[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7565-7575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 232

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

                              {time}  0920

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


                             General Leave

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

[[Page 7566]]

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

                              {time}  0930

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

[[Page 7567]]

and said, We'll pay for it. We'll raise additional revenues to keep it 
at 3.4 percent. Then the Education and the Workforce Committee of this 
House can do its job, which is to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, 
and we can put in place a long-term program for helping families 
finance their educations. We have to also understand that we've got to 
do something about the State support and the cost of college at the 
institutional level, but they turned Mr. Courtney down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I offered to have the Obama 
amendment made in order, the legislation by President Obama, which 
actually saves students about $30 billion in interest rates over the 
next 6 years. It saves students and families over $30 billion. They 
wouldn't make that amendment in order.
  Mr. Heck of Nevada came before them and said, Why don't we do like 
the market does? If you pay your loan on time for 4 years, we'll 
provide you an incentive to continue to be a good payer of your loan--
important to the Treasury, important to the students' credit ratings. 
Let's try that. They turned Mr. Heck down.
  Mr. Rice came before the committee, the gentleman from South 
Carolina, and he said he would like to reduce the interest rates. He 
understands what students and families are struggling with. They turned 
him down. They turned down every attempt to try to help students and 
families.
  I appreciate people talking about being through the recession. Well, 
let me tell you, for a lot of middle-income families, they're not 
through the recession yet. They've still lost the equity in their 
homes. They still have their credit problems. But do you know what? 
Recession or no recession, their kids are graduating from high school, 
and they want them to go to college. What the hell is this Congress 
doing making it more difficult for those kids to go to college? But 
that's the choice the Republicans have given us.
  I would hope on a bipartisan basis we would reject this effort and 
that we would go to work on legislation that is long term, that's in 
the interest of the students, and stop crushing the aspirations of 
these families and these students, which this legislation does. It 
should be rejected. This isn't an interest in the market rates. This is 
using the market to crush these families by extracting billions of 
additional dollars off of their school loans.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in my career before coming to Congress, I was the 
director of an Upward Bound special services program. I was an adviser 
for students at Appalachian State University. I was the president of a 
community college. For all of my life, I have devoted my time to 
helping students--particularly disadvantaged students--who wanted to go 
to college, who wanted to do the same kind of thing that I did as a 
disadvantaged person, and that is to get a great education and use that 
education to better my life.
  I am offended that my colleagues would say that what I want to do is 
to stop people from going to college or to hinder them in any way from 
achieving the American Dream. My whole goal all my life has been to 
help other people, particularly young people, and I believe my 
experience shows that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that's not what this bill is about. This bill is 
about taking away the arbitrary control of Members of Congress who 
think of themselves as smarter than everybody else in the world, and it 
is about allowing the market to work.
  The current Federal loan program is broken. An overwhelming majority 
of students are stuck with interest rates on loans that do not match 
the current low interest rate environment because of failed Democrat 
campaign promises to cut student loan interest rates in half 
permanently. These students are also often confused about why most of 
their Federal loans are fixed at nearly 7 percent when the market rate 
is much lower, and they question why each type of student loan has a 
different rate. To put it simply, student borrowers are getting a raw 
deal, and they know it.
  Under the legislation, student loan interest rates would reset once a 
year and move with the market, much like they did from 1992 to 2006. 
This bill is the only viable plan on the table that is fiscally 
responsible, that helps students and protects taxpayers. We should pass 
this bill immediately. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
the proposal does not cost any additional revenue to implement over the 
next 5 or 10 years.
  H.R. 1911 will provide stability and certainty for students making 
decisions about how to finance their postsecondary education. They will 
be assured year after year that the interest rate on their student 
loans will be similar to market conditions, and they won't have to 
wonder whether Congress is going to make arbitrary changes to interest 
rates. The bill offers students the ability to take advantage of 
interest rates when they're low, and it protects them with affordable 
caps in high-rate environments. The bill continues current law in which 
students have the option to consolidate their loans after graduation 
and to lock in a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan. Mr. 
Speaker, these are commonsense provisions that will benefit student 
borrowers greatly.
  The legislation also ensures students can continue to take advantage 
of a number of generous Federal repayment options and debt management 
programs available to help those experiencing difficulty in repaying 
their loans. For example, students can enter one of the income-based 
repayment plans that caps their monthly payments at affordable levels 
and provides forgiveness after 20 or 25 years. For students in the 
public sector, the program allows loan forgiveness after 10 years. The 
Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a long-term, comprehensive 
solution that gets Washington politicians out of setting interest rates 
on Federal loans, and it will better serve the interest of students. We 
should pass this rule and the underlying bill now.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady for yielding time, and I 
thank her for her leadership on this issue and here in the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1911. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule to prevent this flawed 
legislation from moving forward.
  We have a student loan debt crisis to be sure, but this is not the 
solution. A free market approach will not solve this problem, and Mr. 
Miller was so accurate in his statement just a moment ago. For my 
constituents in eastern North Carolina, paying for higher education has 
never been more difficult.

                              {time}  0940

  I represent a very low-income district. One in four people in my 
district lives below the poverty level. While the economy is 
recovering, my region's 8.9 percent unemployment rate remains higher 
than the national average. At the same time, the cost to attend our 
colleges and universities has been steadily increasing. The cost to 
attend college is 1,100 percent more expensive than it was 30 years 
ago. Access to affordable Federal student aid can be the difference 
between constituents attending college or not.
  Just last year, despite strong opposition from Republicans, Congress 
voted to continue to keep interest rates on federally funded Stafford 
loans at 3.4 percent, instead of doubling to 6.8 percent. If those 
rates had doubled, Mr. Speaker, more than 7 million students each would 
be saddled with an average of $1,000 in additional debt. Once again, 
the rates are set to double on July 1 unless we act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this misguided approach. 
This legislation would tie loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury 
note but require that rates adjust each year.

[[Page 7568]]

That variability, Mr. Speaker, would lead to higher interest rates and 
increase the debt our students face. In fact, the nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service indicates that students will pay more 
than if interest rates were to double. Mr. Miller was absolutely 
correct in that assertion. That's right: passing this rule and this 
bill would be worse than doing nothing at all.
  This bill is a step in the wrong direction and will saddle students 
and families with unnecessary debt.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During the 2006 election cycle, Democrats made student borrowers a 
promise they did not keep. As a result, interest rates on student loans 
are set to double in a matter of weeks. The Smarter Solutions for 
Students Act will provide student borrowers with the certainty and 
stability they need to finance their education.
  Today's graduates are facing severe economic headwinds that make 
finding a job, repaying student loans, and starting a family extremely 
difficult. These students want nothing more than the opportunity to 
earn their own success. That's the American Dream. But for many of 
them, that dream seems hopelessly out of reach. We can do better, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The overall unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. That's hardly better 
than the day President Obama took office. Twelve million Americans are 
unemployed and anxious to get back to work, and 7.9 million Americans 
are underemployed.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, the slight decline in the 
unemployment rate is largely a mirage created by declining labor force 
participation. If the labor force participation rate had not declined 
since January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.9 percent instead 
of 7.5 percent. As we all know, this is well above the officially 
reported rate and the stimulus promise of 5.1 percent.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of 
involuntary part-time workers increased in April by 278,000 to 7.9 
million. These are people working part time because their hours were 
cut back or because they are unable to find a full-time job.
  There were 835,000 so-called ``discouraged workers'' in April alone. 
Discouraged workers are those ``persons not currently looking for work 
because they believe no jobs are available for them.''
  Mr. Speaker, these people aren't just jobless; they're hopeless and 
they deserve better. It's time to get America working again. But the 
failed policies of President Obama and Senate Democrats--higher taxes, 
more spending, and bigger government--are designed to continue to fail 
to create jobs or spur economic growth. The effects of President 
Obama's runaway spending, spiraling deficits, and mounting debt are 
being felt by every American.
  When President Obama took office, there were 31.9 million Americans 
using food stamps. Today, 47.3 million Americans use food stamps. 
That's an increase of 15.4 million people. Today, 15 percent of the 
entire U.S. population receives food stamp assistance. That is, by far, 
the largest number in history.
  Mr. Speaker, the policies of this administration are taking us in the 
wrong direction. The Republicans are focused on creating jobs and 
making things better for all Americans, and we need to pay attention to 
those policies. We can pass this rule, pass this bill, and get us going 
in the right direction for college students.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and discuss the 
importance of protecting college affordability.
  One of my top priorities is to ensure that all students have the 
opportunity to get a high quality education and acquire the skills 
needed to compete in the 21st century economy.
  I know personally how important this is. When I was young, my father 
lost his job and my parents never got back on track financially. But 
thanks to student loans and financial aid, I was able to get a great 
education and build a successful career as a businesswoman and 
entrepreneur.
  I'm very disappointed that the proposal we are considering today 
makes college more expensive. If we did nothing and let interest rates 
double in July, we would actually save students more money in the 
future than if we pass the underlying bill. It's incredibly 
disappointing that in our work to make college more affordable, this 
bill instead makes the problem worse.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule so we can work 
together on a long-term solution that supports our students and their 
families.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In my last comments, I talked about statistics and the effect of the 
policies of this administration. These statistics ultimately say the 
same thing: the Obama economy is making life more difficult for all 
Americans, especially young people.
  Fortunately, House Republicans have a plan to restore economic growth 
and spur job creation so that graduating students can find employment.
  Job creators are being stymied by mountains of regulatory red tape, 
crippling tax rates, a perplexing Tax Code, needlessly high energy 
prices, and rampant uncertainty caused by the President's failed 
leadership. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way.
  House Republicans are hard at work passing legislation to help grow 
the economy and create jobs. Our goal is to tear down the barriers to 
job creation and unleash the power of American ingenuity so that 
today's graduates can prosper and succeed and achieve the American 
Dream.
  As part of this plan, we're working diligently to make life easier 
for student borrowers, cut job-killing red tape that costs small 
businesses $10,585 per employee each year, reduce gas prices, and 
create jobs by producing more American energy, which is important since 
every penny increase per gallon of gas costs consumers $4 million per 
day. We also need to simplify a job-killing Tax Code that cost 
Americans $168 billion in 2010 just to comply, prevent job-killing tax 
hikes on small businesses, and reduce uncertainty by tackling the debt 
crisis with responsible spending cuts.
  The Republican plan will demolish Washington's self-made roadblocks 
to prosperity and put American job creators back on offense.
  The trick to growing our economy is getting politicians out of the 
way and letting American workers and entrepreneurs do what they do 
best: create shared prosperity through freedom and innovation. The 
Smarter Solutions for Students Act is an important part of this plan. I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague, the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee, for yielding the time and for being a consistent 
voice on behalf of families and students across America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' Making 
College More Expensive Act and the rule, and I rise on behalf of 
students all across America, particularly back home in Florida and in 
the Tampa Bay area.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. Speaker, we know that a college education is key to success in 
life, and that the rising costs of attending college can be an 
impediment to a student's ability to get into the classroom and get the 
courses that they need.
  About 10 days ago, I was at Tampa's Robinson High School talking with 
graduating seniors, and they implored me to please stand up for them 
and be a voice because they see the direct connection on the money that 
their families have to spend and on their ability to attend college. 
That is why this Republican Making College More Expensive Act would be 
so detrimental to the

[[Page 7569]]

future of our country and to those families and students that really 
want to get ahead in life.
  For example, the GOP's bill is projected to nearly double student 
loan rates by 2016, and by the time next year's freshmen graduate and 
start repaying their loans in 2017, the interest rate is expected to 
more than double beyond today's current rate.
  So I think about the 34,000 students in my district who rely on 
loans, whether they're at Hillsborough Community College, St. Pete 
College, the University of South Florida, the University of Tampa, or 
wherever. This Congress has got to stand up for families and students 
for a change.
  So I urge my Republican friends to cross over and join us and to 
block this student loan increase that the Republican leadership is 
proposing, side with students and families, oppose the rule and oppose 
the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, a good 
friend; and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. 
This comes down to an important question of American domestic policy: 
how important is it to us as a country to make college possible and 
accessible for students so they can improve their lives and improve our 
country.
  Some of the great historic moments of American policy, the creation 
of the land grant colleges, the GI Bill, providing student loans, were 
directed toward increasing access to higher education. And today, the 
House will vote on a bill that would reverse decades of progress. It 
would, in effect, transform the Federal Government into a greedy Wall 
Street bank, charging students punitive and wildly variable interest 
rates while banking billions in profits. Yes, the government would reap 
profits derived from students and recent students.
  The authors of this bill see this as government revenue. Instead of 
collecting taxes, they do it through a back door, trying to pay down 
the deficit on the backs of students.
  So today we have a choice: Do we make college more expensive for our 
low-income and middle class students? For me, the clear answer is 
``no.'' It's wrong. It's shortsighted. It's not right for students. 
It's not right for families, and it's not right for our economy.
  The Rules Committee could have given us a bill to lock in low rates 
for student loans, in the national interest, not to collect interest 
from students. But instead, they want to balance the budget on the 
backs of students and recent students.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague is accusing Republicans of 
increasing taxes on students. That is a laughable accusation, 
especially when you look at the number of proposed tax increases 
included in the Democrat budget resolution. It's almost as disingenuous 
as their calling for dedicating the 10-year savings generated by the 
underlying bill to higher education. After all, in 2010, House 
Democrats passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, SAFRA, 
which included language that put $13 billion in savings toward deficit 
reduction. In the final version of SAFRA, Democrats siphoned 
approximately $9 billion of the $19 billion in savings to pay for 
ObamaCare. The rest of those savings went to deficit reduction.
  The Smarter Solutions for Students Act is a fiscally responsible plan 
that generates a small amount of savings based on CBO estimates. It 
stabilizes Federal loan programs for future generations of students and 
gets Washington out of the business of setting student loan interest 
rates.
  With that, Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady from New York and the 
gentlelady from North Carolina. I thank the gentlelady from New York 
for her persistent leadership on this issue.
  I rise today to first ask the question how you can have legislation 
that sounds positive, but in actuality literally puts the education 
system of America upside down.
  First, let me tell you how frustrated Americans are as they see the 
drip, drip, dripping of the sequester; and I join the gentlelady in her 
frustration on why we have not gone to budget reconciliation. I just 
want to mention the pathway of education so we can see that families 
are being pounded upon. Sequestration is causing 70,000 children to 
lose Head Start and Early Head Start. And, unfortunately, 950,000 
military children will lose teachers. I live in a State where we have a 
lot of military bases.
  So when I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, I rise with a high degree 
of overwhelming frustration for the people who live in my State. I am 
sorry that this rule did not accept an amendment that I had that would 
have submitted a report to Congress on the feasibility of offering loan 
forgiveness for those who put businesses in economically depressed 
areas. That truly provides for jobs.
  But then the real thing is to cap the interest rates at 4 percent. As 
was indicated by my colleague, Mr. Holt, he indicated how the numbers 
would go up for the students. Well, let me talk to you about Parent 
PLUS. Now, you can really see the oppression on parents who are trying 
to help their children go to school. In addition to the $100 billion of 
debt that students are carrying, we now eliminate the feasibility of 
Parent PLUS loans. Right now in current law, they're $27,956. But if we 
go into this bill, they'll go up to almost $36,000. Imagine a parent 
with four children.
  I've spoken in the last couple of weeks at the University of Houston-
Downtown, the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston 
Community College. I've spoken at Lone Star colleges, all of these 
colleges in our districts, St. Thomas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. All of this does not answer the question when this 
bill will be passed. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule, oppose the 
underlying bill. Cap this. This is not the President's message. The 
President had an extended life to be able to provide for parents and 
students. All you have to do is look at the red--$36,000 is what this 
bill is going to cost parents, and that means that we're going to close 
the door of opportunity for women, for minorities, and for Americans to 
get a higher education.
  This is not the way in graduation season to say thank you to our 
children for being successful and graduating from college. Let's oppose 
this bill and do the right thing for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and the underlying 
legislation because H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act 
would cause financial hardship for students seeking a higher education.
  The Rule for H.R. 1911 did not fix the underlying legislation. In 
fact, the Rule we are debating accepted no amendments that were offered 
by Members of the Congress. I offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #1 that 
would have capped student interest at 4 percent. This would have 
removed the threat of the cost of education doubling at the beginning 
of July.
  I also offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which directed the 
Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress on the 
feasibility of offering student loan forgiveness to those who start 
businesses in economically depressed areas such as HUBZones.
  This amendment would have encouraged young people from low income 
areas who get college degrees to return home to start businesses. This 
would establish economic opportunities for young graduates as an option 
for employment and at the same time bring businesses and job 
opportunities to target areas.
  Students who are graduating across the nation are departing colleges 
and universities this spring with immense debt. Student borrowing is 
widespread with more than $100 billion in federal education loans 
distributed every year. In total, student loan debt adds up to $1 
trillion. As a direct consequence of a weak economy, more than ever 
students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher education.

[[Page 7570]]

  The American family has been under financial pressure for twenty 
years resulting in longer hours, less pay and more debt. The only 
reliable way in today's economy to earn more is to learn more. During 
difficult economic times adults seek new careers by going back to 
school. Parents who want a better life for their children will take on 
college loan debt because the cost of education requires it.
  In the City of Houston, this spring I have participated in 
commencement exercises for the University of Houston, Texas Southern 
University, Houston Community College and Lone Star College North 
Harris. There are thousands of new graduates just in the City of 
Houston alone who are ready to pursue their dreams, but who will wake 
up to the reality of tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
  On July 1, 2013 the student loan interest rate will rise from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent. As Members of the Congress we know what this 
will mean for students in our districts and what it will mean for 
colleges and universities in our Congressional Districts.
  Some may try to tell you this bill does what President Obama proposed 
to do, but it does not. The President's proposal would have fixed the 
rate on student loans based on the actual Department of the Treasury's 
cost of borrowing. The Administration's plan would set the repayment 
costs for the entire life of the student loan, which would have created 
certainty for the borrower. The President's plan would tie student loan 
repayments to what graduates were earning after starting their careers. 
This would have supported a student's dream to become a teacher, social 
worker, artist, lawyer, doctor or engineer.
  Finally, President Obama would extend these favorable loan options to 
those already in the workforce who still have student loan debt. Paying 
a reasonable rate that is fixed over the life of the loan and would be 
based on what you can afford to pay--that is what the President 
proposed, but this is not what this bill does.
  The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national 
priority, not an afterthought. This is a bad bill that will not solve 
the problem of out of control student loan debt. For all of these 
reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the Rule for 
H.R. 1911, and the underlying legislation.
                                           American Association of


                                             University Women,

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

        Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 150,000 
     bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association 
     of University Women (AAUW), I urge you to vote against the 
     Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911). While AAUW 
     supports preventing the doubling of interest rates on 
     subsidized Stafford loans, scheduled to occur on July 1st, 
     the Smarter Solutions for Students Act fails to provide 
     stability in borrowing for students, and would not ensure 
     that rates stay low in the foreseeable future.
       With changes in the workforce over the century, higher 
     education is becoming less of a luxury and more of a 
     necessity. At current rates, the U.S. will add over 16 
     million jobs by the year 2020 that require at least some 
     postsecondary education. Moreover, the number of jobs 
     requiring a graduate degree is estimated to grow by at least 
     2.5 million by that same year. Since many students cannot pay 
     for their degrees out-of-pocket, student loans are an 
     important option and a worthwhile investment. College 
     graduates have fared better in the recent recession and 
     current recovery, and have higher wages and better job 
     prospects overall. Students rely on Stafford loans as a part 
     of the financial aid they use to finance higher education. 
     Subsidized Stafford loans are only offered to students with 
     demonstrated need. Specifically, about 30 percent of 
     undergraduates in 2007-08 received a subsidized Stafford 
     loan, and a majority of those recipients were women.
       Many graduates struggle to repay their loans. Loan 
     repayment is an even more significant burden for women, who 
     earn less on average over the course of their lives than 
     their male counterparts. AAUW's research report, Graduating 
     to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after 
     College Graduation, found that the median student loan debt 
     burden was slightly higher in 2009 for women than men. In 
     addition, among full-time workers who were repaying their 
     loans in 2009, nearly half (47 percent) of women one year 
     after college graduation were paying more than 8 percent of 
     their earnings toward student loan debt. Only 39 percent of 
     men were in the same position. Furthermore, just over half of 
     women (53 percent) and 39 percent of men, were paying a 
     greater percentage of their income toward student loan debt 
     than AAUW estimates a typical woman or man could afford.
       Keeping interest rates low on student loans is important 
     and the Smarter Solutions for Students Act would fail to do 
     so. At the current interest rate of 3.4 percent the 
     government earns almost 12.5 cents per each dollar loaned in 
     the subsidized Stafford loan program. This underscores that 
     there is no reason rates should increase at all for students. 
     Under the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, over the next 3 
     years interest rates are projected to rise to as much at 7.36 
     percent. Not only would Fixed rates ensure that when students 
     borrow, they know upfront what their monthly repayment amount 
     will be, as the rate is consistent through repayment. AAUW 
     knows that this is a key component of ensuring students are 
     smart borrowers when it comes to financing their higher 
     education. If they must take out a loan, knowing the 
     repayment schedule of that loan is necessary for their 
     planning purposes.
       Allowing the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans to 
     double on July 1 would have a real impact on students. The 
     interest rate increase could mean as much as $1,000 in 
     additional debt. But, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act 
     is not a real solution. Under this proposal interest rates 
     would be projected to increase, and students and graduates 
     would be faced with annual uncertainty as their rates at 
     origination and during repayment would vary based on the 
     market. I urge you to vote against the Smarter Solutions for 
     Students Act (H.R. 1911). Votes associated with this 
     legislation may be scored in the AAUW Action Fund 
     Congressional Voting Record for the 113th Congress. If you 
     have any questions or need additional information, feel free 
     to contact me or Anne Hedgepeth, government relations 
     manager.
           Sincerely,

                                                Lisa M. Maatz,

                                                         Director,
                           Public Policy and Government Relations.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'll continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for giving 
me the time.
  We approach July 1 with a problem where if the Congress does nothing, 
interest rates will double on student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 
percent. There are three options that are before the country and before 
the Congress. The first is to just let it happen, to let the rates go 
up to 6.8 percent and make higher education less affordable for people 
in the country.
  The second option is the option that's on the floor which will make 
it worse, to raise the interest rates over the long term higher than 
6.8 percent, and cost students and families an additional $3.7 billion 
to pay for a higher education.
  There is a third option offered by Mr. Courtney from Connecticut. 
That option would say let's leave the rates at 3.4 percent for 2 years, 
let's pay for that decision so it doesn't add to the deficit, and then 
use those 2 years to negotiate a sensible, long-term solution to the 
problem.

                              {time}  1000

  Now I know that there are those who disagree with Mr. Courtney's 
approach. I know there are those who agree with the Republican 
approach. But what I don't understand is why all three options aren't 
before the Congress.
  See, what we have in front of us today is to either do nothing and 
let the rates go to 6.8, or do something and make them go even higher. 
There's a third and better choice that the majority has refused to let 
the Congress vote on. I suspect the reason we can't vote on that choice 
is it would win. It would prevail.
  This is supposed to be a body where a majority rules. Instead, it's a 
body where paralysis rules. This bill will probably pass the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
  This bill will probably pass the floor. It will go nowhere, and we 
will be back sometime in late June trying to solve this problem.
  Let's have a democratic vote with a small D. Let's let the House vote 
on all the options, and I believe Mr. Courtney's option to leave the 
rates at 3.4 percent would and should prevail.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this bill. Why?

[[Page 7571]]

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

                              {time}  1010

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

[[Page 7572]]

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

[[Page 7573]]

final ruling is made. If the claim is ultimately deemed valid, then the 
remainder of the disability benefits will be paid out. If the claim is 
denied, then the veteran is held harmless and would not have to repay 
the provisional benefit, unless there would be a finding of fraud or 
bad faith on the part of the veteran.

                              {time}  1020

  The goal is to get these claims processed in a timely manner. And 
it's my belief that this legislation gives the VA a powerful reason to 
clean up its act and speed up the process.
  This bill serves as a lifeline to countless veterans who can't wait 
months or years for this problem to be solved. Our veterans are 
demanding leadership now. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. 
Taking proper care of our wounded veterans is an American issue.
  This is a national embarrassment, and we in Congress must meet it 
head on. It is my hope that we can restore the trust veterans have lost 
in their government to care for them when they need it most.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of the gentlewoman from 
New York if she is prepared to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, if my colleague 
has no further requests for time.
  Ms. FOXX. I'll reserve the balance of my time and allow my colleague 
to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish we were debating legislation that 
I thought might actually have a possibility of becoming law, but we are 
not.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and to think about Memorial Day and our proposal to 
take care of the veterans' backlog. I hope that we are successful in 
getting that done.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to providing 
more opportunities for more Americans and helping make life work for 
more families. This legislation is a great step in that direction.
  Student borrowers deserve more than platitudes and empty promises. 
They deserve real solutions that will improve their lives and help them 
achieve success.
  Our conservative solutions to the challenges facing young Americans 
today are the right solutions, and the results will speak for 
themselves. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

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

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


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

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

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook

[[Page 7574]]


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

                               NAYS--195

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

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

                              {time}  1046

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

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               YEAS--224

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

                               NAYS--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin

[[Page 7575]]


     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

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

                              {time}  1058

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

                          ____________________