S. Con. Res. 41, H. Con. Res. 112, S. Con. Res. 37, S. Con. Res. 42, S. Con. Res. 44 En Bloc--Motions to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. In 46 days, the interest rate on subsidized student loans will be doubled. Zeroing in on these budgets that are before us, all of them seem to support the essence of the Ryan budget, which is to allow this to happen. In fact, the Ryan budget in the House not only allowed a doubling of student interest rates, it also recommended eliminating the in-school interest subsidies for student loans, putting middle-class families at a particularly severe disadvantage.

We have 46 days to stop this increase on the interest charges to middle-income students. We have to act. We have seen denial, delay, and disruption. We have not seen the cooperation we need to help students and families throughout this country.

The budget before us not only allows this interest rate to double, but it will also, through its tax policies, favor the wealthiest and not those who are struggling in the middle simply to get ahead or simply to stay where they are. One of the other interesting aspects of the proposal is that as we look at this student rate interest doubling, my colleagues on the other side have said: We will fix it. We are for fixing it. But, again, ask yourself: If they are for it, why are they voting for several budgets today that would, in fact, support the doubling? It seems to be an incongruity I cannot understand.

In addition to that, they said: Well, if we are going to go ahead and stop this doubling of the rate, let's do it by paying for it with the prevention fund, which is a program in health care that I think, over time, is not only going to help families all across this country, but it is going to begin to do what we have all said we have to do, bend that cost curve for health care.

Instead of a debate about how to pay for this in a responsible way--and we are certainly open to proposals if they have them, other than this prevention fund, which I think is a nonstarter--they have suggested that our proposal, which is to close an egregious loophole in the Tax Code, is somehow a tax increase or somehow does not do the job. But Politifact, which is an objective body that looks at these various charges, has evaluated one claim that, in fact, our offset is a tax increase. Here is what they say:

Actually, the bill changed tax rules only for S-corporations, and only on professionals like lawyers and accountants who could be taking advantage of the tax code to avoid paying payroll taxes. The Democrats took the additional step of saying the rule change would only apply to individuals who reported more than $200,000 in income.

The bill's intent was to close a loophole on people who are avoiding payroll taxes, taxes that they are supposed to pay anyway.

The Republican criticism ``gives the impression that all kinds of mom-and-pop operations might be subject to new, additional taxes, when actually the bill is aimed squarely at high-income professionals who are taking advantage of a loophole.

The claim was rated by this organization as false. We are closing a loophole that benefits the wealthy and some of the most powerful interests in this country in order to allow middle-income families to send their children to school. I cannot think of anything more sensible or anything more fair.

I will just return to the final point about these budgets. As I read them, they, by and large, echo the Ryan budget, which allows for a doubling of the interest rate on students and does other things that will harm middle-income and middle-class people all to benefit the wealthiest through additional tax cuts. That is not good fiscal policy, not good educational policy. It is not good policy for the growth of this country, to invest in education, and it is not fair. I would hope that we would reject them.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source