[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4698-H4707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FED UP HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 2002
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4866) to make technical amendments to the Higher Education
Act of 1965 incorporating the results of the Fed Up Initiative, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4866
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fed Up
Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2002''.
(b) Reference.--Except as otherwise expressly provided in
this Act, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Amendments to Title I.--
(1) Section 101(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1)) is amended by
inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``,
or students who meet the requirements of section 484(d)(3)''.
(2)(A) Section 102(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2)(A)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--For the purpose of qualifying as an
institution under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall
establish criteria by regulation for the approval of
institutions outside the United States and for the
determination that such institutions are comparable to an
institution of higher education as defined in section 101
(except that a graduate medical school, or a veterinary
school, located outside the United States shall not be
required to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(4)). Such
criteria shall include a requirement that a student attending
such school outside the United States is ineligible for loans
made, insured, or guaranteed under part B of title IV
unless--
``(i) in the case of a graduate medical school located
outside the United States--
``(I)(aa) at least 60 percent of those enrolled in, and at
least 60 percent of the graduates of, the graduate medical
school outside the United States were not persons described
in section 484(a)(5) in the year preceding the year for which
a student is seeking a loan under part B of title IV; and
``(bb) at least 60 percent of the individuals who were
students or graduates of the graduate medical school outside
the United States or Canada (both nationals of the United
States and others) taking the examinations administered by
the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates
received a passing score in the year preceding the year for
which a student is seeking a loan under part B of title IV;
or
``(II) the institution has a clinical training program that
was approved by a State as of January 1, 1992; or
``(ii) in the case of a veterinary school located outside
the United States that does not meet the requirements of
section 101(a)(4)--
``(I) the institution was certified by the Secretary as
eligible to participate in the loan program under part B of
title IV before October 1, 1999; and
``(II) the institution's students complete their clinical
training at an approved veterinary school located in the
United States.''.
(B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall be
effective on and after October 1, 1998.
(3) Section 102(a)(3)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(3)(A)) is
amended by striking ``section 521(4)(C) of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act'' and
inserting ``section 3(3)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
and Technical Education Act of 1998''.
(4) Paragraph (7) of section 103 (20 U.S.C. 1003) is
amended to read as follows:
``(7) New borrower.--The term `new borrower' when used with
respect to any date for any loan under any provision of--
``(A) part B or part D of title IV means an individual who
on that date has no outstanding balance of principal or
interest owing on any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under
either such part; and
``(B) part E of title IV means an individual who on that
date has no outstanding balance of principal or interest
owing on any loan made under such part.''.
(5) Section 131 (20 U.S.C. 1015) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii)--
(i) by striking ``an undergraduate'' and inserting ``a
full-time undergraduate''; and
(ii) in subclause (I), by striking ``section
428(a)(2)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``section 428(a)(2)(C)(ii)'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``the costs for
typical'' and inserting ``the prices for, and financial aid
provided to, typical'';
(C) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ``costs'' and
inserting ``prices''; and
(D) in subsection (d)(1) is amended by striking ``3 years''
and inserting ``4 years''.
(6) Section 141 (20 U.S.C. 1018) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(i) by inserting ``unit'' after ``to reduce the''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and, to the extent practicable, total
costs of administering those programs'' after ``those
programs'';
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``Each year'' and
inserting ``Each fiscal year'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``secondary markets,
guaranty agencies,'' after ``lenders,''; and
(iii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``Chief Financial
Officer Act of 1990 and'' and inserting ``Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990,'' and by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and other relevant statutes'';
(C) in subsection (f)(3)(A), by striking ``paragraph
(1)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(D) in subsection (g)(3), by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``The names and compensation for
those individuals shall be included in the annual report
under subsection (c)(2).''.
(b) Amendments to Title II.--Section 207(f)(2) (20 U.S.C.
1027(f)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, including by
electronic means,'' after ``sent''.
(c) Amendments to Title III.--
(1) Section 316(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3)) is amended by
striking ``give'' and inserting ``given''.
(2) Section 326(e)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)) is amended,
in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting a
colon after ``the following''.
(3) Section 342(5)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1066a(5)(C)) is amended--
(A) by inserting a comma after ``equipment'' the first
place it appears; and
(B) by striking ``technology,,'' and inserting
``technology,''.
[[Page H4699]]
(4) Section 343(e) (20 U.S.C. 1066b(e)) is amended by
inserting after the subsection designation the following:
``Sale of Qualified Bonds.--''.
(5) Section 351(a) (20 U.S.C. 1067a(a)) is amended by
striking ``of 1979''.
(6) Section 1024 (20 U.S.C. 1135b-3), as transferred by
section 301(a)(5) of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998
(Public Law 105-244; 112 Stat. 1636), is repealed.
(d) Amendments to Part A of Title IV.--
(1) Section 402A (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(g)(2)'' and inserting
``(g)(4)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(g)(2)'' and inserting
``(g)(4)''; and
(B) in subsection (g)--
(i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as
paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively; and
(ii) by inserting before paragraph (3), as redesignated,
the following:
``(1) Different campus.--The term `different campus' means
an institutional site that--
``(A) is geographically apart from the main campus of the
institution;
``(B) is permanent in nature; and
``(C) offers courses in educational programs leading to a
degree, certificate, or other recognized educational
credential.
``(2) Different population.--The term `different
population' means a group of individuals, with respect to
whom an entity seeks to serve through an application for
funding under this chapter, that is--
``(A) separate and distinct from any other population that
the entity seeks to serve through an application for funding
under this chapter; or
``(B) while sharing some of the same characteristics as
another population that the entity seeks to serve through an
application for funding under this chapter, has distinct
needs for specialized services.''.
(2)(A) Section 404A(b) (20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)) is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
``(3) Duration.--An award made by the Secretary under this
chapter to an eligible entity described in paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (c) shall be for the period of 6 years.''.
(B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall apply to
awards made either before or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(3) Section 407E (20 U.S.C. 1070a-35) is redesignated as
section 406E.
(4) Section 419C(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1070d-33(b)(1)) is
amended by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end
thereof.
(5) Section 419D(d) (20 U.S.C. 1070d-34(d)) is amended by
striking ``Public Law 95-1134'' and inserting ``Public Law
95-134''.
(e) Amendments to Part B of Title IV.--
(1) Section 428(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1078(a)(2)(A)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (II) of
clause (i); and
(B) by moving the margin of clause (iii) two ems to the
left.
(2) Section 428(b)(1)(G) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(G)) is
amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``and 100 percent of the unpaid principal amount
of exempt claims as defined in subsection (c)(1)(G)''.
(3) Section 428(c) (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H),
and moving such subparagraph 2 em spaces to the left; and
(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraph:
``(G)(i) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
section, in the case of exempt claims, the Secretary shall
apply the provisions of--
``(I) the fourth sentence of subparagraph (A) by
substituting `100 percent' for `95 percent';
``(II) subparagraph (B)(i) by substituting `100 percent'
for `85 percent'; and
``(III) subparagraph (B)(ii) by substituting `100 percent'
for `75 percent'.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i) of this subparagraph, the
term `exempt claims' means claims with respect to loans for
which it is determined that the borrower (or the student on
whose behalf a parent has borrowed), without the lender's or
the institution's knowledge at the time the loan was made,
provided false or erroneous information or took actions that
caused the borrower or the student to be ineligible for all
or a portion of the loan or for interest benefits thereon.''.
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``in writing''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Documentation of forbearance agreements.--For the
purposes of paragraph (3), the terms of forbearance agreed to
by the parties shall be documented by confirming the
agreement of the borrower by notice from the lender, and by
recording the terms in the borrower's file.''.
(4) Section 428C(a)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(a)(3)(B)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) Loans made under this section shall, to the extent
used to discharge loans made under this title, be counted
against the applicable limitations on aggregate indebtedness
contained in sections 425(a)(2), 428(b)(1)(B), 428H(d), 455,
and 464(a)(2)(B).''.
(5) Section 428H(e) (20 U.S.C. 1078-8(e)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (6); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).
(6) Section 428I(g) (20 U.S.C. 1078-9(g)) is amended by
striking ``Code,'' and inserting ``Code''.
(7) Section 432(m)(1)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1082(m)(1)(B)) is
amended--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon
at the end; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
period.
(8) Section 439(d) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (3); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively.
(f) Amendment to Part D.--Section 457(a)(1) (20 U.S.C.
1087g(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``431'' and inserting
``437''.
(g) Amendments to Part E of Title IV.--
(1) Section 462(g)(1)(E)(i)(I) (20 U.S.C.
1087bb(g)(1)(E)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting ``monthly''
after ``consecutive''.
(2) Section 464(c)(1)(D) (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(c)(1)(D)) is
amended by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively.
(3) Section 464(h)(1)(A) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``, if practicable (as determined in
accordance with regulations of the Secretary),'' after ``the
loan shall''; and
(B) by inserting ``, if such loan is considered
rehabilitated,'' after ``the Secretary) shall''.
(4) Section 465(a)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 111(c)'' and
inserting ``section 1113(a)(5)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``With Disabilities''
and inserting ``with Disabilities''.
(5) Section 467(b) (20 U.S.C. 1087gg(b)) is amended by
striking ``(5)(A), (5)(B)(i), or (6)'' and inserting
``(4)(A), (4)(B), or (5)''.
(6) Section 469(c) (20 U.S.C. 1087ii(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``sections 602(a)(1) and 672(1)'' and
inserting ``sections 602(3) and 632(5)'';
(B) by striking ``qualified professional provider of early
intervention services'' and inserting ``early intervention
services''; and
(C) by striking ``section 672(2)'' and inserting ``section
632(4)''.
(h) Amendments to Part F of Title IV.--
(1) Section 478(h) (20 U.S.C. 1087rr(h)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``476(b)(4)(B),''; and
(B) by striking ``meals away from home, apparel and upkeep,
transportation, and housekeeping services'' and inserting
``food away from home, apparel, transportation, and household
furnishings and operations''.
(2) Section 479A(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087tt(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Authority to Make Adjustments.--
``(1) Adjustments for special circumstances.--'';
(B) by inserting before ``Special circumstances may'' the
following:
``(2) Special circumstances defined.--'';
(C) by inserting ``a student's status as a ward of the
court at any time prior to attaining 18 years of age,'' after
``487,''.
(D) by inserting before ``Adequate documentation'' the
following:
``(3) Documentation and use of supplementary information.--
''; and
(E) by inserting before ``No student'' the following:
``(4) Fees for supplementary information prohibited.--''.
(i) Amendments to Parts G and H of Title IV.--
(1) Section 483(d) (20 U.S.C. 1090(d)) is amended by
striking ``that is authorized under section 685(d)(2)(C)''
and inserting ``, or other appropriate provider of technical
assistance and information on postsecondary educational
services, that is supported under section 685''.
(2) Section 484 (20 U.S.C. 1091) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``certification,,''
and inserting ``certification,'';
(B) in subsection (b)(2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``section 428A'' and inserting ``section 428H'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end thereof;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(C) in subsection (l)(1)(B)(i), by striking ``section
521(4)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act'' and inserting ``section 3(3)(C) of
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998''.
(3)(A) Section 484B (20 U.S.C. 1091b) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``subpart 4 of part
A or'' after ``received under'';
(ii) in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii), by inserting ``(as
determined in accordance with subsection (d))'' after
``student has completed'';
(iii) in subsection (b)(2), by amending subparagraph (C) to
read as follows:
``(C) Grant overpayment requirements.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) and (B), a student shall only be required
to return grant assistance in the amount (if any) by which--
``(i) the amount to be returned by the student (as
determined under subparagraphs (A) and (B)), exceeds
[[Page H4700]]
``(ii) 50 percent of the total grant assistance received by
the student under this title for the payment period or period
of enrollment.
A student shall not be required to return amounts of $50 or
less.''; and
(iv) in subsection (d), by striking ``(a)(3)(B)(i)'' and
inserting ``(a)(3)(B)''.
(B) The amendments made by subparagraph (A) shall be
effective for academic years beginning on or after July 1,
2003, except that, in the case of an institution of higher
education that chooses to implement such amendments prior to
that date, such amendments shall be effective on the date of
such institution's implementation.
(4) Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``mailings, and'' and inserting ``mailings, or''.
(5) Section 485B(a) (20 U.S.C. 1092b(a)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as
paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively;
(B) by redesignating the paragraph (5) (as added by section
2008 of Public Law 101-239) as paragraph (6); and
(C) in paragraph (5) (as added by section 204(3) of the
National Community Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
610))--
(i) by striking ``(22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.)),'' and
inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.),''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end thereof and
inserting a semicolon.
(6) Section 487(a) (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (22), by striking ``refund policy'' and
inserting ``policy on the return of title IV funds''; and
(B) in paragraph (23)--
(i) by moving subparagraph (C) two em spaces to the left;
and
(ii) by adding after such subparagraph the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) An institution shall be considered in compliance with
the requirements of subparagraph (A) for any student to whom
the institution electronically transmits a message containing
a voter registration form acceptable for use in the State in
which the institution is located, or an Internet address
where such a form can be downloaded, provided such
information is in an electronic message devoted to voter
registration.''.
(7) Section 491(c) (20 U.S.C. 1098(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The appointment of members under subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of paragraph (1) shall be effective upon publication
of the appointment in the Congressional Record.''.
(8) Section 493A (20 U.S.C. 1098c) is repealed.
(9) Section 498 (20 U.S.C. 1099c) is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``for profit,'' and
inserting ``for-profit,'';
(B) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by inserting ``and'' at the
end thereof.
(j) Amendments to Title V.--Section 504(a) (20 U.S.C.
1101c(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking the following:
``(a) Award Period.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(a) Award Period.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(k) Amendments to Title VII.--
(1) Section 714(c) (20 U.S.C. 1135c(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 716(a)'' and inserting ``section
715(a)''; and
(B) by striking ``section 714(b)(2)'' and inserting
``section 713(b)(2)''.
(2) Section 721(c) (20 U.S.C. 1136(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) to assist such students with the development of
analytical skills and study methods to enhance their success
in entry into and completion of law school; and
``(7) to award Thurgood Marshall Fellowships to eligible
law school students--
``(A) who participated in summer institutes authorized by
subsection (d) and who are enrolled in an accredited law
school; or
``(B) who are eligible law school students who have
successfully completed a comparable summer institute program
certified by the Council on Legal Educational Opportunity.''.
SEC. 3. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definition.--Section 103 (20 U.S.C. 1003), as amended
by section 2(a)(4), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (16) as
paragraphs (2) through (17), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(1) Authorizing committees.--The term `authorizing
committees' means the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and
the Workforce of the House of Representatives.''.
(b) Committees.--
(1) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and
the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``authorizing committees'':
(A) Section 131(a)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1015(a)(3)(B)).
(B) Section 131(c)(4) (20 U.S.C. 1015(c)(4)).
(C) Section 206(d) (20 U.S.C. 1026(d)).
(D) Section 207(c)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1027(c)(1)).
(E) Section 428(g) (20 U.S.C. 1078(g)).
(F) Section 428A(a)(4) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(a)(4)).
(G) Section 428A(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(c)(2)).
(H) Section 428A(c)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(c)(3)).
(I) Section 428A(c)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(c)(5)).
(J) Section 455(b)(8)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(8)(B)).
(K) Section 483(c) (20 U.S.C. 1090(c)).
(L) Section 486(e) (20 U.S.C. 1093(e)).
(M) Section 486(f)(3)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1093(f)(3)(A)).
(N) Section 486(f)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1093(f)(3)(B)).
(O) Section 487A(a)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1094a(a)(5)).
(P) Section 487A(b)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)(2)).
(Q) Section 487A(b)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)(3)(B)).
(R) Section 498B(d)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1099c-2(d)(1)).
(S) Section 498B(d)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1099c-2(d)(2)).
(2) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources of the Senate'' and inserting ``authorizing
committees''.
(A) Section 141(d)(4)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1018(d)(4)(B)).
(B) Section 428(n)(4) (20 U.S.C. 1078(n)(4)).
(C) The last sentence of section 432(n) (20 U.S.C.
1082(n)).
(D) Section 485(f)(5)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(5)(A)).
(E) Section 485(g)(4)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1092(g)(4)(B)).
(3) Section 206(a) (20 U.S.C. 1026(a)) is amended by
striking ``, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of
the Senate, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce
of the House of Representatives'' and inserting ``and the
authorizing committees''.
(4) Section 401(f)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1070a(f)(3)) is amended by
striking ``Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the House of Representatives'' and inserting
``Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives and the authorizing committees''.
(5) Section 428(c)(9)(K) (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(9)(K)) is
amended by striking ``House Committee on Education and the
Workforce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources'' and inserting ``authorizing committees''.
(6) Section 428I(h) (20 U.S.C. 1078-9(h)) is amended by
striking ``Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee and the House Committee on Education and Labor''
and inserting ``chairpersons of the authorizing committees''.
(7) Section 432(f)(1)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1082(f)(1)(C)) is
amended by striking ``Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the House of Representatives or the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting
``either of the authorizing committees''.
(8) Section 439(d)(1)(E)(iii) (20 U.S.C. 1087-
2(d)(1)(E)(iii)) is amended by striking ``Chairman and the
Ranking Member on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
of the Senate and the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``chairpersons and ranking
minority members of the authorizing committees''.
(9) Paragraphs (3) and (8)(C) of section 439(r) (20 U.S.C.
1087-2(r)) are each amended by striking ``Chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources of the Senate, the Chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor of the House
of Representatives,'' and inserting ``chairpersons and
ranking minority members of the authorizing committees''.
(10) Paragraphs (5)(B) and (10) of section 439(r) (20
U.S.C. 1087-2(r)) are each amended by striking ``Chairman and
ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources and to the Chairman and ranking minority
member of the House Committee on Education and Labor'' and
inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the
authorizing committees''.
(11) Section 439(r)(6)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(r)(6)(B)) is
amended by striking ``Chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and
to the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives'' and
inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the
authorizing committees''.
(12) Section 439(s)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(s)(2)(A)) is
amended by striking ``Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities of the House of Representatives''
and inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of
the authorizing committees''.
(13) Section 439(s)(2)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(s)(2)(B)) is
amended by striking ``Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and
Chairman and Ranking Minority
[[Page H4701]]
Member of the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities of the House of Representatives'' and inserting
``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the
authorizing committees''.
(14) Section 482(d) (20 U.S.C. 1089(d)) is amended by
striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the
Senate and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House
of Representatives'' and inserting ``authorizing
committees''.
(c) Additional Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 425(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C.
1075(a)(2)(A)) are each amended by striking ``428A or 428B''
and inserting ``428B or 428H''.
(2) Section 428(a)(2)(E) (20 U.S.C. 1078(a)(2)(E)) is
amended by striking ``428A or''.
(3) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 428(b)(1)(B) (20 U.S.C.
1078(b)(1)(B)) are each amended by striking ``428A or 428B''
and inserting ``428B or 428H''.
(4) Section 428(b)(1)(Q) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(Q)) is
amended by striking ``sections 428A and 428B'' and inserting
``section 428B or 428H''.
(5) Section 428(b)(7)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(7)(C)) is
amended by striking ``428A, 428B,'' and inserting ``428B''.
(6) Section 428G(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1078-7(c)(2)) is amended
by striking ``428A'' and inserting ``428H''.
(7) The heading for section 433(e) (20 U.S.C. 1083(e)) is
amended by striking ``SLS Loans and''.
(8) Section 433(e) (20 U.S.C. 1083(e)) is amended by
striking ``428A, 428B,'' and inserting ``428B''.
(9) Section 435(a)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(10) Section 435(d)(1)(G) (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(G)) is
amended by striking ``428A(d), 428B(d), 428C,'' and inserting
``428B(d), 428C, 428H,''.
(11) Section 435(m) (20 U.S.C. 1085(m)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``, 428A,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ``428A'' each place it
appears and inserting ``428H''.
(12) Section 438(c)(6) (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(c)(6)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``SLS and plus'' in the heading and
inserting ``Plus''; and
(B) by striking ``428A or''.
(13) Section 438(c)(7) (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(c)(7)) is amended
by striking ``428A or''.
(14) Nothing in the amendments made by this subsection
shall be construed to alter the terms, conditions, and
benefits applicable to Federal supplemental loans for
students (``SLS loans'') under section 428A as in effect
prior to July 1, 1994 (20 U.S.C. 1078-1).
(d) Higher Education Amendments of 1998.--
(1) Section 801(d) of the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 (20 U.S.C. 1018 note) is amended by striking ``Committee
on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
of the Senate,'' and inserting ``authorizing committees''.
(2) Section 802(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 is amended by striking ``Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting
``authorizing committees''.
(3) The following provisions of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 are each amended by striking ``Committee
on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``authorizing committees''.
(A) Section 803(b) (20 U.S.C. 1015 note).
(B) Section 805(b) (20 U.S.C. 1001 note).
(C) Section 806(c).
(4) Section 804(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 (20 U.S.C. 1099b note) is amended by striking ``Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate'' and
inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the
authorizing committees''.
(5) Section 861(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of
1998 is amended by striking ``Committees on Ways and Means
and on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Finance and on Labor
and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting ``Committee
on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the authorizing
committees''.
SEC. 4. NO DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION.
Sections 482(c) and 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098a) shall not apply to the regulations
implementing the amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 5. STUDY OF TEACHER PREPARATION.
Within six months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Comptroller General shall conduct a study of and submit
to Congress a report on--
(1) which States and which institutions of higher education
require passage on State teacher licensure exams in order for
candidates to be admitted to a teacher preparation program or
to declare an education major;
(2) which States and which institutions of higher education
award diplomas, degrees, or other certificates to students in
any subject area, but subsequently only consider them to have
successfully completed a teacher preparation or other
education program if they pass one or more State licensure
exams;
(3) which States and which institutions of higher education
award diplomas, degrees, or other certificates to students in
education or teaching, but subsequently only consider them to
have successfully completed a teacher preparation or
education program if they pass one or more State licensure
exams;
(4) the extent to which States and institutions of higher
education, through means other than (1), (2), or (3), are,
for the purposes of section 207(f)(1)(A) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1027(f)(1)(A)), treating as
completing their teacher preparation programs only those
students who pass State teacher licensure or certification
assessments;
(5) the extent to which the practices described in
paragraphs (1) through (4) may mislead or incompletely inform
students and policymakers concerning the quality of such
teacher preparation programs; and
(6) what assistance, if any, the States or institutions
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) give to enrolled
students and graduates who take but do not pass one or more
teacher licensing exams.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
General Leave
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 4866.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 4866, the Fed Up Higher Education Technical
Amendments of 2002. The bill provides for technical amendments to the
Higher Education Act.
This bill has had bipartisan support throughout its process. The
development of the bill was done in an open, fully cooperative manner
with my friends on the other side of the aisle. The foundation of this
bill has been the FED UP process put forward by the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink)
just about a year ago whereby student aid and higher education
officials across the country had an opportunity to provide proposals on
how to improve the programs in the Higher Education Act while
maintaining the integrity of the student loan programs.
Everyone in the higher education community has enthusiastically
supported the FED UP process, and this bill is intended to address the
noncontroversial, budget-neutral changes to the Higher Education Act
that will assist in reducing red tape.
It also clears the decks of clerical and technical problems within
the act that set the stage for the committee to begin the
reauthorization process next year.
The Secretary of Education and his staff were also enthusiastic
partners in this process. He initiated a negotiated rulemaking process
with the higher education community to address those proposals
submitted via the FED UP Web site that were purely regulatory in
nature. In a few short months, the negotiations were completed, and we
expect the regulations will soon be released in draft form.
From its earliest stages this has been a collaborative and open
process with no preconceived agenda, and when this bill was drafted,
great care was given to ensure no amendments were made to current law
without full agreement of Members of both sides of the aisle.
This legislation, while technical, also makes for a number of other
positive improvements for students and institutions. It helps students
avoid defaulting on their student loans by removing barriers to
students seeking forbearance from lenders on their student loan
payments. It makes clear that home schoolers can receive Federal aid.
It makes clear that Federal scholarship aid can go to low-income and
minority students for law school. It improves the flow of information
to students, protects students' grant aid upon withdrawal from a
college or university, and I am particularly pleased that this
legislation eases aid requirements for
[[Page H4702]]
America's Hispanic-serving institutions, allowing them to apply for
Federal grants without waiting 2 years between applications.
This provision complements President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget
which includes $89.1 million for the developing Hispanic-Serving
Institutions Program, an increase of $3.1 million to expand and enhance
support for institutions that serve a large percentage of Hispanic
students.
I wish we could have gone further to address two specific issues that
are not in the bill. One is providing an extension of two expiring
provisions in the Higher Education Act that encourage low default rates
amongst institutions and provides student loans more quickly to
students.
The second is clarifying the provision of denying title IV aid
eligibility for students convicted of the sale or the possession of a
controlled substance. The law, as written, has the unintended effect of
including students who may have had a drug conviction before they were
enrolled in higher education or receiving financial aid.
I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for all
of their assistance in trying to find ways to get these important
provisions enacted. I also want to thank the Secretary of Education and
his staff who were great partners in our efforts to find a way to pay
for these provisions.
However, our attempts to reach a compromise on budgetary offsets were
unfortunately unsuccessful, and we are going to continue our efforts to
address these issues early in the next Congress, but as we begin the
preparation for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, this
legislation will also allow us to move forward with updating our laws
with regard to many clerical and grammatical errors that are contained
in the current bill. Our time and resources will then be available to
deal with the more intricate policy issues before us.
The legislation was created in an effort to do what was right for
students, institutions and others involved with providing higher
education. It was developed in a cooperative, bipartisan manner and
should be passed today on an overwhelmingly yes vote so it can be sent
to the other body for swift action before the summer district work
period.
I would urge my colleagues today to vote yes on H.R. 4866.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, not so much on
its merits. It does a number of good things, technical changes to be
done, but really, this is really about an important part of this
institution, and that is, to whether or not the minority will be given
an opportunity to affect and change hopefully bills that come through
this House or whether or not we will be disenfranchised by the manner
in which the process is run.
I say that as one who has had a very good relationship with the
chairman of my committee where we were able to work on the Leave No
Child Behind bill, and we have been able to work in the committee on an
ongoing basis, but in this particular instance, where we had the one
opportunity that we will have in this Congress, in this committee, to
address a number of important issues, to meet other Members of the
committee on the Democratic side of the aisle, we find that we were, in
fact, closed out.
Again, it is not about the language of this bill, but it is about the
opportunity and whether or not we would have been able to offer
amendments to this legislation that were important to us, and what we
see is a continuing pattern in the House of Representatives, whether it
is on the floor of this House, now that has drifted into the committee,
on whether or not Democrats will be allowed to offer amendments.
What we see is where we represent 49 percent of the country and the
districts in which we have been elected, we find out that we are not
allowed to offer amendments. We are not allowed to offer amendments if
we can win those amendments. We are not allowed those amendments if it
means the Republican must take a tough vote, if they disagree with it.
We are not allowed to offer those amendments if it means the bill might
take an extra few minutes of consideration, and yet basically the
Congress has been working on a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule.
Why the disenfranchisement of the Democratic Members? I think it is
simply because they choose not to have us be able to articulate policy
differences that we have with them. This was true on the welfare bill
where simply amendments were not allowed. We were allowed a substitute.
We all know that legislative gimmick. There are enough things in a
substitute that everybody can justify a no vote or a yes vote but with
amendments.
The same was true on pensions. The same was true on the securities
legislation where we just limited access to the Democrats to offer this
kind of legislation.
One would think this was a politburo. One would not think this was
the people's House where theoretically each and every Member should be
given an opportunity to voice his or her concern as legislation moves
through the House of Representatives, through the committees, to offer
amendments that some of us may like or not like, where we take a vote,
a person wins or they lose. This is the politics that rules the House.
That is what people come to expect. Now we are simply prevented from
raising these issues.
This is not just about us and the process of the House. In this case,
this was about whether or not we were going to be able to offer
amendments to deal with whether or not there would be loan forgiveness
for teachers that were trying to attract, that we recognize in the
Leave No Child Behind Act, to try to attract teachers to high poverty
schools, to try to attract teachers to come in and teach in math and
sciences, to teach in special education, all of the areas that we know
we have a shortage.
Would America's children, would America's parents, would America's
schools have an opportunity to be able to attract additional teachers
to those areas where there is the shortage, where there is a difficulty
with the performance of America's school children on testing in math
and science where we were ranked in the world? We are foreclosed from
having that debate and offering that opportunity.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) wanted to offer the
right to make sure that those who are lost family members in 9/11 would
have their student loans forgiven where the first responders were
killed. We were told by the majority leader we would have an
opportunity to have a vote on that amendment. We were told that last
year. We are still waiting. This is one of the last vehicles where we
may have been able to come through and offer such an amendment.
We wanted to offer an amendment to deal with the questions of
vocational education and the enforcement of title IX. These are
amendments that may win and they may lose, but the fact of the matter
is we were precluded from it. This is a good technical amendments bill.
This is a good corrections bill, but that should not preclude it.
The majority says, well, it is getting too heavy; the bill is getting
too heavy. That is not for them to determine. That is for the body to
determine. It may not be too heavy to get out of committee, may get too
heavy to get off the floor, the amendments may lose. That is the
process the people in this country are supposedly guaranteed, but we
see more and more that that process is closed down.
So the end result is the matters of great concern, matters of merit,
to millions of people across this country will be foreclosed from being
considered in this Congress.
The question of whether or not we have loan forgiveness, the loan
forgiveness is a Republican amendment. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) and I are cosponsors of this effort. It was in
the President's budget. This is not some controversial idea we thought
up to gig somebody. This is what the President said we should do. This
is what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the
committee said we should do, and many people cosponsored that effort to
do that, but we are precluded from offering it.
The FETA program was an outgrowth of an idea about what is the
[[Page H4703]]
biggest problems these schools are having. The number one reason, one
alluded to, was the question of what happens to students who had a
violation of controlled substance laws prior to their entering a school
of higher education. We cannot even address that in this bill now. We
were going to offer the amendment. It was in the bill at one time. It
was taken out of the bill. We talked to them and we were going to put
it back in. What happened? The committee meeting was cancelled. Now we
find ourselves on the floor in the suspension and we are denying
America's teachers, we are denying America's schools an opportunity to
try and get additional help to them.
For that reason, I oppose this bill and I would ask my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I said earlier, the whole FED UP process was really a rather
innovative idea put together in a bipartisan way to try to get input
from educators and those involved in higher education around the
country, and my colleague, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) will get into more of that in detail.
What we tried to do was to do on a regulatory side what could be
done, and the Secretary of Education has done a good job in addressing
many of these comments that we received on that that could be addressed
in the regulatory process in that venue. What we are trying to do here
was to find those issues where there was bipartisan support that did
not cost money.
My colleagues all know we have to live under the Budget Act. There
are three issues that we desperately wanted in this bill from our side
of the aisle, the two extenders and the drug provision that the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) just referred to. We
could not find budgetary offsets. Together those three issues did not
even cost $10 million a year.
Some of the proposals outlined by my good friend and colleague from
California (Mr. George Miller) cost far more than that. We would love
to address forgiving teachers student loans for those in title I
schools, $275 million in budget authority. How about allowing judges to
set aside the ban on student aid for drug offenders, I think
misconstrued by the Department, but again to fix it, $135 million in
budget authority. Or how about the proposal by the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy), my good friend and colleague, someone whom I have
been frankly working to try to help, on forgiving student loans for
spouses of victims of 9/11, $3 million.
We did not put our proposals in the bill that cost money, and the
proposals that have been outlined by my colleague cost significant
amounts of money, and the fact is that the offsetting amounts from
somewhere were never presented.
{time} 1415
What we have before us is a very good bill, and what we should not do
here is we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The
gentleman knows we have a very good bill on the floor today. It has
broad support in the higher-education community, and it deserves the
broad support of all of our colleagues. So let us not let the perfect
become the enemy of the good.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2
minutes.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, on the question of budget authority, the
gentleman made a determination that this cost money and there were no
offsets. The gentleman said there were no offsets, but he would not
even let us look for offsets for these amendments. We also happen to
have a number of free amendments. We happen to have a number of free
amendments we are willing to offer.
The second thing is, the gentleman wanted to do something that was
not controversial, where there could be agreement. On that theory, we
just went through the securities bill in the House that turned out to
be an embarrassment to everybody because, today, people ran down to the
floor to add criminal penalties on almost a unanimous vote. So the
question on that point, the Republicans were determining what is
controversial. They said if we have criminal penalties against people
who perpetrate fraud, that would be controversial and they left it out
of the securities bill. In the Senate today it was 97 to 0, and this
morning it was 400 to something.
So, again, my colleagues are setting themselves up as the arbiters of
what is controversial, what can be considered, and what cannot be
considered. That is not democracy. That looks like forms of government
that we fight against around the world. That is not a democracy. In our
democracy, we take a vote and we win or we lose. We get excited about
winning, and we lick our wounds when we lose and come back another day.
But that is not what is happening here. So this is far beyond that.
People were not raising the budget act when the farm bill passed
through here. Or, actually, the gentleman was raising the budget act
when the farm bill came through here, but the leadership was not
raising the budget act when the farm bill came through here; and they
are not raising it now in the supplemental. So the notion that somehow
loan forgiveness for teachers is completely out of consideration, let
the Members decide that. Let the Members decide if we want to make
trade-offs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose what is a good bill. I oppose it
because there is a larger principle at stake here, and that is the
reasonable right of the minority to have its say in the process of
writing legislation.
The House has been here before, Mr. Speaker. Exactly 11 years and 1
day ago, a Member of this House came to the floor and protested a
procedure and used these words: ``This rule might aptly be called the
representative democracy displacement rule since its substitutes the
judgment of the majority leadership for that of the 435 freely elected
Members of this House. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that as dictatorial
governments around the world are allowing democracy to flourish,
democracy does not flourish in the House of Representatives.''
That speaker was not a Democrat disenchanted with the present
majority, it was the present chairman of the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who used those words 11 years
ago. He was talking about a rule where the minority was given a
substitute of its own version of a bill that would outlaw the use of
replacement workers in a strike. We have not been given such
prerogatives.
When the debt ceiling limitation was brought to this floor, the
minority was not given the right to offer our own plan. When the
prescription drug benefit legislation was brought to this floor, the
minority was not given the right to offer its own plan. With this bill,
as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) just said, our
ideas to forgive student loans for those willing to teach in
disadvantaged schools, to forgive the student loans of heroes who gave
up their lives on September 11, to make sure that civil rights laws are
enforced under vocational education programs, our ideas were deemed
unworthy of being considered by this body.
Mr. Speaker, this process is unworthy of this body. It is one more
example of the arrogant imposition of majority will. It is one more
reason why people should rise up and vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4866, the FED UP Higher
Education Technical Amendments Act.
I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), and the ranking members, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for their
support and leadership.
The success of FED UP, which is short for Upping the Effectiveness of
Our Federal Student Aid Program, and
[[Page H4704]]
openness of the entire process should serve as a model of collaboration
and partnership at all levels.
When we began this process last year, I stated early on that I had
absolutely no agenda to push; that my only consideration was to promote
an initiative that benefits students so that we could increase access
to higher education. To this end, the ranking member, the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and I solicited comments from across the
country, from college officials, administrators, and other personnel
who operate America's institutions of higher learning in order to
determine which regulations or statutory provisions could be modified
or eliminated in order to remove regulatory burdens. We have 800 pages
of Federal regulations dealing with higher education, and we were
trying to simplify this process.
While participating in the process, Richard Atkinson, president of
the University of California, states ``Our efforts to keep tuition
reasonable and affordable for students are undermined by the enormous
compliance costs associated with Federal regulations. While we must
ensure and document that Federal funds are spent properly, the current
regulatory morass only increases costs and diverts faculty and staff
from more productive activities.''
Peggy Stock, president of Westminster College in Utah, said she could
not ``remember the last time someone asked us what was wrong and what
we could do to make it better.''
In just 3 months, we set up a Web page, and we asked for responses
from all the schools around the country; and we received over 3,000
responses as to how the process could be improved. These responses came
from individuals at every type of secondary institution and from every
part of the country.
Once the responses were compiled, the committee worked with the
Department of Education to assess which regulatory issues could be
addressed immediately and which would need to be considered in the
upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. With Secretary
Rod Paige pledging to be a true partner throughout the FED UP process,
the Department of Education addressed proposals that were strictly
regulatory in nature.
As part of the third step in the process, we began working on
legislation to address additional statutory provisions that placed an
undue burden on colleges, universities, and ultimately our country's
students. These proposed amendments were slated to be noncontroversial
and technical in nature. And all of our staff were in there; we were in
there working together.
As previously agreed to, and has been discussed repeatedly over and
over again, all controversial ideas were to be taken offer the table
and dealt with during reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. In
fact, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), in asking that one of
the issues that we are talking about be removed, sent a letter to me,
and I quote from her letter: ``Our understanding was that this
technical correction bill would not include any item that was
controversial or which would be objected to by a significant number of
Members.''
This process will begin with the commencement of hearings later this
fall, when we start on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
That is when we will address the controversial issues that my
colleagues are talking about.
Over the last year, in an effort to produce this noncontroversial and
budget-neutral bill, Members and staff have met with those from both
parties, various members of higher-education associations, and the
Department of Education. The results of these tireless efforts of the
FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act has support from every
major college education association in the country and is cosponsored
by the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and actually
the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and Members from both
parties.
The thousands of students, parents, financial aid professionals, and
college presidents who logged on are a key part of that collaboration.
They are the experts. They are the individuals who must navigate the
Federal student aid programs each day. And by logging on to our Web
site, they gave us practical, more effective alternatives that will
improve service to our Nation's students and reduce red tape for our
colleges and universities.
Federal student aid programs provide a valuable service. Because of
the efforts of this Congress to provide increased funding for grants,
loans, and other aid each year, millions of students are able to follow
their dreams. While these higher-education programs do a tremendous
service to students by opening doors of opportunity that can only be
opened by higher education, they are far from perfect. The confusing,
convoluted, bureaucratic red tape students often face when trying to
obtain financial aid must be cut.
Even though this vital piece of legislation includes numerous
technical changes to the Higher Education Act, most of the changes in
FED UP will directly improve service to students. The bill will help
students avoid defaulting on their student loans by removing barriers
to students seeking forbearance from lenders on student loan payments.
It will improve the flow of information to students by expanding the
use of technology on campus. It clarifies parts of the ``return of
title IV funds'' policy to better protect students' grant aid when he
or she withdraws from a college or university. It corrects a drafting
error in current law that mistakenly prevents students attending
nonprofit foreign veterinary schools from completing their education by
making them ineligible for the Federal Family Education Loan program.
Students, parents, and administrators have spoken, and their voice is
clear: the Federal student aid program must be reformed to make it
easier to navigate. This should be an example for all parts of Federal
Government to work on.
I strongly urge Members to support H.R. 4866, the FED UP Higher
Education Technical Amendments Act of 2002, to return the Federal
student aid program to its original purpose of aiding students.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, under normal conditions, I
certainly would be supporting this bill. I do not think any of us on
the committee have anything against it. But, again, I will talk about
the process of how we came upon this.
When I came here to Congress, certainly I thought we would be working
together to try to get a good bill out. Now, obviously, I came to
Congress under very different circumstances. I was just an average
housewife living in Mineola, but I actually thought the government
worked under the democratic process.
I can offer an awful lot of amendments, and they can be voted down;
but at least I can have my day and be able to talk about a bill.
However, because my colleagues and I were not given an opportunity to
debate this bill and approve it, I must voice my opposition to the
process by which this bill came to the floor.
I had intended to offer an amendment to this bill that forgives
student loans of the spouses of the victims of September 11. Due to the
tragic events of September 11, many spouses who lost a loved one in the
attack are enduring financial hardships. Charitable organizations have
provided some form of relief, but the Federal Government must do more.
We must provide student loan relief to all spouses affected by the
terrorist attack on September 11. Currently, an individual who died has
their loan forgiven, but not the spouse, who may have relied on the
working spouse to pay those loans back. My bill authorizes the
Secretary of Education to discharge or cancel Federal student loan
indebtedness to eligible spouses.
By the way, we worked very hard to keep those costs down. We had the
CBO score how much this might cost, which was the next step, and it was
under $500,000. We actually said it would probably cost $300,000.
This includes the spouse of an individual who served as a policeman,
fireman, other safety or rescue personnel, or in the Armed Forces who
died or became permanently disabled in the line of duty due to the
injuries suffered under the terrorist attack.
[[Page H4705]]
In addition, our bill closes the loophole that does not allow for a
loan to be forgiven if it has been consolidated. Under my bill, we
close this loophole and allow spouses to have their student loans
forgiven whether or not the loan had been consolidated.
It has been 10 months since this terrible tragedy has taken place.
Have we really forgotten our pledge to help these victims any way we
can? Let us stop the politics surrounding this legislation today. We
must do everything in our power to help ease the financial burden our
brave men and women may endure while they fight overseas to rid the
world of terrorism. Relieving the student loan expenses helps
financially strained spouses provide for their families during this
difficult time.
But, again, let us come back to the democratic process. I could have
brought this amendment up in committee. It could have been voted down.
I would have accepted that. But at least I would have had a voice
heard.
{time} 1430
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill provides a perfect
example of why it is so much harder to pass legislation than it is to
defeat it. Here is a piece of legislation coming to the floor of this
House that was worked on in the spirit of bipartisanship with total
cooperation between the parties, but because some Members are not
satisfied that everything that they want is included, they are going to
vote against it, even though not a single word has been spoken on the
floor against any provision in the bill that is before us.
It is a good bill and it should pass on its merits, but Members would
like to add more and do it their way. We cannot do it everybody's way
and get anything done. It is easier to stop things than to pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a good bill. I would like to
speak very briefly about a provision in the bill that makes a minor
change to the statute governing the Federal TRIO programs in a way that
will end the unfair disadvantages faced by the University of
Wisconsin's 2-year colleges in applying for student support services
grants.
The provision will override a Department of Education regulation that
was preventing my State's 13 2-year college campuses, known as the UW
college system, from applying for more than just one student support
services grant. It is a good concrete example of a burdensome
regulation that is preventing the proper functioning of a higher
education program and making thousands of students ineligible for the
benefits of the TRIO program.
The regulation in question sets criteria for what constitutes a
``different population'' served and ``different campus'' in such a way
that, while almost every other State's 2-year college systems are
treated as separate campuses for this purpose, those of Wisconsin and
New Mexico are considered as one campus, even though they are scattered
all over the State, serving demonstrably different populations, and
independent of each other in every relevant respect.
In fact, UW colleges are allowed to apply for separate grants for
every other TRIO program except the student support services program.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I think Members understand that bills that
come to the floor under suspension of the rules are intended to be
noncontroversial, worked out, signed, sealed and ready for delivery.
The bill that comes to us today is in fact not yet completed.
Certainly it is not controversial that increased access to college
education is more important than ever. But this bill needs more than
just some tinkering or some perfecting attention. There is room for
substantial improvement.
We should be dealing with teacher loan forgiveness and addressing the
shortage of special education teachers and we should be dealing with
gender equity and vocational education and student loan relief for
families of victims of September 11. We should be dealing with the
policy of missing persons at universities and colleges.
I was prevented from offering an amendment that would have fulfilled
President Bush's goal of increasing the number of math, science and
special education teachers in the classroom.
We have not been able to complete work on this bill. The Committee on
Education and the Workforce is very capable of bipartisan work. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), both sides of the committee, have worked together
very well. The Leave No Child Behind bill is a product of that
bipartisan work. I believe this bill should be sent back to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, marked up, and returned to
the House floor in a bipartisan manner so we can increase access to
colleges and universities for all of our students.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first, I do not want to be appearing to be
joining the minority whining session. I certainly have a legitimate
complaint in the bill because mine was actually a technical correction.
The technical corrections bill is supposed to be mostly grammatical and
things that were misunderstood. And the things that are being debated
on the floor right now are supposed to come up under separate
legislation when we do a higher ed bill.
To quote the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) when I was trying to
do what was actually a technical correction, she wrote, ``Our
understanding was that this technical correction bill would not include
any item that was controversial or which would be objected to by a
significant number of Members.''
What we have been debating here is a higher ed bill or individual
bills. My technical correction is very simple. The Clinton
administration, either through deliberate, malicious intent, or
incompetence, and I believe incompetence, ruled that students who are
receiving a loan who got convicted of a drug offense applied to people
20 years back. A 14-year-old who had committed three offenses could not
get a student loan.
Our debate was clear. An exchange the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and I had made it clear we were talking about students
who were convicted while they were getting a college loan. They applied
and denied thousands of students because of a laughable interpretation
of the law. We have twice passed this technical correction in the
House. We tried to put it in this bill, and the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink) objected because she said it was a substantive change when
this was a technical correction.
To his credit, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
disagreed, and so did the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the
cosponsor of this bill, and we tried to move it through. Finally it
looked like we were going to move it through, and then there was a
budget objection.
As an absurdity of congressional accounting, when we first passed my
amendment, we did not get a debit or any balance based on the number of
students who would lose the loan. But when we tried to follow the House
law and the law as it was passed, then they said we had to get an
offset if we let students who were not to be deprived in the first
place get those loans back. So we also had a budget objection.
Mr. Speaker, I have a legitimate complaint in this technical
corrections process, but I am going to vote for this bill because I
know the higher ed bill is coming next year. We will deal with loan
forgiveness, with which I agree, and other issues when we actually do a
higher ed bill. This is to be a technical corrections bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose the provisions that are included
in the Fed Up Act, I am fed up for bringing it up on a suspensions
calendar. I am not
[[Page H4706]]
going to vote against this bill because of what is in the bill, I am
going to vote against it because of what is not in the bill.
As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I had
planned to offer an amendment to Fed Up when it was marked up in the
full committee. However, rather than consider any Democratic
amendments, the committee mark was cancelled and this bill was never
considered at the committee level. Had it been, I would have offered an
amendment to ensure that vocational education programs obey civil
rights laws.
Just a few weeks ago, The Washington Post and other newspapers
reported on a recent survey that revealed pervasive gender segregation
in vocational and technical education programs all around the country.
The survey found that women remain clustered in classes which lead to
traditionally female jobs, such as cosmetology, child care or fashion
technology. On the other hand, the classes in carpentry, electronics,
and automotive programs were 85 percent male. So women are trained for
jobs as hairdressers, earning a median hourly wage of $8.49 an hour,
while males get work as plumbers who earn an hourly wage of $30 an
hour. Thirty years after the passage of title IX, the patterns of
enrollment in technical and vocational education programs look
shockingly similar to the patterns that existed prior to the passage of
title IX 30 years ago.
I am fed up with this unfair legislative process. I am fed up with
being denied opportunity to work with my colleagues in crafting
legislation that comes to the House floor. I urge Members to vote
against the Fed Up bill, and vote against any bill where half the House
is muzzled. Until Democrats are given a fair role in House proceedings,
I suggest that we vote no.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, for those Members who paid attention to
this debate and are about to vote, they should know the following:
Every speaker who has risen in opposition of the bill has endorsed
every provision in the bill, and so they would vote for it except for
concerns of theirs.
Every speaker on the bill 2\1/2\ hours ago sat with me in a hearing
before presidents of historically black colleges and minority and poor
institutions who talked about the bureaucratic, technical and monetary
impediments to deserving students getting a college education, 400,000
this year in America.
We should subordinate our political interests to the better interests
of Americans trying to better their lives. If, in fact, there is no
objection to a provision in the bill, we should vote for the recipients
and the beneficiaries of student aid and improve their lives, not for
our parochial or our political interests.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson), except under that theory, why have a democracy? The
other side of the aisle would make a determination what is good, and
then that is what is voted for.
That is not the issue of whether we support the underlying bill or
provisions of it, it is whether or not under a process that would have
allowed us to offer amendments, we were not allowed to offer those
amendments. That is called fairness. That is called fairness.
It is not a question of whether, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri) said, we got all we wanted, we simply wanted a debate. We might
have won the votes. Maybe we were wrong. That is the process in this
House. The other side does not get to unilaterally decide whether we
have enough. The votes in the House decide whether a bill goes too far.
We weigh that every day. But that opportunity is being offered to us
less and less. That is why when we have a bill of decent merit, but the
suggestion is that is it, folks, take it or leave it, that is not our
process of government.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the ranking member if
there was a markup of this bill in the subcommittee where we would have
had an opportunity to offer our amendments?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there
was. When we started to offer amendments in the full committee, the
hearing was cancelled.
Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, so there was no
opportunity in the full committee to offer amendments to this bill
either?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is the problem. The gentleman
is quite correct. I appreciate his question. Then when we get to the
floor, we are told we cannot have amendments because it was on
suspension.
Mr. Speaker, when is it we get to offer amendments? When is it we get
to present a differing view, either on the technical underlying bill or
on amendments that are germane, under the rules of germaneness, the
rules of the House? Members can be the arbiters of that.
But I do not think the Members of the Democratic side should go along
with that. I would hope that Republicans understand that and would not
support the bill, and we can have this under an open rule. Maybe our
amendments would be germane. It is not like we have been busy around
here. All of a sudden we have to close down democracy when it looks
like we have to take a tight vote, or maybe the minority might prevail.
Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, a number of our amendments were
supported by the President's budget, they were supported by Members on
the Republican side of the aisle. This is simply about trying to
preserve the notion that this is a people's House.
The amendment is not for me or the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey). It is for the teachers in this country, it is for the young
kids going to school thinking about whether they go into math and
science. Do they go to a high poverty area or not. That is who the
amendments are for, but that is precluded.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members on the Democratic side of the aisle
to vote against this, and hope our colleagues would join us in trying
to preserve some semblance of democracy in the House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
would never accuse me of being unfair. We have had a very good process
in our committee over the last 18 months, and I think Members on both
sides of the aisle have far more respect for each other than we have
seen for certainly the 12 years I have been on the committee.
{time} 1445
What we went through was a bipartisan, commonsense exercise to ask
the higher-education community what is it that makes your life more
miserable that we can address. We went through a commonsense,
bipartisan effort to put this bill together. The agreement early on was
if we could not come to an agreement on the issue, it did not go into
the bill. But there are 30 issues in this bill that have common
agreement, that we all agreed that this would happen. Then all of a
sudden along the way the track either got crooked or the train ran off
the track and there are other issues that wanted a place in this bill,
issues that unfortunately cost an awful lot of money.
As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) pointed out, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported everything in
the bill. As I said before, let us not let the perfect become the enemy
of the good. We will have ample time to deal with these other issues
next year when we get into the reauthorization of the higher education
act, but in the meantime let us do what we can to help more students
get a better shot at a good college education.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts today to make necessary
technical changes to the Higher Education Act. On behalf of the 3rd
Congressional District of Wisconsin, I have a significant interest in a
particular section of this legislation that will assist the University
of Wisconsin two-year campuses in my home state.
Over the past 30 years, Congress has established a series of programs
to help low-income Americans enter college, graduate, and
[[Page H4707]]
move on to participate more fully in America's economic and social
life. These programs include financial aid programs that help students
overcome economic barriers to higher education, as well as TRIO
programs which help students overcome class, social, and cultural
barriers to higher education.
Currently, TRIO regulations allow multiple branch campuses to submit
separate grant applications so long as the programs are run on campuses
that are both geographically apart and independent of the main campus
of the institution. Unfortunately, the Department of Education does not
recognize the University of Wisconsin system as having ``independent''
two-year campuses because the thirteen branch campuses share a single
chancellor.
Thus, the University of Wisconsin's two-year college system is only
eligible for one TRIO grant, which currently provide only $435,000 for
475 students. This group of students is only 6 percent of those
eligible for funding under the program.
Since 1996, when the UW campuses were first denied individual TRIO
grants, until 2004, when they will next be able to apply for individual
grants, they will have lost more than 1.4 million dollars in funding.
This money could have served hundreds of students.
These institutions of higher education should not be penalized simply
because of their administrative structure. Therefore, I am pleased that
language from H.R. 4637, legislation I introduced with Congressman
Petri, that makes technical changes to the TRIO regulations, is
included in this bill. The language will redefine what constitutes a
different campus, allowing the University of Wisconsin's two-year
schools to compete fairly for TRIO grants, just as other schools
already do. In the end, these campuses will be able to serve more
students who need assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy that this language was included in FED-UP. I
support assisting students in attaining a higher education. This
legislation will help more people attend college, and as a result be
more competitive in the workforce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4866, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________