[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2116-H2121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader for the 
opportunity to take this hour to discuss some extremely important 
issues here in the United States. We've just listened to an hour 
discussion on taxes with actually very, very little specificity as to 
whose taxes are being cut and exactly what those tax cuts would mean to 
the American economy and to the people of America.
  Normally, when we take the floor, as we do most every week on the 
issue of the American economy, we talk about making it in America and 
rebuilding the great manufacturing industry. We've seen over the last 
20 years that the American manufacturing industry has declined by some 
40, 45 percent, from just under 20 million Americans in manufacturing 
to just over 11.5 million. In the recent months, we've seen a 
resurgence of the American manufacturing sector, but nonetheless it is 
still very, very small compared to what it once was.

                              {time}  1840

  If we're going to rebuild the American economy, we do have to rebuild 
the American manufacturing sector.
  I'm going to come back to this tax debate here very, very quickly; 
but I think we ought to put it in the context of what taxes mean to the 
American economy, which taxes can be cut and which could be raised.
  The key issues in building the American economy are here on this 
chart, taxes being one of the second pieces. But the rest of them are 
also important: international trade issues, for example, how do we deal 
with China and the China currency issue; how do we deal with the 
importation of extraordinary amounts of material, equipment and goods 
while at the same time exporting even less and less; how do we deal 
with that? The energy issues are exceedingly important if we're going 
to rebuild the American economy. Labor issues, how do we prepare the 
American labor market? That is the men and women that work in America.
  Oh, by the way, I heard something here from my colleagues on the 
Republican side that just drives me crazy. When they say that half of 
Americans don't pay taxes, then they say, oh, we mean income taxes. 
Let's understand that every American worker up to those who earn 
$106,000, pay 6-plus percent--almost 7 percent--excuse me, 8 percent--
of their total income in taxes. That's the withholding tax. By the way, 
it was the Democrats who actually reduced the Social Security 
withholding tax to half of what it was in previous years. So let's 
understand that every American worker pays taxes.
  Now, the income tax issue is another matter, and we'll come to that 
in a few moments. But Americans who work pay taxes. Let's not forget 
that in this discussion. In any case, labor is a major issue.
  This issue of education is now very much being discussed in America, 
and I want to really focus on that during this 1-hour discussion. 
Research is critical to the future of America's economy and, finally, 
the infrastructure upon which all of this is built. These are the 
issues that the Democrats have taken up in building and restarting, 
reigniting the American Dream, reigniting the American Dream so that 
men and women in this country can get a decent job, earn enough to be 
in the middle class and raise their families, own a home if they want 
to own a home, take a vacation when they want to have one, and be able 
to have health care so they needn't worry about bankruptcy which is, in 
this Nation, caused more than 60 percent of the time by health care and 
health care problems.
  So trade, taxes, energy, labor, education, research and 
infrastructure are the key issues in reigniting the American Dream and 
rebuilding the American economy.
  Tax is a major portion of this, and I don't want to forget about 
taxes. We just heard this 1-hour discussion about it. The question is, 
who is taxed and who gets the tax benefits? Less than a month ago, our 
Republican colleagues put on the floor of this House their blueprint 
for the American economy, their blueprint for how we are going to use 
government or reduce government, their blueprint on how we are going to 
raise the tax revenue necessary for the operations of the government.
  Very, very interesting because, essentially, what they have done is 
to take money away from education and give money to the wealthiest of 
Americans. Those who earn more than $1 million a year would, under the 
Republican blueprint on taxes, pay less and less. Actually, they would 
see a tax reduction. Remember, those whose adjusted gross income is 
over $1 million a year would pay less taxes. They would get a tax break 
of $394,000 a year, minimum.
  Now, if you're a billionaire, the tax cut would be in the millions 
and millions of dollars. Is that fair? I think not. We just heard Fair 
Tax on the floor. I must tell you that the Republican proposal, in 
their blueprint, voted out of the House of Representatives, now the 
blueprint for the Republican action on this year's and future budgets 
and appropriations would reduce the taxes for millionaires by $394,000; 
for billionaires, millions and millions of additional reductions in 
their taxes. That is not fair.

  What we on the Democratic side have proposed is to make certain that 
the elements that lead to a growing economy and a just society are in 
place. Let's talk specifically about education. In the previous 
Congress, the Democrats took up education and said this is a 
fundamental element in economic growth and social justice. The 
opportunity to get to the middle class is largely dependent upon the 
education that a person is able to receive in the K 12 system and in 
higher education. Specific steps were taken for those in low-income 
communities whose schools are unacceptable. Specific money was put to 
those schools through the title I programs so that they could raise up 
the standards of education and provide those who do not have the family 
support and those that do not have the economic support to be able to 
get a decent education in K 12.
  Much, much more needs to be done. But that was put in place by the 
Democrats in the last Congress.
  Take a look at the blueprint that passed this House not more than a 
month ago, the Republican blueprint for the future--cut title I, pull 
that money away from those low-income communities where the necessity 
of education must be available to every one of those students. Higher 
education, another example, in the previous Congress, controlled by the 
Democrats in this House, the Senate and the President, there was a 
significant improvement and expansion of the Pell Grants. This is money 
given to low-income and middle class families to assist them in going 
to higher education.
  Expansion, yes. Community college and part-time students for the 
first time were given the opportunity to get a Pell Grant so that they 
can improve themselves in the community college or in higher education 
4-year programs, from a little over $4,000 to $5,500 increase as well 
as an expansion of those who were eligible. This is very important in 
providing the educational opportunity that students must have if 
they're going to succeed in a highly competitive world economy.
  Secondly, interest rates on student loans, almost every student now 
attending school, higher education, takes out a loan. The interest 
rates on those loans were over 6.5 percent.
  Now, we did two things as Democrats. We took away from the banks, who 
were ripping the students off, the student loan program, and put it 
back into the government, saving billions upon billions of dollars 
every year; and then reinvested that money back into lowering the 
interest rates for the students. Not a bad thing, from a 6.5 or 6.8 
percent interest rate down to a 3.4 percent interest rate. All of this 
is designed to make it easier for students who have to take out loans 
to be able to pay back those debts over time.
  We also did a couple of other things for students who had taken out 
loans, low-income and middle-income families. We changed the way and 
the timing in which the loans needed to be repaid. We said, you're 
going to have to

[[Page H2117]]

pay no more than 15 percent of that loan each year of your 
discretionary income, that is, the income over and above food, shelter 
and clothing, giving students a longer period of time and having to 
devote less of their money to pay back the student loans. My colleague 
who will be joining me in a few moments will discuss this in more 
detail.
  In addition to that, we made it possible for the educational system 
to receive additional money for this fundamental economic development 
called research. We increased the research for health care, for mental 
health, for agriculture, and for energy. All of those things are the 
essence of today's and tomorrow's economy, research being necessary.
  Now, what did the Republicans do? In their blueprint, voted on by 100 
percent of the Republicans, this was their budget, sometimes called the 
Ryan Republican budget, every one of those things that we put in place 
to assist students in getting an education was dramatically and 
drastically reduced, while at the same time taking money away from 
students and handing that money to the oil industry and to the 
millionaires, the multi-millionaires, the billionaires.
  Remember, the minimum tax reduction for millionaires is $392,000 a 
year, while at the same time taking money out of the pockets of 
students, increasing--not just increasing--but doubling the interest 
rate on student loans from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, costing every student 
more than $1,000 a year in additional interest payments on their loans. 
That's the average.

                              {time}  1850

  Now, those that are above average, that number is going to go much 
higher.
  Pell Grants. Reducing the Pell Grants, eliminating from the 
opportunity to get a Pell Grant more than 1 million students over the 
next 10 years. Nearly 400,000 students in the United States would 
immediately see a reduction in their Pell Grants in the year ahead, and 
100,000 not being able to get a Pell Grant at all. This is economic 
fairness? I don't think so. This is wise economic policy? I don't think 
so.
  Giving to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country an enormous tax 
break and taking it directly out of the pockets of students is bad 
economic policy, it's bad policy for education, and it will not 
reignite the American Dream. In fact, it will stifle that American 
Dream, and we will not stand for that. We Democrats are rising up and 
saying, no, no, we're not going to do this. We're not going to give to 
the superwealthy--the billionaires and millionaires--while taking money 
away from the students of America.
  This is an important issue. This is not only an issue about economic 
fairness; this is an issue about growing the American economy. We know 
where we stand. We stand for educating the workforce so that they can 
compete.
  Now, joining me is a gentleman from the great State of Michigan who 
represents Detroit, who has been on this issue from his very first day 
here in Congress.
  Hansen Clarke, I know you want to jump in, so have at it.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi), for yielding me time.
  My message to our colleagues in the House of Representatives is very 
clear and direct: we've got to continue to cap student loan interest 
rates at 3.4 percent.
  Student-loan borrowers and their families should not have to pay more 
on their student-loan debt. The President has done all he can do right 
now to help bring relief to our student-loan borrowers. Now it's time 
for Congress to act, but Congress has to do more. We need to reform the 
system. We've got to change the system. That's why I wrote and 
introduced the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012. It will help cut 
student-loan debt, free up borrowers' money so they can invest it on 
their own. That's a real economic stimulus that will create jobs here 
in this country.
  So I want to thank you again, Mr. Garamendi, for yielding me time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, thank you very much.
  Let's stay on this student loan issue for a while here. This is the 
reality of student loans. The debt levels, according to the Federal 
Reserve Bank--and some of this has just been recently updated--student 
loans comprise a larger portion of the personal debt in America than 
credit cards and auto loans. Actually, the number recently, just in the 
last couple of days, has risen to about $1 trillion of outstanding 
student loans in the United States. The auto is about $700 billion, and 
then the auto and credit cards about $700 billion. So we're talking 
about a huge amount of outstanding money. When you double that interest 
rate, you're hitting right at the gut of every student and those who 
have graduated. When you combine that with the Republican blueprint of 
immediately requiring a larger payment on graduation, you're really 
stifling the economy.
  I know you've wanted to talk about this, Mr. Clarke, about the way in 
which the Republican proposal would actually slow down the economy by 
denying--well, go ahead. You and I were discussing this earlier.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you again. And you're absolutely 
correct. If we keep the student loan burden low on our borrowers--I 
mean, it's not low; many student-loan borrowers are paying like $1,000 
a month on their loans. But the more that our borrowers can keep their 
money and invest it, start their own businesses--think about it, our 
students, our graduates are the ones that have the ambition and the 
discipline to be able to go through school, to graduate. They're likely 
the ones that would start their own businesses, be entrepreneurs. 
That's how you build jobs and create financial security for not only 
our families, but also economic security for our country.
  But many of our borrowers right now, they can't take the risk of 
starting their own business, even starting a family--let alone buying a 
home--because of student-loan debt. So if we can keep that debt as low 
as possible, that will help stimulate our economy. It's a great job-
growth stimulus.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You're exactly right. I've had my kids graduate from 
college. Fortunately, they didn't have to take out student loans. We 
gave them 4 years, and the fifth and sixth year they were on their own.
  But the student loans across this Nation, right at $1 trillion now, 
the doubling of the interest rate, which was in the Republican budget 
blueprint, will stifle the economy. As those kids graduate, they have 
to pay off that loan immediately, not just, as we propose, 15 percent 
of their disposable income, but even a higher percentage. That's money 
that they cannot use to buy a car. They've got to pay the bank. That's 
money that cannot be used to start a home or buy a refrigerator or any 
other economic activity. Unnecessary.
  Now, we can't allow that to happen. So what we need to do--and here 
it is, this is a ticking time bomb for the American economy. This is a 
ticking time bomb for the American economy. After today, there are just 
66 days left before the student loan interest rate doubles to 6.8 
percent. Is action being taken? Mr. Clarke, you have a bill in. The 
Democrats have proposed a bill that would keep the student interest 
rates where they are now, 3.4 percent, and pay for that by reducing the 
subsidy that every American taxpayer gives to the oil industry. Over 
$12 billion of our tax money--your tax money, the public tax money--now 
goes to subsidize the wealthiest, most successful, most profitable 
industry in the world, the oil and gas industry.
  So we would propose that the Big 5 that get more than $5 billion a 
year in your tax money to subsidize their fat profits, which over the 
last decade have been more than $1 trillion--yes, that's right, more 
than $1 trillion of profit, and you're adding $5 billion a year of your 
tax money to their already-substantial profits. We would take back that 
$5 billion and use it to reduce the interest rate on student loans.
  Now, the Republican proposal: let's understand, this is a big issue 
across the United States. It's erupted on college campuses. There is 
outrage. There is concern. The Republican budget that came out of this 
House less than a month ago has hit the stone wall. The public doesn't 
like it. And so today, just late this afternoon, a proposal came from 
the Republican caucus to introduce a bill to not double the interest 
rate. Good. Well, how are you going to pay for it? Interestingly, you 
know

[[Page H2118]]

how they're going to pay for it? They're going to take money away from 
seniors. In the Affordable Care Act there is a provision that allows 
seniors to get free check-ups, free preventative check-ups.
  So the Republican proposal doesn't go to the millionaires, doesn't go 
to the billionaires, doesn't ask them for any sacrifice. Instead, it 
says, oh, yeah, we made a mistake on doubling the interest rates, and 
we're going to pay for it by taking the money away from seniors and 
their health care. What in the world are you doing? What are you doing? 
Why would you do that? Why would you take from the poor and seniors 
more money and give it--while keeping the millionaires, the 
billionaires and the oil industry whole? I don't get it, but that's 
their proposal.
  Our proposal is to go to those that have extraordinary success, the 
oil industry, and say: after a century, after a century of 
subsidization by the American taxpayer, we're going to reduce that. 
We're going to take that tax money back and we're going to make sure 
that the students of America do not see a doubling of their interest 
payment on their student loans.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. And the other point 
that you're making about student loans and capping these interest 
rates, how they'll create jobs, that's absolutely right. When our 
borrowers are freed up to not have to pay these high interest rates, 
that will create jobs.
  Now, some people say, well, the student loan borrower signed the 
student loan agreement that had the high interest rate on there so they 
should pay that interest rate, but this is the main point: Those 
student loans that our government issues to students and to their 
parents to provide our students with a way to get their education when 
they can't afford to pay for that education, that's not just to help 
that student get a degree. Those loans are here to help our country 
become stronger. Here's why.
  The more Americans that we have who are properly trained, who are 
able to be productive and contribute to our country to their fullest 
potential, they're able to create more jobs by building the best 
products, by providing the best services, by developing the best 
technology that can be sold worldwide. That helps our entire economy. 
So these loans are to strengthen our entire national economy. It's not 
just for the borrowers' benefit.
  So that's why we don't want these interest rates to be so high. We 
want to put a cap on them. And in my bill, the Student Loan Forgiveness 
Act of 2012, I allow virtually every student loan borrower to have a 
second chance to pay lower rates on their student loan by allowing them 
to pay down their student loan according to their income. So if they're 
not making that much money, they don't have to pay much money.
  Specifically, my bill would allow borrowers to pay 10 percent of 
their discretionary income each year, and once they do that for a 10-
year period, the remainder of their Federal student loans will be 
eligible to be forgiven because we want to free up the borrowers' money 
so they can now invest it, invest it on starting a business, invest it 
on buying a home, starting a family. All of that will help create jobs.
  You see, cutting student loans, keeping the student loan debt low, as 
low as possible, that's an economic stimulus for all of us. It makes 
our country stronger. It creates jobs.
  Many of us told our kids, and we were also really taught by society, 
you know, if you work hard, if you study hard, if you go to school, if 
you even borrow money to get your degree and graduate, you'll live a 
better life. You'll likely make more money.
  Well, because of student loan debt, because it's grown so much, 
because of the prospect also of interest rates going back up, the 
American Dream that was supposedly created by the availability of 
student loan debt has now become a nightmare to many borrowers. And 
we've got to cut this debt.
  This is the real debt, my colleague from California, that we need to 
cut, because this is the debt that really costs us jobs. We need to cut 
student loan debt. We can take that initial step right now by keeping 
student loan interest rates on Stafford loans at 3.4 percent. That's 
the first step.
  Now I'm asking the American people, demand that Congress reform the 
student loan system. Let's change the system. Let's make it affordable 
for everyone to be able to get a decent education and to repay that 
money back.
  So again, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to share this 
time with you and the American people. This is so important.
  You know, many times in this body we talk about we've got to cut 
taxes to stimulate the economy, that we've got to cut debt in order to 
provide people freedom. Well, what person in this country can be free 
when they have to personally pay student loan debt that will take them 
years or even decades, if ever they'll be able to pay that off.
  And the reason why I say that is that I know senior citizens now who 
are still repaying their student loans. And at their age, there's no 
way they'll be able to pay those loans off. And it doesn't matter if 
they go bankrupt. Going bankrupt doesn't mean anything. The government 
will still come after you for all the student loan money because you 
can't discharge your student loan debt in bankruptcy.
  It's a cruel, unfair burden that certain students' loans are imposed 
on Americans. We need to cut that burden. Cutting that burden is not 
only fair, but it will create jobs for our country. We want our 
graduates to be able to have their money to invest, invest on starting 
their own businesses.
  I'm from Detroit. Our city was built up. We built up this country's 
economy because of entrepreneurs who were able to pursue their dreams. 
Now the very people that we have trained to pursue their dreams can't 
do so because of student loan debt. That's outrageous.

  Congress, keep student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent. Cap those 
rates. Do it now.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you, Mr. Clarke. The clock is ticking--not the 
Clarke clock, but the clock is ticking. Sixty-six days before the 
student loan interest rates double.
  We had a long conversation here about tax policy from our colleagues 
on the Republican side. They didn't happen to mention the burden that's 
being placed on students if we fail, and they didn't talk about their 
proposal to take the money away from seniors and continue to provide 
support for the superwealthy and the oil companies.
  Joining me on this conversation is a gentleman who was the chairman 
of the Labor Education Committee, now the ranking member, has been an 
advocate for students and education for more than 30 years here in the 
Halls of Congress, a gentleman that was largely responsible for those 
improvements that I talked about early in this discussion. Congressman 
George Miller and I have the pleasure of representing Contra Costa 
County. We're neighbors. We've worked together these many, many years. 
I'm absolutely delighted that you came to join us here tonight. No one 
knows more about this than you do, Mr. Miller, so let's discuss this 
with the American people.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Thank you very much, John. Thank you 
for taking this floor time for this debate, and thank you for the 
effort and the fight that you have led on making it in America, so 
that, once again, America makes things, once again America has a robust 
manufacturing economy, whether it's this iteration of manufacturing or 
the next iteration of manufacturing, that America remains competitive 
around the world in making it in America for sale around the rest of 
the world.
  Nothing could be more important to sustaining our manufacturing base 
in this country, to sustaining our ability at innovation and economic 
growth that takes place as a result of that innovation, than the 
education of our young men and women throughout this country. And 
nothing is more important to their well-being and their families--and 
this is proven out every year as we do studies, that years of college 
and college completion are very important to the economic security of 
that individual and that individual and the family that he or she may 
form later in life. It pays huge benefits for them to go to college, 
and that's why we've tried to make college affordable.
  Many of us are very upset with the costs of college, how the costs 
have

[[Page H2119]]

gone up, have doubled in many ways across the States. But the fact of 
the matter is, while we're struggling with the issues of cost of 
college and trying to get the States to do more on behalf of the their 
public institutions, the fact of the matter is we have to make sure 
that college remains affordable for young people.
  And that's why, in 2007, we made a decision to lower the interest 
rates on student loans so that it would be more affordable for the 
students, not only to go to college, but also then in paying back the 
debt that they incurred because of the subsidized student loans. And we 
made that effort, and we did it on bipartisan basis at that time. And 
President Bush signed that legislation into law, and we put some of 
that money into deficit reduction and into reducing the interest rates.
  In 2010, we followed on with legislation proposed by President Obama 
and our committee and others to make sure that we could increase the 
Pell Grant so those students most in need, those families most in need 
would have the Pell Grant as an underpinning of making college more 
affordable. We continued with the subsidized student loans to make 
college more affordable.
  We went to an income-based repayment system so that a student that 
may be starting out in a good career but a bad entry-level pay scale as 
they begin that career will be able to pay back their student loan and 
also continue on with their life, and as they make more money, they pay 
more money. And it's very important so that they can choose a 
profession of their passion, not just the profession that yields the 
most money, because many of our students, the minute they heard about 
this program said, I can now be a nurse, I can be a public health 
assistant, I can be a prosecutor, I can be a public defender, what 
their passion was in life. They could be a teacher and now know that 
they could afford to pay back their student loans.
  And the interest rate is very important at this time as families and 
young people try to figure out what their indebtedness is going to be 
and how they are going to pay for college, especially at this time of 
the year when young people are getting their acceptance notice from 
universities and colleges all across the country, and now they sit 
around the kitchen table with their families and say, How are we going 
to afford this? What's the debt we are going to end up with? And it's 
an important procedure for families to go through as they think about 
this.
  But all of a sudden, now, we see that when the President submitted 
his budget looking forward to July of this year, he asked that we 
continue to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent.

                              {time}  1910

  That's very important. That's the choice that President Obama made.
  The choice that the Republicans made in the Ryan budget was to let it 
go to 6.8 percent. In fact, there was a unanimous vote on the 
Republican side for the Ryan budget to let it go to 6.8 percent.
  We think that's wrong. We think that's unfortunate for families in 
the middle of this economic turmoil that we're coming out of in this 
country. They need these assurances. We think that interest rate should 
stay at 3.4 percent.
  Of course, we want to pay for it. Just as we paid for it for the 
first 4 years, we want to pay for it again. We believe that that should 
come out of the unfair tax breaks that are extended to oil companies 
that cannot be justified when the price of oil is $104 a barrel. They 
get the tax break when it's $134 a barrel. They get it when it's $150 a 
barrel. We think that time has come and gone, that the oil companies 
can continue to pursue the quest for oil and the recovery, and we 
appreciate that. The fact of the matter is price alone provides them 
the basis on which to go out and seek out the hydrocarbons necessary 
for our economy and for the world economy at this time.
  So, this is about choices. Do you believe the interest rate should be 
3.4 percent or do you believe it should be 6.8 percent? By a unanimous 
vote, the Republicans said it should be 6.8 percent.
  But I have to tell you today, I'm quite excited, this dramatic turn 
of events where the Republicans today have said that they want to keep 
the interest rates at 3.4 percent, and we welcome that. We welcome the 
fact that when they saw the President out in the country talking to 
young people, talking to parents, knowing that these parents and young 
people are going through this process of figuring out how to finance 
their education, that he made a compelling argument that this interest 
rate should remain for the next year at 3.4 percent, that the 
Republicans have come and decided that they embrace that provision.
  I was excited when I saw their Presidential candidate said he was for 
this. I was excited this morning when I read in the paper that the 
Republican leader in the Senate said nobody is against this. Oh, yes, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle were unanimously against this 
a week ago. But I think the President sold this idea to the Nation and 
apparently sold the Republican Party, and we should welcome that 
because that's in the interest and benefit and we should work together 
to make sure that this happens on behalf of families and on behalf of 
young people.

  But, of course, there's always a kicker when the Republicans do this:
  Our choice is an unjustified tax cut to the largest oil companies in 
this country and, in some cases, the world, that we should stop 
providing these tax subsidies to those oil companies. Their choice, 
unfortunately, is this: to wipe out and to repeal the preventative 
medicine account in the Affordable Care Act, in the health care reform 
act, to wipe that out.
  So where do we find the Republicans paying for their desire now to 
join the President and lower the interest rates to 3.4 percent? They 
wipe out immunization programs for young children. So children now, 
we're going to send either less healthy children and children with 
fewer immunizations to school and in our community, or those parents 
are going to have to pay for it and they can't afford that. That's why 
we're doing that.
  They also chose to knock out screening programs for breast cancer. 
Once again, just as the Affordable Care Act extends health care to 
women, stops making women a preexisting condition, that their gender 
denies them health care automatically under the current insurance 
systems or makes it so expensive that it's very difficult for them or 
their families, just as that's within the reach of women, the 
Republicans take away the preventative care that extends that screening 
to millions of women across the country.
  Then, of course, the screening for birth defects for couples that are 
concerned or that have been told by their doctor that their child may 
have birth defects or that the pregnancy may be with birth defects and 
the choices and the difficulties that they have to make. But that 
screening is important in terms of early interventions, in terms of 
turning around the outcomes for these children.
  So that's where the Republicans chose to get the pay-for, to go to 
those most in need, to go to those who have been denied health care for 
generations because of their gender, because they're women, and we all 
know in our family, in our friends, in our neighborhood, in the 
communities we represent, what women encounter with breast cancer and 
the importance of screening. Somehow they've decided that that's how 
they will pay for reducing the interest rate from 6.8 percent on July 1 
to 3.4 percent.
  I urge them to join us and to pay for this in essentially a painless 
way with respect to these unjustified subsidies for the largest oil 
companies in the country.
  It's very important to the agenda, Mr. Garamendi, that you have put 
forth, that you worked on before you ever came to the Congress, and 
that is building up the jobs base, the manufacturing base, recognizing 
the contribution that this economy can make to future energy choices, 
to future transportation choices all across the board, and do it here 
in America.
  But we're told even in a time of this tragic recession that we do not 
have enough skilled people to carry that mission out. We've got to 
build that. We've got to educate these young people, and that's what 
student loans allow to happen for people who can't simply write a check 
for the education of their children, who simply can't say, well, I've 
got a deduction, that's enough, that will take care of it for this 
year.

[[Page H2120]]

  Families struggle to try and accomplish what every generation has, 
that their children will live better, will contribute more to America 
than we did in our generation. My grandparents wished it for me. My 
parents wished it for me, and they worked hard to provide it.
  But when you say now, oh, but, by the way, we're not going to allow 
for screening for poor women who might have breast cancer, we're not 
going to test for birth defects for young children, we're not going to 
provide immunization for young children, what are they going to do, 
turn America into a Third World?
  We struggle to get the same immunizations into the hands of poor 
people all around the world because we recognize the public health 
benefits, but they've chosen this.
  So, I'm excited that they've seen the wrong direction that they were 
headed with the Ryan budget, the Republican budget, to double the 
interest rates on student loans. But I'm very, very concerned that they 
decided that they would extract the price from women and children once 
again, as they have in the past in their budgets.
  So I urge that we can get this student loan taken care of before the 
66 days that you've put up there, before this time bomb goes off in the 
very middle-income and low-income families in America.
  Thank you again for making this time available for us to discuss 
this. We hope we'll have good action on behalf of all Americans--women, 
children, students, and their families. It's quite possible to do. All 
we have to do is reach across the aisle and work together and make sure 
that we don't make victims out of part of our society so that others 
can go to school.
  Going to school is important, women's health is important, childhood 
immunization is important, and so is dealing with birth defects in the 
best way we possibly can. We owe that to those families and those 
children.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Miller, thank you for the dedication that you've 
made over many, many decades to education, to the well-being of 
children and the labor and workforce here in the United States. There 
are very few men and women that have spent the number of years and have 
been so successful as have you in making it possible for kids to get an 
education and for adults to get an additional education.
  We didn't talk about all of the elements of the educational system. 
We've really focused tonight on the student loan, the Pell Grants, and 
the reductions that the Republican blueprint would impose upon the 
United States as well as the tax policy that has come from that 
blueprint, which essentially is a tax policy of continuing to reward 
the superwealthy while, at the same time, taking away from the 
struggling middle class, the men and women that are working every 
single day to keep their food on the table, their family in the house, 
and pay the mortgage. Now, it's one of the most unfair tax policies 
that I've ever seen in the many years that I've been involved in public 
policy. It goes well beyond that.
  I want to also make just a couple of points, and if you would just 
stick around a second, I want to come back to the education of those 
men and women that are already in the workforce, but I want to make a 
point here.
  Before we took up this 1-hour, our Republican colleagues spent the 
hour talking about tax policy. They overlooked their own tax policy, 
just went with some very easy rhetoric about we've got to cut taxes and 
we've got to make sure the job creators do not have an additional 
burden.

                              {time}  1920

  It was and is a fact that it is the Democrats in this House who 
actually put forward a very significant stimulus for business on tax 
policy. It was the Democrats who took and reduced the taxes on 
businesses that invested in America by allowing American businesses, 
big and small, to write off 100 percent of every capital investment 
that they made. That lasted for a year until our Republican colleagues 
took power here, when they reduced that writeoff to 50 percent. Still 
good. Still good. It's a better than the normal depreciation schedule, 
but that has stimulated enormous investment by businesses in improving 
their capital so they could be more productive and increase their 
output.
  We also took very specific steps among the Democrats to reduce the 
burden on both businesses and employees when we reduced the payroll 
taxes. We were unable to continue the business side of that when the 
Republicans took power here, but we were able to continue the reduction 
in the payroll tax for employees. Very important: stimulus for the 
economy, allowing men and women who are working to have more that they 
could then spend and make ends meet. Those are all things that we did. 
We ended one other very onerous tax break. This was done by the 
Democrats in this House in the 2010 session. What we did was to 
eliminate a tax break that American corporations had for offshoring 
jobs.
  That brings me back to the Make It in America model here. In making 
it in America, you cannot give a tax break to American corporations for 
offshoring jobs. It was more than a $12 billion-a-year tax reduction 
for American corporations that sent jobs overseas. You go, what in the 
world was that all about? Well, it was in the Tax Code. We eliminated 
that. I will say for the American public out there that we got precious 
little support--in fact, no support--from the Republican caucus on this 
floor when that bill came up for a vote. Wrong-headed and very, very 
destructive.
  These are the policies that create a strong economy: education. A 
well-educated workforce is the most important element in any economic 
strategy. It was the American strategy in the fifties, sixties, 
seventies, and eighties. It has fallen off, but Members of Congress 
like Mr. Miller have maintained education, not only in the K 12 and the 
higher education system but in reinvestment in the workforce: making 
sure that those men and women who are on the production line and those 
who have been laid off can go back to school, can get an upgraded 
education, can learn better skills, perhaps as a welder, or as a 
computer technician, or for all the other thousands of different types 
of jobs. It's being able to go back to school in the workforce 
investment programs, as well as in the Pell Grant programs, that Mr. 
Miller put forward. It is to allow community college students, part-
time community college students, to be able to take out a Pell Grant.
  Let's run through them. I've got seven of them up here, but there are 
five that are critical in any economic development strategy. Mr. Miller 
has done the education piece and has led that fight. It's education, 
research, manufacturing, infrastructure, and making sure that you're 
paying attention to the international world. So those are the five that 
are there.
  Mr. Miller, why don't you help me wrap up here, and then we'll be on 
our way, and we'll thank the American public for listening to this 
discourse on how education policy fits in to growing the American 
economy and building up the American middle class and reigniting that 
dream.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Education, obviously, is one of the 
most important ingredients. It's the best investment we make in terms 
of a return to the Treasury because of the increased productivity and 
success of the people who complete their education. The important 
factor here is that, when we think about this, we really have to 
develop a system where our students are engaged in a modern learning 
environment, where they have access to the technology, where they have 
access to resources outside of the traditional classroom, where their 
instructors, their teachers, have that kind of access so they can 
integrate their education into what's happening and into what these 
young people see as happening in the rest of the economy in the world 
around them.
  So we create that learning environment, and we can create that 
teaching environment by changing the way we've traditionally done 
things in this country. We've looked at those that are high-performing. 
We look around the world and say, Where are those nations that are high 
performing? Where are those students who are doing the best? We look at 
what's taking place in those countries, and we see this partnership 
between communities and parents and students and teachers, working out 
recognizing that that school is a huge economic asset of that 
community. It may be the most important

[[Page H2121]]

thing where parents and the community have that say. So that's 
what we're trying to develop.

  Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get the reform in the rewrite 
of No Child Left Behind yet in this Congress. It has been a number of 
years. We weren't able to do it in the last Congress. But I want to 
thank the Obama administration and the Secretary of Education because, 
in recognizing the role that the ingredient of education plays in the 
economic recovery, they've gone with the Race to the Top program and 
with the waivers program for those States.
  What they're really saying is, if you want to take your State and go 
to the future, if you want to take your district and go to the future, 
we want to partner with you. What does that mean? That means that those 
Governors and those local superintendents of schools and those State 
superintendents of instruction are making a decision that they want to 
join in an effort to have internationally benchmarked standards and 
internationally benchmarked curriculum and assessments. It's no longer 
just filling in a bubble on a multiple choice. But because of the 
sophistication that we've learned in assessment, that we learned from 
the workplace, what we learned from employers, these students will be 
able to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge, their understanding. 
They will be richer. They will be better able to adapt to the needs of 
employers. They can go on and get a master's degree, or they can go on 
and get a college degree, or they can go on and get a doctorate degree.
  The fact of the matter is that the world of learning is changing 
dramatically, and I think that, while we're bogged down here in 
partisan fights, unfortunately, the administration has struck out on a 
bold path. I think there are now 40 States that either have applied or 
are hoping to apply for waivers. There are 47 Governors who have said 
we should have internationally benchmarked standards in this country so 
that we know that, when our students are learning, they're learning at 
the same level the students in Shanghai are learning--or in Germany or 
in Finland or in Singapore or in Japan--and that's the change that's 
possible.
  But the fact of the matter is that Congress has got to want to go 
along with that. The Governors are taking the lead. They're taking the 
lead. The big city mayors are taking the lead. They understand this in 
terms of your agenda, Congressman Garamendi, in making it in America--
jobs in their communities. That educated workforce is the most 
important investment they can make, and for parents, it's that good 
school. People always talk about remodeling their bathrooms or adding 
on a bedroom or landscaping the yard to add value to their homes. If 
you turn that into a high-performing school, you'll add more value than 
anything else you could possibly do.
  The National Real Estate Association will tell you that the first 
question people ask is, What school will my children go to? What 
district is this in?
  We now have the ability and the capability, and in partnering up with 
the entire school staff, to dramatically improve the learning 
environment, the teaching environment, and the outcomes for all of our 
students. That's the excitement, because this comes along at a time 
when America now realizes, yes, we thought after 1980, 1990 that we 
couldn't make anything in America. We now recognize that, and we now 
see foreign investment coming back to America, and we've got to have 
the talent ready to absorb that.
  So thank you again for this opportunity to integrate education into 
the Make It in America agenda. Obviously, I think it is the most 
important point. But as I talk to venture capitalists and to people in 
the high-tech fields and in the biotech fields in our State and around 
the country, they'll just tell you over and over again that the 
workforce they're looking for is a well-educated, adaptable, 
understanding workforce that can work with people all around the world 
now because you can sit in one room and work with people everywhere 
else in the world.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Miller, your passion for education was on display 
in this last discussion. Thank you for that passion, and thank you for 
the years of service that you have provided to America in leading the 
fight for the improvement of our education system.
  Just a couple of thoughts--not random but specifically on the 
subject.
  Yesterday, I was in Dixon, California, for the opening of a new 
manufacturing facility. A company, Altech in Birmingham, Alabama, 
decided that they were going to stay in America for the production of 
these bucket trucks, which are the kind of trucks that utility 
companies use that take the worker up to work on the power line, way up 
on the top of that pole. They decided to stay there, and they're going 
to hire an additional 100 people to manufacture these bucket trucks in 
Dixon, California.
  In the discussion I had with the manufacturer and the president of 
the company, I asked him, How are you going to train these workers? And 
he said, We're going to do it at the community college.

                              {time}  1930

  We're going to do it at the community college. The programs that you 
have put together over the years, with the workforce investment 
program, meaning that we're investing in the workers, the retraining of 
the workers electricians, welders, line jobs, well-paying middle class 
jobs, that's what it's all about.
  The most important investment that any society can make is the 
investment in the education of its people. We need to do more. That 
education of the workforce, the children, the seniors, the others that 
are in the field, that investment also entails the individual's 
participation. The loans that they take out, the Pell Grants that they 
receive are essential in giving them access, as you so well know. Then 
when we find a blueprint that passed this House, the Republican 
blueprint that basically takes away that opportunity, it stifles the 
American economy.
  I share with you your enthusiasm for the newfound awareness of our 
Republican colleagues, and it only took a week, and it only took three 
speeches by the President, and they had the ``oh my'' moment. ``We made 
a mistake, yes.'' But don't double down on that mistake by paying for 
the reduction in that interest rate by taking away from the vulnerable 
people of America.
  I think not only of the children and their vaccinations, breast 
cancer and early detection, but also the seniors in their prevention 
and detection. That's not how to do it. We know better. Your proposal, 
the proposal of Mr. Clarke of using the resources that we're now giving 
to the most wealthy industry in the world, our tax money, literally 
given to the oil industry, we need to recoup that and use that instead 
for the very future of this country.
  We're finished for this evening. It's been a good night. Thank you so 
very much for joining us.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity and thank you for your leadership on this.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for bringing your passion for education.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________