George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congressman Mike Thompson, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Congressman John Garamendi and Congressman Eric Swalwell to recognize the outstanding career of Ms. Linda Best, a dynamic leader in the community, and congratulate her as she retires after more than thirty- two years in service to the people of Contra Costa County. In 1981, after earning a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts degree from Stanford University, Linda began her successful career as the Executive Director of the Coalition of Labor and Business. Three years later she became Executive Director for the Contra Costa Council, an organization she would help shape and expand throughout her tenure. From 2004 on, Linda has served as President and CEO of the Council and continued her strong commitment to the organization and the communities which it serves. In her nine years as President, Linda has been the heartbeat of the organization and shown a remarkable command of the issues most critical to business, education, the environment, transportation, and workforce development. Under her leadership, the Council has been an engine for economic development, public policy formation, and an informed decision-making voice for the region. Linda has been instrumental in building the Workforce Development Initiative, which brings together business and education in support of high school academics. What was once an organization only affiliated with business has now grown to include labor, education, health care, and nonprofit interests. In fact, the Contra Costa Council's scope has become so widespread, that it recently changed its official name to the East Bay Leadership Council. Linda's spirit and energy is not only apparent in her work with the Council, but also encompasses her work with the many Boards on which she has served. Included in this long list are; the Board of Directors for John Muir Health, the Eugene O'Neill Foundation, the DVC Foundation, Opportunity Junction, the West Contra Costa Business Development Center, STAND for Families Free of Violence, and the United Way Leadership Council. Throughout Linda's tenure, she earned many awards and distinctions, including the San Ramon Valley Chamber of Commerce ``Woman of the Year Award,'' the Eugene O'Neill Foundation Open Gate Award, the Contra Costa Child Care Council Kiddie Award, and the Contra Costa Times Woman of Achievement Award for Business and Technology. We invite our colleagues to join us in commending President & Chief Executive Officer Linda Best for her committed and diligent service to the citizens of Contra Costa County. We are pleased to congratulate Linda on an outstanding career and wish her the very best as she begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed roll Nos. 245, 246, and 247. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of those votes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend two young men from Richmond, California, who will begin classes this fall at Tallahassee Community College in Tallahassee, Florida. Sounds pretty straightforward, I know, but these are no ordinary students. What makes these young men from my congressional district stand out is their background. It's not just that most people thought they would never go to college--in fact, most people thought they would never make it out of the neighborhood. People thought they would end up in jail, or even worse. D'vondre Woodard and Eric Welch are two senior fellows at the city of Richmond's Office of Neighborhood Safety Peacekeeper Fellowship, an office that does a remarkable job of changing violent lives. D'vondre and Eric are shining examples of what remarkable transformation individuals are capable of when they desire to make positive change in their lives and when they're supported in that effort. From a life dominated by gun violence in the streets of Richmond to noses buried in books at college, internships in Washington, D.C., and meetings on Capitol Hill, these young men have come a long way. I wish them the best. I hope their success will serve as an inspiration for many more to follow in their steps and leave the violent streets.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a trip to Bangladesh where more than 1,100 garment workers died and 2,000 were injured in the Rana Plaza building collapse on April 24. Many Americans may remember the horrible pictures of workers being buried under tons of concrete from the collapsed building. I learned a great deal about what must be done to improve safety conditions in the garment industry there. Bangladesh is the second largest garment-producing nation, employing over 4 million skilled and industrious workers, mostly women, at a minimum wage of $37 a month. I learned that many factories have continued to operate in unsafe residential or multistory commercial buildings even after the Rana Plaza collapse. I learned more about poor conditions created by a myriad of middlemen hired by retailers that pit one factory against the next, squeezing out the last few pennies per garment. I learned that Bangladesh garment workers subsidize those low prices with their lives. I visited the hospital where there were scores of women, many with amputated legs and arms or who were suffering from brain damage from the collapse of that building where they were working and where they were locked inside. I met with a woman near Rana Plaza who was looking for her son even though the unidentifiable or the unclaimed workers had been buried in a mass grave. And Rana Plaza is not an isolated case. I visited with seven courageous women injured in the Tazreen Fashions factory fire that killed 112 workers last November. There were seven women who had to jump from the third and fourth floors of their factory because the factory supervisors locked the exits after the fire had started and had told them to go back to work or they would be fired, and the doors were locked. That was the policy of that factory and of many other factories. Just this week, we saw poultry workers in China locked in a factory after the fire had started; and they, too, perished in the fire. These were seven women who had to make the decision to jump from the third and fourth floors of this factory to save their lives. Tazreen produced garments for Walmart and many other American brands. Listen to what the women told me: Rehana jumped from the fourth floor window and was knocked unconscious. She broke her leg, and the doctors told her she will need to be on crutches for the rest of her life. Reba was the breadwinner in her home. She jumped from the third floor. She cannot work because of the pain. Her husband is sick. She has two sons, one of whom just qualified for the military college, but she doesn't know if she can afford to keep him there; and until I prodded Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Export Association, Reba had not received the promised stipend for those who were injured--6 months later. Rowshanara jumped from the third floor and still has severe pain in her back and legs. She was visibly in pain after sitting too long while talking to us. She is single and gets by on loans. She has two teenage sons in school and doesn't want to force them to go to work, but she worries how she will get by. Deepa worked on the third floor. She saw the fire, and tried to escape to the second floor. The factory manager padlocked the door and told everyone to keep working. Workers were crying and searching for a way out. A mechanic yelled to come to the east side of the building where he had created an exit. She jumped from the third floor and fell unconscious. She broke her left leg. She was 4 months pregnant, and she lost her baby. Sumi decided to jump from the third floor rather than perish in the factory because she wanted her family to be able to identify her body, and that wouldn't happen if she were consumed in the fire. She broke her leg and arm and could not move. Her family borrowed money to pay for her medical bills before the association funds arrived. Two weeks before Rana Plaza, she came to the U.S. to urge retailers and brands to join the enforceable and binding Accord on Fire and Building Safety. Nazma said she would have died if she had waited 10 more minutes to jump. She saw the manager locking the gate to the second set of stairs and grabbed him by the collar to stop him, but he ignored her. She cut her arms while trying to get through a window to reach the bamboo scaffolding. She broke her backbone. She can't carry anything or do housework. She has three children. Her stipend went to medical care and to her children's education. Her 14-year-old son has had to leave school to try to find work. I am grateful that these women had the courage to tell me their stories. There is widespread agreement that if the Tazreen fire and the Rana Plaza collapse workers had had the right to refuse unsafe work, they would be alive today. Nobody, not even the factory, denied that that's the case; but for too long, the Bangladesh Government has blocked new unions. Only now, in facing the potential loss of trade preferences, the government has opened the door a crack. Twenty-seven new unions have been registered recently, reversing the trend in which only one union per year was registered, and there are 5,000 factories. I met the leaders of some of these newly formed unions--young and serious workers--but only time will tell if the government lives up to its promise of union rights. In addition, the Obama administration will soon conclude its review of Bangladesh's trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences. In my view, these preferences should be suspended. The one message I have for the American holdouts who won't agree to these safety accords is: listen to the women from Bangladesh.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleagues to read the following article, titled ``East Bay Profile: Veteran of Richmond's neighborhood wars changes life,'' posted in the West County Times on May 21, 2013. I've had the opportunity to meet this extraordinary young man, Eric Welch, a number of times, both here in Washington and in my district in Richmond, California, during visits with the City of Richmond's Office of Neighborhood Safety's Peacekeeper Fellowship program, of which Eric is a member. Eric's only 24 years old but has had a long history of involvement with gun violence. At 14, he was almost killed in a shooting, and by the time he was 22 he had already been shot on four separate occasions. But now, he is on a new path in life now, and that is very encouraging. I was so proud to read that this fall Eric will start classes at Tallahassee Community College in Florida, and that he hopes to later transfer to Florida A&M University. And just as exciting, Eric has been selected as a Summer Policy Fellow for the Campaign for Youth Justice in Washington, D.C. this summer where he will write for the group's blog, brief congressional committees on his experience, and work with grass-roots groups to reduce youth crime. The Richmond ONS Peacemaker Fellowship exists to save lives--Eric is a living testament to that. It is designed to create a viable space for at-risk individuals ages 16-25 to contribute in a real way to building and sustaining community peace, health and well-being--with the express purpose of eliminating gun violence in Richmond. Time and again I'm blown away by the work these young men do to develop a positive life path forward and mentor other young men in similar situations. I wish Eric all the best, both in Washington this summer and at school this fall. I hope his successes will serve as inspiration for many more to follow in his steps. [From the Contra Costa Times, May 21, 2013] East Bay Profile: Veteran of Richmond's Neighborhood Wars Changes Life (By Robert Rogers) Richmond.--Eric Welch's mind and heart are on a higher plane, but the street reflexes remain. He'll be in Washington, D.C., this summer, wearing tailored suits and briefing Congress. But for now, Welch still tenses when certain cars round the block. He has good reason. He was shot four times before his 22nd birthday. ``At first, getting shot was a source of anger,'' Welch said. ``Now I look back at it differently. I wonder why I got so lucky in a place where people like me get killed all the time. Welch, now 24 but with the weary face and measured speech of an older man, has gone from self-described ``goon'' and survivor of multiple episodes of gun violence to celebrated member of the Office of Neighborhood Safety's fellowship program. The program appeals to about 50 violent residents with incentives, including small cash stipends, if they give up gunplay and pick up education and job training. The program is unique in the region, a city-sponsored department that stems violence through intervention in the lives of violent offenders. For his efforts, Welch earned an internship with the Campaign for Youth Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit focused on juvenile justice. Welch will serve as a ``policy fellow'' from June 10 to Aug. 9, writing for the group's blog, briefing congressional committees on his experience and working with grass-roots groups to reduce youth crime. It's a far cry from Welch's teen and early adult years, a haze of neighborhood beefs and sporadic gunfire, interrupted by hospital and jail stints. He bounced between a dozen schools, toting guns when most kids still were watching Saturday morning cartoons. Guns and violence permeated his rugged south Richmond neighborhood. It was only when he enrolled in the Office of Neighborhood Safety program after a 2010 jail stint that he turned away from crime. ``Eric is a shining example to other young people in Richmond and beyond that people can change, and in the virtue of hard work,'' said program director DeVone Boggan. Cheating death Welch leans on a black gate in front of a California bungalow home at 26th Street and Virginia Avenue. ``This is the spot where I got shot that first time, almost died, man,'' Welch says, looking down the street. ``I was 14.'' Welch re-enacts the scene from a decade ago. He was ``hanging'' with another teen a few blocks from the apartment where he grew up with his mother and sister. One block west, a car glided around the corner. Rifles poked through the windows and spit flames from the barrels, a nanosecond before the crackle of gunfire. ``I don't remember the car, just the flame spit out in the night; it was AK-47s,'' Welch said. Welch and his friend dove to the sidewalk and crawled for cover. ``The bullets was whistling by, and ricocheting all over the concrete, too,'' Welch said. The pain was an intense heat, Welch remembered. A large- caliber slug struck Welch underneath his left arm, collapsing his lung and breaking his clavicle. Welch's friend was hit in the hip. The car screeched away. ``Lot of blood, out my mouth, out my chest. I thought I was going to die,'' Welch said. ``I couldn't breathe.'' Three scars mark his upper torso. One is the entry point near his armpit. One is the spot in his side where doctors plunged a tube to help him breathe. The exit wound is on his back, knotted into a mound of dark scar tissue the size of a golf ball. Low points Welch survived, but his innocence didn't. ``After that, I was bouncing around schools, just living the neighborhood life,'' Welch said. ``I was angry. I was vengeful.'' His drive for vengeance intensified after the 2006 killing of Sean ``Shawny Bo'' Melson, a pint-size 15-year-old police say was a charismatic, up-and-coming neighborhood leader. To this day, odes to ``Shawny Bo'' and old photos are posted on social networking sites. Welch and other friends vowed to ``keep it lit'' for Melson, meaning to exact retribution on rival neighborhoods they blamed for his death. Welch was shot three more times, in both ankles, the buttocks and the hip. He declines to get into specifics but admits he has been involved in ``shootouts.'' ``I have a chance at a peaceful life; I just don't want to die or go to jail when I am so close.'' Welch said that in Richmond's toughest neighborhoods, violent deaths of relatives and friends, shootouts and close calls ``hang over everything.'' The future The mere notion of a future is a far cry from where Welch has been. ``Eric was on his way to prison or death, for sure,'' said Sam Vaughn, an Office of Neighborhood Safety neighborhood change agent who has worked closely with Welch. ``Where he is now, about to go to college, is a miracle given what he's been through.'' Welch spends little time in the old neighborhood, knowing he could lose it all in an instant. He plans to attend Tallahassee Community College in Florida in the fall, and he hopes to transfer to Florida A&M University. But first, he's on his way to the Capitol. ``I am really looking forward to a new start, a place where I can be by myself and focus and not worry about my past catching up with me,'' Welch said. ``I feel alone here, in my neighborhood. My friends are mostly dead or incarcerated.''

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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 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.

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.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in little more than a month, the interest rates on loans to millions of the neediest students will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. With that doubling, those that can afford it least will be burdened with more debt. With total student loan debt already surpassing $1 trillion, this Congress needs to stop that interest rate hike, that doubling of the interest rates. But rather than make it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, this Congress this day in this Chamber is debating a bill--I know people won't believe this--but we're debating a bill to make it more expensive for families and students to achieve a college education. At a time when college costs are rising and historic low interest rates, the majority is asking us to accept a bill that would increase interest rates. And even though the student interest rate is scheduled on July 1 to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, the bill presented on this floor today is worse than that for students and their families. It increases the drag on the economy that the student debt is to families and to young people trying to seek a job and to seek to form family. This bill is so bad that it means more than the doubling of the interest rates. How do you think that has anything to do with the market rates? According to the Congressional Research Service, when they look at this bill, you can see that under current law interest rates, they would pay $4,000. And they are doubling to 6.8 percent, so they'd pay $8,800 in interest rates. And under the Republican bill, families would pay more than $10,000 in interest. How can that possibly be in the interest of these families? How can that possibly be happening in this economy when people are struggling with interest rates? It cannot be allowed. You can see here that the parents who may have to contribute something, they would take out a loan to help their child complete a college education, they are going to pay more than $35,000 over the life of those loans than under the current law, and that's what we've got to stop from happening. And so what you see is when it is all said and done, this bill asks students over the next few years to pay more than $3.7 billion, almost $4 billion, in increased interest rates. No wonder this poor student has a headache. No wonder this parent is pounding on his head thinking, What am I going to do? But what do they say? They say we have a market rate here. We have a market rate. Well, many in America, certainly middle class families and many low-income families, will remember the last time when we had this kind of market rate because what they have, they have a teaser rate. For your first year, they'll have a lower interest rate. So you have a teaser rate. But you know that next year that teaser rate adjusts so you don't get that rate because next year you get a new rate. And when you're a sophomore in college and you take out another loan, you get a new rate, a higher rate. And when you're a junior, you take out a loan, and you get a higher rate. And when you graduate, they take all of your loans together and give you a higher rate. Does that sound familiar to people? That's the marketplace. That's the marketplace when you choose to crush the people who are borrowing the money. The President has the market rate. The chairman has said many times the President is looking to use the markets to set a realistic rate. But as he sets the rate, it's deficit neutral. As he sets the rate, the amendment we tried to offer was deficit neutral. He saves those students and families about $30 billion over the life of those loans. You get the difference? Yes, the market's the market. But you can pick the worst of the market, and you can pick the best of the market. They've chosen to pick the worst of the market for these students. Now they had options. Republicans last night in the Rules Committee had options. Mr. Courtney offered an amendment to keep rates at 3.4 percent. They rejected it. I offered the President's market approach. They rejected that. Then Mr. Heck from the Republican side of the aisle from Nevada offered to say let's provide an incentive to make sure that students in fact continue to pay on time, as they should, as the market would do because you want to incent good behavior because you get more of it. They rejected that. Mr. Rice of South Carolina went before them. He's a member of the Republican caucus, very concerned about interest rates in this legislation, very concerned about what's going to happen to these families. He thought he could lower the interest rates within their bill, within the market rates, stick with the market principle. They said ``no.'' So all you get today is whether or not you want a solution that is worse than the doubling of the interest rates on July 1. That's not an answer for America's families. That's not an answer for America's students. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair of the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I have no further speakers. Is the chairman the last speaker?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank all of my colleagues who entered into the debate here this morning on this legislation. I think it is clear that there is a very big difference between our positions on this legislation; there's a very big difference between the President's bill, who is trying to use a market system, and this bill before us, Mr. Kline's bill, that uses a market system. The fact is that the President's bill saves students billions of dollars, but the Republicans would not make President Obama's bill in order for consideration. Why not? They say it's like they're doing the same thing as the President. Well, they're not. In fact, they're adding $4 billion worth of debt onto the backs of students over their program. And how can they possibly do that? You've heard my colleagues on this side of the aisle speak to the issues that we hear all of the time when we go home. The struggle of students, the struggle of families, be they low-income, be they middle-income, to get access and to be able to complete a college education, to get access to a community college, to a State college system, to get a certificate, to get a degree that will allow them to participate in the American society, in the American economy. That's part of the American Dream. Yes, we lowered the interest rates to 3.4 percent, and they've held over a period of years. And they held over those exact same years when families were under the most stress because of this recession that was created on Wall Street and the scandals that took away 70 percent of the wealth of African American and Hispanic families in this country, that destroyed the equity and good chunks of middle America because of teaser rate loans, subprime loans. And what is happening today in the private market? The banks are getting money from the Treasury at 0.75 interest, and they're loaning it to families in private student loans. If you have good credit, they'll loan it to you for somewhere around 7 percent. Bankers used to go die and go to heaven if they could get a 7 percent spread. That's how you become a billionaire. Get it at 0.75 and put it out at 7. And if your credit rating is not so good, those statistics sort of suggest you drift towards 13 percent. Obviously, the students and middle class can't survive in that market for the most part, and that's why we have a student loan program. That's why we took this program away from the banks a number of years ago. We took the $60 billion that we were giving to the banks to loan the public's money to students and we said why don't we put that to use for families, and we did. And we lowered the interest rates, and we increased the participation in the Pell Grants, made it available. We increased some loan limits. We gave people a chance to manage their debt after they graduated, so the more you earn, the more you pay, but you don't get crushed on your first job that may not have the best salary, even though it's the career you want to go in and it takes time to get that salary. We made it more affordable for America's families. Yes, we lowered the debt to 3.4 percent. It was paid for, and that's all we could afford. Congress will make that decision. Last year, the Congress made a decision to extend it. This year, they've decided that they don't want to extend it on the other side of the aisle. So, fine, come up with a plan. But the plan they came up with is worse than having the 3.4 percent double on July 1. How can you develop a plan that's worse for students? I guess maybe if you go home and everybody in your district is working and everybody is participating in this slow-growing economy that's getting better. I don't know. Families I represent, they're still struggling. The recession hasn't left town. The recession hasn't left the country. If you pick up The Wall Street Journal today, there's greater concern about what's happening in China dragging down the world economy, there's greater concern about the Europeans dragging down the world economy. America is trying to struggle and the students are trying to struggle, and we're going to come along and more than double the rate. We're going to give them a teaser rate, though. This next September when families go out and they get a rate, it will be probably somewhat lower than the current rate. But that loan will be adjusted, and they don't know what those rates are going to be. As long as they're paying on that loan, that loan will continue to be adjusted. We just saw that history in America. We saw what that did. I don't have a problem going to a market system. How about a fair one? When the President went to a market system for the subsidized Stafford loan, he said on the market system we'll go to 0.9. They said they would go to 2.5--10 years plus 2.5. The President said 10 years plus 0.9. There are a lot of ways to go to a market system. You don't have to punish the American family. You don't have to punish the students in school to go to a market system. I wish the President had a cap. The gentleman has a cap. This could be worked out, but we don't do things bipartisanly anymore in the Congress of the United States. So, because we can't get the President and the majority on the Education and the Workforce Committee to sit down and work out the market system--because that's not allowed and we don't do bipartisan work--the victims are going to be the families and the students, and, in the long term, our Nation. Every Member of Congress has come to this floor and has said how important this education system is to our future economic growth, to competing in a globalized world, to have innovation, to have discovery, to have job creation. We're now creating a drag on job creation. We're now creating a drag on the opportunities for families. We are creating a drag on the ability to achieve the American Dream--and a college education is part of that dream, but a college education is also critical to keeping this economy and this society moving. I would hope that my colleagues, whether they are committed to a market rate or not, would understand that this is a very flawed market rate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.