[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 62 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2228-H2246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTEREST RATE REDUCTION ACT
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for
undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 631, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4628
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Interest Rate Reduction
Act''.
SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE EXTENSION.
Subparagraph (D) of section 455(b)(7) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)(D)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2013''; and
(2) in clause (v), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2013''.
SEC. 3. REPEALING PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u 11) is repealed.
(b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made
available by such section 4002, the unobligated balance is
rescinded.
SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4628.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, when I talk to students and families, it's clear that
today's economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it
once did. Our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are
moving back home after college only to find Washington's tax-and-spend
policies have made it even harder to find a job. In fact, according to
a recent Associated Press report, at least half of recent graduates are
unemployed or underemployed. That's unacceptable.
[[Page H2229]]
Under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only
gets worse as interest rates on subsidized Stafford student loans are
set to spike from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 of this year.
That's why I've introduced H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act,
a bill that would avert this interest rate increase, because the last
thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it that
much harder to afford a high-quality education. Unfortunately, that's
exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in
a bipartisan way to pay for this critical interest rate fix.
Under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is
offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the
President earlier this year. Just 3 months ago, Members on both sides
of the aisle came together and the President signed a bill that
extended unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut.
The legislation I offer today would use, as an offset, the exact same
source that we all agreed to use just 3 months ago. The bill would
eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called Prevention and
Public Health Fund, which, in truth, is nothing more than an open-ended
fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. At best, this fund serves
only to circumvent Congress's annual appropriations responsibilities by
granting, in perpetuity, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the
loose label of prevention programs.
I should note that the President, himself, acknowledged that the
prevention fund is bloated when he requested a $4 billion cut to the
program in his FY13 budget. By reclaiming a portion of the
administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of
this blank-check program, my legislation would extend lower rates for
college loans, granting relief to our young people without raising
taxes on their potential employers.
It is a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. I ask my
colleagues to step forward today and show the American people that we
can solve this problem immediately, without the drama of a last-minute,
on-deadline fix.
{time} 1020
It is my hope that our colleagues in the Senate as well will work
with us to send it to the President immediately.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Interest Rate
Reduction Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it's nice to have our Republican friends finally agree
that the interest rates would be a problem if they rise and double.
Since 2007, when the rates were first reduced when the Democrats were
in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the Republican
side--resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. And not until
recently, when the profile of this issue had been raised to a degree
where students and families started to really get involved and engaged,
did our friends on the other side of the aisle finally decide that,
well, they now don't want the rates to go up either. But cynically,
some might say, the only way they can find to pay for it is to attack
women's health and children's health.
Now, women don't want this bill that way. Children and students don't
want the bill this way. Labor doesn't want the bill this way. Public
health groups don't want the bill this way. The Senate has said that
they won't accept the bill this way; it's dead on arrival. And the
White House senior staff says they'll advise the President to veto the
bill this way.
If we really want to set aside partisanship and do this, let's pick a
pay-for that the American people can get behind and that we can all
agree on. Let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games, and
let's do the right thing. Let's make sure the interest rates stay at
3.4 percent. Let's make sure that 177,000 students in Massachusetts and
7 million nationwide have affordable access to college and are able to
pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. Let's
start doing the right thing.
Last week, our Republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge
fund managers in a tax cut, to give to Donald Trump in his Trump Towers
leasing company, to give to other people that already had millions of
dollars and didn't pay for it. This week, they finally get brought
around to the issue of trying to help students and come up with this
cynical aspect of paying for it by, once again, attacking women's
health, in this case adding children on--children's immunizations,
women's screenings for breast and cervical cancer and birth defects.
This is insidious. This is ridiculous on this. And we should move
forward and do the right thing.
The fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little
bit the last time, as the Speaker mentioned, but left largely intact.
This one would wipe out the entire fund, twice the amount of money
necessary in order to fund what they're purporting to do because they
are ideologically going after the health care bill.
We need to make sure that women's health care and children's health
care is protected. We need to make sure the interest rates stay low. We
are certain we can do that. It won't be done by doing it this way. And
Members in the Senate will have to work in conference to make sure that
we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense, and it's something we
can do. There's 250 tax expenditures in the Tax Code, 250--$1.3
trillion. We can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction
here and do it in a way that all of America can get behind and both
parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this
direction.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the
gentleman from Massachusetts that we also are for prevention, but we
have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of what we do, and
not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person when there is
no oversight by Congress.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg), a member of our Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, just a bit of a history lesson. We hear a lot of
demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land
about the unwillingness of Republicans to help our college students
receive the education that they need by having the loans that they
deserve.
Going back to 2006, as part of the Democrats' Six for '06 campaign
agenda, the Democrats promised to cut student loan interest in half.
When they took the majority--and I sat on the House Education and Labor
Committee at the time--they gained control of Congress, all of a sudden
they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do. So they
put in place, against our opposition, saying that the private sector
still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it
fluctuate and flow in a variable rate with the market, ultimately
reducing the overall cost of interest over the course of time for our
students. They chose not to do that. They put in place the plan that we
have right now, a Democrat plan that said, in fact, we will go to 6.8
percent in July of 2012 after dropping it back because they knew they
couldn't afford it. They did it in a short-term process. And
ultimately, it has come to fruition now that we are at a cost problem
and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. It is
their plan that we're dealing with. It is their mess that we're asked
to fix at this point in time.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally reduced to
the 3.4 percent that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place
of what we're looking at. As the expiration date crept closer,
Democrats did nothing in the 111th Congress, despite knowing that this
would take place, and now we have a problem.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation
garb. On top of one of the mortarboards it says: ``Hire me.'' That's
the issue we're talking about: an economy that doesn't offer jobs. And
so what we ought to be looking at here is growing an economy, not an
ObamaCare fix that is ending up costing these loan programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page H2230]]
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady.
We ought to be looking at ways for growing an economy that gives the
opportunity for students to know that they will have a job, that they
can pay off loans at whatever rate it will be. There is a much better
way than doing what has been done. We ought to be growing an economy
for job providers, as opposed to what the Senate sent over to us, their
solution: to whack at more job providers and make it more difficult to
provide stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply
the opportunity to be hired.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that in 2007, the
bill was paid for. In fact, it was paid for, and 77 members of the
Republican Party agreed as well. Now it is time to pay for it in an
intelligent and correct manner.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I understand the fix that the Republicans are in after just over a
week ago almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4 percent
interest rate to students, and in adopting the Ryan Republican budget,
agreeing to let it go out to 6.8 percent. In fact, they use that to pay
for the tax cuts for the wealthy they anticipate in their budget. So
they took students' money, and the families and the savings that they
were made out of--almost $16 billion over the last 4 years--and they
said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, and
we assume that the rates will go to 6.8 percent. President Obama went
on the road for 3 days, and all of a sudden Republicans have decided
that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent.
You can say all of this is cynical, and I believe it is on their
part, because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack
women's health. They see their position of being for student loans
gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for
women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer, to
attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants
for birth defects, to take away the ability to make sure that young
people have the immunizations they need when they start school. So now,
under the cover of being for student loans, they now are attacking
women's health in the most cynical fashion.
But you know, every now and then in this place--where it's terribly
partisan; it can be very cynical, as we see with this action today with
this bill--a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness
and understanding. We see today that we have statements by almost all
of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate
kept at 3.4 percent, but we do not want it kept at that rate at the
risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parents' health,
our mothers' health, our sisters' health, our friends' health.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So we should understand that these
students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask
for a timeout and they say find another way to pay for this.
But don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants.
Don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease.
Don't do it at the risk of young women and older women being screened
for breast cancer and cervical cancer, where the difference can mean
life or death for those women. Don't attack and abolish and repeal
women's health on the backs of our students. Don't do it in our name.
In our name, don't do this legislation.
Vote ``no'' against this. We'll find another way to do this, but
don't do this in the name of students. That's what they've asked with
their opposition to this legislation.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Illinois for recognizing me.
There's little disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over
the need to extend the subsidized interest rates for student loans for
at least another year. Student loan debt now in America exceeds $1
trillion which, I believe, is more than the entire Nation's credit card
debt. It's a very serious national priority that needs to be addressed,
and it should be resolved in a bipartisan fashion.
As you can tell from the tenor of the debate this morning, it has
been reduced to the issue of how we are going to come up with the money
to pay for this. First of all, I think it's a miracle that we're even
debating that because the prior administration in this Congress
wouldn't have even brought the subject up of how to pay for it.
At least the Democrats now want to pay for it by raising prices on
gasoline through higher taxes on oil companies. And I believe that
taxation of oil companies should be on the table in tax reform, not on
an education bill.
We have a proposal that would reduce the funding in the prevention
and public health fund account, and of course our friends on the other
side of the aisle are right on message, on the national message, of
tying everything that Republicans want to do to be some sort of a
battle against women.
Let me just point out that I believe there's already about $119
million in FY 2011 for the CDC's breast and cervical cancer early
detection program. And I know my friend from Illinois will probably
enumerate on this even further.
I would point out that the program, or the fund, that the Democrats
are trying to protect actually is providing money for early detection,
but it's for free spaying and neutering for dogs and cats around the
country. This money comes out of the Communities Putting Prevention to
Work campaign, and that's receiving money from this Health and Human
Services Secretary slush fund.
I would also point out to my friends that this fund has already been
reduced in order to pay for the payroll tax reduction, so it's not
setting any kind of a precedent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I would suggest that a fund that's funded
at $17.75 billion for the first 10 years, and then automatically
advance-appropriated for $2 billion a year after that, I've never heard
of that in the Congress. That means that we are turning over our
authority to raise and appropriate money to the tune of $2 billion a
year to the Health and Human Services Secretary with no oversight from
Congress at all.
I want student loans to remain at their lower rate, and I want to do
it in a fiscally responsible fashion; and that's what this bill does.
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to
address the fact that the elimination of the fund would mean that on an
annual basis, 326,000 fewer women would be screened for breast cancer.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. 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.
[[Page H2231]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.
Mr. COURTNEY. 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.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentleman
from Connecticut that he was one of 147 Members on that side of the
aisle voting for taking money out of the privatization protection for
health care.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), our
esteemed chairman of the Education Committee.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time,
and for introducing this legislation.
I rise in support of H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. We
seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that
we've got an economy in shambles. We've got an unemployment rate above
8 percent now for over 3 years. We've got college graduates who
graduate from college and can't get a job--half of them can't get a job
or get the right job. They're underemployed or unemployed.
And we've got, by law, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford
student loans going from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, by law, a law
drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
It was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this
was going to happen. We were going to get to the point where interest
rates were going to double. Nevertheless, it's the law.
And so what do we do about it?
It seems to me--and I think that we get some agreement on this--we
ought to have a long-term fix so we're not doing this again next year
and the next year and the next year, making a political decision. We
need a long-term fix.
{time} 1040
So, today, we're trying to step up and address the immediate concerns
of our students, our graduates, as they go into this shaky economy. So
we're moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4
percent for 1 more year.
I look at this as the opportunity for us to then get together and
make a long-term fix, a fix that is much more driven by the market
rather than the politics of the day or by an election year. We need a
long-term fix. This is going to give us the opportunity to do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. KLINE. There has been a lot of discussion here about the pay-for,
and the words ``cynical'' and ``cynicism'' have been used. We have got
proposals from the other side of the aisle, from our friends in the
Senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very
time when our economy is in such trouble. Then there are other
proposals that say let's tax oil companies, let's drive up the price of
gas.
You can talk about cynicism. What we're talking about is using a
slush fund that is provided to the Secretary to spend as she sees fit,
and that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. What a surprise in
this election year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. KLINE. There are multiple sources of funding of programs that can
address women's needs. I think it is cynical to suggest that we are
somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that
has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly given.
The President himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the
slush fund. This is the way to go. Let's address the immediate needs of
our students and then work together on a long-term solution.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' long-term fix, of course,
was voted on a couple of weeks ago in their budget which allowed for
the rates to go up to 6.8 percent and took away the in-school subsidy
for interest rates, driving students' costs even further up. That's why
we're here today.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. A college student sits in the financial aid office
worried about her interest rate doubling on July 1. A woman sits in the
waiting room of the health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. A
corporate executive sits in a boardroom of an oil company waiting to
get his tax break from the Federal Government.
Everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid
the loan increase. The bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the
interest rate increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic
and deny her the cancer screening. We say the way to do it is to go to
the corporate executive in the oil company boardroom and deny him his
tax giveaway from the Federal Treasury.
The way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down
health for the women of this country. The way to pay for it is to shut
down the giveaway of taxpayer dollars to the oil industry of this
country. That's the way to fix the problem, and that's the way we
eventually will.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote on a
bipartisan initiative that will save our country's future leaders
billions of dollars. Economists have resoundingly predicted that a
student loan crisis may soon send America's fragile economic sector
into shambles if it is not soon addressed.
The New York Federal Reserve has reported that student loans are the
leading cause of this debt, with $870 billion last month alone. This
tops even credit card debt.
My friend in Illinois has proposed a commonsense solution to halt an
increase in Federal loan rates that everyone agrees is needless.
But, Mr. Speaker, I must say to you, I was stunned to hear that
leaders on the other side of our aisle, our good friends on the other
side, were attempting to take this issue hostage.
[[Page H2232]]
Our sons' and daughters' pursuits have been hijacked for political
gamesmanship.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, the fund which is offsetting this
looming rate hike is nothing more than a slush fund. The HHS Secretary
has authority to use it without congressional discretion. It was yet
another allowance given to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat to be
used on things such as bike paths, jungle gyms, and worse yet, lobbying
efforts.
I am a woman who has worked for years as a women's health care
practitioner, and on behalf of women's health care patients, I will
tell you, for the other side, Mr. Speaker, to manipulate this issue
does nothing to advance women's interests, but in fact demeans the
accomplishments made in women's health over the past decades.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues who are playing games with this
critical issue to grow up. This is not kindergarten. This is the
reality of crushing college costs. This bill will help our future by
making colleges more affordable by leaving them with a country that is
not inundated in debt.
Mr. TIERNEY. Before yielding further, I'm going to take 15 seconds
and yield that to myself.
Mr. Speaker, this supposed slush fund the people are talking about is
a fund identified and given Appropriations Committee authority to
designate where it would be spent. That authority was advocated by our
friends on the other side, and the Secretary has in fact specified
every year where the money be spent: $326,000 in screenings for breast
cancer; $284,000 for cervical cancer screenings; $10,000 for breast and
cervical cancer; and so on down the line.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader of
the House from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation
to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in July,
and to pay for that by cutting the subsidies to Big Oil instead of, as
the Republicans do, continuing their all-out assault on women's health.
So much of the time that we spend on this floor seems completely
irrelevant to America's working families as they're struggling to make
ends meet. Imagine them around their kitchen tables as we talk about
this, that, and the other thing that seems disconnected from their
emergency and urgent needs. What we're talking about today directly
relates to what keeps people up at night: their economic security, the
education of their children, the health of their families. The list
goes on. Some of those are addressed in this legislation.
I think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and
that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next
generation, the education of our children.
Imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family, as we
are, and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college, we're
not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're
not going to be able to have preventative care in terms of screening
for breast cancer, cervical cancer--the list goes on and on--for your
mom or any other preventative care for men and women in your family. It
just would be wrong.
Who are we as a Nation, if that's a statement of our values, to
choose between the education of your children and the health of your
family? It is just not right. Especially when you have a situation
where we had this fight over and over again.
But let me put it in context. In 2007, the Democratic majority in the
House, working in a bipartisan fashion with our Republican colleagues,
passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rate to 3.4 percent. We
were very proud of that legislation passing with 77 members of the
Republican Party voting with the Democratic majority. The bill was
signed by then-President George W. Bush, and we all celebrated that
legislation.
{time} 1050
That is expiring in July, and if no action is taken, those interest
rates of 3.4 will go back to the level of 6.8 percent. We had been
making that argument over and over again, which is that in our
budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way
that enables them to acquire a higher education should they desire and
be qualified to do so and if that is in their interests and in their
families' priorities.
Republicans have grown impatient, they've said, with hearing about
student loans--don't look at us--until the President went to the public
and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on
here, which is that in the Republican budget--the Ryan-Republican-Tea
Party budget--it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. In the
House Democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4 percent--a
big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table and if you have
a college-aged child.
It's about the children and the debts they incur. It's about the
families and the parents and the debts that their families incur.
Because the President took the issue to the American people, he made
the issue too hot to handle, so the Republicans this week are doing an
about-face for what they did last week, to vote overwhelmingly for
their budget, which now has enabled the interest rates on student
loans, the Stafford loans, to double. An about-face.
But what did they do? They said, Okay, we won't allow it to double,
but we're going to take the money from women's health.
It should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing
assault on women's health. This is in their budget, and this is just a
continuation of that; but I think it's important to note the following:
that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money
that would cover the cost of keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent;
they say, while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. Let's
eliminate the entire fund for the prevention, for the immunization, for
the screening, and for the rest--for the CDC to do its public health
work. Let's eliminate it.
So that should tell you something about where their priorities are if
they're saying, We stand here, once again, handmaidens of the oil
industry, protecting subsidies for Big Oil, and instead we want Mom and
the children to pay the price with their health. It's just not right.
It's just not right. The President made it clear to the public the
difference in our approaches on the student loan issue. Now he has made
it clear that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for.
Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground in a way to pay for
this critical policy, the Statement of Administration Policy says:
This bill includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and
Public Health Fund, which was created to help prevent
disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they
become severe. Women, in particular, will benefit from this
prevention fund, which would provide for hundreds of
thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer.
This is already happening. This would have to stop under this bill.
So let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated
population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillments,
whatever they decide those are; so we can be competitive in the world
market; so we can have an informed electorate in the spirit of the GI
Bill, which educated our soldiers when they came home and created a
middle class in our country, which is the backbone of our democracy. In
a global economy, it is even more necessary for us to be able to have
the skills and trained workforce to compete.
Let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the Treasury
than the education of the American people. Whether it's early
childhood, K 12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning--nothing
brings more money to the Treasury. So it would be a false economy to
deter people from seeking more education. It's also adding insult to
injury to say, now that we've finally had to fold on the issue and
agree with the Democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4
instead of doubling them to 6.8, we're going to put women and children
first as those who will pay for that. It's just not right.
I congratulate the President for his message to the American people
and for the message of his administration in his Statement of
Administration Policy that a veto would be recommended. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
[[Page H2233]]
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairwoman, and I thank the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Kline.
I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill, but in strong support of
the committee and the work that they're doing.
We got caught up in politics again today. It makes me so angry. I'm
so angry I could spit. I'm trying to bring my blood pressure down over
here as a freshman, remember, because I came here for results. I am the
keynote speaker tonight for the Georgia College Republicans' statewide
convention, and I'm going to go down there and proudly tell them that I
voted ``no'' on this bill today that is pandering to their interests,
not because I don't like young people in education, but because I love
young people in education.
Every time we come to this floor and talk about how proud we are that
we're paying for a piece of legislation, every oil industry tax you
want to raise and every millionaire tax you rant to raise, those could
be paying down the deficit that we're borrowing from these young people
that you purport to support here today. With every new piece of
ObamaCare that we want to abolish and that should be abolished, we
could put that money towards reducing the over $1 trillion a year we're
borrowing and asking our young people to pay back.
But let me tell you, as a conservative Republican, I am not
embarrassed of what we do to serve our young people. Congratulations on
our subsidies for our young people. We've now driven our student loan
debt higher than the credit card debt in this country. Congratulations.
Congratulations that we now have a 3.4 percent interest rate so that
the one out of two young people who comes out of college and can't find
a job can default on those loans at a lower rate instead of at a higher
rate. Congratulations. What about focusing on the jobs? What about
focusing on our children's futures? What about focusing on the better
tomorrow that we owe to these young people?
There is a choice of two futures here. The committee, as everyone in
this House knows, is working on a permanent solution. We subsidize
student loans today with a Federal Government guarantee for below-
market interest rates; 6.8, that's a below-market interest rate. We
subsidize student loans today with an above-the-line deduction on the
1040. Everybody can take that today, already today; and here we are in
the midst of the largest economic crisis in our Nation's history,
saying, once again, let's spend the money instead of putting the money
towards these children's futures.
There is no free lunch in this town. Every single penny that we spend
we're spending from them. You're not subsidizing these people. You're
asking them to pay more with interest in their futures. In graduating
from college, one out of two kids can't find a job. Student loans are
higher than credit card loans for the first time in American history.
Are we headed in the right direction, or are we headed in the wrong
direction?
I say focus on what this Committee on Education and the Workforce is
doing. Look at what they are doing for a permanent fix to provide
certainty. This is another short-term fix. I know my colleagues on the
left and on the right are trying their best to do what they believe in
their hearts is going to serve our young people, but short-term fixes
are not the answer. There is a better answer, and it's coming from the
committee later on this year. I hope my colleagues will oppose this
bill today and will support that bill coming forward.
Mr. TIERNEY. Before I yield, I do want to correct the gentleman.
There is somebody around here who gets a free lunch under your bill,
and that would be the oil companies, which made $80 billion in profits
last year.
I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to robbing
health and education to pay for oil.
Baron Henry Brougham once said, ``Education makes a people easy to
lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern but impossible to
enslave.'' Education is at the cornerstone of our democracy, and
college access and success are fundamental stepping stones toward
economic security and global competitiveness. As policymakers, it is
imperative that we support students in making college affordable so
that our citizens can prosper. We face an immediate crisis in college
costs. Without congressional action, interest rates will get out of the
box pushing students and families in deeper debt.
Yet, rather than setting forth a bipartisan solution to address the
impending interest rate hike, the Republican leadership insists on
waging a partisan war on the health of our nation by cutting six
billion dollars from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The
Prevention and Public Health Fund invests in state and local public
health entities to address critical public health problems effectively
from the front end, lowering health costs and benefitting over one
hundred million Americans. I have been a strong proponent of prevention
my entire adult life given its proven ability to improve the quality of
life for citizens with minimal financial investment. Indeed, proven
community-based prevention programs yield an estimated return of $5.60
for every dollar invested. Since 2010, the state of Illinois has
received $31 million from the Prevention Fund. I cannot support the
loss of these funds.
I do not understand the Republican position that decreasing access to
women's health exams, children's immunizations, obesity programs,
smoking cessation, and other proven health promotion programs by
slashing prevention funding is better public policy than stopping
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for oil companies with record
profits. One policy approach benefits our society; the other benefits a
handful of privileged corporations. Why should Republicans demand that
the wealthiest oil companies that make tens of billions of dollars in
profit receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies? With the
price of a barrel of oil so high, there is no need to incentivize oil
companies to produce oil. The billions of dollars of profit are
incentive enough. Further, leading Senate Republicans have acknowledge
that Big Oil doesn't need this incentive.
I stand with the nearly 800 public health, prevention and other
health and wellness advocates that strongly oppose repeal of this fund.
Helping our nation's low and middle-income-students avoid deeper debt
should not be contingent on eliminating funding for childhood
immunizations and screening programs for breast and cervical cancer and
birth defects. I support the extension of the interest rate reduction
for student loans, but not at the expense of the health of our nation.
Mr. TIERNEY. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
majority's faulty attempt to extend current student loan interest
rates.
The Ryan budget, which most of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle voted for, allowed those interest rates to expire. It was only
when they started getting criticized by the press did they decide to
offer an alternative to our proposal.
{time} 1100
Even then, they took yet another shot at the health care law while
keeping Big Oil subsidies intact.
Mr. Speaker, this year, a mammogram has saved my wife's life. They
have chosen the wrong priority. At the end of the day, the American
people cannot afford to see their interest rates double on their
student loans.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in
offering a legitimate source of funding that doesn't put anyone's
health in jeopardy. This Congress needs to find an equitable solution
to this problem before July 1.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, banks offer car loans at a 3.99 percent interest rate.
Banks also offer 30-year fixed mortgages on homes with an interest rate
of 3.8 percent. Student loans are currently at 3.4 percent, but if we
don't do something, it's going to jump to 6.8 percent.
It seems to me Congress can handle this and do something about it.
Recent reports show that 50 percent of recent graduates from college
are unemployed or underemployed.
I received an email from a Kingwood Park High School student today
named Derek encouraging Congress to do a commonsense thing: to put the
student loan rate at 3.4 percent. Why don't we do that?
[[Page H2234]]
The student loan debt has reached a trillion dollars. Why would we
want to strap students going into college with more debt by increasing
the student loan rate in this current economic climate?
You can get a car loan rate very low. In fact, you can get some car
loans with 0 percent, but not so with students. Why is that? We should
maintain low interest rates for student loans.
Cars and homes are important, but students going to college are an
investment in our future. Education is an important tool for our young
people to be able to contribute to America's competitiveness worldwide.
Also, the bill is paid for. Some of the money that's coming out of this
unconstitutional health care mandate will go to deficit reduction.
We need to support our students and encourage young people to go to
college, not discourage them by increasing their student loan rates
because of politics. This is a commonsense idea. Extend the student
loan low interest rate, and we should do it today.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I just note that it was common sense about
2 weeks ago and almost the entire Republican Party voted to let the
rate go to 6.8 percent. It's nice to see that they've found some
reality here.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Following up on my friend from Texas, I served on the Labor and
Health Committee for 23 years. Bill Natcher from Kentucky used to say
this: If you take care of the health of your people and invest in the
education of your young people, you will continue to be the strongest
and best Nation on the face of the Earth.
I agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky then, and I agree with him
now.
Everybody says on this floor, although everybody didn't vote that
way--Mr. Boehner voted against this reduction in interest rates; Mr.
Cantor voted against this reduction in interest rates; and Mr. Kline
voted in 2007 against this reduction in interest rates. What we are
saying is we need to invest.
We talk about subsidies. This isn't a subsidy. This is an investment
in a better, stronger, more growing America. That's what this is. But
what do we say? Natcher said, remember, if we take care of the health
of our people. This undermines the health of our people. It takes away
preventive assistance so that women, families, and children can get
preventive care, which so many Republicans have said is a more
efficient and effective cost-saving way to address the health of our
country.
Bill Natcher was right. Bill Natcher was a conservative Democrat from
Kentucky who said, if you take care of the health of your people and
educate your young people, you will be the strongest Nation on Earth.
This bill goes in the wrong direction trying to do the right thing.
Let us reject this bill, and if, in fact, you are for investing in our
young people and bringing these interest rates down--which is so
absolutely essential--then bring back a bill you know will pass,
because you know this bill will not pass.
The President has issued a statement of administration policy that
says they will veto this bill because they do not want to undermine the
health of women, family, and children while, at the same time, they
want to invest in the college education for our country's young people
and our future.
Reject this bill. Bring back a new bill, the Courtney bill, which
does, in fact, invest in our children and take care of the health of
our people.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, as we've noted before, in February,
Congress took action to stop a payroll tax increase on millions of
working families and to ensure that the tax increase did not add to the
deficit. The legislation cut $5 billion from the prevention fund, and
the bill received the support of 149 House Democrats, including
Democrat leaders such as Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Courtney. I
guess that the Democrats were in favor of raiding the slush fund before
they were against it.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs.
Roby), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4628, the
Interest Rate Reduction Act.
I had a nice prepared speech, but in sitting here listening to the
debate, I really want to focus in on one specific issue. American
students should not be fearful to attend college due to the crushing
weight of student loans weighing them down after their graduation.
But as is suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
that this preventive care fund reduction would deny access to
individuals for these health care screenings, I had the privilege, Mr.
Speaker, just yesterday to have a conversation with Secretary Sebelius
directly as it relates to this fund. I asked her specifically: Madam
Secretary, will the reduction in the preventive fund cause a child to
be denied access to a health screening? And by her own admission, she
said, ``Absolutely not.''
As I listen to this debate and I hear the comments from my friends on
the other side of the aisle, I'm actually dismayed to hear some of the
things that are being said that, quite frankly, by the Secretary's own
admission just, quite frankly, aren't true.
I stand today in support of this bill.
I want to also point out that by the Secretary's own admission as
well, she acknowledged that, in fact, the President of the United
States himself, in his own budget, put reductions to this fund.
The Interest Rate Reduction Act will repeal the slush fund. The $5.9
billion will be used to offset the cost of maintaining the 1-year
extension as we move towards a meaningful response to our young people.
Congress must put Washington politics aside and take action. And it
is time to stop piecing together temporary solutions to the problems
that exist in our student aid programs.
I fully support the Interest Rate Reduction Act, and I courage my
colleagues to join me.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I note that I was at that education meeting
and heard the Secretary say very quite clearly that no child who gets
an immunization under this program will get an immunization under this
program if the fund is eliminated. Mrs. Biggert, of course, analyzed
the taking a little bit of the money and equating that with taking and
wiping out the entire fund.
With that said, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The cynicism of the debate today is why Congress is held in such low
repute.
We hear Republicans saying that a public health fund is a slush fund.
This is a fund set up to keep us healthy, prevent diseases as long as
possible, immunize our kids, provide mammography and PAP smears,
services to women in need, to find birth defects early on, to help stop
smoking, and they call this a slush fund. They're not trying to reduce
this fund; their proposal is to eliminate it. The argument from the
other side of the aisle is we'll still get those services.
I don't know where we're going to get those services if the fund is
eliminated and appropriations are being squeezed down. They call this a
slush fund, but they are using it as a slush fund because they took the
elimination of this fund to pay for this extension of student loan
interest rates.
{time} 1110
Then they eliminated this fund so they could use it for their
reconciliation to the budget in order to make sure defense is
adequately funded, to make sure that their tax cuts are kept in place.
They're using it as a slush fund, and they're using the student loan
issue to drive their agenda.
I find that very cynical. I find that, in fact, quite repulsive, and
I hope we will reject this bill. We're all for, according to the
debate, making sure that we maintain the current interest rate for the
7.4 million students depending on these loans, but I don't find much
sincerity when we see a proposal coming from the Republican majority to
pay for that by cutting out preventive services.
There's got to be a better way to do it. They're not looking for a
better way; they're just looking for a way to cover their rear ends.
[[Page H2235]]
I urge people to vote against this bill.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague, and let me just say
to the gentleman from California, who is just getting ready to leave
the floor, when he mentioned that Republicans are going to prevent
tobacco prevention of our youth today, he and I both know there is a
separate program in CDC just for tobacco prevention and, in fact, in
this so-called PPHF, which all of us have called a slush fund, which is
the prevention and public health fund, there is, right now, $191.685
million for this spending for tobacco prevention. After this bill
passes, there would be $109 million still remaining in this for that
smoking and health component of CDC.
I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and Mr. Hoyer of Maryland,
I mean, you're yelling fire and there's no fire. I mean, I can go
through all these things to show you that your arguments are wrong. The
fact that Sebelius, the head of the Health and Human Services, has said
publicly--as the gentlelady from Alabama so eloquently pointed out--
she, in fact, pointed out that this so-called slush fund is not going
to impact what Mr. Hoyer says, dealing with women, families, and
children.
They bring up Rep. Wiliam Natcher. Well, Mr. Natcher says it's very
noble, very good, and you constantly use that.
But I'm just going to take you through these different areas where
you say that it's going to be unable to provide support for families
and women and children.
Cancer prevention and control, which includes breast and cervical
cancer screening, it's funded at $205 million in the FY 2012 budget.
The FY13 budget goes up to $261 million. It goes up almost $60 million.
No prevention funds are being used for free cancer screening, and they
will not be affected.
Let's take birth defects and developmental disabilities. In FY 2012,
the CDC birth defects program was $138 million. It's now going to be
$125 million. Again, these funds would continue to receive
discretionary funding. Nutrition, physical activity and obesity
activities, again, will continue to receive funding, viral hepatitis
screening, CDC health care statistics and surveillance, and, lastly,
prevention and research center. All of these things, I say to the folks
on this side, are going to continue to receive base discretionary
funding.
I challenge you, the gentleman from Massachusetts, to point out where
in each of the ones I have talked about, all these programs are going
to remain in existence.
So how in the world can you come down to the floor and constantly
say----
Mr. TIERNEY. Will the gentleman yield? That is an empty challenge.
Mr. STEARNS. But the point is that you folks are not accurately
portraying what this bill does, so I support H.R. 4628. I agree with
Secretary Sebelius, the slush fund will not affect women, families, and
children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. TIERNEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have addressed my remarks to
the Chair and taken the challenge if it had been anything other than an
empty challenge and would have noted that Secretary Sebelius and the
administration know clearly that those funds would have been diminished
and that thousands of screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer
would have been passed by, hundreds of thousands, in the
administration's own analysis on that.
With that, I ask the Chair for the time remaining on both sides,
please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois has 5\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman, who is a pleasure to work with on
the Education Committee.
Think of the great moments of American public policy--creation of
land grant colleges, the GI Bill, providing student loans--all directed
toward increasing access to higher education.
Four years ago, we, the Democrats, lowered interest rates for
students to 3.4 percent, saving today's typical student borrower a
couple thousand dollars. So 2 days ago, the Speaker, cornered by
student outrage, says, well, the majority always intended to keep these
rates low.
Well, if the Republicans really cared about keeping student interest
rates low, why did their budget double those rates? They voted twice
this year, clearly, explicitly, twice, to let rates double and collect
$166 billion more from students so they could preserve tax giveaways
for Big Oil.
Now they come and propose canceling preventive health care funding,
not preventing cervical cancer, not preventing tobacco-related
diseases, not preventing type 2 diabetes, eviscerating the Centers for
Disease Control to preserve tax giveaways for Big Oil.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congressman Tierney for
yielding and for your tireless leadership on this important issue.
It's clear to me the Republicans are not serious about addressing the
student loan interest rate hikes with the so-called Interest Rate
Reduction Act. Their bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing and would
permanently end the prevention and public health fund established by
the Affordable Care Act.
This prevention fund is the first mandatory funding stream dedicated
to improving public health. It is extremely important in our fight to
prevent chronic diseases, HIV, AIDS, and for women's health. This is
such a sad and sinister ploy. Instead of pitting student loan relief
for middle- and low-income families against critical preventive health
services for middle- and low-income families, we should be working
towards real solutions.
Instead of paying for subsidies to Big Oil, we should invest in our
students, who are our future. This bill jeopardizes, mind you,
jeopardizes the health of our Nation. It uses our students as pawns,
and it is morally wrong.
I hope we defeat this insincere proposal.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. The Republican majority in this House is involved in a
political shell game on this issue. They have voted to eliminate the
prevention and public health fund. They voted 2 days ago to end it.
Today they want to tell you they are going to take money from it to pay
for student loans. You can't end a fund and then talk about taking
money to use it.
In addition to that, the gentleman from California a moment ago
talked about money in the appropriations bills for these health care
programs.
What he doesn't tell you is that the majority in the committees is
voting to cut the money for the Centers for Disease Control, for
screenings for breast and cervical cancer, for all of these efforts.
They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
This majority passed a budget that has asked families to pay for tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans, slashes Pell Grants for nearly 10
million college students, allows interest rates on student loans to
double in July. After there was an outpouring of concern about the
doubling of interest rates, they switched course. This apparent moment
of conscience was too good to be true.
{time} 1120
Instead of ending oil subsidies and closing corporate tax loopholes,
what they now have done is they eliminate--eliminate--the prevention
and public health fund. What that fund does is provide crucial health
services to all Americans, including women and children.
Women, I'll be brief in this: it is about providing screenings for
breast and cervical cancer. My friends, 4,000 women die every year from
cervical cancer. Isn't it worth trying to prevent
[[Page H2236]]
cervical cancer and not eliminate it? It works to prevent coronary
heart disease, the leading killer of women in America. It has the
potential to mitigate osteoporosis, arthritis, and mental illness, all
conditions which disproportionately affect the women in this Nation.
This fund is about the giving of life. There is a level of hypocrisy
on this floor that is staggering. Instead of taking the money from
health care for education, a false choice, vote against this bill.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. The Republicans have taken a 180-degree turn on helping
with student loans. The Republican budget said ``no,'' and in February,
Governor Mitt Romney said this:
The right course for America is to make sure that we
provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest
rate that doesn't have the taxpayers having to subsidize
people who want to go to school.
Now he and the Republicans here have shifted--shifty indeed. How they
are doing so is not only politically expedient, but extremely harmful.
They hit health care--health care. They refuse to end a tax break for
Big Oil that never should have been given in the first place, even
though the Big Five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the
fourth quarter of last year alone. This bill is shameless, and it is
shameful. Vote ``no.''
Mrs. BIGGERT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in my dictionary, a ``slush fund'' is
defined as ``a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on
corruptive propaganda.'' Yet, the Speaker of the House used that term,
and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee used that term
``slush fund,'' to describe the prevention and public health fund,
which saves lives by paying for childhood immunizations and screenings
for cervical cancer and birth defects.
We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. I refuse
to accept the idea that to solve one problem, we have to create
another.
The Democrats proposed righting the Ryan Republican budget wrong by
taxing oil company profits. Therefore, their suggestion that we go from
3.4 percent interest to 6.8 can be paid for out of the wealth of oil
companies that benefit from our country so tremendously.
Mr. Speaker, I reject the blackmail inherent in H.R. 4628. I don't
want anybody to know that it's okay to pit one group against another,
and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. We have to do
the right thing. We have to choose both.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts, Stafford
loan rates will double. I spoke to some students at San Diego State
University just the other day who are worried about their day-to-day
needs, and they asked us not to play politics with this issue.
New grads should have increased opportunities, not bills they can't
pay. A college degree should invite calls from job recruiters, not from
collection agencies.
I'm glad that the majority has abruptly changed course by agreeing to
stop this interest rate hike. But it is unacceptable that this bill
proposes to pay for this by repealing the prevention fund.
The bill creates a choice between funding cancer screenings for a
mother or making college more affordable for her daughter. Would you
want to be that mother? That sends the wrong message to the American
people about our priorities.
I urge my colleagues to support a more equitable solution that
promotes the health of the American families and the future of our
bright minds.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I would ask the gentleman how many speakers does he
have?
Mr. TIERNEY. I have at least five more speakers.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I would continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for yielding me time.
We've talked about the cost of capping student loan interest rates.
Well, I think we should extend the cap for longer than a year, and we
don't need to cut people's health care screenings in order to do it.
Let's create jobs. That's how we can create the economic revenue.
One of the best ways for us to create jobs is to allow student loan
borrowers the ability to pay down on their loans according to their
income for 10 years and then making them eligible to have the balance
of their student loans, if they owe any, be forgiven.
That's the best economic stimulus. These loans are not just for the
benefit of the borrower. It also makes our country stronger. The more
our people are trained and educated, we can sell the best products
overseas and create the best technology. That creates jobs for this
country.
It's in our national interest to help pay down these debts and
forgive certain student loans. Let's redirect some of our money from
Afghanistan and Iraq and use the savings to forgive student loans.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Well, once again, the Republican leadership has shown that
it's more interested in playing political games than it is in getting
things done.
We're talking about student loans here. We should be putting our
heads together and coming up with a better way to pay for lowering
student loan rates, not eviscerating health care prevention. This is
nothing more than a cynical ploy.
The American people want us to work together. We have an opportunity
to do this. This is what we really should be doing. There are lots of
loopholes that we could close. My colleagues have mentioned Big Oil and
Big Gas. We could close those loopholes. We have corporations making
lots of money. We could close those loopholes. But what do the
Republicans decide to do? They decide to hurt health benefits. They
decide to hurt prevention benefits.
This is not the way we should be going. We need to put our heads
together and help these students. The Democrats have said time and time
again that this is our priority. We have voted against Republican
budgets that raise the amount that students have to pay in loans. Stop
playing your cynical games, and let's get to work for the American
people. Let's put our heads together, let's help these students, and
let's not eviscerate health prevention.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4628, a
misguided, deeply partisan bill which would cut $6 billion from the
prevention and public health fund. For months, I have been proud to
help lead the charge to prevent student loan rates from doubling on
July 1. So please excuse my surprise when I hear the majority talk
about their strong support for keeping college loans affordable. This
is a position that they have repeatedly rejected.
Apparently, Republicans have no interest in trying to prevent serious
diseases. Surely, if Republicans can ram a $46 billion tax cut to
millionaires and billionaires, they can find a way to pay for both
education and health care.
I urge my colleagues to vote for defeat of this bill, stop protecting
tax giveaways to Big Oil, and pass a responsible bill to stop the
doubling of student loan rates.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to enter into
the Record several documents. One is from
[[Page H2237]]
the American Council on Education, representing 37 education
associations. They say:
Education has never been as important to America's economic
health as it is now. That is why we are encouraged by the
proposals we have seen. The administration and both parties
have expressed their strong support for keeping the interest
rate at 3.4 percent without cutting other forms of student
aid.
Another one is from Lewis University in Illinois, saying that:
Doubling the interest in the subsidized Stafford loans will
discourage students in need who are striving to continue
their degree studies during these difficult economic times.
Thank you for your support for these students.
{time} 1130
Finally, from Joliet Junior College, saying that the college serves a
population of seven counties in Illinois.
In the 2010 2011 school year, JJC students were awarded
over $23 million in total financial aid. Because of this, the
institution supports H.R. 4628, legislation that would
prevent the scheduled rate hike.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
April 27, 2012.
Kelly Rohder,
Director of Communications and External Relations, Joliet
Junior College, Joliet, IL.
Joliet Junior College is a comprehensive community college
that not only helps students transfer to complete their
bachelor's degrees, but provides occupational education
leading directly to employment, adult education and literacy
programs, and workforce development services.
We serve the populations of seven counties that cover a
1,442-square-mile district. While the principal mission of a
community college is to be a resource to the populations it
serves, access to quality education is equally important. In
the 2010 2011 school year, JJC students were awarded over $23
million in total financial aid. Because of this, the
institution supports H.R. 4628, legislation that would
prevent the scheduled rate hike on certain federal student
loans and extend lower rates for an additional year. It is
our goal to help students--whatever their educational goals
are--be successful in achieving them.
Debra S. Daniels, Ed.D.,
President,
Joliet Junior College.
____
Lewis University,
Romeoville, IL, April 26, 2012.
Hon. Judy Biggert,
Willowbrook, IL.
Dear Congresswoman Biggert: I am writing today to support
your efforts to avert the automatic doubling of interest
rates on subsidized Stafford loans that will occur on July 1,
2012 as the expiration date approaches for legislation that
was approved in 2007 to fix the interest rate on these loans
through June 30, 2012. You are to be commended for taking
action to extend the rate through June 30, 2013 to protect
students from another increase in costs that might discourage
some from pursuing higher education. If the 2007 legislation
is allowed to expire, the interest rate will increase from
3.4% to 6.8%, an increase that seems unconscionable in
today's struggling economy.
You are to be commended for your leadership in promoting
affordability and access to higher education throughout your
career in the U.S. House of Representatives. Much
appreciation for your leadership in introducing House Bill
4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, to extend the 3.4%
rate for one more year. According to news reports, President
Barack Obama supports freezing the interest rate for an
additional year and the likely Republican nominee in this
year's Presidential election, Governor Mitt Romney, also
opposes an increase for the interest rate.
An educated workforce is essential in current efforts to
restore and maintain economic stability and assure a bright
future for our nation. You have been far-sighted in your
support of students at public and private colleges and
universities across the country. Doubling the interest in the
subsidized Stafford loans will discourage students in need
who are striving to continue their degree studies during
these difficult economic times. Thank you for your support
for these students. I appreciate your efforts, your
leadership and your continuing support for quality higher
education.
Sincerely,
Brother James Gaffney, FSC,
President.
____
American Council on Education,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the higher
education associations listed below to express our strong
support for enacting legislation to maintain the subsidized
Stafford student loan interest rate at 3.4 percent. Allowing
this rate to double, as it is scheduled to do on July 1st,
would impose significant additional costs on more than 7.4
million students and their families.
We are very encouraged by the bipartisan interest in
preventing the rate from rising to 6.8 percent in just over
two months time. With interest rates on many consumer loans
available at rates below 3.4 percent, raising student loan
interest rates to 6.8 percent in this environment makes
little sense and would create considerable hardship for
students and their families. We particularly appreciate the
effort made by Democrats and Republicans in both chambers to
seek offsets from outside of student financial aid. In recent
years, a number of benefits within the student loan programs
have been eliminated in order to pay for other programs or to
contribute to deficit reduction. Through a combination of
reductions or eliminations of other student aid programs, we
have witnessed an increased financial burden on our students.
Education has never been as important to America's economic
health as it is now. That is why we are encouraged by the
proposals we have seen. The administration and both parties
have expressed their strong support for keeping the interest
rate at 3.4 percent without cutting other forms of student
aid. We urge Congress to continue their work and produce a
final bill with bipartisan support.
Sincerely,
Molly Corbett Broad,
President.
On behalf of:
ACPA--College Student Educators International
ACT, Inc.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
American Association of Colleges of Nursing
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers
American Association of Community Colleges
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
American Association of University Professors
American Dental Education Association
American Indian Higher Education Consortium
APPA, ``Leadership in Educational Facilities''
Association of American Colleges and Universities
Association of American Law Schools
Association of American Universities
Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
Association of Community College Trustees
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
Association of Research Libraries
College Board
Council for Christian Colleges & Universities
Council for Opportunity in Education
Council of Graduate Schools
Council of Independent Colleges
Educational Testing Service
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
NASPA--Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education
National Association for College Admission Counseling
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education
National Association of College and University Business
Officers
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities
National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Thurgood Marshall College Fund
UNCF
University Professional & Continuing Education Association
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Republican majority was adamantly opposed
to this legislation. This week, we're rushing it through on the floor
today. You know what? That's a good thing. We're on the same page. The
majority and the minority want to preserve student loan interest rates
at 3.4 percent, not let them double to 6.8 percent.
So if that is the case, why are we selecting mutually unacceptable
ways to pay for this? It's as though we're resorting to the trick bags:
you raid the health fund that's so important to us; we present the oil
company provision that is so unacceptable to you.
What we should do is find a way to put some limits, some incentives
to keep tuition increases at or below the rate of inflation. They were
up, 8.4 percent. If we work together, that would be a double win for
students and parents. We could keep those interest rates low, and we
could start bringing down the escalation in tuition increases that are
unacceptable.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H2238]]
Mr. LANGEVIN. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding, and for his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many
other issues in education.
Mr. Speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate
on student loans to more than double. I rise in opposition to H.R.
4628.
While Congress must prevent the Stafford loan interest rate from
doubling to 6.8 percent, it is unconscionable that the Republican
leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care.
Too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college
degree, and it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in
their education and health.
Republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for
this measure by gutting the prevention and public health fund, the sole
purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up
the cost of health care in the first place.
Now, instead of sacrificing our public health to score political
points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue
their dreams without the burdens of unnecessary costs and debt.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield the remaining time on
this side to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
Just a few weeks ago on this very floor, our Republican colleagues
voted for the Republican budget that called for a doubling of interest
rates on student loans on 7 million American students, and they voted
against the Democratic alternative budget, which would have prevented
that increase in student loan interest rates.
So what's happened over the last couple weeks? Well, President Obama
has gone to the country. He has gone to students and he's told the
story about what the Republican budget would do, and so we are here
today.
But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues haven't
changed their minds about this; they've changed their tactics. If they
really wanted to prevent student loans from increasing, they wouldn't
seek to cover the costs by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening,
by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, by cutting other women's
health care measures. They wouldn't push a measure the President has
already said he would veto.
Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal. Let's cover the cost by getting rid
of the subsidies for Big Oil companies. That's the real slush fund
around here. The big taxpayer subsidies go for that purpose. Let's get
the job done, and let's not play political games.
Unfortunately, what we're seeing here, Mr. Speaker, is an effort to
seek political cover. Let's get the job done for real.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
It seems like we came in, and I think the first thing that I talked
about here is how I hoped that we would be able to work together on a
bipartisan basis. It just seems like this is so hard to do in this
political time. I really think that, in major legislation, we really
have to work together to find the solutions, but it seems like the
other side is always ready to tell us what we think and what we are
doing and why we are doing it. We are doing this because we really want
to have our students have the ability to have a quality education, and
it just seems like we're so different on the pay-fors.
I know that everybody agrees on the program itself and how we have to
do it, but we can't seem to do anything without giving us a cynical
view, and it bothers me. It seems like when we were talking about the
pay-fors, the other side of the aisle's first reaction is to raise
taxes for everything and ours has always been to reduce spending, and
we think that this is the way to go. I think we have just got to find a
way to get together.
I had said in my opening statement that I hoped that we would be able
to get together and work together, and also the Senate. I hope that
when this bill goes over to the Senate that there is a negotiation,
that there is a conference so that we really can iron this out and make
sure that there is not a raising to the 6.8 percent.
It kind of makes you wonder. It just seems like the political
maneuvering certainly is continuing on the student loan issue. I guess
today when we have this vote, we'll see what happens. But I really hope
that we get to the Senate so that we have the opportunity to do this.
I just want to go back a little bit to what happened in the Education
Committee yesterday that Mrs. Roby talked about and so did Mr. Tierney.
I think Secretary Sebelius did say that there were services outside the
prevention and public health fund that will remain available to
individuals who seek preventive care, such as cancer prevention and
care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, screenings for
birth defects and developmental disabilities, tobacco prevention at the
CDC, and efforts that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity
to prevent obesity.
{time} 1140
So I think that this really is a lot that we believe in for
prevention. And we heard from Mr. Stearns all of the appropriations and
how that takes care of a lot of the prevention issues.
I think that the American people are really very knowledgeable now
about prevention and what they need to do and have the ability to do
this on their own as well.
This political bickering is not what the bill is all about. What the
bill is all about is to reduce to 3.4 percent interest rates on the
subsidized Stafford loans. And I hope that this bill will pass. I urge
my colleagues to vote for it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have demonstrated
their complete disregard and contempt for women's health and the plight
of students by forcing a choice between the elimination of funding for
the Prevention and Public Health Find or relief for students who are
saddled with student loan debt.
That is a choice that we shouldn't and don't have make. It is cruel
and destructive, it is anti-family, it is not smart economically, and
it is completely unnecessary.
As a mother and a grandmother, I simply cannot understand why
Congressional Republicans continue their assault on women's health. I
cannot understand why they prefer to reduce access to cancer screenings
and immunizations rather than asking Big Oil to give up their
subsidies. I cannot understand why they are trying to force us to
choose between keeping moms healthy or sending their children to
college.
If we want to revitalize our economy and unburden Americans who are
saddled with student loan debt, we must enact policies that help to cut
that debt. Democrats have been demanding action on student loans for
months--and finally, Republicans have agreed to do something.
But at what cost? By putting the health of women and children at
risk. The Prevention and Public Health Fund supports proven prevention
activities like breast and cervical cancer screenings. It helps provide
immunizations for children. It will save lives and keep women well.
Republicans are telling us that we have to choose between protecting
women's and children's health or letting student loan rates double.
Republicans are trying to label the Prevention Fund as a slush fund.
Americans know that mammograms and Pap smears are not ``slush''--they
are basic, routine--and often life-saving--services for women.
Prevention is fundamental. It is the key to reducing health care costs
and creating a long-term path to a healthier and economically sound
America. Cutting prevention programs like breast and cervical cancer
screening now will only lead to increased health costs down the road.
In fact, the data proves that we should be increasing our investment
in early detection through screening and working to increase awareness
about these diseases. The National Health Interview Survey from 2010
found that women are getting screened for breast and cervical cancers
at rates below national standards.
The breast cancer screening rate was 72 percent in 2010, below the
federal health target of 81 percent. The cervical cancer screening
rates were 83 percent, below the 93 percent goal. The screening rates
for both cancers were significantly lower among Asian and Hispanic and
women, as well as those without health insurance or no usual source of
health care.
In the United States in 2012, it is estimated that there will be
226,870 new cases of invasive breast cancer, and nearly 40,000
[[Page H2239]]
women will die from the disease; an estimated 12,000 women will be
diagnosed with cervical cancer, and over 4,000 women will die from
cervical cancer.
Earlier this week, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee
approved over $97 billion in cuts to public health programs to insulate
the Department of Defense from spending cuts triggered by the failure
of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Among the suggested
cuts was the complete elimination of funding for the Prevention and
Public Health Fund. I offered an amendment to preserve support under
the Fund for breast and cervical cancer screening programs and other
women's health preventive services. My amendment was defeated along
party lines.
Republicans could ask millionaires and billionaires, oil and gas
companies making record profits, and corporations that shift jobs and
profits overseas to help offset the cost of reducing student loan
interest rates. Instead, they have decided to continue with their
repeated war on women's health by eliminating funding for the public
health programs that benefit women--to reduce the costs for their sons
and daughters to attend college.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak in opposition to H.R. 4628. This bill forces an unnecessary and
immoral choice between students' education and the health care of
women, children, and seniors.
Since January, President Obama and the Democratic Members of Congress
have urged Republicans to address the pending increase in student loan
interest rates. Over the last month, many Republicans have stated that
they had no qualms about the additional borrowing costs. In fact, they
spoke loudly with their votes in support of the Ryan Budget just last
month, which would double student loan interest rates.
Republicans are not working in good faith to help students and their
families, but are rather using this situation to continue their efforts
to defund programs that provide critical illness prevention and
wellness screening. Cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund will
have a disproportionate impact on America's women and children.
Defunding this program means stripping away vital funding for cancer
detection, childhood immunizations, and screening newborns for birth
defects. The GOP repeal of the Prevention and Public Health Fund is
opposed by nearly 800 organizations, including the American Lung
Association, American Heart Association, American Academy of
Pediatrics, and Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.
In 2007, Democrats in Congress provided relief to students from high
interest rates on need-based loans. We passed the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act that lowered interest rates on subsidized
Stafford Loans each year until they reached a low of 3.4 percent this
past year. Since then, 15 million students have benefitted from lower
rates. Unfortunately, without Republican action in the House and action
in the Senate, those rates are set to double on July 1st from 3.4
percent to 6.8 percent.
The doubling of loan rates will hit students at a time when they can
least afford it. In the current weak economy, young Americans have the
highest unemployment rate of any other group. Two-thirds of the Class
of 2010 graduated with an average of student loan debt of $25,000.
Congress should not be building more hurdles for young people to get
the education and the skills needed to succeed. We should be
facilitating the ability of students to pursue higher education and
training. Every year Congress does not act, it will cost a student
borrower $1,000 in additional repayment costs, and failure to act now
will add $6.3 billion to students' debt burden in one year alone.
Mr. Speaker, it is stop playing politics with American's students and
the health care of women, children, and seniors. I urge the passage
legislation maintaining the current student loan rate that does not
undermine the access to health care that would affect millions of
Americans.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this sham
Republican bill that would eliminate a vital component of ObamaCare--
the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF)--in a blatantly political
attempt to avoid being blamed for allowing interest rates on student
loans to double on 7 million Americans.
Just one month ago, nearly the entire Republican caucus voted for the
Ryan Budget. This budget included a provision allowing the current 3.4
percent interest rate on federal student loans to double on July 1.
Now, in response to intense political pressure, Republicans have done a
complete 180 and claim they do not want to cost college students and
their families an extra $1,000 a year by letting the rate hike take
effect. While I welcome them to the party, the Republican bill, hastily
rushed to the floor under a completely closed process, contains a
poison pill. In order to pay for this legislation, they are continuing
their assault on health reform in general and women's health in
particular. The PPHF has already been used to improve prevention
services in low-income and underserved communities, including
vaccinating children and intervening to prevent chronic diseases such
as diabetes. Eliminating this fund will also mean that hundreds of
thousands of women will loss access to screenings for breast and
cervical cancers. This will cost lives and is completely unacceptable.
There is a better way. Earlier this week, I helped to introduce the
Stop the Rate Hike Act. This bill would keep interest rates on student
loans low. However, it would pay for the fix, not by taking away health
care, but by ending egregious tax breaks for big oil companies. The
Democratic bill would not only keep college within reach for millions
of middle class families, it would also restore some sanity to our tax
code. That is the bill we should be voting on today. I urge all of my
colleges to vote to protect our nation's health and oppose the sham
``Interest Rate Reduction Act.''
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, a bill that
would prevent a sharp increase in interest rates on Direct Stafford
Student loans beginning in July, I am very much opposed to playing
politics with this important issue.
I do not believe we need to choose between cutting funds that provide
much needed preventive health services and making college more
affordable. I cannot understand the mentality that flirts with the idea
of raising college costs and limiting access to health care for working
middle-class families, while instinctively recoiling at the idea of
closing tax loopholes for multinational conglomerates and the
wealthiest Americans.
This is exactly what infuriates the American public and why
Congressional approval ratings are at record lows. I understand it's an
election year and each side wants to score points at the other side's
expense but every time we get into one of these debates with competing
proposals we know will split the Congress and lead to gridlock, it
chips away at the credibility of the institution. We must find a way to
summon the will to get beyond the temptation to take cheap shots at the
other side and put the interests of the American people first.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached
letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.
American Diabetes Association,
April 26, 2012.
Tomorrow, Friday, April 27, your Representative will cast a
vote that will impact the future of programs that improve
public health and prevent diabetes.
Take action now to protect vital public health and
prevention programs!
The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in
2010 as a national investment in prevention and public health
programs over ten years. It is from this fund that the
National Diabetes Prevention Program received its initial
funding. But Members of Congress will be voting tomorrow on
whether to fully repeal this vital fund, gutting efforts to
prevent diabetes and improve our nation's overall health!
We need to make sure diabetes programs and prevention
efforts don't get slashed. Tell your legislators RIGHT NOW to
oppose HR 4628!
Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and another 79
million are on the brink of developing the disease.
Prediabetes, diabetes and its complications already cost the
nation an estimated $218 billion annually and this cost is
expected to grow. If current trends continue, by the year
2050 one in three American adults will have diabetes.
Diabetes prevention is an example of an effort that can save
both lives and money. If brought to scale, it is estimated
that the NDPP will save $191 billion in health care costs
over ten years! The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a
critical source of potential funding for the NDPP.
Take this chance to make your voice heard and tell your
Representative to oppose any efforts to eliminate the
Prevention and Public Health Fund!
Sincerely,
L. Hunter Limbaugh,
Chair of the Board,
American Diabetes Association.
____
National Partnership
for Women & Families,
April 26, 2012.
Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative DeLauro: We are writing to strongly
urge you to protect women's access to important preventive
health benefits by opposing H.R. 4628. This legislation would
eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund and
rescind all unobligated funds. The National Partnership for
Women & Families represents women across the country--and in
your district--who are counting on critical prevention
services that would be lost if this funding were eliminated.
The Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund (PPHTF) was
created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to ensure adequate
funding for preventive health initiatives. These initiatives
help to improve the health of lower
[[Page H2240]]
and middle income women and families and, by improving
health, also help to lower health care spending over time.
And what makes the PPHTF so unique is that it works in
partnership with states and communities. Already there are
several key initiatives funded by the Prevention and Public
Health Trust Fund that are benefitting women including:
Chronic Disease Prevention: to enable communities to use
evidence-based interventions to reduce chronic conditions and
prevent heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, cancer, and other
conditions that impact women.
Obesity Prevention and Fitness: to improve nutrition and
increase physical activity to reduce obesity-related
conditions and health care costs. Reducing obesity rates
(BMI) by 5% nation-wide could save almost $30 billion in
health costs within 5 years.
Expanded Immunization Services: to provide critical
immunizations. Every dollar spent on childhood immunizations
saves $16 in costs to treat preventable illness.
Behavioral Health Screening and Integration with Primary
Health: to help communities integrate primary care services
into publicly funded community mental health and other
community-based behavioral health settings and expand suicide
prevention activities and screenings for substance use
disorders.
HIV/AIDS Prevention: to focus on HIV prevention in high
risk populations and communities by increasing HIV testing
opportunities, linking HIV-infected women with needed
services including preventing maternal child transmission,
and filling critical gaps in data and understanding of the
HIV epidemic to better target prevention, care, and
treatment.
Women in communities across the country are already
beginning to benefit from the initiatives funded by the
Prevention Trust Fund.
To eliminate funding for programs that not only improve the
health and lives of millions of women but also have the
potential for improving population health and lowering health
care spending over time is not fiscally prudent.
We strongly urge you to support the women and families in
your district and oppose H.R. 4628.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness,
President.
____
Nemours,
April 23, 2012.
Hon. Henry Waxman,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Waxman: As the House votes on H.R.
4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, Nemours--an integrated
child health system in the Delaware Valley and Florida--would
like to express its opposition to the repeal of, or any
additional cuts to, the Prevention and Public Health Fund
(Fund). While Nemours has no objection to extending student
loan interest rates, we oppose offsetting this provision with
the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Further cuts to the
Fund will only hurt investments already made in wellness,
prevention, and public health programs. We need to stop
continually sacrificing the Fund for other priorities.
Experts have warned that this could be the first generation
of children who live shorter, less healthy lives than their
parents. As a foundation operating an integrated health
system, we have a unique perspective on the threat that
preventable chronic diseases are posing to the health of
America's children. We believe our country has the
opportunity to invest in our children by promoting health and
disease prevention through the Fund. Already, the Fund has
made important investments in obesity prevention, tobacco
control, and other health priorities. Every attempt to
diminish the Fund compromises our ability to protect and
promote the health of our children, which is our mission at
Nemours.
With Americans spending more each year on health care, the
Fund represents an important investment in a slower cost
growth for our health care system and America's economy
overall. By partaking in preventive and wellness initiatives
early in their lives, more Americans will be able to remain
healthy, preventing unnecessary hospitalizations later in
life. However, in order to do this, our nation needs to
fundamentally realign its health care spending. We need to
invest more at the front end to maintain people's health, as
opposed to focusing our scarce resources on treatment at the
back end. The Fund helps to achieve this goal, and any
attempt to diminish the Fund will compromise our ability to
ensure the health and well-being of our nation and economy.
We urge you to stand with our nation's children and fight
to safeguard the Prevention and Public Health Fund and oppose
all efforts to siphon away this investment.
Sincerely,
Debbie I. Chang,
Vice President,
Policy and Prevention.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the attached letters of
opposition to H.R. 4628.
Congress Must Not Eliminate Prevention and Public Health Fund
Statement of the American Lung Association
Washington.--Some in Congress are trying to force the
nation to choose between health and education. The House of
Representatives is poised to vote on a measure to eliminate
the lifesaving Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for
keeping student loan rates down. The American Lung
Association fiercely opposes any attempts to divert or cut
the Prevention Fund. The Affordable Care Act established the
Prevention Fund to promote wellness, to prevent disease, and
to protect against public health emergencies.
America should not have to choose between protecting the
health of its citizens and making higher education more
affordable. Congress must reject this ill-conceived approach.
The student loan interest rate issue can and must be resolved
without undermining the health of millions of Americans.
The Prevention Fund is already helping Americans across the
country to make healthier choices and to take responsibility
for their own health and the health of their families.
Because of the Prevention Fund, states and communities are
now able to help more people quit smoking through cessation
programs and improve lung health by preventing and treating
lung diseases, including COPD, lung cancer, and asthma. It is
also allowing states and communities to monitor outbreaks of
infectious diseases, such as influenza, and enhance
prevention services in low-income and underserved
communities.
Quitting smoking is the single most important thing a
smoker can do to improve their health status. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Tips from Former
Smokers media campaign, which was underwritten by the
Prevention Fund, has already resulted in tens of thousands of
additional calls to 1 800 QUIT NOW by smokers seeking help
with quitting. This is tangible evidence of the Prevention
Fund having a positive impact.
Prevention programs work. Prevention save lives and helps
keep people healthy. Congress must not play politics with our
nation's health. The American Lung Association strongly urges
Congress to reject this absurd choice.
Erika Sward,
Director, National Advocacy.
____
April 27, 2012.
Hon. George Miller,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Miller: Interest rates on new subsidized
Stafford student loans will double to 6.8 percent beginning
July 1 unless Congress extends a cap that has helped make the
loans more affordable for millions of Americans. This cap was
enacted through bipartisan legislation approved by Congress
in 2007.
As the House votes today on legislation to extend this cap
for one year, we are grateful that the issue is getting
attention and support from members of both parties.
Many students and parents are struggling to keep up with
the runaway costs of paying for college. This is not the time
to pile thousands of dollars in additional debt on their
backs by allowing student loan interest rates to double.
If Congress fails to extend the cap, an estimated 7.4
million borrowers will face higher interest rates. Two-thirds
of all college students now graduate with student loan debt,
compared to just one-third a decade ago. On average, these
students graduate with $25,000 in debt. At over $1 trillion,
student loan debt now tops what Americans owe on their credit
cards.
As a consumer organization, we are deeply troubled by the
idea of paying for this extension by cutting funds from a
prevention and public health fund that is designed to help
consumers get life-saving cancer screenings and child
immunizations. The alternative proposal to cut federal
subsidies for oil and gas companies, which have collected
record-breaking profits, appears to be a more equitable
solution.
We urge lawmakers to come together to develop a path
forward on the funding mechanism so that students can afford
the education they need to stay competitive in today's tough
job market. Congress should invest in our future by extending
the interest rate cap.
Sincerely,
Pamela Banks,
Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
Ioana Rusu,
Regulatory Counsel, Consumers Union.
____
Congress Must Find a Truly Bipartisan Solution To Keep Student Loan
Rate From Doubling
Washington, DC.--Today, Campus Progress Action is calling
on Congress to set aside its partisan differences, come
together, and stop the interest rate on the subsidized
Stafford student loans from doubling July 1.
Anne Johnson, director of Campus Progress Action, said:
``While we are pleased that the Republican leadership in the
House has moved swiftly to bring a bill to a vote, their
proposal to pay for the extension of the current interest
rate by cutting preventive health care is destructive and
shows a lack of serious leadership. This is not a bipartisan
solution.''
``If Congress fails to act'' Johnson continued, ``being
able to afford college will be even harder for millions of
American families. An extra $1,000 will add to the burden of
already skyrocketing tuition. That money could be used to
help a young graduate move out, pay rent, buy food, pay for a
car, and other important expenses.''
[[Page H2241]]
Campus Progress Action is urging members to vote no on H.R.
4628 and work to find a bipartisan way to pay for maintaining
low interest rates for students without impacting other vital
programs.
The nearly 7.5 million students who will be impacted if
Congress does not take action are hard at work on campuses
around the country as they earn their degrees. Congress
should be working just as hard to make sure we don't let them
down.
____
Trust for America's Health,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the Trust for
America's Health, I urge you to oppose the use of the
Prevention and Public Health Fund (Fund) as an offset for the
Interest Rate Reduction Act (H.R. 4628). Repealing the Fund,
which has already suffered a significant cut, would
compromise our ability to make progress on cost containment,
public health modernization, and wellness promotion. Please
oppose this measure and instead look to a solution that will
not penalize middle-class Americans.
Two years ago, in creating the Fund, the federal government
made a historic investment in the future by focusing on
keeping soaring health care costs under control, while at the
same time, helping those who wanted to be healthy get or stay
healthy. The Fund is our first sustained national investment
in prevention, and is essential to efforts to reduce the
growth of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease,
and diabetes, which are the primary drivers in the increase
in health costs.
To date, the Fund has provided resources to support
evidence-based strategies at the community level that help
people get healthy and achieve significant gains such as
reducing average body mass index (BMI). A recent TFAH study
finds that if the country ignores the obesity epidemic,
obesity rates could be expected to grow from 32 percent to 50
51 percent for men and from 35 percent to 45 52 percent for
women by 2030. In under two decades, the majority of our
country could be not just overweight but obese. Yet,
according to the same TFAH analysis, if we reduce the average
BMI by just five percent, the county could save nearly $30
billion in health care savings in just five years.
However, if the country keeps using investments in the
future to cover these short-term ``fixes,'' our children will
continue to be penalized and, for the first time ever,
there's a significant chance that a generation will live
shorter and less healthy lives than the previous generation.
The Fund was designed to invest in innovative programs that
will help make healthy choices the easy choices for
Americans, and help curtail rising health care costs. It has
received wide backing since it was created: 760 national,
state and local organizations, representing a broad spectrum
of sectors, have pledged their support for the Fund. Any cuts
to the Prevention Fund guarantee the country will now be
paying more for obesity-related health costs over the next
ten years and Americans will be less healthy, productive and
happy.
Prevention is the key to lowering health care costs and
creating a long-term path to a healthier and economically
sound America, and the Prevention Fund is an essential part
in bringing communities together on innovative projects that
will help us reverse the obesity epidemic and realize these
cost savings. I urge you to reject any proposal to repeal or
cut the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Levi, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the attached letters of
opposition to H.R. 4628.
House GOP Student Interest Rate Bill Offers Young Adults a Choice: Your
Health or an Affordable Education?
Yesterday, House Republicans announced support for
preventing interest rate hikes on subsidized Stafford Loans
from doubling on July 1st, joining the Administration and
House and Senate Democrats who have already stated a
commitment to keeping rates down. On Friday, the House
Republicans will call for a vote on their bill introduced
yesterday to extend the lower interest rates. However, the
bill pays for this extension by eliminating a multi-billion
dollar health care prevention fund for life-saving cancer
screenings and child immunizations. These cuts would have a
negative impact on the health of children, young adults, and
families. ``Keeping interest rates from doubling is a
priority, and we are thrilled to see policymakers from both
sides of the aisle support college affordability and take
steps to keep student debt from increasing even further,''
said Jennifer Mishory, deputy director of Young Invincibles.
``However, pitting the interest rate freeze against health
care prevention calls for a false choice between staying
healthy and getting a shot at an affordable education.'' The
House Republican bill would cut the Public Health and
Prevention Fund, which next year is set to provide funding
for childhood immunizations and cancer control programs,
including breast and cervical cancer screening. Mishory
added, ``About 15% of young adults have a chronic disease.
Since when does this generation have to choose between a
stable economic future and a healthy one?'' Effective cancer
screening and early and sustained treatment could reduce the
cancer death rate by 29%. Moreover, just as 92 percent of
young Democrats and 78 percent of young Republicans say that
making college loans affordable will help the economy,
sufficient investment in prevention has positive economic
impact. Research shows that every dollar spent on
immunizations could save $5.30 on direct health care costs
and $16.50 on total societal costs. You can view a recent
Young Invincibles report on the Stafford interest rate issue
at the link below: http://younginvincibles.org/News/releases
/student_loan_interest_rates.pdf.
For background on the cost of college and the rise in
student debt, please visit: http://www.younginvincibles.org/
News/releases/student
_debt_onepager_apri12012.pdf.
____
Don't Play Politics With Student Loan Hike
Washington, DC.--Victor Sanchez, President of the United
States Student Association, issued the following statement on
the recent flood of legislation to address the fast
approaching student interest rate hike.
``Students respond to Republican lip service with a unified
response: `Don't play politics with my student loans.' ''
``We are thrilled to see President Obama and Congressional
leaders of both parties working to prevent 7.4 million
students from taking on an additional $1000 of debt for each
new student loan they borrow,'' said Victor Sanchez,
President of the United States Student Association.''
``This week House and Senate members from both parties
introduced contrasting proposals to pay for legislation that
will keep student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8%
on July 1st. Amongst the proposals, House Speaker Boehner
announced a vote this Friday on Rep. Biggert's bill, which
would cut funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund
in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to pay for the investment.''
``Speaker Boehner believes that the best way to pay for the
extension of the 3.4% interest rate on subsidized Stafford
loans is by taking funding from an important program that
supports efforts to prevent disease and protect against
health emergencies in the ACA. In contrast Democrats, who
have led on this critical issue, put forth a plan that closes
tax loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to avoid paying
the same income taxes that middle-class Americans pay.''
``The United States Student Association is happy that both
parties have prioritized extending the current student loan
interest rate, but students know that the fight to make
education affordable and attainable has not yet been won.
Students should not have to choose between their health care
and an affordable education, which is what Speaker Boehner's
proposal would force them to do.''
``Over the past few months students have been organizing
tremendously to put student loan debt and the subsidized
Stafford loan hike at the forefront of the national dialogue
by coordinating national days of actions and confronting
members of Congress on the issue. Students cannot allow this
important investment in our education to become the victim of
Washington partisan gridlock.''
____
American Cancer Society,
Cancer Action Network,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Dear Representative: The American Cancer Society Cancer
Action Network (ACS CAN) strongly opposes any legislation
that would cut prevention and public health funding for any
purpose, including offsetting the cost of student loan
programs. Reducing funding intended for prevention of disease
makes no sense from a public health standpoint and
furthermore will increase overall health care expenditures in
the long run.
Half of the estimated 577,000 deaths that will occur from
cancer this year could have been prevented by eliminating
tobacco use, encouraging better diet and exercise, and giving
all Americans access to cancer screening and preventive
medicine. Tobacco use alone kills half a million Americans
every year. Another 188,000 deaths from cancer are due to
poor nutrition, physical inactivity, and obesity-related
disease.
Prevention is predicated on the common-sense reality that
we as a nation should take steps to resolve health care
crises before they begin. It is a fact that diseases we have
conquered in the past--polio, smallpox, tuberculosis and
others--no longer present the public health risk they once
did because of the work we still do to prevent them from
occurring. In much the same way, prevention is the real cure
for cancer.
Today, the Prevention and Public Health Fund is being used
to save lives by addressing the greatest modifiable cancer
risk factors: tobacco use, poor nutrition, physical
inactivity, and obesity. For example, in Alabama, funding is
being used to educate and help women access life-saving
preventive services such as mammograms and Pap tests. In New
York state, funding is being used to achieve four strategic
objectives: tobacco-free living; active and healthy eating;
high-impact evidence-based clinical and other preventive
services; and creating healthy and safe physical
environments. In Texas, funding is being used to improve the
health care workforce and ensure that residents have access
to evidence-based services including tobacco quitlines and
cancer screenings. Dollars provided by the fund are
supporting projects like these in each of the 50 states. This
is the kind of work that will transform our health system,
allowing the nation to control costs and improve health
outcomes--something we all want to accomplish.
[[Page H2242]]
Voting to cut prevention funding is a vote in support of
more chronic disease. Accordingly, we urge you not to cut the
Prevention and Public Health Fund further, and help to save
lives in the process. Thank you so much for your
consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Christopher W. Hansen,
President.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition
to H.R. 4628.
A Union of Professionals,
April 26, 2012.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.5 million
members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge
you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction
Act.
As you know, on July 1, interest rates on federal
subsidized Stafford student loans will double from 3.4
percent to 6.8 percent. This increase will affect 7.4 million
low- and middle-income students, having a lasting impact on
the long-term costs of their loans and on their future life
decisions, like buying a home, owning a business or starting
a family.
College students are graduating with record levels of debt.
In fact, national student debt has surpassed our nation's
credit card debt, and with the high levels of unemployment
and underemployment for graduates, there could hardly be a
worse time for the interest rate on Stafford loans to double.
We are pleased that both parties in the House have now
finally acknowledged the need to prevent interest rates from
doubling in July. However, there is a right way and a wrong
way to pay for the cost of keeping the rates low for one
year. Under H.R. 4628, the majority proposes to take billions
of dollars from the prevention and public health fund in the
Affordable Care Act. This fund helps ensure that women
receive affordable and critical preventive healthcare, like
breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings that can save
their lives and reduce unnecessary medical costs to them and
to taxpayers. And the fund supports community health centers,
provides child immunizations and helps children with birth
defects. Alternatively, the minority supports ending unfair
tax loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals and
corporations, and then using these savings to prevent loan
rates from doubling.
Congress should not rob Peter to pay Paul by using a
funding stream geared to help public health and provide
preventive healthcare to pay for the loan rate extension. It
is unconscionable, when other options are available, to
propose that the student loan problem be solved by
undercutting the healthcare available to women, children and
others most in need of assistance. Instead, the majority
should be supporting other ways to pay for this proposal,
such as requiring wealthy individuals and corporations to pay
their fair share of taxes.
Again, I urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628. The House
must stop playing politics with students' debt and put forth
a serious proposal with responsible and fair offsets.
Thank you for considering our views on this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Kristor W. Cowan,
Director, Legislation.
____
ASTHO and NACCHO,
April 26, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: We are writing
today to oppose efforts to pay for changes in interest rates
on student loans using funds from the Prevention and Public
Health Fund (the Fund). Tens of millions of Americans suffer
from preventable diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes,
and cancer, and today's children are in danger of becoming
the first generation to live shorter, less healthy lives than
their parents. In order to support the nation's public health
system and reduce rising health care treatment costs, the
National Association of County and City Health Officials
(NACCHO) and the Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials (ASTHO) strongly support the Prevention and Public
Health Fund and oppose any effort to reduce or eliminate the
Fund.
As you know, the Fund is a dedicated investment in
community prevention and state and local public health
capacity and workforce and is a much-needed down payment on
the health and economic well-being of all Americans. Federal
investment from the Fund has already begun to address
improvements in the nation's health status by supporting
essential and proven prevention activities, such as
immunization and tobacco cessation. Additionally, through the
National Public Health Improvement Initiative which is
supported through the Fund, states and localities are working
to improve the delivery of necessary public health services
by accelerating the ability for public health agencies to
achieve national performance standards. Public health
capacity will be improved and made more efficient through
this investment.
Of the more than $1.7 trillion in healthcare spent
nationally every year, less than four cents out of every
dollar are spent on prevention and public health. Half of
American adults have at least one preventable chronic
illness, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, or
arthritis. This has a resounding effect on the productivity
of our nation and is taking a huge toll on our economy.
Additionally, chronic disease accounts for nearly 70 percent
of all U.S. deaths and costs the nation approximately $1.8
trillion each year in lost productivity and healthcare
expenditures. More than 60 percent of American adults are
overweight or obese, and this epidemic costs the U.S. $147
billion annually. Investing in prevention and public health
not only saves lives, but it also yields a significant return
on investment.
The Fund not only provides innovative ways to fight
preventable diseases, it also supports core public health
programs such as the Section 317 Immunization program which
provides essential immunizations for the nation's under and
uninsured children. Significantly reducing the Fund would
also cripple state and local health departments' ability to
inspect food, prepare for and respond to deadly tornadoes or
floods, or track and isolate a disease outbreak. On top of
losing programs, state and local health departments have
already seen a loss of over 52,000 public health jobs (17
percent of state workforce and 22 percent of local
workforce). Due to cuts at the state and local levels, health
departments cannot make up for these lost dollars; this puts
all Americans' health at risk.
The Fund has already faced a steep reduction this year,
losing $6.25 billion in budget authority to offset the cost
of freezing the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula.
Further reducing the Fund now would only exacerbate the
strain state and local public health departments are facing.
Additionally, unlike the mandatory funds for Medicare and
Medicaid, the law creating the Fund explicitly reserves the
right of Congress to allocate spending. This provision was
purposefully inserted into the law to preserve the ability of
the Congress to exercise its judgment in making funding
decisions while maintaining this important fiscal commitment
to prevention.
Once again, we urge you to oppose efforts to eliminate or
reduce the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The nation's
comparatively poor health has a high cost in both human and
economic terms. Our nation's health department officials
strongly oppose any efforts to decrease the federal
commitment to prevention and public health.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Jarris, MD, MBA,
STHO Executive Director.
Robert M. Pestronk, MPH,
NACCHO Executive Director.
____
Campaign for America's Future
Dear Friend: Here's the real debt crisis: student loan
debt. Today, the average student graduates from college with
a diploma and an anchor--$25,000 of debt.
And if Congress doesn't act, student loan interest rates
will double on July 1.
Don't let Congress kick new graduates in the teeth. Click
here to demand your representatives in Congress stop the
student loan rate increase.
President Obama supports keeping the current Stafford Loan
interest rate at a low 3.4% rate. His opponent Mitt Romney
just reversed his position and said he agrees. This should
not be a partisan issue.
Yet the House bill to stop the scheduled rate increase has
no Republican sponsors.
The Republican chair of the House education committee says
he has ``serious concerns'' about the bill. And the
Republican budget--championed by Paul Ryan and embraced as
``marvelous'' by Mitt Romney--both calls for deep cuts in
Pell grants and assumes that the interest rates on government
sponsored student loans will double.
Stop the stonewalling! Click here to demand your
representatives in Congress stop the student loan rate
increase.
What are the Republican ``concerns''? They claim to be
opposed to the $6 billion cost of keeping the rate low.
But jacking up the rate simply shifts that $6 billion cost
onto the next generation of students who are already crushed
by debt.
And House Republicans didn't have a problem last week
passing a bill with yet another tax break for the rich that
would add $46 billion to the national debt.
It gets worse, the key Republican subcommittee chair
recently revealed her ignorance about today's high cost of
college. Rep. Virginia Foxx declared she had ``very little
tolerance'' for students with major debt because there is
``no reason'' to take out big student loans.
Why? Because she worked her way through college 50 years
ago . . . when the cost of college was about three times
cheaper.
They are playing politics with the futures of our students.
It must stop.
Students are not political Pawns! Click here to demand your
representatives in Congress stop the student loan rate
increase.
Conservatives routinely claim we need severe austerity to
save the next generation from massive debt. Yet here they
are, about to dump more debt on them right now.
Instead of kicking students when they are down, we should
end the student debt crisis. The Federal Reserve lends money
to banks
[[Page H2243]]
at rates near 0%, why not lend to students at similar rates?
Unlike banks, graduates won't use the money to blow up the
economy.
We need bold ideas to make college affordable and give
every child the tools to thrive in the modern economy.
For example, estimates on what it would cost to give every
student free tuition at public colleges are LESS than the
cost of Ryan and Romney's pledge to eliminate the estate tax
on multi-million dollar fortunes.
Surely it makes more sense to insure that every qualified
student can afford the education that he or she has earned
than it does to guarantee that the heirs of the wealthy need
never work another day in their lives.
We cannot simply protect the status quo. But the absolute
last thing our college graduates need right now is to add to
the burden of their school debts.
We need to win this fight against the loan rate increase
today, and build momentum to win big progressive reforms
tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Borosage,
Co-director,
Campaign for America's Future.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition
to H.R. 4628.
Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: We are
writing to express our opposition to eliminating the
Prevention and Public Health Fund, a provision in H.R. 4628,
the Interest Rate Reduction Act. Eliminating this funding for
evidence-based prevention programs is an unwise choice for an
offset for this legislation. Only by investing in prevention
can the nation reduce the burden that preventable diseases
are placing on our families, health care system, and
government budgets.
The Prevention and Public Health Fund was created to
transform our nation's health system into one that values
prevention of disease as highly as treatment of disease. It
was intended to provide a stable source of funding for
prevention programs, which have been chronically underfunded
despite their capacity to avert disease, save lives, and
restrain the rate of growth of health care costs.
Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death and
disease in the United States. More than 400,000 people die
each year because of tobacco use, and more than 8 million
Americans are currently living with a tobacco-caused disease.
Tobacco use is responsible for nearly $100 billion in health
care costs each year. Reducing tobacco use would reduce
premature deaths and the costs of treating tobacco-caused
cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.
Fortunately, there are proven programs and policies to
reduce tobacco use, such as telephone-based quitlines that
provide counseling and cessation products to people who want
to quit, public education media campaigns that educate about
the dangers of tobacco use, and state and community-based
programs that involve community organizations and businesses
in prevention efforts. Investing in comprehensive tobacco
control programs pays dividends. The state of Washington's
tobacco control program saved more than $5 for every $1 it
spent between 2000 and 2009 by reducing hospitalizations for
heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and cancer caused
by tobacco use.
In March, the CDC used the Prevention and Public Health
Fund to launch the government's first-ever, paid, nationwide
media campaign to encourage smokers to quit and prevent
children from starting to smoke. Public health authorities
such as the Surgeon General, the National Cancer Institute,
and the Institute of Medicine have all concluded that media
campaigns work. The first results of the new CDC media
campaign are promising: calls to state quitlines more than
doubled during the two weeks after the ads began running.
We urge you to oppose H.R. 4628 and its elimination of the
Prevention and Public Health Fund. The Prevention Fund was
already cut by more than $6 billion by Congress earlier this
year. Cutting prevention funding is penny wise and pound
foolish. Not investing in prevention now will mean higher
medical bills later. We urge you to protect the Prevention
and Public Health Fund.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Myers,
President.
____
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL CIO, I am writing
to urge you to vote against the Interest Rate Reduction Act
(H.R. 4628), which would eliminate the Prevent and Public
Health Fund in order to offset the cost of capping student
loan costs, and instead support an alternative that would cap
the interest rate on needs-based student loans at 3.4%
without slashing important disease prevention programs. H.R.
4628 is little more than a ploy to score political points by
pitting one worthy legislative objective against another.
We believe that a college education should be available to
every student who is willing to work for it, and keeping the
cost of student loans within reach is critical to achieving
that goal. Congress must act before July 1 to keep interest
rates from doubling for more than 7 million students, which
would cost them an average of $1,000 in additional repayment
costs. But Congress must act without causing harm to another
group of Americans who will benefit from the Prevention and
Public Health Fund, created by the Affordable Care Act.
The Prevention Fund is already helping states and
communities promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect
against public health emergencies. Since the ACA was enacted
in 2010, HHS has awarded over $1 billion in Prevention Fund
Grants to tackle the leading causes of chronic disease and
mortality. Seven out of 10 deaths in America every year are
from chronic diseases, and about 50 percent of all adults
suffer from one. Programs supported by the Prevention Fund
use evidence-based interventions to prevent heart attacks,
strokes, cancer, and other illnesses by curbing tobacco use,
eliminating obesity, and reducing health disparities. The
fund also builds the capacity of our public health
infrastructure and workforce to address the spread of
infectious diseases and expand access to services in
medically underserved communities. Repealing the Prevention
Fund would result in higher mortality due to chronic
illnesses and significantly higher costs for our health care
system.
We urge you to vote against H.R. 4628 because it would
inappropriately and gratuitously eliminate the Prevention and
Public Health Fund. It is hard to believe that the House
Republican leadership could not identify a more appropriate
offset. For example, it could have chosen legislation to
implement the Buffett Rule, which would ensure that people
who make more than $1 million per year pay an effective
federal income tax rate at least 30 percent. We urge the
House to approve the Senate's Stop the Student Loan Interest
Hike Act (S. 2343), which does include a more appropriate
offset to forestall a spike in student loan costs.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
____
AFSCME,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to support responsible
legislation to help students and families afford a college
education by stopping the interest rate on student loans from
doubling on July 1, 2012. However, the Interest Rate
Reduction Act (H.R. 4628) is the wrong approach to this real
problem, and AFSCME strongly urges you to vote no.
What H.R. 4628 gives with one hand, it takes away with the
other. The bill would pay for the interest rate reduction by
eliminating funding for public health activities such as
breast and cervical cancer screenings, child immunizations,
newborn screenings, protection of our food supplies and
responding to disease outbreaks, bioterrorism and natural
disasters. By gutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund,
the bill would undermine efforts to refocus our health care
system on wellness and to restrain the costs driven by the
prevalence of chronic disease.
American families should not be forced to choose between
access to an affordable college education and their health.
There are far better options for funding the interest rate
reduction, including an end to wasteful taxpayer subsidies
for big oil and gas companies, as provided by the Stop the
Rate Hike Act of 2012 (H.R. 4618).
We urge you to support a responsible fix to the student
loan problem that does not compromise the health and well-
being of American families. H.R. 4628 is clearly not the way
to go.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Loveless,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to
H.R. 4628.
April 26, 2012.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Public
Health Association, the oldest and most diverse organization
of public health professionals and advocates in the world, I
write to urge you to reject the latest attack on the
Prevention and Public Health Fund that will be considered on
the House floor on Friday, April 27. This proposed
legislation would cut $6 billion from the fund to pay for
student loans. This irresponsible legislation marks the
second time this week that the House has considered
legislation to raid the fund. On April 25, the House Energy
and Commerce Committee voted to eliminate the fund as part of
its proposed budget reconciliation legislation.
The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents a critical
investment in public health and a historic commitment to
changing our health system from one that focuses on treating
the sick to one that focuses on keeping people healthy.
Chronic disease spending makes up a significant majority of
our skyrocketing health care costs and the fund presents an
opportunity to rein in our health care spending by reducing
the rate of many leading chronic diseases. The fund's
mandatory nature demonstrates an ongoing
[[Page H2244]]
commitment to preventing disease and improving the health of
our nation.
Already, the fund is being used to control the obesity
epidemic, reduce tobacco use, modernize vaccination systems
and for other important interventions that will improve the
health of the nation's children and research has show will
ultimately improve student achievement. Additionally the fund
is increasing training for the public health workforce,
preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and expanding our public
health departments' abilities to prevent and respond to
infectious disease outbreaks. Eliminating or reducing this
funding would leave American families less healthy and at
higher risk in the event of a public health emergency.
Public health funding, including the Prevention and Public
Health Fund, has already seen significant reductions in
recent years. We urge you to end the ongoing attacks on the
Prevention and Public Health Fund and to reject any efforts
to eliminate or reduce this critical public health funding.
Sincerely,
Georges C. Benjamin,
MD, FACP, FACEP (E),
Executive Director.
____
Service Employees
International Union,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
Dear Representative, On behalf of the more than 2.1 million
members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
I urge you to oppose H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction
Act, which would force Americans to choose between preventive
health care and paying more for college, rather than asking
millionaires and corporations to pay their fair share. This
bill cuts investments to improve preventive health care in
order to pay to stop the student loan interest rate hike--
once again protecting corporations like Big Oil instead of
fighting for the middle class.
If Congress fails to take sensible action by July, the
interest rate on need-based student loans will double for
more than 7 million students, costing them $1,000 in
additional repayment costs. However, instead of closing
loopholes that subsidize oil and gas companies, H.R. 4628
would take billions of dollars from investments in preventive
health care in order to reduce student loan rates for low-
and middle-income college students. This is a trade-off--
between affordable health care and investments in preventive
health--that need not and should not be made.
Students are already paying much more than their fair
share. New graduates average more than $25,000 in debt and
collectively, Americans owe more than $1 trillion dollars in
student loans. Furthermore, the main reason why student debt
has skyrocketed is because states dramatically decreased
funding for higher education and universities passed the cost
to students. State funding for public higher education
dropped 26 percent over the past 20 years, resulting in a 116
percent increase in tuition. Students have to borrow more and
pay back more.
During a time of dramatic income inequality and persistent
unemployment, we should be focused on helping struggling
families and creating good jobs. Congress should prevent this
student loan rate hike to help pave the way to the middle
class, but should not be cutting investments in preventive
health care to pay for it.
I urge you to vote against H.R. 4628, and to pass a bill
that does not force Americans to make a choice between
keeping student loan interest rates low and compromising
critical health care investments. If you have any questions
about this bill, please contact Steph Sterling, Legislative
Director, at 202 730 7232, or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____
Nemours,
April 23, 2012.
Hon. Henry Waxman
Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy & Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Waxman: As the House votes on H.R.
4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, Nemours--an integrated
child health system in the Delaware Valley and Florida--would
like to express its opposition to the repeal of, or any
additional cuts to, the Prevention and Public Health Fund
(Fund). While Nemours has no objection to extending student
loan interest rates, we oppose offsetting this provision with
the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Further cuts to the
Fund will only hurt investments already made in wellness,
prevention, and public health programs. We need to stop
continually sacrificing the Fund for other priorities.
Experts have warned that this could be the first generation
of children who live shorter, less healthy lives than their
parents. As a foundation operating an integrated health
system, we have a unique perspective on the threat that
preventable chronic diseases are posing to the health of
America's children. We believe our country has the
opportunity to invest in our children by promoting health and
disease prevention through the Fund. Already, the Fund has
made important investments in obesity prevention, tobacco
control, and other health priorities. Every attempt to
diminish the Fund compromises our ability to protect and
promote the health of our children, which is our mission at
Nemours.
With Americans spending more each year on health care, the
Fund represents an important investment in a slower cost
growth for our health care system and America's economy
overall. By partaking in preventive and wellness initiatives
early in their lives, more Americans will be able to remain
healthy preventing, unnecessary hospitalizations later in
life. However, in order to do this, our nation needs to
fundamentally realign its health care spending. We need to
invest more at the front end to maintain people's health, as
opposed to focusing our scarce resources on treatment at the
back end. The Fund helps to achieve this goal, and any
attempt to diminish the Fund will compromise our ability to
ensure the health and well-being of our nation and economy.
We urge you to stand with our nation's children and fight
to safeguard the Prevention and Public Health Fund and oppose
all efforts to siphon away this investment.
Sincerely,
Debbie I. Chang,
Vice President, Policy and Prevention.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
4628, the Interest Reduction Act. At a time when 7.4 million low- and
middle-income students are counting on Congress to extend the current
interest rate on federal student loans, the majority has brought to the
floor a partisan bill that would take billions of dollars away from the
Prevention and Public Health Fund in the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a critical part
of health care reform. Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act,
the Fund has already been used to:
Improve prevention services in low-income and underserved
communities;
Expand mental health programs, including suicide prevention efforts;
Invest in public health workforce development;
Provide vaccines to underserved and underinsured children and adults,
and provide support for state and local systems to promote and track
immunization; and
Promote healthy diets and active lifestyles.
The GOP bill to extend the current interest rate on federal student
loans would permanently end this vital program--cutting off basic
preventative care services to millions of Americans.
We must extend the current interest rate on federal student loans,
but not on the backs of women and children who will benefit from the
prevention fund. This bill takes a short-sighted and misguided approach
to solving the issue at hand.
If this body fails to act responsibly to extend the current interest
rate on student loans, students who take out the maximum $23,000 in
subsidized student loans will see their interest increase an additional
$5,200 over a 10-year repayment period and $11,300 over a 20-year
repayment period.
By extending the current interest rate, we are making an investment
in our country's future--our economy depends on an educated citizenry
to out-compete and out-innovate the rest of the world. Maintaining
access to a quality and affordable education is central to preserving
America's status as a center for academic research and technological
innovation.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this politically-motivated
legislation that will threaten the long-term well-being of women and
children, and request that a more serious alternative be considered.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, a previous commitment has
prevented me from voting today, but if I had the opportunity, I would
have voted against the legislation. It is abundantly clear that
Congress needs to do something to keep student interest rates from
doubling for more than 7 million college students in the coming year.
Ensuring that education is widely accessible is vital to growing the
U.S. economy and to expanding opportunities for all Americans. The
growing burden of higher education costs is an issue that everyone
should be concerned about and threatens to limit future economic
growth. We must not burden graduates with unmanageable college debt as
they seek to launch a career or a business, start a family, or buy a
house.
That's why Democrats have been pushing Republicans for weeks to do
something to provide students and families with certainty as they look
ahead to the 2012 2013 school year.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, which would permanently
keep interest rates for student Stafford loans at 3.4 percent. Taking
action to stop the doubling of these rates will save students $1,000,
on average, over the life of their loans. There is a clear national
interest in enacting this legislation and broad support from my
constituents.
That's why it's particularly frustrating that Republicans have chosen
to link their legislation, which provides students with only one year
of reprieve before interest rates go up again, with a controversial
offset that ensures the legislation won't actually pass. The chosen
[[Page H2245]]
offset for this bill removes funding for health prevention services,
forcing Americans to choose between preventive health care and paying
more for college. For instance, Republicans have used this legislation
to remove funding for breast and cervical cancer prevention and control
efforts ($143 million), programs to address birth defects and
developmental disabilities such as newborn screening for hearing loss
and prevention of congenital heart defects ($107 million), and
vaccinations for underserved children and adults ($72 million).
Both student aid and public health are core governmental functions
and basic investments in our country's future. While providing student
aid is very important, we have to make sure that children are healthy
enough to go to college in the first place. Why are Republicans wasting
America's time with political games when there is a clear path forward
to solving the problem in a permanent, bipartisan fashion?
Unfortunately a long-standing engagement out of town means that I
will have to miss the vote on this legislation. Due to my concern over
the offset for the program, I would have voted no. I hope that my
colleagues can draft a new bill that protects our students without
taking money away from important preventative health services.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4628.
While I fully support extending the Subsidized Stafford student loan
interest rate of 3.4 percent, the cost of it should not defund efforts
to reduce health disparities, especially for America's women and
children. I am glad the Majority in the House recognizes the need to
extend the interest rate but they are toying with students by tying the
extension to the elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Already this Fund has awarded more than $62 million to New York State
to combat obesity and tobacco use, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and
train the State's public health workforce to meet modern health care
needs. These and other critical services, including screenings for
breast and cervical cancer, are being offered all across the country.
I am committed to the House Minority's effort to prevent the student
loan rate from doubling for millions of Americans. My Congressional
district is home to numerous colleges and universities, and I know the
amount of debt that students incur by attending these schools. Federal
loan and aid opportunities are critical to giving students the
opportunity to pursue higher education. In his 2012 State of the Union,
President Obama called on the Congress to advance new reforms to
address the rising costs of college so that the American workforce is
prepared for 21st century jobs. Now is the time to work to make college
accessible and affordable. I urge my colleagues to support the
Minority's legislation that would extend the lower interest rate for
students without hurting the health of our nation.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives missed
an opportunity to do right by millions of American students.
This was an opportunity for us all to come together in a bipartisan
way and ensure that college students would not see their student loan
interest rates double in just a few months.
But instead, Republicans chose to give our students a lesson in
Partisan Politics 101.
For all the rhetoric we heard about their desire to stop these rate
hikes, they just couldn't pass up the chance to use one of their
favorite tactics--dismantling the Affordable Care Act.
They did this knowing full well that this proposal would never get
the support it needs to become law.
They made the calculation that they would try to score political
points rather than help ensure that students can access an affordable
college education.
But these political tactics are not going to help families shoulder
the cost of paying for college.
They are not going to give more students the opportunity to achieve
the American dream.
And they are not going to help keep our country competitive in a
global economy by training the best and the brightest in needed fields.
What this maneuver would achieve is fewer disease screenings,
weakened community health programs, and worse health for us all.
Is that the country we want to be?
We shouldn't have to choose between educating our next generation and
making sure they're healthy.
And if this was really about ``fiscal responsibility,'' then the
Republicans wouldn't have chosen to eliminate--again--a program that
actually saves money by preventing more costly disease.
I went to the House floor hoping to be able to vote for legislation
that would make a responsible effort to stop this interest rate hike.
We could cover the cost by putting an end to unnecessary tax breaks
for oil companies raking in profits.
But instead, Republicans were intent on making this a political ploy
at the expense of American families.
I refuse to play these games with the well-being of hard-working
Americans at stake, and I voted no on this legislation so that we can
bring a better bill up for a vote.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation,
which would deprive women in need of vital health services. All of us--
on both sides of the aisle--recognize the need to prevent student loan
interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent. But this bill tackles this
problem in exactly the wrong way--depriving women of preventative care
aimed at stopping cervical cancer and stopping low income children from
receiving life saving vaccinations.
For the working families of New York, this legislation robs them of
access to quality health care. With this bill, we are saying that for a
young person from a working family to afford college, his or her mother
must also forego vital medical care.
Preventing a rise in student loan rates is critical for our young
people. With millions of students graduating into a difficult job
market now is the time for serious solutions that keep these loans
affordable--not the time to use this problem as a political football.
The President has said this bill is dead on arrival, so why are we
wasting time debating it? We can and must find a better solution that
keeps these rates low without harming working families.
Let us reject this bill and craft legislation that has a chance of
being signed into law.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this bill.
I firmly believe that we need to make college more affordable. We
should not double interest rates after we worked so hard to keep them
down while the Democrats controlled Congress. However, by funding the
interest rate extension with cuts to the Prevention and Public Health
Fund, the Republicans are expanding a war on students into a war on
women and a war on health.
As my colleague from California, Lois Capps noted, this fund supports
critical women's health screenings--600,000 screenings will be cut with
the repeal of this fund. This is essential to women's health. Moreover,
the fund targets widespread chronic diseases like diabetes, stroke, and
heart disease. The fund ensures that our children have access to
necessary vaccines, and supports programs to prevent birth defects and
screen for autism.
Students and their families do not need to be asked to choose between
preventive health and affordable schooling. I call on the Republicans
who set the agenda to get serious and work on solving this problem in a
sensible, bipartisan way.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hard working
students and their families. Ensuring that all Americans have access to
high quality education is one of my top priorities. I have worked to
provide students with opportunities for higher education by fighting to
strengthen financial aid, increase the maximum amount for Pell Grants,
and lower student loan repayment interest rates.
At a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, we
must do all we can to keep post-secondary education affordable.
Accordingly, I urge my fellow Representatives to take action to prevent
student loan interest rates from rising this summer. If we do nothing,
the interest rate on need-based student loans will double this July and
will increase student loan repayment costs by over $1,000 for more than
seven million students.
While my Republican colleagues have reversed their opinion on this
issue and now claim to support our Nation's students--despite their
continued support for the Ryan Budget, which slashes funding for
education by 45 percent--they have put forward a misguided and radical
bill that hurts low-income and middle-income families. Instead of
ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, the Tea Party
Republicans have proposed slashing billions of dollars in funding from
vital health care programs for women and children, including childhood
immunizations and cancer screening programs.
The Republicans want you to believe that we must choose between
supporting our students and providing vital health services to women
and children. However, this is clearly not the case. My fellow
Democrats and I have been fighting to expand health care coverage and
promote affordable education for years. Since 2007, Democrats have
lowered the cost of education by cutting the student loan interest rate
in half, saving billions of dollars for millions of students while
returning billions of dollars in bank subsidies to students in the form
of higher Pell Grants, income-based repayment programs, and loan
forgiveness for students entering public service.
Unlike my Republican colleagues, I remain committed to creating jobs,
expanding health
[[Page H2246]]
care coverage, and promoting affordable, high quality education for all
Americans. I urge my colleagues to do the same by voicing their
opposition to the Republicans' damaging student loan proposal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 631, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 4628 is postponed.
____________________