.8 percent.

Last week the Senate made an attempt to try and take up legislation to protect that lower rate. Sadly, the Republican minority used the filibuster rule to block not even just the bill, but even a debate on the bill. I repeat: they didn't even use the filibuster rule as a block of all Republicans to vote against the measure. They actually used the filibuster to even allow consideration of debate.

And, again, the leader in the Senate made it very clear if they had alternatives to the Senate bill which would protect the lower rate, they were more than free to offer their own amendments.

So here we are today, with students trying to plan for next fall's college, with kids getting their acceptance letters for next year, and yet they have no ability to budget or plan in terms of what the interest rate for this workhorse program to pay for college allows.

Now, how did we get to this place?

As I indicated, in 2007 we cut the rate. Back in January, President Obama stood at that very podium and challenged Congress to not allow the rate to double. For three solid months, nothing happened in this Chamber. There was not a single hearing at the Education and Workforce Committee. There was not a bill for markup. The only action was legislation that I proposed. H.R. 3826, which has over 150 cosponsors in this Chamber, on a bipartisan basis, which would lock in that rate permanently, has never been taken up for consideration.

Two-and-a-half weeks ago, Speaker Boehner who, by the way, voted

against the College Cost Reduction Act in 2007, rushed to the floor a bill for a 1-year Band-Aid, and used as a pay-for depleting resources and funds from a program that would help folks with heart, cardiac, cervical cancer screening, diabetes screening, early childhood disease screening. They took money out of that fund to help desperate Americans to try and put a 1-year fix on the student loan issue.

President Obama made it very clear that bill is a dead letter. A veto threat was issued even before we voted in this Chamber. So here we are 45 days away waiting for action.

H.R. 3826, a measure which permanently locks in the lower rate, is at least a first step in terms of dealing with the crisis in this country of student loan debt, which now exceeds credit card debt and car loan debt. We have an issue here which threatens the future viability of this country to succeed and compete in the world global economy where we need a cutting-edge workforce if we're ever going to succeed in the future.

Forty-six days from today we are going to be celebrating the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln signing into law a measure called the Moral Act. The Moral Act set up a national policy establishing land grant colleges in all 50 States in this country. Back then its mission was to establish programs for mechanical engineering and agricultural sciences.

What an amazing act of vision and leadership. In the darkest days of the Civil War, 1862, President Lincoln still had the long view and understood that if, as a Nation, we are going to succeed, we need a national policy for higher education. And in his wake, the Stafford loan program was created, sponsored by a Republican, Robert Stafford of Vermont. The Pell Grant program was established by Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island, all to provide the building blocks so that young people have that opportunity and the ability to pursue their dreams and to pursue their skill set, the true key of success in this Nation.

We are a Nation that is blessed with great natural resources. We have the greatest military in the world. We have great financial institutions. But the real success of this country is our broad-based middle class where education provides the foundation for families and students to succeed.

That clock is ticking. I started this running at 110 days, and we're now down to 45 days. It is time for the Senate Republicans to drop the filibuster, allow consideration of the bill to help middle class families as they deal with next year's tuition costs, and pass H.R. 3826 in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, on July 2, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's signing of the Morrill Act, a Federal mandate for every State to establish a land grant college.

What an inspiring example. In the darkest days of the Civil War, we have leaders who understood that making college a national priority was too important to be ignored. Sadly, the day before that anniversary, July 1--53 days from today--we risk breaking faith with that vision when Stafford student loan interest rates double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

For 3 months, I have put forth a bipartisan bill, with over 150 cosponsors, to permanently fix this problem. Yet all we have gotten from the Republican leadership is a Band-Aid bill that is a dead letter--cynically wiping out a fund to prevent cancer, heart disease, and diabetes to pay for only 1 year of student loan relief.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The American people are smarter than that. They want a real bill, paid for fairly, that helps students, not fearful politicians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to allow the Tierney amendment to move forward, which would allow a real solution to the 53-day ticking time bomb for college students and middle class families all across this country.

Today, literally, as we're standing here, high school seniors are getting notices in the mail about whether they've been admitted to college; students are now packing up and leaving for the end of the spring term already thinking about next year; financial aid offices are trying to plan with families about how to pay for next year's tuition; and yet what they have before them is a situation where on July 1, the rates will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

On July 23, the President of the United States stood on that podium and challenged Congress to avoid that rate increase from going through. And for 3 months, we had a Republican majority which stonewalled this issue with no bill, no markup, no hearing. I filed legislation the day after that speech. We have over 150 cosponsors to permanently lock in the lower rate. Yet, as Mr. Miller indicated, what we heard from the House Republicans was a bill 10 days ago which bypassed committees, nothing from the Education and the Workforce Committee, rammed it through the Rules Committee, and paid for in the most disgraceful, grotesque fashion.

It wipes out a fund to pay for prevention of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and early-childhood diseases. That is not a solution. The President made it clear when that scam was presented that it would be vetoed immediately. It is a dead letter. It is time for us to, yes, debate a CJS appropriations bill, which is very important. But those kids, those families need a horizon before them as they deal with one of the most exciting opportunities and challenges before them, which is how to pay for higher education.

We should defeat this rule. We should allow a motion to go forward which will defuse this ticking time bomb for middle class families all across America, push aside that joke of a bill that passed 10 days ago, and get down to the business of addressing middle class families' needs and young people's needs to help solve the problems of this country and give them the opportunity to succeed.

Thank you, Mr. Tierney. I want to just, first of all, begin by recognizing your leadership and, particularly, George Miller's leadership back in 2007 when we passed the College Cost Reduction Act which reduced an interest rate of 6.8 percent, which was set as a result of a Republican Congress in 2002 which passed a Budget Reconciliation Act locking in that higher rate.

The College Cost Reduction Act has saved 15 million students in this country higher debt levels because we cut that rate to 3.4 percent. Sadly, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, voted against that measure. Sadly, my good friend from Minnesota, the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, voted against that measure in 2007.

It was well understood that it had a 5-year sunset, like a lot of programs and tax policies in this Congress. People were complaining about the cliff we created.

Well, how about the Bush tax cuts? That's got a $4 trillion cliff on December 31 because the majority party, when they enacted the Bush tax cuts, sunset that measure.

So here we are today, 64 days away from the rates doubling, and we're now suddenly seeing the majority party get religion on this subject. As Mr. Miller pointed out a minute-or-so ago, in fact, the Ryan budget, which the Republicans lined up as a party to pass two or three weeks ago, locked in the higher rate at 6.8 percent for 2013. That was built into the Ryan budget.

In addition, it doubled down on higher education affordability by cutting the Pell Grant award from $6,000 to $5,000. That is the Republican higher education platform.

But, thankfully, we have a President who stood on that platform on January 24 and challenged this Congress to protect that lower rate. And because we did not get a hearing, we didn't get a bill, we didn't get a markup, we got no flicker of action by the leadership of this Chamber, he went on the road and talked to the people of this country, like Presidents before him, like Harry Truman and others, because that was the only way you were going to turn this body around was with external pressure to make sure that middle class families knew what the heck was going on, which was nothing.

I started this countdown clock at 110 days when we were waiting for this debt level to go up, and there was a reason for that, because 130,000 petition signatures were dropped off at the Speaker's office at day 110, and we heard nothing from that date when, again, overwhelming college campus signatures arrived at this Congress. And now today we're down to day 64. They're feeling the political heat.

Good for you, Mr. President, for raising this issue and forcing this body to address one of the biggest challenges our Nation faces. And yet they come up with a pay-for that is a disgraceful, grotesque pay-for that goes after women and children in the name of protecting student loans.

As Mr. Miller said, thank goodness the student leaders who have been leading the fight to protect this lower rate have stood up and said no way.

Thank you, that's all I need.

And I would just say that the President responded to that call a few minutes ago by indicating that this measure is dead. It will be vetoed. It's not going anywhere.

Let's get back to work and come up with a real fix and solve this crisis for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 90th birthday of a very special woman from my district, Teresa Muraco of Grosvenordale, Connecticut. Teresa is beloved by her community for her unfaltering commitment to helping those in need.

A lifelong resident of the Second District of Connecticut, Ms. Muraco graduated from Tourtellotte Memorial High School with the Class of 1940. From there, she went on to hold several local jobs, working in the spinning department of a Grosvenordale mill. She also spent 15 years in the Putnam Superior Court in the family services office.

Although her factory days are behind her, Teresa Muraco very much remains active. By her own estimate, she spends about 10 to 12 hours each week volunteering. She belongs to three different fire auxiliaries, where she helps out at barbecues and suppers. Ms. Muraco is also an active member of St. Joseph Church in North Grosvenordale, helping out at their thrift shop once a month.

Teresa Muraco was named Thompson Volunteer of the Year in 2011 and Citizen of the Year by the Thompson VFW for her dedication to the town and its veterans. I ask my colleagues to join with me in wishing Teresa Muraco a happy birthday and applauding her tireless efforts to better her community.

Mr. Speaker, our second President, John Adams, once said:

Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes

or the dictates of our passion cannot alter the state of

facts.

As to how we got here on the student loan bill, here are the facts. Unlike what was stated by the proponent of this rule, on January 24, the President of the United States stood on that podium and challenged Congress to block the increase of rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The Republican majority has done nothing over the last 3 months to respond to that--no bill, no hearing, no markup. In fact, they passed the Ryan budget, which locked in the higher rate at 6.8 percent and doubled down and went after Pell Grants for needy students who need those grants to pay for college.

The politics has changed. That's the fact.

What happened here, and the Speaker's reversal over the last 24 hours, which we welcome, is now being paid for by a grotesque pay-for which goes after women and children rather than going after the folks who can afford to pay for it--the oil companies, the gas companies that made $137 billion in profits last year.

Support the Tierney motion and oppose this rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that

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

because there's no reason for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment as the lead cosponsor with Mr. Boustany of the RAMP Act, H.R. 104, that had approximately over 150 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, people from all corners of the country. This really should be a measure that we should move forward on and fully fund, as well as with the language that, again, Mr. Boustany crafted to offer here today.

There, frankly, are other reasons why we called that bill the Restore America's Maritime Promise Act, which is that again we're a great maritime Nation. In fact, our national defense requires having a strong Navy that can navigate all along the coast. And where I'm from, up in the State of Connecticut, the Groton sub base needs to be dredged out year in and year out. But just like everybody else, it depends on the kindness of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is really a priority that obviously, as others have said, affects our economy, our exports, and also our national defense, and we should support this measure.

Again, I applaud the gentleman for bringing it forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stakes could not be bigger for our Nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just for our viewers, FTE is an acronym.

Again, a true college administrator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 19, 2012, at 9 a.m.