Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 74 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2917-H2926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1911, SMARTER SOLUTIONS FOR
STUDENTS ACT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 232 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 232

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish
interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 113-12 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 1911, the Clerk shall--
(a) await the disposition of H.R. 1949;
(b) add the text of H.R. 1949, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 1911;
(c) conform the title of H.R. 1911 to reflect the addition
of the text of H.R. 1949, as passed by the House, to the
engrossment;
(d) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and (e) conform cross-references and
provisions for short titles within the engrossment.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from May
24, 2013, through May 31, 2013--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 5. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 29, 2013, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2014.
Sec. 6. The Committee on Agriculture may, at any time
before 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 29, 2013, file a report to
accompany H.R. 1947.

{time} 0920

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 232 provides for a closed
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions
for Students Act.
As many of us know, on July 1, today's 3.4 percent subsidized
Stafford loan interest rate is set to double to 6.8 percent for
millions of current students, all because elected officials made a
promise they couldn't afford to keep for the long haul. Student
borrowers shouldn't have to ride the roller coaster of political
largess, wondering every year whether Congress will intervene in time
to keep their student loan rates low. And taxpayers shouldn't be
expected to foot the bill whenever Members of Congress promise more
than they can deliver.
For the sake of students, families, and taxpayers, before July 1 we
need to move our Federal student loan programs away from politics.
Student loan rates should not be subject to the whims of Washington or
seized as bargaining chips.
The Smarter Solutions for Students Act will remove politics,
uncertainty, and confusion from the rate-setting equation and instead
anchor student loan interest rates on the 10-year Treasury note, not
just for 4 years, but for good. By tying rates to the market, the
Smarter Solutions for Students Act establishes a predictable rate for
loan calculation insulated from the politics and posturing of
Washington.
House Republicans aren't alone in finding the answer for
predictability in

[[Page H2918]]

the market. President Obama offered a similar market-based interest
rate plan in his 2014 budget proposal, and some of my colleagues across
the aisle have voiced openness to utilizing the market to set interest
rates as well.
In developing this legislation, the committee has attempted to build
on this common ground and work in good faith with the administration to
improve the Smarter Solutions for Students Act and get it to the
President's desk by July 1. Students, families, and taxpayers deserve a
long-term solution, not more can-kicking from Washington. The Smarter
Solutions for Students Act puts an end to the temporary fixes and
campaign promises that have failed to deliver the best rates to
students.
This legislation offers predictability, simplicity, and the ability
for students to take advantage of low rates, even after graduation, a
need particularly acute in today's jobless economy. The American people
deserve the clarity, certainty, and protection the Smarter Solutions
for Students Act offers.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
On July 1, interest rates on federally subsidized Stafford student
loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. At a time, as
everybody said this morning, when job prospects for students remain few
and far between, we must not--or should not--let student loan interest
rates rise.
That is why it's so disappointing that instead of helping the college
students, the majority is doing ``go-nowhere'' legislation--because the
Senate will not take this up--that would actually increase loan costs
for the Nation's students.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a
student who borrows the maximum subsidized Stafford loans for each of
the next 4 years would actually pay $1,056 more under the majority's
plan than they would if Congress failed to act and interest rates
doubled. That's a rather sobering idea.
This is just the latest example of putting politics and special
interests ahead of the American people. As we speak, the majority is
preventing a budget from being finalized even though they have been
calling for a budget for years.
Currently, both the House and the Senate have passed the budget
resolutions, which means the only step left--and everybody who knows
how a bill is passed knows this--the only step left is to organize a
conference committee to finalize the conference report; yet the
majority of the House refuses to appoint conferees and begin the
conference process.
Now, why is the majority suddenly abandoning their quest to produce a
budget? Is it because their desire for a budget is nothing more than to
make political points?
It is clear the majority is consistently choosing to put political
interests before the welfare of the Nation, even if it means that the
American people will and are suffering. This obstructionism must come
to an end.
I urge my colleagues, once again, to reject today's rule and the
underlying legislation that will never go past the House so that we can
get busy solving the American student loan debt crisis in a bipartisan
way. Let's protect our Nation's students from a doubling of student
loan interest rates and work together to craft a solution that will end
the growing mountain of student debt and ensure college is more
affordable for our Nation's students. Our Nation's future depends on
it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It's important to remember how we landed in this predicament to begin
with. Why are we now facing this student loan interest rate cliff?
In a push to win votes during the 2006 campaign cycle, Democrats
pledged to cut student loan interest rates in half across the board
permanently. After gaining control of Congress in 2007, they realized
this campaign promise was far too expensive. Instead, they championed
legislation to phase down gradually the interest rate on one type of
Federal student loan--subsidized Stafford loans made to
undergraduates--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over 4 years. Once the
law expired in 2012, the interest rates would jump back up to 6.8
percent.
Instead of working with Republicans on responsible solutions that
would help make higher education more affordable for students in the
long run, the Democrat Congress chose to make false promises to
borrowers and kick the can down the road.
Democrats had an opportunity to fix this problem. In 2009, they
passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which produced
large budgetary savings by eliminating the private sector loan program.
``Savings'' should be in quotation marks, Mr. Speaker. But instead of
making good on their campaign promises of lower student loan interest
rates, Democrats spent all of the funds on other pet projects,
including siphoning $8 billion from Federal student aid programs to pay
for ObamaCare.
It is time for a long-term solution that gets politicians out of the
business of setting student loan interest rates. That is why
Republicans approved a 1-year extension of the 3.4 percent interest
rate last year to allow time to work on a comprehensive solution. The
Smarter Solutions for Students Act is the result of our efforts.

{time} 0930

Republicans and Democrats should come together to pass this
legislation and ensure students and families don't have to worry about
politicians setting arbitrary interest rates or kicking the can down
the road for years to come.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
and for her work on this rule last night in the committee.
It has already been said that, in a little more than a month, the
interest rates on loans for millions of the neediest students will
double to 6.8 percent from the current 3.4 percent. This morning,
unfortunately, the Republican majority has put forth a bill that is
even worse than if the Congress does nothing.
Think about it. If Congress does nothing, the interest rates go from
3.4 percent for those most in need of the student loans, for those
families most in need to finance their educations, and will jump on
July 1 to 6.8 percent. We're trying to avoid that because we know what
that means to students who have to borrow money and families who have
to borrow money to try to pay for their college educations.
What's the remedy of the Republicans?
The remedy of the Republicans is to do something that is worse than
letting the interest rates double. Understand that. They've made a
choice that's worse than if the interest rates double. It's no wonder
that, beyond the Republican caucus, it's very hard to find anybody who
is supporting this legislation. In fact, yesterday, the President said,
if this bill is sent to his desk--I hope it will not be--that he will
veto it.
Why would we do that?
Because it's very clear that this is going to add $4 billion to the
debt of our students who Members of Congress lament are so deeply in
debt because of the money they have to borrow that goes to education.
It's not necessarily a choice for students or families if you want to
get a college education, but why would you add $4 billion onto the
backs of these students and their families?
Now, the majority had a number of alternatives last night in the
Rules Committee. Mr. Courtney went there and said, We'll pay for it.
We'll raise additional revenues to keep it at 3.4 percent. Then the
Education and the Workforce Committee of this House can do its job,
which is to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and we can put in
place a long-term program for helping families finance their
educations. We have to also understand that we've got to do something
about

[[Page H2919]]

the State support and the cost of college at the institutional level,
but they turned Mr. Courtney down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I offered to have the Obama
amendment made in order, the legislation by President Obama, which
actually saves students about $30 billion in interest rates over the
next 6 years. It saves students and families over $30 billion. They
wouldn't make that amendment in order.
Mr. Heck of Nevada came before them and said, Why don't we do like
the market does? If you pay your loan on time for 4 years, we'll
provide you an incentive to continue to be a good payer of your loan--
important to the Treasury, important to the students' credit ratings.
Let's try that. They turned Mr. Heck down.
Mr. Rice came before the committee, the gentleman from South
Carolina, and he said he would like to reduce the interest rates. He
understands what students and families are struggling with. They turned
him down. They turned down every attempt to try to help students and
families.
I appreciate people talking about being through the recession. Well,
let me tell you, for a lot of middle-income families, they're not
through the recession yet. They've still lost the equity in their
homes. They still have their credit problems. But do you know what?
Recession or no recession, their kids are graduating from high school,
and they want them to go to college. What the hell is this Congress
doing making it more difficult for those kids to go to college? But
that's the choice the Republicans have given us.
I would hope on a bipartisan basis we would reject this effort and
that we would go to work on legislation that is long term, that's in
the interest of the students, and stop crushing the aspirations of
these families and these students, which this legislation does. It
should be rejected. This isn't an interest in the market rates. This is
using the market to crush these families by extracting billions of
additional dollars off of their school loans.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in my career before coming to Congress, I was the
director of an Upward Bound special services program. I was an adviser
for students at Appalachian State University. I was the president of a
community college. For all of my life, I have devoted my time to
helping students--particularly disadvantaged students--who wanted to go
to college, who wanted to do the same kind of thing that I did as a
disadvantaged person, and that is to get a great education and use that
education to better my life.
I am offended that my colleagues would say that what I want to do is
to stop people from going to college or to hinder them in any way from
achieving the American Dream. My whole goal all my life has been to
help other people, particularly young people, and I believe my
experience shows that.
So, Mr. Speaker, that's not what this bill is about. This bill is
about taking away the arbitrary control of Members of Congress who
think of themselves as smarter than everybody else in the world, and it
is about allowing the market to work.
The current Federal loan program is broken. An overwhelming majority
of students are stuck with interest rates on loans that do not match
the current low interest rate environment because of failed Democrat
campaign promises to cut student loan interest rates in half
permanently. These students are also often confused about why most of
their Federal loans are fixed at nearly 7 percent when the market rate
is much lower, and they question why each type of student loan has a
different rate. To put it simply, student borrowers are getting a raw
deal, and they know it.
Under the legislation, student loan interest rates would reset once a
year and move with the market, much like they did from 1992 to 2006.
This bill is the only viable plan on the table that is fiscally
responsible, that helps students and protects taxpayers. We should pass
this bill immediately. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
the proposal does not cost any additional revenue to implement over the
next 5 or 10 years.
H.R. 1911 will provide stability and certainty for students making
decisions about how to finance their postsecondary education. They will
be assured year after year that the interest rate on their student
loans will be similar to market conditions, and they won't have to
wonder whether Congress is going to make arbitrary changes to interest
rates. The bill offers students the ability to take advantage of
interest rates when they're low, and it protects them with affordable
caps in high-rate environments. The bill continues current law in which
students have the option to consolidate their loans after graduation
and to lock in a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan. Mr.
Speaker, these are commonsense provisions that will benefit student
borrowers greatly.
The legislation also ensures students can continue to take advantage
of a number of generous Federal repayment options and debt management
programs available to help those experiencing difficulty in repaying
their loans. For example, students can enter one of the income-based
repayment plans that caps their monthly payments at affordable levels
and provides forgiveness after 20 or 25 years. For students in the
public sector, the program allows loan forgiveness after 10 years. The
Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a long-term, comprehensive
solution that gets Washington politicians out of setting interest rates
on Federal loans, and it will better serve the interest of students. We
should pass this rule and the underlying bill now.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady for yielding time, and I
thank her for her leadership on this issue and here in the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1911. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule to prevent this flawed
legislation from moving forward.
We have a student loan debt crisis to be sure, but this is not the
solution. A free market approach will not solve this problem, and Mr.
Miller was so accurate in his statement just a moment ago. For my
constituents in eastern North Carolina, paying for higher education has
never been more difficult.

{time} 0940

I represent a very low-income district. One in four people in my
district lives below the poverty level. While the economy is
recovering, my region's 8.9 percent unemployment rate remains higher
than the national average. At the same time, the cost to attend our
colleges and universities has been steadily increasing. The cost to
attend college is 1,100 percent more expensive than it was 30 years
ago. Access to affordable Federal student aid can be the difference
between constituents attending college or not.
Just last year, despite strong opposition from Republicans, Congress
voted to continue to keep interest rates on federally funded Stafford
loans at 3.4 percent, instead of doubling to 6.8 percent. If those
rates had doubled, Mr. Speaker, more than 7 million students each would
be saddled with an average of $1,000 in additional debt. Once again,
the rates are set to double on July 1 unless we act.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this misguided approach.
This legislation would tie loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury
note but require that rates adjust each year. That variability, Mr.
Speaker, would lead to higher interest rates and increase the debt our
students face. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
indicates that students will pay more than if interest rates were to
double. Mr. Miller was absolutely correct in that assertion. That's
right: passing this rule and this bill would be worse than doing
nothing at all.
This bill is a step in the wrong direction and will saddle students
and families with unnecessary debt.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During the 2006 election cycle, Democrats made student borrowers a
promise they did not keep. As a result, interest rates on student loans
are set to

[[Page H2920]]

double in a matter of weeks. The Smarter Solutions for Students Act
will provide student borrowers with the certainty and stability they
need to finance their education.
Today's graduates are facing severe economic headwinds that make
finding a job, repaying student loans, and starting a family extremely
difficult. These students want nothing more than the opportunity to
earn their own success. That's the American Dream. But for many of
them, that dream seems hopelessly out of reach. We can do better, Mr.
Speaker.
The overall unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. That's hardly better
than the day President Obama took office. Twelve million Americans are
unemployed and anxious to get back to work, and 7.9 million Americans
are underemployed.
According to the Joint Economic Committee, the slight decline in the
unemployment rate is largely a mirage created by declining labor force
participation. If the labor force participation rate had not declined
since January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.9 percent instead
of 7.5 percent. As we all know, this is well above the officially
reported rate and the stimulus promise of 5.1 percent.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of
involuntary part-time workers increased in April by 278,000 to 7.9
million. These are people working part time because their hours were
cut back or because they are unable to find a full-time job.
There were 835,000 so-called ``discouraged workers'' in April alone.
Discouraged workers are those ``persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them.''
Mr. Speaker, these people aren't just jobless; they're hopeless and
they deserve better. It's time to get America working again. But the
failed policies of President Obama and Senate Democrats--higher taxes,
more spending, and bigger government--are designed to continue to fail
to create jobs or spur economic growth. The effects of President
Obama's runaway spending, spiraling deficits, and mounting debt are
being felt by every American.
When President Obama took office, there were 31.9 million Americans
using food stamps. Today, 47.3 million Americans use food stamps.
That's an increase of 15.4 million people. Today, 15 percent of the
entire U.S. population receives food stamp assistance. That is, by far,
the largest number in history.
Mr. Speaker, the policies of this administration are taking us in the
wrong direction. The Republicans are focused on creating jobs and
making things better for all Americans, and we need to pay attention to
those policies. We can pass this rule, pass this bill, and get us going
in the right direction for college students.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and discuss the
importance of protecting college affordability.
One of my top priorities is to ensure that all students have the
opportunity to get a high quality education and acquire the skills
needed to compete in the 21st century economy.
I know personally how important this is. When I was young, my father
lost his job and my parents never got back on track financially. But
thanks to student loans and financial aid, I was able to get a great
education and build a successful career as a businesswoman and
entrepreneur.
I'm very disappointed that the proposal we are considering today
makes college more expensive. If we did nothing and let interest rates
double in July, we would actually save students more money in the
future than if we pass the underlying bill. It's incredibly
disappointing that in our work to make college more affordable, this
bill instead makes the problem worse.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule so we can work
together on a long-term solution that supports our students and their
families.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In my last comments, I talked about statistics and the effect of the
policies of this administration. These statistics ultimately say the
same thing: the Obama economy is making life more difficult for all
Americans, especially young people.
Fortunately, House Republicans have a plan to restore economic growth
and spur job creation so that graduating students can find employment.
Job creators are being stymied by mountains of regulatory red tape,
crippling tax rates, a perplexing Tax Code, needlessly high energy
prices, and rampant uncertainty caused by the President's failed
leadership. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way.
House Republicans are hard at work passing legislation to help grow
the economy and create jobs. Our goal is to tear down the barriers to
job creation and unleash the power of American ingenuity so that
today's graduates can prosper and succeed and achieve the American
Dream.
As part of this plan, we're working diligently to make life easier
for student borrowers, cut job-killing red tape that costs small
businesses $10,585 per employee each year, reduce gas prices, and
create jobs by producing more American energy, which is important since
every penny increase per gallon of gas costs consumers $4 million per
day. We also need to simplify a job-killing Tax Code that cost
Americans $168 billion in 2010 just to comply, prevent job-killing tax
hikes on small businesses, and reduce uncertainty by tackling the debt
crisis with responsible spending cuts.
The Republican plan will demolish Washington's self-made roadblocks
to prosperity and put American job creators back on offense.
The trick to growing our economy is getting politicians out of the
way and letting American workers and entrepreneurs do what they do
best: create shared prosperity through freedom and innovation. The
Smarter Solutions for Students Act is an important part of this plan. I
urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague, the ranking member of
the Rules Committee, for yielding the time and for being a consistent
voice on behalf of families and students across America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' Making
College More Expensive Act and the rule, and I rise on behalf of
students all across America, particularly back home in Florida and in
the Tampa Bay area.

{time} 0950

Mr. Speaker, we know that a college education is key to success in
life, and that the rising costs of attending college can be an
impediment to a student's ability to get into the classroom and get the
courses that they need.
About 10 days ago, I was at Tampa's Robinson High School talking with
graduating seniors, and they implored me to please stand up for them
and be a voice because they see the direct connection on the money that
their families have to spend and on their ability to attend college.
That is why this Republican Making College More Expensive Act would be
so detrimental to the future of our country and to those families and
students that really want to get ahead in life.
For example, the GOP's bill is projected to nearly double student
loan rates by 2016, and by the time next year's freshmen graduate and
start repaying their loans in 2017, the interest rate is expected to
more than double beyond today's current rate.
So I think about the 34,000 students in my district who rely on
loans, whether they're at Hillsborough Community College, St. Pete
College, the University of South Florida, the University of Tampa, or
wherever. This Congress has got to stand up for families and students
for a change.
So I urge my Republican friends to cross over and join us and to
block this student loan increase that the Republican leadership is
proposing, side with students and families, oppose the rule and oppose
the bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

[[Page H2921]]

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, a good
friend; and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
This comes down to an important question of American domestic policy:
how important is it to us as a country to make college possible and
accessible for students so they can improve their lives and improve our
country.
Some of the great historic moments of American policy, the creation
of the land grant colleges, the GI Bill, providing student loans, were
directed toward increasing access to higher education. And today, the
House will vote on a bill that would reverse decades of progress. It
would, in effect, transform the Federal Government into a greedy Wall
Street bank, charging students punitive and wildly variable interest
rates while banking billions in profits. Yes, the government would reap
profits derived from students and recent students.
The authors of this bill see this as government revenue. Instead of
collecting taxes, they do it through a back door, trying to pay down
the deficit on the backs of students.
So today we have a choice: Do we make college more expensive for our
low-income and middle class students? For me, the clear answer is
``no.'' It's wrong. It's shortsighted. It's not right for students.
It's not right for families, and it's not right for our economy.
The Rules Committee could have given us a bill to lock in low rates
for student loans, in the national interest, not to collect interest
from students. But instead, they want to balance the budget on the
backs of students and recent students.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague is accusing Republicans of
increasing taxes on students. That is a laughable accusation,
especially when you look at the number of proposed tax increases
included in the Democrat budget resolution. It's almost as disingenuous
as their calling for dedicating the 10-year savings generated by the
underlying bill to higher education. After all, in 2010, House
Democrats passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, SAFRA,
which included language that put $13 billion in savings toward deficit
reduction. In the final version of SAFRA, Democrats siphoned
approximately $9 billion of the $19 billion in savings to pay for
ObamaCare. The rest of those savings went to deficit reduction.
The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a fiscally responsible plan
that generates a small amount of savings based on CBO estimates. It
stabilizes Federal loan programs for future generations of students and
gets Washington out of the business of setting student loan interest
rates.
With that, Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady from New York and the
gentlelady from North Carolina. I thank the gentlelady from New York
for her persistent leadership on this issue.
I rise today to first ask the question how you can have legislation
that sounds positive, but in actuality literally puts the education
system of America upside down.
First, let me tell you how frustrated Americans are as they see the
drip, drip, dripping of the sequester; and I join the gentlelady in her
frustration on why we have not gone to budget reconciliation. I just
want to mention the pathway of education so we can see that families
are being pounded upon. Sequestration is causing 70,000 children to
lose Head Start and Early Head Start. And, unfortunately, 950,000
military children will lose teachers. I live in a State where we have a
lot of military bases.
So when I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, I rise with a high degree
of overwhelming frustration for the people who live in my State. I am
sorry that this rule did not accept an amendment that I had that would
have submitted a report to Congress on the feasibility of offering loan
forgiveness for those who put businesses in economically depressed
areas. That truly provides for jobs.
But then the real thing is to cap the interest rates at 4 percent. As
was indicated by my colleague, Mr. Holt, he indicated how the numbers
would go up for the students. Well, let me talk to you about Parent
PLUS. Now, you can really see the oppression on parents who are trying
to help their children go to school. In addition to the $100 billion of
debt that students are carrying, we now eliminate the feasibility of
Parent PLUS loans. Right now in current law, they're $27,956. But if we
go into this bill, they'll go up to almost $36,000. Imagine a parent
with four children.
I've spoken in the last couple of weeks at the University of Houston-
Downtown, the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston
Community College. I've spoken at Lone Star colleges, all of these
colleges in our districts, St. Thomas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. All of this does not answer the question when this
bill will be passed. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule, oppose the
underlying bill. Cap this. This is not the President's message. The
President had an extended life to be able to provide for parents and
students. All you have to do is look at the red--$36,000 is what this
bill is going to cost parents, and that means that we're going to close
the door of opportunity for women, for minorities, and for Americans to
get a higher education.
This is not the way in graduation season to say thank you to our
children for being successful and graduating from college. Let's oppose
this bill and do the right thing for Americans.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'll continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for giving
me the time.
We approach July 1 with a problem where if the Congress does nothing,
interest rates will double on student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8
percent. There are three options that are before the country and before
the Congress. The first is to just let it happen, to let the rates go
up to 6.8 percent and make higher education less affordable for people
in the country.
The second option is the option that's on the floor which will make
it worse, to raise the interest rates over the long term higher than
6.8 percent, and cost students and families an additional $3.7 billion
to pay for a higher education.
There is a third option offered by Mr. Courtney from Connecticut.
That option would say let's leave the rates at 3.4 percent for 2 years,
let's pay for that decision so it doesn't add to the deficit, and then
use those 2 years to negotiate a sensible, long-term solution to the
problem.

{time} 1000

Now I know that there are those who disagree with Mr. Courtney's
approach. I know there are those who agree with the Republican
approach. But what I don't understand is why all three options aren't
before the Congress.
See, what we have in front of us today is to either do nothing and
let the rates go to 6.8, or do something and make them go even higher.
There's a third and better choice that the majority has refused to let
the Congress vote on. I suspect the reason we can't vote on that choice
is it would win. It would prevail.
This is supposed to be a body where a majority rules. Instead, it's a
body where paralysis rules. This bill will probably pass the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
This bill will probably pass the floor. It will go nowhere, and we
will be back sometime in late June trying to solve this problem.
Let's have a democratic vote with a small D. Let's let the House vote
on all the options, and I believe Mr. Courtney's option to leave the
rates at 3.4 percent would and should prevail.

[[Page H2922]]

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this bill. Why?
It increases the cost of student debt for millions of Americans just
trying to continue their education. It is just another example of the
House majority who would put a further burden on the middle class and
working families.
Without broad access to a good college education and the
opportunities and the social mobility that it provides, there will be
no middle class in America. The compact will be broken that allows hard
work to pay off and allows future generations to do better.
The costs of college are high today. Over the last 30 years, the
average tuition at a 4-year State university has almost quadrupled.
Sixty percent of Americans now borrow money for college.
Student loan debt last year passed the trillion dollar mark. The
average student loan debt among graduating seniors is over $26,000, a
heavy burden to carry into a tough job market.
This bill would compound those costs. A student with that level of
debt would pay over $5,300 more in interest than they would if the
current interest rates were extended, leaving them at 3.4 percent.
But this is characteristic of the Republican majority. Let me just
give you an example and what they view about the opportunity for
education.
In the last election, their standard bearer, Mitt Romney, when he was
asked the question about increasing the student loan interest rate,
this is what he replied. He said that if students need to borrow money,
let them go to their parents.
Well, if your father is the head of American Motors, then, in fact,
you can go and get a loan from your parents. But if they are not, and
what struggling parents are doing today, if their jobs have either gone
or their wages are down, or their health benefits are gone, or their
home may be underwater on the mortgage because of the crushing
recession that we have had, they're telling their children that they
can't afford to send them to college. They can't go to their parents
for a loan.
That's where my Republican colleagues would take this issue. And
instead of us, here, adding further to students' debt, we should work
harder to make college more affordable for families. Let us not let
those interest rates double this summer.
This bill moves us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are concerned about the
predictability of the market. What about the predictability of
Congress?
Congress is the source of this volatility. Our bill protects students
if interest rates rise with caps. Not even President Obama's plan does
that.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding me
the time, and really appreciate her leadership on this issue.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I tell the young people when I speak to them
back home, I say, turn on C-SPAN. If you don't have cable, don't buy
cable; go to your friend's house to watch it. But turn on C-SPAN, and
every person who comes to the House floor is going to say whatever
they're doing today, no matter what it is that they're doing, they're
doing it for the young people. They're doing it for that next
generation, so the next generation can have a better life.
And I hear that from every single one of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. We want to come down here and we want to defeat this
rule today and we want to defeat this bill today, and we want to do it
for the young people.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm down here for the young people of my district
too. The young people of my district say, Rob, what about our
prosperity? What about our future? What about fiscal responsibility?
Why are you and previous generations doing to us what you're doing?
How can we have a guaranteed access to opportunity, not guaranteed
success, but guaranteed access to opportunity, going forward?
And the answer is, when we get out of the business of playing
political games with every single issue, every single day, and we get
back into the business of providing some certainty.
Mr. Speaker, you remember how we got in this predicament today. We
got in this predicament because when my friends on the left were in
control and they began to deal with student loan rates, at the time
they said a 6 percent rate would be good. At the time they said a 4.5
percent rate would be good. Now, suddenly, only a 3.4 percent can be
good.
With every single one of these changes, Mr. Speaker, there are
economic consequences. We now know in America today student loan debt
is greater than all credit card debt combined. It's an amazing burden
that we're passing on to the next generation. We're not giving them
opportunity; we are ensuring decades of servitude.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, begins to realign marketplace rates with
student loan rates, giving every student a tremendously subsidized
Federal rate.
And here's the thing, Mr. Speaker. You hear this debate. It's as if
this very small portion of the marketplace, these 3.4 percent
subsidized loans, are the ``end all, be all'' to every student in
America. Not true. Not true.
As my friends on the other side of the aisle know perfectly well but
never say, more than 70 percent of all of our students take out both
subsidized and unsubsidized loans. And as my friends on the left know
perfectly well but never say, they leave those unsubsidized rates at
6.8 percent.
The bill that Ms. Foxx has worked on so carefully with Chairman Kline
brings those rates down to 4.5, maybe even 4.4. We'll see in that last
week of Treasury markets in May. But we're tying the fiscal realities
of this country to opportunities for our students.
I encourage students, Mr. Speaker, look at your bills, look at your
rates. Look at the subsidized and the unsubsidized. You will see what
this bill will do for you.
I rise in strong support, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
T-minus 38 days, 38 days until student loan interest rates are
scheduled to increase from 3.4 to 6.8 percent.
Mr. Speaker, in my district in Colorado, students trying to finance
their education through Federally subsidized loans at the University of
Colorado and Colorado State University and our other fine universities
and, indeed, across the country simply can't afford, in a low interest
rate environment today, with the sluggish economy, to have their rates
double--double--in 38 days.
Look, there's been a lot of good ideas that have been presented that
would allow student loan rates to remain the same or even get better.
We had, in our committee, the Education and Labor Committee, a Courtney
amendment, which I supported, our Democratic substitute, to keep them
at 3.4 percent.
There are even proposals to lower them beyond that. I have a
bipartisan bill with Representative Petri that moves the program over
to earnings-contingent education loans, so that repayment amounts are
contingent upon how much somebody is earning.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it hasn't
allowed any of these ideas to be brought forward to the floor.

{time} 1010

I was glad to see our ranking member, Mr. Miller, bring forth the
President's proposal, which includes Earnings Contingent Education
Loans. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not make it in order
under this rule, which is why I oppose it.
The underlying bill is a step in the right direction towards the
President's proposal. I think it provides the framework which we need
to improve upon in the Senate and work with the administration over the
next 38 days to prevent student loan rates from doubling.
First of all, to be clear, the proposal before us on the underlying
bill is not the President's proposal. It does not include a robust
earnings contingent income-based repayment program. It also

[[Page H2923]]

charges a higher rate of interest above the 10-year Treasury note. To
its credit, the Kline-Foxx bill does include a cap on interest rates,
which is very borrower friendly and student friendly. Again, what's
critical here is it provides a framework for moving forward over the
next 38 days to resolve this issue and prevent student loan rates from
doubling.
The Washington Post editorialized on this 2 days ago and said that
the Education and Workforce Committee bill is ``a similar policy'' to
President Obama's policy, namely, pegging the student loan rates to a
rate at which the government borrows, providing more certainty to
borrowers, and helping make sure that college can remain affordable.
I call upon my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
America's college students, especially those who have studied math,
understand that if Washington can't get its act together, their
generation will be stuck paying the tab. So they have little sympathy
for elected leaders who refuse to face reality by pretending that
recklessly spending money we don't have will somehow translate into
economic prosperity. It's time to face the simple truth: government
spending won't fix our economy.
America's growing debt is real, and Congress has the responsibility
to deal with it. The first step must be reining in government spending
by passing a balanced budget. That is why House Republicans took the
lead and passed H. Con. Res. 25, the Path to Prosperity Budget. Our
budget brings spending discipline back to Washington, which balances
the budget in 10 years, provides for comprehensive tax reform without
raising tax rates, and removes many of the regulatory barriers that
prevent employers from hiring new graduates. The House Republican
budget stops spending money we don't have by cutting waste, fixing our
broken Tax Code, and balancing in 10 years.
A balanced budget will promote a healthier economy, create more jobs
for graduating students, and put more money in Americans' pockets. Our
budget provides economic security for workers and families, ensures a
secure retirement for the elderly, repairs the safety net, and expands
opportunities for graduating students entering the workforce.
Republicans have passed a bold budget that tackles America's most
pressing fiscal challenges and grows our economy today to ensure the
next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America.
Mr. Speaker, one of the best things we can do for college students
now and in the future is to provide a stronger economy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend's comments mean that the
Republicans are ready to appoint conferees.
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE. Today, I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 1911, Smarter Solutions for Students Act, the so-
called Republican solution to address the impending student loan
interest rate raise.
Despite their rhetoric, the Republicans do not want the American
economy more competitive. If they did, they would not have introduced
this bill. Under the current law, student loan interest rates are
fixed. However, H.R. 1911 would change that and student loan interest
rates will become variable rates based on the Treasury interest rate
plus additional percentage points. This is truly a bait and switch.
Students could start their college careers with a 5 percent student
interest rate, but by the time they reach their senior year, have a 7.7
to 8.5 percent student loan rate.
Education has traditionally been and still remains a path out of
poverty and into the middle class. And it is middle class that has
historically been the backbone of America society. Instead of doing the
right thing by permanently lowering student loan interest rates, the
Republicans have once again decided to do things the wrong way. The
Republicans just don't get it.
Oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues allege, ``The Republican bill raises interest rates on
students when we should be providing them with relief from their
student loan debt.'' But let me respond to that, Mr. Speaker.
The Smarter Solutions for Students Act will lower the interest rates
for all new borrowers in the Stafford loan and PLUS loan programs
rather than just extend an artificially low rate to a small subset of
borrowers. This makes Federal loans more affordable for all incoming
students and parents. The underlying bill helps all students, including
those borrowers receiving subsidized loans, whose loans are slated to
double, based on the irresponsible actions of the other side.
The bill includes a reasonable cap--something missing in the
administration's budget--which protects borrowers in high interest rate
environments. If Democrats think the 8.5 percent cap is too high, then
let's see their fiscally responsible, paid-for proposal to back up
their rhetoric.
The legislation also maintains current law allowing borrowers to take
out a consolidation loan after graduation, where they can lock in their
interest rate for the life of the loan. Students can also take
advantage of a number of repayment plans and debt management
initiatives such as the income-based repayment program, loan
forgiveness programs, and opportunities for deferment or forbearance.
The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a comprehensive,
responsible solution that will benefit all students and parents.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote
on the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act. To discuss our proposal, I am
pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
Mr. ENYART. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1739, the Veterans
Backlog Reduction Act. As a retired military veteran, one of my top
priorities is caring for our veterans. The sad fact is the VA is not
honoring its commitment to our veterans today. There are currently over
900,000 claims waiting to be processed. The average wait for that back-
log is now 272 days, or nearly 9 months.
These are real people, real American heroes, who deserve disability
benefits because they sustained injuries in service to our country. One
of these is Michael Boren of Energy, Illinois. Michael came home from
Active Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan with nerve damage, an injured back,
and other physical problems. By every measure, Michael is legitimately
deserving of disability benefits.
The reason I know about Michael is because he contacted my office a
few months ago when he was at the end of his rope and in danger of
losing his home. Permanently disabled from his injuries sustained in
service, he is unable to find gainful employment to sustain himself and
his family. The VA couldn't coordinate his paperwork to make a ruling
on his claim for nearly 19 months, all while he waited and worried
without income.
Too many veterans like Michael are threatened with home foreclosure,
having their cars repossessed, their credit cards cut off, all because
the VA can't get its act together. It's shameful. And despite promises
from the VA to reduce the backlog, just yesterday we learned the
backlog is actually increasing and the VA hasn't met a single one of
its benchmarks.
The solution is the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act. It says the VA
has 125 days to process claims filed by disabled veterans. If the VA
can't live up to a reasonable timetable on processing these claims,
then disabled veterans will get a provisional payment until a final
ruling is made. If the claim is ultimately deemed valid, then the
remainder of the disability benefits will be paid out. If the claim is
denied, then the veteran is held harmless and would not have to repay
the provisional benefit, unless there would be a finding of fraud or
bad faith on the part of the veteran.

{time} 1020

The goal is to get these claims processed in a timely manner. And
it's my belief that this legislation gives the VA a powerful reason to
clean up its act and speed up the process.

[[Page H2924]]

This bill serves as a lifeline to countless veterans who can't wait
months or years for this problem to be solved. Our veterans are
demanding leadership now. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue.
Taking proper care of our wounded veterans is an American issue.
This is a national embarrassment, and we in Congress must meet it
head on. It is my hope that we can restore the trust veterans have lost
in their government to care for them when they need it most.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of the gentlewoman from
New York if she is prepared to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, if my colleague
has no further requests for time.
Ms. FOXX. I'll reserve the balance of my time and allow my colleague
to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish we were debating legislation that
I thought might actually have a possibility of becoming law, but we are
not.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and to think about Memorial Day and our proposal to
take care of the veterans' backlog. I hope that we are successful in
getting that done.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing
more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for
more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.
Student borrowers deserve more than platitudes and empty promises.
They deserve real solutions that will improve their lives and help them
achieve success.
Our conservative solutions to the challenges facing young Americans
today are the right solutions, and the results will speak for
themselves. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and
the underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and
the underlying legislation because H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for
Students Act would cause financial hardship for students seeking a
higher education.
The Rule for H.R. 1911 did not fix the underlying legislation. In
fact, the Rule we are debating accepted no amendments that were offered
by Members of the Congress. I offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #1 that
would have capped student interest at 4 percent. This would have
removed the threat of the cost of education doubling at the beginning
of July.
I also offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which directed the
Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress on the
feasibility of offering student loan forgiveness to those who start
businesses in economically depressed areas such as HUBZones.
This amendment would have encouraged young people from low income
areas who get college degrees to return home to start businesses. This
would establish economic opportunities for young graduates as an option
for employment and at the same time bring businesses and job
opportunities to target areas.
Students who are graduating across the nation are departing colleges
and universities this spring with immense debt. Student borrowing is
widespread with more than $100 billion in federal education loans
distributed every year. In total, student loan debt adds up to $1
trillion. As a direct consequence of a weak economy, more than ever
students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher education.
The American family has been under financial pressure for twenty
years resulting in longer hours, less pay and more debt. The only
reliable way in today's economy to earn more is to learn more. During
difficult economic times adults seek new careers by going back to
school. Parents who want a better life for their children will take on
college loan debt because the cost of education requires it.
In the City of Houston, this spring I have participated in
commencement exercises for the University of Houston, Texas Southern
University, Houston Community College and Lone Star College North
Harris. There are thousands of new graduates just in the City of
Houston alone who are ready to pursue their dreams, but who will wake
up to the reality of tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
On July 1, 2013 the student loan interest rate will rise from 3.4
percent to 6.8 percent. As Members of the Congress we know what this
will mean for students in our districts and what it will mean for
colleges and universities in our Congressional Districts.
Some may try to tell you this bill does what President Obama proposed
to do, but it does not. The President's proposal would have fixed the
rate on student loans based on the actual Department of the Treasury's
cost of borrowing. The Administration's plan would set the repayment
costs for the entire life of the student loan, which would have created
certainty for the borrower. The President's plan would tie student loan
repayments to what graduates were earning after starting their careers.
This would have supported a student's dream to become a teacher, social
worker, artist, lawyer, doctor or engineer.
Finally, President Obama would extend these favorable loan options to
those already in the workforce who still have student loan debt. Paying
a reasonable rate that is fixed over the life of the loan and would be
based on what you can afford to pay--that is what the President
proposed, but this is not what this bill does.
The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national
priority, not an afterthought. This is a bad bill that will not solve
the problem of out of control student loan debt. For all of these
reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the Rule for
H.R. 1911, and the underlying legislation.
American Association of

University Women,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.
Re Oppose the Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911)

Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 150,000
bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association
of University Women (AAUVV), I urge you to vote against the
Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911). While AAUW
supports preventing the doubling of interest rates on
subsidized Stafford loans, scheduled to occur on July 1st,
the Smarter Solutions for Students Act fails to provide
stability in borrowing for students, and would not ensure
that rates stay low in the foreseeable future.
With changes in the workforce over the century, higher
education is becoming less of a luxury and more of a
necessity. At current rates, the U.S. will add over 16
million jobs by the year 2020 that require at least some
postsecondary education. Moreover, the number of jobs
requiring a graduate degree is estimated to grow by at least
2.5 million by that same year. Since many students cannot pay
for their degrees out-of-pocket, student loans are an
important option and a worthwhile investment. College
graduates have fared better in the recent recession and
current recovery, and have higher wages and better job
prospects overall. Students rely on Stafford loans as a part
of the financial aid they use to finance higher education.
Subsidized Stafford loans are only offered to students with
demonstrated need. Specifically, about 30 percent of
undergraduates in 2007-08 received a subsidized Stafford
loan, and a majority of those recipients were women.
Many graduates struggle to repay their loans. Loan
repayment is an even more significant burden for women, who
earn less on average over the course of their lives than
their male counterparts. AAUW's research report, Graduating
to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after
College Graduation, found that the median student loan debt
burden was slightly higher in 2009 for women than men. In
addition, among full-time workers who were repaying their
loans in 2009, nearly half (47 percent) of women one year
after college graduation were paying more than 8 percent of
their earnings toward student loan debt. Only 39 percent of
men were in the same position. Furthermore, just over half of
women (53 percent) and 39 percent of men, were paying a
greater percentage of their income toward student loan debt
than AAUW estimates a typical woman or man could afford.
Keeping interest rates low on student loans is important
and the Smarter Solutions for Students Act would fail to do
so. At the current interest rate of 3.4 percent the
government earns almost 12.5 cents per each dollar loaned in
the subsidized Stafford loan program. This underscores that
there is no reason rates should increase at all for students.
Under the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, over the next 3
years interest rates are projected to rise to as much at 7.36
percent. Not only would Fixed rates ensure that when students
borrow, they know upfront what their monthly repayment amount
will be, as the rate is consistent through repayment. AAUW
knows that this is a key component of ensuring students are
smart borrowers when it comes to financing their higher
education. If they must take out a loan, knowing the
repayment schedule of that loan is necessary for their
planning purposes.
Allowing the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans to
double on July 1 would have a real impact on students. The
interest rate increase could mean as much as $1,000 in
additional debt. But, the Smarter Solutions

[[Page H2925]]

for Students Act is not a real solution. Under this proposal
interest rates would be projected to increase, and students
and graduates would be faced with annual uncertainty as their
rates at origination and during repayment would vary based on
the market. I urge you to vote against the Smarter Solutions
for Students Act (H.R. 1911). Votes associated with this
legislation may be scored in the AAUW Action Fund
Congressional Voting Record for the 113th Congress. If you
have any questions or need additional information, feel free
to contact me or Anne Hedgepeth, government relations
manager.
Sincerely,

Lisa M. Maatz,

Director,
Public Policy and Government Relations.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 232 Offered By Ms. Slaughter of New York

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1739) to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay provisional benefits for
certain nonadjudicated claims, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1739 as specified in section 7 of this
resolution.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 195, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 180]

YEAS--224

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--195

[[Page H2926]]

Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--14

Bass
Bonner
Clyburn
Cole
Culberson
Gibson
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
Lewis
Markey
Miller, Gary
Speier
Westmoreland
Young (AK)

{time} 1046

Ms. TSONGAS and Ms. WILSON of Florida changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. LaMALFA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 180, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 193, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 181]

YEAS--224

NAYS--193

Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Bass
Bonner
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Culberson
Gibson
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Lewis
Markey
Miller, Gary
Roybal-Allard
Speier
Westmoreland
Young (AK)

{time} 1058

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________