[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5898-5917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      INTEREST RATE REDUCTION ACT

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4628) to extend student loan interest rates for 
undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 631, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4628

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Interest Rate Reduction 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE EXTENSION.

       Subparagraph (D) of section 455(b)(7) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)(D)) is amended--

[[Page 5899]]

       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''; and
       (2) in clause (v), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2013''.

     SEC. 3. REPEALING PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u-11) is repealed.
       (b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made 
     available by such section 4002, the unobligated balance is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4628.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when I talk to students and families, it's clear that 
today's economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it 
once did. Our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are 
moving back home after college only to find Washington's tax-and-spend 
policies have made it even harder to find a job. In fact, according to 
a recent Associated Press report, at least half of recent graduates are 
unemployed or underemployed. That's unacceptable.
  Under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only 
gets worse as interest rates on subsidized Stafford student loans are 
set to spike from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 of this year. 
That's why I've introduced H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, 
a bill that would avert this interest rate increase, because the last 
thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it that 
much harder to afford a high-quality education. Unfortunately, that's 
exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in 
a bipartisan way to pay for this critical interest rate fix.
  Under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is 
offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the 
President earlier this year. Just 3 months ago, Members on both sides 
of the aisle came together and the President signed a bill that 
extended unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut.
  The legislation I offer today would use, as an offset, the exact same 
source that we all agreed to use just 3 months ago. The bill would 
eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called Prevention and 
Public Health Fund, which, in truth, is nothing more than an open-ended 
fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. At best, this fund serves 
only to circumvent Congress's annual appropriations responsibilities by 
granting, in perpetuity, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the 
loose label of prevention programs.
  I should note that the President, himself, acknowledged that the 
prevention fund is bloated when he requested a $4 billion cut to the 
program in his FY13 budget. By reclaiming a portion of the 
administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of 
this blank-check program, my legislation would extend lower rates for 
college loans, granting relief to our young people without raising 
taxes on their potential employers.
  It is a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. I ask my 
colleagues to step forward today and show the American people that we 
can solve this problem immediately, without the drama of a last-minute, 
on-deadline fix.

                              {time}  1020

  It is my hope that our colleagues in the Senate as well will work 
with us to send it to the President immediately.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Interest Rate 
Reduction Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it's nice to have our Republican friends finally agree 
that the interest rates would be a problem if they rise and double.
  Since 2007, when the rates were first reduced when the Democrats were 
in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the Republican 
side--resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. And not until 
recently, when the profile of this issue had been raised to a degree 
where students and families started to really get involved and engaged, 
did our friends on the other side of the aisle finally decide that, 
well, they now don't want the rates to go up either. But cynically, 
some might say, the only way they can find to pay for it is to attack 
women's health and children's health.
  Now, women don't want this bill that way. Children and students don't 
want the bill this way. Labor doesn't want the bill this way. Public 
health groups don't want the bill this way. The Senate has said that 
they won't accept the bill this way; it's dead on arrival. And the 
White House senior staff says they'll advise the President to veto the 
bill this way.
  If we really want to set aside partisanship and do this, let's pick a 
pay-for that the American people can get behind and that we can all 
agree on. Let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games, and 
let's do the right thing. Let's make sure the interest rates stay at 
3.4 percent. Let's make sure that 177,000 students in Massachusetts and 
7 million nationwide have affordable access to college and are able to 
pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. Let's 
start doing the right thing.
  Last week, our Republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge 
fund managers in a tax cut, to give to Donald Trump in his Trump Towers 
leasing company, to give to other people that already had millions of 
dollars and didn't pay for it. This week, they finally get brought 
around to the issue of trying to help students and come up with this 
cynical aspect of paying for it by, once again, attacking women's 
health, in this case adding children on--children's immunizations, 
women's screenings for breast and cervical cancer and birth defects. 
This is insidious. This is ridiculous on this. And we should move 
forward and do the right thing.
  The fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little 
bit the last time, as the Speaker mentioned, but left largely intact. 
This one would wipe out the entire fund, twice the amount of money 
necessary in order to fund what they're purporting to do because they 
are ideologically going after the health care bill.
  We need to make sure that women's health care and children's health 
care is protected. We need to make sure the interest rates stay low. We 
are certain we can do that. It won't be done by doing it this way. And 
Members in the Senate will have to work in conference to make sure that 
we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense, and it's something we 
can do. There's 250 tax expenditures in the Tax Code, 250--$1.3 
trillion. We can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction 
here and do it in a way that all of America can get behind and both 
parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this 
direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the 
gentleman from Massachusetts that we also are for prevention, but we 
have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of what we do, and 
not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person when there is 
no oversight by Congress.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.

[[Page 5900]]

Walberg), a member of our Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, just a bit of a history lesson. We hear a lot of 
demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land 
about the unwillingness of Republicans to help our college students 
receive the education that they need by having the loans that they 
deserve.
  Going back to 2006, as part of the Democrats' Six for '06 campaign 
agenda, the Democrats promised to cut student loan interest in half. 
When they took the majority--and I sat on the House Education and Labor 
Committee at the time--they gained control of Congress, all of a sudden 
they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do. So they 
put in place, against our opposition, saying that the private sector 
still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it 
fluctuate and flow in a variable rate with the market, ultimately 
reducing the overall cost of interest over the course of time for our 
students. They chose not to do that. They put in place the plan that we 
have right now, a Democrat plan that said, in fact, we will go to 6.8 
percent in July of 2012 after dropping it back because they knew they 
couldn't afford it. They did it in a short-term process. And 
ultimately, it has come to fruition now that we are at a cost problem 
and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. It is 
their plan that we're dealing with. It is their mess that we're asked 
to fix at this point in time.
  The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally reduced to 
the 3.4 percent that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place 
of what we're looking at. As the expiration date crept closer, 
Democrats did nothing in the 111th Congress, despite knowing that this 
would take place, and now we have a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation 
garb. On top of one of the mortarboards it says: ``Hire me.'' That's 
the issue we're talking about: an economy that doesn't offer jobs. And 
so what we ought to be looking at here is growing an economy, not an 
ObamaCare fix that is ending up costing these loan programs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady.
  We ought to be looking at ways for growing an economy that gives the 
opportunity for students to know that they will have a job, that they 
can pay off loans at whatever rate it will be. There is a much better 
way than doing what has been done. We ought to be growing an economy 
for job providers, as opposed to what the Senate sent over to us, their 
solution: to whack at more job providers and make it more difficult to 
provide stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply 
the opportunity to be hired.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that in 2007, the 
bill was paid for. In fact, it was paid for, and 77 members of the 
Republican Party agreed as well. Now it is time to pay for it in an 
intelligent and correct manner.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I understand the fix that the Republicans are in after just over a 
week ago almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4 percent 
interest rate to students, and in adopting the Ryan Republican budget, 
agreeing to let it go out to 6.8 percent. In fact, they use that to pay 
for the tax cuts for the wealthy they anticipate in their budget. So 
they took students' money, and the families and the savings that they 
were made out of--almost $16 billion over the last 4 years--and they 
said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, and 
we assume that the rates will go to 6.8 percent. President Obama went 
on the road for 3 days, and all of a sudden Republicans have decided 
that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent.
  You can say all of this is cynical, and I believe it is on their 
part, because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack 
women's health. They see their position of being for student loans 
gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for 
women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer, to 
attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants 
for birth defects, to take away the ability to make sure that young 
people have the immunizations they need when they start school. So now, 
under the cover of being for student loans, they now are attacking 
women's health in the most cynical fashion.
  But you know, every now and then in this place--where it's terribly 
partisan; it can be very cynical, as we see with this action today with 
this bill--a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness 
and understanding. We see today that we have statements by almost all 
of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate 
kept at 3.4 percent, but we do not want it kept at that rate at the 
risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parents' health, 
our mothers' health, our sisters' health, our friends' health.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So we should understand that these 
students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask 
for a timeout and they say find another way to pay for this.
  But don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants. 
Don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease.
  Don't do it at the risk of young women and older women being screened 
for breast cancer and cervical cancer, where the difference can mean 
life or death for those women. Don't attack and abolish and repeal 
women's health on the backs of our students. Don't do it in our name. 
In our name, don't do this legislation.
  Vote ``no'' against this. We'll find another way to do this, but 
don't do this in the name of students. That's what they've asked with 
their opposition to this legislation.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Illinois for recognizing me.
  There's little disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over 
the need to extend the subsidized interest rates for student loans for 
at least another year. Student loan debt now in America exceeds $1 
trillion which, I believe, is more than the entire Nation's credit card 
debt. It's a very serious national priority that needs to be addressed, 
and it should be resolved in a bipartisan fashion.
  As you can tell from the tenor of the debate this morning, it has 
been reduced to the issue of how we are going to come up with the money 
to pay for this. First of all, I think it's a miracle that we're even 
debating that because the prior administration in this Congress 
wouldn't have even brought the subject up of how to pay for it.
  At least the Democrats now want to pay for it by raising prices on 
gasoline through higher taxes on oil companies. And I believe that 
taxation of oil companies should be on the table in tax reform, not on 
an education bill.
  We have a proposal that would reduce the funding in the prevention 
and public health fund account, and of course our friends on the other 
side of the aisle are right on message, on the national message, of 
tying everything that Republicans want to do to be some sort of a 
battle against women.
  Let me just point out that I believe there's already about $119 
million in FY 2011 for the CDC's breast and cervical cancer early 
detection program. And I know my friend from Illinois will probably 
enumerate on this even further.
  I would point out that the program, or the fund, that the Democrats 
are trying to protect actually is providing money for early detection, 
but it's for

[[Page 5901]]

free spaying and neutering for dogs and cats around the country. This 
money comes out of the Communities Putting Prevention to Work campaign, 
and that's receiving money from this Health and Human Services 
Secretary slush fund.
  I would also point out to my friends that this fund has already been 
reduced in order to pay for the payroll tax reduction, so it's not 
setting any kind of a precedent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I would suggest that a fund that's funded 
at $17.75 billion for the first 10 years, and then automatically 
advance-appropriated for $2 billion a year after that, I've never heard 
of that in the Congress. That means that we are turning over our 
authority to raise and appropriate money to the tune of $2 billion a 
year to the Health and Human Services Secretary with no oversight from 
Congress at all.
  I want student loans to remain at their lower rate, and I want to do 
it in a fiscally responsible fashion; and that's what this bill does.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to 
address the fact that the elimination of the fund would mean that on an 
annual basis, 326,000 fewer women would be screened for breast cancer.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. I want to just, first of all, 
begin by recognizing your leadership and, particularly, George Miller's 
leadership back in 2007 when we passed the College Cost Reduction Act 
which reduced an interest rate of 6.8 percent, which was set as a 
result of a Republican Congress in 2002 which passed a Budget 
Reconciliation Act locking in that higher rate.
  The College Cost Reduction Act has saved 15 million students in this 
country higher debt levels because we cut that rate to 3.4 percent. 
Sadly, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, voted against that 
measure. Sadly, my good friend from Minnesota, the chairman of the 
House Education and Workforce Committee, voted against that measure in 
2007.
  It was well understood that it had a 5-year sunset, like a lot of 
programs and tax policies in this Congress. People were complaining 
about the cliff we created.
  Well, how about the Bush tax cuts? That's got a $4 trillion cliff on 
December 31 because the majority party, when they enacted the Bush tax 
cuts, sunset that measure.
  So here we are today, 64 days away from the rates doubling, and we're 
now suddenly seeing the majority party get religion on this subject. As 
Mr. Miller pointed out a minute-or-so ago, in fact, the Ryan budget, 
which the Republicans lined up as a party to pass two or three weeks 
ago, locked in the higher rate at 6.8 percent for 2013. That was built 
into the Ryan budget.
  In addition, it doubled down on higher education affordability by 
cutting the Pell Grant award from $6,000 to $5,000. That is the 
Republican higher education platform.
  But, thankfully, we have a President who stood on that platform on 
January 24 and challenged this Congress to protect that lower rate. And 
because we did not get a hearing, we didn't get a bill, we didn't get a 
markup, we got no flicker of action by the leadership of this Chamber, 
he went on the road and talked to the people of this country, like 
Presidents before him, like Harry Truman and others, because that was 
the only way you were going to turn this body around was with external 
pressure to make sure that middle class families knew what the heck was 
going on, which was nothing.
  I started this countdown clock at 110 days when we were waiting for 
this debt level to go up, and there was a reason for that, because 
130,000 petition signatures were dropped off at the Speaker's office at 
day 110, and we heard nothing from that date when, again, overwhelming 
college campus signatures arrived at this Congress. And now today we're 
down to day 64. They're feeling the political heat.
  Good for you, Mr. President, for raising this issue and forcing this 
body to address one of the biggest challenges our Nation faces. And yet 
they come up with a pay-for that is a disgraceful, grotesque pay-for 
that goes after women and children in the name of protecting student 
loans.
  As Mr. Miller said, thank goodness the student leaders who have been 
leading the fight to protect this lower rate have stood up and said no 
way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, that's all I need.
  And I would just say that the President responded to that call a few 
minutes ago by indicating that this measure is dead. It will be vetoed. 
It's not going anywhere.
  Let's get back to work and come up with a real fix and solve this 
crisis for the American people.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentleman 
from Connecticut that he was one of 147 Members on that side of the 
aisle voting for taking money out of the privatization protection for 
health care.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), our 
esteemed chairman of the Education Committee.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time, 
and for introducing this legislation.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. We 
seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that 
we've got an economy in shambles. We've got an unemployment rate above 
8 percent now for over 3 years. We've got college graduates who 
graduate from college and can't get a job--half of them can't get a job 
or get the right job. They're underemployed or unemployed.
  And we've got, by law, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford 
student loans going from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, by law, a law 
drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  It was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this 
was going to happen. We were going to get to the point where interest 
rates were going to double. Nevertheless, it's the law.
  And so what do we do about it?
  It seems to me--and I think that we get some agreement on this--we 
ought to have a long-term fix so we're not doing this again next year 
and the next year and the next year, making a political decision. We 
need a long-term fix.

                              {time}  1040

  So, today, we're trying to step up and address the immediate concerns 
of our students, our graduates, as they go into this shaky economy. So 
we're moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4 
percent for 1 more year.
  I look at this as the opportunity for us to then get together and 
make a long-term fix, a fix that is much more driven by the market 
rather than the politics of the day or by an election year. We need a 
long-term fix. This is going to give us the opportunity to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KLINE. There has been a lot of discussion here about the pay-for, 
and the words ``cynical'' and ``cynicism'' have been used. We have got 
proposals from the other side of the aisle, from our friends in the 
Senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very 
time when our economy is in such trouble. Then there are other 
proposals that say let's tax oil companies, let's drive up the price of 
gas.
  You can talk about cynicism. What we're talking about is using a 
slush fund that is provided to the Secretary to spend as she sees fit, 
and that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. What a surprise in 
this election year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KLINE. There are multiple sources of funding of programs that

[[Page 5902]]

can address women's needs. I think it is cynical to suggest that we are 
somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that 
has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly given.
  The President himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the 
slush fund. This is the way to go. Let's address the immediate needs of 
our students and then work together on a long-term solution.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' long-term fix, of course, 
was voted on a couple of weeks ago in their budget which allowed for 
the rates to go up to 6.8 percent and took away the in-school subsidy 
for interest rates, driving students' costs even further up. That's why 
we're here today.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. A college student sits in the financial aid office 
worried about her interest rate doubling on July 1. A woman sits in the 
waiting room of the health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. A 
corporate executive sits in a boardroom of an oil company waiting to 
get his tax break from the Federal Government.
  Everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid 
the loan increase. The bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the 
interest rate increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic 
and deny her the cancer screening. We say the way to do it is to go to 
the corporate executive in the oil company boardroom and deny him his 
tax giveaway from the Federal Treasury.
  The way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down 
health for the women of this country. The way to pay for it is to shut 
down the giveaway of taxpayer dollars to the oil industry of this 
country. That's the way to fix the problem, and that's the way we 
eventually will.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Buerkle).
  Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote on a 
bipartisan initiative that will save our country's future leaders 
billions of dollars. Economists have resoundingly predicted that a 
student loan crisis may soon send America's fragile economic sector 
into shambles if it is not soon addressed.
  The New York Federal Reserve has reported that student loans are the 
leading cause of this debt, with $870 billion last month alone. This 
tops even credit card debt.
  My friend in Illinois has proposed a commonsense solution to halt an 
increase in Federal loan rates that everyone agrees is needless.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I must say to you, I was stunned to hear that 
leaders on the other side of our aisle, our good friends on the other 
side, were attempting to take this issue hostage. Our sons' and 
daughters' pursuits have been hijacked for political gamesmanship.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, the fund which is offsetting this 
looming rate hike is nothing more than a slush fund. The HHS Secretary 
has authority to use it without congressional discretion. It was yet 
another allowance given to an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat to be 
used on things such as bike paths, jungle gyms, and worse yet, lobbying 
efforts.
  I am a woman who has worked for years as a women's health care 
practitioner, and on behalf of women's health care patients, I will 
tell you, for the other side, Mr. Speaker, to manipulate this issue 
does nothing to advance women's interests, but in fact demeans the 
accomplishments made in women's health over the past decades.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues who are playing games with this 
critical issue to grow up. This is not kindergarten. This is the 
reality of crushing college costs. This bill will help our future by 
making colleges more affordable by leaving them with a country that is 
not inundated in debt.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Before yielding further, I'm going to take 15 seconds 
and yield that to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, this supposed slush fund the people are talking about is 
a fund identified and given Appropriations Committee authority to 
designate where it would be spent. That authority was advocated by our 
friends on the other side, and the Secretary has in fact specified 
every year where the money be spent: $326,000 in screenings for breast 
cancer; $284,000 for cervical cancer screenings; $10,000 for breast and 
cervical cancer; and so on down the line.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader of 
the House from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation 
to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in July, 
and to pay for that by cutting the subsidies to Big Oil instead of, as 
the Republicans do, continuing their all-out assault on women's health.
  So much of the time that we spend on this floor seems completely 
irrelevant to America's working families as they're struggling to make 
ends meet. Imagine them around their kitchen tables as we talk about 
this, that, and the other thing that seems disconnected from their 
emergency and urgent needs. What we're talking about today directly 
relates to what keeps people up at night: their economic security, the 
education of their children, the health of their families. The list 
goes on. Some of those are addressed in this legislation.
  I think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and 
that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next 
generation, the education of our children.
  Imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family, as we 
are, and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college, we're 
not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're 
not going to be able to have preventative care in terms of screening 
for breast cancer, cervical cancer--the list goes on and on--for your 
mom or any other preventative care for men and women in your family. It 
just would be wrong.
  Who are we as a Nation, if that's a statement of our values, to 
choose between the education of your children and the health of your 
family? It is just not right. Especially when you have a situation 
where we had this fight over and over again.
  But let me put it in context. In 2007, the Democratic majority in the 
House, working in a bipartisan fashion with our Republican colleagues, 
passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rate to 3.4 percent. We 
were very proud of that legislation passing with 77 members of the 
Republican Party voting with the Democratic majority. The bill was 
signed by then-President George W. Bush, and we all celebrated that 
legislation.

                              {time}  1050

  That is expiring in July, and if no action is taken, those interest 
rates of 3.4 will go back to the level of 6.8 percent. We had been 
making that argument over and over again, which is that in our 
budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way 
that enables them to acquire a higher education should they desire and 
be qualified to do so and if that is in their interests and in their 
families' priorities.
  Republicans have grown impatient, they've said, with hearing about 
student loans--don't look at us--until the President went to the public 
and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on 
here, which is that in the Republican budget--the Ryan-Republican-Tea 
Party budget--it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. In the 
House Democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4 percent--a 
big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table and if you have 
a college-aged child.
  It's about the children and the debts they incur. It's about the 
families and the parents and the debts that their families incur. 
Because the President took the issue to the American people, he made 
the issue too hot to handle, so the Republicans this week are doing an 
about-face for what they did last week, to vote overwhelmingly for 
their budget, which now has enabled the interest rates on student 
loans, the Stafford loans, to double. An about-face.

[[Page 5903]]

  But what did they do? They said, Okay, we won't allow it to double, 
but we're going to take the money from women's health.
  It should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing 
assault on women's health. This is in their budget, and this is just a 
continuation of that; but I think it's important to note the following: 
that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money 
that would cover the cost of keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent; 
they say, while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. Let's 
eliminate the entire fund for the prevention, for the immunization, for 
the screening, and for the rest--for the CDC to do its public health 
work. Let's eliminate it.
  So that should tell you something about where their priorities are if 
they're saying, We stand here, once again, handmaidens of the oil 
industry, protecting subsidies for Big Oil, and instead we want Mom and 
the children to pay the price with their health. It's just not right. 
It's just not right. The President made it clear to the public the 
difference in our approaches on the student loan issue. Now he has made 
it clear that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for.
  Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground in a way to pay for 
this critical policy, the Statement of Administration Policy says:

       This bill includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and 
     Public Health Fund, which was created to help prevent 
     disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they 
     become severe. Women, in particular, will benefit from this 
     prevention fund, which would provide for hundreds of 
     thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer.

  This is already happening. This would have to stop under this bill. 
So let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated 
population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillments, 
whatever they decide those are; so we can be competitive in the world 
market; so we can have an informed electorate in the spirit of the GI 
Bill, which educated our soldiers when they came home and created a 
middle class in our country, which is the backbone of our democracy. In 
a global economy, it is even more necessary for us to be able to have 
the skills and trained workforce to compete.
  Let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the Treasury 
than the education of the American people. Whether it's early 
childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning--nothing 
brings more money to the Treasury. So it would be a false economy to 
deter people from seeking more education. It's also adding insult to 
injury to say, now that we've finally had to fold on the issue and 
agree with the Democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4 
instead of doubling them to 6.8, we're going to put women and children 
first as those who will pay for that. It's just not right.
  I congratulate the President for his message to the American people 
and for the message of his administration in his Statement of 
Administration Policy that a veto would be recommended. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairwoman, and I thank the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Kline.
  I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill, but in strong support of 
the committee and the work that they're doing.
  We got caught up in politics again today. It makes me so angry. I'm 
so angry I could spit. I'm trying to bring my blood pressure down over 
here as a freshman, remember, because I came here for results. I am the 
keynote speaker tonight for the Georgia College Republicans' statewide 
convention, and I'm going to go down there and proudly tell them that I 
voted ``no'' on this bill today that is pandering to their interests, 
not because I don't like young people in education, but because I love 
young people in education.
  Every time we come to this floor and talk about how proud we are that 
we're paying for a piece of legislation, every oil industry tax you 
want to raise and every millionaire tax you rant to raise, those could 
be paying down the deficit that we're borrowing from these young people 
that you purport to support here today. With every new piece of 
ObamaCare that we want to abolish and that should be abolished, we 
could put that money towards reducing the over $1 trillion a year we're 
borrowing and asking our young people to pay back.
  But let me tell you, as a conservative Republican, I am not 
embarrassed of what we do to serve our young people. Congratulations on 
our subsidies for our young people. We've now driven our student loan 
debt higher than the credit card debt in this country. Congratulations. 
Congratulations that we now have a 3.4 percent interest rate so that 
the one out of two young people who comes out of college and can't find 
a job can default on those loans at a lower rate instead of at a higher 
rate. Congratulations. What about focusing on the jobs? What about 
focusing on our children's futures? What about focusing on the better 
tomorrow that we owe to these young people?
  There is a choice of two futures here. The committee, as everyone in 
this House knows, is working on a permanent solution. We subsidize 
student loans today with a Federal Government guarantee for below-
market interest rates; 6.8, that's a below-market interest rate. We 
subsidize student loans today with an above-the-line deduction on the 
1040. Everybody can take that today, already today; and here we are in 
the midst of the largest economic crisis in our Nation's history, 
saying, once again, let's spend the money instead of putting the money 
towards these children's futures.
  There is no free lunch in this town. Every single penny that we spend 
we're spending from them. You're not subsidizing these people. You're 
asking them to pay more with interest in their futures. In graduating 
from college, one out of two kids can't find a job. Student loans are 
higher than credit card loans for the first time in American history. 
Are we headed in the right direction, or are we headed in the wrong 
direction?
  I say focus on what this Committee on Education and the Workforce is 
doing. Look at what they are doing for a permanent fix to provide 
certainty. This is another short-term fix. I know my colleagues on the 
left and on the right are trying their best to do what they believe in 
their hearts is going to serve our young people, but short-term fixes 
are not the answer. There is a better answer, and it's coming from the 
committee later on this year. I hope my colleagues will oppose this 
bill today and will support that bill coming forward.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Before I yield, I do want to correct the gentleman. 
There is somebody around here who gets a free lunch under your bill, 
and that would be the oil companies, which made $80 billion in profits 
last year.
  I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to robbing 
health and education to pay for oil.
  Baron Henry Brougham once said, ``Education makes a people easy to 
lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern but impossible to 
enslave.'' Education is at the cornerstone of our democracy, and 
college access and success are fundamental stepping stones toward 
economic security and global competitiveness. As policymakers, it is 
imperative that we support students in making college affordable so 
that our citizens can prosper. We face an immediate crisis in college 
costs. Without congressional action, interest rates will get out of the 
box pushing students and families in deeper debt.
  Yet, rather than setting forth a bipartisan solution to address the 
impending interest rate hike, the Republican leadership insists on 
waging a partisan war on the health of our nation by cutting six 
billion dollars from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The 
Prevention and Public Health Fund invests in state and local public 
health entities to address critical public health problems effectively 
from the front end, lowering health costs and benefitting over one 
hundred million Americans. I have been a strong proponent of prevention 
my entire adult life given its proven ability to improve

[[Page 5904]]

the quality of life for citizens with minimal financial investment. 
Indeed, proven community-based prevention programs yield an estimated 
return of $5.60 for every dollar invested. Since 2010, the state of 
Illinois has received $31 million from the Prevention Fund. I cannot 
support the loss of these funds.
  I do not understand the Republican position that decreasing access to 
women's health exams, children's immunizations, obesity programs, 
smoking cessation, and other proven health promotion programs by 
slashing prevention funding is better public policy than stopping 
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for oil companies with record 
profits. One policy approach benefits our society; the other benefits a 
handful of privileged corporations. Why should Republicans demand that 
the wealthiest oil companies that make tens of billions of dollars in 
profit receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies? With the 
price of a barrel of oil so high, there is no need to incentivize oil 
companies to produce oil. The billions of dollars of profit are 
incentive enough. Further, leading Senate Republicans have acknowledged 
that Big Oil doesn't need this incentive.
  I stand with the nearly 800 public health, prevention and other 
health and wellness advocates that strongly oppose repeal of this fund. 
Helping our nation's low and middle-income-students avoid deeper debt 
should not be contingent on eliminating funding for childhood 
immunizations and screening programs for breast and cervical cancer and 
birth defects. I support the extension of the interest rate reduction 
for student loans, but not at the expense of the health of our nation.
  Mr. TIERNEY. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
majority's faulty attempt to extend current student loan interest 
rates.
  The Ryan budget, which most of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle voted for, allowed those interest rates to expire. It was only 
when they started getting criticized by the press did they decide to 
offer an alternative to our proposal.

                              {time}  1100

  Even then, they took yet another shot at the health care law while 
keeping Big Oil subsidies intact.
  Mr. Speaker, this year, a mammogram has saved my wife's life. They 
have chosen the wrong priority. At the end of the day, the American 
people cannot afford to see their interest rates double on their 
student loans.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in 
offering a legitimate source of funding that doesn't put anyone's 
health in jeopardy. This Congress needs to find an equitable solution 
to this problem before July 1.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, banks offer car loans at a 3.99 percent interest rate. 
Banks also offer 30-year fixed mortgages on homes with an interest rate 
of 3.8 percent. Student loans are currently at 3.4 percent, but if we 
don't do something, it's going to jump to 6.8 percent.
  It seems to me Congress can handle this and do something about it. 
Recent reports show that 50 percent of recent graduates from college 
are unemployed or underemployed.
  I received an email from a Kingwood Park High School student today 
named Derek encouraging Congress to do a commonsense thing: to put the 
student loan rate at 3.4 percent. Why don't we do that?
  The student loan debt has reached a trillion dollars. Why would we 
want to strap students going into college with more debt by increasing 
the student loan rate in this current economic climate?
  You can get a car loan rate very low. In fact, you can get some car 
loans with 0 percent, but not so with students. Why is that? We should 
maintain low interest rates for student loans.
  Cars and homes are important, but students going to college are an 
investment in our future. Education is an important tool for our young 
people to be able to contribute to America's competitiveness worldwide. 
Also, the bill is paid for. Some of the money that's coming out of this 
unconstitutional health care mandate will go to deficit reduction.
  We need to support our students and encourage young people to go to 
college, not discourage them by increasing their student loan rates 
because of politics. This is a commonsense idea. Extend the student 
loan low interest rate, and we should do it today.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I just note that it was common sense about 
2 weeks ago and almost the entire Republican Party voted to let the 
rate go to 6.8 percent. It's nice to see that they've found some 
reality here.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Following up on my friend from Texas, I served on the Labor and 
Health Committee for 23 years. Bill Natcher from Kentucky used to say 
this: If you take care of the health of your people and invest in the 
education of your young people, you will continue to be the strongest 
and best Nation on the face of the Earth.
  I agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky then, and I agree with him 
now.
  Everybody says on this floor, although everybody didn't vote that 
way--Mr. Boehner voted against this reduction in interest rates; Mr. 
Cantor voted against this reduction in interest rates; and Mr. Kline 
voted in 2007 against this reduction in interest rates. What we are 
saying is we need to invest.
  We talk about subsidies. This isn't a subsidy. This is an investment 
in a better, stronger, more growing America. That's what this is. But 
what do we say? Natcher said, remember, if we take care of the health 
of our people. This undermines the health of our people. It takes away 
preventive assistance so that women, families, and children can get 
preventive care, which so many Republicans have said is a more 
efficient and effective cost-saving way to address the health of our 
country.
  Bill Natcher was right. Bill Natcher was a conservative Democrat from 
Kentucky who said, if you take care of the health of your people and 
educate your young people, you will be the strongest Nation on Earth.
  This bill goes in the wrong direction trying to do the right thing. 
Let us reject this bill, and if, in fact, you are for investing in our 
young people and bringing these interest rates down--which is so 
absolutely essential--then bring back a bill you know will pass, 
because you know this bill will not pass.
  The President has issued a statement of administration policy that 
says they will veto this bill because they do not want to undermine the 
health of women, family, and children while, at the same time, they 
want to invest in the college education for our country's young people 
and our future.
  Reject this bill. Bring back a new bill, the Courtney bill, which 
does, in fact, invest in our children and take care of the health of 
our people.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, as we've noted before, in February, 
Congress took action to stop a payroll tax increase on millions of 
working families and to ensure that the tax increase did not add to the 
deficit. The legislation cut $5 billion from the prevention fund, and 
the bill received the support of 149 House Democrats, including 
Democrat leaders such as Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Courtney. I 
guess that the Democrats were in favor of raiding the slush fund before 
they were against it.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. 
Roby), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4628, the 
Interest Rate Reduction Act.
  I had a nice prepared speech, but in sitting here listening to the 
debate, I really want to focus in on one specific issue. American 
students should not be fearful to attend college due to the crushing 
weight of student loans weighing them down after their graduation.
  But as is suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that this preventive care fund reduction would

[[Page 5905]]

deny access to individuals for these health care screenings, I had the 
privilege, Mr. Speaker, just yesterday to have a conversation with 
Secretary Sebelius directly as it relates to this fund. I asked her 
specifically: Madam Secretary, will the reduction in the preventive 
fund cause a child to be denied access to a health screening? And by 
her own admission, she said, ``Absolutely not.''
  As I listen to this debate and I hear the comments from my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, I'm actually dismayed to hear some of the 
things that are being said that, quite frankly, by the Secretary's own 
admission just, quite frankly, aren't true.
  I stand today in support of this bill.
  I want to also point out that by the Secretary's own admission as 
well, she acknowledged that, in fact, the President of the United 
States himself, in his own budget, put reductions to this fund.
  The Interest Rate Reduction Act will repeal the slush fund. The $5.9 
billion will be used to offset the cost of maintaining the 1-year 
extension as we move towards a meaningful response to our young people.
  Congress must put Washington politics aside and take action. And it 
is time to stop piecing together temporary solutions to the problems 
that exist in our student aid programs.
  I fully support the Interest Rate Reduction Act, and I encourage my 
colleagues to join me.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I note that I was at that education meeting 
and heard the Secretary say very quite clearly that no child who gets 
an immunization under this program will get an immunization under this 
program if the fund is eliminated. Mrs. Biggert, of course, analyzed 
the taking a little bit of the money and equating that with taking and 
wiping out the entire fund.
  With that said, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The cynicism of the debate today is why Congress is held in such low 
repute.
  We hear Republicans saying that the public health fund is a slush 
fund. This is a fund set up to keep us healthy, prevent diseases as 
long as possible, immunize our kids, provide mammography and PAP 
smears, services to women in need, to find birth defects early on, to 
help stop smoking. They call this a slush fund? They're not trying to 
reduce this fund; their proposal is to eliminate it. The argument from 
the other side of the aisle is we'll still get those services even if 
the fund is ended.
  I don't know where we're going to get those services if the fund is 
eliminated and appropriations are being squeezed down. Republicans call 
this a slush fund, but actually they are using it as a slush fund 
because they are using the fund to pay for this extension of student 
loan interest rates.

                              {time}  1110

  They also eliminated this fund so they could use it for their 
reconciliation package in order to make sure defense is adequately 
funded, to make sure that their tax cuts are kept in place. Now they're 
using it as a slush fund to fix the student loan issue and to drive 
their agenda.
  I find that very cynical. I find that, in fact, quite repulsive, and 
I hope we will reject this bill. We're all for, according to the 
debate, making sure that we maintain the current interest rate for the 
7.4 million students depending on these loans, but I don't find much 
sincerity when we see a proposal coming from the Republican majority to 
pay for that by cutting out preventive services.
  There's got to be a better way to do it. They're not looking for a 
better way.
  I urge people to vote against this bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague, and let me just say 
to the gentleman from California, who is just getting ready to leave 
the floor, when he mentioned that Republicans are going to prevent 
tobacco prevention of our youth today, he and I both know there is a 
separate program in CDC just for tobacco prevention and, in fact, in 
this so-called PPHF, which all of us have called a slush fund, which is 
the prevention and public health fund, there is, right now, $191.685 
million for this spending for tobacco prevention. After this bill 
passes, there would be $109 million still remaining in this for that 
smoking and health component of CDC.
  I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, 
I mean, you're yelling fire and there's no fire. I mean, I can go 
through all these things to show you that your arguments are wrong. The 
fact that Sebelius, the head of the Health and Human Services, has said 
publicly--as the gentlelady from Alabama so eloquently pointed out--
she, in fact, pointed out that this so-called slush fund is not going 
to impact what Mr. Hoyer says, dealing with women, families, and 
children.
  They bring up Rep. Wiliam Natcher. Well, Mr. Natcher says it's very 
noble, very good, and you constantly use that.
  But I'm just going to take you through these different areas where 
you say that it's going to be unable to provide support for families 
and women and children.
  Cancer prevention and control, which includes breast and cervical 
cancer screening, it's funded at $205 million in the FY 2012 budget. 
The FY13 budget goes up to $261 million. It goes up almost $60 million. 
No prevention funds are being used for free cancer screening, and they 
will not be affected.
  Let's take birth defects and developmental disabilities. In FY 2012, 
the CDC birth defects program was $138 million. It's now going to be 
$125 million. Again, these funds would continue to receive 
discretionary funding. Nutrition, physical activity and obesity 
activities, again, will continue to receive funding, viral hepatitis 
screening, CDC health care statistics and surveillance, and, lastly, 
prevention and research center. All of these things, I say to the folks 
on this side, are going to continue to receive base discretionary 
funding.
  I challenge you, the gentleman from Massachusetts, to point out where 
in each of the ones I have talked about, all these programs are going 
to remain in existence.
  So how in the world can you come down to the floor and constantly 
say----
  Mr. TIERNEY. Will the gentleman yield? That is an empty challenge.
  Mr. STEARNS. But the point is that you folks are not accurately 
portraying what this bill does, so I support H.R. 4628. I agree with 
Secretary Sebelius, the slush fund will not affect women, families, and 
children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have addressed my remarks to 
the Chair and taken the challenge if it had been anything other than an 
empty challenge and would have noted that Secretary Sebelius and the 
administration know clearly that those funds would have been diminished 
and that thousands of screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer 
would have been passed by, hundreds of thousands, in the 
administration's own analysis on that.
  With that, I ask the Chair for the time remaining on both sides, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois has 5\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman, who is a pleasure to work with on 
the Education Committee.
  Think of the great moments of American public policy--creation of 
land grant colleges, the GI Bill, providing student loans--all directed 
toward increasing access to higher education.

[[Page 5906]]

  Four years ago, we, the Democrats, lowered interest rates for 
students to 3.4 percent, saving today's typical student borrower a 
couple thousand dollars. So 2 days ago, the Speaker, cornered by 
student outrage, says, well, the majority always intended to keep these 
rates low.
  Well, if the Republicans really cared about keeping student interest 
rates low, why did their budget double those rates? They voted twice 
this year, clearly, explicitly, twice, to let rates double and collect 
$166 billion more from students so they could preserve tax giveaways 
for Big Oil.
  Now they come and propose canceling preventive health care funding, 
not preventing cervical cancer, not preventing tobacco-related 
diseases, not preventing type 2 diabetes, eviscerating the Centers for 
Disease Control to preserve tax giveaways for Big Oil.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congressman Tierney for 
yielding and for your tireless leadership on this important issue.
  It's clear to me the Republicans are not serious about addressing the 
student loan interest rate hikes with the so-called Interest Rate 
Reduction Act. Their bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing and would 
permanently end the prevention and public health fund established by 
the Affordable Care Act.
  This prevention fund is the first mandatory funding stream dedicated 
to improving public health. It is extremely important in our fight to 
prevent chronic diseases, HIV, AIDS, and for women's health. This is 
such a sad and sinister ploy. Instead of pitting student loan relief 
for middle- and low-income families against critical preventive health 
services for middle- and low-income families, we should be working 
towards real solutions.
  Instead of paying for subsidies to Big Oil, we should invest in our 
students, who are our future. This bill jeopardizes, mind you, 
jeopardizes the health of our Nation. It uses our students as pawns, 
and it is morally wrong.
  I hope we defeat this insincere proposal.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. The Republican majority in this House is involved in a 
political shell game on this issue. They have voted to eliminate the 
prevention and public health fund. They voted 2 days ago to end it. 
Today they want to tell you they are going to take money from it to pay 
for student loans. You can't end a fund and then talk about taking 
money to use it.
  In addition to that, the gentleman from California a moment ago 
talked about money in the appropriations bills for these health care 
programs.
  What he doesn't tell you is that the majority in the committees is 
voting to cut the money for the Centers for Disease Control, for 
screenings for breast and cervical cancer, for all of these efforts. 
They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
  This majority passed a budget that has asked families to pay for tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans, slashes Pell Grants for nearly 10 
million college students, allows interest rates on student loans to 
double in July. After there was an outpouring of concern about the 
doubling of interest rates, they switched course. This apparent moment 
of conscience was too good to be true.

                              {time}  1120

  Instead of ending oil subsidies and closing corporate tax loopholes, 
what they now have done is they eliminate--eliminate--the prevention 
and public health fund. What that fund does is provide crucial health 
services to all Americans, including women and children.
  Women, I'll be brief in this: it is about providing screenings for 
breast and cervical cancer. My friends, 4,000 women die every year from 
cervical cancer. Isn't it worth trying to prevent cervical cancer and 
not eliminate it? It works to prevent coronary heart disease, the 
leading killer of women in America. It has the potential to mitigate 
osteoporosis, arthritis, and mental illness, all conditions which 
disproportionately affect the women in this Nation.
  This fund is about the giving of life. There is a level of hypocrisy 
on this floor that is staggering. Instead of taking the money from 
health care for education, a false choice, vote against this bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. The Republicans have taken a 180-degree turn on helping 
with student loans. The Republican budget said ``no,'' and in February, 
Governor Mitt Romney said this:

       The right course for America is to make sure that we 
     provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest 
     rate that doesn't have the taxpayers having to subsidize 
     people who want to go to school.

  Now he and the Republicans here have shifted--shifty indeed. How they 
are doing so is not only politically expedient, but extremely harmful. 
They hit health care--health care. They refuse to end a tax break for 
Big Oil that never should have been given in the first place, even 
though the Big Five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the 
fourth quarter of last year alone. This bill is shameless, and it is 
shameful. Vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in my dictionary, a ``slush fund'' is 
defined as ``a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on 
corruptive propaganda.'' Yet, the Speaker of the House used that term, 
and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee used that term 
``slush fund,'' to describe the prevention and public health fund, 
which saves lives by paying for childhood immunizations and screenings 
for cervical cancer and birth defects.
  We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. I refuse 
to accept the idea that to solve one problem, we have to create 
another.
  The Democrats proposed righting the Ryan Republican budget wrong by 
taxing oil company profits. Therefore, their suggestion that we go from 
3.4 percent interest to 6.8 can be paid for out of the wealth of oil 
companies that benefit from our country so tremendously.
  Mr. Speaker, I reject the blackmail inherent in H.R. 4628. I don't 
want anybody to know that it's okay to pit one group against another, 
and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. We have to do 
the right thing. We have to choose both.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts, Stafford 
loan rates will double. I spoke to some students at San Diego State 
University just the other day who are worried about their day-to-day 
needs, and they asked us not to play politics with this issue.
  New grads should have increased opportunities, not bills they can't 
pay. A college degree should invite calls from job recruiters, not from 
collection agencies.
  I'm glad that the majority has abruptly changed course by agreeing to 
stop this interest rate hike. But it is unacceptable that this bill 
proposes to pay for this by repealing the prevention fund.
  The bill creates a choice between funding cancer screenings for a 
mother or making college more affordable for her daughter. Would you 
want to be that mother? That sends the wrong message to the American 
people about our priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support a more equitable solution that 
promotes

[[Page 5907]]

the health of the American families and the future of our bright minds.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I would ask the gentleman how many speakers does he 
have?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I have at least five more speakers.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I would continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for yielding me time.
  We've talked about the cost of capping student loan interest rates. 
Well, I think we should extend the cap for longer than a year, and we 
don't need to cut people's health care screenings in order to do it. 
Let's create jobs. That's how we can create the economic revenue.
  One of the best ways for us to create jobs is to allow student loan 
borrowers the ability to pay down on their loans according to their 
income for 10 years and then making them eligible to have the balance 
of their student loans, if they owe any, be forgiven.
  That's the best economic stimulus. These loans are not just for the 
benefit of the borrower. It also makes our country stronger. The more 
our people are trained and educated, we can sell the best products 
overseas and create the best technology. That creates jobs for this 
country.
  It's in our national interest to help pay down these debts and 
forgive certain student loans. Let's redirect some of our money from 
Afghanistan and Iraq and use the savings to forgive student loans.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Well, once again, the Republican leadership has shown that 
it's more interested in playing political games than it is in getting 
things done.
  We're talking about student loans here. We should be putting our 
heads together and coming up with a better way to pay for lowering 
student loan rates, not eviscerating health care prevention. This is 
nothing more than a cynical ploy.
  The American people want us to work together. We have an opportunity 
to do this. This is what we really should be doing. There are lots of 
loopholes that we could close. My colleagues have mentioned Big Oil and 
Big Gas. We could close those loopholes. We have corporations making 
lots of money. We could close those loopholes. But what do the 
Republicans decide to do? They decide to hurt health benefits. They 
decide to hurt prevention benefits.
  This is not the way we should be going. We need to put our heads 
together and help these students. The Democrats have said time and time 
again that this is our priority. We have voted against Republican 
budgets that raise the amount that students have to pay in loans. Stop 
playing your cynical games, and let's get to work for the American 
people. Let's put our heads together, let's help these students, and 
let's not eviscerate health prevention.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4628, a 
misguided, deeply partisan bill which would cut $6 billion from the 
prevention and public health fund. For months, I have been proud to 
help lead the charge to prevent student loan rates from doubling on 
July 1. So please excuse my surprise when I hear the majority talk 
about their strong support for keeping college loans affordable. This 
is a position that they have repeatedly rejected.
  Apparently, Republicans have no interest in trying to prevent serious 
diseases. Surely, if Republicans can ram a $46 billion tax cut to 
millionaires and billionaires, they can find a way to pay for both 
education and health care.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for defeat of this bill, stop protecting 
tax giveaways to Big Oil, and pass a responsible bill to stop the 
doubling of student loan rates.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to enter into 
the Record several documents. One is from the American Council on 
Education, representing 37 education associations. They say:

       Education has never been as important to America's economic 
     health as it is now. That is why we are encouraged by the 
     proposals we have seen. The administration and both parties 
     have expressed their strong support for keeping the interest 
     rate at 3.4 percent without cutting other forms of student 
     aid.

  Another one is from Lewis University in Illinois, saying that:

       Doubling the interest in the subsidized Stafford loans will 
     discourage students in need who are striving to continue 
     their degree studies during these difficult economic times. 
     Thank you for your support for these students.

                              {time}  1130

  Finally, from Joliet Junior College, saying that the college serves a 
population of seven counties in Illinois.

       In the 2010-2011 school year, JJC students were awarded 
     over $23 million in total financial aid. Because of this, the 
     institution supports H.R. 4628, legislation that would 
     prevent the scheduled rate hike.

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                                   April 27, 2012.
     Kelly Rohder,
     Director of Communications and External Relations, Joliet 
         Junior College, Joliet, IL.
       Joliet Junior College is a comprehensive community college 
     that not only helps students transfer to complete their 
     bachelor's degrees, but provides occupational education 
     leading directly to employment, adult education and literacy 
     programs, and workforce development services.
       We serve the populations of seven counties that cover a 
     1,442-square-mile district. While the principal mission of a 
     community college is to be a resource to the populations it 
     serves, access to quality education is equally important. In 
     the 2010-2011 school year, JJC students were awarded over $23 
     million in total financial aid. Because of this, the 
     institution supports H.R. 4628, legislation that would 
     prevent the scheduled rate hike on certain federal student 
     loans and extend lower rates for an additional year. It is 
     our goal to help students--whatever their educational goals 
     are--be successful in achieving them.

                                      Debra S. Daniels, Ed.D.,

                                                        President,
     Joliet Junior College.
                                  ____



                                             Lewis University,

                                   Romeoville, IL, April 26, 2012.
     Hon. Judy Biggert,
     Willowbrook, IL.
       Dear Congresswoman Biggert: I am writing today to support 
     your efforts to avert the automatic doubling of interest 
     rates on subsidized Stafford loans that will occur on July 1, 
     2012 as the expiration date approaches for legislation that 
     was approved in 2007 to fix the interest rate on these loans 
     through June 30, 2012. You are to be commended for taking 
     action to extend the rate through June 30, 2013 to protect 
     students from another increase in costs that might discourage 
     some from pursuing higher education. If the 2007 legislation 
     is allowed to expire, the interest rate will increase from 
     3.4% to 6.8%, an increase that seems unconscionable in 
     today's struggling economy.
       You are to be commended for your leadership in promoting 
     affordability and access to higher education throughout your 
     career in the U.S. House of Representatives. Much 
     appreciation for your leadership in introducing House Bill 
     4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, to extend the 3.4% 
     rate for one more year. According to news reports, President 
     Barack Obama supports freezing the interest rate for an 
     additional year and the likely Republican nominee in this 
     year's Presidential election, Governor Mitt Romney, also 
     opposes an increase for the interest rate.
       An educated workforce is essential in current efforts to 
     restore and maintain economic stability and assure a bright 
     future for our nation. You have been far-sighted in your 
     support of students at public and private colleges and 
     universities across the country. Doubling the interest in the 
     subsidized Stafford loans will discourage students in need 
     who are striving to continue their degree studies during 
     these difficult economic times. Thank you for your support 
     for these students. I appreciate your efforts, your 
     leadership and your continuing support for quality higher 
     education.
           Sincerely,

                                   Brother James Gaffney, FSC,

     President.
                                  ____



                                American Council on Education,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
       Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the higher 
     education associations listed

[[Page 5908]]

     below to express our strong support for enacting legislation 
     to maintain the subsidized Stafford student loan interest 
     rate at 3.4 percent. Allowing this rate to double, as it is 
     scheduled to do on July 1st, would impose significant 
     additional costs on more than 7.4 million students and their 
     families.
       We are very encouraged by the bipartisan interest in 
     preventing the rate from rising to 6.8 percent in just over 
     two months time. With interest rates on many consumer loans 
     available at rates below 3.4 percent, raising student loan 
     interest rates to 6.8 percent in this environment makes 
     little sense and would create considerable hardship for 
     students and their families. We particularly appreciate the 
     effort made by Democrats and Republicans in both chambers to 
     seek offsets from outside of student financial aid. In recent 
     years, a number of benefits within the student loan programs 
     have been eliminated in order to pay for other programs or to 
     contribute to deficit reduction. Through a combination of 
     reductions or eliminations of other student aid programs, we 
     have witnessed an increased financial burden on our students.
       Education has never been as important to America's economic 
     health as it is now. That is why we are encouraged by the 
     proposals we have seen. The administration and both parties 
     have expressed their strong support for keeping the interest 
     rate at 3.4 percent without cutting other forms of student 
     aid. We urge Congress to continue their work and produce a 
     final bill with bipartisan support.
           Sincerely,

                                          Molly Corbett Broad,

                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       ACPA--College Student Educators International
       ACT, Inc.
       American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
       American Association of Colleges of Nursing
       American Association of Collegiate Registrars and 
     Admissions Officers
       American Association of Community Colleges
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities
       American Association of University Professors
       American Dental Education Association
       American Indian Higher Education Consortium
       APPA, ``Leadership in Educational Facilities''
       Association of American Colleges and Universities
       Association of American Law Schools
       Association of American Universities
       Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
       Association of Community College Trustees
       Association of Governing Boards of Universities and 
     Colleges
       Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
       Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
       Association of Research Libraries
       College Board
       Council for Christian Colleges & Universities
       Council for Opportunity in Education
       Council of Graduate Schools
       Council of Independent Colleges
       Educational Testing Service
       Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
       NAFSA: Association of International Educators
       NASPA--Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education
       National Association for College Admission Counseling
       National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher 
     Education
       National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities
       National Association of Student Financial Aid 
     Administrators
       National Collegiate Athletic Association
       Thurgood Marshall College Fund
       UNCF
       University Professional & Continuing Education Association

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, the Republican majority was adamantly opposed 
to this legislation. This week, we're rushing it through on the floor 
today. You know what? That's a good thing. We're on the same page. The 
majority and the minority want to preserve student loan interest rates 
at 3.4 percent, not let them double to 6.8 percent.
  So if that is the case, why are we selecting mutually unacceptable 
ways to pay for this? It's as though we're resorting to the trick bags: 
you raid the health fund that's so important to us; we present the oil 
company provision that is so unacceptable to you.
  What we should do is find a way to put some limits, some incentives 
to keep tuition increases at or below the rate of inflation. They were 
up, 8.4 percent. If we work together, that would be a double win for 
students and parents. We could keep those interest rates low, and we 
could start bringing down the escalation in tuition increases that are 
unacceptable.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding, and for his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many 
other issues in education.
  Mr. Speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate 
on student loans to more than double. I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4628.
  While Congress must prevent the Stafford loan interest rate from 
doubling to 6.8 percent, it is unconscionable that the Republican 
leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care. 
Too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college 
degree, and it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in 
their education and health.
  Republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for 
this measure by gutting the prevention and public health fund, the sole 
purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up 
the cost of health care in the first place.
  Now, instead of sacrificing our public health to score political 
points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue 
their dreams without the burdens of unnecessary costs and debt.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield the remaining time on 
this side to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Just a few weeks ago on this very floor, our Republican colleagues 
voted for the Republican budget that called for a doubling of interest 
rates on student loans on 7 million American students, and they voted 
against the Democratic alternative budget, which would have prevented 
that increase in student loan interest rates.
  So what's happened over the last couple weeks? Well, President Obama 
has gone to the country. He has gone to students and he's told the 
story about what the Republican budget would do, and so we are here 
today.
  But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues haven't 
changed their minds about this; they've changed their tactics. If they 
really wanted to prevent student loans from increasing, they wouldn't 
seek to cover the costs by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening, 
by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, by cutting other women's 
health care measures. They wouldn't push a measure the President has 
already said he would veto.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal. Let's cover the cost by getting rid 
of the subsidies for Big Oil companies. That's the real slush fund 
around here. The big taxpayer subsidies go for that purpose. Let's get 
the job done, and let's not play political games.
  Unfortunately, what we're seeing here, Mr. Speaker, is an effort to 
seek political cover. Let's get the job done for real.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  It seems like we came in, and I think the first thing that I talked 
about here is how I hoped that we would be able to work together on a 
bipartisan basis. It just seems like this is so hard to do in this 
political time. I really think that, in major legislation, we really 
have to work together to find the solutions, but it seems like the 
other side is always ready to tell us what we think and what we are 
doing and why we are doing it. We are doing this because we really want 
to have our students have

[[Page 5909]]

the ability to have a quality education, and it just seems like we're 
so different on the pay-fors.
  I know that everybody agrees on the program itself and how we have to 
do it, but we can't seem to do anything without giving us a cynical 
view, and it bothers me. It seems like when we were talking about the 
pay-fors, the other side of the aisle's first reaction is to raise 
taxes for everything and ours has always been to reduce spending, and 
we think that this is the way to go. I think we have just got to find a 
way to get together.
  I had said in my opening statement that I hoped that we would be able 
to get together and work together, and also the Senate. I hope that 
when this bill goes over to the Senate that there is a negotiation, 
that there is a conference so that we really can iron this out and make 
sure that there is not a raising to the 6.8 percent.
  It kind of makes you wonder. It just seems like the political 
maneuvering certainly is continuing on the student loan issue. I guess 
today when we have this vote, we'll see what happens. But I really hope 
that we get to the Senate so that we have the opportunity to do this.
  I just want to go back a little bit to what happened in the Education 
Committee yesterday that Mrs. Roby talked about and so did Mr. Tierney. 
I think Secretary Sebelius did say that there were services outside the 
prevention and public health fund that will remain available to 
individuals who seek preventive care, such as cancer prevention and 
care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, screenings for 
birth defects and developmental disabilities, tobacco prevention at the 
CDC, and efforts that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity 
to prevent obesity.

                              {time}  1140

  So I think that this really is a lot that we believe in for 
prevention. And we heard from Mr. Stearns all of the appropriations and 
how that takes care of a lot of the prevention issues.
  I think that the American people are really very knowledgeable now 
about prevention and what they need to do and have the ability to do 
this on their own as well.
  This political bickering is not what the bill is all about. What the 
bill is all about is to reduce to 3.4 percent interest rates on the 
subsidized Stafford loans. And I hope that this bill will pass. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have demonstrated 
their complete disregard and contempt for women's health and the plight 
of students by forcing a choice between the elimination of funding for 
the Prevention and Public Health Find or relief for students who are 
saddled with student loan debt.
  That is a choice that we shouldn't and don't have make. It is cruel 
and destructive, it is anti-family, it is not smart economically, and 
it is completely unnecessary.
  As a mother and a grandmother, I simply cannot understand why 
Congressional Republicans continue their assault on women's health. I 
cannot understand why they prefer to reduce access to cancer screenings 
and immunizations rather than asking Big Oil to give up their 
subsidies. I cannot understand why they are trying to force us to 
choose between keeping moms healthy or sending their children to 
college.
  If we want to revitalize our economy and unburden Americans who are 
saddled with student loan debt, we must enact policies that help to cut 
that debt. Democrats have been demanding action on student loans for 
months--and finally, Republicans have agreed to do something.
  But at what cost? By putting the health of women and children at 
risk. The Prevention and Public Health Fund supports proven prevention 
activities like breast and cervical cancer screenings. It helps provide 
immunizations for children. It will save lives and keep women well. 
Republicans are telling us that we have to choose between protecting 
women's and children's health or letting student loan rates double.
  Republicans are trying to label the Prevention Fund as a slush fund. 
Americans know that mammograms and Pap smears are not ``slush''--they 
are basic, routine--and often life-saving--services for women. 
Prevention is fundamental. It is the key to reducing health care costs 
and creating a long-term path to a healthier and economically sound 
America. Cutting prevention programs like breast and cervical cancer 
screening now will only lead to increased health costs down the road.
  In fact, the data proves that we should be increasing our investment 
in early detection through screening and working to increase awareness 
about these diseases. The National Health Interview Survey from 2010 
found that women are getting screened for breast and cervical cancers 
at rates below national standards.
  The breast cancer screening rate was 72 percent in 2010, below the 
federal health target of 81 percent. The cervical cancer screening 
rates were 83 percent, below the 93 percent goal. The screening rates 
for both cancers were significantly lower among Asian and Hispanic and 
women, as well as those without health insurance or no usual source of 
health care.
  In the United States in 2012, it is estimated that there will be 
226,870 new cases of invasive breast cancer, and nearly 40,000 women 
will die from the disease; an estimated 12,000 women will be diagnosed 
with cervical cancer, and over 4,000 women will die from cervical 
cancer.
  Earlier this week, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee 
approved over $97 billion in cuts to public health programs to insulate 
the Department of Defense from spending cuts triggered by the failure 
of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Among the suggested 
cuts was the complete elimination of funding for the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund. I offered an amendment to preserve support under 
the Fund for breast and cervical cancer screening programs and other 
women's health preventive services. My amendment was defeated along 
party lines.
  Republicans could ask millionaires and billionaires, oil and gas 
companies making record profits, and corporations that shift jobs and 
profits overseas to help offset the cost of reducing student loan 
interest rates. Instead, they have decided to continue with their 
repeated war on women's health by eliminating funding for the public 
health programs that benefit women--to reduce the costs for their sons 
and daughters to attend college.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
speak in opposition to H.R. 4628. This bill forces an unnecessary and 
immoral choice between students' education and the health care of 
women, children, and seniors.
  Since January, President Obama and the Democratic Members of Congress 
have urged Republicans to address the pending increase in student loan 
interest rates. Over the last month, many Republicans have stated that 
they had no qualms about the additional borrowing costs. In fact, they 
spoke loudly with their votes in support of the Ryan Budget just last 
month, which would double student loan interest rates.
  Republicans are not working in good faith to help students and their 
families, but are rather using this situation to continue their efforts 
to defund programs that provide critical illness prevention and 
wellness screening. Cutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund will 
have a disproportionate impact on America's women and children. 
Defunding this program means stripping away vital funding for cancer 
detection, childhood immunizations, and screening newborns for birth 
defects. The GOP repeal of the Prevention and Public Health Fund is 
opposed by nearly 800 organizations, including the American Lung 
Association, American Heart Association, American Academy of 
Pediatrics, and Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.
  In 2007, Democrats in Congress provided relief to students from high 
interest rates on need-based loans. We passed the College Cost 
Reduction and Access Act that lowered interest rates on subsidized 
Stafford Loans each year until they reached a low of 3.4 percent this 
past year. Since then, 15 million students have benefitted from lower 
rates. Unfortunately, without Republican action in the House and action 
in the Senate, those rates are set to double on July 1st from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent.
  The doubling of loan rates will hit students at a time when they can 
least afford it. In the current weak economy, young Americans have the 
highest unemployment rate of any other group. Two-thirds of the Class 
of 2010 graduated with an average of student loan debt of $25,000.
  Congress should not be building more hurdles for young people to get 
the education and the skills needed to succeed. We should be 
facilitating the ability of students to pursue higher education and 
training. Every year Congress does not act, it will cost a student 
borrower $1,000 in additional repayment costs, and failure to act now 
will add $6.3 billion to students' debt burden in one year alone.

[[Page 5910]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is stop playing politics with American's students and 
the health care of women, children, and seniors. I urge the passage 
legislation maintaining the current student loan rate that does not 
undermine the access to health care that would affect millions of 
Americans.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this sham 
Republican bill that would eliminate a vital component of ObamaCare--
the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF)--in a blatantly political 
attempt to avoid being blamed for allowing interest rates on student 
loans to double on 7 million Americans.
  Just one month ago, nearly the entire Republican caucus voted for the 
Ryan Budget. This budget included a provision allowing the current 3.4 
percent interest rate on federal student loans to double on July 1. 
Now, in response to intense political pressure, Republicans have done a 
complete 180 and claim they do not want to cost college students and 
their families an extra $1,000 a year by letting the rate hike take 
effect. While I welcome them to the party, the Republican bill, hastily 
rushed to the floor under a completely closed process, contains a 
poison pill. In order to pay for this legislation, they are continuing 
their assault on health reform in general and women's health in 
particular. The PPHF has already been used to improve prevention 
services in low-income and underserved communities, including 
vaccinating children and intervening to prevent chronic diseases such 
as diabetes. Eliminating this fund will also mean that hundreds of 
thousands of women will lose access to screenings for breast and 
cervical cancers. This will cost lives and is completely unacceptable.
  There is a better way. Earlier this week, I helped to introduce the 
Stop the Rate Hike Act. This bill would keep interest rates on student 
loans low. However, it would pay for the fix, not by taking away health 
care, but by ending egregious tax breaks for big oil companies. The 
Democratic bill would not only keep college within reach for millions 
of middle class families, it would also restore some sanity to our tax 
code. That is the bill we should be voting on today. I urge all of my 
colleges to vote to protect our nation's health and oppose the sham 
``Interest Rate Reduction Act.''
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, a bill that 
would prevent a sharp increase in interest rates on Direct Stafford 
Student loans beginning in July, I am very much opposed to playing 
politics with this important issue.
  I do not believe we need to choose between cutting funds that provide 
much needed preventive health services and making college more 
affordable. I cannot understand the mentality that flirts with the idea 
of raising college costs and limiting access to health care for working 
middle-class families, while instinctively recoiling at the idea of 
closing tax loopholes for multinational conglomerates and the 
wealthiest Americans.
  This is exactly what infuriates the American public and why 
Congressional approval ratings are at record lows. I understand it's an 
election year and each side wants to score points at the other side's 
expense but every time we get into one of these debates with competing 
proposals we know will split the Congress and lead to gridlock, it 
chips away at the credibility of the institution. We must find a way to 
summon the will to get beyond the temptation to take cheap shots at the 
other side and put the interests of the American people first.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached 
letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

                                American Diabetes Association,

                                                   April 26, 2012.
       Tomorrow, Friday, April 27, your Representative will cast a 
     vote that will impact the future of programs that improve 
     public health and prevent diabetes.
       Take action now to protect vital public health and 
     prevention programs!
       The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 
     2010 as a national investment in prevention and public health 
     programs over ten years. It is from this fund that the 
     National Diabetes Prevention Program received its initial 
     funding. But Members of Congress will be voting tomorrow on 
     whether to fully repeal this vital fund, gutting efforts to 
     prevent diabetes and improve our nation's overall health!
       We need to make sure diabetes programs and prevention 
     efforts don't get slashed. Tell your legislators RIGHT NOW to 
     oppose HR 4628!
       Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and another 79 
     million are on the brink of developing the disease. 
     Prediabetes, diabetes and its complications already cost the 
     nation an estimated $218 billion annually and this cost is 
     expected to grow. If current trends continue, by the year 
     2050 one in three American adults will have diabetes. 
     Diabetes prevention is an example of an effort that can save 
     both lives and money. If brought to scale, it is estimated 
     that the NDPP will save $191 billion in health care costs 
     over ten years! The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a 
     critical source of potential funding for the NDPP.
       Take this chance to make your voice heard and tell your 
     Representative to oppose any efforts to eliminate the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund!
           Sincerely,

                                           L. Hunter Limbaugh,

                                               Chair of the Board,
                                    American Diabetes Association.
                                  ____
                                  
                                              National Partnership


                                         for Women & Families,

                                                   April 26, 2012.
     Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeLauro: We are writing to strongly 
     urge you to protect women's access to important preventive 
     health benefits by opposing H.R. 4628. This legislation would 
     eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund and 
     rescind all unobligated funds. The National Partnership for 
     Women & Families represents women across the country--and in 
     your district--who are counting on critical prevention 
     services that would be lost if this funding were eliminated.
       The Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund (PPHTF) was 
     created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to ensure adequate 
     funding for preventive health initiatives. These initiatives 
     help to improve the health of lower and middle income women 
     and families and, by improving health, also help to lower 
     health care spending over time. And what makes the PPHTF so 
     unique is that it works in partnership with states and 
     communities. Already there are several key initiatives funded 
     by the Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund that are 
     benefitting women including:
       Chronic Disease Prevention: to enable communities to use 
     evidence-based interventions to reduce chronic conditions and 
     prevent heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, cancer, and other 
     conditions that impact women.
       Obesity Prevention and Fitness: to improve nutrition and 
     increase physical activity to reduce obesity-related 
     conditions and health care costs. Reducing obesity rates 
     (BMI) by 5% nation-wide could save almost $30 billion in 
     health costs within 5 years.
       Expanded Immunization Services: to provide critical 
     immunizations. Every dollar spent on childhood immunizations 
     saves $16 in costs to treat preventable illness.
       Behavioral Health Screening and Integration with Primary 
     Health: to help communities integrate primary care services 
     into publicly funded community mental health and other 
     community-based behavioral health settings and expand suicide 
     prevention activities and screenings for substance use 
     disorders.
       HIV/AIDS Prevention: to focus on HIV prevention in high 
     risk populations and communities by increasing HIV testing 
     opportunities, linking HIV-infected women with needed 
     services including preventing maternal child transmission, 
     and filling critical gaps in data and understanding of the 
     HIV epidemic to better target prevention, care, and 
     treatment.
       Women in communities across the country are already 
     beginning to benefit from the initiatives funded by the 
     Prevention Trust Fund.
       To eliminate funding for programs that not only improve the 
     health and lives of millions of women but also have the 
     potential for improving population health and lowering health 
     care spending over time is not fiscally prudent.
       We strongly urge you to support the women and families in 
     your district and oppose H.R. 4628.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Debra L. Ness,
                                                        President.
                                  ____
                                  


                                                      Nemours,

                                                   April 23, 2012.
     Hon. Henry Waxman,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Waxman: As the House votes on H.R. 
     4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, Nemours--an integrated 
     child health system in the Delaware Valley and Florida--would 
     like to express its opposition to the repeal of, or any 
     additional cuts to, the Prevention and Public Health Fund 
     (Fund). While Nemours has no objection to extending student 
     loan interest rates, we oppose offsetting this provision with 
     the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Further cuts to the 
     Fund will only hurt investments already made in wellness, 
     prevention, and public health programs. We need to stop 
     continually sacrificing the Fund for other priorities.
       Experts have warned that this could be the first generation 
     of children who live shorter, less healthy lives than their 
     parents. As a foundation operating an integrated health 
     system, we have a unique perspective on the threat that 
     preventable chronic diseases are posing to the health of 
     America's children. We believe our country has the 
     opportunity to invest in our children by promoting

[[Page 5911]]

     health and disease prevention through the Fund. Already, the 
     Fund has made important investments in obesity prevention, 
     tobacco control, and other health priorities. Every attempt 
     to diminish the Fund compromises our ability to protect and 
     promote the health of our children, which is our mission at 
     Nemours.
       With Americans spending more each year on health care, the 
     Fund represents an important investment in a slower cost 
     growth for our health care system and America's economy 
     overall. By partaking in preventive and wellness initiatives 
     early in their lives, more Americans will be able to remain 
     healthy, preventing unnecessary hospitalizations later in 
     life. However, in order to do this, our nation needs to 
     fundamentally realign its health care spending. We need to 
     invest more at the front end to maintain people's health, as 
     opposed to focusing our scarce resources on treatment at the 
     back end. The Fund helps to achieve this goal, and any 
     attempt to diminish the Fund will compromise our ability to 
     ensure the health and well-being of our nation and economy.
       We urge you to stand with our nation's children and fight 
     to safeguard the Prevention and Public Health Fund and oppose 
     all efforts to siphon away this investment.
           Sincerely,

                                              Debbie I. Chang,

                                                   Vice President,
                                            Policy and Prevention.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the attached letters of 
opposition to H.R. 4628.

     Congress Must Not Eliminate Prevention and Public Health Fund


               Statement of the American Lung Association

       Washington.--Some in Congress are trying to force the 
     nation to choose between health and education. The House of 
     Representatives is poised to vote on a measure to eliminate 
     the lifesaving Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for 
     keeping student loan rates down. The American Lung 
     Association fiercely opposes any attempts to divert or cut 
     the Prevention Fund. The Affordable Care Act established the 
     Prevention Fund to promote wellness, to prevent disease, and 
     to protect against public health emergencies.
       America should not have to choose between protecting the 
     health of its citizens and making higher education more 
     affordable. Congress must reject this ill-conceived approach. 
     The student loan interest rate issue can and must be resolved 
     without undermining the health of millions of Americans.
       The Prevention Fund is already helping Americans across the 
     country to make healthier choices and to take responsibility 
     for their own health and the health of their families. 
     Because of the Prevention Fund, states and communities are 
     now able to help more people quit smoking through cessation 
     programs and improve lung health by preventing and treating 
     lung diseases, including COPD, lung cancer, and asthma. It is 
     also allowing states and communities to monitor outbreaks of 
     infectious diseases, such as influenza, and enhance 
     prevention services in low-income and underserved 
     communities.
       Quitting smoking is the single most important thing a 
     smoker can do to improve their health status. The Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Tips from Former 
     Smokers media campaign, which was underwritten by the 
     Prevention Fund, has already resulted in tens of thousands of 
     additional calls to 1-800-QUIT NOW by smokers seeking help 
     with quitting. This is tangible evidence of the Prevention 
     Fund having a positive impact.
       Prevention programs work. Prevention save lives and helps 
     keep people healthy. Congress must not play politics with our 
     nation's health. The American Lung Association strongly urges 
     Congress to reject this absurd choice.
                                                      Erika Sward,
     Director, National Advocacy.
                                  ____

                                                   April 27, 2012.
     Hon. George Miller,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Miller: Interest rates on new subsidized 
     Stafford student loans will double to 6.8 percent beginning 
     July 1 unless Congress extends a cap that has helped make the 
     loans more affordable for millions of Americans. This cap was 
     enacted through bipartisan legislation approved by Congress 
     in 2007.
       As the House votes today on legislation to extend this cap 
     for one year, we are grateful that the issue is getting 
     attention and support from members of both parties.
       Many students and parents are struggling to keep up with 
     the runaway costs of paying for college. This is not the time 
     to pile thousands of dollars in additional debt on their 
     backs by allowing student loan interest rates to double.
       If Congress fails to extend the cap, an estimated 7.4 
     million borrowers will face higher interest rates. Two-thirds 
     of all college students now graduate with student loan debt, 
     compared to just one-third a decade ago. On average, these 
     students graduate with $25,000 in debt. At over $1 trillion, 
     student loan debt now tops what Americans owe on their credit 
     cards.
       As a consumer organization, we are deeply troubled by the 
     idea of paying for this extension by cutting funds from a 
     prevention and public health fund that is designed to help 
     consumers get life-saving cancer screenings and child 
     immunizations. The alternative proposal to cut federal 
     subsidies for oil and gas companies, which have collected 
     record-breaking profits, appears to be a more equitable 
     solution.
       We urge lawmakers to come together to develop a path 
     forward on the funding mechanism so that students can afford 
     the education they need to stay competitive in today's tough 
     job market. Congress should invest in our future by extending 
     the interest rate cap.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Pamela Banks,
                           Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
                                                       Ioana Rusu,
     Regulatory Counsel, Consumers Union.
                                  ____


  Congress Must Find a Truly Bipartisan Solution To Keep Student Loan 
                           Rate From Doubling

       Washington, DC.--Today, Campus Progress Action is calling 
     on Congress to set aside its partisan differences, come 
     together, and stop the interest rate on the subsidized 
     Stafford student loans from doubling July 1.
       Anne Johnson, director of Campus Progress Action, said: 
     ``While we are pleased that the Republican leadership in the 
     House has moved swiftly to bring a bill to a vote, their 
     proposal to pay for the extension of the current interest 
     rate by cutting preventive health care is destructive and 
     shows a lack of serious leadership. This is not a bipartisan 
     solution.''
       ``If Congress fails to act'' Johnson continued, ``being 
     able to afford college will be even harder for millions of 
     American families. An extra $1,000 will add to the burden of 
     already skyrocketing tuition. That money could be used to 
     help a young graduate move out, pay rent, buy food, pay for a 
     car, and other important expenses.''
       Campus Progress Action is urging members to vote no on H.R. 
     4628 and work to find a bipartisan way to pay for maintaining 
     low interest rates for students without impacting other vital 
     programs.
       The nearly 7.5 million students who will be impacted if 
     Congress does not take action are hard at work on campuses 
     around the country as they earn their degrees. Congress 
     should be working just as hard to make sure we don't let them 
     down.
                                  ____



                                   Trust for America's Health,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the Trust for 
     America's Health, I urge you to oppose the use of the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund (Fund) as an offset for the 
     Interest Rate Reduction Act (H.R. 4628). Repealing the Fund, 
     which has already suffered a significant cut, would 
     compromise our ability to make progress on cost containment, 
     public health modernization, and wellness promotion. Please 
     oppose this measure and instead look to a solution that will 
     not penalize middle-class Americans.
       Two years ago, in creating the Fund, the federal government 
     made a historic investment in the future by focusing on 
     keeping soaring health care costs under control, while at the 
     same time, helping those who wanted to be healthy get or stay 
     healthy. The Fund is our first sustained national investment 
     in prevention, and is essential to efforts to reduce the 
     growth of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, 
     and diabetes, which are the primary drivers in the increase 
     in health costs.
       To date, the Fund has provided resources to support 
     evidence-based strategies at the community level that help 
     people get healthy and achieve significant gains such as 
     reducing average body mass index (BMI). A recent TFAH study 
     finds that if the country ignores the obesity epidemic, 
     obesity rates could be expected to grow from 32 percent to 
     50-51 percent for men and from 35 percent to 45-52 percent 
     for women by 2030. In under two decades, the majority of our 
     country could be not just overweight but obese. Yet, 
     according to the same TFAH analysis, if we reduce the average 
     BMI by just five percent, the county could save nearly $30 
     billion in health care savings in just five years.
       However, if the country keeps using investments in the 
     future to cover these short-term ``fixes,'' our children will 
     continue to be penalized and, for the first time ever, 
     there's a significant chance that a generation will live 
     shorter and less healthy lives than the previous generation.
       The Fund was designed to invest in innovative programs that 
     will help make healthy choices the easy choices for 
     Americans, and help curtail rising health care costs. It has 
     received wide backing since it was created: 760 national, 
     state and local organizations, representing a broad spectrum 
     of sectors, have pledged their support for the Fund. Any cuts 
     to the Prevention Fund guarantee the country will now be 
     paying more for obesity-related health costs over the next 
     ten years and Americans will be less healthy, productive and 
     happy.
       Prevention is the key to lowering health care costs and 
     creating a long-term path to a healthier and economically 
     sound America, and the Prevention Fund is an essential part

[[Page 5912]]

     in bringing communities together on innovative projects that 
     will help us reverse the obesity epidemic and realize these 
     cost savings. I urge you to reject any proposal to repeal or 
     cut the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeffrey Levi, Ph.D.,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the attached letters of 
opposition to H.R. 4628.

House GOP Student Interest Rate Bill Offers Young Adults a Choice: Your 
                   Health or an Affordable Education?

       Yesterday, House Republicans announced support for 
     preventing interest rate hikes on subsidized Stafford Loans 
     from doubling on July 1st, joining the Administration and 
     House and Senate Democrats who have already stated a 
     commitment to keeping rates down. On Friday, the House 
     Republicans will call for a vote on their bill introduced 
     yesterday to extend the lower interest rates. However, the 
     bill pays for this extension by eliminating a multi-billion 
     dollar health care prevention fund for life-saving cancer 
     screenings and child immunizations. These cuts would have a 
     negative impact on the health of children, young adults, and 
     families. ``Keeping interest rates from doubling is a 
     priority, and we are thrilled to see policymakers from both 
     sides of the aisle support college affordability and take 
     steps to keep student debt from increasing even further,'' 
     said Jennifer Mishory, deputy director of Young Invincibles. 
     ``However, pitting the interest rate freeze against health 
     care prevention calls for a false choice between staying 
     healthy and getting a shot at an affordable education.'' The 
     House Republican bill would cut the Public Health and 
     Prevention Fund, which next year is set to provide funding 
     for childhood immunizations and cancer control programs, 
     including breast and cervical cancer screening. Mishory 
     added, ``About 15% of young adults have a chronic disease. 
     Since when does this generation have to choose between a 
     stable economic future and a healthy one?'' Effective cancer 
     screening and early and sustained treatment could reduce the 
     cancer death rate by 29%. Moreover, just as 92 percent of 
     young Democrats and 78 percent of young Republicans say that 
     making college loans affordable will help the economy, 
     sufficient investment in prevention has positive economic 
     impact. Research shows that every dollar spent on 
     immunizations could save $5.30 on direct health care costs 
     and $16.50 on total societal costs. You can view a recent 
     Young Invincibles report on the Stafford interest rate issue 
     at the link below: http://younginvincibles.org/News/releases
/student_loan_interest_rates.pdf.
       For background on the cost of college and the rise in 
     student debt, please visit: http://www.younginvincibles.org/
News/releases/student
_debt_onepager_apri12012.pdf.
                                  ____


               Don't Play Politics With Student Loan Hike

       Washington, DC.--Victor Sanchez, President of the United 
     States Student Association, issued the following statement on 
     the recent flood of legislation to address the fast 
     approaching student interest rate hike.
       ``Students respond to Republican lip service with a unified 
     response: `Don't play politics with my student loans.' ''
       ``We are thrilled to see President Obama and Congressional 
     leaders of both parties working to prevent 7.4 million 
     students from taking on an additional $1000 of debt for each 
     new student loan they borrow,'' said Victor Sanchez, 
     President of the United States Student Association.''
       ``This week House and Senate members from both parties 
     introduced contrasting proposals to pay for legislation that 
     will keep student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8% 
     on July 1st. Amongst the proposals, House Speaker Boehner 
     announced a vote this Friday on Rep. Biggert's bill, which 
     would cut funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund 
     in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to pay for the investment.''
       ``Speaker Boehner believes that the best way to pay for the 
     extension of the 3.4% interest rate on subsidized Stafford 
     loans is by taking funding from an important program that 
     supports efforts to prevent disease and protect against 
     health emergencies in the ACA. In contrast Democrats, who 
     have led on this critical issue, put forth a plan that closes 
     tax loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to avoid paying 
     the same income taxes that middle-class Americans pay.''
       ``The United States Student Association is happy that both 
     parties have prioritized extending the current student loan 
     interest rate, but students know that the fight to make 
     education affordable and attainable has not yet been won. 
     Students should not have to choose between their health care 
     and an affordable education, which is what Speaker Boehner's 
     proposal would force them to do.''
       ``Over the past few months students have been organizing 
     tremendously to put student loan debt and the subsidized 
     Stafford loan hike at the forefront of the national dialogue 
     by coordinating national days of actions and confronting 
     members of Congress on the issue. Students cannot allow this 
     important investment in our education to become the victim of 
     Washington partisan gridlock.''
                                  ____

                                          American Cancer Society,


                                        Cancer Action Network,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
       Dear Representative: The American Cancer Society Cancer 
     Action Network (ACS CAN) strongly opposes any legislation 
     that would cut prevention and public health funding for any 
     purpose, including offsetting the cost of student loan 
     programs. Reducing funding intended for prevention of disease 
     makes no sense from a public health standpoint and 
     furthermore will increase overall health care expenditures in 
     the long run.
       Half of the estimated 577,000 deaths that will occur from 
     cancer this year could have been prevented by eliminating 
     tobacco use, encouraging better diet and exercise, and giving 
     all Americans access to cancer screening and preventive 
     medicine. Tobacco use alone kills half a million Americans 
     every year. Another 188,000 deaths from cancer are due to 
     poor nutrition, physical inactivity, and obesity-related 
     disease.
       Prevention is predicated on the common-sense reality that 
     we as a nation should take steps to resolve health care 
     crises before they begin. It is a fact that diseases we have 
     conquered in the past--polio, smallpox, tuberculosis and 
     others--no longer present the public health risk they once 
     did because of the work we still do to prevent them from 
     occurring. In much the same way, prevention is the real cure 
     for cancer.
       Today, the Prevention and Public Health Fund is being used 
     to save lives by addressing the greatest modifiable cancer 
     risk factors: tobacco use, poor nutrition, physical 
     inactivity, and obesity. For example, in Alabama, funding is 
     being used to educate and help women access life-saving 
     preventive services such as mammograms and Pap tests. In New 
     York state, funding is being used to achieve four strategic 
     objectives: tobacco-free living; active and healthy eating; 
     high-impact evidence-based clinical and other preventive 
     services; and creating healthy and safe physical 
     environments. In Texas, funding is being used to improve the 
     health care workforce and ensure that residents have access 
     to evidence-based services including tobacco quitlines and 
     cancer screenings. Dollars provided by the fund are 
     supporting projects like these in each of the 50 states. This 
     is the kind of work that will transform our health system, 
     allowing the nation to control costs and improve health 
     outcomes--something we all want to accomplish.
       Voting to cut prevention funding is a vote in support of 
     more chronic disease. Accordingly, we urge you not to cut the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund further, and help to save 
     lives in the process. Thank you so much for your 
     consideration of this matter.
       Sincerely,
                                            Christopher W. Hansen,
                                                        President.

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition 
to H.R. 4628.

                                     A Union of Professionals,

                                                   April 26, 2012.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.5 million 
     members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge 
     you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction 
     Act.
       As you know, on July 1, interest rates on federal 
     subsidized Stafford student loans will double from 3.4 
     percent to 6.8 percent. This increase will affect 7.4 million 
     low- and middle-income students, having a lasting impact on 
     the long-term costs of their loans and on their future life 
     decisions, like buying a home, owning a business or starting 
     a family.
       College students are graduating with record levels of debt. 
     In fact, national student debt has surpassed our nation's 
     credit card debt, and with the high levels of unemployment 
     and underemployment for graduates, there could hardly be a 
     worse time for the interest rate on Stafford loans to double.
       We are pleased that both parties in the House have now 
     finally acknowledged the need to prevent interest rates from 
     doubling in July. However, there is a right way and a wrong 
     way to pay for the cost of keeping the rates low for one 
     year. Under H.R. 4628, the majority proposes to take billions 
     of dollars from the prevention and public health fund in the 
     Affordable Care Act. This fund helps ensure that women 
     receive affordable and critical preventive healthcare, like 
     breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings that can save 
     their lives and reduce unnecessary medical costs to them and 
     to taxpayers. And the fund supports community health centers, 
     provides child immunizations and helps children with birth 
     defects. Alternatively, the minority supports ending unfair 
     tax loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals and 
     corporations, and then using these savings to prevent loan 
     rates from doubling.
       Congress should not rob Peter to pay Paul by using a 
     funding stream geared to help public health and provide 
     preventive healthcare to pay for the loan rate extension. It 
     is unconscionable, when other options are available, to 
     propose that the student loan problem be solved by 
     undercutting the healthcare available to women, children and 
     others most in need of assistance. Instead, the majority 
     should be supporting

[[Page 5913]]

     other ways to pay for this proposal, such as requiring 
     wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their fair share 
     of taxes.
       Again, I urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628. The House 
     must stop playing politics with students' debt and put forth 
     a serious proposal with responsible and fair offsets.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kristor W. Cowan,
     Director, Legislation.
                                  ____



                                             ASTHO and NACCHO,

                                                   April 26, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: We are writing 
     today to oppose efforts to pay for changes in interest rates 
     on student loans using funds from the Prevention and Public 
     Health Fund (the Fund). Tens of millions of Americans suffer 
     from preventable diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, 
     and cancer, and today's children are in danger of becoming 
     the first generation to live shorter, less healthy lives than 
     their parents. In order to support the nation's public health 
     system and reduce rising health care treatment costs, the 
     National Association of County and City Health Officials 
     (NACCHO) and the Association of State and Territorial Health 
     Officials (ASTHO) strongly support the Prevention and Public 
     Health Fund and oppose any effort to reduce or eliminate the 
     Fund.
       As you know, the Fund is a dedicated investment in 
     community prevention and state and local public health 
     capacity and workforce and is a much-needed down payment on 
     the health and economic well-being of all Americans. Federal 
     investment from the Fund has already begun to address 
     improvements in the nation's health status by supporting 
     essential and proven prevention activities, such as 
     immunization and tobacco cessation. Additionally, through the 
     National Public Health Improvement Initiative which is 
     supported through the Fund, states and localities are working 
     to improve the delivery of necessary public health services 
     by accelerating the ability for public health agencies to 
     achieve national performance standards. Public health 
     capacity will be improved and made more efficient through 
     this investment.
       Of the more than $1.7 trillion in healthcare spent 
     nationally every year, less than four cents out of every 
     dollar are spent on prevention and public health. Half of 
     American adults have at least one preventable chronic 
     illness, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, or 
     arthritis. This has a resounding effect on the productivity 
     of our nation and is taking a huge toll on our economy. 
     Additionally, chronic disease accounts for nearly 70 percent 
     of all U.S. deaths and costs the nation approximately $1.8 
     trillion each year in lost productivity and healthcare 
     expenditures. More than 60 percent of American adults are 
     overweight or obese, and this epidemic costs the U.S. $147 
     billion annually. Investing in prevention and public health 
     not only saves lives, but it also yields a significant return 
     on investment.
       The Fund not only provides innovative ways to fight 
     preventable diseases, it also supports core public health 
     programs such as the Section 317 Immunization program which 
     provides essential immunizations for the nation's under and 
     uninsured children. Significantly reducing the Fund would 
     also cripple state and local health departments' ability to 
     inspect food, prepare for and respond to deadly tornadoes or 
     floods, or track and isolate a disease outbreak. On top of 
     losing programs, state and local health departments have 
     already seen a loss of over 52,000 public health jobs (17 
     percent of state workforce and 22 percent of local 
     workforce). Due to cuts at the state and local levels, health 
     departments cannot make up for these lost dollars; this puts 
     all Americans' health at risk.
       The Fund has already faced a steep reduction this year, 
     losing $6.25 billion in budget authority to offset the cost 
     of freezing the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula. 
     Further reducing the Fund now would only exacerbate the 
     strain state and local public health departments are facing. 
     Additionally, unlike the mandatory funds for Medicare and 
     Medicaid, the law creating the Fund explicitly reserves the 
     right of Congress to allocate spending. This provision was 
     purposefully inserted into the law to preserve the ability of 
     the Congress to exercise its judgment in making funding 
     decisions while maintaining this important fiscal commitment 
     to prevention.
       Once again, we urge you to oppose efforts to eliminate or 
     reduce the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The nation's 
     comparatively poor health has a high cost in both human and 
     economic terms. Our nation's health department officials 
     strongly oppose any efforts to decrease the federal 
     commitment to prevention and public health.
           Sincerely,
                                          Paul E. Jarris, MD, MBA,
                                          STHO Executive Director.
                                          Robert M. Pestronk, MPH,
     NACCHO Executive Director.
                                  ____


                     Campaign for America's Future

       Dear Friend: Here's the real debt crisis: student loan 
     debt. Today, the average student graduates from college with 
     a diploma and an anchor--$25,000 of debt.
       And if Congress doesn't act, student loan interest rates 
     will double on July 1.
       Don't let Congress kick new graduates in the teeth. Click 
     here to demand your representatives in Congress stop the 
     student loan rate increase.
       President Obama supports keeping the current Stafford Loan 
     interest rate at a low 3.4% rate. His opponent Mitt Romney 
     just reversed his position and said he agrees. This should 
     not be a partisan issue.
       Yet the House bill to stop the scheduled rate increase has 
     no Republican sponsors.
       The Republican chair of the House education committee says 
     he has ``serious concerns'' about the bill. And the 
     Republican budget--championed by Paul Ryan and embraced as 
     ``marvelous'' by Mitt Romney--both calls for deep cuts in 
     Pell grants and assumes that the interest rates on government 
     sponsored student loans will double.
       Stop the stonewalling! Click here to demand your 
     representatives in Congress stop the student loan rate 
     increase.
       What are the Republican ``concerns''? They claim to be 
     opposed to the $6 billion cost of keeping the rate low.
       But jacking up the rate simply shifts that $6 billion cost 
     onto the next generation of students who are already crushed 
     by debt.
       And House Republicans didn't have a problem last week 
     passing a bill with yet another tax break for the rich that 
     would add $46 billion to the national debt.
       It gets worse, the key Republican subcommittee chair 
     recently revealed her ignorance about today's high cost of 
     college. Rep. Virginia Foxx declared she had ``very little 
     tolerance'' for students with major debt because there is 
     ``no reason'' to take out big student loans.
       Why? Because she worked her way through college 50 years 
     ago . . . when the cost of college was about three times 
     cheaper.
       They are playing politics with the futures of our students. 
     It must stop.
       Students are not political Pawns! Click here to demand your 
     representatives in Congress stop the student loan rate 
     increase.
       Conservatives routinely claim we need severe austerity to 
     save the next generation from massive debt. Yet here they 
     are, about to dump more debt on them right now.
       Instead of kicking students when they are down, we should 
     end the student debt crisis. The Federal Reserve lends money 
     to banks at rates near 0%, why not lend to students at 
     similar rates? Unlike banks, graduates won't use the money to 
     blow up the economy.
       We need bold ideas to make college affordable and give 
     every child the tools to thrive in the modern economy.
       For example, estimates on what it would cost to give every 
     student free tuition at public colleges are LESS than the 
     cost of Ryan and Romney's pledge to eliminate the estate tax 
     on multi-million dollar fortunes.
       Surely it makes more sense to insure that every qualified 
     student can afford the education that he or she has earned 
     than it does to guarantee that the heirs of the wealthy need 
     never work another day in their lives.
       We cannot simply protect the status quo. But the absolute 
     last thing our college graduates need right now is to add to 
     the burden of their school debts.
       We need to win this fight against the loan rate increase 
     today, and build momentum to win big progressive reforms 
     tomorrow.
           Sincerely,

                                           Robert L. Borosage,

                                                      Co-director,
                                    Campaign for America's Future.

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition 
to H.R. 4628.

                                                      Campaign for


                                            Tobacco-Free Kids,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: We are 
     writing to express our opposition to eliminating the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund, a provision in H.R. 4628, 
     the Interest Rate Reduction Act. Eliminating this funding for 
     evidence-based prevention programs is an unwise choice for an 
     offset for this legislation. Only by investing in prevention 
     can the nation reduce the burden that preventable diseases 
     are placing on our families, health care system, and 
     government budgets.
       The Prevention and Public Health Fund was created to 
     transform our nation's health system into one that values 
     prevention of disease as highly as treatment of disease. It 
     was intended to provide a stable source of funding for 
     prevention programs, which have been chronically underfunded 
     despite their capacity to avert disease, save lives, and 
     restrain the rate of growth of health care costs.
       Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death and 
     disease in the United States. More than 400,000 people die 
     each year because of tobacco use, and more than

[[Page 5914]]

     8 million Americans are currently living with a tobacco-
     caused disease. Tobacco use is responsible for nearly $100 
     billion in health care costs each year. Reducing tobacco use 
     would reduce premature deaths and the costs of treating 
     tobacco-caused cancers, heart disease, and respiratory 
     disease.
       Fortunately, there are proven programs and policies to 
     reduce tobacco use, such as telephone-based quitlines that 
     provide counseling and cessation products to people who want 
     to quit, public education media campaigns that educate about 
     the dangers of tobacco use, and state and community-based 
     programs that involve community organizations and businesses 
     in prevention efforts. Investing in comprehensive tobacco 
     control programs pays dividends. The state of Washington's 
     tobacco control program saved more than $5 for every $1 it 
     spent between 2000 and 2009 by reducing hospitalizations for 
     heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and cancer caused 
     by tobacco use.
       In March, the CDC used the Prevention and Public Health 
     Fund to launch the government's first-ever, paid, nationwide 
     media campaign to encourage smokers to quit and prevent 
     children from starting to smoke. Public health authorities 
     such as the Surgeon General, the National Cancer Institute, 
     and the Institute of Medicine have all concluded that media 
     campaigns work. The first results of the new CDC media 
     campaign are promising: calls to state quitlines more than 
     doubled during the two weeks after the ads began running.
       We urge you to oppose H.R. 4628 and its elimination of the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund. The Prevention Fund was 
     already cut by more than $6 billion by Congress earlier this 
     year. Cutting prevention funding is penny wise and pound 
     foolish. Not investing in prevention now will mean higher 
     medical bills later. We urge you to protect the Prevention 
     and Public Health Fund.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Matthew L. Myers,
                                                        President.
                                  ____
                                  
         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing 
     to urge you to vote against the Interest Rate Reduction Act 
     (H.R. 4628), which would eliminate the Prevent and Public 
     Health Fund in order to offset the cost of capping student 
     loan costs, and instead support an alternative that would cap 
     the interest rate on needs-based student loans at 3.4% 
     without slashing important disease prevention programs. H.R. 
     4628 is little more than a ploy to score political points by 
     pitting one worthy legislative objective against another.
       We believe that a college education should be available to 
     every student who is willing to work for it, and keeping the 
     cost of student loans within reach is critical to achieving 
     that goal. Congress must act before July 1 to keep interest 
     rates from doubling for more than 7 million students, which 
     would cost them an average of $1,000 in additional repayment 
     costs. But Congress must act without causing harm to another 
     group of Americans who will benefit from the Prevention and 
     Public Health Fund, created by the Affordable Care Act.
       The Prevention Fund is already helping states and 
     communities promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect 
     against public health emergencies. Since the ACA was enacted 
     in 2010, HHS has awarded over $1 billion in Prevention Fund 
     Grants to tackle the leading causes of chronic disease and 
     mortality. Seven out of 10 deaths in America every year are 
     from chronic diseases, and about 50 percent of all adults 
     suffer from one. Programs supported by the Prevention Fund 
     use evidence-based interventions to prevent heart attacks, 
     strokes, cancer, and other illnesses by curbing tobacco use, 
     eliminating obesity, and reducing health disparities. The 
     fund also builds the capacity of our public health 
     infrastructure and workforce to address the spread of 
     infectious diseases and expand access to services in 
     medically underserved communities. Repealing the Prevention 
     Fund would result in higher mortality due to chronic 
     illnesses and significantly higher costs for our health care 
     system.
       We urge you to vote against H.R. 4628 because it would 
     inappropriately and gratuitously eliminate the Prevention and 
     Public Health Fund. It is hard to believe that the House 
     Republican leadership could not identify a more appropriate 
     offset. For example, it could have chosen legislation to 
     implement the Buffett Rule, which would ensure that people 
     who make more than $1 million per year pay an effective 
     federal income tax rate at least 30 percent. We urge the 
     House to approve the Senate's Stop the Student Loan Interest 
     Hike Act (S. 2343), which does include a more appropriate 
     offset to forestall a spike in student loan costs.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                          Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____
                                  


                                                       AFSCME,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to support responsible 
     legislation to help students and families afford a college 
     education by stopping the interest rate on student loans from 
     doubling on July 1, 2012. However, the Interest Rate 
     Reduction Act (H.R. 4628) is the wrong approach to this real 
     problem, and AFSCME strongly urges you to vote no.
       What H.R. 4628 gives with one hand, it takes away with the 
     other. The bill would pay for the interest rate reduction by 
     eliminating funding for public health activities such as 
     breast and cervical cancer screenings, child immunizations, 
     newborn screenings, protection of our food supplies and 
     responding to disease outbreaks, bioterrorism and natural 
     disasters. By gutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund, 
     the bill would undermine efforts to refocus our health care 
     system on wellness and to restrain the costs driven by the 
     prevalence of chronic disease.
       American families should not be forced to choose between 
     access to an affordable college education and their health. 
     There are far better options for funding the interest rate 
     reduction, including an end to wasteful taxpayer subsidies 
     for big oil and gas companies, as provided by the Stop the 
     Rate Hike Act of 2012 (H.R. 4618).
       We urge you to support a responsible fix to the student 
     loan problem that does not compromise the health and well-
     being of American families. H.R. 4628 is clearly not the way 
     to go.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to 
H.R. 4628.

                                                   April 26, 2012.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Public 
     Health Association, the oldest and most diverse organization 
     of public health professionals and advocates in the world, I 
     write to urge you to reject the latest attack on the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund that will be considered on 
     the House floor on Friday, April 27. This proposed 
     legislation would cut $6 billion from the fund to pay for 
     student loans. This irresponsible legislation marks the 
     second time this week that the House has considered 
     legislation to raid the fund. On April 25, the House Energy 
     and Commerce Committee voted to eliminate the fund as part of 
     its proposed budget reconciliation legislation.
       The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents a critical 
     investment in public health and a historic commitment to 
     changing our health system from one that focuses on treating 
     the sick to one that focuses on keeping people healthy. 
     Chronic disease spending makes up a significant majority of 
     our skyrocketing health care costs and the fund presents an 
     opportunity to rein in our health care spending by reducing 
     the rate of many leading chronic diseases. The fund's 
     mandatory nature demonstrates an ongoing commitment to 
     preventing disease and improving the health of our nation.
       Already, the fund is being used to control the obesity 
     epidemic, reduce tobacco use, modernize vaccination systems 
     and for other important interventions that will improve the 
     health of the nation's children and research has shown will 
     ultimately improve student achievement. Additionally the fund 
     is increasing training for the public health workforce, 
     preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and expanding our public 
     health departments' abilities to prevent and respond to 
     infectious disease outbreaks. Eliminating or reducing this 
     funding would leave American families less healthy and at 
     higher risk in the event of a public health emergency.
       Public health funding, including the Prevention and Public 
     Health Fund, has already seen significant reductions in 
     recent years. We urge you to end the ongoing attacks on the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund and to reject any efforts 
     to eliminate or reduce this critical public health funding.
           Sincerely,

                                          Georges C. Benjamin,

                                              MD, FACP, FACEP (E),
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____
                                  
                                                 Service Employees


                                          International Union,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2012.
       Dear Representative, On behalf of the more than 2.1 million 
     members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), 
     I urge you to oppose H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction 
     Act, which would force Americans to choose between preventive 
     health care and paying more for college, rather than asking 
     millionaires and corporations to pay their fair share. This 
     bill cuts investments to improve preventive health care in 
     order to pay to stop the student loan interest rate hike--
     once again protecting corporations like Big Oil instead of 
     fighting for the middle class.
       If Congress fails to take sensible action by July, the 
     interest rate on need-based student loans will double for 
     more than 7 million students, costing them $1,000 in 
     additional repayment costs. However, instead of closing 
     loopholes that subsidize oil and gas companies, H.R. 4628 
     would take billions of dollars

[[Page 5915]]

     from investments in preventive health care in order to reduce 
     student loan rates for low- and middle-income college 
     students. This is a trade-off--between affordable health care 
     and investments in preventive health--that need not and 
     should not be made.
       Students are already paying much more than their fair 
     share. New graduates average more than $25,000 in debt and 
     collectively, Americans owe more than $1 trillion dollars in 
     student loans. Furthermore, the main reason why student debt 
     has skyrocketed is because states dramatically decreased 
     funding for higher education and universities passed the cost 
     to students. State funding for public higher education 
     dropped 26 percent over the past 20 years, resulting in a 116 
     percent increase in tuition. Students have to borrow more and 
     pay back more.
       During a time of dramatic income inequality and persistent 
     unemployment, we should be focused on helping struggling 
     families and creating good jobs. Congress should prevent this 
     student loan rate hike to help pave the way to the middle 
     class, but should not be cutting investments in preventive 
     health care to pay for it.
       I urge you to vote against H.R. 4628, and to pass a bill 
     that does not force Americans to make a choice between 
     keeping student loan interest rates low and compromising 
     critical health care investments. If you have any questions 
     about this bill, please contact Steph Sterling, Legislative 
     Director, at 202-730-7232, or [email protected]. 
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
                                          International President.
                                  ____
                                  


                                                      Nemours,

                                                   April 23, 2012.
     Hon. Henry Waxman 
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Waxman: As the House votes on H.R. 
     4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, Nemours--an integrated 
     child health system in the Delaware Valley and Florida--would 
     like to express its opposition to the repeal of, or any 
     additional cuts to, the Prevention and Public Health Fund 
     (Fund). While Nemours has no objection to extending student 
     loan interest rates, we oppose offsetting this provision with 
     the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Further cuts to the 
     Fund will only hurt investments already made in wellness, 
     prevention, and public health programs. We need to stop 
     continually sacrificing the Fund for other priorities.
       Experts have warned that this could be the first generation 
     of children who live shorter, less healthy lives than their 
     parents. As a foundation operating an integrated health 
     system, we have a unique perspective on the threat that 
     preventable chronic diseases are posing to the health of 
     America's children. We believe our country has the 
     opportunity to invest in our children by promoting health and 
     disease prevention through the Fund. Already, the Fund has 
     made important investments in obesity prevention, tobacco 
     control, and other health priorities. Every attempt to 
     diminish the Fund compromises our ability to protect and 
     promote the health of our children, which is our mission at 
     Nemours.
       With Americans spending more each year on health care, the 
     Fund represents an important investment in a slower cost 
     growth for our health care system and America's economy 
     overall. By partaking in preventive and wellness initiatives 
     early in their lives, more Americans will be able to remain 
     healthy preventing, unnecessary hospitalizations later in 
     life. However, in order to do this, our nation needs to 
     fundamentally realign its health care spending. We need to 
     invest more at the front end to maintain people's health, as 
     opposed to focusing our scarce resources on treatment at the 
     back end. The Fund helps to achieve this goal, and any 
     attempt to diminish the Fund will compromise our ability to 
     ensure the health and well-being of our nation and economy.
       We urge you to stand with our nation's children and fight 
     to safeguard the Prevention and Public Health Fund and oppose 
     all efforts to siphon away this investment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Debbie I. Chang,
                            Vice President, Policy and Prevention.

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
4628, the Interest Reduction Act. At a time when 7.4 million low- and 
middle-income students are counting on Congress to extend the current 
interest rate on federal student loans, the majority has brought to the 
floor a partisan bill that would take billions of dollars away from the 
Prevention and Public Health Fund in the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a critical part 
of health care reform. Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 
the Fund has already been used to:
  Improve prevention services in low-income and underserved 
communities;
  Expand mental health programs, including suicide prevention efforts;
  Invest in public health workforce development;
  Provide vaccines to underserved and underinsured children and adults, 
and provide support for state and local systems to promote and track 
immunization; and
  Promote healthy diets and active lifestyles.
  The GOP bill to extend the current interest rate on federal student 
loans would permanently end this vital program--cutting off basic 
preventative care services to millions of Americans.
  We must extend the current interest rate on federal student loans, 
but not on the backs of women and children who will benefit from the 
prevention fund. This bill takes a short-sighted and misguided approach 
to solving the issue at hand.
  If this body fails to act responsibly to extend the current interest 
rate on student loans, students who take out the maximum $23,000 in 
subsidized student loans will see their interest increase an additional 
$5,200 over a 10-year repayment period and $11,300 over a 20-year 
repayment period.
  By extending the current interest rate, we are making an investment 
in our country's future--our economy depends on an educated citizenry 
to out-compete and out-innovate the rest of the world. Maintaining 
access to a quality and affordable education is central to preserving 
America's status as a center for academic research and technological 
innovation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this politically-motivated 
legislation that will threaten the long-term well-being of women and 
children, and request that a more serious alternative be considered.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, a previous commitment has 
prevented me from voting today, but if I had the opportunity, I would 
have voted against the legislation. It is abundantly clear that 
Congress needs to do something to keep student interest rates from 
doubling for more than 7 million college students in the coming year. 
Ensuring that education is widely accessible is vital to growing the 
U.S. economy and to expanding opportunities for all Americans. The 
growing burden of higher education costs is an issue that everyone 
should be concerned about and threatens to limit future economic 
growth. We must not burden graduates with unmanageable college debt as 
they seek to launch a career or a business, start a family, or buy a 
house.
  That's why Democrats have been pushing Republicans for weeks to do 
something to provide students and families with certainty as they look 
ahead to the 2012-2013 school year.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3826, which would permanently 
keep interest rates for student Stafford loans at 3.4 percent. Taking 
action to stop the doubling of these rates will save students $1,000, 
on average, over the life of their loans. There is a clear national 
interest in enacting this legislation and broad support from my 
constituents.
  That's why it's particularly frustrating that Republicans have chosen 
to link their legislation, which provides students with only one year 
of reprieve before interest rates go up again, with a controversial 
offset that ensures the legislation won't actually pass. The chosen 
offset for this bill removes funding for health prevention services, 
forcing Americans to choose between preventive health care and paying 
more for college. For instance, Republicans have used this legislation 
to remove funding for breast and cervical cancer prevention and control 
efforts ($143 million), programs to address birth defects and 
developmental disabilities such as newborn screening for hearing loss 
and prevention of congenital heart defects ($107 million), and 
vaccinations for underserved children and adults ($72 million).
  Both student aid and public health are core governmental functions 
and basic investments in our country's future. While providing student 
aid is very important, we have to make sure that children are healthy 
enough to go to college in the first place. Why are Republicans wasting 
America's time with political games when there is a clear path forward 
to solving the problem in a permanent, bipartisan fashion?
  Unfortunately a long-standing engagement out of town means that I 
will have to miss the vote on this legislation. Due to my concern over 
the offset for the program, I would have voted no. I hope that my 
colleagues can draft a new bill that protects our students without 
taking money away from important preventative health services.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4628. 
While I fully support extending the Subsidized Stafford student loan 
interest rate of 3.4 percent, the cost of it should not defund efforts 
to reduce health disparities, especially for America's women and 
children. I am glad the Majority in the House recognizes the need to 
extend the interest rate but they are toying with students by

[[Page 5916]]

tying the extension to the elimination of the Prevention and Public 
Health Fund. Already this Fund has awarded more than $62 million to New 
York State to combat obesity and tobacco use, prevent the spread of 
HIV/AIDS, and train the State's public health workforce to meet modern 
health care needs. These and other critical services, including 
screenings for breast and cervical cancer, are being offered all across 
the country.
  I am committed to the House Minority's effort to prevent the student 
loan rate from doubling for millions of Americans. My Congressional 
district is home to numerous colleges and universities, and I know the 
amount of debt that students incur by attending these schools. Federal 
loan and aid opportunities are critical to giving students the 
opportunity to pursue higher education. In his 2012 State of the Union, 
President Obama called on the Congress to advance new reforms to 
address the rising costs of college so that the American workforce is 
prepared for 21st century jobs. Now is the time to work to make college 
accessible and affordable. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Minority's legislation that would extend the lower interest rate for 
students without hurting the health of our nation.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives missed 
an opportunity to do right by millions of American students.
  This was an opportunity for us all to come together in a bipartisan 
way and ensure that college students would not see their student loan 
interest rates double in just a few months.
  But instead, Republicans chose to give our students a lesson in 
Partisan Politics 101.
  For all the rhetoric we heard about their desire to stop these rate 
hikes, they just couldn't pass up the chance to use one of their 
favorite tactics--dismantling the Affordable Care Act.
  They did this knowing full well that this proposal would never get 
the support it needs to become law.
  They made the calculation that they would try to score political 
points rather than help ensure that students can access an affordable 
college education.
  But these political tactics are not going to help families shoulder 
the cost of paying for college.
  They are not going to give more students the opportunity to achieve 
the American dream.
  And they are not going to help keep our country competitive in a 
global economy by training the best and the brightest in needed fields.
  What this maneuver would achieve is fewer disease screenings, 
weakened community health programs, and worse health for us all.
  Is that the country we want to be?
  We shouldn't have to choose between educating our next generation and 
making sure they're healthy.
  And if this was really about ``fiscal responsibility,'' then the 
Republicans wouldn't have chosen to eliminate--again--a program that 
actually saves money by preventing more costly disease.
  I went to the House floor hoping to be able to vote for legislation 
that would make a responsible effort to stop this interest rate hike.
  We could cover the cost by putting an end to unnecessary tax breaks 
for oil companies raking in profits.
  But instead, Republicans were intent on making this a political ploy 
at the expense of American families.
  I refuse to play these games with the well-being of hard-working 
Americans at stake, and I voted no on this legislation so that we can 
bring a better bill up for a vote.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
which would deprive women in need of vital health services. All of us--
on both sides of the aisle--recognize the need to prevent student loan 
interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent. But this bill tackles this 
problem in exactly the wrong way--depriving women of preventative care 
aimed at stopping cervical cancer and stopping low income children from 
receiving life saving vaccinations.
  For the working families of New York, this legislation robs them of 
access to quality health care. With this bill, we are saying that for a 
young person from a working family to afford college, his or her mother 
must also forego vital medical care.
  Preventing a rise in student loan rates is critical for our young 
people. With millions of students graduating into a difficult job 
market now is the time for serious solutions that keep these loans 
affordable--not the time to use this problem as a political football.
  The President has said this bill is dead on arrival, so why are we 
wasting time debating it? We can and must find a better solution that 
keeps these rates low without harming working families.
  Let us reject this bill and craft legislation that has a chance of 
being signed into law.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this bill.
  I firmly believe that we need to make college more affordable. We 
should not double interest rates after we worked so hard to keep them 
down while the Democrats controlled Congress. However, by funding the 
interest rate extension with cuts to the Prevention and Public Health 
Fund, the Republicans are expanding a war on students into a war on 
women and a war on health.
  As my colleague from California, Lois Capps noted, this fund supports 
critical women's health screenings--600,000 screenings will be cut with 
the repeal of this fund. This is essential to women's health. Moreover, 
the fund targets widespread chronic diseases like diabetes, stroke, and 
heart disease. The fund ensures that our children have access to 
necessary vaccines, and supports programs to prevent birth defects and 
screen for autism.
  Students and their families do not need to be asked to choose between 
preventive health and affordable schooling. I call on the Republicans 
who set the agenda to get serious and work on solving this problem in a 
sensible, bipartisan way.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hard working 
students and their families. Ensuring that all Americans have access to 
high quality education is one of my top priorities. I have worked to 
provide students with opportunities for higher education by fighting to 
strengthen financial aid, increase the maximum amount for Pell Grants, 
and lower student loan repayment interest rates.
  At a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, we 
must do all we can to keep post-secondary education affordable. 
Accordingly, I urge my fellow Representatives to take action to prevent 
student loan interest rates from rising this summer. If we do nothing, 
the interest rate on need-based student loans will double this July and 
will increase student loan repayment costs by over $1,000 for more than 
seven million students.
  While my Republican colleagues have reversed their opinion on this 
issue and now claim to support our Nation's students--despite their 
continued support for the Ryan Budget, which slashes funding for 
education by 45 percent--they have put forward a misguided and radical 
bill that hurts low-income and middle-income families. Instead of 
ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, the Tea Party 
Republicans have proposed slashing billions of dollars in funding from 
vital health care programs for women and children, including childhood 
immunizations and cancer screening programs.
  The Republicans want you to believe that we must choose between 
supporting our students and providing vital health services to women 
and children. However, this is clearly not the case. My fellow 
Democrats and I have been fighting to expand health care coverage and 
promote affordable education for years. Since 2007, Democrats have 
lowered the cost of education by cutting the student loan interest rate 
in half, saving billions of dollars for millions of students while 
returning billions of dollars in bank subsidies to students in the form 
of higher Pell Grants, income-based repayment programs, and loan 
forgiveness for students entering public service.
  Unlike my Republican colleagues, I remain committed to creating jobs, 
expanding health care coverage, and promoting affordable, high quality 
education for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to do the same by 
voicing their opposition to the Republicans' damaging student loan 
proposal.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4628: the 
Interest Rate Reduction Act.
  Congress has a unique opportunity to prevent the scheduled doubling 
of student loan interest rates before July. Our failure to act will 
have debilitating effects on millions of Americans. Rather than serve 
as an obstacle to students wishing to further their education, Congress 
should work to make college accessible to all. Yet Congress is standing 
in the way by considering legislation that would pay for the extension 
of the interest rate reduction by repealing the Prevention and Public 
Health Fund, which funds essential health services for millions of 
Americans, including women and children. There is another sensible and 
responsible way to pay for keeping student loan rates low: end tax 
subsidies for big oil companies.
  Young, educated Americans begin their adult lives financially 
strapped. Not only do these recent graduates have debt, they also have 
some of the greatest difficulty finding gainful employment. Recent 
college graduates have a higher unemployment rate than any other 
demographic group in the country. Sixty-six percent of students 
graduating from college today are leaving with student loan debt.

[[Page 5917]]

On average, those students graduate with $25,000 in debt. The total 
amount of student loan debt in this country is more than $1 trillion 
dollars.
  If we do not pass a measure that extends the reduced interest rate on 
student loans, more than 7 million students' rates will double to 6.8 
percent. Students who borrow the maximum in subsidized student loans 
will pay up to an additional $1,000 in interest costs. It is our 
responsibility to give these students a chance to earn a quality 
education without the strings of unmanageable debt.
  There is little profit to be had from trying to prevent diseases from 
occurring in the first place, which means pharmaceutical companies and 
others who profit from efforts to treat and cure diseases will not pay 
for such efforts. If we want to prevent cancer, the spread of HIV, 
outbreaks of West Nile Virus, and protect mothers and babies from 
tobacco; if we want to promote better nutrition, birth defect 
reduction, preparedness for bioterrorism, and breast and cervical 
cancer screenings; if we want to protect our children from lead in our 
homes and yards, the childhood obesity epidemic, and otherwise 
invisible clusters of chronic diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, we have 
to fund these programs ourselves. The Prevention and Public Health Fund 
must be protected as a measure of self-protection.
  This bill repeals the Prevention and Public Health Fund. I cannot 
support this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to recover economically, we 
must ensure that students can afford a higher education. In 2007, as we 
were dealing with the worst of the recession, I voted in favor of 
legislation to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans from 6.8 to 3.4 
percent. On July 31, interest rates will go back to 6.8 percent if 
Congress does not act.
  There are nearly 48,000 students attending a university or college in 
my district who have a Stafford subsidized student loan. Those loans 
total over $212 million. Doubling the interest rate will add an 
unnecessary burden on those students as they graduate and enter the 
workforce. For each year that Congress does not act to keep rates at 
3.4 percent, students add an additional $1000 in debt over the life of 
their loans. It may prevent them from starting a family, buying a home, 
or getting a new car. We must do everything we can to help as they get 
started.
  The cost of the student loan bill is $6 billion. Unfortunately, 
Republicans have chosen to pay for it by repealing the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund included in the Affordable Care Act that invests in 
innovative programs, practices and treatments to prevent cancer, heart 
disease, diabetes, and programs particularly important to women's 
health. We should not have to choose how we are going to invest in our 
country's future; how do you decide to cut investments in the education 
for the workforce of tomorrow versus the health of that very same 
workforce?
  I support the Democratic alternative negotiated between the White 
House and Congressional Democrats that pays for the student loan 
interest rate by closing a corporate tax loophole. I hope that the 
House leadership will allow a vote on this commonsense alternative so 
students and their families aren't left paying for higher interest 
rates to go to school. Republicans know that their proposal cannot be 
supported by Democrats. They don't seem to know that by not finding a 
compromise, they are playing politics with students, families, and the 
future of our country.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4628, which places partisan politics ahead of America's students and 
the health of Minnesota communities.
  If Congress does not act by July 1, interest rates on student loans 
will double for 7 million American students. This is a financial crisis 
for these students and their families, who will be forced to pay an 
additional $1000 this year in loan repayment costs. America's college 
students are already graduating with an average debt burden of 
$25,000--higher than any time in our nation's history. President Obama 
and Democrats in Congress are committed to lowering the costs of 
college and have introduced legislation to block this impending rate 
increase.
  For months, Republicans in Congress have completely ignored this 
problem. The fiscal year 2013 budget that House Republicans adopted in 
March did not include a fix for skyrocketing student loan rate 
increase, but it did provide millionaires and billionaires an average 
tax cut of $400,000. The Republican Chairman of the House Education and 
Workforce Committee--my colleague from Minnesota--opposed extending the 
current low interest rate as recently as last week. On April 20, The 
New York Times reported Chairman Kline saying a fix would be ``too 
costly'' and that ``we must choose between allowing interest rates to 
rise or piling billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers.''
  Thankfully, House Republicans ended their opposition to lower student 
loan rates this week under pressure from President Obama and millions 
of American students. The majority introduced H.R. 4628 to extend the 
current 3.4 percent interest rate on federal Stafford loans for an 
additional year at a cost of $6.3 billion. Unfortunately, House 
Republicans are cynically choosing to offset the costs of H.R. 4628 by 
repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the new 
health care reform law. Cutting health care for millions of Americans 
to prevent rising student loan rates is an unacceptable and unnecessary 
choice.
  Minnesota communities rely on this Fund to pay for cancer detection, 
childhood immunizations, newborn screening and other critical health 
care services that help to keep our communities healthy and save our 
country billions in long-term health care costs. Women in Minnesota 
will be disproportionally impacted due to the loss of access to 
services such as breast and cervical cancer screening. Nearly 800 
community organizations across the country oppose H.R. 4628 because of 
these damaging cuts, including the American Lung Association, American 
Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of 
Maternal and Child Health, and the National Association of County and 
City Health Officials. The White House opposes H.R. 4628 and told the 
House Republican majority to expect a veto from President Obama. This 
partisan legislation will only further delay a solution for students.
  Democrats in Congress have a plan to protect students against rising 
loan costs without adding to deficits or harming communities. I am a 
co-sponsor of H.R. 4816, which prevents the doubling of interest rates 
on student loans and offsets the costs by eliminating wasteful taxpayer 
subsidies for the five biggest oil corporations that are making record 
profits. This legislation is a win for students and a win for American 
taxpayers. H.R. 4816 reflects the priorities of the American people and 
creates a path for bipartisan consensus.
  I urge my colleges to reject H.R. 4628 and, instead, pass the common-
sense alternative offered by House Democrats.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 631, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 4628 is postponed.

                          ____________________