[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1326-H1334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER 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 742 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 742

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965. No further general debate shall 
     be in order. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     further amendment 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. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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.
  House Resolution 742 provides for a structured rule and continued 
debate on several additional amendments to H.R. 609, the College Access 
and Opportunity Act of 2005.
  This second rule for H.R. 609 allows for the consideration of the 
Democratic substitute bill offered by the ranking Democratic member of 
the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller of California, and 
allows for 30 minutes of debate on that measure alone so the House will 
be able to debate and discuss the substitute's vision of whether it is 
appropriate to support the creation of at least eight new Federal 
education spending programs which are contained in that language.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday we were discussing this 
bill. And with apologies for using baseball analogies; but it is spring 
training season and for a Cubs fan, hope looms always eternal. But to 
quote the great philosopher and relief pitcher for the Kansas City 
Royals, Dan Quisenberry: ``I have seen the future. It is just like 
today, only longer.''
  When we are talking today about how we help kids to fulfill their 
dreams of a college education, I think he is going to prove not only 
visionary but prophetic. What we talk about today I think will be the 
future, just longer.
  This rule today allows eight important additional amendments to be 
brought forth, and they will be debated on the floor.
  I think it is significant of the 117 amendments that were filed on 
this bill for the Rules Committee, 15 were made in order yesterday, 
another eight today. Half of yesterday's and half of today's will be 
either Democrat or bipartisan amendments.

                              {time}  1030

  This does not even begin to count the number of issues which were 
already worked out between the minority and the Education and Workforce 
staff and chairman in the base text of the bill over the past several 
months, or those items for Democratic Members which were included in 
the manager's amendment which was passed by a voice vote yesterday.
  I also want to statistically note that 44 of the amendments that were 
filed were in violation of our germaneness rule, including mandatory 
spending on new programs or invoking jurisdiction of other committees, 
including Judiciary and Ways and Means.
  Twenty-five of the amendments were filed past the Rules Committee 
deadline.
  Members are always advised to be sure of the procedure and the time 
deadlines for submitting amendments, and once again, we said yesterday, 
having the additional time before part two would give Members a chance 
to work out with the Parliamentarian's Office the details of their 
particular amendments.
  Eight amendments were withdrawn. Three were duplicative. Four were 
taken care of in the manager's amendment from yesterday.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 609, still strikes a very good balance 
between reauthorizing important and existing higher education 
assistance programs, while steering clear of social engineering 
mandates and massive new spending programs. At the same time, it 
returns the emphasis to the original intent of the 1965 Higher 
Education Assistance Act, to give students a hand up in helping them to 
earn their own higher education.

[[Page H1327]]

  Once again, the goal of this bill is still simply to help more kids 
achieve their dream of a college education and not to try and funnel 
the money that can be used for them into other kinds of projects and 
programs. This is still a good bill and, more importantly, a fair rule, 
and it allows the minority to offer its comprehensive vision of the 
future with regard to these issues in the Miller substitute.
  In conclusion, I ask that all Members support and to vote in favor of 
this rule so that we can complete our work on this important 
legislation and move closer to ensuring that more individuals and 
students than ever wanting a college education can indeed receive the 
help they need to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, 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, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding 
me this time as we continue into part two.
  Today, we are considering a second rule to make in order amendments 
to the Republican majority's version of the higher education 
reauthorization. I had hoped we would have had the opportunity to 
continue a meaningful debate about how to best assist families and 
students across this Nation trying to pursue the college dream because 
a college education plays such a critical part in our lives.
  As children, we all play at grown-up roles, dreaming of what we may 
be when we grow up, a teacher, an astronaut, a doctor, a scientist, an 
underwater adventurer or perhaps even a Member of Congress. Well, an 
education is what turns those dreams into reality, and with the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we could have had an 
opportunity to play a role in encouraging these children's futures.
  But to do that, we need to be looking at a reauthorization that 
reinforces our Nation's longstanding commitment to providing 
educational opportunities for all Americans, but alas, at the start of 
this year, my colleagues across the aisle pushed through the budget 
reconciliation package that cuts student loan programs by $12 billion, 
the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs 
ever.
  Middle-income families are hard-pressed to keep up with rising 
tuition costs. Due to record high financial barriers, high school 
graduates who are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college are unable 
to do so.
  While college tuition has continued to rise far faster than the cost 
of living, the maximum Pell Grant level has remained virtually 
constant, thus forcing many qualified students to postpone or cancel 
their dreams of a college degree or to incur significant debt in the 
form of loans.
  Clearly, this bill has room for improvement. We could be debating a 
number of thoughtful amendments that would help substantially increase 
our investment in student loan programs, recruit teachers and develop a 
high-skilled workforce. However, fewer than one in five amendments was 
made in order.
  Take, for example, the amendment offered by Representative Inslee to 
recruit Head Start teachers. I remember visiting the Nedra Court and 
Whispering Pines Head Start program in my district. The 60 students at 
each site definitely kept those teachers busy. This is a challenging 
job for which the $20,000 salary really is not much of an incentive.
  Yet, last year, the House passed H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, 
to reauthorize the Head Start program. Contained in that legislation 
was an unfunded mandate requiring Head Start teachers to obtain a 
bachelor's degree.
  Representative Inslee offered a straightforward amendment to increase 
student loan forgiveness programs to $17,500, which is the same level 
allowed for other targeted forgiveness programs for high-need 
professions. However, we will not be allowed to debate this amendment 
because the Republican majority are limiting the democratic process.
  And those $12 billion in cuts from the Deficit Reduction Act, 
Representative Emanuel had an amendment that would restore the $12 
billion to student aid programs cut in the Deficit Reduction Act. I 
think I hear about the negative impacts of these student aid cuts at 
least every other day, whether I am home in Sacramento or here in 
Washington, D.C. I find it hard to believe every other Member is not 
hearing this as well. But that amendment was not made in order.
  Nor was the bipartisan Student Aid Reward amendment. At no additional 
cost to taxpayers, the STAR amendment would generate more than $12 
billion in additional college scholarship aid.

  Representatives Holt and Kind also crafted an exceptional amendment 
to promote students to study and enter into careers focused on math, 
science, engineering and technology. At a time of increasing concern 
about America's competitiveness in the world, these are fields we must 
promote to develop an engaged workforce.
  I recently toured the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics in my 
district. This center explores how light and lasers can be applied to 
medical procedures, making for less invasive treatments and better 
diagnoses of cancer. The center has dozens of math and science graduate 
students assisting with research alongside the Nation's leading 
biophotonics experts.
  Unfortunately, today we are sending a mixed message to students: We 
need you to pursue math and sciences, but we will not ensure that you 
can afford the education to enter these fields.
  Today, the economic, social and civic importance of a college 
education has never been more important. Yet, college enrollment rates 
in the United States are stagnant. As more and more baby boomers begin 
to retire, we will be facing a crisis in the employment market if we 
cannot develop a highly skilled and trained workforce. This must be a 
national priority, but apparently not for this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the time.
  I had concerns about this bill as well. As Republicans, we are not in 
favor of increasing government but decreasing the amount of 
restrictions that additional bureaucracy creates, and I saw part of 
this that created additional bureaucracy by allowing States to start 
accrediting.
  But before I say anything else, there has been a great deal of 
misinformation about what the Deficit Reduction Act did. Having two 
children in college right now myself and another about to start next 
year, I have been particularly sensitive about this issue. I have had 
bankers and other educators saying, we understood you cut $12 billion 
in the Deficit Reduction Act for money that was available for students, 
and that is not right.
  What occurred was there was a reduction by about $12 billion of 
subsidies that were going to banks for making the student loans, but 
the fact is there was around $9.5 billion increased in the amount 
available for student loans and grants and funding. So we increased, 
not decreased, by about $9.5 billion the amount available for students.
  So it was a good thing, and we recognize the importance of education, 
and we are trying to help them. So that addresses that comment from my 
colleague.
  But with regard to the bill, I have grave concerns about it, 
especially to allow the States to start accrediting. Governments have 
done enough damage to education in K-12 over the last 30 years. I was 
very concerned about that, but I appreciate Chairman McKeon working 
with me, and I appreciate his staff working with us.
  They have agreed to support an amendment which strikes out the 
provision that allows States to apply to the Federal Government which 
creates more Federal Government, to allow them to start accrediting, 
and that provision, under my amendment, will be struck. There will be 
no additional State agencies accrediting universities and colleges, and 
I am hopeful that that will be passed with the chairman's support of 
that.
  Also, we share a very strong concern about the increases in college 
tuition and fees. They have dramatically gone up over the last 30 
years. In fact, I was asking, when I went to law school, if it was 
still $500 a semester for tuition, and they said, yeah, that much an 
hour

[[Page H1328]]

now, but anyway, over a 30-year time, things have just gone up 
dramatically.
  In balancing the difficulty of not increasing government, which 
naturally requires an increasing cost to universities but at the same 
time requiring some accountability, I think the chairman's bill, if my 
two provisions are passed, that this is a good bill because it balances 
those things.
  The task force that is created in the top five most abusive colleges 
in raising tuition over a 3-year period and costs of the college, they 
will have to set up their own task force to figure out why their 
institution has gotten so abusive in its costs. So it will be its own 
people looking at its own institution. It will not set up more 
bureaucracy. It will not set up more government, and this will push and 
provide pressure on institutions and have some accountability, even 
though it is by people in their own community, as the bill sets out, as 
amended, if my amendment is allowed to pass.
  So I applaud the bill if my amendment, those two provisions, pass. I 
think it will be helpful in controlling costs without increasing 
bureaucracies in government, and I appreciate very much Mr. Bishop and 
the chairman and his staff in working with us on this.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and in strong 
opposition to H.R. 609, the underlying bill.
  As a matter of fact, I had hoped when we started the process that we 
were going to see a bipartisan effort because all of us talk about how 
great and how important education is, and I do not think that there is 
a single person in this House who would not agree with that. But 
oftentimes I am afraid that our conversations are different than our 
actions.
  When I look at this restrictive rule, it prevents us from discussing 
and debating at least 100 amendments, 100 ideas, perhaps even 100 
programs at different ways to look at and try to improve access to 
college education for thousands and thousands of individuals in our 
country who will be left out and left behind, with no, or virtually no, 
hope of ever reaching mainstream society because they would not have 
had the chance.
  Yet, philosophically, when we think of education, I was thinking of 
something that Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have said at one time, 
and that is, that education makes a man easy to lead but difficult to 
drive, easy to govern but impossible to enslave.
  So we should have been trying to provide the highest level of 
opportunity for every individual in our country to grasp for that great 
opportunity.

                              {time}  1045

  I had two amendments that I consider to be very minor, meager 
amendments that I had hoped to have made in order. One of them would 
have restored Pell Grants to thousands of individuals who are currently 
incarcerated with little skill, little training, and little possibility 
without the additional education. And yet that amendment, and we are 
the most incarcerated Nation on the face of the Earth, with more than 2 
million people languishing in jails and prisons, knowing full well that 
most of them will return within a short period of time if they do not 
acquire some of this great opportunity that we call education, that 
amendment, unfortunately, was shot down.
  The second one would have provided a modest sum of money, only $25 
million, for predominantly black student-serving institutions that are 
serving a low-income population, most of them being the first in their 
family to have a chance to go to college. The schools they attend do 
not qualify as part of the historically black college and university 
network, and yet they will not be allowed to get the little additional 
resources.
  I do want to thank Mr. Pickering for his cosponsorship of this 
amendment. Hopefully, if it didn't make it this round, of course we 
will be back and hopefully, eventually, it will happen.
  I did have one amendment, and I am grateful to the majority for 
including that idea in the manager's amendment, to have the Secretary 
of Education take a hard look at why there is such a heavy disparity 
between African American males, for example, who are attending colleges 
and universities and other parts of the American population.
  When we look at the bill in every way that we can, and I know that I 
have heard my colleagues come to the floor and say that this is not a 
raid on student aid; that this is expanding opportunity; that this is 
making education more affordable, I know that they believe what they 
are saying. I just can't figure out which playbook they are reading 
from when you take a government that takes away money and gives back 
tax dollars to the wealthy.
  Education is so vitally important that we do ourselves and we do this 
Nation a disservice when we prevent any individual from having an 
opportunity to acquire it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, it is with great 
disappointment today that I rise to voice my opposition to the rule and 
the underlying bill. Higher education has become more important than 
ever in ensuring America's economic prosperity, national security, and 
health. A quality college degree is the cornerstone of the American 
Dream, opening the doors of opportunity and professional fulfillment.
  For decades, the Federal Government has been a partner with States 
and colleges in creating opportunity and access to college, especially 
for middle- and lower-income students. But today, just 2 months after 
the Republicans voted to raid Federal student aid by $12 billion, a 
vote which passed by only two votes, Republicans once again are pushing 
through a higher education bill that does not help American families 
pay for college. Why? Well, it is because the Republican Party is 
apparently more interested in tax cuts for corporations and for oil 
companies.
  Traditionally, the Higher Education Act has enjoyed widespread 
bipartisan support. But today, instead of meaningful debate about the 
future of our students and our country, a debate that would provide 
accountability and access and opportunity, we find that debate has been 
blocked by the Republican majority.
  The Higher Education Act should be about creating access to 
vocational training and college for millions of America's students and 
adults who find themselves having to get reeducated in this tough 
economy. The reauthorization law should serve as an opportunity to 
improve the current law and make college more accessible.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill does nothing to make college more 
affordable, and in fact it raids student aid. And it does this at a 
time when tuition is rising faster than the rate of inflation; at a 
time when financial aid for America's families is not keeping up with 
the rising cost of a college education; and at a time when this 
Congress will be voting for tax giveaways for the Nation's wealthiest. 
In other words, as a former teacher, I give this higher education bill 
a failing grade. And it gets a failing grade because it misses the 
opportunity to promote students' abilities to afford college and to 
make America more economically secure.
  This dramatic rise in tuition that I spoke about earlier over the 
past decade can only be explained by our lack of participating and 
making college more affordable at a Federal level, but also many of our 
States also get a failing grade for their participation in making 
higher education affordable for all students. When we put the dream of 
a college education out of reach for Americans, America suffers. When 
we put the dream of being able to afford a college education out of 
reach for Americans, our students suffer.
  In the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment, along with Mr. 
Tierney, that would have presented a real solution to the college 
affordability issue, offering an achievable goal for the Federal 
Government to work in partnership with States to have accountability, 
to provide the opportunity for the American Dream for millions more 
families. Unfortunately, this opportunity was missed when our amendment 
was ruled out of order. We would have ensured that students and 
colleges in my district and districts all over this country would have 
invested

[[Page H1329]]

in a competitive fashion in order to make our students and our country 
more able to compete in the future.
  Why has Congress backed away from their future? Well, the answer is 
simple. Congress backed away because they wanted to take $12 billion 
that could have been put back into the higher education bill. They 
raided that $12 billion and gave it to corporations.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, later today this House will 
have an opportunity to reverse one of the more egregious things that we 
have done, or those who voted for it have done, against the interest of 
America's economy, of America's institutions of higher education, for 
the students who are attending them, and the families that are 
supporting them. And that was when earlier this year in the budget 
reconciliation bill, this Congress, under Republican leadership, cut 
$12 billion out of the student aid accounts and foisted a higher cost 
onto students and their families at the exact time when the increased 
cost of college education is outstripping the ability of those families 
to afford that education.
  We are starting to see an increasing number of young people who are 
fully qualified, who would fully benefit from a college education who 
are now deciding maybe they can't do it because they can't afford it. 
The exact purpose of the Federal Government's involvement in helping to 
finance higher education for America's students is to make sure that no 
qualified student is turned away from that opportunity because of cost.
  So today, in our substitute, we will have the opportunity to make a 
down payment on reversing those costs for those families and those 
students most in need. And what we will do is we will cut the new 
interest rate that is going to go into place in July at 6.8 percent on 
these loans. We would reduce that to 3.4 percent, and this would be a 
down payment for 1 year. We obviously hope that the Congress would 
follow on and continue that effort so that these students can afford 
that education.
  It is just incredible what was done in that budget reconciliation. 
Over 70 percent of the net savings that comes from excessive fees that 
we identify, and excessive interest rates that are charged to families 
and to students, rather than return what are identified as excessive 
rates to those families so they can help pay for their college 
education, we took those, the Congress took those, the Republicans took 
those and gave them in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the 
country.
  So these people will continue to pay excessive interest rates, but 
they will not get it returned to them. It will go to pay for the tax 
cuts. They want to say it is for deficit reduction. It wasn't for 
deficit reduction. It was to pay for the tax cuts, either the tax cuts 
for the oil companies or the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this 
country.
  So it is very important that all Members give very serious 
consideration to this substitute. It will be offered by myself and Mr. 
Kildee, Mr. Bobby Scott, Danny Davis, and Mr. Grijalva as a way of 
doing this. It also provides for establishing a new predominantly 
black-serving institutions program to boost college preparation rates 
among low-income black students, and it also provides for increasing 
the tribal college minimum grants. It stabilizes tribal college 
construction to ensure that the funds for construction under the Higher 
Education Act are guaranteed.
  It takes a number of the provisions that are in the underlying bill 
that help Hispanic teaching institutions and gets rid of the single-
lender rule so that people can have an option about where they go to 
refinance and renegotiate their college loans.
  But it is a very important substitute. It is, in fact, a down payment 
on behalf of American students, on behalf of America's families, and on 
behalf of America's economy. It is about economic and national security 
because it ensures that young Americans with a lot of talent will not 
be shut out of college because of the increased cost imposed upon them 
by the Republicans' actions earlier this year in the Budget 
Reconciliation Act.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Higher Education Act that will be reauthorized today by this 
House is a good bill because it strengthens the Pell Grant program, it 
expands Perkins loans, and it increases access to college for millions 
of people.
  Now, we have just heard from the other side that they have a 
substitute that is better, called Reverse the Raid on Financial Aid. 
Now, let's just take a look at whether this is an actual true 
statement, whether the Republican Party has been raiding financial aid.
  I have here a chart that shows the history of Pell Grants for the 
past 20 years. And of course Pell Grants are the heart of this higher 
education reauthorization bill. Shown here in yellow are the Pell Grant 
funding levels when the Democrats were in control of the Congress. 
Shown here in red are when Republicans have been in control in 
Congress.
  Looking at this over the past 20 years, does it really look like 
Republicans have raided financial aid? Are you kidding me? You can 
easily see from these figures that under a Republican Congress 
financial aid has increased dramatically.

                              {time}  1100

  In fact, if you look at the last 3 years when Democrats were the 
majority in Congress, you see something pretty interesting. You see, in 
1992, they had funded Pell Grants at $2,400, and then they got a 
Democrat President in the White House, Bill Clinton. And with a 
Democrat President and a Democrat House of Representatives, what 
happened next? They cut Pell Grants 3 years in a row.
  And then they come before us today with this partisan slogan and 
election-year double talk saying we have raided financial aid. Don't 
believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less 
financial aid under this bill, not one.
  They say, well, tell you what, instead of the 6.8 percent that all of 
the Democrats agreed to back in 2002 as part of a bipartisan compromise 
that fixes the interest rate, let's now for the first time in the 
interest of election year politics say we will give students a 3.4 
percent interest rate which will cost $2.7 billion for 1 year. How do 
they pay for it? They don't tell us. They don't have any way to pay for 
it. Why not just say zero percent? That sounds even better, but it is 
irresponsible, and it breaks an agreement they made that was bipartisan 
and was in compliance with what student groups said.
  Now, let me show how we have fared with the Pell Grant program since 
President Bush has been in office. Actually, I need another chart, if I 
can have it. While they are pulling that chart, I will just tell 
Members what it is.
  In the year 2000, when I was elected and President Bush was elected, 
we funded Pell Grants at $7.6 billion. This past year, we funded Pell 
Grants at $13 billion, a 71 percent increase in Pell Grant funding. Yet 
what slogan do we hear from the other side? Reverse the raid on 
financial aid. It is crazy.
  The next figure, I will show, if my chart were here, that, in 2000, 
the maximum award was worth $3,300 per student. This year, it is 
$4,050, and under this bill, we provide an additional $1,000 taking up 
to $5,050 for those high achieving, low-income students.
  Finally, since 2000, we have seen a 36 percent increase in the number 
of students able to get Pell Grants. In 2000, we had 3.9 million 
students. This year, we have 5.3 million students. So not only have we 
dramatically increased the funding for Pell Grants, we have been able 
to do it despite the dramatic increase in the number of students.
  For Members to appreciate how big a jump this is to go from $3,300 to 
$4,050, let me explain it. Every $100 that we increase the maximum Pell 
Grant award costs us $420 million. We have made the most historic and 
largest increases in the history of the Pell Grant program; and the 
other side has nothing to say except ``reverse the raid on financial 
aid.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a darn good bill. It increases funding for Pell 
Grants. It

[[Page H1330]]

expands the Perkins Student Loan Program, and it is going to help 
millions of students go to college who otherwise would not have the 
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this fair rule and 
vote ``yes'' on this excellent bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to continue debate on a bill 
that forms the backbone of the opportunities our Nation's students may 
have at our Nation's colleges and universities. We must get it right 
which is precisely why this House must reject the rule before us.
  As I reminded my colleagues yesterday, the House reauthorized the 
Higher Education Act in 1992 and in 1998 in a very different way than 
we have seen in the 109th Congress. Historically, any amendment to the 
Higher Education Act that was printed in the Congressional Record ahead 
of time could be offered on the floor.
  The broad consideration those rules provided yielded reauthorization 
measures with broad support in the House. Each of those years, the 
rules, the bills and the conference reports passed either by voice vote 
or by overwhelming margins.
  So my colleagues will forgive me when I place the historical record 
on reauthorization next to this year's bill and ask: What happened?
  Instead of a bipartisan bill, we see the Higher Education Act torn in 
two by the majority, solely so some of its provisions could be used to 
cut more than $12 billion from student aid partially to finance the 
majority's tax cuts. Instead of careful floor consideration of several 
different policy approaches, we saw 118 amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules but only 23 amendments were made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of all of the amendments 
to H.R. 609 submitted to the Committee on Rules but not made in order 
under either of the two rules.

       Andrews (NJ)--No. 97--(Late) Requires institutes of higher 
     education to request emergency contact information on 
     enrollment forms.
       Andrews (NJ)--No. 98--(Late) Allows students, whose parents 
     refuse to provide financial information on FAFSA forms, to 
     receive unsubsidized loans.
       Andrews (NJ)--No. 99--(Late) Provides right of action for 
     students to sue IREs for violations of privacy rights.
       Andrews (NJ)--No. 100--(Late) Provides that federal aid be 
     given without regard to university aid, which could then be 
     given on top.
       Andrews (NJ)--No. 101--(Late) Requires personal computers 
     that are disposed of by IHEs be fully scrubbed of all 
     personal information.
       Andrews (NJ)/Price (GA)--No. 105--(Late) Requires IHEs to 
     distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with 
     the other general disclosures they are required to provide.
       Andrews (NJ)--No. 106--(Late) Protects the award levels of 
     institutions that report at least at 75% of their students 
     come from families with incomes that are within 150% of the 
     poverty line.
       Andrews (NJ)/Price (GA)--No. 117--(Late) Requires IHEs to 
     distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with 
     the other general disclosures they are required to provide.
       Berman (CA)/Bono (CA)/Goodlatte (VA)/Hoyer (MD)--No. 61--
     Requires colleges and universities to report whether they are 
     taking steps to prevent illegal downloading of copyrighted 
     material on their campus information technology systems.
       Bishop (UT)--No. 32--(Withdrawn) Ensures that state and 
     local education officials, as well as private schools and 
     parents of home schooled students, retain control over 
     secondary school curriculum for purposes of eligibility under 
     the new Academic Competitiveness Pell Grants program. 
     Potential control over this curriculum was improperly given 
     in-part to the Secretary of Education by the portion of the 
     Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which created this program.
       Bishop (NY)--No. 34--Increases oversight on the 
     administration of the ability to benefit test.
       Bishop (NY)--No. 36--Blocks any Department of Education 
     funds from being used to recall Perkins loan funds.
       Bishop (NY)--No. 37--Extends the Tuition Deduction for 
     Higher Education through 12/31/2011.
       Cole (OK)/Payne (NJ)--No. 2--(Withdrawn) Strikes Section 
     402(c) from the bill to eliminate the 10 percent set aside 
     for novice TRIO applicants.'
       Davis (IL)/Owens (NY)/Pickering (MS)--No. 80--Includes 
     predominantly black institutions into existing higher 
     education efforts to strengthen the ability of minority-
     serving institutions to attract, retain, and graduate low-
     income students.
       Davis (IL)--No.81--Re-extends Pell eligibility to 
     individuals in prison in an effort to increase successful 
     transitions into the community and reduce recidivism.
       Davis (IL)--No.82--(Withdrawn) Revises the study on 
     minority graduation rates that was included in H.R. 609 as 
     reported by Committee to be consistent with recommendations 
     made by the Department of Education and the National Center 
     for Education Statistics.
       Davis (CA)--No. 14--Prevents contributions made by military 
     service members to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGJB) program from 
     causing any reductions to a veteran student's eligibility for 
     federal student financial aid.
       Emanuel (IL)--No. 16--Provides grants to states and local 
     education agencies seeking to create teacher preparation 
     activities. In order to qualify, agencies must have a written 
     agreement with a local college or university where the 
     teaching residents will enroll and complete a Masters Degree 
     in teaching; teaching residents will spend no less that 10 
     months in a classroom with an experienced mentor teacher; and 
     teaching residents must sign a written agreement with the 
     local education agency agreeing to teach in that district for 
     a minimum of five years.
       Emanuel (IL)--No. 17--Instructs the Secretary of Education 
     to reduce the number of questions on the Free Application for 
     Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form by 50 percent within 5 
     years.
       Emanuel (IL)--No. 18--Simplifies the application process 
     for the neediest students with automatic qualification for 
     the maximum aid awards through federal means tested programs 
     (such as Free and Reduced Price School lunches). Raises the 
     automatic zero income threshold to $25,000 (from $20,000) and 
     adjusts the threshold annually according to the Consumer 
     Price Index. Also eliminates certain nontaxable income data 
     elements from the FAFSA form.
       Emanuel (IL)--No. 19--Restores the $12 billion to student 
     aid programs that the Deficit Reduction Act cut.
       Engell (NY)--No. 88--(Late) Expresses the sense of the 
     House of Representatives that, in an effort to raise 
     awareness about sexual assault, all colleges and universities 
     should provide a training course to incoming students to 
     educate them on sexual assault.
       Etheridge (NC)--No. 47--Adds Fayetteville State University 
     to the list of schools eligible for funding under Title III B 
     of HEA.
       Fattah (PA)--No. 107--(Late) Establishes a new and distinct 
     Dual Emollment Section as an addendum to the current GEAR UP 
     program. This section is essentially an additional 
     programmatic element that would specifically target 
     resources and services towards the promotion of dual 
     enrollment among low income students participating in GEAR 
     UP programs throughout the country. The language was 
     drafted in a manner that adds a new section to GEAR UP, 
     and attaches a separate appropriation for this section, 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the succeeding five years. In short, 
     dual/concurrent enrollment is defined as the practice by 
     which high school students may enroll in college courses 
     while still enrolled in high school. Students receive 
     college credits but are not required to apply for 
     admission to the college in order to participate.
       Fattah (PA)--No. 108--(Late) Adjusts the minimum 
     scholarship amount in which grantees are required by law to 
     distribute in accordance with the requirements of the program 
     from the maximum Federal Pell Grant to the minimum Federal 
     Pell grant awarded.
       Fattah (PA)--No. 109--(Late) Creates legislative action to 
     take precedence over current agency regulations which prevent 
     new funds appropriated under new authorizing legislation to 
     be used to provide services under old authorizing 
     legislation. With this amendment, funds will be permitted for 
     use with current GEAR UP students who have not yet graduated 
     from high school.
       Gingrey (GA)--No. 104--(Withdrawn) Ensures economically 
     eligible students enrolled in a full-time, university level, 
     academically gifted program, but are of traditional high 
     school age, qualify for Pell Grants. Students affected by the 
     amendment are full time university students who reside on 
     campus as a requirement of the gifted program. The students 
     do not attend high school courses, nor will they return to a 
     high school classroom as a student.
       Grijalva (AZ)--No. 58--Offers loan forgiveness for teachers 
     who work in schools located on Native American reservations 
     or in Indian Country who complete five years of service.
       Grijalva (AZ)--No. 59--Offers loan forgiveness for 
     educators working at high poverty (Title I eligible) and 
     large free-and-reduced lunch population Border Schools within 
     the 100 mile region of the US-Mexico border who complete 5 
     years of service. Seeks to reduce the burden of student debt 
     for Americans who dedicate their careers to service in areas 
     of national need along the border.
       Grijalva (AZ)--No. 60--Offers loan forgiveness for teachers 
     who work in rural schools located in low-income communities 
     who complete five years of service.
       Holt (NJ)/Bishop (NY)--No. 33--Rebates students who lost 
     Pell Grant eligibility due to changes in the state tax 
     tables, and replaces the tax tables with the highest income 
     protection allowance.
       Holt (NJ)--No. 50--Authorizes $15 million in grants to 
     institutions of higher education to establish programs that 
     encourage students to develop foreign language proficiency as 
     well as science and technological knowledge. Eligible 
     institutions will develop

[[Page H1331]]

     programs in which students take courses in science, math and 
     technology taught in a foreign language. Funds will also 
     support immersion programs for students to take science and 
     math courses in a non-English speaking country.
       Holt (NJ)--No. 51--Creates the opportunity for school 
     systems to complete a Needs Assessment in science, 
     mathematics, and foreign languages to guide teacher 
     professional development and classroom improvement. The Needs 
     Assessment will include as many education stakeholders as 
     possible, including teachers, administrators, parents, school 
     boards, businesses, institutions of higher education, 
     professional associations, and others as determined by the 
     community. The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to properly 
     direct funds and energy to necessary and ambitious teacher 
     professional development and classroom improvement.
       Holt (NJ)--No. 52--Creates year-round professional 
     development for mathematics, science, vocational education, 
     and technical course teachers inspired by reports like the 
     NAS' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and the Glenn 
     Commission's ``Before Its Too Late''. The process begins with 
     a two week summer institute at an institution of higher 
     education targeted to improve content knowledge of, grade 
     level teaching of, and the use of technology in the 
     disciplines in which they teach. The professional development 
     continues with meetings to discuss new scientific, 
     industrial, and academic research and how to incorporate it 
     into classroom practice. Additionally, an online community is 
     created to further foster a collaborative learning community 
     amongst teachers that exceeds the limits of a once a month 
     gathering.
       Hooley (OR)--No. 46--Creates a Technology Education State 
     Stimulus Scholarship Program, that will allow the Secretary 
     of Education to award grants to States to provide 
     supplementary scholarships to students for study at the 
     postsecondary level in science, math, engineering, or a 
     related field.
       Inslee (WA)--No. 25--Seeks to retain Head Start and Early 
     Head Start teachers by increasing the level of discretionary 
     loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 (the level for math 
     and science teachers). Seeks to address the unfunded mandate 
     passed in School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) requiring 50 
     percent of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers to obtain 
     a bachelor's degree in early education by 2011.
       Inslee (WA)/Wu (OR)--No. 26--Instructs the Advisory 
     Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA) to assess 
     the increasing cost of college textbooks and the effect on 
     access to higher education, and to recommend strategies for 
     reducing the costs. Currently, ACSFA operates within the 
     Department of Education to advise and counsel Congress and 
     the secretary of education on student financial policy, 
     focusing only on financial aid. Allows the ACSFA to consider 
     total costs, including textbooks, that may affect overall 
     costs and access to postsecondary education.
       Israel (NY)--No. 66--Requires the Department of Education 
     to study and report on methods of encouraging centers of 
     higher education, and their students, to study topics and 
     regions important to our nation's national security, such as 
     Islamic studies and China studies.
       Israel (NY)--No. 67--Directs the Secretary of Education to 
     match, on a 1:1 basis, any funding set aside by National 
     Security Education Trust Fund (NSETF) for the National 
     Security Education Program, thereby doubling the funding of 
     this program.
       Israel (NY)--No. 68--Directs the Secretary of Education to 
     make grants to eligible members of the Armed Services to pay 
     tuition and other authorized fees to an educational 
     institution in which the service member is enrolled. The 
     funds made available for these grants shall match, on a 1:1 
     basis, funding set aside by the Secretaries of the military 
     departments.
       Israel (NY)--No. 20--(Withdrawn) Requires the Department of 
     Education to study and report on methods of encouraging 
     centers of higher education, and their students, to study 
     topics and regions important to our nation's national 
     security, such as Islamic studies and China studies.
       Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 73--Expresses the Sense of Congress 
     encouraging publishers, professors, and universities to 
     ensure accessibility of braille textbooks for blind or 
     vision-impaired students.
       Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 74--Commissions a study of students 
     in higher education with learning disabilities.
       Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 55--Increases the maximum Pell grant 
     from $6,000 to $7,350.
       Jefferson (LA)--No. 38--Seeks to provide an additional 
     semester of Pell Grant eligibility to college students who 
     (1) attended school in an ``area affected by the Gulf 
     hurricane disaster''; (2) were dependents whose parents lived 
     and were employed in the area; or (3) whose education was 
     interrupted by the disaster. Also directs the Secretary of 
     Education to increase the annual loan limits by $3,500 for 
     affected students; eligible students may elect to apply the 
     loan increase to either the 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 school 
     years.
       Jefferson (LA)--No. 110--(Late) Establishes a low-cost 
     relief loan program to make available low-cost, long-term, 
     guaranteed loans to eligible institutions of higher education 
     for expenses relating to the losses incurred during and after 
     the gulf coast hurricane disasters including: construction 
     and rehabilitation, faculty salaries and benefits and to 
     supplement the institution's operations. The loan should be 
     repayable over 50 years and the Secretary will determine the 
     loan amount.
       Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 64--Expands anti-
     discrimination measures to preclude institutions of higher 
     education from using Federal financial assistance to perform 
     any study or fulfill any contract that prohibits persons of a 
     particular color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender 
     identity, sexual orientation or national origin from 
     performing that study or executing that contract. 
     Institutions are not prevented from conducting objective 
     studies pertaining to discrimination or including the subject 
     of discrimination' in its curriculum.
       Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 65--Expands Pell grant 
     eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a 
     result of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. These 
     children will be eligible for the maximum amount of Pell 
     grant assistance.
       Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 62--Changes eligibility 
     standards for Academic Competitiveness Grants by requiring 
     recipients to also be Pell recipients, as opposed to the 
     current requirement of Pell eligible. Academic 
     Competitiveness Grants are not to exceed that of a student's 
     Pell grant, with first year awards adjusted from $750 to 
     $1,000, and second year awards adjusted from $1,300 to 
     $1,050. Academic Competitiveness Grant recipients will be 
     given top priority for SMART Grants.
       Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 63--Expands Pell grant 
     eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a 
     result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. These children would be 
     eligible for the maximum amount of Pell grant assistance.
       Kind (WI)/Van Hollen (MD)--No. 30--Reinstates the 
     eligibility of undergraduates in Section 602(b), Foreign 
     Language Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, for advanced level 
     training in foreign language, world area, and other 
     international studies. It also clarifies that undergraduates 
     may use the fellowships while studying abroad.
       Kind (WI)/Holt (NJ)--No. 31--Provides institutions of 
     higher education with grants to institute creative and 
     innovative ways of encouraging students to study and enter 
     into careers focused on math, science, engineering, and 
     technology.
       Lantos (CA)--No. 24--Makes a technical correction to the 
     Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program 
     to clarify Congressional intent that a Masters Degree level 
     institution or program is eligible to be the lead recipient 
     of a grant under the GAANN program.
       Lee (CA)--No. 15--Makes school counselors, school social 
     workers and school psychologists eligible for student loan 
     forgiveness program and identifies them as an ``in need'' 
     profession in our elementary and secondary schools.
       Lewis (KY)--No. 49--(Withdrawn) Strikes a provision from 
     the legislation to allow states to become accreditors of 
     independent colleges and universities. Regional accrediting 
     entities now assure that colleges and universities are 
     meeting standards. Prohibits state intervention into private 
     and independent colleges and universities.
       McCarthy (NY)--No. 21--Requires teacher preparation 
     programs to publicly report on the number and type of 
     teachers they are preparing.
       McCarthy (NY)/Andrews (NJ)--No. 22--Includes nursing 
     schools in Section 102, ``Institutions Outside the United 
     States''.
       McCarthy (NY)--No. 23--Creates a pilot program to increase 
     the number of graduate educated nurse faculty to meet the 
     future need for qualified nurses.
       McCollum (MN)--No. 75--Requires colleges that participate 
     in Federal financial aid programs to disclose information to 
     students and the Department of Education about the college's 
     compliance with U.S. regulations that prohibit bonuses to 
     admissions counselors for their recruitment efforts.
       McCollum (MN)--No. 96--(Late) Strikes Section 204 and 
     related sections. This amendment strikes the Teacher 
     Incentive Fund provisions and requires the Secretary of 
     Education to direct any funds appropriated for the Teacher 
     Incentive Fund to financial assistance to higher education 
     institutions located in areas affected by Hurricanes Rita and 
     Katrina.
       Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 4--Makes mentoring a component 
     of the community services programs under work-study. The 
     program can be coordinated between the eligible 
     institution and the public and private organizations and 
     entities that will participate in providing mentoring for 
     children in foster care (such as faith-based 
     organizations, foster care/adoption agencies, children's 
     groups, State Departments of Social Services, public 
     school systems).
       Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 3--Directs the Secretary of 
     Education to advocate for and support the addition of foster-
     care mentoring programs as part of the independent study 
     requirements if such independent study requirements are 
     required for graduation in the following areas of Education, 
     Sociology, and Psychology at 4-year or 2-year intuitions. The 
     duration of the program would be as outlined by academic 
     requirements for graduation.
       Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 6--Clarifies the due process 
     owed to educational institutions throughout the accreditation 
     process. The amendment would: (1) provide express 
     Congressional definition of minimum due process for 
     educational institutions; and (2) require key accreditation 
     decision making to be made in public and after an opportunity 
     for public comment.

[[Page H1332]]

       Miller (NC)/Bishop (NY)--No. 89--(Late) Establishes a pre-
     competitive innovation investment grant program that will 
     assist colleges and universities in establishing 
     precompetitive technology transfer centers.
       Miller (CA)/McCarthy (NY)--No. 91--(Late) Offers up-front 
     tuition assistance to undergraduates committed to a teaching 
     career, and seeks to establish teachers infields like math 
     and science. Establishes grants with which local districts 
     can provide competitive salaries to their best teachers in 
     the most high-need areas.
       Norton (DC)--No. 93--(Late) Amends title III of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 to include the University of the 
     District of Columbia as an eligible institution in Section 
     326 to receive funding for its qualified graduate programs.
       Norton (DC)--No. 95--(Late) Amends Section 496 to clarify 
     the current statutory due process requirements, require cited 
     institutions to receive notice of the deficiencies and be 
     provided the opportunity to respond, grant cited institutions 
     the right to assistance of counsel, and change the final 
     appeals procedure to provide an alternative dispute 
     resolution component.
       Petri (WI)/Miller (CA)--No. 27--Inserts at the end of part 
     G of title IV of the bill, the provisions of HR 1425, the 
     Student Aid Reward Program.
       Ryan (OH)--No. 8--Requires the Education Secretary to award 
     grants of not more than $25,000 each on a competitive basis 
     to not more than 20 institutions of higher education to 
     enable those schools to determine the feasibility of 
     operating a course material rental program on their campuses. 
     The feasibility studies would determine the effectiveness and 
     cost of a program which expands the services of bookstores to 
     provide the option for students to rent course materials in 
     order to achieve savings for students.
       Ryan (OH)--No. 7--Requires institutions of higher education 
     to waive academic progress requirements for interruptions of 
     study caused by active military service.
       Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 111--(Late) Adds language so 
     that paragraph 4 of section 513 enables students receiving 
     financial assistance to receive some sufficient to cover 
     elevated costs of living that exist in some regions.
       Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 112--(Late) Adds language so 
     that SECTION 131(b)(1) will require the website to provide, 
     along with other data elements of importance, information 
     which will be useful to minority student populations. For 
     example, by including Hispanic Serving Institutions as a 
     search criterion in the website's college search, students 
     will be able to target the universities which may provide 
     scholarships or areas of study of their preference.
       Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 113--(Late) Adds language so 
     that SECTION 131(b)(3)(B) reads as follows: ``includes clear 
     and uniform information determined to be relevant to 
     prospective students, enrolled students, and families; in 
     both English and Spanish''. This amendment will require all 
     the information in the website to be presented in both 
     English and Spanish.
       Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 114--(Late) Adds a new paragraph 
     so that the new SECTION 131(c)(2) requires the schools in the 
     website to present a list of scholarships they offer. This 
     will help students who are eligible for specific scholarships 
     to identify institutions who offer that specific type of 
     scholarship.
       Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 115--(Late) Adds language so 
     that SECTION 131(d) will require the information under this 
     section to be in both English and Spanish.
       Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 116--(Late) Adds language so 
     that SECTION 401A(a)(1) will oblige recipients of federal 
     student aid to receive some instruction in financial literacy 
     and responsibility to better manage their financial aid.
       Scott (GA)/Drake (VA)/Weiner (NY)--No. 69--Establishes a 
     student loan repayment program within the Department of 
     Education for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at 
     least three years, as public attorneys who are: (1) State or 
     local criminal prosecutors; or (2) State, Local, or Federal 
     public defenders in criminal cases. The repayment under this 
     program will be limited to $6000 per calendar year and 
     $40,000 total.
       Scott (VA)--No. 83--Requires degree granting institutions 
     to collect hate crimes data using the same crime categories 
     that the FBI is required to use under the Hate Crime 
     Statistics Act of 1991.
       Strickland (OH)--No. 70--Requires that the maximum 
     authorized Pell grant award increases every year by a 
     percentage equal to the percent increase in the cost of 
     higher education, according to the Price Indexes for Personal 
     Consumption Expenditures by Type of Product of the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce.
       Strickland (OH)--No. 71--Defines and sets minimum standards 
     for ``educational organizations'' eligible for teacher 
     education partnership grants under Title II of the bill.
       Strickland (OH)--No. 53--Expands the loan forgiveness 
     program for FFEL and DL borrowers to all teachers working in 
     low-income schools who became first-time borrowers on or 
     after October 1, 1990.
       Stupak (MI)--No. 78--Provides Federal student loan relief 
     to borrowers who go into school administration in low-income 
     school districts. Applies to any borrower who has been 
     employed as a full-time school superintendent, principal, or 
     other administrator for five consecutive complete school 
     years in a school district in a low-income area.
       Tierney (MA)/Kind (WI)--No. 76--Prohibits the campus-based 
     aid funding formula changes from taking place until the 
     Secretary of Education certifies that sufficient funding has 
     been appropriated so that no school loses money.
       Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 40--Provides incentives to 
     make tuition affordable. Provides that any institution of 
     higher education that keeps its net tuition price increase 
     below the Higher Education Price Index receives a 25 percent 
     increase to the Pell Grant award of its Pell Grant recipients 
     and any institution that guarantees net tuition price 
     increases below the Higher Education Price Index for five 
     years receives a 10 percent increase to the Pell Grant award 
     of its Pell Grant recipients. Institutions that raise net 
     tuition price by more than the Higher Education Price Index 
     shall submit a report explaining the causes of such an 
     increase and detailing a plan for preventing such increases 
     in the future.
       Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 41--Commissions the 
     National Research Council to conduct a national study to 
     determine the viability of developing and implementing 
     standards in environmental, health, and safety areas to 
     provide for differential regulation of industrial 
     laboratories and facilities, on the one hand, and research 
     and teaching laboratories on the other. The National Research 
     Council shall make specific recommendations for statutory and 
     regulatory changes that are needed to develop such a 
     differential approach.
       Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 42--Creates an articulation 
     agreement demonstration program, monitored by the Department 
     of Education, to encourage institutions of higher education 
     to enter into articulation agreements or consortia groups, as 
     a means to lower tuition prices to students.
       Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 43--Renews states' 
     commitment to affordable college education by ensuring that 
     they maintain their own level of college financing. Gives 
     students and families access to accurate information about 
     the cost of college and steps individual schools are taking 
     to offer affordable rates of tuition.
       Tierney (MA)--No. 44--Commissions a study by the Advisory 
     Committee on Student Financial Assistance to examine the 
     adequacy of current financial aid programs and the extent to 
     which every qualified eligible student receives a sufficient 
     comprehensive financial aid package from all sources, 
     induding aid from Federal financial aid programs under this 
     title, state financial aid programs, institutional financial 
     aid programs, and privately-funded grant aid programs.
       Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 45--Commissions a GAO Study 
     on college costs and the relationship between state, Federal 
     and institutional support for higher education and college 
     costs.
       Waters (CA)--No. 118--(LATE) Seeks to condition the 
     eligibility of private, post-secondary institutions as 
     ``institutions of higher education'' for purpose of funding 
     under the Act on the obtainment of at least 10 percent of its 
     total funding from sources other than Title IV.
       Waters (CA)--No. 56--Extends eligibility for Centers of 
     Excellence program funds to states in which a major disaster 
     has occurred under Section 402 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for a period of 
     two years following the date of Presidential declaration.
       Wu (OR)/Simmons (CT)--No. 9--Allows student loan borrowers 
     to refinance their student loans. Upon reconsolidation, the 
     borrower would get a variable rate with a cap of 6.8 prcent.
       Wu (OR)/McGovern (MA)--No. 10--Increases the Pell Grant 
     award to $8,000 through the use of mandatory funds over a 
     period of 5 years.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, why 
doesn't Mr. Inslee deserve a floor vote on his proposal on Head Start 
teacher loan forgiveness? Why prevent public discussion of Mr. 
McGovern's and Mr. Wu's proposal that we increase Pell Grant awards? Or 
the amendment from Mr. Miller and Mr. Petri that would provide $12 
billion in student aid without costing the taxpayers a dime?
  Clearly, their ideas would have at least made it to the floor for the 
debate in 1992 and 1998. So have these Members simply shown up to the 
wrong section of Congress, or does the majority feel that these 
amendments might be sound policy and pass?
  Members on both sides of the aisle decry the lack of bipartisanship 
in the House every day, but what are we doing to really embrace 
bipartisanship? We should be able to agree that every Member of this 
body deserves time to offer his or her suggestions on something as 
fundamental as our Nation's education policy. Sadly, that is not the 
case this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the second rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H1333]]

  As we have seen today, Dan Quisenberry was right: The future is much 
like the past, only longer.
  Yesterday the debate on the underlying bill provided ample 
discussion, and we realize that the underlying bill is one that has the 
one goal, the most important goal, to expand the number of kids who 
have the opportunity of fulfilling their college dream, with a special 
emphasis on new students coming into the system and those who 
accelerate their study programs in some particular way.
  If I can speak for the chairman of the committee, I believe at that 
point that part of the discussion was done in a very bipartisan manner 
in the committee.
  Mr. Miller, the ranking member, will give a comprehensive alternative 
program and have 30 minutes of debate, and he can include anything he 
wishes to include in that. We are offering plenty of debate on this 
particular bill.
  I would like to say something simply about the rule itself and the 
process of the rule. If we extend the logic of some who are saying 
everything should be an open rule, realizing we have four times the 
number that are in the Senate, we move ourselves into a structural 
system where we start to emulate the Senate process which should strike 
fear in the hearts of Members just on that concent.
  Prior to the War of 1812, we had always had committee work done in 
the House. It was Speaker Clay who instituted standing committees and 
formulated a structural policy that the House has used since that time 
to try to use committees in a different way than our sister body on the 
other side of this Capitol to try to put a greater emphasis on 
committees so that Members would become specialists in areas. They 
would have expertise. In committee, you can have expert testimony in 
the hearing to assist, and in the committee with expertise in that 
area, Members could sit down and work through bills before they 
actually came to the House.
  There was for this particular bill 79 amendments discussed in the 
committee, half as many of those amendments in the subcommittee on this 
particular bill with endless discussion. It was a thoroughly vetted and 
discussed bill. I would add, of the 117 amendments that then came to 
the Committee on Rules for further discussion here on the floor, 68 of 
those were from members of the committee who already supposedly 
discussed that. Multiple amendments were either withdrawn, were 
duplicative, or had jurisdictional problems. And more important, many 
of those amendments presented in the Rules Committee had been discussed 
and defeated in the committee of jurisdiction.
  As I look at some of the amendments that were proposed: No. 97 was 
defeated on a rollcall vote; No. 98 was withdrawn in committee; No. 100 
defeated on a voice vote; No. 101 was defeated in a rollcall vote; No. 
80 was defeated on rollcall vote; No. 27 defeated on a rollcall vote; 
No. 83 defeated on a voice vote; No. 43 defeated on a rollcall vote; 
and No. 45 was actually incorporated into the bill. Amendment No. 9 was 
defeated twice, once in the subcommittee and once in the committee and 
then, once again, presented on the floor.
  What the Rules Committee is trying to do is cull through the process 
in the committees where this discussion should take place with people 
who have expertise and people who have developed competence in that 
particular area, not replicating the entire thing on the floor, which 
is why if you look at the rules for both yesterday and today, they are 
both rules which reward bipartisanship for indeed half of the 
amendments made in order were either Democrat or bipartisan amendments 
at that particular time.
  One of the greatest managers of all time, Casey Stengel, once talking 
about who I still think is the best second baseman in the history of 
the Yankees' organization, Bobby Richardson, said he was amazed because 
the guy doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't stay out late, and 
he still can't hit .250. That is a wonderful non sequitur. Not staying 
out late, not drinking, not smoking makes you healthy and perhaps play 
longer but it has nothing to do with the ability of hitting a curve 
ball.
  Oftentimes when we come here with amendments on the floor, we bypass 
the concept of the bill with some amendments or processes that I think 
are non sequitur.
  Talking about the various kinds of teachers in various disciplines 
that we can enhance is good, is worthwhile and wonderful, but this bill 
is about how kids can have better access to a college education.
  Talking about increasing the potential of lender profits is great for 
the lenders, but this bill is about how you expand the number of kids 
who can get a college education.
  Having an amendment that deals with National Resource Council to have 
an environmental health and safety study is a wonderful concept and a 
worthwhile goal, but it is not the purpose and the function of this 
bill.
  I hope as we go through this process we recognize what the Rules 
Committee tried to do is focus in on what the purpose of this bill is. 
The purpose of this bill is to try to help more kids get a college 
education. In that regard, I think this rule moves us in that direction 
and the underlying bill supports that.
  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. LaTourette). 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 224, 
nays 188, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     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 (KY)
     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
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     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 (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     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
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird

[[Page H1334]]


     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
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     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
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     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
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Cardoza
     Clay
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gilchrest
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Marshall
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Owens
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Ruppersberger
     Schakowsky
     Sweeney
     Waters
     Watson
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1144

  Messrs. STUPAK, BUTTERFIELD, DOGGETT, and CUELLAR changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________