[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2926-H2940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
                   SMARTER SOLUTIONS FOR STUDENTS ACT

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 232, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1911) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
establish interest rates for new loans made on or after July 1, 2013, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 232, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce

[[Page H2927]]

printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-12 is adopted and 
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1911

       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 ``Smarter Solutions for 
     Students Act''.

     SEC. 2. STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES.

       Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087e(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``, and before 
     july 1, 2013'' after ``2006'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and before July 1, 
     2013,'' after ``2006,'';
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and before July 1, 
     2013,'' after ``2006,''; and
       (D) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``and before July 1, 
     2013,'' after ``2006,'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs 
     (9) and (10), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following:
       ``(8) Interest rate provision for new loans on or after 
     july 1, 2013.--
       ``(A) Rates for fdsl and fdusl.--Notwithstanding the 
     preceding paragraphs of this subsection, for Federal Direct 
     Stafford Loans and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans 
     for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 
     2013, the applicable rate of interest shall, during any 12-
     month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30, be 
     determined on the preceding June 1 and be equal to--
       ``(i) the high-yield 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at 
     the final auction held prior to such June 1; plus
       ``(ii) 2.5 percent,
     except that such rate shall not exceed 8.5 percent.
       ``(B) PLUS loans.--Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs 
     of this subsection, for any Federal Direct PLUS Loan for 
     which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 
     2013, the applicable rate of interest shall, during any 12-
     month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30, be 
     determined on the preceding June 1 and be equal to--
       ``(i) the high-yield 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at 
     the final auction held prior to such June 1; plus
       ``(ii) 4.5 percent,
     except that such rate shall not exceed 10.5 percent.
       ``(C) Consolidation loans.--Notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraphs of this subsection, any Federal Direct 
     Consolidation Loan for which the application is received on 
     or after July 1, 2013, shall bear interest at an annual rate 
     on the unpaid principal balance of the loan that is equal to 
     the weighted average of the interest rates on the loans 
     consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher one-eighth of one 
     percent.''.

     SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) Paygo Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this Act 
     shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 
     of 2010.
       (b) Senate Paygo Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this 
     Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 1911.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise today in strong support of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for 
Students Act.
  We're here today to address a crisis of Washington's own making. 
Several years ago, Congress decided politicians, not the free market, 
were better equipped to set student loan interest rates. Politicians 
set a fixed rate of 6.8 percent for all loans and then decided to 
advance legislation based on a campaign promise that would temporarily 
phase this rate for subsidized Stafford loans down to 3.4 percent.
  Last summer, with the expiration of the lower rate scheduled for July 
1, 2012, debate about student loans reached a fever pitch. The 
President began touring college campuses, calling on Congress to 
prevent the increase that his own party set in motion back in 2007.
  As I said at the time, no one wanted to see interest rates double--
particularly at a time when one out of every two college graduates was 
struggling to find a full-time job. But we need to move away from a 
system that allows Washington politicians to use student loan interest 
rates as bargaining chips, creating uncertainty and confusion for 
borrowers.
  When Congress approved legislation to temporarily stave off the 
Stafford loan interest rate increase, my colleagues and I lent our 
support with the promise that we would use this time to work toward a 
long-term solution that better aligns interest rates with the free 
market.
  The Smarter Solutions for Students Act accomplishes this goal by 
simply moving all Federal students loans, except Perkins loans, to a 
market-based interest rate system. This responsible legislation builds 
upon a proposal that was actually put forth by the President earlier 
this year.
  The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a narrow piece of 
legislation that will provide a lasting solution to the problem facing 
the Federal student loan program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some 
critics would rather kick the can down the road and simply extend the 
current arbitrary rates at a taxpayer cost of roughly $8 billion. They 
want to continue the failed status quo and leave politicians in charge 
of setting rates.
  Earlier this week, The Washington Post called it a ``weird fact'' 
that student loan interest rates:

       Aren't pegged to anything real, just to the whims of 
     Congress, which inevitably uses student loans as political 
     playthings.

  Students deserve better. They shouldn't have to watch as Washington 
holds their interest rates hostage each election year. They shouldn't 
have to deal with the uncertainty that comes with waiting for 
politicians to cobble together another temporary fix to keep interest 
rates in line with the market.
  We have an opportunity today to get politicians out of the business 
of setting student loan interest rates. We have an opportunity to 
provide students with more stability in the long run by putting an end 
to quick fixes and campaign promises, and we have an opportunity to 
build upon common ground with the administration and advance a 
bipartisan solution that's a win for both students and taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Smarter Solutions for Students 
Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in little more than a month, the interest rates on loans 
to millions of the neediest students will double from 3.4 percent to 
6.8 percent. With that doubling, those that can afford it least will be 
burdened with more debt. With total student loan debt already 
surpassing $1 trillion, this Congress needs to stop that interest rate 
hike, that doubling of the interest rates.
  But rather than make it more affordable for students and families to 
pay for college, this Congress this day in this Chamber is debating a 
bill--I know people won't believe this--but we're debating a bill to 
make it more expensive for families and students to achieve a college 
education. At a time when college costs are rising and historic low 
interest rates, the majority is asking us to accept a bill that would 
increase interest rates. And even though the student interest rate is 
scheduled on July 1 to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, the bill 
presented on this floor today is worse than that for students and their 
families. It increases the drag on the economy that the student debt is 
to families and to young people trying to seek a job and to seek to 
form family.
  This bill is so bad that it means more than the doubling of the 
interest rates. How do you think that has anything to do with the 
market rates? According to the Congressional Research Service, when 
they look at this bill, you can see that under current law interest 
rates, they would pay $4,000. And they are doubling to 6.8 percent, so 
they'd pay $8,800 in interest rates. And under the Republican bill, 
families would pay more than $10,000 in interest. How can that possibly 
be in the interest of these families? How can that possibly be 
happening in this economy when people are struggling with interest 
rates? It cannot be allowed.
  You can see here that the parents who may have to contribute 
something, they would take out a loan to

[[Page H2928]]

help their child complete a college education, they are going to pay 
more than $35,000 over the life of those loans than under the current 
law, and that's what we've got to stop from happening.
  And so what you see is when it is all said and done, this bill asks 
students over the next few years to pay more than $3.7 billion, almost 
$4 billion, in increased interest rates. No wonder this poor student 
has a headache. No wonder this parent is pounding on his head thinking, 
What am I going to do?
  But what do they say? They say we have a market rate here. We have a 
market rate. Well, many in America, certainly middle class families and 
many low-income families, will remember the last time when we had this 
kind of market rate because what they have, they have a teaser rate. 
For your first year, they'll have a lower interest rate. So you have a 
teaser rate. But you know that next year that teaser rate adjusts so 
you don't get that rate because next year you get a new rate. And when 
you're a sophomore in college and you take out another loan, you get a 
new rate, a higher rate. And when you're a junior, you take out a loan, 
and you get a higher rate. And when you graduate, they take all of your 
loans together and give you a higher rate. Does that sound familiar to 
people? That's the marketplace. That's the marketplace when you choose 
to crush the people who are borrowing the money.
  The President has the market rate. The chairman has said many times 
the President is looking to use the markets to set a realistic rate. 
But as he sets the rate, it's deficit neutral. As he sets the rate, the 
amendment we tried to offer was deficit neutral. He saves those 
students and families about $30 billion over the life of those loans. 
You get the difference? Yes, the market's the market. But you can pick 
the worst of the market, and you can pick the best of the market. 
They've chosen to pick the worst of the market for these students.
  Now they had options. Republicans last night in the Rules Committee 
had options. Mr. Courtney offered an amendment to keep rates at 3.4 
percent. They rejected it.
  I offered the President's market approach. They rejected that.
  Then Mr. Heck from the Republican side of the aisle from Nevada 
offered to say let's provide an incentive to make sure that students in 
fact continue to pay on time, as they should, as the market would do 
because you want to incent good behavior because you get more of it. 
They rejected that.
  Mr. Rice of South Carolina went before them. He's a member of the 
Republican caucus, very concerned about interest rates in this 
legislation, very concerned about what's going to happen to these 
families. He thought he could lower the interest rates within their 
bill, within the market rates, stick with the market principle. They 
said ``no.''
  So all you get today is whether or not you want a solution that is 
worse than the doubling of the interest rates on July 1. That's not an 
answer for America's families. That's not an answer for America's 
students.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the vice chairman of the 
Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. PETRI. I rise today to support H.R. 1911 because it would put in 
place a long-term, market-based solution to Federal student loan 
interest rates.
  Some on the other side wish to engage in endless debates on the level 
of student loan interest rates. This is the wrong debate to be having, 
however, and distracts us from real reform. By taking this issue out of 
the hands of politicians, H.R. 1911 moves the discussion forward.
  I believe there are better ways to help students manage the repayment 
of their loans than ever-higher interest rate subsidies. Income-based 
repayment, an idea that originated with Milton Friedman and was 
subsequently advocated by Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama, is 
better for students and taxpayers.
  While we have an income-based repayment option now, it doesn't do 
enough to protect our taxpayers. Therefore, working with Representative 
Jared Polis, I've introduced legislation to make needed reforms.
  With today's bill, we can break free from this debate over interest 
rates and focus on real reform to help students struggling with student 
loan debts. So I'd urge passage of H.R. 1911.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1911, 
the Republican bill to make college more expensive. In America, we 
often speak of the importance of expanding educational opportunity and 
supporting students in achieving the American Dream. Unfortunately, our 
student loan debt crisis is crushing the dreams and aspirations of 
students and college graduates.
  As Congressman Miller said earlier, today student loan debt exceeds 
$1.1 trillion. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
student loan debt surpassed total outstanding credit card debt for the 
first time in 2010. These staggering figures are truly unacceptable and 
must serve as a wake-up call for developing a long-term solution that 
helps, not harms, current and future borrowers.
  As a result, it is shocking that the majority party would bring a 
bait-and-switch scheme to the House floor, a bill that would force 
students into loans with skyrocketing interest rates.
  I find it shameful that H.R. 1911 would reduce the Federal deficit on 
the backs of students and parents by saddling them with almost $4 
billion in additional loan interest charges, and leave students worse 
off than if Congress simply allowed student loan interest rates to 
double on July 1.
  High levels of student loan debt can limit where college graduates 
live and work. It can affect the kinds of careers that students can 
follow. High levels of debt can create obstacles for young people who 
hope to start a family, to purchase a home and save for retirement.
  To be clear, students and families deserve more from the U.S. 
Congress, not less.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
10 seconds.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to oppose H.R. 1911. I suggest you do two things: one is 
work to prevent interest rates from doubling on July 1, and second, 
work to make college more affordable and accessible through the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Dr. Roe), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman.
  I rise in support of the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. Student 
loan debt, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
is a huge issue in this country.
  And how did we get to the current rate of 6.8 percent, I asked 
myself. I went back and reviewed it, and in 2006, the Congress decided 
that interest rates were too high, so they wanted to lower the interest 
rates, but found out they couldn't afford the cost of it.
  So gradually, stepwise, it went down last year. In 1 year we had a 
3.4 percent student loan rate tied to nothing other than the whims of 
Congress. It created a fiscal cliff for loan rates. So we voted to 
extend it for 1 year to give us time to have a permanent solution for 
this.
  The permanent solution that we're offering is to simply treat a 
student loan like any other loan and tie it to a Treasury note plus 2.5 
percent for a Stafford loan.
  Now, what does that mean?
  Certainly, Mr. Speaker, very eloquently, Mr. Miller spoke just a 
moment ago about how rates can go. Variable means rates can change. 
That's absolutely true. But rates can also go down. It doesn't 
necessarily mean that rates will go up. And in acknowledging this, an 
8.5 percent cap was put on those loans.
  I checked the student loan rate if you went to your local bank or 
credit union to see what a loan rate would be, and it's about 7 percent 
now, higher than that.
  And I agree with my good friend, Ruben Hinojosa, who believes that we

[[Page H2929]]

should work for ways to help make college more affordable. I could not 
agree more.
  The Secretary of Education, just this past Wednesday, said he agreed 
and supported a permanent solution. The President said he supported a 
market-based approach. This will give certainty to it, and certainly I 
would urge my colleagues to vote and support this very-needed piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  The question before the House this morning is whether we should make 
college more affordable or less affordable, which is better for the 
country.
  If we do nothing by July 1, interest rates double on student loan 
rates from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. This bill makes it worse. It will 
actually increase college costs for a typical student by $5- or $6,000 
over a 10-year period, $3.7 billion across the country.
  There's a better way. The government's borrowing money today at 1 
percent. Why don't we borrow the money at 1 percent, factor in the cost 
of administering the loans and setting aside a reserve for default, and 
charge that amount to the students, rather than run a profit-making 
enterprise on student loans?
  Mr. Tierney and others have taken the lead on this, Mr. Courtney has, 
and that's the bill that I think is the appropriate long-term solution.
  But I do know this. If you listen to any corporate leader, any 
business leader in America, they tell you this: we will only grow and 
prosper with a skilled workforce, and we will only have a skilled 
workforce if higher education is affordable.
  The simple question before the House is, if you think higher 
education should be less affordable, vote ``yes.'' If you think it 
should be more affordable, vote ``no.''
  ``No'' is the right vote. There's a better way. We should put that on 
the floor and proceed that way.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Absent congressional action, interest rates on student loans will 
double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent on July 1. It's not that far away. We 
need both parties and both Chambers working on solutions now. We can't 
afford more last-minute, backroom deals and political brinksmanship.
  The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a commonsense approach. 
This bill prevents the rate hike from happening and ends what has 
become an annual debate within Congress on how to set the rates for 
student loans.
  This bill puts in place a rate that is more predictable and 
affordable. It builds on a proposal put forward by President Obama in 
his fiscal year 2014 budget request.
  Now, both these proposals move to a market-based interest rate, not 
one set by politicians in Washington. We have a responsibility to 
America's youth to put forward a long-term plan for college 
affordability. This bill is a good first step. It will offer students 
the lowest possible rates for higher education by ensuring the solvency 
of these important loan programs. And I encourage my colleagues to join 
in support of this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the Making College More Expensive Act. In 
2007, Congress cut the interest rate on student loans in half, from 6.8 
percent to 3.4 percent, for 5 years. Last year, we extended that 
benefit for 1 more year. In a few weeks, on July 1, if Congress chooses 
not to act, the interest rate is scheduled to double back to the rate 
of 6.8 percent.
  Incredibly, this bill is so bad that, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, students will actually be better off if Congress were 
to let the rate double to 6.8 percent than to adopt this legislation. 
This bill is also bad because it makes rates variable for the life of 
the loan, therefore forcing students to sign for an interest rate that 
will fluctuate over time so they don't even know what it's going to be 
from one time to the next. This proposal essentially asks students to 
sign up for loans without knowing what they're signing up for.
  This is different from the Democratic proposals on variable interest 
rates, because the President's proposal and the Democratic alternative 
that was offered in committee have a variable rate; but once you sign 
the loan, that rate is fixed for the duration, so you know what you've 
signed up for. With the historic low rates now, you can sign up for a 
loan rate that's probably much lower than any of the numbers that are 
being considered. But this rate is so bad that the Congressional 
Research Service estimates that if we return to normal rates, the 
students will actually be worse off than if we just let the rates 
double to 6.8 percent.
  So I ask my colleagues to work diligently to improve access to 
quality education by making higher education more affordable and 
ensuring that the interest loan rates are reasonable, and that starts 
with defeating this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, recently, I had the opportunity to meet with more than a 
dozen of Michigan's private colleges and university presidents. They're 
working hard, as you might guess, to address the rising costs of 
college education with their institutions and other institutions and 
with students who desire an education. At the same time, this House, 
under the direction of this committee, is working hard to address 
student loan interest rates in a way that brings long-term stability to 
the program.
  The interest rate for federally subsidized Stafford loans is 
currently set to rise to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2013, matching it to 
the current unsubsidized Stafford loan rate. Other Federal loans have 
rates as high as 7.9 percent. Any further temporary extension of the 
current rate only kicks the can down the road. We've done this already. 
In politicians versus markets, markets will always produce better long-
term results, and only those who refuse to deal with the truth of 
history and reality would say otherwise.
  Congress has a unique opportunity to institute long-term, bipartisan 
reforms. Why not? We know in our hearts it's the right thing to do. 
Both President Obama and the House have favored market-based solutions 
to current rates. The Secretary of Education desires a long-term 
solution like this as well.
  Instead of another short-term fix, the Smarter Solutions for Students 
Act provides a long-term solution to the student loan interest rate 
problem. It returns all Federal student loans, except Perkins loans, to 
a market-based interest rate and takes politics out of this part of our 
children's education.
  The only way this plan won't work is if the liberal, progressive, 
central planners that control our government policy now are allowed to 
continue their failed approach. And it is a failed approach. Pass this 
bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I draw the point 
that was mentioned earlier that the Democrats made a promise to keep 
these loans at 3.4 percent, and the promise is being broken. It's being 
broken by this bill, this proposal by the Republican Party. We kept our 
promise through the entire reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Opportunity Act, and 2 more years in addition. This is the proposal 
now. We say stay at 3.4 percent. Republicans say, no, jack it up more 
than double on that basis.
  I join with millions of students and parents and organizations that 
represent them in strong opposition to this Making College More 
Expensive Act that's before us here today.
  My Republican friends talk about how this bill is simple and 
predictable. It's predictable all right. I predict the rates are going 
to go right up beyond the 6.8 percent rate. We've already seen

[[Page H2930]]

that from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group that 
says, if we pass this Republican bill, those rates will go up more than 
double on that basis. It is not simple.
  They would have you believe through this debate that the rates are 
going to go down to market rates, which, at the current time, are 
lower. They would if you followed our bill at 3.4 percent. But if you 
went with this bill of Making College More Expensive Act, it sets it 
low for the first year but it rewrites the second year, and it resets 
the third year and it resets the fourth year. So at the end of 4 years, 
you get the whole package with the higher rate. And that is going to be 
almost $4 billion more in cost for these students and parents than it 
is for people right now.
  The Congressional Budget Office said these interest rates would be 
almost $4 billion. We know that to be the case. These are the same 
people that tell us they don't want to burden our next generation with 
the debt, but they apparently have no problem at all burdening the next 
generation by burying them in student loan debt year after year after 
year.
  I have been hearing from people all over my district. In fact, one 
woman from Wilmington wrote me and said that, when her son graduates 
from college, his loans will equal what her husband and she paid for 
their first home. With the interest rates he'll pay, it will be even 
more. Something is not right with the system, she says. Both college 
tuition costs and student loan interest rates are wrong.
  She's right. This bill is wrong. Let's do the right thing. Let's have 
3.4 percent now. In the interim, do a Higher Education Reauthorization 
Act that takes care of this problem going forward.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in order to balance the speakers, I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand today against the Making College More Expensive 
Act. Let me tell you why.
  I represent a pretty large minority area, and over the last several 
years, we've seen those scores in those students going up and up. For 
the first time, we're seeing a higher rate of young people going to 
college. This is not the time to be looking at making college more 
expensive. They are first-time-generation students going to college. 
This is wrong. This is supposed to be a family-friendly bill. For whom? 
It's certainly not for my constituents.

  I'm sorry also to say that what we're going to be seeing is that 
after this bill passes--and it will probably pass today--it dies. The 
Senate is not going to pick this up. So, again, we have wasted all our 
time instead of working together to come to a solution.
  Again, as you heard, according to the CBO, if Congress did nothing 
and let student loan rates double on July 1, students would be better 
off.
  This is not a good bill. I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, student interest rates are set 
to double in a little over a month unless Congress stops it, and that's 
why I rise today in opposition to the Making College More Expensive 
Act. We should be considering legislation like the one my colleague, 
Mr. Courtney, introduced to extend low interest rates for 2 years; but, 
instead, we're debating a bill that makes students worse off than if 
Congress does nothing. That's because, under this bill, student 
interest rates would be subject to the whims of the market.
  Today, interest rates are at an all-time low, but what about 5 years? 
what about 10 years? what about 15 years from now? This bill lures 
students in with a low variable rate, only to trap them with a higher 
rate upon repayment. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've seen this bait and switch 
before, only usually it was by credit card companies setting up shop 
outside of college sporting events, not by the Federal Government.
  We are not subprime lenders. The Federal Government should not be 
profiting from students. It shouldn't be making $4 billion off of 
students.
  Mr. KLINE. I now yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1911. 
This commonsense bill, aptly named the Smarter Solutions for Students 
Act, brings the student loan interest rate program back to reality.
  Instead of coming back each year to partake in the Washington 
tradition of putting last year's failures off to the next year, this 
bill gives students and their families the certainty that their loan 
rates won't be subjected to the whims of bureaucrats in Washington or 
legislators on Capitol Hill.
  This legislation ties student loan interest rates to the 10-year 
Treasury note. In fact, the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request 
included language very similar to this bill. H.R. 1911 goes even 
further toward protecting students and families from high interest rate 
environments by including caps on interest rates.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank Chairman 
Kline and Virginia Foxx and their staffs for their hard work in 
bringing this commonsense legislation to the floor.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair of the 
time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The gentleman from 
California has 15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 
20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. At a time when we know that 
student loan debt now has skyrocketed above all other forms of consumer 
debt--credit card debt, car loan debt--and students are now graduating, 
on average, with over $25,000 of student loan debt, a ticking clock 38 
days away where the rates are going to double, the bill that the 
majority has come forward with makes the problem worse, not better.
  Again, the analysis from independent sources--the ones that we rely 
on to make decisions in this body, the Congressional Budget Office and 
the Congressional Research Office--make it clear that if we do nothing, 
the interest costs for the average Stafford loan will add $4,000 in 
interest payments. If we pass this bill, the interest will rise by 
$5,000. So the notion that this is somehow a solution to the problem, 
the misnomer that this bill is given, the reverse is true.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the Senate is not going to move over the 
next 38 days; they're doing the farm bill, they're doing immigration 
reform. It is time to protect students by extending the 3.4 percent 
rate, a rate, which I hasten to add, that was passed in 2007 with a 
large bipartisan majority, signed into law by George Bush, was extended 
again last year with large bipartisan majorities, signed by President 
Obama. Let's do a 2-year extension, and then let's get to work with a 
5-year Higher Education Reauthorization Act.
  The problem with higher ed is not about Stafford loans only; it's 
about Pell grants, it's about Perkins loans. It's about students not 
being given good information in high school. It's about allowing 
graduates to refinance their debt, which they are now confronted with 
large barriers to. That's the real work to solve the higher education 
challenge and issue in this country. In the mean time, let's extend the 
2-year rates.
  Mr. Speaker, I have letters from 21 campus-based organizations 
representing real live college students all across America who support 
the Democratic measure to extend those rates, get a good higher 
education authorization bill, and totally--totally--reject the measure 
that's on the floor today, the Make College More Expensive Act.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the 
committee.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Making 
College More Expensive Act, a bill that

[[Page H2931]]

will potentially make college more expensive for thousands of students 
and families across the country.
  Across America, students and graduates are trapped under a trillion-
dollar mountain of student loan debt, and with this bill, the problem 
is about to get worse.
  On July 1, interest rates will double for millions of students 
entering college. But this bill is not a constructive solution; in 
fact, this bill will make the problem worse.
  Rates are currently 3.4 percent, and they will double to 6.8 percent 
if we do nothing. But under this bill, the rates will be uncertain 
because they will be variable, and will be as high as 8.5 percent.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation will 
force students to pay thousands more in interest than if Congress 
simply does nothing and lets the rates double.
  It's just not fair. On average, middle class families haven't seen a 
raise in years. Many are working harder for less money. They're 
struggling to buy everything from groceries to gas. They're relying 
more on the Federal student loans programs to finance the growing cost 
of college.
  But instead of debating how much we should lower rates, instead of 
considering comprehensive reforms to address college costs, we're 
actually considering legislation that would be worse than if we did 
nothing at all.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unproductive, unreasonable, and unacceptable. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to another member 
of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. I would like to thank Chairman Kline for his hard work on 
this bill. I'd also like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Foxx for her 
hard work.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for 
Students Act.
  This debate is about a fundamental question: Who do you trust more--
the promises of Big Government or the private market setting rates in 
the marketplace?
  I believe we must return to a market-based policy rather than keeping 
Congress in the business of fixing interest rates by throwing darts at 
a dart board.
  Let me make two simple points to this Chamber. First, markets work. 
The President has recognized this, Education Secretary Duncan has 
recognized this. They both have called for a return to market-based 
rates and policies on our student loan interest. Families deserve the 
security of knowing that the marketplace will be setting their interest 
rate, not the results of the next mud wrestling match in Congress.
  We've heard a lot of rhetoric on the other side of the aisle about 
how rates will rise if we change this policy. Lost in that rhetoric is 
the fact that over the course of the last decade there have been times 
where interest rates would have been much lower had we had a market-
based approach to interest rates.
  In 2002, student groups lobbied Congress to set student loan interest 
rates at a fixed 6.8 percent, beginning in the 2006 academic year. At 
that time, rates on student loans were variable and at historically low 
levels. However, student groups believed that a 6.8 rate would result 
in a better deal. It turned out they were wrong. Through that period, 
interest rates--had we stayed at a variable rate--would have been 2.36 
percent. I don't think it's fair to those families that accumulated 
loans during those times that we had the government in the way.
  The second point I think that needs to be made in this debate is that 
while we need to have low interest rates for students--and we're all 
concerned and want to make sure they don't rise--the real threat to 
young people in this country is not a few dollars on their interest 
loans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
  Mr. MESSER. The real threat is the explosive growth of debt in this 
country, the fact that we are adding $1 trillion of debt each year, 
$6,800 of debt per taxpayer each year. It's dragging down our economy 
and hurting our ability to create jobs.
  Let's return to commonsense policy on interest rates. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1911.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Making College More 
Expensive Act.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is just not right. The Federal 
Government is borrowing money at 1.8 percent. Then we're lending it--
now--at 3.4 percent. If we do nothing, it goes to 6.8 percent. And 
under this bill, it probably will hit up around 10 percent. We're 
ripping off kids. I mean, we're making money off of these kids. A 
confident Nation will invest in the dreams of our young people, it 
won't crush those dreams.
  Why are we doing it? You know what? We're borrowing money as a 
government at 1.8 percent. The Federal Reserve is lending money to the 
big money center banks at 0.75 percent. But we're going to be charging 
up to 8 or 10 percent to our kids? I don't get that.
  Families are sitting around the kitchen table having discussions--if 
they have three kids, which two can we send to college?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. Parents who thought they had equity in their home and were 
going to be able, after working 30 years of work, to finally take that 
cruise or that vacation, they're refinancing their home to help their 
kids. And despite that--which compromises their retirement--their kids 
are getting out of college in Vermont with an average debt in the range 
of close to $30,000.
  It's tough on the kids, it's tough on the parents, it's bad for our 
economy, and it's just not right. We borrow, the Federal Government, at 
1.8 percent, and we're going to charge up to 8 percent for families? 
We're lending to the banks at 0.75 percent.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. I rise in opposition, Mr. Speaker, to the 
Making College More Expensive Act.
  How short are some of the memories of my friends on the other aside, 
for it was market-based principles, unregulated market-based 
principles, that led to the housing crisis that we are just now getting 
out of.
  Doubling the student loan rate is an attack on students. The 
increased debt that they will take on will build a great wall around 
our middle class. There's no better way to have a healthy, growing 
middle class than access to education.
  Today, our middle class is shrinking. If you're in the middle class, 
you're making about $5,000 less than you were 10 years ago. If you're 
in the middle class, you owe about $25,000 more in debt than you did 10 
years ago. Doubling the rates will increase the debt that our middle 
class has.
  I know a thing or two about student loans. I have thousands of 
dollars of them myself. This is not just dollars on interest rates. We 
are talking thousands of dollars that individual borrowers like myself 
and the people that grew up with me in a middle class town called 
Dublin will take on.
  Let's tear down this great wall that the GOP and the House leadership 
are trying to build around our middle class. Let's not double the 
rates.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Republican Making College More 
Expensive Act that we're considering today. Market-based systems will 
drive up the cost for millions of middle class families but will, of 
course, also benefit some of our biggest banks and other financial 
institutions.
  If we want to get our country back on the right track, put men and 
women

[[Page H2932]]

back to work and ensure that we remain competitive in the global 
economy, we have to do more to make higher education more accessible 
and more affordable, not more expensive.
  Without Congressional action, the interest rate on Federal subsidized 
Stafford loans is scheduled to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent 
for more than 7 million students. We should not be making a profit on 
student loans--period.
  We have proposals that will end this practice and give students 
access to college at the lowest cost possible. Unlike this bill, the 
Student Loan Relief Act, the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act, 
and the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act would each preserve low 
interest rates for students.
  The bill before us today is a bad Republican idea that will make 
college more expensive for working families and will benefit some of 
America's largest financial institutions who will earn billions more in 
student loan interest. Hidden within this bill is a blatant bait-and-
switch scheme that will allow students to borrow money at one rate 
before the interest rates skyrocket.
  Let's reject the Making College More Expensive Act and find a 
serious, long-term solution on student loans that will make college 
more affordable for millions and millions of American students.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I'm puzzled. This is not the America that I 
know. It can't be.
  When we were growing to make ourselves a great Nation, we were 
talking about trying to make sure that our young people had a free 
education. I can't figure out what's going on here. So many Americans 
that are doing well now, when I talk to them about when they were going 
to school back in the forties and the fifties and the sixties, it was a 
free education. Now we want to ask our young people, the ones that are 
going to be the middle class, the ones that are going to strengthen 
this country, to be more in debt than ever.
  How could we say to our students--when we're talking about financial 
literacy everyplace and trying to teach them how to be financially 
able--that you've got to take a bait-and-switch loan? Didn't we learn 
anything from this last financial crisis?
  What are homeowners doing now? All who had these adjustable-rate 
mortgages, all of them are running to make the adjustable-rate 
mortgages fixed-rate mortgages. And yet we take what we say are our 
precious resources--our children--to say that you've got to pay these 
resources is ridiculous. Some are wealthy, some are not.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have no further speakers.
  Is the chairman the last speaker?
  Mr. KLINE. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues who entered into the debate here 
this morning on this legislation. I think it is clear that there is a 
very big difference between our positions on this legislation; there's 
a very big difference between the President's bill, who is trying to 
use a market system, and this bill before us, Mr. Kline's bill, that 
uses a market system.
  The fact is that the President's bill saves students billions of 
dollars, but the Republicans would not make President Obama's bill in 
order for consideration. Why not? They say it's like they're doing the 
same thing as the President. Well, they're not. In fact, they're adding 
$4 billion worth of debt onto the backs of students over their program.
  And how can they possibly do that? You've heard my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle speak to the issues that we hear all of the time when 
we go home. The struggle of students, the struggle of families, be they 
low-income, be they middle-income, to get access and to be able to 
complete a college education, to get access to a community college, to 
a State college system, to get a certificate, to get a degree that will 
allow them to participate in the American society, in the American 
economy. That's part of the American Dream.
  Yes, we lowered the interest rates to 3.4 percent, and they've held 
over a period of years. And they held over those exact same years when 
families were under the most stress because of this recession that was 
created on Wall Street and the scandals that took away 70 percent of 
the wealth of African American and Hispanic families in this country, 
that destroyed the equity and good chunks of middle America because of 
teaser rate loans, subprime loans.
  And what is happening today in the private market? The banks are 
getting money from the Treasury at 0.75 interest, and they're loaning 
it to families in private student loans. If you have good credit, 
they'll loan it to you for somewhere around 7 percent.
  Bankers used to go die and go to heaven if they could get a 7 percent 
spread. That's how you become a billionaire. Get it at 0.75 and put it 
out at 7. And if your credit rating is not so good, those statistics 
sort of suggest you drift towards 13 percent.
  Obviously, the students and middle class can't survive in that market 
for the most part, and that's why we have a student loan program. 
That's why we took this program away from the banks a number of years 
ago. We took the $60 billion that we were giving to the banks to loan 
the public's money to students and we said why don't we put that to use 
for families, and we did.
  And we lowered the interest rates, and we increased the participation 
in the Pell Grants, made it available. We increased some loan limits. 
We gave people a chance to manage their debt after they graduated, so 
the more you earn, the more you pay, but you don't get crushed on your 
first job that may not have the best salary, even though it's the 
career you want to go in and it takes time to get that salary. We made 
it more affordable for America's families.
  Yes, we lowered the debt to 3.4 percent. It was paid for, and that's 
all we could afford. Congress will make that decision. Last year, the 
Congress made a decision to extend it. This year, they've decided that 
they don't want to extend it on the other side of the aisle. So, fine, 
come up with a plan. But the plan they came up with is worse than 
having the 3.4 percent double on July 1.
  How can you develop a plan that's worse for students? I guess maybe 
if you go home and everybody in your district is working and everybody 
is participating in this slow-growing economy that's getting better. I 
don't know. Families I represent, they're still struggling. The 
recession hasn't left town. The recession hasn't left the country.
  If you pick up The Wall Street Journal today, there's greater concern 
about what's happening in China dragging down the world economy, 
there's greater concern about the Europeans dragging down the world 
economy. America is trying to struggle and the students are trying to 
struggle, and we're going to come along and more than double the rate.
  We're going to give them a teaser rate, though. This next September 
when families go out and they get a rate, it will be probably somewhat 
lower than the current rate. But that loan will be adjusted, and they 
don't know what those rates are going to be. As long as they're paying 
on that loan, that loan will continue to be adjusted. We just saw that 
history in America. We saw what that did.
  I don't have a problem going to a market system. How about a fair 
one? When the President went to a market system for the subsidized 
Stafford loan, he said on the market system we'll go to 0.9. They said 
they would go to 2.5--10 years plus 2.5. The President said 10 years 
plus 0.9.

                              {time}  1150

  There are a lot of ways to go to a market system. You don't have to 
punish the American family. You don't have to punish the students in 
school to go to a market system. I wish the President had a cap. The 
gentleman has a cap. This could be worked out, but we don't do things 
bipartisanly anymore in the Congress of the United States. So, because 
we can't get the President and the majority on the Education and the 
Workforce Committee to sit down and work out the market system--because 
that's not allowed and

[[Page H2933]]

we don't do bipartisan work--the victims are going to be the families 
and the students, and, in the long term, our Nation.
  Every Member of Congress has come to this floor and has said how 
important this education system is to our future economic growth, to 
competing in a globalized world, to have innovation, to have discovery, 
to have job creation. We're now creating a drag on job creation. We're 
now creating a drag on the opportunities for families. We are creating 
a drag on the ability to achieve the American Dream--and a college 
education is part of that dream, but a college education is also 
critical to keeping this economy and this society moving.
  I would hope that my colleagues, whether they are committed to a 
market rate or not, would understand that this is a very flawed market 
rate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as always in these debates, there is a lot of confusion, 
and there is a lot of misinformation. We are using that old thing about 
``figures lie and liars figure,'' and you've got different guesses for 
interest rates and reports and all those sorts of things, and I want to 
get into some of that, but some of it is at the core of our differences 
here. Let's get a couple of things straight.
  We watch what has happened as Congress tries to chase an interest 
rate and gets in political battles year after year. You'll remember 
that the 6.8 percent that was put in law was considered a good deal. 
Then there was the plan to take it from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for 
all loans. It didn't work. It costs a lot of money, and it's added to 
the debt, which is a problem that is still nagging us to this day. So 
interest rates were taken from 6.8 to 3.4 percent gradually over years. 
It got down to the point where, for 1 year, the interest rate on 
subsidized Stafford loans--not the unsubsidized Stafford loans, not the 
PLUS loans, because we didn't have the money for that--took it down to 
3.4 percent for 1 year, and then there wasn't enough money. So, by law, 
the interest rates on those loans went back up to 6.8 percent, and last 
year, an election year, we had a big political fight, and that's what 
you can anticipate, apparently, forever as politicians try to use this 
as a political pawn and fight over what the student loan interest rates 
ought to be and what can be afforded.
  Mr. Speaker, what can be afforded counts because a problem, as I 
said, that is continuing to nag us is we have a mountain of debt in 
this country. We've been running deficits year after year of over $1 
trillion. We've got over $16 trillion in debt. We have to face that 
issue here coming before us. So, while we would like all student loan 
interest rates to be low and as we want to get them as low as we can, 
we don't want to add to the mountain of debt that's out there.
  We thought that it would be a good idea to let the free market 
determine what those rates ought to be, and we came forward with a 
proposal, and we talked about our proposal with our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle--staff to staff, hour after hour--trying to 
beat this out staff to staff and in talking to the White House and the 
Department of Education about what we're doing and what they're doing 
and what might work out. I talked to the Secretary of Education before 
this bill was ever introduced because I agreed with the President and 
the Secretary that we needed a long-term solution and to get out of 
kicking this can down the road with annual--or maybe it's semiannual or 
biannual--political battles.
  So we moved to the market. We used a 10-year Treasury that the White 
House was proposing using--center Republicans wanted to use a 10-year 
Treasury--and then we worked it, Mr. Speaker. We worked it and worked 
it to get it as close to budget-neutral as we could possibly get it 
because we want to help students, and we wanted to give them certainty, 
and we wanted them not to rely on the whims of politicians here, and we 
wanted also not to put the burden on the American people and the 
taxpayer, and we wanted not to add to that debt. So we tried to get it 
close to zero.
  We've seen charts down here--I love charts, particularly colored 
charts. We've seen charts down here that say that our bill is adding 
billions of dollars to student debt. Well, we've got a counterproposal 
over there. I think the gentleman from California offered it. It's the 
President's proposal, President Obama's plan. That additional debt to 
students is $3.1 billion--ours is $3.7 billion--over 10 years. We tried 
to come together on this. Mr. Speaker, I think we can continue to try 
to come together on this, and we need to move this forward.
  There are a lot of things we need to do to help students. Certainly, 
one of them is to help graduates get to work. Half of all college 
graduates now are underemployed or unemployed, doing things, working in 
places, employing none of the skills that they learned in college. We 
need to get the economy going. We're still asking, Where are the jobs? 
We need to get Americans back to work. You can't get Americans back to 
work if you just keep piling on mountains and mountains and mountains 
of debt and piles of regulations, but that's a fight for another day. 
Income-based repayment systems we didn't touch in our bill, but there 
are some interesting proposals out there we want to look at. Right now, 
with this bill, we're just trying to determine who is going to set 
interest rates--politicians here or the market.
  So here is what we've heard from the other side today: that 
Washington should be in charge of setting interest rates on student 
loans, that Washington should be in the business of creating confusion 
and uncertainty for student loan borrowers. Washington cannot agree to 
a long-term solution that will serve the best interests of students and 
taxpayers. I think we need to keep working to do that.

  It was pointed out that the Senate won't act. Well, for many of us in 
this body, that's not a lot of news, but July 1 is still July 1, and 
there is an incentive over there, and I believe the Senate must take 
action. I look forward to working with them to achieve the long-term 
solution that I think that we all need to see.
  It was pointed out that we have a variable rate. The President has a 
variable rate but then his fixes. Certainly, under our law, when you 
graduate, if you're in a low-interest environment, you can consolidate 
those loans and fix them for the duration of however long you're taking 
to pay off those loans. If it's in a high interest rate environment, 
you may not want to do that. In the other plan, you've already got a 
fixed rate.
  We believe we can work together. The only way we can continue to work 
together to solve this is to pass this legislation. Pass it today. I 
urge my colleagues to reject the failed status quo and to embrace a 
responsible long-term solution on behalf of students, families, and 
hardworking American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Smarter Solutions for Students Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1911, 
the wrong approach to a very real problem for our nation's students.
  As we all know, the interest rate on student loans will double in 
July if Congress does not act. But today's legislation is not the 
solution. In fact, today's bill will make student loans more expensive, 
not less.
  Student loan debt already tops $1.1 trillion, burdening recent 
graduates with high monthly payments even as they struggle to find jobs 
and start their lives. With that much debt at the start of their 
careers, they may put off purchases like a home or a car. But rather 
than address that problem, today's bill would add $3.7 billion in 
additional loan interest charges over the next ten years. In fact, if 
we did nothing and allowed the student loan interest rate to double, 
students would be better off than they would be under H.R. 1911.
  Today's bill also makes it difficult for students to accurately 
predict their college costs. Under this proposal, the interest rate on 
loans would be recalculated every year for the life of the loan. 
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, interest rates will 
be higher than current rates for seven of the next ten years. A 
borrower who takes out a loan next year under the Republican plan would 
see his interest rate more than double by the time he starts repaying 
that loan in 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive solution to the problem of 
student debt that includes affordable financial assistance and works 
with states and colleges to keep costs

[[Page H2934]]

down. It is time to reauthorize the Higher Education Act--let's take 
this opportunity to negotiate a sustainable, long-term plan that works 
better for students.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Making 
College More Expensive Act that we are considering today. If we are 
serious about getting our country back on the right track, putting 
people back to work, and ensuring that we remain competitive in the 
global economy, we have to do more to make higher education more 
accessible and more affordable, not more expensive. Without 
Congressional action, the interest rate on federal subsidized Stafford 
loans is scheduled to increase from 3.4% to 6.8% for more than seven 
million students.
   The United States Government should not be making a profit on 
student loans. Period.
   And there are several proposals pending before the House today that 
would give students access to college at the lowest cost possible. 
Unlike this bill, the Student Loan Relief Act, the Responsible Student 
Loan Solutions Act, and the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act would 
each preserve low interest rates for students. But the bill before us 
today is a bad Republican idea that will make college more expensive 
for working families. This bill before us today will make college more 
expensive to millions of Americans.
   According to the independent, non-partisan Congressional Research 
Service, students with five years of subsidized Stafford loans borrowed 
at the maximum amount would owe $4,174 in interest under current rate 
and $8,808 if we allow interest rates to double on July 1st. But under 
this proposal, students would owe a total of $10,109 in interest 
payments on their loans.
   Hidden within this bill is a blatant bait and switch scheme that 
will allow students to borrow money at one rate before their interest 
rates skyrocket. Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to 
claim that putting student loans into the ``marketplace'' is a cure-all 
for increased student debt. But in this case, ``marketplace'' is code 
for billions of more dollars in interest payments as this bill would 
prevent students from enjoying the lowest available interest rates.
   Let's reject the Making College More Expensive Act and find a 
serious long-term solution on student loans that will make college more 
affordable for millions of Americans.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1911--the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. Mr. Speaker, this 
terrible bill should instead be called the Making College More 
Expensive Act because that is exactly what it would do if passed 
through Congress.
  Instead of making college more affordable for students, H.R. 1911 
would burden students with an additional $4 billion in loan interest 
charges relative to current law. According to a recent study by the 
Federal Reserve, there is plenty of evidence that student loan debt has 
negatively affected a student borrower's participation in our economy. 
With the national student loan debt already topping $1.1 trillion, H.R. 
1911 would only deepen the college debt crisis students are now 
experiencing in America.
  Over the past couple of years, legislators have been repeatedly 
warned about the impacts student loan debt has on economic growth. Even 
the Federal Reserve has identified that student debt is the likely 
cause of delays by American college graduates in purchasing homes and 
cars or starting families.
  H.R. 1911 is a bait and switch scheme that does nothing to remedy 
this issue. This bill only makes it more expensive to attend by forcing 
students and families to accept loans with skyrocketing interest rates 
that increase annually.
  Just this past weekend, students from all over the country in the 
class of 2013 graduated with an average debt load of $30,000 (Source: 
Mark Kantrowitz--publisher of FinAid.org analysis). When adjusted for 
inflation, that's roughly double the average amount of debt students 
graduated with 20 years ago.
  The passage of this bill would continue this trend by changing 
student loan interest rates from year-to-year based on the 10-year 
Treasury note, marked up by 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent. As a result of 
this variable rate, federal student loans taken out by incoming 
freshmen class of 2013 would at first be at a lower rate; however, by 
the time this class of freshman graduates in 2017, the interest rate on 
their loans is projected to be 7.4 percent, more than double today's 
current 3.4 percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, released a report 
this month citing the long-term impacts of high student loan debt. The 
CFPB found ``As a growing number of young consumers have been unable to 
participate more fully in the housing marketplace, the segment of young 
consumers that remains interested in becoming first-time homebuyers may 
face new barriers to homeownership. The National Association of Home 
Builders (NAHB) stated that higher student debt burdens ``impair the 
ability of recent college graduates to qualify for a loan.'' According 
to NAHB, high student loan debt has an impact on consumers' debt-to-
income (DTI) ratio--an important metric for decisions about 
creditworthiness in mortgage origination.
  I have long championed the importance of developing the next 
generation of entrepreneurs and innovators to lead our country boldly 
in the 21st Century. Yet, the CFPB report found that student loan debt 
is poising a barrier to young entrepreneurs.
  According to the report by CFPB ``For many young entrepreneurs, it is 
critical to invest capital to develop ideas, market products, and hire 
employees. Student debt burdens require these individuals to divert 
cash away from their businesses so they can make monthly student loan 
payments.'' Is this the future we want for our nation's student 
borrowers? Instead of building businesses, buying homes, and having 
families they are being crushed by the weight of student loan debt. 
This is not the future I want for current and future student borrowers.
  Attaining an education is one of our Nation's founding principles. We 
should be working on finding solutions to lower the cost of education 
for our nation's youth rather than debating legislation designed to 
earn another $3.7 billion in revenue from struggling student borrowers. 
This bill is egregious.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear to my Democratic colleagues and I that 
college affordability is still a pervasive issue in America. It is also 
clear, that this issue will require more than just a temporary fix. In 
order for us to maintain our competitive edge as a nation, we need to 
support every single American who desires to pursue a higher education. 
Congress needs to pass meaningful legislation that actually solves this 
problem and not perpetuate it. Let's start by voting no on H.R. 1911 
and support our American students by not saddling them with 
insurmountable debt.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, once again House Republicans refuse to 
address the affordability of higher education head on and instead are 
using sleight of hand to make students think their interest rates will 
remain low. The awful truth is that H.R. 1911 will add even more to the 
already $1.1 billion of student debt in this country and further 
increase the cost of getting a college education.
  As we continue to recover economically, we must ensure that students 
can afford a higher education. In 2007, as we were dealing with the 
worst of the recession, I voted in favor of legislation to reduce 
interest rates on Stafford loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. On July 1, 
interest rates will go back to 6.8 percent if Congress does not act.
  An increase to 6.8 percent will add an additional $1000 in debt over 
the lifetime on a student's loans. However, the non-partisan 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that under H.R. 1911 interest 
rates will rapidly increase to 7.7 percent by 2018. This bill does not 
guarantee lower interest rates. In fact, it does the opposite. The CBO 
does not project that interest rates will come down any time in the 
next 10 years. This is a hard truth students and their families cannot 
afford.
  I am a proud cosponsor, along with 138 of my colleagues, of H.R. 
1595, the Student Loan Relief Act by Representative Joe Courtney, which 
keeps the interest rate at 3.4 percent through 2015. That gives the 
Congress time enough to address comprehensive legislation to amend the 
Higher Education Act and develop long-term solutions to address student 
loans.
  There are nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in 
my district who have a Stafford subsidized student loan. Those loans 
total over $212 million. Increasing the interest rate will add an 
unnecessary burden on those students as they graduate and enter the 
workforce. We must do everything we can to help as they get started.
  We should not have to choose how we are going to invest in our 
country's future. Republicans don't seem to realize that by not finding 
a compromise, they are playing politics with students, families, and 
the future of our country.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.
  This bill will return federal student loans to a system of market-
based variable rates, an imprudent policy that seeks profits for 
deficit reduction at the expense of students struggling with the 
substantial and ever-climbing cost of post-secondary education.
  With federal student loan interest rates set to double on July 1, 
2013, Congress must act quickly to extend the current rate, rather than 
passing legislation that hurts students and families. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, H.R. 1911 will actually make it more 
expensive for students than if Congress did nothing and let the current 
interest rate expire. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this 
bill will cost students and parents an addition $3.7 billion in 
additional interest charges over the next 10 years.

[[Page H2935]]

  This is unacceptable. Approximately 60 percent of students take out 
loans to attend college and increasing the costs of borrowing will 
prevent millions from being able to pursue higher education. Last year 
the total amount of student loan debt reached $1 trillion and the 
average borrower from the class of 2011 graduated with $26,600 in debt.
  College educated students are the future engine of our country, and 
anyone who wants to pursue a post-secondary education should have the 
opportunity to do so without going into crushing debt. I urge my 
colleagues to extend the current interest rate of 3.4 percent for two 
years and find a true long-term solution to the cost of college worthy 
of our nation's young people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, the so-
called ``Smarter Solutions for Students Act''. I propose a more 
accurate title ``The Making Kindergarteners Pay for Our Mistakes Act of 
2013.'' I must confess that every time I hear someone say they support 
austerity for the children, I am forced to question their understanding 
of economics. I try not to question their motives, but on a day like 
today--that is a struggle I am hard pressed to win. This bill does 
little more than turn the United States government into a payday 
lender--charging students interest that far outstrips the government's 
cost of lending. Instead of a fixed interest rate, that will let 
parents and students know how much their education costs, this bill 
sets interest at a variable, market rate--plus a nice little premium 
for the government. I wonder what fury my friends across the aisle 
would raise if we were to treat banks in a similar manner.
  This fall's incoming class of students born in 1994 and 1995 was in 
kindergarten when Republicans seized control of our country and its 
surplus, and moved us quickly to deficit and debt. While these children 
were learning how rewarding it was to read, my colleagues across the 
aisle learned how remunerative it was to pass unfunded tax cuts and 
unfunded wars onto those children. While they let wages stagnate--an 
act which continues to this day--and they cut funding to schools--
another policy which continues to this day--they reaped millions in 
campaign contributions from the billionaire's whose taxes they cut, the 
military contractors to whom they brought billions. Now, my friends 
across the aisle will vote to ensure students who were five when 
Republicans started running up the debt, will pay down that debt as the 
price of going to college.
  Today a college degree is more necessary than ever, and more 
expensive than ever. Unlike my friends across the aisle, I remember 
that my own education was subsidized by the state. Unlike my friends 
across the aisle, I don't brag about paying for my college education 
during a time when our Federal and State governments looked out for 
students and the poor--when education was treated as a public good, and 
the minimum wage far outstripped its modern equivalent.
  The modern Republican party--many of them bragging about their in-
state educations when they want to stress how much they understand the 
common person's experience--have all but officially declared for the 
for-profit model of education. Cut funding, and cut funding, and cut 
funding to the school. Push more of the cost onto students. Use those 
students to profit. I apologize that we cannot politely agree to 
disagree, but treating our children as a cash cow while proclaiming 
concern about our children does not pass the test of well-meaning 
debate. If they want the government out of the educating children 
business, then say so. But don't treat public education as a chance to 
pay down the debt. Children born in 1995 aren't the reason for our 
problems--Republican policies are. Eighteen-year-old kids didn't force 
them to increase inequality; 18-year-old kids didn't force them to 
destroy American meritocracy by securing inherited wealth for the child 
of every billionaire and denying opportunity to low-income children; 
18-year-old kids didn't make them destroy the middle class to secure 
greater wealth for those who line your pockets with contributions.
  The promise of the American middle class was created when affordable 
education made the prospect of a good paying job possible for every 
child. If they want to destroy it, say so. If they want to take out on 
our children their own guilt about the haphazard, excessive spending of 
Republican administrations, say so. If they don't care about our 
children--at least not those who don't benefit from the millionaire tax 
cuts they pass at every opportunity--just say so.
  I urge my friends across the aisle to look at their own actions, and 
reassess if they can in good conscience support taking more from 
children just entering into the adult world. I urge them to drop this 
bill and begin working on a real solution, one that provides the next 
generation the same opportunities they were provided.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1911, the 
Smarter Solutions for Students Act because this bill becoming law would 
be worse than allowing student loan interest rates to double on July 1, 
2013.
  If Congress does nothing the student loan interest rate will rise 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1st. As Members of the 
Congress, we know what this will mean for students in our states and 
what it will mean for colleges and universities in our Congressional 
Districts.
  The bill H.R. 1911 does not fix the problem of higher interest rates 
for student loans, but places a greater financial burden on young 
professionals just starting out in life. The Treasury 10 year rate over 
the last several years is abnormally low due to the weak economy, but 
in years when the economy was strong the rate was consistently above 6 
percent or more. This is the rate that H.R. 1911 would use to calculate 
student loan repayment not over the life of the loan, but each time 
funds were provided.
  I have a strong interest in how student loan repayment plans impact 
graduates. During the last Congress, I introduced the College Literacy 
in Finance and Economics Act of 2011 or College LIFE Act to address the 
challenges faced by African American and Hispanic students who sign 
loan agreements, but may not have the financial literacy to comprehend 
the significance of taking on long-term debt.
  My bill directed that eligible institutions provide financial 
literacy counseling to borrowers within 45 days after students receive 
their loan.
  Literacy counseling under the College LIFE Act would require: a 
minimum of two 4-hour counseling sessions, the first when a student 
receives a loan payment, and the second when student's complete their 
study.
  The focus of financial literacy education under the College LIFE Act 
was to make sure students knew through counseling what they were 
agreeing to in signing up for and receiving a student loan.
  Counseling would provide information on student education financial 
options that went beyond loans and included scholarships. Student 
financial literacy programs can provide insight into information on 
loan management and the basics of personal financial management.
  The bill would have also provided financial education that taught 
students how to: make a budget, prioritize financial decision making 
related to how to balance income, expenses and personal spending, 
develop realistic goals based on income, and manage credit and debt.
  Students would have learned how to understand credit scores, credit 
cards, and investing so that they could become better financial 
consumers.
  The College LIFE Act would have benefited thousands of graduating 
students. In the City of Houston, this spring I have participated in 
commencement exercises for the University of Houston, Texas Southern 
University, Houston Community College and Lone Star College North 
Harris. There are thousands of new graduates just in the City of 
Houston alone who are ready to pursue their dreams, but who will wake 
up to the reality of tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
  I am proud to call Texas Southern University a constituent of the 
18th Congressional District of Houston Texas. Texas Southern University 
is the third largest Historically Black College and University in the 
Nation. I joined Texas Southern University's current president Dr. John 
Rudley at the school's commencement. Texas Southern University has a 
long proud history of success in the students it has sent forth.
  The school was founded in September of 1927 with a loan from the 
Houston Public School Board. This was not a loan intended to saddle the 
school with a debt too great to survive. For this reason, along with 
hard work and the dedication of faculty, students and the Houston 
Community, the University will celebrate its 86th anniversary this 
year.
  Texas Southern University's loan statistics for the 9700 students 
attending the school tells us why financial aid is important:
  Eighty-one percent of the students attending the school receive some 
form of student financial assistance.
  Texas Southern University received $85 million in student financial 
aid revenue for graduate and undergraduate students.
  Due to a change in how the Department of Education determines 
eligibility for parent student loans, there are over 400 fewer students 
attending Texas Southern University this year.
  Changes to student loan rules--no matter how minor--can result in 
major consequences for a young person's prospects for a college or 
university degree. A college degree can open up a world of 
opportunities that would otherwise not be available.
  I spoke at Texas Southern University's commencement exercise and was 
pleased to be joined by Michael Strahan, a Texas Southern University 
Alum who is a co-host of Live with Kelly and Michael.
  Not all Texas Southern University graduates are as famous as Michael 
Strahan, but many

[[Page H2936]]

of them pursue careers that lead to personal and professional success. 
The goal of attending a university should and ought not to be gaining 
fame and fortune.
  The outcome of our work in Congress should not result in crushing 
financial debt, because that will end the dreams of college for 
otherwise college-ready students.
  In 2008, 62 percent of students who graduated with a baccalaureate 
degree left college with more than knowledge--they were burdened with 
debt. Students of every race, ethnicity, and gender struggle with 
loans.
  According to 2008 statistics: 92 percent of African-American 
students, 85 percent of Hispanic students, 85 percent of Native 
American students, 82 percent of multiracial students, 80 percent of 
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Island students, 77 percent of white 
students, and 68 percent of Asian students received financial aid.
  Education is the surest path out of poverty. However, if the changes 
proposed by H.R. 1911, that would amend the Higher Education Act of 
1965 are allowed to become law, the cost of education will become more 
uncertain and much more costly.
  The reason, I introduced the College LIFE Act was to deal with the 
issue of personal financial education that has to proceed or come as a 
requirement when students take on college education debt.
  The bill directed that eligible institutions provide financial 
literacy counseling to borrowers within 45 days after students receive 
their loan.
  The focus of the financial literacy education under the College LIFE 
Act was to make sure students knew what they were agreeing to in 
signing up for and receiving a student loan.
  Counseling would provide information on student education financial 
options that went beyond loans and included scholarships. Student 
financial literacy programs can provide insight into information on 
loan management and the basics of personal financial management, such 
as how to make a budget, prioritizing income, expenses and personal 
spending, as well as how to develop realistic goals based on income.
  These students would have also learned about credit and debt 
management by understanding the importance of credit scores. Counseling 
would make sure that students understood credit cards and investing.
  The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national 
priority, not an afterthought. We know that the United States is behind 
in a wide array of areas related to Science Technology Engineering and 
Mathematics known as STEM education. The Republican leadership must 
make the national interest for STEM education a top priority.
  Students who are graduating across the Nation are departing colleges 
and universities this spring with immense debt. Student borrowing is 
widespread with more than $100 billion in federal education loans 
distributed every year. In total student loan debt adds up to $1 
trillion dollars. As a direct consequence of a weak economy more than 
ever, students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher 
education.
  The only reliable way in today's economy to earn more is to learn 
more. During difficult economic times adults seek new careers by going 
back to school. Parents who want a better life for their children will 
take on college loan debt because the cost of education requires it.
  This is a bad bill that will not solve the problem of out-of-control 
student loan debt. For the reasons stated, I urge my Colleagues to join 
me in voting no on this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. I was 
displeased that the House Committee on Rules decided late last night to 
consider this bill under a closed rule and would not consider any 
amendments submitted to H.R. 1911. My amendment would have extended Pay 
As You Earn in order to give past borrowers the same benefits afforded 
to new borrowers.
  Pay As You Earn, created under the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, reduces the monthly payment under Income 
Based Repayment, IBR, by a third, from 15 percent of discretionary 
income to 10 percent of discretionary income, and accelerates the loan 
forgiveness from 25 years to 20 years. However, it is only effective 
for new borrowers of new loans on or after July 1, 2014.
  We need to protect students from high interest rates on these loans 
so they are not financially paralyzed for simply pursuing an education. 
In a global economy, putting a college education within reach for every 
American has never been more important. But it's also never been more 
expensive. On July 1, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford student 
loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent if Congress does 
nothing, increasing college costs for over 7 million students by $1,000 
per student, per loan. Unfortunately, this bill does not adequately 
provide the assistance our students need and instead exacerbates the 
college debt crisis.
  According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, interest 
rates under H.R. 1911 will be higher than current fixed rates for 
millions of borrowers seven of the next ten years. Even more troubling, 
H.R. 1911 also includes provisions the will provide $3.4 billion in 
debt reduction. It will be a sad day in American history if should the 
Congress decide to further burden struggling students to reduce a 
national debt they will already be paying for throughout the course of 
their lives.
  In Texas and all across the country, students and recent college 
graduates are now facing the highest unemployment rate of any other 
group. By 2018, 63 percent of all American job openings will require 
some sort of postsecondary education. In order for our country to 
remain competitive, we need to make college more affordable and 
accessible. Political gimmicks such as H.R. 1911 will only discourage 
our Nation's students from pursuing an education.
  With the cost of higher education continuing to skyrocket, I simply 
cannot support a measure that will increase the financial burden for 
millions of students and their families. If Americans fail to address 
this issue now, we will default on commitment to a better future for 
our children. We owe it to our young people to provide the 
opportunities that will allow them to become successful and productive 
adults.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1911, 
the Making College More Expensive Act. This misguided bill would 
actually increase the cost of student loans and make it harder for 
graduates to escape the crushing burden of college debt.
  It is a matter of critical national interest that we ensure our 
colleges and universities are turning out a well-educated, highly-
qualified workforce. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing cost of tuition 
is creating a permanently indebted generation of graduates who are too 
often paying off crippling debt instead of building fulfilling careers 
that will increase their financial mobility and our country's economic 
competitiveness.
  We should be working together to solve this looming crisis. 
Regrettably, this partisan measure makes college more expensive by 
tying student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note, plus an 
additional 2.5 to 4.5 percent, and prevents students from locking in a 
fixed rate. Since these rates will reset every year, by the time next 
year's freshmen graduate, they will be paying more than double today's 
current rate for subsidized Stafford loans. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates this will produce an extra $3.4 billion in federal 
revenue, meaning the government will be profiting off the extra debt 
students incur. I find this completely unacceptable.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of a bill, introduced by Congressman Joe 
Courtney, to extend the current rate of 3.4 percent on Stafford loans 
for an additional two years. Rather than waging another partisan fight 
on a bill that will not pass the Senate and the President is prepared 
to veto, we should consider legislation that has a real chance of 
becoming law and that will provide real relief to students and their 
families. What we have before us today is a bait-and-switch scheme, 
promising benefits that cannot be realized for another four years and 
that can in no way be guaranteed.
  As part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 
we should take on student loans as part of a comprehensive effort to 
address student debt, college affordability and the financial aid 
system as a whole. We can take advantage of today's historically low 
rates without making empty promises to college students.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to a bad 
bill that increases the cost of financing a higher education and adds 
to the burden of debt for students and their parents. Without quick 
Congressional action, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans 
will climb from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July for all new loans. 
Students and families struggling to afford increasing college costs are 
relying on us to stop this dramatic increase now, and to work in a 
bipartisan way to find a long-term solution that will make financing a 
college education more affordable. Unfortunately, the Republican bill 
being considering today will do the opposite; it will actually make 
college more expensive for millions of young people and their families.
  Chairman Kline and House Republicans are bringing a bill to the House 
floor that creates greater uncertainty for students and their parents 
by instituting a variable interest rate over the lifetime of loans. 
Under this legislation, a college freshman starting school this fall 
who takes out a subsidized Stafford loan this fall would have no 
guarantee of what their interest rate would be at graduation! Tying 
Stafford and Parent PLUS loans to a market-based rate might sound good 
now, when market rates are low, but that could quickly change. In fact, 
according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in 
four short

[[Page H2937]]

years the Republican plan would have students paying an interest rate 
of 7.4 percent on the Stafford loans they take out this fall. Students 
graduating from college in 2017 would be worse off under this bill than 
if we did nothing at all!
  Too many students and college graduates across this nation are 
already struggling with a crushing amount of student loan debt. 
Congress should not pass a bill that would burden them with $3.7 
billion of additional debt, as this Republican bill will do. What 
college students and their families really need is a comprehensive 
approach that makes college more affordable. The Democratic proposal 
freezes rates in the short term so that Congress can incorporate a 
long-term solution to student loan rates into the upcoming Higher 
Education Act's reauthorization. Democrats are asking Republicans to 
work with us to reduce the cost of higher education instead of shutting 
my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee out of policy 
discussions and bringing partisan proposals like this one to the floor.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, May is college decision time for high 
school seniors across the country. The excitement and joy of this 
decision is, increasingly, tempered by concerns about just how they are 
going to pay for this education. The cost of college has gone up 150 
percent since 1995. In July, federal subsidized undergraduate student 
loan rates are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, following 
the expiration of a one-year extension of lower rates. I support action 
to create a permanent fix to hold down student loan rates.
  H.R. 1911 would require that student loan interest rates change year-
to-year based on the 10-year Treasury note rate. In effect, over 
today's rates, H.R. 1911 would increase student loans by 2.5 percent to 
4.5 percent, depending on the type of loan. Because interest rates on 
Federal student loans will be reset every year, under the Republican 
plan, next year's freshmen would face an interest rate on loans taken 
out freshman year of 7.4 percent, more than double today's current 3.4 
percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans. Those borrowing the maximum 
amount would pay approximately $2,000 more in interest payments under 
this plan during the life of those loans.
  This is unacceptable in a time of rising tuition costs and growing 
student debt. Not only does it burden our students and bar some of them 
from pursuing higher education, it also burdens our economy and limits 
economic opportunity.
  Instead, I support H.R. 1595, the Student Loan Relief Act, which 
extends the current lower rate. I also support H.R. 1979, the Bank on 
Students Loan Fairness Act. This legislation, championed by Elizabeth 
Warren in the Senate, would allow students to take out federal student 
loans at the same low interest rate offered to large financial 
institutions. The low rate enjoyed by big banks, currently about 0.75 
percent, would make college more affordable for more students.
  Interest costs on student loans, however, are only part of the 
problem. A college education is easily one of the best investments an 
individual can make and as a nation, educating our young people is the 
best investment we can make in the future of our economy. Yet, college 
has become so expensive in the United States that it is far out of 
reach for too many students and those who do attend often find 
themselves saddled in a heavy debt load for years to come.
  We must work to make education more accessible and affordable to all 
of our nation's students. H.R. 1911 runs counter to this goal and for 
that reason I do not support it.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider yet 
another bill that will make secondary education even more expensive for 
students. I strongly oppose this legislation that would serve to deepen 
the student debt, and burden student borrowers with crushing debt, when 
we have the ability to find a temporary solution, creating the time to 
find a better solution that would allow student borrowers to thrive.
  Pursuing higher education is becomingly increasingly essential to 
securing gainful and fruitful employment in the United States. Most 
students and their families cannot afford to pay for college outright 
and as such, rely on financial assistance from the government. This 
bill would offer these students the help they are seeking, only to 
later force them to accept sky-rocketing interest rates. It is 
projected that student borrowers entering school this fall would be 
subject to a 7.4 percent interest rate by the time they graduate in 
2017. This is more than double the current interest rate of 3.4 
percent. Approximately 81 percent of African-American students and 67 
percent of Latino students find themselves graduating with both a 
bachelor's degree and a staggering student loan debt. This is in 
comparison to the 64 percent of white students who also graduate with 
student debt.
  Students should be focusing on their studies and pursuing their 
dreams, not about whether or not they can afford to attend the next 
semester, or how they will be able to repay the tens of thousands of 
dollars of student debt awaiting them after graduation. Not only would 
the passage of the ``Smarter Solutions for Students Act'' create a 
crushing debt for those students and their families seeking to further 
their education, it would also create long-term negative effects on our 
already bruised economy. Student borrowers who are subject to the 
proposed variable interest rates would have little choice but to delay 
homeownership and starting families. Furthermore, subjecting students 
to such a drastic increase in, and variability of student loan interest 
rates would prohibit many students from returning to, and revitalizing 
their rural communities which are in need.
  The ``Smarter Solutions for Students Act'' is entirely nonsensical. 
Student borrowers are being exploited, and turned into profit 
generators for the government. Over the last five fiscal years, the 
department of education has collected approximately $101.8 billion 
dollars in profits from student borrowers.
  I urge the Republicans to find a short term solution to this issue 
and freeze the current interest rates, so that the House can work on a 
long term solution. We must make college more affordable for those 
students who wish to attend. Currently, the student loan debt is at $1 
trillion. To allow the student loan interest rate to increase on July 
first would only serve to exacerbate this debt, and pile on billions of 
dollars to loan debt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 232, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. SINEMA. I am.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. SINEMA moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1911 to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Redesignate section 3 as section 4.
       Insert after section 2, the following new section:

     SEC. 3. PROTECTING STUDENTS FROM TEASER INTEREST RATES THAT 
                   LEAD TO HIGHER LONG-TERM COSTS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to--
       (1) authorize a student or parent borrower to be charged a 
     teaser interest rate that entices the borrower with an 
     initially low-interest rate that subsequently skyrockets, 
     dramatically increasing the total amount of interest due on a 
     Federal student loan for the student;
       (2) authorize an increase in the total cost of 
     postsecondary education for students;
       (3) authorize false advertising that hides the true cost of 
     any Federal student loan to a student or parent borrower, 
     including possible interest rate increases from year-to-year, 
     the total amount of interest that a borrower may owe on such 
     loan, and the number of years that a borrower may take to 
     repay such loan; or
       (4) limit the authority of the Secretary of Education to 
     include in any disclosure related to interest rates that the 
     Secretary is required to provide to a borrower for a loan 
     made under part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087a) at or prior to the disbursement of such loan--
       (A) an explanation that the applicable rate of interest for 
     the loan is a variable interest rate and how such variable 
     rate may affect the borrower's total cost of attending an 
     institution of higher education; or
       (B) estimations of the total amount of interest payments 
     that a borrower may owe under all possible interest rate 
     scenarios under this paragraph for each repayment option and 
     length of repayment that is typical for borrowers under such 
     Act.

  Mr. KLINE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill and 
will not kill it or send it back to committee.
  I oppose H.R. 1911. While it's bad enough that student loan interest 
rates

[[Page H2938]]

are set to double on July 1, this bill actually makes interest loan 
rates even worse for our students. By allowing interest rates to rise 
dramatically on their loans, this bill steals from students and forces 
them to pay for Congress' debt. That's absolutely unacceptable.
  The higher interest rates in this bill will force graduates, who are 
just beginning to plan their lives, to pay an estimated added $1,200 
each year to the government over 5 years. That's in addition to what 
they're already expecting to pay. And not only that, the interest rate 
is not guaranteed, so they can't even plan for this bad news.
  When you buy a car, you know what your interest rate will be for the 
life of the loan. Future graduates who are starting a family, looking 
for work, and hoping to contribute to our communities should at least 
have the same reassurance about their investment in their hard work as 
they would have when buying a car.
  It is Congress' duty to stop student loan interest rates from 
increasing by July 1, and it is outrageous that we would force students 
to pay for the debt that Congress has created. Hardworking students 
shouldn't have to pay for Congress' mistakes.
  Two weeks ago I shared the story of one of my students at Arizona 
State University, Ariel Carlos. Ariel and his wife, May, worked their 
way through college to pay for school and put food on the table for 
their kids. Ariel also took out student loans in order to make it.
  Ariel has debt that he and his wife will pay for decades to come. 
Students of mine, like Ariel, will make about $30,000 a year when 
entering the workforce. They can't afford to pay down Congress' debt in 
addition to taking care of their families. When Ariel asks me to tell 
Congress not to make matters worse for families like his and then 
Congress responds with this so-called solution, we have failed him and 
his family.
  My motion to recommit would help students. My amendment includes a 
truth-in-lending requirement that stops teaser rates. Teaser rates 
start low, but then skyrocket without warning and cost thousands of 
dollars more for students in the future. This amendment also requires 
the government to tell students the true cost of their loans, including 
the amount of their interest payments. This amendment allows students 
to plan for their future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, Representative 
George Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to congratulate the 
gentlewoman for offering this motion to recommit. I think she goes 
right to the heart of the matter, and that is the uncertainty that is 
being presented by the legislation on the floor today.
  Other Members tried to deal with this issue of uncertainty. Mr. Heck 
from Nevada tried to deal with this uncertainty by providing an 
incentive for those students who borrowed money and were able to pay 4 
years on steady payments to give them incentive to continue to do that. 
Mr. Rice of South Carolina sought to have a lower rate.
  This lower rate isn't chiseled in granite. This isn't the market 
rate. This is a choice of the Republican Members of the committee to 
choose these rates. Mr. Rice thought this time couldn't we have the 
lower rate to begin with, but the Rules Committee turned that out. Then 
Obama's plan was offered, and they turned that out.
  So now we're stuck, and that's why we need this motion to recommit, 
to do as the gentlewoman from Arizona has said: to protect the students 
from the escalation of their interest rates, to protect the students 
from the escalation of the cost of college.
  These are families and students. Companies and colleges create 
calculators to try to show students what it will cost over 4 years. 
This legislation takes all of that uncertainty out for families: how 
they set money aside, how they save money, how they borrow money. Those 
calculators don't work with this variable rate, and this variable rate 
can go on and on and on and on. That's the problem here.
  This is a big choice for most families. I appreciate for some 
families that it's not a big deal as they've got enough money. From 
where I live, my family, people around me, my neighbors, this is a big 
choice and commitment to finance the education of your children. That's 
why this motion to recommit from the gentlewoman from Arizona is so 
important. There should be truth in lending for America's students, 
truth in lending for America's families, and we should get rid of the 
rates that will just punish them and crush them into the future as they 
graduate from college and they seek to participate in the American 
economy and in a career of their choice with the talents that we need 
as a Nation.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman so very much.
  Ms. SINEMA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Minnesota wish to 
still maintain his point of order?
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in 
opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn, and the 
gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, we're trying to get to a long-term solution 
on how student loan interest rates are set. I believe the process for 
that is to pass the underlying legislation here, talk to our Senate 
colleagues, get them to act so that we can come together and come to a 
long-term solution.
  The gentlelady's motion puts Washington squarely back in the middle 
of setting student loan interest rates. It's the wrong thing to do. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion and vote ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and approval of the 
Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 223, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               YEAS--194

     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
     Conyers
     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
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     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
     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

[[Page H2939]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--223

     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
     Culberson
     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)
     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
     Maffei
     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
     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
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bass
     Bonner
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Herrera Beutler
     Lewis
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Speier
     Stivers
     Westmoreland
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1230

  Messrs. BARLETTA, ROONEY, GRIFFITH of Virginia, COOK, and RYAN of 
Wisconsin changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CARNEY, VISCLOSKY, and COHEN, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. KIND changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 198, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               AYES--221

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     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
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     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
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     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
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     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
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--198

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     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
     Gohmert
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     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
     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 (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     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)
     Stutzman
     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--15

     Bass
     Bonner
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Herrera Beutler
     Johnson (GA)
     Lewis
     Markey
     Miller, Gary
     Speier
     Westmoreland
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1239

  Mr. MAFFEI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker: On rollcall No. 180, (Ordering The Previous 
Question on H. Res. 232, a resolution providing for consideration of 
H.R. 1911--Smarter Solutions for Students

[[Page H2940]]

Act) had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  On rollcall No. 181, (Adoption of H. Res. 232, a resolution providing 
for consideration of H.R. 1911--Smarter Solutions for Students Act) had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  On rollcall No. 182, (Member (D-) Motion to recommit H.R. 1911 with 
instructions) had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  On rollcall No. 183, (Passage of H.R. 1911--Smarter Solutions for 
Students Act) had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  On rollcall No. 184, (Approval of the Journal) had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote 182, on consideration of a motion to recommit with 
instructions for H.R. 1911, and rollcall vote 183, on passage of H.R. 
1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, because of a longstanding 
commitment to discuss compassionate approaches to assist the poor and 
hungry. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 182 
and ``aye'' on rollcall 183.

                          ____________________