[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5139-5145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1810
                     HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend some 
time on the floor this evening. I will be joined by other colleagues, 
we anticipate, to talk about an issue which is front and center for 
millions of families all across the country.
  As my poster next to me indicates, there is actually a very critical 
deadline that's approaching this country in terms of the issue of 
higher education affordability, about helping families pay for college, 
one of the biggest challenges that middle class families face today.
  Back in 2007, Congress made a very positive, progressive move when it 
enacted the College Cost Reduction Act, a measure which addressed 
issues that had been long neglected by prior Congresses in terms of 
helping students and families pay for college. The College Cost 
Reduction Act, in particular, took aim at the Stafford student loan 
program, a loan program that helps lower-income and middle-income 
students pay for college. It's a program which has been on the books 
since the 1960s; but over the late 1990s into the early 2000s, the 
interest rate in the Stafford student loan program had fluttered 
upwards to 6.8 percent, almost the same levels at what private banks 
were offering for student loans.
  The College Cost Reduction Act in 2007 correctly moved forward to cut 
the interest rate for that program to make it more affordable for 
students, again, who are facing ever rising tuition increases in both 
public and private universities and colleges--2-year programs, you name 
it--all across the country. As a result of that measure, which passed 
by a bipartisan vote in this House--we had 77 Republicans who joined 
the Democratic majority that was in control at that time--it was sent 
to the Senate. Approximately two dozen Republicans voted in favor of 
the Stafford student loan program, and it was sent to President Bush, 
who signed it into law. That measure has helped 15 million students 
with lower interest rate costs pay for college.

[[Page 5140]]

  That measure was sunset. It had an expiration date of July 1, 2012. 
As my poster indicates, that's a date which, today, is 73 days away for 
families and students who today are trying to budget for next year's 
school year. That deadline will, in effect, return the interest rate 
back to where it was back in 2007. It will double the interest rate 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent unless Congress acts.
  President Obama, during his State of the Union Address, alerted this 
Congress and the Nation to the fact that at a time when student loan 
debt now exceeds credit card debt and car debt, we must, as a Congress, 
move quickly to make sure that we lock in that rate at 3.4 percent; 
otherwise, students who use this program, it's been calculated, will 
have added debt levels of between $5,000 and $10,000.
  Now, in terms of the stakes that exist right now for what that means, 
this chart--which is from a figure that was produced by the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York--shows again, vividly, the challenge that we 
face as a Nation, that student loan debt now, as I mentioned earlier, 
exceeds credit card debt. It exceeds car loan debt. For many families, 
particularly if you're talking about going to a 4-year private college, 
it literally is like buying a house to try and figure out ways to pay 
for college.
  So if we do not act, if we do not lock in that lower rate of 3.4 
percent between now and July 1--the 73-day deadline that we face, 
literally, as we stand here today--we will, in fact, compound that bar 
graph which shows, again, rising debt levels for students who are 
trying to pay for college.
  The stakes could not be bigger for our Nation.
  Back in the 1980s, America was number one in terms of graduation 
rates across the world. Today, the national College Board--which tracks 
this data and has been doing it for decades--reports to us that the 
U.S. now ranks 12th in the world in terms of graduation rates. That is 
a dynamic for mediocrity. That is a dynamic that says that our country 
is not going to be able to produce the workforce that we need for the 
future in terms of facing all the technological challenges, all the 
competitive challenges that we face as a Nation. We here in Congress 
have that power within our hands to at least avoid worsening the 
situation that, again, has now, in my opinion, reached epidemic, 
critical proportions in terms of this country's capacity to refresh its 
workforce.
  The Republican majority has leadership which recently talked about 
this issue. The chairwoman of the Higher Education Subcommittee, when 
asked last week on a radio program about the issue of student loan 
debt, basically stated very clearly that she has very little tolerance 
for people who tell her that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or 
even $80,000 of debt because there's no reason for that. Well, this 
morning's Wall Street Journal had a very long story about a couple who 
are exactly in this predicament, where they are carrying $74,000 of 
student loan debt, making monthly payments of approximately $900 a 
month. The headline basically is that student loan debt is deferring 
marriage and children for young people.
  Frankly, that is an issue which is being compounded in terms of young 
people being able to go out and look for work and not be haunted or 
burdened--almost smothered and buried--by student loan debt. That 
affects the vitality of our economy. It affects, really, the career 
path of many of our young people who, at that point in life, really 
should be maximizing their attempts to really experiment and to 
innovate and to be, again, the leaders of a new generation in terms of 
taking this country to new heights.
  This is a sad statement of the priorities of the majority that's 
controlling this Congress, which, again, at a point where we literally 
have before us in 73 days a choice to make in terms of whether or not 
we are going to avoid this explosion in interest rates, we have a 
leadership which basically says they have no sympathy or tolerance.
  You know, as we're sitting here tonight, Capitol Hill is being 
visited in Members' offices hour after hour by organizations like 
dental students, nursing students, folks who, again, are very excited 
about starting their careers and have issues about policy that we're 
taking up here in their different professions. In each instance, when 
you asked a dental student, ``Well, what kind of student loan debt do 
you have?'' or a nurse anesthetist, ``What kind of student loan do you 
have?''--and they were in my office a couple days ago--in every 
instance, their debt levels exceeded the levels that the chairwoman of 
the Higher Education Subcommittee was talking about.
  We need a Congress which is not out of touch with middle class 
families and young people in this country. We need a Congress which is 
ready to move forward with the need to lock in that lower interest rate 
so that, again, we do not compound this problem of student loan debt 
skyrocketing in increases.
  There is legislation which is pending, H.R. 3826, a measure which I 
introduced, and now we have over 120 cosponsors in the House Democratic 
Caucus--I'm joined here this evening by some of the folks who have 
joined in that effort--that would lock in that rate, that would say 
that, You know what? This is a priority that really matters in terms of 
the future of this country, which is to invest in young people, to help 
middle class families deal with, again, probably as big a challenge as 
either buying a home or trying to save and prepare for retirement.
  For us, at a time when the Federal Reserve is lending money almost 
for free, when home mortgage interest rates are about 3.1 percent for a 
30-year mortgage and even lower for a variable rate, to say that we are 
going to stand here and turn our backs and allow interest rates for the 
Stafford student loan program--one of the workhorse, bedrock programs 
for middle class families to pay for college--to go from 3.4 percent to 
6.8 percent is unconscionable. It is unforgivable. We cannot let this 
happen.
  Here this evening on the floor I've been joined by some Members who 
agree and have been working hard on this issue back home, getting the 
word out in their States, and also have cosponsored this legislation 
and have joined us to talk a little bit about this issue from their 
perspective.
  Congressman Cicilline from Rhode Island was here first, and I am 
pleased to yield to my neighbor from Rhode Island. Thank you, sir, for 
joining us here this evening.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his 
extraordinary leadership on this issue, which is important to Rhode 
Island, but really important to students all across our country.
  I think one of the things that has struck me during this debate about 
this issue in the last several weeks as we've tried to bring attention 
to this issue is that this is really a moment in the history of our 
country where we need to recognize--maybe more than anytime at least in 
my lifetime--the urgency of investing in education and of ensuring that 
young people have access to a quality education.
  The idea that we're in a position to prevent interest rates from 
doubling for those who are benefiting from Stafford loans and that this 
Congress seems poised not to do anything about it, to me, is, as you 
said, unconscionable.
  There was a report that was done recently, the Georgetown University 
Center on Education and the Workforce. They found that over the period 
from 2008 to 2018, about 47 million job openings will be created; and 
of that, more than 30 million of these jobs will require at least some 
level of postsecondary education.
  So this is the reality for our country, that we have got to realize 
if we're going to create jobs and be sure that we have young people who 
have the skills necessary to fill those jobs in this new knowledge 
economy of the 21st century, we have to make it easier for people to 
access higher education, not more difficult.

                              {time}  1820

  And Congress wisely cut the rate in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4. We 
have to make sure it stays there.

[[Page 5141]]

  Now, I come from a State that brought us the great Senator Claiborne 
Pell, who was the creator of the Pell Grant, which created and 
continues to create hope and opportunity and access to education for 
millions and millions of Americans, really unlocking opportunity and 
keys to success.
  We all understand that not only the student benefits from that 
education, but we all benefit. The community benefits when we have a 
well-educated group of young people that are making new discoveries, 
that are finding cures for diseases, that are inventing new products, 
that are building productive lives to support themselves and their 
families.
  And this is a moment when we have to be sure that we're protecting 
families from the consequences of this kind of interest rate increase, 
doubling, as you just said, Representative.
  The United States Public Interest Research Group says that without 
congressional action, borrowers who have taken out the maximum $23,000 
in subsidized student loans will see their interest balloon to an 
additional $5,200 over a 10-year repayment and $11,300 over a 20-year 
repayment. So this is a huge increase for families, many of whom in my 
State, where we continue to have very high unemployment, the second 
highest in the country, where families are struggling with the 
consequences of the housing crisis and difficulty finding work, this 
cannot, we cannot allow this to happen. It will cause incredible 
hardship for families in Rhode Island and my district.
  I was recently at Roger Williams University and at several other 
universities in my district meeting with young people. All were 
concerned about will Pell Grants continue, will we be able to protect 
Pell Grants, and what's going to happen when they graduate and have 
student loans. Are these kinds of interest rates going to be in 
existence, which are just not affordable to young people.
  And the idea that we have 73 days, you know, this is a moment where 
we can demonstrate we can get something done. My friends on the other 
side of the aisle don't seem interested in addressing this issue which, 
for Rhode Islanders, and I know you recently had an event in 
Connecticut, and I know many of our colleagues around the country doing 
this, we've got to rally young people to demand that the legislation 
which you sponsored, H.R. 3826, and which I'm proud to be a cosponsor 
of, and my Senator, Senator Reid on the Senate side is the lead 
sponsor, we've got to demand that Speaker Boehner bring this to the 
floor for a vote.
  Our colleagues need to hear from their families in their districts, 
from young people all across this country. This is about our own 
investment in our future as a country, that we benefit from young 
people who have access to higher education. At a time where our economy 
is still recovering, we can't allow interest rates to student loans to 
double.
  I'm going to continue to fight very hard. I thank the gentleman for 
his leadership on this. I hope that we will continue to beat the drums 
on this for the next 73 days till we force some action here on the 
floor of the House for the sake of the young people in this country and 
for the sake of our future as a thriving and prosperous democracy.
  I again thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak to this 
issue tonight.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Congressman Cicilline. And I'm glad you 
mentioned Senator Reid. Actually, we had an event in front of the 
Capitol a couple of weeks ago where Public Interest Research Group 
dropped off 130,000 petition signatures from college campuses all 
across America, and they are going to go out and get even more because, 
as I said, 15 million college students benefited from that rate cut in 
2007; 8 million will be impacted if we do nothing with higher interest 
rates.
  Someone who can speak on this issue as knowledgeably as almost 
anyone, literally, in the House or Senate, in the U.S. Congress is 
Congressman Bishop, again, my neighbor across Long Island Sound in the 
State of New York. Again, thank you for joining us here tonight, Tim, 
and I yield to your comments.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Thank you very much for the opportunity, 
Congressman Courtney. And let me begin by commending you for being the 
sponsor of H.R. 3826. I'm proud to join you in that effort, and over 
100 of our Democratic colleagues have joined in this effort. And I find 
it both distressing and, frankly, shocking that we don't have a single 
Member from the other side of the aisle who cares about students and 
wants to see the student loan rate maintained at 3.4 percent.
  Let me start with a statistic that ought to give pause to everyone 
who cares about the future of our country. We have fallen from first to 
15th in the world in the proportion of our population ages 23 through 
35 that has a college degree. In an intensely competitive global 
marketplace, we are going to continue to struggle if we do not have the 
educated populace that we need to have to compete in that global 
marketplace. And if we continue to make it more difficult for students 
to go to college, that's precisely the outcome that we'll have.
  And so, at the very moment when we ought to be doing everything that 
we possibly can to facilitate college enrollment, we are, in fact, in 
the House of Representatives, being led by people who are taking us in 
the exact opposite direction.
  The student loan issue is crucial. As you say, we have 73 days to act 
before students take on a significant additional hardship, doubling the 
interest rate.
  But look at what the House Republican budget that has now been passed 
twice in this Chamber, once before Easter recess and as recently as 
yesterday, look what it does to higher education. It cuts funding for 
the Pell Grant program, as Representative Cicilline said, the core 
program, the core student financial aid program that came about as a 
result of the leadership of Senator Pell. It cuts it by $104 billion 
over 10 years, $104 billion over 10 years at a time when we're trying 
to facilitate college enrollment.
  It will render 18,000 students in my home State of New York 
ineligible for Pell, students who are eligible for it now who won't be 
eligible for it next year. Across the country, 400,000 students who are 
eligible for Pell now won't be eligible for it.
  And at the very time that the Republican leadership of the House of 
Representatives is proposing that, they are also proposing to make it 
more expensive for students to do the only thing they could do to 
replace the dollars they're going to lose from Pell, and that's borrow. 
So we're going to hit them both ways. We're going to take away non-
repayable assistance, grant assistance, and then we're going to make it 
more expensive for them to borrow. And it's just simply wrong.
  We ought to be about opportunity in this country. And when I hear a 
Presidential candidate talk about how the desire to send more students 
to college is elitist, it, frankly, gives me great pause. And if we 
look at the history of higher education in this country, before World 
War II and the GI Bill, it was elitist. And then with the advent of the 
GI Bill and then the community college, higher education became 
egalitarian. And it's what built the great middle class in this 
country. It is what has allowed us to thrive and become the strongest 
and most prosperous Nation in the world.
  We cannot afford to take a step back; and this dual effort to both 
diminish Pell, significantly diminish Pell, and then make it more 
expensive for students to borrow, the consequence of that will be to 
move us backward at a time when we need to be aggressively charging 
forward.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Again, someone who's been a leader on this issue, first sponsor after 
we introduced the bill is Congressman Gary Peters from Michigan, so 
we're not all from New England and New York on the floor here this 
evening because this is a national issue; and thank you for joining us, 
Congressman Peters.
  Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Courtney, for yielding some time. And

[[Page 5142]]

you're absolutely right: this is a national issue. Certainly in my home 
State of Michigan, it is an issue of incredible concern to people and 
young people and older folks, as well, that have been saddled with 
these debts over the years that are coming to me saying, you know, How 
can this happen? How can we be in a situation where interest rates are 
going to double when you look in the papers and you go to the bank and 
you see the banks basically pay no interest to anybody if you're trying 
to save money. The Treasury bonds are at a couple of percent. You've 
got mortgage rates at 4 percent, and yet these rates are going to be 
doubling to 6.8 percent.
  It just defies logic that we even have to be here debating this for 
an issue that is so important to millions of Americans who will be 
impacted either directly or a member of their family that has to deal 
with these loans and these high costs.
  And the thing that is really so tragic and so sad is that it is 
because of congressional inaction. We have the power to do it. It is 
very simple for us to make this change, to lock in these rates at 3.4 
percent. And yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle turn a 
blind eye and refuse to take the action that is necessary to help all 
of these young people and others that are going to be saddled with 
these additional costs.
  And it's going to have an incredible burden, not just on their 
families. But it will actually have a major impact on the economy as 
well. We have all heard stories of folks who have to pay these loan 
amounts, these monthly payments that are very large and, as a result of 
that, people are postponing marriage, they're postponing buying a new 
automobile.
  As a gentleman who represents the State of Michigan, I don't want to 
discourage anybody from purchasing an automobile and having the 
transportation they need. And yet young people are forced to do that 
because they have these loans that are now going to become even more 
expensive.

                              {time}  1830

  It also means buying homes and starting to live that American Dream 
and being able to make those kinds of investments that are being 
postponed.
  So this inaction from Congress, in addition to being a big burden on 
many families, will actually slow down the economic recovery as well. 
Our focus here should be about jobs; it should be about the economic 
activity, strengthening that; and it should be about helping middle 
class families and working families be able to pursue that American 
Dream.
  Mr. Courtney, I think you'll agree that we're kind of facing a 
perfect storm right now when it comes to this issue--and not just in 
this interest rate. We're looking at the fact that a growing number of 
high school seniors are now going into college. We also have increased 
unemployment and underemployment so that more folks are going back to 
try to get an education, to get the skills that they need in order to 
get those jobs. As a result of that, they need to be taking on loans. 
Otherwise, they aren't going to be able to afford that education. At 
the same time, we've got folks trying to better themselves and pursue 
their dreams.
  We see college costs continually escalating. It's getting 
increasingly expensive for most people to be able to afford college. 
It's certainly not something that most people can do just by writing a 
check. Their families don't have that kind of money. It is just way too 
expensive. I know that we heard from one of the Presidential candidates 
who said this is a government subsidy to have a loan to help children 
go to school. I know that particular Presidential candidate never had 
to worry about paying for anything. He had very rich parents. He's 
very, very wealthy himself. He doesn't really face what most American 
families face, which is that, in order to pursue a college education 
today, you need to have a loan. It is very difficult to do it without 
taking that loan.
  So the fact that we are standing here just 73 days away from when 
nearly every family in America is going to find that it's going to be 
harder to afford college I think is unconscionable. As we talked about 
what this means to put this in dollars and cents, this increase from 
3.4 to 6.8 percent means it's about $11,000 more for the average family 
over a 20-year loan. It is $11,000 for an individual to be able to pay 
that loan back. It makes no sense, as I mentioned in my beginning 
comments, at a time when Treasury rates are at 2 percent and when 
mortgage rates are less, that the Federal Government would be charging 
6.8 percent to these individuals.
  We also know that the affordability of making these payments is 
becoming more difficult as new graduates are going into a weak 
employment market right now. Wage levels are lower. In fact, we've seen 
that the median wage for college graduates has gone down nearly 
$10,000, since just 2009, to about $37,000. So, with the median wage of 
$37,000, having an additional cost of $11,000 over the 20-year life of 
a loan is something that is a huge burden for a family, especially 
young families, trying to become established and move forward.
  I think we have a couple of policy options here as Members of 
Congress. Certainly, first off, we want to make sure that young people 
who are going into college have all the facts and understand what sort 
of obligations they're getting into when they take out these loans and 
incur these debts. I am, certainly, very pleased with the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, which we both fought for very aggressively 
to put into effect here in this country in order to protect people from 
predatory practices, particularly related to debt, in that it is now 
launching a new tool to help families.
  I would encourage anybody who may be watching tonight to go to the 
Web site and look at those tools, which will help them really get a 
better handle on how much they will need to borrow to go to school, how 
much they'll have to pay back and really what those monthly payments 
are. If we can, we want to equip folks with information that helps 
people from getting in trouble, that helps them understand how they 
have to manage that debt; but while they are doing that, we certainly 
have to make sure, in addition to that financial literacy, that we're 
making sure that these costs are not onerous. By doubling this rate in 
just 73 days, by doubling the rate, it is something that we cannot 
tolerate.
  I hope that we can convince our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that they need to be engaged in this debate, that they need to 
know that families back home are going to be suffering as a result of 
our inaction or, I should say, as a result of the unwillingness of some 
of our colleagues not to do our jobs, which is to stand up for our 
constituents back home.
  So I will say that I am very proud to stand with you on this 
legislation, H.R. 3826. I certainly hope that as folks are watching 
here tonight that they will realize they need to contact their 
individual Members of Congress and make sure that their voices are 
heard: that they cannot handle additional college tuition loan 
payments. It is something that they're not going to be able to handle. 
It's going to put them in a very difficult situation. But with action--
if they get on the phone, email, contact their Members of Congress--and 
in letting their voices be heard, hopefully, in 73 days, we can avoid 
what is going to be a certain hardship.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Peters, as to your comment about why this should 
not be a partisan issue, I just want to reiterate the fact that when we 
cut the rate back in 2007, 77 Republicans in the House voted with the 
Democratic majority to implement that law, and there were over two 
dozen Republican Senators in the Senate who voted for it. George W. 
Bush signed it into law.
  Ironically, the Stafford student loan program, which we've talked 
about a lot here this evening--and a lot of people are familiar with 
it, but some, I think, would be interested to know--was named after a 
Republican Senator, Robert Stafford from Vermont, who was a passionate 
advocate for education just like Senator Pell from Rhode Island was. 
This, again, used to

[[Page 5143]]

be an issue that was nonpartisan totally. Abraham Lincoln was the force 
that started land-grant colleges in the middle of the Civil War. I 
mean, it's amazing to think about that, that he just had such vision 
during the worst conflict in American history to say, you know, we 
still need to be investing in the future of this country and so started 
the land-grant process. Stafford from Vermont was another guy who 
certainly represented a party that, at that time, would have easily 
understood the fact that we cannot create new barriers at a time when 
historic levels of debt are rising to a point which exceed credit card 
debt and student loan debt.
  Mr. Bishop, in your experience as a college administrator, you know. 
I mean, we are now in late April, and kids are literally getting 
notices from colleges in their mailboxes today. People are going to 
have to start planning in terms of how to pay for college. Again, 
notices are already being sent out to people, saying, you know, you may 
or may not have this rate right now. So it's changing family decisions 
literally by the inaction. Frankly, we should not have to wait 73 days. 
We should do this this week. We shouldn't go home until this gets done, 
because families need to have some horizon in terms of planning a 
decision that literally is almost as big as buying a house.
  Then I know, Mr. Cicilline, you were up on your feet, and I just want 
to keep contact.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I just want to say that I think one of the things that 
we sort of recognize and are very proud of as Americans is that we have 
always revered our system of higher education and that we have always 
understood that people's ability to access education is part of, for 
many young people, the way they help to realize the American Dream for 
themselves and their families. We've always prided ourselves as a 
democracy on this mobility: that no matter who you are, if you want to 
and if you work hard enough, you can go to college and you can afford 
to, and then you can build a better life for yourself and your family. 
This mobility is really a key part of the American success story.
  I read recently a piece in The Times about our living in a time now 
when that mobility is really being threatened, and college access is 
part of that challenge. If we are going to preserve the mobility that 
has made this democracy so strong and so great, we have to be sure we 
protect access to higher education for the young people who are 
pursuing it.
  It's not only that it's going to be this incredible hardship on 
families, but we're going to be crushing the dreams of many young 
people. As you said, as they're getting these decisions in the mail, 
some young people are going to have to decide, you know, I can't go to 
the college of my choice. I can't pursue this dream I have because I'm 
not going to be able to afford to pay back these loans at these 
interest rates.
  We're going to be crushing the dreams of young people. As you said, 
we can fix it. This is easy. This is something we can do by 
congressional action, and we should do it. We shouldn't wait 73 days. I 
was always taught--I think we were all taught--that education is the 
key. I come from a State that understands that. As I said, it's the 
home of Senator Pell. We understood education to be the key to success 
as well as the access to education for our own futures and the futures 
of young people. We've got to fix it. This is wrong. It's going to hurt 
families. It's going to hurt our economy. We've got to take action.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I want to pick up on a couple of points but 
certainly on the point, Congressman Courtney, that you made with 
respect to students who are making decisions right now. I mean, they 
were notified of their acceptances between April 1 and April 15, and 
they've got to respond to the colleges that accepted them between May 1 
and May 15.

                              {time}  1840

  They are making life-altering decisions right now. And we here in the 
Congress, I believe, have an obligation to give them the information 
they need to have in order to make informed decisions. If they're going 
to have a significant additional repayment burden upon graduation, 
that's going to affect their decisions. If a student has excelled and 
worked hard and gotten into the college of his or her choice, for them 
not to be able to accept that offer of admission in part because we 
haven't given them the information that they need, that's 
unconscionable.
  The other point I would make is that governing is about choosing. 
What we're talking about here is an increase of $550 a year over the 
life of a 20-year repayment for 7.5 million students. If anyone walked 
into this Chamber and proposed a $550 tax increase on an annual basis 
for 7.5 million people, our friends on the other side of the aisle 
wouldn't discuss it, wouldn't hear it at all, and yet they are willing 
to sit silently by while we're going to impose that very kind of 
payment increase on 7.5 million students.
  The last point I would make is that there is this myth that increased 
availability of student financial aid drives up college costs, and it 
is one of the arguments that is made. When people argue for reducing 
access to student aid, they say that if we reduce access to student 
aid, college costs will at least moderate, if not come down, because 
that is what is allowing administrators to raise prices. It is a myth 
that has absolutely no basis in fact. It is insidious, and it is 
damaging because it drives the kind of decisionmaking or priority-
making that we're seeing here in this move to reduce Pell, this move to 
increase student loan rates.
  The principal driver of student costs right now is diminished support 
from State and local government. We are funding public higher 
education, per FTE, at the lowest level we have funded it in 25 years. 
That's what's driving college costs. Seventy percent of the students in 
this country go to publicly supported colleges. Publicly supported 
colleges are increasing at a rate of 8\1/2\ to 9 percent a year because 
the funding for FTE from the State government or from local government, 
in the case of community colleges, is going down. That's what is 
driving costs. If our response to that increased need is to say that's 
not bad enough, we're going to make it even worse, we're going to take 
away Pell, and we're going to make your student loans much more 
expensive, we're going to rue the day we did that because 5 years from 
now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now we're not going to have the 
educated workforce we need to have to drive this country forward.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Just for our viewers, FTE is an acronym.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Full-time equivalent student.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Again, a true college administrator.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Courtney, I was just wondering. You talked about 
how the interest rate was cut in half by the prior Congress, which was 
obviously very important for young people and for families, and how the 
Stafford Act was created and named after Republicans. So this was done 
in a bipartisan way, which reminds me that I just finished reading a 
book called ``An Uncommon Man'' about Senator Pell. In fact, it 
recounted some of the bipartisanship that existed. I'm wondering what 
your sense of it is. Why was it that access to higher education seemed 
to enjoy bipartisan support as recently as a year or two ago when the 
rate was cut? Certainly the importance of higher education and access 
to college remains urgent and important. The economy has become more 
competitive, not less. So what has caused this sort of willingness of 
my friends on the other side of the aisle to turn their backs on young 
people? What do you think has changed?
  Mr. COURTNEY. Congressman Bishop was around before the 2006 election 
and was there when we passed the 2007 College Cost Reduction Act. I 
believe, frankly, that it is because there was an unprecedented boost 
in involvement by young people. The 18- to 29-year-old voter turnout in 
2006 was a historic high for a midterm election. Frankly, it did slip 
in the last cycle.
  When I'm out at the University of Connecticut or other State 
universities

[[Page 5144]]

in higher education, I tell that story about how in 2006, the issue of 
higher education was front and center. It was an issue that was a 
national issue in the 2006 campaign that we put forward to cut the 
interest rate. And frankly, I think the power of that issue and the 
message of that election from young voters turning out in record 
numbers basically kind of shook this place up, and people recognized 
that they've got to start doing something for higher education. I think 
in 2010, there was a bit of a slip and this issue kind of lost focus.
  Again, I think as we get closer to this incredible doubling of 
interest rates on July 1--when I talk to people back home when I've 
done a number of events like you and others have, people greet that 
with absolute disbelief because they know how mortgage interest rates 
are, they see what banks are getting from the Federal Reserve, they see 
what the Treasury bonds are selling for. To say that this one segment 
of the economy--college students--is going to have a 6.8 percent rate 
in terms of a loan program is totally unacceptable. That's why, I 
think, this event we're doing here this evening--and certainly the 
efforts from PIRG with 130,000 petition signatures--is a way, again, 
that we can shake this place up again and avoid this catastrophe.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I would absolutely agree.
  I would also observe that when we passed it for 3.4 percent, it was 
at a time when this Congress was less racked by the partisan antipathy, 
frankly, that seems to have taken over our Congress. This is an example 
of that. We have just lived through the last several weeks of perhaps 
the greatest example of that. We've taken something that historically 
has sailed through this Congress on a bipartisan basis with little or 
no objection--the surface transportation bill--and we have been unable 
to pass the surface transportation bill in this House. It's an 
embarrassment.
  In 2004, I believe it was, or 2005, we passed a surface 
transportation bill written by Chairman Don Young, Republican of 
Alaska. It was a very good bill. We passed it with, I think, 30 
dissenting votes. And it was written with bipartisan involvement and 
bipartisan support. That's gone away. I think when we were able to pass 
the legislation that did the student loan reduction in interest, we had 
bipartisan support, we had bipartisan involvement. And I hope perhaps 
this is the issue around which we can coalesce and bring it back, bring 
back that kind of bipartisan cooperation.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I hope that what you're speaking about, kind of the 
young people of our country, not just the students, but the families of 
students who are affected--I was at a Portuguese social club recently, 
and a woman constituent of mine, a single mom, said, I have three 
children, and this question of what's going to happen to student loans 
and whether or not their interest rate is going to go up is important.
  This is an issue not just for the students but for the whole family. 
I'm hoping that young people and families who are affected by this 
issue, which are obviously millions of Americans, will reach out to 
their Members of Congress and be sure their voices are being heard in 
this discussion because, I think, that's our only hope that there be 
sort of a national movement. I know U.S. PIRG is helping to really 
bring pressure on our Speaker and on our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle to take the legislative action that will correct this.
  The point we have to really underscore is it's not just for the 
student; it's for the sake of our country. Our young people are 
competing not just with a person in Connecticut or New York; they are 
competing with people all over the world in an increasingly global and 
competitive economy. We owe it to them to ensure that they have access 
to the best quality education we can provide. The interest rate 
doubling on their loans is clearly an impediment to that. We owe it to 
them, but we owe it to ourselves as a country.
  So I thank you again.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. If I may just pick up on that point.
  In President Obama's State of the Union address of January 2011, he 
said that in order for us to win the 21st century, we have to out-build 
the rest of the world, we have to out-innovate the rest of the world, 
and we have to out-educate the rest of the world. The innovation piece 
and the education piece is all about access to higher education.
  This is about our future competitiveness. This is about our future 
economic stability and economic security. It's about filling the jobs 
that the economy of the 21st century is going to create. The economy of 
the 21st century is going to create jobs that require postsecondary 
training. If we make it more difficult for students to access that 
training, those jobs are going to go unfilled, and our economy is going 
to continue to struggle.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I can give a local example of an employer in our area, 
which Mr. Cicilline knows well--and so do you, Tim--which is Electric 
Boat, which has a new design project where they're going to be hiring 
about 300-plus new engineers and draftsmen.

                              {time}  1850

  They are scouring the countryside trying to find mechanical 
engineers. Again, these are high-value jobs. The fact of the matter is 
that it's a struggle out there to get these folks with hard science 
degrees for, again, really good openings that exist in our economy 
right now. They're going to get there. There is no question that's 
going to happen.
  The fact of the matter is that opportunities like that are going to 
definitely continue to grow as this economy heals and recovers. We want 
to make sure these young people, again, have not been discouraged from 
having that chance to take hold of that opportunity when that time 
comes because of really just the indifference of this body to deal with 
an issue which, again, just goes to the heart of creating opportunity.
  This chart, sadly, when we started it, it was 75 days when the rate 
was going to go up. Obviously, yesterday, it was 74, today is 73. We 
are going to continue to make sure that this countdown clock is front 
and center before the people of this country so that they know that 
here in this body we have control of this issue, direct control of this 
issue. Many other issues are so complex and affect a small part of the 
economy and the country. This is a broad-based issue that affects 8 
million college students across America that we have a set deadline. 
Either we do it or we don't and, again, this colloquy this evening, 
again, I think is going to be part of the effort to build the noise to 
make sure that we do it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I couldn't agree more. Again, I want to 
commend you for your leadership first in filing the bill, generating 
over 100 cosponsors that the bill has, organizing this Special Order 
tonight. This is a very, very important effort.
  One last thing I will say. I will say to the students of America, 
what I have found is the most compelling effort of advocacy that 
individuals can put forward is to put a human face on the consequences 
of our failure to act. If the students all across this country could 
make their Members of Congress aware of what this is going to mean for 
them, both in terms of their repayment and the future students in terms 
of the choices they are going to have to make, I think the decision we 
need to make will become a lot easier for many of our colleagues to 
make.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I too want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut, 
and I hope that we will all do everything we can to keep this issue 
alive over the next 73 days. As you said, Joe, it's not something that 
has a complicated answer. We can fix it.
  You have introduced the legislation. Many of us have cosponsored it 
to fix this problem. I think the more Members of Congress and our 
colleagues hear from young people and their families about the real-
life impact in the coming week in Rhode Island, we are going to 
organize an event around this and with young people and their families 
to really put a human face on what

[[Page 5145]]

the consequences of the doubling of these Stafford loans would be, what 
the impact would be for families.
  If everyone does that, the voices of young people and their families 
have to be heard and represented in this Chamber. I really want to 
salute you for your extraordinary leadership and leading the charge 
tonight, but also being a leader in our country on this issue.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Well, again, I think you are going to have a really 
powerful event when you do that. Again, I think the media who have been 
covering this issue, in many instances they either have children in 
college or they themselves are still carrying student-loan debt. This 
issue touches really just a huge cross-section of the country.
  To say and to point out the fact which, again, a lot of people aren't 
aware of, interest rates are going to double on July 1 from 3.4 percent 
to 6.8 percent unless Congress acts. Again, it is something that people 
just can't even comprehend the fact that at this moment in the economy, 
when interest rates are so much lower across the board, that this one 
segment, college students, particularly entering college students, kids 
who are in high school today, frankly, have almost as much, if not 
more, at stake than kids who are presently enrolled in college to make 
sure that this place hears their voices and listens and, most 
importantly, acts to avoid this totally unwarranted increase in college 
borrowing costs from a program which has a proud bipartisan history. 
Thank you both for joining me here this evening.
  I look forward to getting a bill signing soon to protect these 
interest rates.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________