Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill that rolls back protections for domestic violence victims and survivors, and I include three letters representing hundreds of organizations--law enforcement organizations, advocacy organizations around the country--in opposition to the rule. Before coming to Congress, I founded and was the first executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. I've trained thousands of police officers and judges, held victims' hands in courts. I've done intake in shelters and held their children in emergency rooms and answered calls on hotlines. This bill, the underlying bill and the rule, do great damage to the work that we've done across the aisle as advocates and leaders of good will to protect the interests of battered women of domestic violence, victims and survivors. Since the passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been a bipartisan piece of legislation. It has revolutionized the way violent crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented. Never would I have imagined that, when working on this 18 years ago, that we'd be in this Congress rolling back the protections that have been expanded to protect women, victims, survivors across this country and their children. It really is a sad day in this Congress. We should be ashamed of what we're doing. We should make sure that we expand protections for women, for immigrant women, for lesbian and gay men and women, and to make sure that we pass a rule that truly is bipartisan in this Congress that reflects the values and the needs and the spirit of the 1994 law. May 15, 2012. Re: Update--Manager's amendments to VAWA (H.R. 4970) do not fix critical problems. H.R. 4970 eliminates protections for battered immigrants; harms victims. House of Representatives. Dear Member of Congress: As a diverse coalition of immigration, faith, labor, civil rights, human rights and community organizations serving and advocating on behalf of immigrant victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, we urge you to oppose H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 (VAWA) (Adams, R FL) when it comes to the House floor. The amendments offered by Representative Adams (``manager's package'') that will be considered by the Rules Committee today are inadequate and do not correct the major problems with H.R. 4970. With the manager's package. H.R. 4970 will still roll back existing protections for battered immigrants that were created with bi-partisan congressional support. Enacted in 1994 and reauthorized twice in 2000 and 2005, VAWA has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. When VAWA was conceived, Congress recognized that the noncitizen status of battered immigrants can make them particularly vulnerable. Abusers often exploit their victims' undocumented status, leaving the victim afraid to report the abuse to law enforcement and making them fearful of assisting with the prosecution of these crimes. As modified, H.R. 4970 effectively eradicates protections created by VAWA that have been available for almost twenty years to immigrant victims of violence. The bill establishes an extremely onerous adjudication process for victims to receive protection that is not required in other areas of the law. Finally, it wastes government resources when allegations of fraud have not been substantiated. H.R. 4970 eliminates protections for crime victims offered by the U visa. Deters immigrant victims from reporting crimes by denying nearly all U visa recipients the protections offered by lawful permanent resident status. By offering only temporary relief, H.R. 4970 will eliminate an important incentive for victims to report crimes and silence victims who fear deportation. A victim could be deported and be forced to leave her children behind with an abuser if he has legal status but she does not. Endangers crime victims by making it extremely difficult for them to obtain U visa protection. H.R. 4970 needlessly requires that an investigation or prosecution is being actively pursued. Current law already requires that law enforcement certify that the victim has been or is likely to be helpful to an investigation or prosecution. H.R. 4970 requires that the victim help identify the perpetrator. Many sexual assault victims never get a good look at the perpetrator. H.R. 4970 denies battered immigrants the protections of ``self-petitioning.'' Gives perpetrators tools to interfere with a victim's immigration case. Forces every VAWA self-petitioner to participate in two face-to-face interviews with DHS officials, subjecting them to unnecessary additional screening that can be dangerous for victims who may have to account for their every movement to the abuser. Requires untrained local field office staff conduct in- person interviews with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Long delays to secure initial interviews at local offices will put victims trying to leave abusive relationship at greater risk. Endangers the safety of battered immigrants by suspending adjudication of their case if there is an open criminal investigation or prosecution of the perpetrator. H.R. 4970 requires DHS officials to conduct expensive and time consuming reviews of the victims' cases that are not required in other areas of law. These wasteful reviews are motivated by unsubstantiated claims of fraud and abuse within VAWA programs. H.R. 4970 endangers victims, and undoes years of bipartisan progress made in previous VAWA bills by taking us to a time before 1994 when abusers were allowed to use immigration status as a tool for further abuse. When H.R. 4970 is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, we urge you to vote NO. This bill goes against the core of VAWA by eliminating protections for victims and placing victims in danger. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mony Ruiz-Velasco, National Immigrant Justice Center, or Grace Huang, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Sincerely, America's Voice Education Fund; American Civil Liberties Union; American Immigration Lawyers Association; American Jewish Committee; Americans for Immigrant Justice; Asian American Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice; Asian Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence; ASISTA; Benjamin N. Cardozo Human Rights and Genocide Law Clinic; Break the Cycle; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities; Centro Legal de la Raza; Church World Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; Disciples Home Missions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Human Rights Defense Center; Hutto Visitation Program. Immigrant Rights Clinic at Rutgers School of Law; Immigration Equality; Immigration Law Center of Minnesota; Institute on Domestic Violence in the African-American Community; International Institute of Buffalo; International Organization for Adolescents; Jesuit Social Research Institute/Loyola University New Orleans; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish Women International; Kids in Need of Defense; Legal Aid Justice Center; Legal Services of New Jersey; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. National Center for Victims of Crime; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs (NCAVP); National Council of Jewish Women; National Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Forum; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; National Organization for Women; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; Physicians for Human Rights; Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project; Rabbis for Human Rights-North America; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network; South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT). Texans United for Families; Tahirih Justice Center; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Reformed Church of Highland Park, NJ; The Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights at the University of Chicago; Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates; VIDA Legal Assistance, Inc.; Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance; Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Women of Color Network; Women's Refugee Commission; Who Is My Neighbor? Inc.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ranking Member Berman, for yielding the time. I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. After reading the resolution and studying it, I just have a couple of questions that I would ask that you clarify your understanding about the resolution, and that is the resolved clauses, especially clauses 4 through 7, which are of some concern to me, but I'm interested in hearing from you. In your view, does this resolution in any way constitute an authorization for the use of military force?

Ms. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask the ranking member whether, under this resolution, the President would be required to come to the Congress for a specific authorization for the use of military force.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding and for your leadership. I was thinking here, as I was sitting, that 18 years ago almost this month, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee before the passage of the Violence Against Women Act on behalf of the domestic violence advocates and survivors all across this country. And 18 years ago, we were discussing with a bipartisan group of Members, Republicans and Democrats, men and women who believed that it was finally time for the Federal Government to provide resources for shelters and services and programs and support for law enforcement and for protections for women who were experiencing domestic violence. And I am actually saddened today that here we are in the Congress with Republicans taking one track and Democrats on another track on an issue that for the time that I have had professional experience on working on this issue in State legislatures and in the Congress has always been worked across both sides of the aisle with great agreement about the need to protect women against violence, and that in fact we stand here today with a partisan divide that I think for so many millions of women across this country who are experiencing violence is not something that we understand. Today, we had an opportunity on the grounds of the Capitol to honor peace officers from across the country. Some of those peace officers lost their lives because they were responding to situations of domestic violence. When the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, it was passed because of several years of prior work. I remember working on the Violence Against Women Act and its various iterations as early as 1990 with Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, and Senator Joseph Biden, now Vice President, a Democrat from Delaware, working on the House side with Republicans and Democrats as we sought the right kind of compromise so that we can end the scourge of domestic violence in homes all across this country. Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act as a bipartisan piece of legislation, it really revolutionized the way that violent crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented and the way that communities respond to survivors. I can recall as long ago as when I was in second grade living on a military installation in very close quarters where you could hear through the thin walls the family that was experiencing domestic violence. And our experience then is that the military police would respond. They would drive the servicemember around the block and he would be back in the home. That was happening not just on military installations, but in communities all across the country. With the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, it was a real message to law enforcement: we're going to provide you the tools and training and capacity to respond appropriately to victims of domestic violence. That's what we did in 1994. It's what we reauthorized with bipartisan support in 2000, and then again in 2005. I can remember as a resident adviser in college the horrible situation of having to call an emergency service for a young woman who had attempted suicide because she was in a violent relationship. In 2005 and 2000 we put resources in the Violence Against Women Act that enabled colleges and universities and communities to provide the kind of support and services that that young woman would have needed. I can recall being a coworker of a young woman who showed up at work every day, working in a high-technology field, fully educated, but she was experiencing violence. She calls me on the telephone in the middle of the night from a phone booth, naked, having been battered by her abuser, not having anyplace to go and a shelter very far away. Today, because of what we've done in the Federal level on violence against women, that particular survivor, that victim has recourse and has the ability to seek shelter and services available to her. When I testified 18 years ago before our House Judiciary Committee, I told the story of my own family, a family of four girls--and they say one in four women experiences violence at any time in their lifetime. Well, that was my family. My one sister was held at gunpoint and at knifepoint in my household. And I think that what we did in 1994, what we've done in constituent legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and 2005, has gone a long way to ensure that women like my sister, women like my coworker, like the students in college, like battered immigrant women who, under threat of deportation from their abuser, under the threat of their own physical safety, afraid--because they might be deported--from going to seek shelter and services. Well, in 2005, when we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, we said to those battered immigrant women: you don't have to be under threat of deportation if you're experiencing domestic violence. And yet here we are today in a Congress where the other side of the aisle, the Republicans in the Congress, are actually proposing rollbacks in the protections that we have offered to those who have experienced domestic violence, whether they are citizen survivors or they're immigrant women or they require cultural and linguistic services or they're lesbians and gays and transgender people in relationships that also require services. This is not the kind of country we are. I think certainly in 1994 and in the subsequent reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and 2005 that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that we did not envision that in 2012 we would actually be rolling back the protections that we had offered those who experience violence. I will have more to say about this because I think when I think back to my history of working on this issue--and so many of us have in this Congress--across the aisles to provide the kinds of supports and services and shelters and programs and training and law enforcement and prosecution that hold people accountable, that it is really sad that we're here on this floor of the House today rolling back the protections for those who experience violence. With that, if you would not mind, Mr. Garamendi, I know that we've been joined by others.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding his time, and I thank the gentlelady from Texas and for your leadership on the Judiciary Committee, and just a reminder to the Chair that at the latest count, the bill that the gentlelady from Texas refers to, H.R. 4970, that would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, is currently opposed by 325 advocacy organizations from around the country who remain concerned that the legislation proposed by the Republicans actually rolls back many protections for immigrant women, for Indian women, and for the LGBT community. With that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady. And thank you so much for pointing out, especially with these diverse communities, the real importance of developing programs and services that respond directly to those communities, whether they're immigrant populations, LGBT populations, native populations, and others, that require the services and support that have been offered traditionally in the Violence Against Women Act and its subsequent reauthorizations up until now. I'm actually reminded that, years ago, one of the most horrible calls that I responded to on a hotline was a woman in a lesbian relationship that was abusive and the difficulty of getting her into a program and services that were uniquely tailored to make sure that she could live safely. It is so sad for me to think, as the gentlewoman has pointed out, that we are going to roll back provisions in the Violence Against Women Act that would deny that woman the protections that would be offered to any other person who was experiencing domestic violence because we made some political and partisan decision about who should get services and who should be denied. So I thank the gentlelady. With that, I'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. And I thank him for his leadership because it took real courage for a bipartisan consensus to develop in this Congress, in this House of Representatives, in the Senate, with virtually no opposition because Members of Congress came together from every single State, from every community, from every congressional district and said that this kind of violence that happens in intimate relationships is not right, and that the Federal Government has a special role to play in making sure that those who experience violence have the ability to receive the kinds of programs and services and shelter and law enforcement protections, no matter what their status, because violence is wrong. I thank the gentleman from California and other Members of the Congress who, in 1994--and then again in 2000, and then again in 2005-- reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act across party lines because we share an oath and an obligation to provide those kinds of protections and services to all who experience violence. It is such a sad day that here we are here in the House of Representatives, and tomorrow we will have before us legislation that strips away that bipartisan effort that we engaged in just 18 years ago. With that, I'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady, and thank her also for her leadership and commitment to all those who experience violence. And I think the message here tonight is that clearly we need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I think we agree about that. But the question is, what do we do that actually expands the protections of a really vital piece of legislation for women all across this country, however they're situated? Unfortunately, H.R. 4970 simply doesn't do that. It eliminates protections for crime victims that are offered by the U visa, as our colleagues have pointed out. It deters immigrant victims from reporting crimes by denying nearly all U visa recipients the protections offered by lawful permanent resident status. If anyone has ever held the hand of an immigrant woman whose status is in question and whose abuser has known that and uses that as part of the instrument of violence against her, you could not be possibly for legislation that would, in fact, roll back the protections that she deserves. I've held that woman's hand. There's no reason, in this great country, that we should not have protections for those who've come here, for those whose legal status is actually under threat only because they're a victim of violence. Now, there are some who suggest that somehow there's great fraud going on, and that principally, women are saying that they are experiencing violence so that they can receive protections. I have to tell you, in my more than 20 some years of working on issues of domestic violence, on responding to telephone calls, and taking intakes in shelters, and sitting with victims and survivors in court, I can't recall anyone saying that they had experienced violence when they hadn't. And so I don't know what fraud the other side is trying to get at. What I do know is that H.R. 4970 would roll back protections from the very women, from the very victims who are the most vulnerable, who need those protections. It would endanger victims by making it difficult for them to obtain visa protection. H.R. 4970 needlessly requires that an investigation or prosecution is actively pursued. Can you imagine that a batterer would love the idea that you'd have to pursue an active investigation and prosecution, otherwise that person is free to continue battering, free to continue the abuse because they know that they, in effect, have the protection of the law. This is, unbelievable. H.R. 4970 would require that a victim help to identify the perpetrator. All of us who have worked, particularly, with victims of sexual assault and other victims, would know what a dangerous position it puts a victim in of having to identify a perpetrator. Very often a sexual assault victim will not even know who the perpetrator is. So I would urge my colleagues, as we consider reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which we know we need to do for those who experience violence all across this country, that we consider those who are the most vulnerable, and that we stop down this path of politicizing and turning the Violence Against Women Act into a partisan issue, when we know that since 1994, to 2000, to 2005, Republicans and Democrats in this Congress have come together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act because we stand together against domestic violence. I've been joined by my colleague from Vermont, Peter Welch, and I'm sure that he has a few words to share with us about supporting a robust, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

Ms. EDWARDS. I think the gentleman from Vermont raises an interesting point. We do have it in our heart. The question is whether we have the will to do the right thing. This is not a selfish question, because, in fact, while we can sympathize and empathize with the experiences of victims and can provide support and services to them, we also recognize that it is really costly to us as a society when people are experiencing violence in their homes. It impacts our workplaces; it impacts our communities; it impacts our streets. When young people witness violence--when children witness violence in their homes--it is more likely that they will either experience violence themselves or they will become perpetrators. Our prisons and jails are filled with young people, men and women, who, when you get down to the core and ask them the question about their life experiences, will repeat to you their experiences of violence. So this isn't an abstract question about whether we feel good in doing it. The impact for all of our communities and for society is really tremendous. Domestic violence spills out onto our streets and into our workplaces. It is estimated that the cost to our Nation is on the order of $8 billion in lost productivity because of domestic violence. It's attributed to productivity and to health care costs--the violence that causes 2 million injuries each year, three deaths each day, untold amounts of suffering to women and others who experience violence. I know that we talk about women because the overwhelming majority of those who experience intimate partner violence are women, but we want to acknowledge that there are some men who experience violence. Some of those men are in same-sex relationships, and for some of those men, the women are perpetrators of violence; but the overwhelming majority of violence is violence that takes place between men and women, with men being the principal perpetrators. It is why we've supported at the Federal level through the Violence Against Women Act a system of shelters and services and support for those who experience violence. It's why we've provided training for police officers, for all in law enforcement--for our prosecutors so that they become better prosecutors, for our judges so that they actually understand in our family courts and in our criminal courts what's going on with violence and so that it makes them better at meting out justice. It's the reason that we provide training in workplaces and with medical practitioners--so that they are able to identify when violence is happening in the emergency rooms and other health care facilities. It is the reason that here in this Congress we have this debate. The fact is, under H.R. 4970, which we are considering, if you are an immigrant woman, you can say, You know what? The abuser, because he knows about my immigration status, can abuse me all he wants because I will not be afforded any protection. There is no place that I can go. If you are from the LGBT community, you can experience untold violence, and there will not be protections and services for you. So H.R. 4970 actually turns on its head what we began to do in 1994 with the first passage of the Violence Against Women Act and with its subsequent reauthorizations, which is that we began to expand the protections. Then we began to ask: What are the levels of services that we can provide to communities, however they're situated, so that we can make sure we have culturally sensitive programs and services, linguistically sensitive programs and services, and programs targeted at specific communities so that they can take advantage of them?

Ms. EDWARDS. The gentleman makes an amazing point. When children witness violence, and especially as they grow older, children will often want to protect their mothers, and that actually puts them in greater danger. That is especially true for young boys, for male children, who will want to protect their mothers and think that they can intervene. There are children who grow up thinking that they were the reason that their mothers were experiencing violence, and then that has an untold downstream impact on them as they grow older. The fact of the matter is we need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and we need to do that in a bipartisan fashion. We need to make sure that whether you're an immigrant woman, whether you're a Native American woman, or whether you are in the LGBT community that you have the full protections of the law against experiencing violence in your intimate relationships. This is the least that we can do. It is just unfortunate that the Republicans aren't even going to allow an amendment that would actually allow us to expand these protections so that we could come to a bipartisan solution. I can't tell you--I will just say to the chair--how sad it makes me as somebody who was in the trenches in 1990 to 1994, with advocates from across this country who were seeking to expand protections and services and programs for those who were experiencing violence, to know that we were able to do that with Republican Orrin Hatch from Utah; with Joe Biden from Delaware, a Democrat; with Connie Morella, a Republican from Maryland; with John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan. We were able to do that across the aisle; but today, instead, what we are doing is a Republican bill that would roll back the protections that many of us had sought to have.

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the baseline, which is, when you're experiencing violence, you don't identify yourself as a Republican or as a Democrat. You're not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. Children witness violence, women--and some men--experience violence. Native American women experience violence, and so do immigrants experience violence. Our law should afford the full protection of the law against those who would perpetrate and provide services and programs for those against whom violence is committed. I strongly urge the passage of the Violence Against Women Act that is a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, H.R. 4970 simply misses the mark and would tip the scales in favor of abusers, that would tip the scales against immigrant women, that would tip the scales against the LGBT community, and would tip the scales across the board. With that, I urge that we would defeat H.R. 4970 and come back to the table with sensible bipartisan legislation in the tradition of the Violence Against Women Act. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, once again, Republicans are going to pass a budget reconciliation that gives tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, Big Oil, and companies that ship American jobs overseas. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that this Tea Party budget that gives away $3 trillion would provide those making over a million dollars a year with an average tax cut of $394,000 a year. And how do the Republicans pay for this little bonus? Well, Mr. Speaker, they do it by ending the Medicare guarantee and balancing their budget on the backs of the middle class and America's most vulnerable: our seniors, women, and children. That means that 326,000 women will lose breast cancer screenings, 300,000 fewer children will be with health insurance, and 1.7 million seniors are going to go without Meals on Wheels. This Tea Party budget is an embarrassment. We can all do better, and Democrats know that because we support a balanced approach that creates jobs and expands opportunities. Republicans ought to know better. Actually, Mr. Speaker, they ought to do better by honoring the American people.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, I thought, not to speak personally, but as I listened to the gentleman from Florida, as I have listened to Members as they've taken the floor today, I thought I'd like to share a story with the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it's my own story. I went to college at Wake Forest University. I remember the day I was accepted, I was so excited. My parents were excited, too, but we knew, as a family with six children, my father having served in the United States Air Force for 30 years, that they wanted for me what they wanted for all of us, and that was the chance for the American Dream in a different way than they had. We knew that in order to do that, that it would take a combination of academic scholarships, grants, loans, and savings to put together what it would take to receive a college education, and so that's what we did as a family. I stand here today to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it gives me great sadness to know that Republicans on the other side of the aisle would have student loan interest rates increase, double, by July 1 without acting in this Congress. Today, very sadly, what we did was we said to families--and particularly to women, girls who want to go to school--that you have a choice: We'll either double your interest rates to 6.8 percent beginning in the first year of your college loan or you can have preventive health care services. Imagine for the young women across this country that their choice is preventive health care services or the ability to go to school on a student loan, have that loan, the interest rate low, and then pay back that loan over a period of time. What a horrible choice. Now, we've listened earlier as people talk about building the American Dream and climbing the ladders of opportunity to success, but that ladder has rungs. One of the rungs of that ladder, as my family well knew when I became a freshman in college, is the opportunity to get a college education, to do better than the previous generation. It's what we want for all of our children. I went to school on student loans, and I went to school on student loans at a time when, between undergraduate school and then law school, I effectively had almost $100,000 in student loans. A quarter of that, about $25,000 of that, was paid out to some bank that made a profit. Instead, what we have done as Democrats is we, in 2010, passed a package of reforms for student loans, lowered the interest rate of student loans so that it was affordable, made those loan payments affordable and manageable, made sure that when you were coming out of school, if you had a job that didn't pay you as much as you needed or wanted, that your student loans would be able to be managed and at an interest rate that was affordable. That's not what I had, but it's what we were able to give our young people today. It's what Republicans in this Congress have decided to take away. So, then in 2007, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. It provided relief to students from high interest rates by lowering those interest rates. When I came out of undergraduate school and law school, I had this array of student loans that had different interest rates. Little did I know that when I tried to consolidate those loans, I actually ended up paying the higher interest rate. Today, when students are graduating from college under what Democrats did in 2007, we actually, in this Congress, made sure that the interest rates would be affordable, that students would then be able to manage them, and that they would be able to pay their loans back. So I want to tell you something that I'm not really proud of, and that's that I also got in trouble paying my loans back. I didn't make as much as I needed to pay those and to balance my other responsibilities. It was difficult, but over a period of time, because the program, in fact, was affordable, because I knew that we all had--my neighbors--we all had my back, that I could pay those student loans back over a period of time. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, just 1 month before I was elected to Congress, I paid my last student loan? I can still remember that day in January writing that check to pay the last of my student loans. Do you know how proud I am to have been able to do that? The reason is because I knew that when my son was going to college, we were doing the same things that my parents did when I went to college, collecting the savings and academic scholarships, but also putting together a package of loans that would be affordable for him to go to school. It's what we do. It's sort of that contract that we have from one generation to the next generation. I borrowed for my student loans; I paid those student loans off. My son borrowed some for his student loans and is now in the process of paying those off. But let's look at what Republicans would have us do. First of all, we know that if we don't act by July 1 that interest rates will, in fact, double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent for 7 million students across this country. Already, students across our country bear nearly $1 trillion in student loan debt, and they struggle in this difficult economy, as many are struggling, to pay those loans. But think what would happen if the interest rate on those loans was allowed to increase to 6.8 percent, to effectively double that interest rate. Well, what does that mean for your average student? Well, Mr. Speaker, what it means is that a student on average coming out with $23,000 in debt would have to pay roughly an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan period to make up for that additional interest. This makes no sense whatsoever. I think that students across the country must be wondering what it is that Republicans are doing here in Congress that would have them double their interest rate, especially when we're talking about a part of our population that's done everything that we've asked of them. They succeeded in high school. They're going on to college. They are coming out with a promise of a hope for a good job and to be able to do better than the previous generation. And we're saying to them--Republicans in this House are saying to them, instead, we want to double your interest rate. We want you to pay not just the $23,000 that you owe, but an additional $11,000 in interest. More than that, what we've heard from some even on this House floor is that there are many on the other side of the aisle who don't believe that we should have a federally subsidized student loan program at all, education for those who are wealthy who can afford it, but for middle class families, not the ability to get a student loan and to pay that loan back in a manageable way over a period of time. So we stand united as Democrats and say we are not going to sacrifice middle class families and stack them up against women's health care. We want to make sure that we pay for these lowered student loan interests by ending a corporate tax break. That seems fair enough. Yet, Republicans on the other side of the aisle will simply not be reasonable and agree with what the overwhelming majority of American people agree to, and that is that we should have student loans that are available and accessible to middle class families. So I'll have more to say on this, Mr. Speaker, but at this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, new to the Congress, who will join me in this discussion about student loans and student loan interest, Ms. Bonamici.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlewoman and thank her especially for her leadership. As you were speaking, I was doing a little calculating. I went to undergraduate school at Wake Forest University. I had academic scholarships and some student loans, and I also waited tables in order to pay for my expenses. Had I not been able to get those student loans, having only the combination of academic scholarships and waiting tables, I would not have been able to have afforded to go to school. I came out with student loan debt from undergraduate school, and then I worked for a time, saved a bit, and went to law school. But even out of law school, I still couldn't pay all of my living expenses and all of my tuition without also taking out student loans. When I finished law school, the combination of my loans from undergraduate school and my loans from law school totaled about $75,000 plus. Over the period of time that I paid that back, I paid back a total of about $100,000 because of the combination of interest rates over the period of time. I paid my last student loan payment almost 1 month to the day before I was elected in my primary election in coming to Congress. My mother raised six children. We knew almost from the time that we could speak a word that we would go to college. My father was in the United States Air Force. He served for nearly 30 years. We lived all over the country and around the world. They worked really hard, but with six children on a military income and retirement, they knew that they wouldn't be able to fully pay out of savings--what savings with all those mouths to feed?--in order for us to go to college. They wanted their children to go to college. They wanted their children to have the kind of opportunities for the future that they did not have for themselves. My story, though it happened some time ago, is the story of American families today, whose young people are preparing to graduate from high school. They're preparing for high school graduations over these next couple of months. They want to go to college, and many of those students right now, today, in having received those April notices of college admissions and financial aid determinations, know that through some combination of savings and loans and Pell Grants and work and work study that they will put together the puzzle pieces of a college education so that they can afford it. Parents and students all across the country are making this decision. For those students who are coming out of high school in this season, July 1 is our deadline. July 1 is our deadline to ensure that interest rates will not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent because, by August 1 and late in August, those students will have to pack their trunks and their bags in order to go away to college. We owe them the commitment to know what their obligation is going to be for the repayment of those student loans and to know that they will not be faced with a doubling of interest rates over the course of their period of time in college. Let's think of what this means to them. What it means is that we're saying to our students, we want you to study engineering and science and math and technology. We want you to come out of school and to be teachers and to be inventors and innovators and entrepreneurs. But we are unwilling to make sure that you're able to do that by giving you the tools that you need for success. One of those things for some students across this country--for many students, for 7 million students--is the ability to get student loans that are affordable, and to have some sense that over the period of time that they're in college and they graduate college and the economy is better and they get jobs that they will be able to repay those loans so that some other generation of students can also go to school and do the same thing. So why am I passionate about this? I am passionate about it because it's my story, and because it's the story of middle class families all across this country who know that they want to do better, who struggle to do better, and who experience the rug being ripped out from under them because we want to ask our middle class families to either double your interest rates or sacrifice your health care. Those are the choices we're asking our middle class families to make. In today's economy, there is not a greater predictor of individual success than a good education. This is a fact. But if it's a fact, then we need to make the investment that makes that fact a reality for our students across this country. Right now, as many have pointed out on this floor, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half of the national average. That means that, when you graduate, even if you have student loans that are affordable and can be repaid, you have some opportunity to do that because you will have done better, and you will have had the opportunity to do better than the student who only gets a high school education. The incomes for those who graduate from college are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Higher education, whether we're talking about a 4-year institution or a 2-year institution at a community college, is the clearest path that we have to middle class success. If we are going to build a ladder of opportunity for the American people, then one of those rungs has to be student loans and another rung is a Pell Grant; another rung is job training; another rung is to make sure that our families are eating and that our children are immunized. There are many rungs. And this Congress has an obligation to make sure those rungs of that ladder are available to the American people. Democrats and Republicans both say they want to build a competitive workforce, but let's be clear that it's the Democrats--my colleagues here in the Congress--who time and time again actually stand up for the students with the skills that will be needed to comprise that competitive workforce. So I look at the things Democrats have done over this period of time. We've increased the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 in 2006 to $5,550 in 2010. We created the American Opportunity Tax Credit that provides a maximum of $2,500 in a tuition tax credit to eligible families and students. We created income-based repayment to ensure that graduates can manage their loan repayments during stressful economic times. I remember when I came out of undergraduate school and law school and really wanted to work in the public-interest sector, and I did. But I wasn't paid as much as some of my colleagues who were going into law firms and other kinds of practice. Would that I could have paid my student loans back based on my income. Well, that's the kind of opportunity that we've provided for students for the future. We've provided loan forgiveness for graduates who actually go into public-interest careers, who go into teaching careers after 10 years of loan payments. We've required schools to have an online calculator so that students and families can estimate their costs based on their family's financial situation. We've supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. This is the way that Democrats have supported middle class families and poor families in their ability to achieve the American Dream. I would only ask that my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle do the same. With that, we have about 5 minutes left to continue our conversation with the American people. So I will yield just a moment to the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady from Oregon, and I was just reminded as I listened to her that in her State of Oregon, something on the order of 119,000 students will see an increase of about $93 million in interest rates if this takes place on July 1. In my own home State of Maryland, 103,400 students would see an increase in interest rates if the rate is allowed to go up from 3.4 percent now to double at 6.8 percent, and in Maryland, that would be to the tune of $80 million. These are extraordinary numbers, and that burden would be borne by those to whom we've said, you've done the right thing, you've gone to college, you've paid for your college, and now you're going to be able to repay your loans, but we want you to pay additional student loan interest because the Republicans have refused to act without also taking away preventive health care. These are really extraordinary numbers, Mr. Speaker, and I think when the American people hear about the danger that is afoot come July 1 with the increase in student loan interest, middle class families all across this country will be completely outraged. With that, I'd like to yield a few minutes of time to my colleague from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady from New York. And I just wanted to point out to her, as she well knows from New York, that 422,000 students, if this is allowed to happen on July 1, would see an increase of interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. For those 422,000 students in New York, that would mean $340 million in increased interest rates. So I think we can see all across the country and, just really, Mr. Speaker, would like to urge our students out there and our families to think about what this would mean for them, 7 million students across this country doing exactly what we ask them to and facing a doubling of interest rates on July 1. I notice that we've been joined today by my colleague from Ohio, who's going to help us understand also what's happening in the State of Ohio--the home of Ohio State, where I know a lot of students must be paying attention to the fact that their interest rates will double on July 1. Mr. Ryan.

Ms. EDWARDS. I'd like to thank the gentleman. And I'm reminded as he's speaking that there are middle class families in Ohio and all across this country for whom this isn't just about feeling good about making sure that young people can go to college. It's about making certain that our middle class families aren't just struggling, but they're really surviving in this economy and in the economy going forward. I was reminded again that in Ohio 379,000 students would see an increase of about $294 million if this increase in student loans is allowed to go forward. And I think about those students at Ohio State University, at Oberlin College, at Xavier. I could name a lot of them. I remember, as a second grader, living on Wright Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, and there was not a moment in second grade that my parents didn't impress on me that one day I would go to college. My mom and dad didn't know how I would go to college, but they knew that I had to go. And at the time I was such a fan of all those great Ohio universities. But I also knew that were I to go then or to go now, that in addition to our savings and to academic scholarships, and maybe even Pell Grants, I would also need to take out student loans. And that's the situation that students in Ohio and across this country face, in realizing that on July 1, without action by this Congress, Republicans and Democrats owe it to middle class families to make sure that those student loans don't increase. Everything else is increasing. Let's not increase the interest rate on student loans. And I thank the gentleman.

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. Yet again, here we are, we're talking about a situation where, since January, the President and congressional Democrats, since January of this year, have been urging Republicans to please act so that we don't see an increase in student loan interest from 3.4 percent, a doubling, to 6.8 percent. And here we are in April; and April is a time when many families, young people have received their notification that they've been accepted into college. They've received maybe notification of a scholarship opportunity. They also know that their families may have to dig into their savings, or they'll have to get a job; and then they begin to think too about applying for and receiving that student loan so that it puts together the full package of what's needed to go to college. Those are the decisions that here, in April, families all across this country are making. And they're making those decisions, not knowing whether this Congress is going to fail to act that would result in an increase and a doubling of student loan interests, that would cost students not just the $23,000 in debt that they're likely to graduate college holding on to and needing to repay, but an additional $11,000 over the course of that loan, over the history of that loan and the repayment. I think it's really shameful. I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to worry about how to pay for college. I know that there are some in this country who didn't have to wake up and know that they had to get into a work-study program, or do like I did, wait tables in addition to going to class, in addition to receiving loans, in addition to receiving scholarships to pay to go to school. But that's the exception in this country; it's not the rule. The overwhelming majority of students across this country who go to college, who want to do better because their parents want them to do better than they did, have to do a combination of things in order to afford college, whether it's a 4-year institution or community college and getting those skills to put you into the workforce or an apprenticeship program. This is the situation that our students and their families are facing. With that, I'd like to yield time to my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and just want to point out to him, as I've pointed out to others of my colleagues here, and thank you so much for your eloquence, not just about what those loans mean to individual families, but what they mean as an economic imperative for the 21st century. As Democrats, we recognize that. I would note that in the great State of Rhode Island, we have an opportunity for 43,000 students in your State, Mr. Cicilline, to make sure that students aren't facing an additional $34 million in increase because of what might happen on July 1. As Republicans and as Democrats, we can do something about this. We don't have to get to a point where we're saying to students for the future that we really don't care about you. We don't care about the fact that we helped you do and be all that you can through high school, but now we're going to dump you when it comes to going to college. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Up until today, the Republican majority has simply refused to acknowledge that this hike would affect millions of students and families, 7 million students across this country. Perhaps today after a reversal by the assumed Republican Presidential nominee, we voted on a bill that would finally address the issue. But it's so sad that they did that at the expense of health care for working families. No one understands that more than the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, my friend and my neighbor. I'd like to take a moment to recognize her and her leadership. If I recall, she taught at a law school and understands those students who really struggle to get through and make sure they're doing what they need to do academically, but that they're able to pay for a quality education; and I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlewoman. Now I would like to recognize for a moment the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of our participants today in calling attention to the fact that Democrats have proposed ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies so that we can use those savings and actually help to pay for need-based college loans where they are and to help pay down the deficit. Republicans are cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and they're throwing that debt onto students and families. To be clear, this is not a partisan issue. It's a student issue; it's a family issue; it's an American issue. It's about our competitiveness in the economy. And I want to call all young people across this Nation of all political persuasions to reach out to their Members of Congress and say, stop the increase on student loans from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, costing millions of dollars to students across this country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.