[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6779-H6791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               STUDENT AND FAMILY TAX SIMPLIFICATION ACT

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 680, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3393) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
consolidate certain tax benefits for educational expenses, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 680, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed 
in House Report 113-552 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3393

       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 ``Student and Family Tax 
     Simplification Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS FOR EDUCATIONAL 
                   EXPENSES.

       (a) American Opportunity Tax Credit.--Section 25A of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 25A. AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year, with respect to each eligible 
     student, an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) 100 percent of so much of the qualified tuition and 
     related expenses paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year 
     (for education furnished to the eligible student during any 
     academic period beginning in such taxable year) as does not 
     exceed $2,000, plus
       ``(2) 25 percent of so much of such expenses so paid as 
     exceeds the dollar amount in effect under paragraph (1) but 
     does not exceed twice such dollar amount.
       ``(b) Portion of Credit Refundable.--So much of the credit 
     allowable under subsection (a) with respect to each eligible 
     student (determined without regard to this subsection and 
     section 26(a) and after application of all other provisions 
     of this section) as does not exceed $1,500 shall be treated 
     as a credit allowable under subpart C (and not under this 
     part). The preceding sentence shall not apply to any taxpayer 
     for any taxable year if such taxpayer is a child to whom 
     section 1(g) applies for such taxable year.
       ``(c) Limitation Based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount allowable as a credit under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not 
     below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio to the 
     amount so allowable (determined without regard to this 
     subsection and subsection (b) but after application of all 
     other provisions of this section) as--
       ``(A) the excess of--
       ``(i) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for 
     such taxable year, over
       ``(ii) $80,000 (twice such amount in the case of a joint 
     return), bears to
       ``(B) $10,000 (twice such amount in the case of a joint 
     return).
       ``(2) Modified adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means 
     the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable 
     year increased by any amount excluded from gross income under 
     section 911, 931, or 933.
       ``(d) Other Limitations.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     this section with respect to any eligible student for any 
     taxable year if--
       ``(1) such student was taken into account in determining 
     the credit allowed under this section (by the taxpayer or any 
     other individual) for any 4 prior taxable years, or
       ``(2) such student has completed (before the beginning of 
     such taxable year) the first 4 years of postsecondary 
     education at an eligible educational institution.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible student.--The term `eligible student' means, 
     with respect to any academic period, a student who--
       ``(A) meets the requirements of section 484(a)(1) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(1)), as in 
     effect on August 5, 1997, and
       ``(B) is carrying at least \1/2\ the normal full-time work 
     load for the course of study the student is pursuing.
       ``(2) Qualified tuition and related expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified tuition and related 
     expenses' means tuition,

[[Page H6780]]

     fees, and course materials, required for enrollment or 
     attendance of--
       ``(i) the taxpayer,
       ``(ii) the taxpayer's spouse, or
       ``(iii) any dependent of the taxpayer with respect to whom 
     the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151,
     at an eligible educational institution for courses of 
     instruction of such individual at such institution.
       ``(B) Exception for education involving sports, etc.--Such 
     term does not include expenses with respect to any course or 
     other education involving sports, games, or hobbies, unless 
     such course or other education is part of the individual's 
     degree program.
       ``(C) Exception for nonacademic fees.--Such term does not 
     include student activity fees, athletic fees, insurance 
     expenses, or other expenses unrelated to an individual's 
     academic course of instruction.
       ``(3) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible 
     educational institution' means an institution--
       ``(A) which is described in section 481 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088), as in effect on 
     August 5, 1997, and
       ``(B) which is eligible to participate in a program under 
     title IV of such Act.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Identification requirement.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to 
     the qualified tuition and related expenses of an individual 
     unless the taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer 
     identification number of such individual, and the employer 
     identification number of any institution to which such 
     expenses were paid, on the return of tax for the taxable 
     year.
       ``(2) Adjustment for certain scholarships, etc.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount of qualified tuition and 
     related expenses otherwise taken into account under 
     subsection (a) with respect to an individual for an academic 
     period shall be reduced (before the application of subsection 
     (c)) by the sum of any amounts paid for the benefit of such 
     individual which are allocable to such period as--
       ``(i) a qualified scholarship which is excludable from 
     gross income under section 117,
       ``(ii) an educational assistance allowance under chapter 
     30, 31, 32, 34, or 35 of title 38, United States Code, or 
     under chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code, and
       ``(iii) a payment (other than a gift, bequest, devise, or 
     inheritance within the meaning of section 102(a)) for such 
     individual's educational expenses, or attributable to such 
     individual's enrollment at an eligible educational 
     institution, which is excludable from gross income under any 
     law of the United States.
       ``(B) Coordination with pell grants not used for qualified 
     tuition and related expenses.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the amount of any Federal Pell Grant under section 401 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) shall 
     be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of expenses 
     (other than qualified tuition and related expenses) which are 
     taken into account in determining the cost of attendance (as 
     defined in section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     as in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph) 
     of such individual at an eligible educational institution for 
     the academic period for which the credit under this section 
     is being determined.
       ``(3) Treatment of expenses paid by dependent.--If a 
     deduction under section 151 with respect to an individual is 
     allowed to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in 
     the calendar year in which such individual's taxable year 
     begins--
       ``(A) no credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) to 
     such individual for such individual's taxable year, and
       ``(B) qualified tuition and related expenses paid by such 
     individual during such individual's taxable year shall be 
     treated for purposes of this section as paid by such other 
     taxpayer.
       ``(4) Treatment of certain prepayments.--If qualified 
     tuition and related expenses are paid by the taxpayer during 
     a taxable year for an academic period which begins during the 
     first 3 months following such taxable year, such academic 
     period shall be treated for purposes of this section as 
     beginning during such taxable year.
       ``(5) Denial of double benefit.--No credit shall be allowed 
     under this section for any amount for which a deduction is 
     allowed under any other provision of this chapter.
       ``(6) No credit for married individuals filing separate 
     returns.--If the taxpayer is a married individual (within the 
     meaning of section 7703), this section shall apply only if 
     the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return 
     for the taxable year.
       ``(7) Nonresident aliens.--If the taxpayer is a nonresident 
     alien individual for any portion of the taxable year, this 
     section shall apply only if such individual is treated as a 
     resident alien of the United States for purposes of this 
     chapter by reason of an election under subsection (g) or (h) 
     of section 6013.
       ``(g) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxable year beginning 
     after 2018, the $2,000 amount in subsection (a)(1), the 
     $1,500 amount in subsection (b), and the $80,000 amount in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) shall each be increased by an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2017' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $100 ($1,000 in the case of the 
     amount in subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii)), such amount shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100 ($1,000 in the 
     case of the amount in subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii)).
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out this section, including regulations 
     providing for a recapture of the credit allowed under this 
     section in cases where there is a refund in a subsequent 
     taxable year of any amount which was taken into account in 
     determining the amount of such credit.''.
       (b) Requirement to Report Tuition Paid Rather Than Tuition 
     Billed.--Section 6050S(b)(2)(B)(i) is amended by striking 
     ``or the aggregate amount billed''.
       (c) Repeal of Deduction for Qualified Tuition and Related 
     Expenses.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 
     is amended by striking section 222 (and by striking the item 
     relating to such section in the table of sections for such 
     part).
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 62(a) of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraph (18).
       (2) Section 72(t)(7)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 25A(g)(2)'' and inserting ``section 25A(f)(2)''.
       (3) Sections 86(b)(2)(A), 135(c)(4)(A), 137(b)(3)(A), 
     199(d)(2)(A), 219(g)(3)(A)(ii), and 221(b)(2)(C)(i) of such 
     Code are each amended by striking ``222,''.
       (4) Section 469(i)(3)(F)(iii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``221, and 222'' and inserting ``and 221''.
       (5) Section 529(c)(3)(B)(v)(I) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     25A(f)(2)''.
       (6) Section 529(e)(3)(B)(i) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 25A(b)(3)'' and inserting ``section 
     25A(d)''.
       (7) Section 530(d)(2)(C) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' in clause (i)(I) and 
     inserting ``section 25A(f)(2)'', and
       (B) by striking ``Hope and lifetime learning credits'' in 
     the heading and inserting ``American opportunity tax 
     credit''.
       (8) Section 530(d)(4)(B)(iii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     25A(d)(4)(B)''.
       (9) Section 6050S(e) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (g)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (f)(2)''.
       (10) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``subsection (i)(6)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (b)''.
       (11) Section 6213(g)(2)(J) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``TIN required under section 25A(g)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``TIN, and employer identification number, required 
     under section 25A(f)(1)''.
       (12) Section 1004(c) of division B of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 25A(i)(6)'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``section 25A(b)'',
       (ii) by striking ``with respect to taxable years beginning 
     after 2008 and before 2018'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``with respect to each taxable year'', and
       (iii) by striking ``for taxable years beginning after 2008 
     and before 2018'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``for 
     each taxable year'',
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Section 25A(i)(6)'' and 
     inserting ``Section 25A(b)'', and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``subsection (i)(6)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (b)''.
       (13) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the item relating to section 25A 
     and inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 25A. American opportunity tax credit.''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2014.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF PELL GRANT EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 117(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
     or'',
       (2) by striking ``received by an individual as a 
     scholarship'' and inserting the following: ``received by an 
     individual--
       ``(A) as a scholarship'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) as a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2014.

     SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Scorecards.--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 Scorecards.--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).

.
[[Page H6781]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3393.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, more and more Americans are pursuing the dream of earning a 
college degree, but for many, realizing that dream is getting more 
difficult. Tuition prices continue to climb, making it harder for 
Americans to plan for and afford a higher education. Worse yet, our 
broken Tax Code makes it harder than ever to pay for it.
  Currently, there are 15 complicated and, at times, overlapping 
education provisions that include over 90 pages of IRS instructions. 
Students and parents alike are already juggling busy schedules as is, 
and they shouldn't be forced to go through 90 pages of IRS explanations 
just to figure out the best way to save and pay for a college 
education.
  We need a simple solution that makes it easier to qualify for tax 
relief and to ultimately afford college. We owe it to the millions of 
young adults paying their way through college and the families who 
budget every year to save for their children's education to simplify 
the system and help make a good education affordable.
  The bill before us, H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax 
Simplification Act, would do just that. This legislation will make 
paying for college easier, by combining and making more efficient four 
tax benefits for higher education into a new, simpler, and more 
valuable American opportunity tax credit, and this new, improved credit 
will provide greater benefits for those who need it most.
  I am proud that this bipartisan provision is based off of years of 
work by the Ways and Means Committee and, in particular, committee 
members Diane Black of Tennessee and Danny Davis of Illinois, the 
cochairs of the Education and Family Benefits Tax Reform Working Group, 
who worked across the aisle to help simplify the Code.
  I should also note that the Obama administration has expressed 
support for an approach that assumes a permanent extension of the AOTC. 
We have a real opportunity today to work across the aisle to make life 
better for hardworking Americans.
  By consolidating the current American opportunity tax credit, the 
Hope Scholarship credit, the lifetime learning credit, and the college 
tuition deduction into one simplified AOTC credit, college students can 
get the help they need without navigating almost 100 pages of forms.
  The bill would provide a permanent 100 percent tax credit for the 
first $2,000 of certain higher education expenses and a 25 percent tax 
credit for the next $2,000 of expenses.
  The first $1,500 of the credit is refundable, ensuring that students 
get the benefits, regardless of tax liability. This can go a long way 
for students and their families, especially in these tough economic 
times.
  The American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of 
Community College Trustees, who cite the AOTC as the most important 
source of support for college students in the Tax Code, recently voiced 
their support for this bill, stating, ``The legislation achieves 
several important objectives for the Nation's college students, who 
continue to face substantial financing challenges, even at low-cost 
community colleges. Its simplification of the current array of higher 
education tax benefits is critical, given that their complexity has led 
to widespread underutilization.''
  Additionally, this provision would allow Pell grants to be used for a 
wider array of expenses, including room and board, without triggering 
additional tax liability. Not only does this provision have widespread 
bipartisan support, but a postelection poll found that over 80 percent 
of Americans support extending these policies.
  No one should be discouraged from pursuing continued learning, but 
because tuition prices continue to climb while wages continue to fall, 
families and students nationwide are wondering if they can even afford 
it.

                              {time}  1600

  Today we can do better. We can do better by these hardworking 
Americans. I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
move this bill through the House and ask for both the Senate and the 
administration to work with us in finding simple, commonsense solutions 
like these for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What Republicans are, in essence, trying to do here and elsewhere, if 
I might say so today, is to soften their image. But they can't run away 
from the hard reality that at every turn, over the last several years, 
they have sought to pass laws making life more difficult for middle- 
and low-income families.
  On the Republican chopping block, unemployment insurance blocked for 
3 million Americans. Food assistance for low-income Americans would be 
cut by nearly 20 percent in the Ryan Republican budget, and a minimum 
wage increase hasn't occurred in 5 years, yet Republicans refuse to 
provide an increase. Medical assistance for Americans would be slashed 
by the Ryan Republican budget, with funding for Medicaid and the 
Children's Health Insurance Program cut to the tune of 26 percent 
within 10 years. Social Services Block Grants, which provide flexible 
funds for States to help vulnerable populations, are eliminated under 
the Ryan Republican budget. Pell grants would be reduced by 400,000 
under the Ryan Republican budget. Job training funding was targeted for 
deep cuts in the 2011 spending bill the House Republicans passed, and 
housing assistance would end for 800,000 low-income families in the 
Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill House Republicans just passed.
  Indeed, hard-hearted actions contradict the soft rhetoric of today. 
We should be very skeptical when zebras try to change their stripes.
  Today's legislation is part of a set of 14 tax provisions that Ways 
and Means Republicans have marked up and made permanent without offsets 
at a cost of $825 billion to taxpayers. By the end of this week, the 
total that House Republicans will have passed on the floor is more than 
$700 billion, not a dime offset. It is kind of easy to come here and 
say this is what we want to do when we don't pay a dime to do it.
  Let it be clear in terms of this call on bipartisanship. All the 
Democrats on Ways and Means voted against this bill, and the Statement 
of Administration Policy says it opposes it. Let me give some details.
  In simplifying education provisions within the Tax Code, this bill 
leaves behind numerous undergraduate students, graduate students, and 
lifetime learners. It replaces the Hope Scholarship credit and repeals 
both the lifetime learning credit and the now-expired deduction for 
qualified tuition expenses, and it limits the overall deduction for the 
first 4 years of schooling.
  It harms students across the board. Undergraduates who take longer 
than 4 years to complete their degrees would be impacted, a change that 
loses sight of the fact that the median length of time that it takes 
undergrads to get their degrees is, today, more than 4 years. Adult 
learners would face higher costs. Three in four students are adult 
learners, who tend to take much longer to complete their degrees 
because they work full-time, have dependents, serve in the military, or 
have some combination of the foregoing and take longer to complete 
their degree.
  Low-income and middle-income graduate students would lose out. In 
2013, the lifetime learning credit, which this bill eliminates, served 
nearly 2 million students with incomes at or below $75,000, including 1 
million with an income of $40,000 or less. Two years ago, one-quarter 
of all graduate students earned less than $11,000. During the same 
year, 31 percent of the 1.3 million master's degree students received 
no financial aid. Two years ago, one-quarter--one-quarter--of all 
graduate students earned less than $11,000. During

[[Page H6782]]

the same year, 31 percent of the 1.3 million master's degree students 
received no financial aid. In 2011, nearly 2 million tax returns 
claimed the qualified tuition deduction, which expired at the end of 
this year and this bill does not extend.
  That is one reason we have a letter from the American Council on 
Education. Here is what they say:

       However, as we discussed in our attached letter of April 4, 
     2014, to Ways and Means Committee members, there are a number 
     of other changes in the legislation which cause us great 
     concern. Even as reported, the bill would negatively impact 
     many low- and middle-income students and families who benefit 
     under current law. It also would harm graduate students and 
     lifetime learners who utilize the tuition deduction or the 
     LLC. Because we continue to have serious concerns about the 
     Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, we cannot 
     support--we cannot support--the bill as currently written, 
     even in the form as reported.

  This is sent on behalf of the following: the American Association of 
State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the 
Association of American Universities, the Association of Governing 
Boards, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the 
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, College and 
University Professional Association for Human Resources, the Council 
for Christian Colleges and Universities, the Council of Graduate 
Schools, and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.
  That letter so much speaks to this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I insert in the Record letters of support for the legislation from 
the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of 
Community College Trustees, as well as the United States Student 
Association.

         American Association of Community Colleges, Association 
           of Community College Trustees,
                                                    July 21, 2014.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Association 
     of Community Colleges (AACC) and the Association of Community 
     College Trustees (ACCT), which represent the nation's more 
     than 1,100 community college presidents and their trustees, 
     we write in support of H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax 
     Simplification Act. The legislation achieves several 
     important objectives for the nation's college students, who 
     continue to face substantial financing challenges, even at 
     low-cost community colleges. Its simplification of the 
     current array of higher education tax benefits is critical 
     given that their complexity has led to widespread under-
     utilization.
       H.R. 3393 also includes a number of enhancements to the 
     American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) that benefit college 
     students:
       Makes AOTC Permanent: Currently set to expire at the end of 
     2017, the AOTC is the most important source of support for 
     college students in the tax code. H.R. 3393 makes the benefit 
     permanent and ensures that it will remain in place for 
     students and families.
       Increases Refundability: The AOTC's partial refundability 
     is of great assistance to the many low-income students who 
     attend community college. Currently, the maximum 
     refundability under the AOTC is $1,000. H.R. 3393 increases 
     that amount by 50%, raising it to $1,500, and provides 
     students an easier path to claim that full refund.
       Creates Better Alignment with the Pell Grant: Currently, an 
     estimated one million college students with unmet financial 
     need do not receive any benefit from the AOTC due to its poor 
     coordination with the Pell Grant program. The vast majority 
     of these students attend low-cost institutions, particularly 
     community colleges. H.R. 3393 remedies this situation.
       Indexes the AOTC to Inflation: H.R. 3393 recognizes that 
     college prices are not static, and adjusts the AOTC for 
     inflation (but not college tuition) starting in 2018.
       We recognize that this legislation embodies certain trade-
     offs. Overall, however, it would better target benefits to 
     community college students and other low-income students, and 
     create a simplified system that greatly benefits all students 
     and families. These are critically important objectives, and 
     action on them is overdue. We thank you for your 
     consideration of this legislation and urge its approval by 
     the House of Representatives.
           Sincerely,
     Walter G. Bumphus,
       AACC President and CEO.
     J. Noah Brown,
       ACCT President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                     United States


                                          Student Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2014.

 The US Student Association's Statement on the Student and Family Tax 
                        Simplification Act Bill

       Washington, DC.--On behalf the United States Student 
     Association's (USSA) 1.5 million student members, we support 
     the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act (H.R. 3393). 
     The current crisis in higher education, and especially for 
     low-income students, necessitates swift action for access and 
     affordability.
       This Act is a multi-pronged approach that would streamline 
     existing tax credits--while making the American Opportunity 
     Tax Credit permanent, increasing the maximum refundability, 
     and enhancing coordination with the Pell Grant. Students are 
     more likely to succeed if they do not have to navigate the 
     complex landscape of higher education funding and support.
       While we do believe that tax credits may not be the best 
     solution in terms of expanding access and affordability for 
     our low-income members--we much prefer funding and stronger 
     support for the Pell Grant--we are nevertheless pleased that 
     Congress is restarting an important conversation about 
     simplification, thus benefiting all students and families.
       Our vision is one in which students, no matter their race 
     or socioeconomic status--have equal access and succeed in 
     college--is paramount to the success of this nation. We look 
     forward to working on these pressing issues with members of 
     Congress.

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I know we are hearing a lot from the other 
side about how this ought to be paid for, but they, frankly, exempted 
this from PAYGO. Well, what does that mean? They said this doesn't need 
to be paid for--this is such important policy--because if we can get 
people started on the road to an education by getting a college degree, 
their chances of succeeding economically in life are so much better. 
And that really has become a basic for succeeding in America today is 
to get that bachelor's degree.
  I know they are concerned about the graduate students, but, frankly, 
the Tax Code isn't there for those going to Harvard Law and Stanford 
Medical School. And there are other provisions that help provide for 
students: grants, loans, and scholarships.
  This is about how can the Tax Code, how can all Americans help those 
get that basic level of education that gets you that bachelor's degree 
that gets you on the road of economic opportunity, because if we don't 
have an upwardly mobile society, we actually put at risk the American 
Dream.
  With that, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black) control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank my 
colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee for all their help and their 
hard work on moving this bill forward. I would also like to thank 
Chairman Camp for his leadership and for his dedication in helping 
American taxpayers and families, which is really what this bill is 
about.
  Coming from two hardworking parents with no more than a ninth grade 
education between them, attending college was little more than just a 
dream for me growing up. Yet, with my parents' support and some hard 
work, I was able to be the first of my family to attend college and go 
on to graduate with a degree in nursing. This has allowed me to spend 
over 40 years working as a nurse in the health care industry.
  Just as this dream was for me, pursuing higher education is a dream 
for millions of children and their parents across this great Nation. It 
is a well known fact that the cost of education is climbing and that, 
for far too many, the ability to save and pay for college without 
ending up under a mountain of debt is simply out of reach.
  Today's broken Tax Code does little to ease that financial burden or 
to even provide a sense of security that education will be a reality in 
the future. That is why, under Chairman Camp's leadership, I worked 
across the aisle with my colleague, Danny Davis, as the chair and 
cochair of the Ways and Means Committee's Education Tax Reform Working 
Group last year.
  Over the course of our 7-month bipartisan working group meetings, 
frustration with the Tax Code was a common theme of what we heard. For 
instance,

[[Page H6783]]

there are currently 15 different tax benefits related to education. 
Four of those are designed to help individuals save prior to becoming a 
student, nine are available for while the student is in school, and two 
exist for when the student has completed his or her education.
  It was overwhelming when we had tax experts explain it, so it was not 
difficult to imagine how parents trying to navigate these 90 pages of 
IRS instructions would simply toss up their hands and say, ``I give 
up.''
  That is why the work that Mr. Davis and I did during the time 
together on this Education Tax Reform Working Group didn't end when we 
delivered our report to our colleagues. Instead, our desire to provide 
at least some relief from that frustration led the two of us to work to 
see how we could clean up the Code and help families struggling to 
finance education costs.
  That process led us to introduce H.R. 3393, the Student and Family 
Tax Simplification Act. Now, this legislation consolidates four 
existing education provisions--the Hope credit, the American 
opportunity tax credit, the lifetime learning credit, and the tuition 
deduction--into a single, modernized and strengthened AOTC.
  Streamlining the number of education provisions and retooling those 
that are most effective allows us to simplify the Code and reduce some 
of the confusion that exists today. As a result, students can spend 
less time figuring out how to finance the cost of education and more 
time developing the skills they need to succeed in our knowledge-based 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we all can agree that it ought to be easier for 
any family to plan, save, and invest in education. Everyone in this 
Chamber can agree that we should do everything that we can to help 
American children attain higher education and achieve their dream.
  So I am proud that, as the chairman has already referenced, the 
American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of 
Community College Trustees, the National Association of College Stores, 
and the United States Student Association--the United States Student 
Association--have announced their support for this bill.
  Now I ask for my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting 
this commonsense measure to help American students and families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I include a letter from the American Council on Education 
with all of the signatories in the Record.

                                American Council on Education,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2014.
     Re Student and Family Tax Simplification Act (H.R. 3393)

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the higher education 
     associations listed below, I write to express concerns about 
     H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, and 
     encourage further improvements to this important legislation 
     when it is considered on the House floor next week.
       We have long supported reform of the American Opportunity 
     Tax Credit (AOTC), the Hope Scholarship Credit, the Lifetime 
     Learning Credit (LLC), and the tuition deduction. All of 
     these currently are overly complex and difficult for students 
     and their families to correctly use. We believe a 
     consolidated credit can simplify the higher education tax 
     benefits while retaining positive aspects of the present 
     credits and deductions to better serve low- and middle-income 
     traditional and nontraditional students now and in the 
     future, helping them attain an associate or bachelor's degree 
     or pursue post-baccalaureate education or lifelong learning.
       Overall, H.R. 3393 takes several important steps forward to 
     create a simpler, single tax credit. We applaud the fact that 
     the bill increases refundability and includes an important 
     fix to better coordinate the AOTC and the Pell Grant. We are 
     also very pleased that the bill was amended at markup to 
     maintain the AOTC's current income phase-out limits.
       However, as we discussed in our attached letter of April 4, 
     2014 to Ways and Means Committee members, there are a number 
     of other changes in the legislation which cause us great 
     concern. Even as reported, the bill would negatively impact 
     many low- and middle-income students and families who benefit 
     under current law. It also would harm graduate students and 
     lifetime learners who utilize the tuition deduction or the 
     LLC. Because we continue to have serious concerns about the 
     Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, we cannot support 
     the bill as currently written, even in the form as reported.
       As a result of our strong support for reforming these 
     credits, we have had many discussions with tax staff over the 
     past months about ways to implement reforms that address our 
     concerns. We believe the legislation could be modified to 
     ensure students who are currently eligible for a federal tax 
     benefit could still receive some benefit. For example, one 
     improvement we support is replacing the bill's proposed four-
     year limit for the AOTC with a lifetime dollar cap that would 
     allow part-time, full-time, and graduate students to take 
     advantage of the credit.
       We remain deeply committed to continuing to work with the 
     authors of the bill and the Ways and Means Committee to 
     improve the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act to 
     better serve traditional and non-traditional low- and middle-
     income students, now and in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                              Molly Corbett Broad,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities
       American Council on Education
       Association of American Universities
       Association of Governing Boards
       Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
       Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
       College and University Professional Association for Human 
     Resources
       Council for Christian Colleges & Universities
       Council of Graduate Schools
       Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU).
                                  ____



                                American Council on Education,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2014.
     Re Higher Education Provisions in the Tax Reform Act of 2014 
         Discussion Draft

     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp: On behalf of the American Council on 
     Education and the undersigned higher education associations, 
     we write regarding your recently released discussion draft of 
     the Tax Reform Act of 2014. We commend you for your 
     leadership on an issue as important as tax reform. Reforming 
     the tax code is a critical element to addressing our nation's 
     long-term fiscal health. There are a number of provisions in 
     your discussion draft that would affect students and 
     families, as well as the colleges and universities that serve 
     them. We write now to comment on the education incentives 
     addressed in your discussion draft. In the near future, we 
     will offer additional comments on other provisions affecting 
     higher education.
       While the federal tax code is no substitute for the Pell 
     Grant, Federal Work-Study, other federal student aid 
     programs, and the financial aid colleges and universities 
     provide, over the past two decades it has played an 
     increasingly important role in helping low- and middle-income 
     students and families finance higher education. The tax code 
     contains a number of provisions, enacted discretely over 
     time, that together create a framework that functions as a 
     kind of ``three-legged stool'' intended to advance three 
     important goals: 1) to encourage saving for higher education; 
     2) to help students and families pay for college; and 3) to 
     assist with the repayment of student loans. This framework 
     helps serve the needs of low- and middle-income students and 
     families as they invest in themselves and their resources in 
     higher education. Moreover, the broadening of access to 
     higher education has larger benefits by helping to sustain a 
     stable and productive society. We believe this framework 
     should be strengthened and made more effective to aid more 
     students and families.
       We are very pleased to see that the discussion draft seeks 
     to create a simpler, consolidated higher education tax 
     credit. However, we believe that ultimately, the draft would 
     make substantial changes to a number of higher education tax 
     incentives that will undermine the ``three-legged stool'' 
     framework and increase the burden on students and families in 
     paying for college. While we support simplification, it can 
     and should be done in a way that will not effectively 
     increase the cost of a higher education for middle-income and 
     nontraditional low-income students and families.


              Provisions to Help Pay for Higher Education

       The current tax code contains several provisions that help 
     students and families pay for higher education: the American 
     Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), the Lifelong Learning Credit 
     (LLC), the above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and 
     related expenses (tuition deduction), Section 127 Employer-
     provided Educational Assistance, and Sec. 117(d) Qualified 
     Tuition Reductions.


The American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, and 
                         the Tuition Deduction

       We strongly support reform of current tax credits and the 
     tuition deduction to provide students a single credit that 
     provides assistance towards an associate or bachelor's 
     degree, post-baccalaureate education and lifelong learning. 
     Like you, we believe such a tax credit would serve students 
     better than

[[Page H6784]]

     the current overly complex credits and tuition deduction. 
     Indeed, we endorsed the Universal Higher Education and 
     Lifetime Learning Act of 2007 (H.R. 2458), bipartisan 
     legislation which you introduced in the 110th Congress with 
     then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, which would have created a simpler, 
     consolidated tax credit. Overall, the discussion draft takes 
     several important steps forward to create a simpler, single 
     tax credit. Unfortunately, some of the changes made by the 
     draft would in fact be steps backward for many students and 
     their families who benefit under current law.
       Among the most positive steps forward, the bill maintains 
     the expanded eligible expenses of the AOTC, which includes 
     required course materials, as well as permanently extending 
     and indexing a reconfigured AOTC. In a provision particularly 
     important to the neediest students, the bill increases AOTC 
     refundability to 60 percent from the current 40 percent, and 
     permits eligible students to get the maximum value of $1,500 
     in refundability more easily.
       Equally important, the draft better coordinates the 
     interaction of the AOTC with the Pell Grant, and, for the 
     first time, completely excludes the Pell Grant from taxable 
     income. Under current law, the AOTC contains a grant/
     scholarship offset that has the unintended effect of sharply 
     limiting the size of the tax credit for needy students. As a 
     result, some of the lowest-income students receiving the 
     maximum Pell Grant award ($5,645 for the current academic 
     year) receive no benefit from the AOTC, regardless of the 
     level of refundability. We applaud you for addressing this 
     problem, which is crucial to helping these needy students.
       Unfortunately, the draft would make other changes that 
     would eliminate benefits for many students and thereby 
     adversely impact their financial ability to pursue an 
     associate or bachelor's degree, graduate education, or 
     lifelong learning. In short, we believe that the single, 
     consolidated tax credit created by the draft will harm 
     traditional middle-income undergraduates, adult learners 
     (particularly those with lower incomes), and low- and middle-
     income graduate students. Because of the draft's reconfigured 
     AOTC, which significantly lowers current income eligibility 
     phase-outs, eliminates the Lifetime Learning Credit, and the 
     tuition deduction, these students would not receive tax 
     benefits they currently rely upon to help finance their 
     higher education.
       First, the draft appears to rely on outdated assumptions 
     about the typical student in higher education. Today, nearly 
     50 percent of undergraduates and three-quarters of all 
     students are adult learners, age 23 or older, with a quarter 
     over age 30, a proportion that will likely continue to grow. 
     These students are not just older than their traditional 
     classmates. They tend to work full-time or have dependents--
     including multiple roles as parents and caregivers--serve in 
     the military, or some combination of these, and take a longer 
     time to complete their degree. Moreover, 50 percent of all 
     students attend part-time, which inevitably increases time to 
     completion. While the median time to degree for all 
     bachelor's degree recipients is 4.3 years, for adult students 
     (between ages 24-29), the median time to degree is 6.6 years. 
     Consequently, the bill's four-year limit on benefits, in 
     combination with the elimination of the LLC and tuition 
     deduction for which part-time students are eligible, will 
     cost many undergraduates financial assistance.
       A reformed, consolidated credit should preserve current 
     benefits for as many students as possible and take into 
     account the demographic profile of today's students described 
     above. The number of these nontraditional students will 
     increase in the future, and any legislation that creates a 
     permanent, consolidated credit should address their needs. A 
     lifetime dollar usage cap on the benefit rather than a four-
     year limitation is a potential solution.
       Second, with its adoption of the Hope Tax Credit income 
     phase-out limits, the draft reduces the income phase-outs to 
     amounts originally enacted in 1997 for the Hope Tax Credit, 
     which are well below those in the current AOTC. This change 
     would make many middle-income students and their families 
     ineligible for benefits. Many of these families are 
     increasingly caught between stagnant wage growth and their 
     ineligibility for most other forms of federal financial aid. 
     Moreover, these reduced income phase-out limits do not take 
     into account the realities of the cost of living in different 
     regions of the country. For example, no one would consider as 
     wealthy a two-wage earning couple, such as a retail manager 
     and a teacher, living in a high-cost area with one or more 
     children and a combined family income of $135,000. This is 
     equally true of the single parent earning $72,000 with a 
     college-bound child or two. Yet, both families would be 
     ineligible under the reconfigured AOTC in this bill.
       Third, the reconfigured AOTC proposed in this draft would 
     provide no benefit to lifelong learners and graduate 
     students, many of whom are low-income and need assistance in 
     pursuing additional skill development or the advanced degrees 
     that employers and our economy require. We need to preserve 
     tax benefits that enhance access for such students.
       According to the Tax Policy Center, recent data demonstrate 
     that the LLC is serving students with low and moderate 
     incomes. In 2013, approximately 1.95 million students with an 
     income at or below $75,000 utilized the LLC, including 1 
     million with an income of $40,000 or less.
       According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2011-12, 
     a quarter of all graduate students earned less than $11,000, 
     and half were below $32,000. During that same year, there 
     were 1.3 million master's degree students--nearly three-
     quarters of all graduate students--and approximately 31 
     percent received no financial aid. Forty-six percent of all 
     master's students and 25 percent of all doctoral students 
     borrowed for their degree. The median amount of those loans 
     per year was $15,665 for master's students and $17,629 for 
     doctoral students. The percentage of African American and 
     Hispanic master's and doctoral students with loans was higher 
     than the national average, and their median loan balances 
     were higher as well. A significant number of master's 
     students pursue degrees in fields that are not highly 
     compensated, like teaching, social work, counseling, or 
     public health. The loss of benefits for graduate students 
     under this draft comes on top of recent decisions by policy 
     makers to end graduate-student eligibility for federal 
     subsidized loans and force them to pay higher interest rates 
     on student loans than undergraduates, a troubling pattern of 
     increasing the cost of education for students pursuing 
     advanced degrees.
       In short, we are concerned that the bill takes away 
     benefits from one set of students--both low- and middle-
     income, as well graduate students--to pay for aid to a 
     narrower set of low-income students. While the goal to 
     enhance assistance to the neediest students is laudable and 
     certainly a goal we share, we do not believe it should be at 
     the expense of other students and families who may be 
     struggling to invest in a higher education.
       Given your long-standing interest in improving these overly 
     complex education incentives as well as the bipartisan 
     support for action on this issue, we believe the time may be 
     right to make important reforms to these provisions. 
     Unfortunately, we cannot support the approach taken in the 
     discussion draft. Instead, we urge you to consider other 
     legislative models for reform, such as your previous 
     legislation and the American Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 
     2013 (H.R. 1738), which would also consolidate the AOTC and 
     Lifetime Learning Credit into one simplified, permanent AOTC 
     but in ways that address the concerns outlined above.


          Section 127 Employer-provided Educational Assistance

       Section 127 allows employers to offer employees up to 
     $5,250 annually in tuition assistance, which is excluded from 
     taxable income. It is effectively a matching grant program in 
     which the federal government forgoes a proportionally small 
     amount of revenue to leverage the investment employers make 
     in their employees and the American workforce. According to 
     the most recent available Department of Education data, the 
     more than 1.1 million American workers who used this tuition 
     assistance in the 2011-12 academic year had average annual 
     earnings of $53,880. This provision has been an important 
     means of building and adding to the competencies of the 
     workforce and is a critical tool to help our nation 
     accelerate its economic growth. The top majors among 
     recipients of this benefit include those in the STEM fields. 
     More than 35 percent of degrees pursued by employees using 
     education assistance are master's degrees.
       Section 127 was made permanent in the American Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 2012. Instead of repealing Section 127, we 
     firmly believe this overwhelmingly successful element of the 
     tax code should be enhanced to allow employers to offer 
     higher levels of tax-favored tuition assistance to their 
     employees. We recommend that the $5,250 annual limit, which 
     has not changed since the 1970s, be increased with an 
     automatic adjustment for inflation. This would be an 
     extremely effective reform that would generate more private 
     sector funds for financial aid to low- and middle-income 
     students.


              Section 117(d) Qualified Tuition Reductions

       Section 117(d) permits educational institutions, including 
     colleges and universities, to provide their employees, 
     spouses, or dependents with tuition reductions that are 
     excluded from taxable income. This long-standing provision 
     helps employees and members of their families afford a 
     college education, providing an important benefit to many 
     middle and low-income college employees. A broad cross-
     section of our employees benefit from Section 117(d). Indeed, 
     under the law, if an institution chooses to offer this 
     benefit, then all employees must be able to receive it. As 
     such, the benefit has been used by a range of employees, 
     including secretaries and other front-line administrative 
     staff and maintenance and janitorial staff, as well as 
     faculty. In addition to the help it provides our employees, 
     Section 117(d) also gives colleges and universities an 
     important tool for recruiting and retaining valued employees, 
     helping maintain the quality of education our schools can 
     offer. It has been particularly important for many small, 
     private, denominational schools to compete for top employees. 
     Eliminating this benefit would particularly harm employees 
     who are poised to send their children to college and have 
     premised their career choices and college savings decisions 
     on the existing tuition benefits for their children, hurting 
     the lowest-paid college employees the most. For these 
     reasons, Section 117(d) should be preserved.

[[Page H6785]]

          Provisions to Assist in Repayment of Student Loans:

       The current tax code contains provisions that affect the 
     ability of students to repay their student loan debt. As 
     students increasingly have come to rely on loans to finance 
     their college education, we strongly believe the tax code 
     should continue to assist borrowers as they repay their 
     loans.


           Repeal of Student Loan Interest Deduction (SLID):

       The draft would repeal the above-the-line deduction for 
     student loan interest. SLID currently permits taxpayers with 
     less than $75,000 of income ($155,000 for joint filers) to 
     deduct up to $2,500 in federal student loan interest payments 
     each year. To qualify, a student loan must have been for 
     qualified educational expenses, such as tuition and fees, 
     course materials, and room and board.
       Over the course of an undergraduate education, many 
     students take out at least one federal student loan. 
     According to the College Board, 34 percent of undergraduates 
     used federal loans to finance their education in the 2012-13 
     academic year. Managing student loan debt after graduation 
     can be a significant hardship. Recent federal actions have 
     increased borrowing costs by eliminating the six-month 
     interest grace period college graduates previously received 
     and by implementing interest charges for graduate student 
     borrowers while they are in school. With these increased loan 
     costs, SLID has become even more important. The current 
     $2,500 interest limit has been in place since 1997. SLID 
     should not be eliminated.


              Exclusion of Discharge of Student Loan Debt:

       The discussion draft would repeal the tax exclusion for 
     student loan debt forgiven for individuals that worked for a 
     specified time period in certain professions or for a class 
     of employers. This tax exclusion applies to several federal 
     and state loan forgiveness programs, including the Public 
     Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) for borrowers working in 
     government and certain nonprofit jobs, TEACH to assist future 
     teachers, and the National Health Services Corps Loan 
     Repayment Program, which assists medical health professionals 
     working in underserved areas of the country. Each of these 
     programs permits former students with high student loan debt 
     to more easily manage their debt and avoid default in 
     exchange for working, likely for lower salaries, in ways that 
     help serve our society.
       Congress created various student loan forgiveness programs, 
     including some of the programs mentioned above, in an effort 
     to increase college access and affordability by lowering the 
     burden of student loan debt. We have long supported these 
     efforts and the tax exclusion of the discharge of remaining 
     student loan debt as part of these programs because we 
     believe in the policy goal and the attendant benefits it 
     provides to the larger society. Indeed, we have long 
     advocated that this tax exclusion be extended to two other 
     federal loan forgiveness programs, the Income-Based Repayment 
     (IBR) and Income Contingent Repayment (ICR), to which it does 
     not currently apply. Repeal of the current tax exclusion of 
     discharge of student loan debt would undermine the purpose of 
     these important loan forgiveness programs. In addition, for 
     those programs that require regular loan repayment over many 
     years, taxing the discharge of remaining student loan debt 
     would amount to punishment of these responsible borrowers.
       Currently, there are approximately 20 million students 
     enrolled in college in the United States, with approximately 
     12 million (60 percent) taking out student loans to pay for 
     college. Student loan debt is now in excess of $1 trillion, 
     exceeding debt in consumer credit cards. At a time when more 
     students are borrowing more money for college, it would be a 
     terrible and shortsighted policy decision to repeal the 
     current tax exclusion for discharge of student loan debt. 
     Instead, this exclusion should be preserved and expanded to 
     cover amounts forgiven under the IBR and ICR programs


                              Conclusion:

       As we know you agree, our nation's long-term economic 
     growth depends upon a larger, well-educated and trained 
     workforce. Despite their well-documented flaws, the current 
     AOTC, LLC, and the tuition deduction work in tandem with 
     other forms of federal student financial support, including 
     Sections 127 and 117(d) and other tax provisions, to enhance 
     access to education, advance attainment and workforce 
     development goals, and help sustain a vibrant society. We are 
     confident that a consolidated credit can simplify the higher 
     education tax benefits while still retaining aspects of the 
     present credits and deductions that serve an increasingly 
     diverse student population. In addition, we strongly believe 
     that comprehensive tax reform provides a critical opportunity 
     to enhance the ``three-legged stool'' framework of federal 
     education tax incentives.
       We stand ready to work with you to improve your discussion 
     draft in ways that will advance the broader goal of reforming 
     the education tax incentives to better serve traditional and 
     non-traditional low- and middle-income students now and in 
     the future.
           Sincerely,
                                              Molly Corbett Broad,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities
       American Council on Education
       Association of American Universities
       Association of Governing Boards of Universities and 
     Colleges
       Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
       Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
       College and University Professional Association for Human 
     Resources
       Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
       Council of Graduate Schools
       Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.

  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Today's bill is another element of a Republican agenda 
that has consistently weakened our Federal commitment to educational 
opportunity.
  I agree with the American Council on Education which said:
  ``The Federal Tax Code is no substitute for the Pell grant, Federal 
Work-Study, and other Federal student aid programs.''
  Republicans have voted again and again in this Congress to cut these 
investments in our future. House Republicans approved a budget that 
would eliminate $90 billion of Pell grants, would deny 125,000 students 
Federal Work-Study assistance, and would have reduced funding for 
Hispanic-serving universities and Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities.
  Now the Republicans come to the floor and are really boasting of the 
fact that this particular version of the bill does not cut Federal tax 
incentives for education as much as they wanted to.

                              {time}  1615

  As originally introduced by my colleague from Tennessee, this bill 
would have denied 5 million Americans every year an opportunity to use 
education tax incentives that exist under current law. They would have 
slashed assistance under the act by $5 billion a year, according to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation. And so they went back and tinkered with it 
a little bit, and they are here today to brag that they have a D-minus 
bill and that is better than the failing bill that they offered 
initially.
  I understand that after years of opposing this particular incentive, 
they might want to change course. They all voted against the 
improvements, the changes that I authored in 2009 for the American 
Opportunity Tax Credit. They have consistently opposed the concept of 
refundability, that is, assisting those students who might not have a 
tax liability as big as the amount of the credit. And it is progress 
that they have come around to supporting the credit at all and the 
concept of helping those at the bottom of the ladder.
  But while they have reduced the depths of the serious cuts that they 
proposed only a few months ago to these tax incentives, they have not 
stopped the bleeding. They deny assistance to many students across 
America who are assisted by our current law. That is why, as my 
colleague Mr. Levin pointed out, a group of educational institutions, 
whether it is Hispanic colleges or Christian colleges or land grant 
colleges, they all oppose this bill. They have said, and again I quote:
  ``The bill would negatively impact many low- and middle-income 
students and families who benefit under current law.''
  That is what the educational experts say. And that is because the 
bill eliminates a guarantee under existing law called the Lifetime 
Learning Credit. It is eliminated entirely for so many students, and it 
is important to understand who those students are because I have seen 
and talked with them at places like San Antonio College, ACC, and St. 
Philip's College.
  What kind of person are we talking about? Someone who is a single 
mother, who has a child to take care of, and continues to work trying 
to get her associate's degree first, to move out of a low-wage job into 
a better job, and then go on to UT or somewhere else, but she can't get 
it all done in 4 years; a mid-level worker who wants to shift 
industries and needs to upgrade his or her skills for a job in the new 
economy. They have to work and go to school at night. They can't get it 
all done in 4 years. A recent college graduate who says, you know, in 
order to get the job I am best qualified for, I am going to

[[Page H6786]]

have to have a master's degree. But they are denied assistance and the 
opportunity to climb up the economic ladder of success, not by the 
existing law, but by the changes that the Republicans proposed today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. DOGGETT. All these students lose out. The impact is serious. 
According to the Department of Education, about half of all students 
pursuing a higher education attend part time, which inevitably extends 
the time it takes for them to complete the degree.
  Eliminating a tax incentive for higher education that takes more than 
4 years away will deal a blow to nearly 2 million students across 
America who claimed the Lifetime Learning Credit, or they did in 2013. 
Of these, about a million earn less than $40,000 a year. That is who is 
being cut by this.
  I have legislation that over 100 of our colleagues have joined to do 
all the streamlining they talk about, but to make the American 
Opportunity Tax Credit permanent and to ensure that we don't cut out 
benefits to students who are counting on these benefits. We need to 
reject this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We need to reject this bill that still comes up too 
short for too many students. We need to let them succeed in today's 
global economy and ensure that students have the support that America 
needs to be competitive and successful.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do want to say that this was an incredible experience for me to be 
able to work with such a fine gentleman as Mr. Davis.
  We began this process with the chairman giving us an opportunity to 
take a look at this very complicated group of tax provisions in our 
code. What we found, with the Joint Committee on Taxation helping us, 
as I referenced in my opening remarks, there are 90 different pages, no 
less the fact that there are provisions that step on top of one 
another, and we actually asked the Joint Committee on Taxation, to help 
simplify this, to do a diagram for us, just a flowchart.
  What we found was, they came back and said this is so complicated 
that we can't even do a flowchart that would make sense. So we set out 
asking various groups to come and talk to us. These went all of the way 
from the very conservative, the very progressive side, think tanks, 
universities, colleges, those who represented the 529 provision, and to 
just come and let us know about what they thought about what was 
currently in the code.
  We heard consistently over and over again, it didn't matter where 
they were on the spectrum, we heard this is so complicated that people 
are not even using it because they can't figure out. As a matter of 
fact, there is a GAO study that indicated that 1.5 million tax filers 
who qualify for either the tuition and fee deduction of the lifetime 
learning credit in 2009 did not even claim the credit or the deduction 
because of its complication.
  So it was my honor to work with my esteemed colleague in going to 
work to say: What can we do to simplify this so that we can make sure 
that people who really need this assistance are going to get that 
assistance that is there in the code but they can't even figure it out?
  So after about 7 months, hammering back and forth about what we felt 
would best fit the needs of the students of this country and help to 
get them a start in college, to get them going, to be sure that they 
would have that opportunity to use those tax credits, we came up with 
this product. We then rolled it out with a press conference, and I am 
very proud to say that this was an effort of bipartisanship, one that I 
think if we could do more of that here in Congress, we would be 
accomplishing a lot. So it really is my honor to stand here today with 
my colleague who we worked so well together on this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my real pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a distinguished--to put it 
lightly--member of our committee.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. It is amazing how any bill that reaches the House, all 
you have to do is put a title on it and then not read it, and you think 
you have got something going. Listen to the way this bill, H.R. 3393, 
is described. It sounds like the committee that put it together was 
well on the way to reform, that they have taken a whole lot of complex 
provisions and combined them into one to make it easier for the 
applicant to understand what is going on. The problem with that is when 
you do all of that and make it simple, and then put a trillion-dollar 
bill on top of it and make it permanent and cut off benefits for other 
people, it just shows that when people use the word ``reform,'' it 
doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing better.
  I admired the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee when he put 
together a tax bill and had the courage to eliminate a lot of the tax 
credits that were not paid for, a lot of loopholes that were in the 
law, and I think it was supposed to be revenue neutral, as difficult as 
that sounded. But no one ever thought, certainly not Paul Ryan, when he 
said:

       The people deserve a government that works for them, not 
     one that buries them in more debt.

  Well, this is exactly what this bill does. It is permanent. There are 
no provisions to pay for it, and it buries us in more debt.
  But what really annoyed me the most was this 4-year limit because, if 
I can just beg the House for its indulgence, when I came out of the 
Army, I thought I was the cat's meow in terms of how much people 
appreciated my contribution to the security of this country. And of 
course I went to the Veterans Administration to see what my benefits as 
related to education would be. They told me the first thing I had to do 
was to take an aptitude test and that Catholic Charities would provide 
the test. So I picked up my rosary and I went to Catholic Charities, 
and they asked me a lot of questions.
  When they completed it, they concluded that I should be studying to 
become a mortician or an electrician. I didn't emphasize that I was 
Catholic because I didn't think it would make that much difference. But 
when I refused to agree with that conclusion and asked them to show me 
one question that I answered that would allow them to believe that I 
should be a mortician or an electrician, they said: My son, it is not 
so much that, it is just that you have a 4-year cap on the education.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. RANGEL. They said you have a 4-year cap on the education. I was 
shocked to be reminded that I hadn't completed high school. I had to 
complete 2 years of high school and 4 years of college. Instead of 
telling me that, I found out the hard way that I had a 4-year ceiling. 
Well, I was able to convince them after a year to reduce my 2 years by 
combining it with credits for 1 year and the college for 4 years to 3 
years, so I got under the hammer.
  But I cannot imagine, when technology means so much for a person to 
hold onto their job, just to keep up with the technology that is there, 
when they can almost feel the elevation of the qualifications that are 
necessary, that the United States Government would say: Well, you 
almost made it because we have just put a 4-year cap on your ability to 
really be productive in this country.
  But I guess what hurts me the most is the hypocrisy that is involved 
here when we talk about the national debt. Is that something we just 
have to talk about? Should we talk about the interest that we pay on 
the national debt, or should we really just talk about getting a Tax 
Code that is simplified, that does encourage economic growth, and that 
does make it possible for people to believe there is equity in this.
  Now, I know the chairman had a beautiful draft and it was lauded by 
Republicans and Democrats, but this is the end of the session and we 
find ourselves with the tax bills accumulating a trillion dollars worth 
of debt, so why talk about giving someone an education when the debt of 
the Nation may bury them, as the chairman of the Budget Committee has 
said.

[[Page H6787]]

  So I am convinced that the image hasn't changed, but the method in 
presenting a cutoff of benefits has changed in how it is presented.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the esteemed chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, when I hear my friends from the other side 
talk about their concern for the growing national debt, I know we must 
have a good bill because they don't want to talk about the bill. The 
deficit went up every year the Democrats were in the majority, and it 
has gone down every year the Republicans have been in the majority, but 
let me talk a little bit about this piece of legislation.
  When it was created, it was not paid for. It was created for 2 years. 
When it was renewed in 2010 for 2 years, it was not paid for. When it 
was renewed in 2012 for 5 years, it was not paid for.
  What we have in this country is repeatedly renewing tax policy for 
short term, not paying for it, not making it reliable. We are the only 
nation in the world that does this. What we are looking for is not only 
making this policy simpler and easier to understand, as the sponsor of 
the bill has explained very well, but we also want to make this 
permanent so we don't have to come back and wonder, so families that 
are planning for three or four of their kids to go to college over the 
next 10 years don't have to wonder, Are these provisions going to be 
there? Am I going to finally figure out these 100 pages of instructions 
and start to plan for my children's college education only to find, oh, 
Congress didn't get around to extending this provision this time?

                              {time}  1630

  So part of this is about permanency. How do we make these policies 
last? Also, how do we make sure that people at the lower end of the 
economic ladder have a chance to save for college, have a chance to get 
in college, even though they may not have income to qualify for some of 
the tax credits?
  This reform does that. I think this is an important step forward. It 
has been extended basically for a budget window without being paid for 
by both parties, so let's call it what it is, it is permanent policy.
  Let's make it permanent policy so families and students can rely on a 
constant policy, so that they can plan and save for a college 
education, which is becoming more and more a basic standard that people 
need to succeed in life.
  I think if we can do anything this year, it is about making a 
statement that we want to help families and students succeed not only 
in school, but also going forward in their careers and lives.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another member of our committee.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend from Michigan. I 
hope his solution here today, given the dysfunction that we have seen 
in the process coming out of this Congress in recent years, is not just 
to come forward with a series of permanent changes to the U.S. Tax Code 
without paying for any of it and exploding our national debt for future 
generations to have to grapple with, but unfortunately, that has been 
the trend in the Ways and Means Committee over the last couple of 
months.
  I also want to commend the work that the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Black) has done with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. 
Davis) in putting together this bipartisan bill.
  I am all for simplification of the Tax Code. I am all for 
streamlining these tax credits to make it easier for students and their 
families to better afford higher education. I am all for finding a 
bipartisan path forward to make sure that no student is left behind, 
that those doors of educational opportunity are there and open for all 
Americans, but we ought to do that the right way, not the wrong way.
  Unfortunately, the bill here before us today is the wrong way to 
approach the issue. First of all, it is one of 14 permanent changes to 
the Tax Code that have been reported out of the Ways and Means 
Committee now, exceeding over $800 billion, without any of it being 
offset and without a nickel of it being paid for--this on the heels of 
the last few years we have been trying to figure out a way to get our 
fiscal house put back in order.
  There has been a whole lot of shrill and a whole lot of crying on 
this floor about runaway budget deficits and the unsustainable debt 
that our Nation has accumulated and the fact that we have to borrow so 
much money from China. This bill compounds that problem. It doesn't 
solve it.
  This bill alone would add close to $97 billion to the national debt 
over the next 10 years. Again, none of it paid for, but there are also 
some substantive problems with this bill, too, that, unfortunately, due 
to a lack of hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, due to a lack of 
discussion and feedback from our universities throughout the country, 
is not addressed, not the least of which--and I have heard this from 
universities back in Wisconsin--that there is a significant 
administrative change hiding in this bill.
  Currently, schools can report either eligible tuition charges that 
are billed to students or paid to students. This bill takes away the 
billing aspect of reporting to the IRS.
  Now, that is probably a trend that we ought to pursue and should fix 
in the future, but to do it abruptly, given where the computer systems 
lie with their universities right now, is bound to cause severe 
disruption in regards to these tax credits for students.
  I am afraid that it has not been well-vetted, and it hasn't been 
thought through because, again, it is an election year, and we are 
racing these bills to the floor in order to do our press releases back 
home and score cheap political points with constituencies that would 
prefer to see legislation advance without paying for it; but it is 
something that we ought to fix before we burden the bursars' offices 
throughout the Nation and trying to revamp their computer systems 
overnight. They are telling us it is not going to work.
  Furthermore, the gentleman from Michigan has highlighted the impact 
this is going to have on our graduate students. The graduate students 
are affected by the streamlining of the education credits that are 
embodied in this bill because only 4 years are available under this 
legislation. It is expected to have a profound impact on the 
affordability of graduate education for students throughout the Nation. 
I don't think that has been vetted all that well either.
  It is because we are not doing regular order around here. It is an 
election year--I get it--and there is nothing easier in the world to 
bring permanent changes to the Tax Code that everyone would desire to 
see, but without making the tough decision and paying for it as well, 
while at the same time coming forward with budget resolutions that is 
cutting back on the availability of Pell grants for low-income students 
or workstudy programs for low-income students or TRIO or GEAR UP 
programs that are geared for low-income students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Somehow, some way, it became fashionable to cut those 
programs that have benefited low-income students, including myself. 
When I was a kid growing up, my family didn't have the financial means 
to send me to school, so I was able to qualify for a Pell grant, I did 
do workstudy all 4 years. Without that availability, I don't know where 
I would have ended up with my education.
  That is where we seem to go to first in the budget for cuts and then 
coming forward today on a bill that will add $97 billion to the deficit 
without paying for it and without vetting it the way it should be. We 
have still got time. Let's do this right now.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' and give this body 
time to fix some of the deficiencies in the bill, but also to make the 
tough decision and do it in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I would like to do is read from a letter that we received in 
support of

[[Page H6788]]

this legislation from the American Association of Community Colleges 
and the Association of Community College Trustees.
  I am just going to lift a couple of paragraphs out of here that I 
think address some of the responses from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. I am only going to read three pieces, although there 
are more.
  This is why they say that they believe this benefits college 
students. I want to read the one that says it ``makes AOTC Permanent: 
Currently set to expire at the end of 2017, the AOTC is the most 
important source of support for college students in the Tax Code. H.R. 
3393 makes the benefit permanent and ensures that it will remain in 
place for students and families.''

  The chairman referenced that just a few moments ago.
  Another paragraph: ``Creates better alignment with the Pell grant: 
Currently, an estimated 1 million college students with unmet financial 
need do not receive any benefit from the AOTC due to its poor 
coordination with the Pell grant program. The vast majority of these 
students attend low-cost institutions, particularly community 
colleges.''
  This bill remedies this situation.
  Then the last piece: ``Indexes the AOTC to inflation: H.R. 3393 
recognizes that college prices are not static and adjusts the AOTC for 
inflation starting in 2018.''
  So I believe that that speaks to those pieces that we said are so 
important in this reform.
  Now, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the leader of our conference.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader on this 
legislation--great work--and the chairman.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax 
Simplification Act. I was the first in my family to graduate from 
college, and I understand firsthand the struggle that families face to 
pay for higher education. As a matter of fact, I am still paying off 
some student loans from graduate school.
  For today's graduates, the picture is even much bleaker. In fact, 
seven out of 10 graduates are entering the workforce with $33,000 in 
student loan debt, up $2,000 just from last year. For many, student and 
parent loans are often the only option to address the higher cost of 
college.
  Our outdated Tax Code is no help. With 15 different complicated 
overlapping provisions, we need a Tax Code that works for people. That 
is what H.R. 3393 does. It simplifies the Tax Code, so that families 
and students can actually use and benefit from it as they pursue higher 
education.
  The latest unemployment rate for recent college graduates is 8\1/2\ 
percent. More than 16 percent of them are underemployed. We need every 
tool at our disposal to put money back in the pockets of families, so 
that they are empowered to make better choices.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3393.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask how much time there is remaining on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 7\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the gentlewoman have other speakers?
  Mrs. BLACK. I am ready to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentlewoman has just talked about her work in graduate school. 
This bill would eliminate help for millions of people in graduate 
school. That is what this bill does.
  I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
ranking member for yielding.
  Tax-based aid represents more than half of all nonloan Federal 
support for higher education, giving tax policy a critical role in 
promoting college affordability, access, and completion.
  Although I strongly support improving the education credits for 
students and families, I cannot support the Republican piecemeal tax 
approach that would add $825 billion to the deficit and imperil our 
economic recovery and the well-being of our citizens.
  As partners in the Education and Family Benefits Tax Working Group, I 
was delighted to work with Representative Black and her staff from 
Tennessee. I want to thank her and her staff for a wonderful 
legislative experience. It was, indeed, a delight.
  I also want to commend Chairman Camp for taking the bold initiative 
to put comprehensive tax reform in the discussion and on the table.
  Our bill represents a bipartisan compromise that integrates promising 
reforms to tax-based education benefits suggested to us by both 
conservative and progressive stakeholders.
  This bill simplifies our Tax Code and strengthens our investment in 
students and their families, expanding aid to the lowest-income 
students by modestly expanding the refundability of the credit, 
removing obstacles to claiming the credit, improving the coordination 
of tax and Pell policies, and indexing the credit to inflation.
  However, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act was intended 
as part of comprehensive tax reform. Within a comprehensive package, 
policymakers are better able to pay for our tax cuts and ensure that 
groups of taxpayers who may lose out in one section are helped in 
others.
  I look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan way to improve 
education tax policy, but I oppose moving this bill in isolation of 
other education tax reforms and at the exclusion of other critical tax 
provisions that help the working poor, strengthen economically 
distressed communities, promote affordable housing, help cover public 
transportation costs, incentivize businesses to hire hard-to-employ 
workers, and assist teachers with classroom expenses.
  I don't think anything is much more important than education 
affordability, but I believe that first things come first. For me right 
now, before I would suggest spending any more money, I would suggest 
that we find a way to put an unemployment check in the hands of the 3 
million people who are waiting in America, so they can live until they 
can get to college.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, we favor on this side of the aisle simplification. We 
are in favor of reducing the number of pages. We are not in favor of 
leaving out millions of students.

                              {time}  1645

  This approach hasn't been refuted. It leaves out millions of 
undergraduates, millions of graduate students, and millions of people 
who are in longer-term education needs who can't complete college in 4 
years, and, in many cases, want to go on to graduate school.
  So what has happened here is another bill has come out of committee 
that is part of a package that was over $800 billion. It leaves out so 
many, yet you make it permanent. These are people permanently left out. 
Why?
  Many of these bills go back some years. We will have to check back 
many years ago and see if perhaps they were paid for. The recent one 
was in the Recovery Act of 2009, which we favored, but we did not favor 
making permanent laws that would leave out. That is what is being done 
here.
  I have heard: Oh, we will come back some other time. You are going to 
come back some other time when you have added a trillion dollars to the 
deficit? That is not believable.
  Indeed, what is believable is the result of this kind of reckless 
course is it is going to squeeze further discretionary, nondefense 
expenditures. That squeezing out is, as I said earlier, is the hard-
hearted approach of the Ryan budget.
  We see what happens when Republicans essentially use the argument 
that we can't pay for it, when they cut all the kinds of programs that 
I mentioned at the beginning, so many were cut out in the Ryan 
Republican budget.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I could say a lot of things, but I don't 
think there is any better way for me to conclude than for me to read a 
letter that I will submit for the Record from a student who actually 
sent this to me today.
  I do want to read it, but I think you will see after I read it that 
the emphasis here is that we are helping those

[[Page H6789]]

who need help the most by what we are doing with the simplification of 
this particular part of the Code.
  For the sake of the identity of the person, I am going to use the 
name Nancy.
  Let me read this to you:

       Dear Congresswoman Black, my name is Nancy, and I attend 
     Atlanta Technical College. The additional $500 in refunds in 
     your bill for students like me will be extremely beneficial.
       I am the mother of five, full-time worker, and student. 
     Although I intend to continue my higher education once I 
     graduate from the Atlanta Technical College, I have found out 
     my Pell grant will expire next semester. I now find myself in 
     the position of taking out loans for future semesters to make 
     sure my tuition and books are paid for.
       I plan to use my taxes to help with this dilemma. The 
     additional $500 may not seem like it would cover a lot, but 
     in my case, it will cover at least one three-credit class or 
     at least three of my textbooks. I would love the opportunity 
     to have an option of using these moneys that are outright 
     mine than to put myself in debt more by taking out a full 
     amount of any loan.
       My only hope is that you take this letter into 
     consideration, for there are many others out there in my 
     predicament.

       Dear Congresswoman Black, My name is Nancy and I attend 
     Atlanta Technical College. The additional $500 in refunds in 
     your bill for students like me would be extremely beneficial.
       I am a mother of 5, full time worker and student. Although 
     I intend to continue my higher education once I graduate from 
     Atlanta Technical College, I have found out my Pell grant 
     will expire next semester. I now find myself in the position 
     of taking out loans for future semesters to make sure my 
     tuition and books are paid for.
       I plan to use my taxes to help with this dilemma. The 
     additional $500 may not seem like it would cover a lot, but 
     in my case, it will cover at least one 3 credit class or at 
     least 3 of my textbooks. I would love the opportunity to have 
     an option of using monies that are out right mine, than to 
     put myself in debt more by taking out the full amount of any 
     loan.
       My only hope is that you take this letter into 
     consideration, for there are many others out here in my 
     predicament.

  Mrs. BLACK. I think there is no better way than to end with something 
that comes from the heart of a student who is working so hard. She has 
five children and is a full-time worker and student. Because of the 
refundability of this tax provision, if it were placed into law, you 
can see how it would really help those who we are trying to help the 
very most.
  So I would urge my colleagues, for the sake of helping our students, 
especially those who are at the lower and middle income, to support 
H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 680, 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. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  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. 3393 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end of the bill the following:

     SEC. 4. INFORMING STUDENTS OF SAVINGS THROUGH LOWER INTEREST 
                   RATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, in 
     publications relating to the credit allowed under section 25A 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, include a table that 
     illustrates the difference between monthly payment amounts 
     (with respect to various principal amounts and, at a minimum, 
     under a standard repayment plan) for specified higher 
     education loans--
       (1) under the applicable rate of interest on such loans as 
     determined under section 455(b)(8) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965, and
       (2) under a rate of interest on such loans that is 2 
     percent lower than such applicable rate of interest.
       (b) Specified Higher Education Loan.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``specified higher education loan'' means 
     any loan which is made under part B, D, or C of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is the final 
amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If this amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately 
proceed to final passage, as amended.
  This motion is straightforward and common sense. It directs the 
Secretary of the Treasury to provide students with the information they 
need to compare the costs of student loans.
  In providing information on tax credits, the Treasury Secretary must 
publish a table showing the amount of savings that a student would 
achieve on a monthly basis under different student loan rates. Students 
should be provided this important information before they take on debt.
  Mr. Speaker, our country has a student debt crisis. As an adjunct 
professor at Arizona State University, I frequently hear from my 
students about how difficult it is to effectively manage their student 
loans.
  Angela Schultz, Brian Garcia, Iliamari Vazquez, Brandie Reiner, Jack 
Welty, Andy Albright, Diego Soto, Anthony Carly, Ellen Hamilton, Ariel 
Carlos, Kent Fogg, Joe Slaven, Brandy Pantilione, Gary Brewer, and 
Christopher Valles are only a few of the young college graduates from 
Arizona State University, my alma mater, who shared their stories with 
me.
  Some of these young people are my students at Arizona State 
University. Some are recent graduates. Some of them are thinking of 
starting a family, while others are working hard to care for the 
families they already have.
  What do these graduates want? They just want a fair shot. They want 
to know that their hard work in college mattered, that it led to the 
promise that their parents made to them when they were little--the 
promise we all believe in: if you work hard and play by the rules, you 
can succeed.
  Essentially, they want what each one of us has wanted for ourselves, 
what we want for our own kids, and what we are working for in our 
districts. They want a shot at the American Dream.
  Angela graduated from Arizona State University in 2012. She now faces 
the biggest financial hurdle of her life. She doesn't face massive 
medical bills or an expensive car loan. It is not rent or mortgage 
payments. It is a bill for over $85,000 in student loans. Iliamari will 
graduate in 2015. When she does, she will have over $64,000 in student 
loans.
  Nationally, outstanding student loans now total more than $1.2 
trillion, surpassing total credit card debt, and every year, students 
are taking on more. An estimated 71 percent of college seniors had debt 
in 2012, with an average outstanding balance of $29,400 for those who 
borrowed to get a bachelor's degree.
  Young people are foregoing long-term job opportunities and home 
ownership in order to meet the urgent demands of their large student 
loan payments.
  I relied on Pell grants, academic scholarships, and Federal loans all 
through school, just like my Arizona State students do today. I know 
students need guidance and assistance to manage their student debt.
  I talk to young people who are excited to share their ideas and 
thoughts with me about how to solve some of the world's biggest 
problems. However, it concerns me that these same young people are 
daunted by the prospect of an expensive education that they want, but 
fear they cannot afford.
  Rising college costs are putting higher education and the American 
Dream out of reach for too many hardworking Arizona families. Education 
is key to economic growth and job creation and, for many, it is a clear 
pathway out of poverty. I know this because education was the key to my 
own path out of poverty and to the middle class.
  We must take action to combat this crisis. We need to give students 
the information they need to make smart decisions about paying for 
education. That is why I offered this motion to recommit today. It is 
why I am asking my colleagues to support this reasonable motion, and I 
call on Congress to do more to make the American Dream accessible and 
affordable for more American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6790]]

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and claim the 
time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit has absolutely nothing 
to do with helping give middle class families the resources need to 
send their kids to college. This has nothing to do with making tax 
policy more certain, easier to understand, or simplifying a very 
complex area of the Tax Code. This has nothing to do with helping 
families who are struggling to pay for education.
  Let's get on with trying to do that job. Let's reject this motion to 
recommit, let's pass the underlying bill, and let's help middle class 
America.
  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 the motion to 
instruct on H.R. 3230.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 219, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 448]

                               YEAS--195

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     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
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--219

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bass
     Bishop (UT)
     Campbell
     Capito
     DesJarlais
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Honda
     Jackson Lee
     Kingston
     Lewis
     Marchant
     McAllister
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Pompeo
     Rogers (MI)

                              {time}  1725

  Messrs. GARRETT and DENHAM changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. FATTAH changed his 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.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 187, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 449]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry

[[Page H6791]]


     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--187

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kirkpatrick
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bass
     Bishop (UT)
     Campbell
     Capito
     DesJarlais
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Honda
     Jackson Lee
     Kingston
     Lewis
     Marchant
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Pompeo
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1731

  Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 449 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________