[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1204-H1210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 609, COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY
ACT OF 2005
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 741
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education
Act of 1965. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, it shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules
Committee Print dated March 22, 2006. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule
XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. After disposition of the amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further
consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant
to a subsequent order of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
H. Res. 741 provides a structured rule of 1 hour of general debate on
H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and makes in
order 15 separate amendments to that legislation.
I would like to point out that this bill has been significantly
discussed in committee markups. Seventy-nine amendments were discussed;
half as many, as well, were discussed in the subcommittee markup.
Nonetheless, 117 amendments were also filed with the Rules Committee,
many of them by members of the committee, some retreads, but some
allegedly were rewritten after the committee markup took place.
Because so many amendments have been introduced and many of them are
those first impression-type amendments, the Rules Committee will be
issuing a separate, second rule at a later date that will allow for
consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 609.
Providing for two separate rules in this manner will allow the Rules
Committee some additional time it needs to adequately review the large
number of amendments that were submitted, guard against potential
duplicative amendments, violation of House rules, ensure germaneness
and also eliminate those that would violate budgetary rules.
I hope that in this process we will ensure an orderly debate on the
key issues of this particular bill with the proposed two structured
rules coming to us.
This two-step process will also allow many of the sponsors of those
amendments some additional time to perhaps redraft their language, with
closer consultation with the Parliamentarian and the relevant
committees of jurisdiction.
The Rules Committee did work hard to listen to the Member testimony
and consider the amendments that were proposed. What is filed in this
particular rule are 15 amendments, seven of which are Democrat or
bipartisan amendments which provide for a wide range of debate on many
key aspects of the higher education program and policy. I think it is
indeed a fair rule.
In 1965, the original Higher Education Act was proposed in order to
provide assistance to a high number of students to fulfill a dream of a
college education. Since that time, this bill and reauthorizations of
this bill have been used for some other purposes.
One of the things that is positive about the bill before us is an
effort to refocus on the primary purpose and the primary goal of this
bill as it was originally applied, and that is public assistance to
more students, period.
It is an effort on the part of the committee to try and make sure
that people have this opportunity to go to college. As such, they
reauthorize programs like TRIO and its associate programs like Upward
Bound and GEAR UP to take kids who, by virtue of their socioeconomic
status or perhaps their cultural background, are given an opportunity
to advance to a college degree maybe for the first time to fulfill that
particular dream.
{time} 1045
I realize that my brothers and I are the first ones in my family to
have actually graduated from college, and to allow that for many of
these kids who will sometimes be the first of their families to have
that experience in college and to graduate from college is significant.
The committee reauthorized the student Perkins loan grants, which
also
[[Page H1205]]
recognizes the need of a different strain of students to be able to
make it through college with the different niche that they provide. It
has recognized the role of proprietary schools without automatic
recognition but understanding the niche that it plays now as well as in
the future.
Most significantly, it reauthorizes the Pell Grants. It does so in a
way that expands the cap, simplifies the rules, changes the eligibility
so a greater number of individuals will be eligible and participate in
this particular program. It adds new emphasis on the highest-achieving
first- and second-year students, which in the past have had the
greatest need but maybe have not had the proportional advantage of this
particular program. It accelerates the opportunity for course work to
be done in a way that helps the students to actually get through their
college careers. In essence, it is one of those programs that does
well.
I hope as we proceed on the discussion of this rule as well as the
underlying bill that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this
particular bill, which is to provide assistance for more students. And
I also hope that we do not lose sight that we are dealing with the bill
at hand, not other extraneous issues.
The original act, the original act never intended that the Federal
Government pay for all of college education but rather was an
assistance, a helping hand to those wishing to go to school and
allowing those students themselves to earn their own way in the higher
education world.
I feel I have a personal stake in this particular concept. I have
five kids, four of whom have been in college, unfortunately, at the
same time. Since 1998, I have had the wonderful opportunity of funding
multiple students in college simultaneously. And if my third kid goes
to graduate school, I will have a chance of adding the fifth kid in
college at the same time in both law schools, undergraduate work, as
well as perhaps graduate work, and I did it all on a schoolteacher's
salary.
Both I and my credit cards understand the significance of this
particular piece of legislation, and I am also convinced that it is a
remarkably good balance by reauthorizing existing programs while at the
same time increasing accountability for Federal dollars spent,
increasing consumer choices, creating incentives for institutions to
control tuition costs, and actually increasing the overall number of
low- and middle-income students who will be receiving that particular
assistance.
We will probably hear, as the discussion unfolds, both in this rule
and the next rule, of many programs trying to institute social
engineering projects into this particular bill; perhaps to expand the
role in the Federal Government at the State and local education
prerogatives; perhaps those amendments to micromanage institutions;
perhaps those that will change the authorization levels in an
unrealistic fashion. It will be an interesting debate. But what I hope
we do not lose track of, again, is that this bill makes progress in
helping kids receive a college education, and progress is always paid
at some particular price.
It also does not diminish the other role besides assistance in the
cost of education and college, which is tuition increases. By providing
specific incentives to schools to hold the line on tuition increases,
by simplifying the process and by studying this issue and reporting
back, it does make a significant stand in this particular area without
forgetting that the Federal Government is a partner in this situation.
The institutions of higher learning belong to the States and the
private and religious organizations. We are simply exercising a
partnership with them.
I have to commend the former chairman of the Education Workforce
Services Committee, our current majority leader, Mr. Boehner, for his
efforts in trying to work across the aisle to come up with a good bill.
I also congratulate the new chairman, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work in
seeing this bill through to this point. I also congratulate many
Members of the minority. Many of their ideas and provisions are
incorporated in the base bill, 609, that we have before us.
Forty-eight hours ago, this was a good bipartisan bill, and I am
under the assumption that, when we finish our work and go home
Saturday, we will also recognize that we have passed a good bipartisan
bill.
In conclusion, I ask the Members to support this first rule and vote
in favor of this resolution. We will have as a body two chances at the
plate in this particular bill. And as Satchel Page used to say: ``Pitch
strikes. Home plate don't move.''
This is a good bill, and it ain't going to move either. With that, I
hope we continue to make progress in moving this important piece of
legislation forward at an orderly pace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding
me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, in our country, education has long been
viewed as the doorway to opportunity. Unfortunately, if we pass this
rule and the underlying legislation, we will be closing this door for
many.
Over the past year, I have sat down with students at Sacramento State
University in my hometown of Sacramento. These young people are so
talented and so filled with the possibility of tomorrow, but they are
all concerned about the cuts to financial aid and their ability to
finish college. This legislation will not address their concerns and,
actually, will probably increase them.
The inability to afford college was less of an issue for my
generation. When I was growing up in California, there was never a
concern that I couldn't go to college. But this is not the case today.
In all likelihood, my parents would have a very difficult time putting
together a package that would allow me to go to college because, across
the Nation, the average tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges have
risen 40 percent since 2001 when adjusted for inflation. Yet when also
adjusted for inflation, the maximum Pell Grant last year was worth $800
less than it was in 1975, and this bill only raises the authorizing
level by a mere $200 over 6 years.
The spending cuts this Congress passed earlier this year represented
the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs
ever. Sadly, this bill fails to reverse that trend, and it puts college
even further out of reach for many. For the students at Sac State, UC
Davis, and across the Nation, this legislation will impact their
ability to earn a degree as well as their future, and ultimately it
will impact this Nation's future.
Today, this country is a world leader by nearly every economic
indicator, and our standard of living is without equal. But that didn't
happen by accident. Our predecessors made a decision to make the
critical investment in education and ensure access to an affordable
education. While we seem to be increasing the barriers to a college
education, we should not doubt for a moment that our international
competitors are making that mistake. China, India, South Korea and
others are making the investment to produce the intellectual capital
they will need to boost their economic growth and catch up to the
United States.
College financial aid is an investment in America's economic strength
and its workforce. If the barriers to a college education continue to
increase, America's preeminence in the world economy will be at risk.
If we want to ensure we retain our international preeminence, we must
make the investment in our most important engine of economic growth:
the American people. They are our Nation's most valuable resource.
We must make college truly affordable for every student who has the
ability and the will to work hard, study and continue to make America
the world's economic leader. But we will not be doing that with this
legislation. And as we bring this bill to the House floor, we are
sending a very loud signal that partisanship has a higher priority in
this Congress than working together to address the needs of the Nation.
In previous Congresses, the higher education reauthorization has come
to the floor with a rule simply requiring the preprinting of
amendments, certainly a far more open process than today. Those rules
passed each time by
[[Page H1206]]
voice vote. It allowed healthy debate on one of the most important
bills this Congress considers, because we must get it right. But we
don't see the same rule in this Congress. Instead, the Rules Committee
chose to shut out Members' ideas by issuing this first restrictive rule
late last night, which is likely to be followed by a second rule that
also shuts Members out of the process.
Once again, we see the majority limiting the ideas that can be
debated on the House floor. It will only add to this bill's flawed
consideration, and ultimately, it will block efforts to correct its
misguided priorities.
So I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and the underlying
legislation so we can return to the floor with a higher education bill
that does make the investment in our young people and our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the
subcommittee of jurisdiction dealing with higher education issues.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
today in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 609, the College
Access and Opportunity Act, which will reauthorize the Higher Education
Act.
Don't believe the hype from the critics of this legislation. Here is
some straight talk: not a single student in America will receive less
financial aid under this bill. Not one. This legislation actually
expands college access for millions of American students by
strengthening the Pell Grant program and by reauthorizing the Perkins
student loan program.
I will focus my comments this morning on the heart of this
legislation, which is Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Both of these are
worthy programs which enjoy broad bipartisan support.
As someone from humble beginnings, who would not have been able to go
to college without Pell Grants and student loans, and as chairman of
the subcommittee with jurisdiction over higher education, I am a strong
supporter of both Perkins loans and Pell Grants.
Let me first discuss Perkins loans. This legislation reauthorizes the
Perkins student loan program, a critical program that offers financial
assistance to over 10 million low-income students. The Perkins program
helps our neediest students borrow extra money for college at a fixed,
low 5 percent interest rate. In this bill, we increase the loan limits
in the Perkins program from $4,000 up to $5,500 for undergraduates and
from $6,000 to $8,000 for graduate students, thereby increasing access
to college.
I will next discuss Pell Grants. This legislation strengthens the
Pell Grant program by authorizing a maximum Pell Grant for $6,000, the
largest amount in the history of our country, and by providing year-
round Pell Grant aid for students attending school throughout the year,
the first time we have done that in the history of this country.
Mr. Speaker, programs like Perkins student loans and Pell Grants are
the passports out of poverty for millions of American students each
year. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes''
on the College Access and Opportunity Act in order to help millions of
college students be able to afford to go to college.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California,
my colleague, for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on this rule and on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, scarcely 2 months ago, the Republican majority voted to
cut $12 billion from Federal student aid programs. That is what they
did. And not a single member of the Democratic minority voted for those
cuts. This raid on student aid represents the single largest cut in the
history of these critical Federal programs.
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to force America's college students and
their families to pay the price for the majority's irresponsible
management of our Nation's budget. It is wrong to make students and
families who are already struggling to pay for college foot the bill
for tax cuts for the super-rich.
{time} 1100
In February, President Bush submitted his budget for fiscal year
2007, which this House is likely to take up next week and which
continues to cut America's Federal investment in higher education.
For the sixth year in a row, President Bush has broken his promise to
raise the maximum Pell Grant to $5,100. Instead, his budget freezes the
maximum level at $4,050, well below what is needed for low-income
students to pay for college. Once again, the President's budget
eliminates Federal funding for Perkins loans and sharply cuts back
funding for campus-based grants like the SEOG and work study.
Financially needy students are further denied opportunities to
achieve a college education by a budget that eliminates programs that
directly help them prepare for college, including GEAR UP and Upward
Bound.
So here we are today, preparing to bring H.R. 609 to the House floor.
Does this bill restore the purchasing power of the Pell Grant? No, it
does not. Instead, it increases the maximum Pell Grant by just a measly
$200 over 6 years.
When Pell Grant first began, it covered 84 percent of the cost at a
4-year public college. Today, because of inadequate funding, the Pell
Grant covers only 42 percent of the cost, forcing millions of students
to go deep into debt, work long hours, or forget college altogether.
Does this bill guarantee that only the minor authorized increase for
the Pell Grant in H.R. 609 will actually be funded at this level? No,
it does not. Assuming Republican priorities remain the same, we will
continue to see budgets and appropriations that fall far short of what
is needed to make college affordable for all of America's qualified
students.
Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the Republican leadership to do
the right thing. We can strengthen and improve this bill, but only if
the Rules Committee makes in order amendments like the Miller-Kildee
alternative.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as written, misses the mark. We must help
more of our students get to college and afford to stay there. If we
fail to truly make this our number one priority, then we fail our
students, our families, our communities and the Nation, and we inflict
long-term damage on America's ability to compete, our economy and
America's future prosperity.
What a rotten legacy this Republican Congress is leaving future
generations: enormous Federal debt and the slashing of important vital
programs to give all Americans the opportunity to pursue higher
education.
I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your
priorities are wrong. Your priorities will do damage to our students
and will undercut our Nation's ability to remain an economic
superpower. You have already slashed away at Federal funding for
elementary and secondary education despite all the new Federal mandates
that have been imposed on our schools by No Child Left Behind. Now here
we are shortchanging higher education. When is enough enough?
Don't tell us you do not have the money. You have money for tax
breaks for Donald Trump and the super-rich, but you don't have money
when it comes to helping working families.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that if education is your
priority, then you need to vote against this bill, send this bill back
and force this Republican majority to do what is right. Do not listen
to the rhetoric about somehow we are improving Pell Grants and we are
providing more assistance to our younger people. The fact of the matter
is the purchasing power of Pell Grants is at an all-time low. We could
do better.
Without significant changes in this bill, I regret that I cannot
support H.R. 609. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This
should be an open rule. If anything should be debated on this House
floor, it should be education.
Last night, we had many Members offer amendments, and here we are
with a restrictive rule. We should spend a week on education. We should
not be rushing this in a day or two. Let's spend a week. It is that
important. I urge my colleagues to vote
[[Page H1207]]
against the rule and vote against the bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts and his
discussion of the budget issues we will be debating next week. It is a
good primer for that particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, to
speak about this bill at hand.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend, the great
history professor, who understands the importance of education and for
his stellar service on the Rules Committee and his commitment to
ensuring that we have a good piece of legislation.
At the outset, let me say that we obviously have seen Chairman McKeon
work in a bipartisan way reaching out to my fellow Californian, Mr.
Miller, from Martinez, California, who has also a passionate commitment
to dealing with the issue of education.
I have to say when I sat in the Rules Committee yesterday, listening
to this debate, I was struck by the fact that my friend, Mr. Miller,
was regularly nodding his head in agreement with Mr. McKeon when he
talked about issue after issue that had been addressed by the majority
on the committee. I hope very much, as we proceed with this process,
that we are able to once again enjoy the bipartisan support and
commitment we had on this issue about 36 hours ago.
I also want to say to my friend from Massachusetts who raised the
issue of the rule, this is the first of two rules. We have begun with
this rule, and we will be providing an opportunity for more of our
colleagues to offer amendments as we move on with this debate, which is
not going to be a 1-day debate. We understand how important this issue
is.
I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. McKeon for addressing
some of the major concerns that have been brought forward by the
leaders of private schools, private colleges and universities. One of
the things that we need to recognize in our society is we have
pluralism in education. We have spectacular public and private schools
of learning. I believe, as we look at the education challenge, it is
important for us to take the steps to ensure the strength of both of
those. A number of concerns that have been raised by many of my friends
in the academic world have been effectively addressed.
Mr. Speaker, it was 6 years ago this month that 15 European heads of
state met in Lisbon, Portugal, and pledged to make the European Union
the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world
by 2010. By their own account, the EU has acknowledged that that goal
has failed and will not be accomplished.
The German economist, Andreas Schleicher, published a report
entitled, ``The Economics of Knowledge: Why Education is Key For
Europe's Success.'' As the title indicates, Schleicher concludes in a
knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy, education is the linchpin.
He also concludes that right now Europe is lagging well behind the
United States. He ranks the world's top 20 universities and finds that
the EU is home to only two of those.
I am happy to say that the United States is home to 17 of them,
including six in California, and one, the California Institute of
Technology in Pasadena, of which I am particularly proud.
Schleicher makes it clear that without a substantial investment in
education in the high-tech and knowledge-based fields, the European
Union will not only fail to reach its goal of having the most
competitive economy by 2010, it will continue to fall further and
further behind. The report was meant to be a wake-up call for
Europeans, but I believe it should be a wake-up call for us as
Americans.
We lead the global economy in growth, fueled by the power of our
innovation. We are home to the world's best universities where today's
students train for tomorrow's workforce, where creative thinkers
conduct research and develop new technologies. But as a dynamic, fast-
paced, highly competitive economy, we know better than anyone that
complacency and stagnation are economic death knells. We cannot assume
that today's competitiveness ensures tomorrow's success.
If we want to continue to be the global economic leader, we must
expand our investment in education. We must better prepare students for
the rigorous work that the high-tech workforce demands. We must better
equip teachers to provide the educational foundation that our students
need. And, Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that our institutions of higher
learning continue to be the hotbeds of research where new ideas are
tested, new methods are discovered and new technologies are developed.
I believe that H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act,
which we are going to be considering, helps us to accomplish each of
those goals. It is a critical component of our agenda to enhance the
competitiveness of the U.S. economy, and it is necessary to ensure that
the next generation of American workers does not find itself reading
reports on our lack of top universities and our inability to compete in
the global marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and as we go through this
amendment process, specifically addressing concerns that I raised, that
we will take on in the manager's amendment, I urge my colleagues to, in
a bipartisan way, support this very, very important legislation.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, there is very little I can disagree within what the
gentleman from California said in his prior statement. But if you
really want a bipartisan process to move forward in shaping what is
perhaps the most important piece of legislation that is going to be
coming out of the Congress this year, the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, then open up the process, both in committee for those of
us serving on the committee with regard to the ideas that we want to
share and improve with this bill, but also on the House floor today and
tomorrow.
Last night, we had a Rules process where many of us went forward to
testify on various amendments that we wanted to offer. Instead, today,
we get a very restrictive rule with very limited amendments that will
be considered over the next couple of days. We should have a much
broader debate in regards to the education bill before us, rather than
the restrictive rule that is before us today.
I agree that we need to be innovative and creative as a society, not
only to grow the economy, but for national security implications. If
the gentleman wants us to remain innovative and creative as a country,
then let us do it with this bill. Let us invest in these areas; and
this is the vehicle by which to do it.
Today, China is graduating nine times the number of engineers than we
do. Last year, China graduated more English-speaking engineers. It is
not as if we do not know this is happening. The studies are coming in.
The National Academy of Sciences just produced a report ``Rising Above
the Gathering Storm.'' The Glenn Commission that met years before
submitted a report called ``Before It is Too Late,'' citing the
difficulties we will face given the major education investments that
countries like China and India are making in their future, in their
students. And yet we have just token recognition of that in this
important vehicle, the higher education bill. We can do a lot better.
I believe the amendments offered last night were offered in good
faith in an attempt to craft a more bipartisan bill. The fact that so
many of us are excluded from offering them, even having a discussion
about many of these important amendments on the floor, is a disgrace to
the process.
My friend from Massachusetts is exactly right. We should be debating
this bill for a week. We should open it up and allow everyone on the
committee and off the committee to have some input and say on our most
important legislation this year. I hope we can go back and address
that. I encourage a no vote on this Rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1208]]
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, traditionally, the higher education bill has been an
opportunity for this Nation to pause and think about the role of higher
education over the coming years in American society, in America's
economy, in America's national security. Every 4 or 5 years we
reauthorize that act. That is not what happened this time, and that is
why you have opposition to this bill across the higher education
community, across America from every sector, because we did not do
that.
Instead, the higher education bill was hijacked. It was hijacked by
those in the Republican Party that wanted to take the savings from the
student aid accounts and give them to the oil companies and to the
energy companies for their tax breaks. To continue to pay for the tax
breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, they hijacked those
moneys that America's families and students have been paying over the
years, the excessive fees and excessive rates that they have been
paying, and rather than reinvest them in America's future, rather than
reinvest them in the institutions of higher education, in the families
and students who are attending those institutions who are trying to get
those advanced degrees to participate, they simply took that money 3
months ago and walked off with it. And now what we have here are the
leftovers, the leftovers that state lofty principles and ideals, but
fund none of them.
The Budget Committee is slashing education funding. The caps have
suggested that they want cuts beyond what the President has suggested
in his budget, and that is the status of higher education in America
today.
What does it mean? Members recall Mr. Dreier talked about the EU
coming to some conclusions. You do not have to go to the EU. Just
listen to what Americans, who are thinking about the subject, who have
a great stake in the outcome have been telling this Congress for a
number of years, and this Congress has turned a deaf ear to those
individuals under Republican leadership.
{time} 1115
Whether it is the American Academy of Sciences, whether it is the
Council of Graduate Schools, whether it is the American Electronics
Association, whether it is Tech Net, whether it is the bioscience
companies, all of these people have paraded to Washington and said one
thing: you must reinvest in the R&D and in fellowships and in graduate
school programs for science, engineering and mathematics. It is not
being done. It is not being done. We recognized and we have been warned
of the need to reinvest in the greatest partnership ever created in the
history of the world, the greatest public-private partnership that was
the result of President Kennedy's decision to send a person to the Moon
and to bring them back safely. It was more than a Moon shot. It was an
investment in the best and the brightest in America. Tens of thousands
of fellowships were given to individuals. They didn't have to go beg
for a loan. They didn't have to think about working during the summer
or on Easter vacation or student break. No, they concentrated on the
science and the engineering, and America met its goal. And we have been
living off that legacy now for 30 years.
But everybody in that field, betting their money, their company's
money, their venture capitalist money has told us the time has come to
reinvest. That is not what this bill does. That is not what this bill
does. This bill just passes on as if nothing has changed in America.
And yet, members of this committee, Members of this House have traveled
to the Pacific Rim. They see the new institutions being created in
India and South Korea and China. They see institutions that are
attracting some of the best and brightest minds from America to those
institutions. They see the investment being made by the private sector
of worldwide companies, American companies, because of that kind of
investment that is being made there.
But this bill doesn't address that. This bill is just status quo.
This bill doesn't create new fellowships. This bill doesn't create new
opportunities for people to pursue those degrees. This bill simply adds
to the debt and the cost, because when I say ``this bill,'' understand
I talk about both bills. You split them for the convenience of what you
wanted to do with your raid on student aid. But this is the higher ed
bill. The moneys were skimmed off in the name of the oil companies. The
moneys were skimmed off in the name of tax cuts to the wealthy, so we
don't have the ability to make that investment that we have been warned
about by the leading companies, by the leading people who have been
thinking about this, by various institutions about the investment that
America needs to make.
So we have a bill now that really doesn't do much of anything. It
pretends that it sort of increases Pell Grants, but as we know, the
Pell Grant has continued to lose value. Yes, they say, well, we put
more money in it every year. That is because more students, tragically,
are eligible for the Pell Grant because they don't have the family
income. And we now see that the Pell Grant now covers the lowest
percentage of costs for those students who have Pell Grants going to
school; it has dropped from 41 percent. It covered 41 percent of those
costs in 2000. It is now down; it will be down to 25 percent by 2010.
So the trend line is horrible. The trend line is horrible for those
students most in need, those families most in need. More and more of
them are showing up to get the Pell Grant, but they are not getting
enough money to cover the costs of their college education. The trend
line is horrible. And the number of students who are pursuing graduate
degrees in science, math and engineering, it is working against the
American economy and American security. But this bill doesn't address
that.
The Higher Education Act has lost its place in the priorities of this
Congress and the priorities of this Nation about the future of
education, and that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy for those students
who will be saddled with higher costs because of the increase in
interest rates, with higher fees. Their parents will be saddled with
higher costs. Those who will choose to take out direct loans to try to
reduce the cost will find out they are paying fees now.
And so that is what the Republicans decided. Their idea, when every
indicator suggests that college costs are getting out of the reach of
America's families and students and workers, their idea was to increase
the cost to those families and to their students. It is just
unacceptable. It was unacceptable 3 months ago, and it is unacceptable
today. This bill should be returned to committee, and we should
initiate the debate that this country demands and that this country
needs in terms of the future of these students, our economy and our
national security. That is what this higher education bill should be
about. It should not be about the leftovers after the largest cut in
student aid accounts in history have already been pulled off 2 months
ago.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the former
subcommittee chairman who dealt with this issue, and now the chairman
of the full committee who has brought this bill to us and done a
remarkable job in getting us to this position so far.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time,
and I appreciate the work he is doing on this rule.
Just a little history, Mr. Speaker. You know, we have been working on
this higher education reauthorization bill now for 3 years, and we have
been doing it in a bipartisan way. What the other side wants to focus
on is something that took place a few months ago. And what we did, we
passed a Deficit Reduction Act to try to help the taxpayers of the
country against further increasing deficits. And what we did in that
bill was we lowered loan fees to students. We set higher loan limits
for students in their first 2 years of college, which is when they have
the greatest problem in staying in, when we have the greatest dropouts.
We wanted to help those that are trying to get on the ladder of success
to achieve
[[Page H1209]]
the American Dream. We provided grant aid for high-achieving, low-
income students, which is the purpose of the Higher Education Act, to
help the lower-income students to have greater accessibility to a
college education. And we simplified the financial aid process, again,
trying to help those who have the most needs to get into the system. We
provided taxpayer protections. What we did was we reduced the excess
subsidies to lenders. There was a loophole that was put in the law
years ago. We reduced that, eliminated that loophole that provided an
increased subsidy to lenders. We improved risk sharing. We added
accountability to administrative funds, and we provided protection and
prevention against loan default, all against the lenders, to help
strengthen the program for students.
As I mentioned, we have been working on this in a bipartisan basis,
and up until yesterday, that effort was moving forward in committee and
subcommittee and full committee. We addressed over a hundred amendments
from the other side of the aisle. And since the passage, months ago, in
committee, we have continued to work with the other side. We have a
lengthy manager's amendment. Everything that is in that manager's
amendment has been approved by the other side. I have pages of
amendments, things that we have put in the bill to satisfy the other
side. And we were, as I said, working together, until yesterday when
they said they had decided, and I can only assume it is for political
reasons because it didn't come up until then, they decided that they
were going to go back and talk about something that happened months
ago, rather than what is in this bill, the good things that we have in
this bill to make college education more affordable, more accessible,
more accountable to parents and students in this Nation.
Our goal is to further the process that was put in place 40 years ago
when the Higher Education Act was passed, to give all of the people in
this country the opportunity to move forward, to get a college
education, to improve themselves so that we can compete on a global
basis.
I led a congressional trip last year to China, because we are
concerned about worldwide competitiveness, and we do things in this
bill to help make us more competitive and to expand access and
accessibility for our students. And I feel good about what we have done
in this work. I feel badly that we have had this, for whatever reason,
change of tone and attitude on the other side. And I hope that we can
continue to reach out to the other side, ask them to continue to work
with us, and that is why we are going to have another rule later today.
Those who want to work with us, that want to have an amendment in the
bill that can support the bill to move forward, this is a long process.
What we are working on today is not the end. It is a further step in
the process. We will get this bill passed on the floor tomorrow.
Hopefully, the other body will pass a bill, we will go to conference,
we will continue to work to improve the process. That is the democratic
process that we are buying into and instead, all we are hearing is no,
no, no from the other side. I think it is about time, you know, there
are lots of issues we can fight on, but education should be bipartisan.
And you know that we have worked together to make this a bipartisan
approach, and I feel sad that you have decided to make this partisan,
but we are not going to let that stop us. We are going to move forward.
We are going to get the bill passed, because the important thing is to
reach out and help the students in our country be able to compete as we
go forward in our progress. It is not going to have a lot of effect on
me, but it is going to affect my children, my 28 grandchildren that are
going to be able to, hopefully, get an education and compete on a
worldwide basis.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the rule and to H.R. 609 in its current form. Prior to coming to
Congress, for 29 years, I was a college administrator, and I spent 16
of those years as the chief administrator of the college I served. And
my views on this bill and on this rule are informed by what I learned
over the course of that time in dealing with students and faculty and
parents and staff and all constituencies of the higher education
community.
Over a hundred amendments have been offered on this bill, and this
underscores the importance of this bill and of this issue to this
Congress and to our future. And I understand that we are going to have
a second rule, but I am troubled that the Rules Committee thus far
seems to have excluded a great many amendments that would have taken a
bill that many of us take issue with and made it better. We are talking
about getting it through this week. What's the rush? Why do we have to
take the most important issue to our future and rush through a
consideration of a bill that is going to have far reaching consequences
for the next several years? I mean, is this not what the American
people sent us here to do, to debate the issues of importance to our
future?
Some specific issues: There is an amendment with respect to whether
or not the Federal Government should have a role in evaluating transfer
credit and forming institutional policies on transfer credit. Is that
not an issue that this body should debate? Should this body not debate
whether or not we ought to extend the tuition tax credit that expired
on December 31, a tax credit, by the way, that primarily benefits the
middle class? Should we not be debating a reasonable change to the
needs analysis system, the fundamental system that determines a
family's ability to pay, which determines their eligibility for aid,
which, in turn, determines whether or not they will be able to attend
college? These are just some of the issues that at least thus far the
rule excludes from consideration. And in so doing, I would say that the
American people and certainly the students of this country are not
being well served.
As Mr. McKeon, our chairman, just said, education is the last issue
we should be politicizing, but it appears that that is precisely what
we are doing. Simply put, H.R. 609 fails to achieve its goal. We said
the goal would be to make college more affordable and to expand access
for Americans who wish to pursue the dream of a college education. H.R.
609, in its present form, falls woefully short of that goal. I say let
us vote down this rule. Let us send the bill back to the Education
Committee and let us try again.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud that America stands for
opportunity, regardless of one's background. Our colleges and
universities provide millions of students with the chance to realize
their dreams and blaze their own paths. This could not happen without
the Higher Education Act. But today we see the support coming under
attack. This bill keeps the Federal Pell Grant stuck in the 1970s.
{time} 1130
It increases interest rates on loans and forces students to absorb
new fees. We should be expanding our students' horizon, not restricting
it. And unless the second rule is open or allows every amendment
submitted to Rules to be considered on the floor, it is shutting down
this process.
Again, I want to point out that the last two times this House
reauthorized the Higher Education Act, in 1992 and 1998, it did so
under an amendment process that allowed any amendment that complied
with House rules to be offered on the floor. We should do the same this
time.
I urge all Members to reject this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The gentleman from Utah is
recognized to close.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in our discussion of the rule today,
we have heard many things. We have heard discussions of budget issues,
which will be addressed when we do the appropriations bill later on. We
have heard discussion of rules that were not made into this particular
rules order even though we clearly said there will be another rule
coming up later to address those other issues, others of those 117
amendments that were made,
[[Page H1210]]
many of which were made by members of the committee who had full
opportunity to debate and discuss, as they have talked about the 79
amendments in the committee, in a committee process that since the pre-
War of 1812 days, when Henry Clay established the committee process to
make a full and open hearing of these issues in committee before it
came to the floor.
Nonetheless, there will still be two rules. This rule takes 15 of
those amendments, opening up the opportunity for those later on to
come.
We have also heard rhetoric about a bill that was passed last year. I
find it important to remember that even when the Constitution was being
debated, the anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, made their
case and lost, and then moved on and worked together with the
Federalists, who passed the Constitution, to work together for a better
country. That is the opportunity we have, to try to emulate that right
now. It is time now to work together on this bill, on what this bill
does.
You have already heard from the subcommittee chairman that it does no
harm to those already in the system. You have heard from the chairman
of the full committee how its goal is to increase the number of kids
who can have access to these opportunities to enhance and reach their
dream of a college education. That is the purpose. That is the goal.
That is where we should maintain our focus. This rule provides for the
first step in reaching that goal, and we will have another opportunity
with a second rule later.
It is a good and fair rule, and I urge adoption of it because it
deals with a bill that moves us forward, a bill where we should unite
to move forward because it helps kids in America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 198, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 70]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Blunt
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Evans
Istook
McCollum (MN)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sweeney
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1159
Messrs. CLEAVER, STARK, RANGEL and GEORGE MILLER of California
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________