Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1335-H1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 742 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 609.

{time} 1209

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of
1965, with Mr. Chocola (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, March 29, 2006, amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-
399 by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) had been disposed of and
proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 741 had been completed.
Pursuant to House Resolution 742, no further general debate shall be
in order.
Pursuant to House Resolution 742, no further amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 109-401. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered 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.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by
Mrs. Biggert:
Page 230, after line 10, insert the following new
subsection:
(d) Homeless Youth.--Section 480(d) is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraph:
``(6) has been verified as both a homeless child or youth
and an unaccompanied youth, as such terms are defined in
section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 11434a), during the school year in which the
application for financial assistance is submitted, by--
``(A) a local educational agency liaison for homeless
children and youths, as designated under section
722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));
``(B) a director of a homeless shelter, transitional
shelter, or independent living program; or
``(C) a financial aid administrator;''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment that
would make the dream of a college education more accessible to youth
who are homeless and on their own.
While many young people experience homelessness as part of a family,
so many youth in homeless situations are on their own. These children
are unaccompanied for reasons that are extremely diverse and usually
heartbreaking. In many cases they have run away to escape physical or
sexual abuse. Others have been abandoned by their parents.
Due to their severe poverty, these homeless students are extremely
unlikely to be able to access post-secondary education without Federal
student aid. But in order to determine student eligibility for aid, the
FAFSA requires them to provide financial information and a signature
from their parent or guardian.
While these requirements are logical for most applicants, they create
insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth. So the very
children who are most in need of financial assistance are the least
likely to receive it.
My amendment removes these barriers by allowing unaccompanied
homeless youth to be considered independent students. To ensure that
there is no fraud or abuse, the living situation of the student must be
verified by one of the following individuals: a McKinney-Vento Act
school district liaison, a shelter director, or a financial aid
administrator.
This independent student status will ensure that unaccompanied
homeless youth are not required to provide their parental income
information and parental signature, information they simply do not have
and cannot get. The amendment thus opens the doors of higher education
to some of our Nation's most vulnerable youth.
I should add, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment was scored by the CBO
as having no budgetary impact.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, a good
member of her committee, for her work. I think this makes the bill
better, and I hope all of our Members can support this amendment.

[[Page H1336]]

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do
not intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, too, want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment,
and I would ask everybody to support it. I thank her for all the work
she does on behalf of homeless youth. We appreciate it, and I am sure
they do too.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is certainly thoughtful,
realistic and sensitive, and I urge everyone to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Thank you all. I would like to thank in particular Chairman
McKeon and the ranking member, Mr. Miller of California, for their
support for homeless education. Whether we are talking about the No
Child Left Behind Act or this legislation today, the Education and
Workforce Committee members and staff have worked in a bipartisan way
to address problems related to the education of homeless children, and
I believe that we have made significant progress.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by
Mr. Gohmert:
Page 31, beginning on line 20, strike subsection (f) and
insert the following:
(f) Outcomes and Actions.--
(1) Response from institution.--Effective on June 30, 2010,
an institution that has a college affordability index that
exceeds 2.0 for any 3-year interval ending on or after that
date shall provide a report to the Secretary, in such a form,
at such time, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require. Such report shall include--
(A) a description of the factors contributing to the
increase in the institution's costs and in the tuition and
fees charged to students; and
(B) if determinations of tuition and fee increases are not
within the exclusive control of the institution, a
description of the agency or instrumentality of State
government or other entity that participates in such
determinations and the authority exercised by such agency,
instrumentality, or entity.
(2) Quality-efficiency task forces.--
(A) Required.--Each institution subject to paragraph (1)
that has a college affordability index that is in the highest
5 percent of such indexes of all institutions subject to
paragraph (1) shall establish a quality-efficiency task force
to review the operations of such institution.
(B) Membership.--Such task force shall include
administrators and business and civic leaders and may include
faculty, students, trustees, parents of students, and alumni
of such institution.
(C) Functions.--Such task force shall analyze institutional
operating costs in comparison with such costs at other
institutions within the class of institutions. Such analysis
should identify areas where, in comparison with other
institutions in such class, the institution operates more
expensively to produce a similar result. Any identified areas
should then be targeted for in-depth analysis for cost
reduction opportunities.
(D) Report.--The results of the analysis by a quality-
efficiency task force under this paragraph shall be included
in the report to the Secretary under paragraph (1).
(3) Consequences for 2-year continuation of failure.--If
the Secretary determines that the institution has failed to
reduce the college affordability index below 2.0 for such 2
academic years, the Secretary shall place the institution on
an affordability alert status and shall make the information
regarding the institution's failure available in accordance
with subsection (d).
(4) Information to state agencies.--Any institution that
reports under paragraph (1)(A) that an agency or
instrumentality of State government or other entity
participates in the determinations of tuition and fee
increases shall, prior to submitting any information to the
Secretary under this subsection, submit such information to,
and request the comments and input of, such agency,
instrumentality, or entity. With respect to any such
institution, the Secretary shall provide a copy of any
communication by the Secretary with that institution to such
agency, instrumentality, or entity.
(5) Exemptions.--
(A) Relative price exemption.--The Secretary shall, for any
3-year interval for which college affordability indexes are
computed under paragraph (1), determine and publish the
dollar amount that, for each class of institution described
in paragraph (6) represents the maximum tuition and fees
charged for a full-time undergraduate student in the least
costly quartile of institutions within each such class during
the last year of such 3-year interval. An institution that
has a college affordability index computed under paragraph
(1) that exceeds 2.0 for any such 3-year interval, but that,
on average during such 3-year interval, charges less than
such maximum tuition and fees shall not be subject to the
actions required by paragraph (3), unless such institution,
for a subsequent 3-year interval, charges more than such
maximum tuition and fees.
(B) Dollar increase exemption.--An institution that has a
college affordability index computed under paragraph (1) that
exceeds 2.0 for any 3-year interval, but that exceeds such
2.0 by a dollar amount that is less than $500, shall not be
subject to the actions required by paragraph (3), unless such
institution has a college affordability index for a
subsequent 3-year interval that exceeds 2.0 by more than such
dollar amount.
(6) Classes of institutions.--For purposes of this
subsection, the classes of institutions shall be those
sectors used by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System, based on whether the institution is public, nonprofit
private, or for-profit private, and whether the institution
has a 4-year, 2-year, or less than 2-year program of
instruction.
(7) Data rejection.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed as allowing the Secretary to reject the data
submitted by an individual institution of higher education.
Page 37, after line 2, insert the following new subsection
(and redesignate the succeeding subsections accordingly):
``(g) Information to the Public.--Upon receipt of an
institution's report required under subsection (f), the
Secretary shall make the information in the report available
to the public in accordance with subsection (d) on the COOL
website under subsection (b).
Page 262, beginning on line 19, strike paragraph (1) and
redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

{time} 1215

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment seeks to cut down on Federal meddling with our
colleges and universities. As Republicans, we have made a promise to
the American people that we stand for less government, not more. Our
preeminent system of higher education is the last thing that needs
extensive Federal oversight. We have seen what happened to K-12 as the
Federal Government started meddling too much 30 years ago in it, and we
are only now starting to recover from Federal meddling 30 years ago.
I do support the overall bill, and I would like to thank Chairman
McKeon for working with me on the amendment. He and his staff have been
wonderful to work with, and I thank them for being so gracious.
But this amendment would strike certain reporting requirements for
colleges and universities within section 131(f). Cutting down on some
red tape will allow these schools to focus on educating their students
first.
This amendment also strikes section 495(a)(1) that would allow States
to apply to the Secretary of Education to become recognized
accreditors. It just looked like that created more Federal bureaucracy,
more State bureaucracy, and we have the best university system in the
world. It is too expensive. It has gotten expensive so fast, and with
two kids in college, I certainly am very sensitive to that.
So I applaud the chairman's efforts in his bill to assist in bringing
those down, but I have concerns about some of these other provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Dent), my friend.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I, too, applaud Representative Gohmert for
this amendment. This amendment does recognize that the American system
of higher education is truly the envy of

[[Page H1337]]

the world, and just as importantly, it recognizes the role our
independent colleges and universities play in that overall system.
Specifically, this amendment addresses the primary concerns of so
many of the private and independent colleges about what they have seen
as a genuine threat to their independence and their ability to fulfill
their diverse missions.
I, like many others in this chamber, have spoken with a number of the
presidents in my district and understand how deeply they feel about
undertaking their responsibilities to their students without excessive
and inappropriate Federal or State interference.
And for this reason, I offer my support for the Gohmert amendment
which removes Federal intervention mechanisms while pushing schools to
voluntarily rein in costs, and that is all included in this
legislation. It also further eliminates the authority for States to
become accreditors.
The other good thing about this amendment is disclosures are still in
the bill, but the price controls essentially are out.
In terms of States as accreditors, the concern would be that any
State higher education bureaucracy that wants to control the State's
private and independent colleges can simply require State
accreditation, giving the State control over its curriculum and
mission. Although the intent of the provision is to offer more options
to the institutions, the opposite may well occur. There is no way to
anticipate all the ways in which a State might seek to control private
institutions using its accreditation powers as leverage.
For all those reasons, I strongly support Mr. Gohmert's amendment and
thank Chairman McKeon for his willingness to work with us on this
matter.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for those kind comments. At
this time, I would like to thank the chairman for reaching out to me,
and I also want to thank all of the institutions of higher learning in
the districts. We have heard from so many of them. They have been so
helpful, and I just appreciate that that is what makes for better
government.
I do applaud the chairman's efforts to stem the tide of vast
increases over the last 30 years in the cost of education, and this
amendment and the provisions that it deals with, I think it does create
a bill that will be a significant help to America in higher education.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) my chairman.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to thank Mr. Gohmert from Texas for the great work that he has
done on improving this bill.
It is very important that this amendment passes and Mr. Souder's
amendment later today. I have a letter here from NAICU, the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, who have been
vigorously opposing the bill, and because of your amendment and Mr.
Souder's amendment, they have written us today that they are
withdrawing their opposition to the bill on the House floor and I
appreciate that, and I appreciate all the work that Mr. Gohmert has
done on this bill.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in
opposition, although I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). Without objection, the gentleman
is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for
offering this amendment. It is a step in the right direction on some of
the provisions that I expressed concern over yesterday, and I have no
objection to its adoption, urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island:
Page 189, line 13, redesignate subparagraph (I) as
subparagraph (J), and before such subparagraph insert the
following new subparagraph:
``(I) Child or adolescent mental health professionals.--An
individual who is employed as child or adolescent mental
health professional and is currently providing a majority of
their clinical services to children or adolescents.
Page 194, after line 14, insert the following new
paragraphs:
``(8) Child or adolescent mental health professional.--The
term `child or adolescent mental health professional' means
an individual who is employed as a psychiatrist,
psychologist, school psychologist, psychiatric nurse, social
worker, school social worker, marriage and family therapist,
school counselor, or professional counselor and holds an
advanced degree in one of the above areas with specialized
training in child or adolescent mental health.
``(9) Specialized training in child or adolescent mental
health.--The term `specialized training in child or
adolescent mental health' means training that
``(A) is part of or occurs after completion of an
accredited graduate program in the United States for training
mental health service professionals;
``(B) consists of at least 500 hours of training or
clinical experience in treating children or adolescents; and
``(C) is comprehensive, coordinated, developmentally
appropriate, and of high quality to address the unique ethnic
and cultural diversity of the United States population.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to
myself.
Mr. Chairman, Marley Prunty-Lara is here today in the gallery. She is
an articulate young woman living with bipolar disorder, and she is a
suicide attempt survivor.
She is in town because she was here to testify yesterday about her
struggle with bipolar disorder, being forced to drop out of school and
ultimately attempting to take her own life.
Marley's family attempted to find a psychiatrist in South Dakota to
treat her, but they were told that they would have to wait over 4
months to get an initial appointment. Because her mother's insurance
would not cover residential treatment and they were so desperate to
find care, they took out a second mortgage on their house, and they
drove over 350 miles to another State to get Marley the life-saving
care that she needed.
Mr. Chairman, Marley's story is all too common. There are just not
enough trained professionals to treat the mental health needs of our
children. Surgeon General Carmona has said so. The President's New
Freedom Commission has said so.
For the past three Congresses, my good friend from Florida Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen and I have introduced legislation aimed at alleviating the
shortage of child and adolescent mental health providers in this
country.
While this amendment does not cover everything included in the
previous three bills, it is a start.
Within the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, there is a
section that provides student loan forgiveness for service in areas of
national need. Mr. Speaker, this is an area of national need.
For many families in this Nation, as Marley can readily attest, there
is no higher need than the need for urgent mental health care for our
children.
Our amendment would simply add child and adolescent mental health
professionals to the list of high need professionals eligible for loan
forgiveness.
Millions of American families need hope. Millions of them need help.
The number of suicides are twice the rate of homicides in this country;
36,000 people

[[Page H1338]]

take their lives every year successfully. Every day in this country,
1,385 people attempt suicide. It is the third leading cause of death
for young people.
Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that needs addressing, and we need the
number of providers out there to make sure it gets the attention it
deserves.
This year alone, 1,400 college students will successfully take their
lives. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we have adequate
personnel to make sure that the services are delivered, and the
services will never be delivered unless there are enough people to
deliver them.
That is why this legislation is in order. That is why I would ask my
colleagues to support it, and I thank you for the time in consideration
of this amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for offering this amendment. He and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen address some very,
very important problems of making sure we have adequate providers
within the community for people with mental illness, and I would hope
that everybody would support this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Reclaiming my time, I would just like to
point out to the gentleman from California, there may be questions,
what is this going to cost? The question is, what is it going to cost
us not to do this?
Let me give you some statistics. Two-thirds of those in juvenile
detention facilities are being held there simply because they cannot
get a mental health appointment because there is no one to provide an
assessment of them, two-thirds. Any of my colleagues that are
interested, I encourage them to go out to Oak Hill here in the District
of Columbia and see for yourself 11- and 12-year-olds behind bars
because their parents cannot handle their mental illness. They have no
other choice but to call the police and get their children held in
detention because there is nothing else for them to do.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
further yield, they could go to their own districts. This is common
across the country. Young people are being held in locked detention
because of the simple fact that we cannot get a diagnosis. We cannot
put together a treatment plan because they are on a waiting list for
the services. They do not get services. In many cases, those services
have been ordered, but they do not get them. They get a waiting list,
and you are right, then we pay this exorbitant cost to keep them in
there, but more importantly, denying them the treatment that they need.
So, increasing the number of providers so that we can address these
concerns and these problems that young people have is just absolutely
important.
The idea of making these providers eligible for loan forgiveness is a
service to our community, and I am sure that the House will support
this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and
I thank Marley for her courage and her witness here today.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that it is not in
order to refer to the presence of persons in the gallery.
Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition;
although I do not intend to oppose the bill.
I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for their efforts on this amendment,
and again, I think it strengthens the bill, and I thank them for this
and encourage support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote
to demonstrate this House's support for mental health services in this
country.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by
Mr. King of Iowa:
At the end of part B of title IX of the Amendment add the
following new section:

SEC. ___. RACIAL AND ETHNIC PREFERENCES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin by Federally-funded institutions, which includes
nearly all colleges and universities.
(2) The United States Supreme Court has recently set out
limitations on such considerations of race, color, and
national origin.
(3) In order to ensure that these limitations are followed,
schools must make public their use of race, color, and
national origin, for admissions decisions so that Federal and
State enforcement agencies and interested persons can monitor
the schools.
(4) Citizens and taxpayers have a right to know whether
Federally-funded institutions of higher education are
treating student applications differently depending on the
student's race, color, or national origin, and, if so, the
way in which these factors are weighted and the consequences
to students and prospective students of these decisions.
(b) Reports on Admissions Process Required.--
(1) Report required.--Every academic year, each institution
of higher education that receives funds from the Federal
Government shall provide to the Office for Civil Rights of
the Department of Education a report regarding its students
admissions process, and the report shall be made publicly
available.
(2) Disclosure of consideration of race, color, or national
origin.--
(A) Disclosure.--The report required by this section shall
begin with a statement of whether race, color, or national
origin is given any weight in the student admissions process.
(B) Departmental disclosures.--If different departments
within the institution have separate admission processes and
any of those departments give any weight to race, color, and
national origin, then the report shall provide the
information required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph
and paragraph (3) for each department separately.
(3) Additional disclosures.--If the disclosure required by
paragraph (2) states that race, color, or national origin is
given weight in the student admission process, then the
report under this section shall also provide the following
information:
(A) The racial, color, and national origin groups for which
membership is considered a plus factor or a minus factor and,
in addition, how membership in a group is determined for
individual students.
(B) A description of how group membership is considered,
including the weight given to such consideration and whether
targets, goals, or quotas are used.
(C) A statement of why group membership is given weight,
including the determination of the desired level claimed and,
with respect to the diversity rationale, its relationship to
the particular institution's educational mission.
(D) A description of the consideration that has been given
to racially neutral alternatives as a means for achieving the
same goals for which group membership is considered.
(E) A description of how frequently the need to give weight
to group membership is reassessed and how that reassessment
is conducted.
(F) A statement of the factors other than race, color, or
national origin that are collected in the admissions process.
Where those factors include grades or class rank in high
school, scores on standardized tests (including the ACT and
SAT), legacy status, sex, State residency, economic status,
or other quantifiable criteria, then all raw admissions data
for applicants regarding these factors, along with each
individual applicant's race, color, and national origin and
the admissions decision made by the school regarding that
applicant, shall accompany the report in computer-readable
form, with the name of the individual student redacted but
with appropriate links, so that it is possible for the Office
for Civil Rights or other interested persons to determine
through statistical analysis the weight being given to race,
color, and national origin, relative to other factors.
(G) An analysis, and also the underlying data needed to
perform an analysis, of whether there is a correlation--
(i) between membership in a group favored on account of
race, color, or national origin and the likelihood of
enrollment in a remediation program, relative to membership
in other groups;
(ii) between such membership and graduation rates, relative
to membership in other groups; and

[[Page H1339]]

(iii) between such membership and the likelihood of
defaulting on education loans, relative to membership in
other groups.
(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to allow or permit preference or discrimination on
the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
While the Supreme Court has ruled that using racial and ethnic
preferences in higher education admission policies are sometimes
permissible under present law, it has also established limits for such
policies. For example, Court decisions have asserted that admissions
policies using racial preferences must be narrowly tailored to further
a compelling interest and that these policies cannot involve the use of
quotas.
The Court's also ruled that schools using racial preferences in
admissions must consider race neutral alternatives and to limit it in
time, for example, Justice O'Connor's remarks to revisit the decision
in Michigan cases in perhaps 25 years.
My amendment would require all institutions of higher education who
receive Federal funding to fully disclose details regarding their
admissions policies. This information would be reported annually to the
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.
It has several reasons why we should pass this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, and the first one is to ensure lawful admission policies are
complied with by our institutes of higher learning who are receiving
the Federal funds and that there are informed choices out there for the
students as they apply to the various students, and as there are
students who are beneficiaries of affirmative action programs, they
need to have some sense of the performance expectations of those who
have gone before them and benefited from affirmative action programs.
So what my amendment does is requires each institute of higher
learning who uses Federal funds to report their policy. If they do not
use preferences, they simply write a letter that says we do not use
preferences. If they do use preferences, then they need to list a
number of things, such as, are the preferences weighted? Did they use
target goals or quotas? What was the purpose of their policies? And
could they evaluate a racially neutral policy effectiveness as to
opposed to one that is not racially neutral, a list of factors other
than race, color or national origin that they might use such as test
scores, sex, legacy status, residency, et cetera, Mr. Chairman?

{time} 1230

And, in conclusion, an analysis of their respective progress of
appointments under these programs?
So this gets the information back to Congress so we can better
evaluate, and it also helps the institutions of higher learning comply
with the Supreme Court decision. So I urge support for this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
House, I oppose this amendment and I hope most of the Members of the
House will also oppose this amendment. The issues that are called into
question in this amendment, the use of, the gentleman said preferences,
but of any data, any factors in deciding the makeup of a university
student body has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
The fact of the matter is that quotas are unlawful, but universities
have a right to a diverse student population, and they are allowed to
use a diverse range of factors in compiling that university. I believe
that the King amendment goes beyond that decision, and the amendment
also does not provide for the protection of student privacy. In fact,
it does just the opposite of that.
The fact of the matter is this information is already available to
those parties who are interested. They can get it through the Freedom
of Information Act or the universities, obviously. At least in our
State, they are continuously discussing operating and changing and
reviewing their admissions policy because they are in constant
determination of trying to provide diverse opportunities to a diverse
population of qualified students.
I would hope that we would reject this amendment. It is interesting
that we just had an amendment we adopted to reduce paperwork, and now
we are going to put on a whole new set of requirements of annual
reports and different kinds of data and how it has to be collected and
weighed and all the rest of it, with no showing that it has been
improperly done or anything wrong has happened. We are just going to
load down the universities.
Mr. McKeon has an effort where he is trying to reduce the cost of
higher education by making sure universities are not engaged in those
practices that are not necessary and that drive up the cost. And this
comes along, outside of the Supreme Court decisions, outside the
current practices of universities and suggests that somehow they should
just continue to develop this information with no showing or grievance.
If a person has a grievance or showing, or people are interested from
an academic point of view, from a social policy point of view, or from
any point of view, the fact of the matter is that the information is
currently available. I would hope that we would reject this amendment
when it comes to a vote in the House.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Kildee.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I really think this would lead to a violation of
privacy and have a chilling effect upon that which the Supreme Court
has permitted in the case against Bollinger from the University of
Michigan where I attended.
It was a very narrow decision of the Supreme Court. I and my two sons
attended the University of Michigan; and we, as members of the
majority, benefited from a very sensitive, sensitivity to minorities.
We benefited from that because we had a larger universe in which to
study. So we gained from the fact that we were broadened out by the
fact that there was a certain sensitivity towards minorities, very
narrowly construed now by the Supreme Court.
So I think it is a win-win situation. We should leave it alone. The
Supreme Court has made its decision. It is very clear that colleges are
following this, and I think to have all this reporting serves no useful
purpose and would also, I think, lead to a violation of privacy and
would, because of the reporting, even have a chilling effect upon the
use of this.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to be the core of the rebuttal argument we heard here is
that this is a violation of student privacy and that we would be
somehow looking into records that are confidential. I would direct the
gentlemen who made those statements to page 4 of my amendment, lines 18
and 19, where it says with the name of the individual student redacted
but with appropriate links so it is possible for the Office of Civil
Rights to determine the overall statistical data, but not have any
individual student data. It is specifically redacted in my bill.
I think it is appropriate and necessary for this Congress to review
where our money is being spent and to see what kind of results we are
getting from all of our institutions, and also to ensure that they are
complying with the Supreme Court decision.
I have laid this out as three points that are important: lawful,
conforming with the Supreme Court decisions that are on the two
Michigan cases; and informed choices for students so that they can
evaluate when they go to an institution.
This information is not available, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how any
student would ever have access. And looking at how difficult it was to
get some empirical data just out of Michigan on the way to the Supreme
Court,

[[Page H1340]]

there is no way a high school junior or senior could ever have enough
access to make an informed decision without these kinds of reports.
Then, of course, if a student is going to be the beneficiary of an
affirmative action program, wouldn't they want to know what kind of
results there were for those who have gone before them? Do they have a
prospect of graduating? Do they have a prospect of a job afterwards?
What is the future for them, or should they maybe take a path that is
not quite so difficult? All of this is reasonable and it is logical.
And the paperwork, if a university is not using an affirmative action
preference program, they simply send a letter that says we don't do
that. But if they do use the information, if they do use it as criteria
for admissions, then they simply file a report. Any institution should
know this information as a matter of their professionalism. Sharing it
with Congress is not a burden.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just say it is
an interesting academic study, and I am sure some of the information
would be of interest to people, but why don't you just have the
Department of Education periodically sort of select some universities
and test it, rather than putting the burden on every university,
whether large or small, rich or poor, private or public that has to
submit this information on an annual basis where in fact there may not
have been any complaints or there is support for that policy, if it has
been publicly reviewed or however they handle it.
The suggestion here that every university would have to go through
this process is just kind of a mindless Federal Government approach to
imposing these burdens on people without consideration of the cost, the
need, the results, or any of the rest of it. I thought we were getting
away from that policy. Talk about one-size-fits-all; here is one-size-
fits-all. And when they say, well, we don't do that, who is going to
check that that is really true? Yet you start this whole process.
And I would say, by the way, that the names aren't redacted. The
Social Security numbers are not redacted.
Mr. KING of Iowa. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would point out, again, this information is information that any
institution of higher learning should be interested in compiling to
determine the effectiveness of their policy. We help them along with
this process and ask to share in that process with them.
Additionally, Justice O'Connor's decision said perhaps we should
revisit this in 25 years. If we can compile this data for 25 years,
perhaps the Supreme Court can make an informed decision on affirmative
action preference admission programs within our institutions of higher
learning, and I urge support for my amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has repeatedly
recognized that the primary academic freedom enjoyed by a university is
the freedom to choose whom to admit. Most recently, this principle was
reaffirmed in the 2003 decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v.
Bollinger. The Supreme Court has also recognized that, in exercising
this academic freedom, universities may constitutionally consider race
and ethnicity, among other factors, to promote the educational benefits
of a diverse student body. At the same time, universities must
regularly review their admissions policies to ensure that they consider
individual admissions factors only as needed to promote their
institutional mission.
The King amendment tramples academic freedom and chills universities'
willingness to consider diversity factors even in the narrowly tailored
manner that the Supreme Court has upheld. It creates a burdensome
reporting requirement that acts as a disincentive for universities to
exercise their academic freedom as permitted by the Court. Furthermore,
over reliance on admissions criteria such as standardized tests, which
have been found to be culturally biased, may also get caught up in the
King amendment.
The King amendment also jeopardizes the privacy and confidentiality
of individual student applicants. Educational institutions are
prohibited by law from disclosing personally identifiable information
from students' education records without consent. In fact, even release
of information for educational research purposes is permitted only if
the information is released in such a way that student identities are
not traceable, The King amendment would, in contradiction of this law,
require release of raw admissions data for applicants in a manner that
would not ensure applicant confidentiality.
The King amendment incorrectly assumes that there is a weight given
to each admissions factor by universities. However, as the Supreme
Court explained in Gratz and Grutter, admissions factors must be
considered in an individualized holistic manner and therefore weight
will necessarily vary from one application to the next.
Finally, the King amendment is opposed by the National Association
for College Admission Counseling, the American Federation of Teachers,
the National Education Association and the American Council on
Education.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should not trample on the rights of
universities to exercise academic freedom. Nor should we pass an
amendment that would violate student privacy rights. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
proposed by Mr. King of Iowa. In my state of Michigan, we are currently
fighting a deceptive ballot initiative that would undermine the
progress which has been made to attain educational equality. Like that
ballot measure, I believe that the King amendment is yet another
deceptive attack on affirmative action.
While the amendment looks like a mere reporting requirement, its true
purpose is to chill the willingness of universities to consider
diversity factors--including not only race and ethnicity, but also
gender--even in the narrowly tailored manner that was upheld by the
Supreme Court in the University of Michigan cases.
In Gratz and Grutter, the Court explicitly found that universities
may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity, among other factors,
to promote the educational benefits of a diverse student body. However,
even with this ruling by the Court, the chilling factor on legally
permissible policies and programs is very real. This month, the New
York Times reported that hundreds of universities had modified or given
up programs created to promote educational opportunity for minorities
in the face of pressure from Washington and further litigation. As one
Dean commented in the story, the question was how far these programs
could be stretched by these pressures before gains were put at risk.
The chilling effect on university policy is made even worse by the
fact that the amendment completely misapprehends the role that
diversity factors play in the admission process. The proposed amendment
would require universities annually to report the weight given to each
factor--including race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, grades,
high school class rank, standardized test scores, and so forth--
considered in the admissions process.
As the Supreme Court explained in Grutter and Gratz, however,
admissions factor must be considered in an individualized, holistic
manner and the weight given to each factor will necessarily vary across
applications. Consequently, a factor that was important (or even
perhaps decisive) with respect to one application may have little
weight with respect to another application.
As a result, it is impossible for a university to state definitively
and universally the weight given to race or to any particular
admissions factor. In fact, to do so would violate the Court's rulings,
which expressly require flexibility in any governmental consideration
of race or ethnicity.
Moreover, the proposed amendment contemplates only quantifiable
admissions factors, and neglects the role of essays, personal
statements, counsel recommendations, and other qualitative factors in
the admissions process.
When amendments like this come forward, I believe that we should
reflect on the path to equality. It was only 40 years ago that the
Federal Government had to send troops into Little Rock to permit
African-American children to attend Central High School. The Supreme
Court took this into account in reaching its Grutter and Gratz
conclusions and made its rulings. It's now time for Washington to step
back and let our universities focus on education, instead of litigation
and regulation.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H1341]]

the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by
Mr. Larsen of Washington:
At the end of section 601 add the following new subsection:
(k) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that due to the diplomatic, economic, and military importance
of China and the Middle East, international exchange and
foreign language education programs under the Higher
Education Act of 1965 should focus on the learning of Chinese
and Arabic language and culture.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Larsen), as the designee of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I rise today to offer the Kirk-Larsen amendment to
articulate our Nation's need to promote Chinese and Arabic cultural
exchange and language education. I want to thank my fellow co-chair of
the U.S.-China Working Group, Mr. Kirk of Illinois, on his work in
drafting this important amendment.
Today's global landscape is increasingly interconnected. China and
the Middle East play critical roles towards international peace and
security. Our ability to effectively engage China and the Arab world
rests on shared economic and political interests and mutual
understanding.
From 1998 to 2002, foreign language enrollment in United States
colleges and universities increased by 20 percent for Chinese and 92.3
percent for Arabic. By comparison, the learning of more traditional
languages, such as French and German, grew by under 3 percent.
Our schools and universities are already leading the movement towards
Chinese and Arabic language. Congress must build on this infrastructure
and support the education of future diplomats, business professionals,
and teachers who are proficient in Arabic and Chinese. We must answer
the call for an increased American competitiveness and national
security, and in today's world we cannot answer that call just in
English.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, which is
merely a sense of Congress amendment to promote language education in
Arabic and Chinese.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't
plan to oppose the amendment. I just want to thank the gentleman from
Washington and Mr. Kirk from Illinois for their work on this project.
I had the opportunity to lead a congressional delegation to China
last year, and I think it is very important that we stress the
importance of learning other languages so that we can communicate and
do a better job of competing around the world, and so I encourage
support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my partner, co-chair of the U.S.-
China Working Group, on this amendment.
I had the honor of serving on the Paul Simon Exchange Commission for
the United States to look at his vision of having a million Americans
study abroad. That is a very important goal, very worthwhile because of
America's position in the world.
But, quite frankly, I think there are two language groups vital to
the future security, to the economy, and to the diplomacy of the United
States, and that is Arabic and Chinese. This amendment highlights that
priority for the United States, for our future.
Obviously, we know with the global war on terror the importance of
the command of the Arabic language. But we also see China rising and
projected by the IMF on 19th Street here in Washington, D.C. to be the
second largest economy on Earth. And it makes sense for the United
States to place its highest diplomatic priority on relations with the
number two economy of the 21st century, which is China.
Currently, we have reports that there are over 200 million people in
China who are or have studied English, but in the United States the
total number of Americans who are studying or have studied Chinese
number just 28,000. We need to redress that balance to make sure that
we have a full engagement with China, with her rising economy, with her
very important diplomacy with regard to North Korea, Iran, et cetera,
and obviously with military developments there.
So I thank the chairman for his support, and I commend my co-chair of
the U.S.-China Working Group, because I think in the necessary funding
of exchanges we should place a priority on these two language groups.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the
chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their help and
support on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Souder

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by
Mr. Souder:
Page 267, beginning on line 14, strike paragraph (8) and
insert the following:
``(8) confirms as a part of its review for accreditation or
reaccreditation that the institution has transfer policies
that are publicly disclosed and specifically state whether
the institution denies a transfer of credit based solely on
the accreditation of the institution at which the credit was
earned;

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

{time} 1245

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Today I am offering an amendment with the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) that will ensure students have greater access to
information about a university's transfer-of-credit policies without
placing new burdensome mandates on the institutions themselves.
I would like to thank the chairman of the Education and Workforce
Committee, Chairman McKeon, for working with me and Mr. Bishop over the
last day on a compromise that I believe accomplishes our shared goal of
greater transparency with regard to an institution's transfer of credit
policies. If a student plans on transferring from a community college
to a 4-year institution or from a proprietary school to a community
college, they should know before they apply which of their credits will
transfer.
The Souder-Bishop amendment will strengthen language in the
underlying bill to ensure that all institutions of higher education
publicly disclosed whether or not they deny credits based on the
accreditation of the institution where the credits were earned.
We do not mandate the kind of policy a school must have; we just
require greater transparency.
On principle, I believe it is not the role of the Federal Government
to dictate what kind of transfer or credit policy an institution must
have. In the interest of academic integrity, every college and
university should be able to ensure that every graduate receiving a
diploma from their institution has completed all of the required
courses for a particular program at the level of rigor expected by that
university.
If a university decides that the best way it can ensure an
appropriate level of academic rigor is to only accept credits from
certain kinds of institutions, it should be that school's prerogative
to do so. The alternative for many schools would be costly and

[[Page H1342]]

time-intensive, requiring admissions counselors and professors to
evaluate each of a transfer student's credits based on the quality of
the sending institution, its professors, curricula, textbooks,
materials, et cetera.
I want to make it clear that this amendment is meant in no way to
diminish the value of any particular kind of institution. All
institutions have their appropriate place in the higher education
community. I am supportive of all types of institutions and want to
encourage their growth because it will mean more individuals will be
empowered to be productive workers in our growing economy. They are a
critical part of my district in particular because of its
manufacturing, engineering and business background, and without the
proprietary schools and community college specialized courses, we could
not function. But it is my hope that as an alternative to Federal
mandates, more colleges and universities will work out voluntary
articulation agreements between schools to ensure a more seamless
transition between institutions.
This can be done quite effectively within a State or region where
institutions can come together to agree upon which credits from one
school are the equivalent of courses at another school.
In my own home district in Northeast Indiana, Indiana University,
Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) and Ivy Tech Community College have
worked out an agreement for students to be able to transfer credits
from a specified list of over 150 courses. Several years ago, this was
not possible. Now it is, and many more institutions in Indiana are
following suit. I hope this kind of voluntary agreement multiply across
the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Souder-Bishop amendment. This bipartisan amendment is the culmination
of several months of debate and compromise among Members on both sides
of the aisle, the Education and the Workforce Committee, and the
college community.
I want to thank Mr. Souder for offering this important amendment with
me, and I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon for his work on this
issue.
Our amendment would simply require that, as part of its review for
accreditation, colleges must publicly disclose their transfer of credit
policies and specifically state whether the institution denies transfer
of credit based solely on the accreditation of the sending institution.
This language is, in our view, much improved from the original form and
intent, and I proudly support it.
The original language in H.R. 609 included a provision that would
have imposed a new transfer of credit mandate on colleges that would
have created costly new bureaucratic headaches for students and
institutions. In our view, we should not be dictating how colleges
evaluate the coursework of transferring students as the earlier
language would have required. Transfer credit decisions are academic
decisions, not administrative decisions, and in principle, Congress
should not be interfering in the academic decisions made on college
campuses. Colleges and universities are fully capable of developing and
implementing fair and appropriate transfer-of-credit policies on their
own; and most important, it is in the best interest of students to have
these judgments made by those most qualified to make them, and that
would be the faculty and staff of the institution they attend.
The amendment we are offering today strikes the correct balance
between academic autonomy and transparency for students. I urge all of
my colleagues to vote for the Souder-Bishop amendment.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Souder-Bishop
amendment, and I want to associate myself with their comments just
made.
This amendment by Mr. Souder would revise the transfer-of-credit
provisions in this bill. The transfer-of-credit provisions in this bill
have been made less onerous since the reauthorization bill was first
introduced. The Federal Government as a matter of policy should not be
involved in decisions about the awarding of credit which is an
institution's essential product.
The Souder-Bishop amendment really takes an important step towards
alleviating these concerns, relying instead on additional disclosures
to help students better understand an institution's transfer policies.
Once again, I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment. In fact, the amendment is critical to
final passage of the bill.
I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Bishop, both good members of the
committee, for their efforts in working together to strengthen the bill
through this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 Offered by Mr. George
Miller of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 printed in
House Report 109-401 offered by Mr. George Miller of
California:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reverse the Raid on Student
Aid Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES; EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
(b) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

Title II (20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``PART C--CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

``SEC. 231. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.

``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
``(1) to help recruit and prepare teachers, including
minority teachers, to meet the national demand for a highly
qualified teacher in every classroom; and
``(2) to increase opportunities for Americans of all
educational, ethnic, class, and geographic backgrounds to
become highly qualified teachers.
``(b) Definitions.--As used in this part:
``(1) Eligible institution.--The term `eligible
institution' means--
``(A) an institution of higher education that has a teacher
preparation program that meets the requirements of section
203(b)(2) and that is--
``(i) a part B institution (as defined in section 322);
``(ii) a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined in
section 502);
``(iii) a Tribal College or University (as defined in
section 316);
``(iv) an Alaska Native-serving institution (as defined in
section 317(b)); or
``(v) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution (as defined in
section 317(b));
``(B) a consortium of institutions described in
subparagraph (A); or
``(C) an institution described in subparagraph (A), or a
consortium described in subparagraph (B), in partnership with
any other institution of higher education, but only if the
center of excellence established under section 232 is located
at an institution described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Highly qualified.--The term `highly qualified' when
used with respect to an individual means that the individual
is highly qualified as determined under section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801) or section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).
``(3) Scientifically based reading research.--The term
`scientifically based reading research' has the meaning given
such term in section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6368).
``(4) Scientifically based research.--The term
`scientifically based research' has the meaning given such
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

``SEC. 232. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

``(a) Program Authorized.--From the amounts appropriated to
carry out this part, the Secretary is authorized to award
competitive grants to eligible institutions to establish
centers of excellence.

[[Page H1343]]

``(b) Use of Funds.--Grants provided by the Secretary under
this part shall be used to ensure that current and future
teachers are highly qualified, by carrying out one or more of
the following activities:
``(1) Implementing reforms within teacher preparation
programs to ensure that such programs are preparing teachers
who are highly qualified, are able to understand
scientifically based research, and are able to use advanced
technology effectively in the classroom, including use for
instructional techniques to improve student academic
achievement, by--
``(A) retraining faculty; and
``(B) designing (or redesigning) teacher preparation
programs that--
``(i) prepare teachers to close student achievement gaps,
are based on rigorous academic content, scientifically based
research (including scientifically based reading research),
and challenging State student academic content standards; and
``(ii) promote strong teaching skills.
``(2) Providing sustained and high-quality preservice
clinical experience, including the mentoring of prospective
teachers by exemplary teachers, substantially increasing
interaction between faculty at institutions of higher
education and new and experienced teachers, principals, and
other administrators at elementary schools or secondary
schools, and providing support, including preparation time,
for such interaction.
``(3) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote
retention of highly qualified teachers and principals,
including minority teachers and principals, including
programs that provide--
``(A) teacher or principal mentoring from exemplary
teachers or principals; or
``(B) induction and support for teachers and principals
during their first 3 years of employment as teachers or
principals, respectively.
``(4) Awarding scholarships based on financial need to help
students pay the costs of tuition, room, board, and other
expenses of completing a teacher preparation program.
``(5) Disseminating information on effective practices for
teacher preparation and successful teacher certification and
licensure assessment preparation strategies.
``(6) Activities authorized under sections 202, 203, and
204.
``(c) Application.--Any eligible institution desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such a time, in such a manner, and accompanied
by such information the Secretary may require.
``(d) Minimum Grant Amount.--The minimum amount of each
grant under this part shall be $500,000.
``(e) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--An eligible
institution that receives a grant under this part may not use
more than 2 percent of the grant funds for purposes of
administering the grant.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this part.

``SEC. 233. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.''.

SEC. 4. TITLE III GRANTS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBALLY
CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

(a) Eligible Institutions.--Subsection (b) of section 316
(20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Definitions.--
``(1) Eligible institutions.--For purposes of this section,
Tribal Colleges and Universities are the following:
``(A) any of the following institutions that qualify for
funding under the Tribally Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978 or is listed in Equity in Educational
Land Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note): Bay Mills
Community College; Blackfeet Community College; Cankdeska
Cikana Community College; Chief Dull Knife College; College
of Menominee Nation; Crownpoint Institute of Technology; Dine
College; D-Q University; Fond du Lac Tribal and Community
College; Fort Belknap College; Fort Berthold Community
College; Fort Peck Community College; Haskell Indian Nations
University; Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development; Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa
Community College; Leech Lake Tribal College; Little Big Horn
College; Little Priest Tribal College; Nebraska Indian
Community College; Northwest Indian College; Oglala Lakota
College; Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College; Salish Kootenai
College; Si Tanka University--Eagle Butte Campus; Sinte
Gleska University; Sisseton Wahpeton Community College;
Sitting Bull College; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute; Stone Child College; Tohono O'Odham Community
College; Turtle Mountain Community College; United Tribes
Technical College; and White Earth Tribal and Community
College; and
``(B) any other institution that meets the definition of
tribally controlled college or university in section 2 of the
Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of
1978, and meets all other requirements of this section.
``(2) Indian.--The term `Indian' has the meaning given the
term in section 2 of the Tribally Controlled College or
University Assistance Act of 1978.''.
(b) Distance Learning.--Subsection (c)(2) of such section
is amended--
(1) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other
instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of
telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the
acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the
institution on which to construct such facilities;'';
(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``, or advanced degrees in tribal
governance or tribal public policy'';
(3) in subparagraph (D), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``, in tribal governance, or tribal
public policy'';
(4) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K);
(5) by redesignating subparagraph (L) as subparagraph (M);
and
(6) by inserting after subparagraph (K) the following new
subparagraph:
``(L) developing or improving facilities for Internet use
or other distance learning academic instruction capabilities;
and''.
(c) Application and Allotment.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Application and Allotment.--
``(1) Institutional eligibility.--To be eligible to receive
assistance under this section, a Tribal College or University
shall be an eligible institution under section 312(b).
``(2) Application.--Any Tribal College or University
desiring to receive assistance under this section shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, and in
such manner, as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(3) Minimum grant.--The amount allotted to each
institution under this section shall not be less than
$500,000.
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Concurrent funding.--For the purposes of this part,
no Tribal College or University that is eligible for and
receives funds under this section shall concurrently receive
funds under other provisions of this part or part B.
``(B) Exemption.--Section 313(d) shall not apply to
institutions that are eligible to receive funds under this
section.''.
(d) Construction Grants.--After subsection (d) of section
316 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(d)), as amended by subsection (c) of
this section, add the following new subsections:
``(e) Construction Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Of the amount appropriated to carry out
this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve
30 percent of such amount for the purpose of awarding 1-year
grants of not less than $1,000,000 to address construction,
maintenance, and renovation needs at eligible institutions.
``(2) Preference.--In providing grants under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall give preference to eligible institutions
that have not yet received an award under this section.
``(f) Allotment of Remaining Funds.--The Secretary shall
distribute any funds appropriated to carry out this section
for any fiscal year that remain available after the Secretary
has awarded grants under subsection (e), to each eligible
institution as follows:
``(1) 60 percent of the remaining appropriated funds shall
be distributed among the eligible Tribal Colleges and
Universities on a pro rata basis, based on the respective
Indian student counts (as defined in section 2(a) of the
Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of
1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801(a)) of the Tribal Colleges and
Universities; and
``(2) the remaining 40 percent shall be distributed in
equal shares to the eligible Tribal Colleges and
Universities. ''.

SEC. 5. PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS.

(a) Predominantly Black Institutions.--Part A of title III
is amended by inserting after section 317 (20 U.S.C. 1059d)
the following new section:

``SEC. 318. PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS.

``(a) Findings and Purpose.--
``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(A) although Black Americans have made significant
progress in closing the `gap' between black and white
enrollment in higher education--
``(i) Black Americans continue to trail whites in the
percentage of the college-age cohort who enroll and graduate
from college;
``(ii) the college participation rate of whites was 46
percent from 2000-2002, while that for blacks was only 39
percent; and
``(iii) the gap between white and black baccalaureate
degree attainment rates also remains high, continuing to
exceed 10 percent;
``(B) a growing number of Black American students are
participating in higher education and are enrolled at a
growing number of urban and rural Predominantly Black
Institutions that have included in their mission the
provision of academic training and education for both
traditional and non-traditional minority students;
``(C) the overwhelming majority of students attending
Predominantly Black Institutions come from low- and middle-
income families and qualify for participation in the Federal
student assistance programs or other need-based Federal
programs; and recent data from the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study indicate that 47 percent of Pell grant
recipients were black compared to only 21 percent of whites;
``(D) many of these students are also `first generation'
college students who lack the appropriate academic
preparation for success

[[Page H1344]]

in college and whose parents lack the ordinary knowledge and
information regarding financing a college education;
``(E) there is a particular national need to aid
institutions of higher education that have become
Predominantly Black Institutions by virtue of the fact that
they have expanded opportunities for Black American and other
minority students;
``(F) Predominantly Black Institutions fulfill a unique
mission and represent a vital component of the American
higher education landscape, far beyond that which was
initially envisioned;
``(G) Predominantly Black Institutions serve the cultural
and social advancement of low-income, Black American and
other minority students and are a significant access point
for these students to higher education and the opportunities
offered by American society;
``(H) the concentration of these students in a limited
number of two-year and four-year Predominantly Black
Institutions and their desire to secure a degree to prepare
them for a successful career places special burdens on those
institutions who attract, retain, and graduate these
students; and
``(I) financial assistance to establish or strengthen the
physical plants, financial management, academic resources,
and endowments of the Predominantly Black Institutions are
appropriate methods to enhance these institutions and
facilitate a decrease in reliance on governmental financial
support and to encourage reliance on endowments and private
sources.
``(2) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist
Predominantly Black Institutions in expanding educational
opportunity through a program of Federal assistance.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Predominantly black institution.--The term
`Predominantly Black Institution' means an institution of
higher education--
``(A) that is an eligible institution (as defined in
paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection) with a minimum of 1,000
undergraduate students;
``(B) at which at least 50 percent of the undergraduate
students enrolled at the institution are low-income
individuals or first-generation college students (as that
term is defined in section 402A(g)); and
``(C) at which at least 50 percent of the undergraduate
students are enrolled in an educational program leading to a
bachelor's or associate's degree that the institution is
licensed to award by the State in which it is located.
``(2) Low-income individual.--The term `low-income
individual' has the meaning given such term in section
402A(g).
``(3) Means-tested federal benefit program.--The term
`means-tested Federal benefit program' means a program of the
Federal Government, other than a program under title IV, in
which eligibility for the programs' benefits, or the amount
of such benefits, or both, are determined on the basis of
income or resources of the individual or family seeking the
benefit.
``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
``(5) Other definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
terms defined by section 312 have the meanings provided by
that section, except as follows:
``(A) Eligible institution.--
``(i) The term `eligible institution' means an institution
of higher education that--

``(I) has an enrollment of needy undergraduate students as
required and defined by subparagraph (B);
``(II) except as provided in section 392(b), the average
educational and general expenditure of which are low, per
full-time equivalent undergraduate student in comparison with
the average educational and general expenditure per full-time
equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer
similar instruction;
``(III) has an enrollment of undergraduate students that is
at least 40 percent Black American students;
``(IV) is legally authorized to provide, and provides
within the State, an educational program for which the
institution awards a bachelors degree, or in the case of a
junior or community college, an associate's degree; and
``(V) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
agency or association determined by the Secretary to be a
reliable authority as to the quality of training offered, or
is, according to such an agency or association, making
reasonable progress toward accreditation.

``(ii) For purposes of the determination of whether an
institution is an eligible institution under this
subparagraph, the factor described under clause (i)(I) shall
be given twice the weight of the factor described under
clause (i)(III).
``(B) Enrollment of needy students.--The term `enrollment
of needy students' means the enrollment at an eligible
institution with respect to which at least 50 percent of the
undergraduate students enrolled in an academic program
leading to a degree--
``(i) in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year
for which the determination is made, were Pell Grant
recipients in such year;
``(ii) come from families that receive benefits under a
means-tested Federal benefits program (as defined in
subsection (b)(3));
``(iii) attended a public or nonprofit private secondary
school which is in the school district of a local educational
agency which was eligible for assistance pursuant to title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in any
year during which the student attended that secondary school,
and which for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year
was determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and
after consultation with the State educational agency of the
State in which the school is located) to be a school in which
the enrollment of children counted under section 1113(a)(5)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 exceeds
30 percent of the total enrollment of that school; or
``(iv) are `first-generation college students' as that term
is defined in section 402A(g), and a majority of such first-
generation college students are low-income individuals.
``(c) Authorized Activities.--
``(1) Types of activities authorized.--Grants awarded
pursuant to subsection (d) shall be used by Predominantly
Black Institutions--
``(A) to assist the institution to plan, develop,
undertake, and implement programs to enhance the
institution's capacity to serve more low- and middle-income
Black American students;
``(B) to expand higher education opportunities for title IV
eligible students by encouraging college preparation and
student persistence in secondary and postsecondary education;
and
``(C) to strengthen the institution's financial ability to
serve the academic needs of the students described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B).
``(2) Authorized activities.--Grants made to an institution
under subsection (d) shall be used for one or more of the
following activities:
``(A) The activities described in section 311(a)(1) through
(11).
``(B) Academic instruction in disciplines in which Black
Americans are underrepresented.
``(C) Establishing or enhancing a program of teacher
education designed to qualify students to teach in a public
elementary or secondary school in the State that shall
include, as part of such program, preparation for teacher
certification.
``(D) Establishing community outreach programs which will
encourage elementary and secondary students to develop the
academic skills and the interest to pursue postsecondary
education.
``(E) Other activities proposed in the application
submitted pursuant to subsection (e) that--
``(i) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this
section; and
``(ii) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review
and acceptance of such application.
``(3) Endowment fund.--
``(A) In general.--A Predominantly Black Institution may
use not more than 20 percent of the grant funds provided
under this section to establish or increase an endowment fund
at the institution.
``(B) Matching requirement.--In order to be eligible to use
grant funds in accordance with subparagraph (A), the
Predominantly Black Institution shall provide matching funds
from non-Federal sources, in an amount equal to or greater
than the Federal funds used in accordance with subparagraph
(A), for the establishment or increase of the endowment fund.
``(C) Comparability.--The provisions of part C regarding
the establishment or increase of an endowment fund, that the
Secretary determines are not inconsistent with this
subsection, shall apply to funds used under subparagraph (A).
``(4) Limitation.--Not more than 50 percent of the
allotment of any Predominantly Black Institution may be
available for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a
classroom, library, laboratory, or other instructional
facility.
``(d) Allotments to Predominantly Black Institutions.--
``(1) Allotment: pell grant basis.--From the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section for any fiscal year,
the Secretary shall allot to each Predominantly Black
Institution a sum which bears the same ratio to one-half that
amount as the number of Pell Grant recipients in attendance
at such institution at the end of the academic year preceding
the beginning of that fiscal year bears to the total number
of Pell Grant recipients at all institutions eligible under
this section.
``(2) Allotment: graduates basis.--From the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section for any fiscal year,
the Secretary shall allot to each Predominantly Black
Institution a sum which bears the same ratio to one-fourth
that amount as the number of graduates for such school year
at such institution bears to the total number of graduates
for such school year at all intuitions eligible under this
section.
``(3) Allotment: graduates seeking a higher degree basis.--
From the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for
any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each
Predominantly Black Institution a sum which bears the same
ratio to one-fourth of that amount as the percentage of
graduates per institution who are admitted to and in
attendance at, within 2 years of graduation with an
associates degree or a baccalaureate degree, either a
baccalaureate degree-granting institution or a graduate or
professional school in a degree program in disciplines in
which Black American students are underrepresented, bears to
the percentage of such

[[Page H1345]]

graduates per institution for all eligible institutions.
``(4) Minimum allotment.--(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3), the amount allotted to each Predominantly
Black Institution under this section shall not be less than
$250,000.
``(B) If the amount appropriated pursuant to section 399
for any fiscal year is not sufficient to pay the minimum
allotment, the amount of such minimum allotment shall be
ratably reduced. If additional sums become available for such
fiscal year, such reduced allocation shall be increased on
the same basis as it was reduced until the amount allotted
equals the minimum allotment required by subparagraph (A).
``(5) Reallotment.--The amount of a Predominantly Black
Institution's allotment under paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4)
for any fiscal year, which the Secretary determines will not
be required for such institution for the period such
allotment is available, shall be available for reallotment to
other Predominantly Black Institutions in proportion to the
original allotment to such other institutions under this
section for such fiscal year. The Secretary shall reallot
such amounts from time to time, on such date and during such
period as the Secretary deems appropriate.
``(e) Applications.--No Predominantly Black Institution
shall be entitled to its allotment of Federal funds for any
grant under subsection (d) for any period unless the
institution submits an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(f) Application Review Process.--Section 393 shall not
apply to applications under this section.
``(g) Prohibition.--No Predominantly Black Institution that
applies for and receives a grant under this section may apply
for or receive funds under any other program under this part
or part B of this title.
``(h) Duration and Carryover.--Any funds paid to a
Predominantly Black Institution under this section and not
expended or used for the purposes for which the funds were
paid within 10 years following the date of the grant awarded
to such institution under this section shall be repaid to the
Treasury of the United States.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399(a)(1) (20
U.S.C. 1068h(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 318, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
years.''.

SEC. 6. GRANTS TO PART B INSTITUTIONS.

(a) Use of Funds.--
(1) Facilities and equipment.--
(A) Undergraduate institutions.--Paragraph (2) of section
323(a) (20 U.S.C. 1062(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other
instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of
telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the
acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the
institution on which to construct such facilities.''.
(B) Graduate and professional schools.--Paragraph (2) of
section 326(c) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other
instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of
telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the
acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the
institution on which to construct such facilities;''.
(2) Outreach and collaboration.--Paragraph (11) of section
323(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(11) Establishing community outreach programs and
collaborative partnerships between part B institutions and
local elementary or secondary schools. Such partnerships may
include mentoring, tutoring, or other instructional
opportunities that will boost student academic achievement
and assist elementary and secondary school students in
developing the academic skills and the interest to pursue
postsecondary education.''.
(b) Technical Assistance.--Section 323 (20 U.S.C. 1062) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--An institution may not use more than 2
percent of the grant funds provided under this part to secure
technical assistance services.
``(2) Technical assistance services.--Technical assistance
services may include assistance with enrollment management,
financial management, and strategic planning.
``(3) Report.--The institution shall report to the
Secretary on an annual basis, in such form as the Secretary
requires, on the use of funds under this subsection.''.
(c) Distance Learning.--Section 323(a)(2) (20 U.S.C.
1062(a)(2)) (as amended by subsection (a)(1)(A)) is further
amended by inserting ``development or improvement of
facilities for Internet use or other distance learning
academic instruction capabilities and'' after ``including''.
(d) Minimum Grants.--Section 324(d)(1) (20 U.S.C.
1063(d)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, except that, if the amount
appropriated to carry out this part for any fiscal year
exceeds the amount required to provide to each institution an
amount equal to the total amount received by such institution
under subsections (a), (b), and (c) for the preceding fiscal
year, then the amount of such excess appropriation shall
first be applied to increase the minimum allotment under this
subsection to $750,000''.
(e) Eligible Graduate or Professional Schools.--
(1) General authority.--Section 326(a)(1) (20 U.S.C.
1063b(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``subsection (e) that'';
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, (B) is accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary
to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training
offered, and (C) according to such an agency or association,
is in good standing''.
(2) Eligible institutions.--Section 326(e)(1) (20 U.S.C.
1063b(e)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (Q);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (R)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(S) Alabama State University qualified graduate program;
``(T) Prairie View A & M University qualified graduate
program;
``(U) Coppin State University qualified graduate program;
and
``(V) Delaware State University qualified graduate
program.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 326(e)(3) (20 U.S.C.
1063b(e)(3)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2005''; and
(B) by striking ``(Q) and (R)'' and inserting ``(S), (T),
(U), and (V)''.
(f) Professional or Graduate Institutions.--Section 326(f)
(20 U.S.C. 1063b(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``$26,600,000'' and inserting
``$54,500,000''; and
(B) by striking ``(P)'' and inserting ``(R)'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``$26,600,000, but not in excess of
$28,600,000'' and inserting ``$54,500,000, but not in excess
of $58,500,000''; and
(B) by striking ``subparagraphs (Q) and (R)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (S), (T), (U), and (V)''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``$28,600,000'' and inserting
``$58,500,000''; and
(B) by striking ``(R)'' and inserting ``(V)''.
(g) Hold Harmless.--Section 326(g) (20 U.S.C. 1063b(g)) is
amended by striking ``1998'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2005''.

SEC. 7. PELL GRANTS.

(a) Tuition Sensitivity.--Section 401(b) is further
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as
paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively.
(b) Multiple Grants.--Paragraph (5) of section 401(b) (as
redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(5) Year-round pell grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, for students
enrolled full time in a baccalaureate or associate's degree
program of study at an eligible institution, award such
students two Pell grants during a single award year to permit
such students to accelerate progress toward their degree
objectives by enrolling in academic programs for 12 months
rather than 9 months.
``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall limit the awarding
of additional Pell grants under this paragraph in a single
award year to students attending--
``(i) baccalaureate degree granting institutions that have
a graduation rate as reported by the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System for the 4 preceding academic years of
at least 30 percent; or
``(ii) two-year institutions that have a graduation rate as
reported by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
Systems, in at least one of the last 3 years for which data
is available, that is above the average for the applicable
year for the institution's type and control.
``(C) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct an
evaluation of the program under this paragraph and submit to
the Congress an evaluation report no later than October 1,
2011.
``(D) Regulations required.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations implementing this paragraph.''.

SEC. 8. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

(a) FFEL Interest Rates.--Section 427A(l)(1) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077a(l)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4
percent''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, except that for any loan made pursuant to
section 428H for which the first disbursement is made on or
after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be
6.8 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan''.
(b) Direct Loans.--Section 455(b)(7)(A) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford
Loans'';

[[Page H1346]]

(2) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4
percent''; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and for any Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan
made for which the first disbursement is made on or after
July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 6.8
percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective for loans made on or after July 1, 2006
and before July 1, 2007.

SEC. 9. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR SERVICE IN AREAS OF NATIONAL
NEED.

Section 428K (20 U.S.C. 1078-11) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 428K. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR SERVICE IN AREAS OF
NATIONAL NEED.

``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to encourage highly trained individuals to enter and
continue in service in areas of national need; and
``(2) to reduce the burden of student debt for Americans
who dedicate their careers to service in areas of national
need.
``(b) Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
a program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to
paragraphs (2) of subsection (c) and subsection (d), a
qualified loan amount for a loan made, insured, or guaranteed
under this part or part D (other than loans made under
section 428B and 428C and comparable loans made under part
D), for any new borrower after the date of enactment of the
Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act of 2006, who--
``(A) has been employed full-time for at least 5
consecutive complete school, academic, or calendar years, as
appropriate, in an area of national need described in
subsection (c); and
``(B) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower
seeks forgiveness.
``(2) Award basis.--Loan repayment under this section shall
be on a first-come, first-served basis pursuant to the
designation under subsection (c) and subject to the
availability of appropriations.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to issue
such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section.
``(c) Areas of National Need.--
``(1) Statutory categories.--For purposes of this section,
an individual shall be treated as employed in an area of
national need if the individual is employed full time and is
any of the following:
``(A) Early childhood educators.--An individual who is
employed as an early childhood educator in an eligible
preschool program or child care facility in a low-income
community, and who is involved directly in the care,
development and education of infants, toddlers, or young
children through age five.
``(B) Nurses.--An individual who is employed--
``(i) as a nurse in a clinical setting; or
``(ii) as a member of the nursing faculty at an accredited
school of nursing (as those terms are defined in section 801
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296)).
``(C) Foreign language specialists.--An individual who has
obtained a baccalaureate degree in a critical foreign
language and is employed--
``(i) in an elementary or secondary school as a teacher of
a critical foreign language; or
``(ii) in an agency of the United States Government in a
position that regularly requires the use of such critical
foreign language.
``(D) Librarians.--An individual who is employed full-time
as a libarian in--
``(i) a public library that serves a geographic area within
which the public schools have a combined average of 30
percent or more of their total student enrollments composed
of children counted under section 1113(a)(5) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; or
``(ii) an elementary or secondary school which is in the
school district of a local educational agency which is
eligible in such year for assistance pursuant to title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and which
for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year has been
determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and
after consultation with the State educational agency of the
State in which the school is located) to be a school in which
the enrollment of children counted under section 1113(a)(5)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 exceeds
30 percent of the total enrollment of that school.
``(E) Highly qualified teachers: bilingual education and
low-income communities.--An individual who--
``(i) is highly qualified as such term is defined in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965; and
``(ii)(I) is employed as a full-time teacher of bilingual
education; or
``(II) is employed as a teacher for service in a public or
nonprofit private elementary or secondary school which is in
the school district of a local educational agency which is
eligible in such year for assistance pursuant to title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and which
for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year has been
determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and
after consultation with the State educational agency of the
State in which the school is located) to be a school in which
the enrollment of children counted under section 1113(a)(5)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 exceeds
40 percent of the total enrollment of that school.
``(F) First responders in low-income communities.--An
individual who--
``(i) is employed as a firefighter, police officer, or
emergency medical technician; and
``(ii) serves as such in a low-income community.
``(G) Child welfare workers.--An individual who--
``(i) has obtained a degree in social work or a related
field with a focus on serving children and families; and
``(ii) is employed in public or private child welfare
services.
``(H) Speech-language pathologists.--An individual who is a
speech-language pathologist, who is employed in an eligible
preschool program or an elementary or secondary school, and
who has, at a minimum, a graduate degree in speech-language
pathology, or communication sciences and disorders.
``(I) Additional areas of national need.--An individual who
is employed in an area designated by the Secretary under
paragraph (2) and has completed a baccalaureate or advanced
degree related to such area.
``(2) Designation of areas of national need.--After
consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and community-
based agencies and organizations, the Secretary shall
designate areas of national need. In making such
designations, the Secretary shall take into account the
extent to which--
``(A) the national interest in the area is compelling;
``(B) the area suffers from a critical lack of qualified
personnel; and
``(C) other Federal programs support the area concerned.
``(d) Qualified Loan Amount.--The Secretary shall repay not
more than $5,000 in the aggregate of the loan obligation on a
loan made under section 428 or 428H that is outstanding after
the completion of the fifth consecutive school, academic, or
calendar year, as appropriate, described in subsection
(b)(1).
``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a
loan made under section 428 or 428H.
``(f) Ineligibility of National Service Award Recipients.--
No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a
benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of
the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12601 et seq.).
``(g) Ineligibility for Double Benefits.--No borrower may
receive a reduction of loan obligations under both this
section and section 428J or 460.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section
``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility'
means a facility, including a home, that--
``(A) provides for the education and care of children from
birth through age 5; and
``(B) meets any applicable State or local government
licensing, certification, approval, or registration
requirements.
``(2) Critical foreign language.--The term `critical
foreign language' includes the languages of Arabic, Korean,
Japanese, Chinese, Pashto, Persian-Farsi, Serbian-Croatian,
Russian, Portuguese, and any other language identified by the
Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Defense
Language Institute, the Foreign Service Institute, and the
National Security Education Program, as a critical foreign
language need.
``(3) Early childhood educator.--The term `early childhood
educator' means an early childhood educator employed in an
eligible preschool program who has completed a baccalaureate
or advanced degree in early childhood development, early
childhood education, or in a field related to early childhood
education.
``(4) Eligible preschool program.--The term `eligible
preschool program' means a program that provides for the
care, development, and education of infants, toddlers, or
young children through age 5, meets any applicable State or
local government licensing, certification, approval, and
registration requirements, and is operated by--
``(A) a public or private school that may be supported,
sponsored, supervised, or administered by a local educational
agency;
``(B) a Head Start agency serving as a grantee designated
under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
``(C) a nonprofit or community based organization; or
``(D) a child care program, including a home.
``(5) Low-income community.--In this subsection, the term
`low-income community' means a community in which 70 percent
of households earn less than 85 percent of the State median
household income.
``(6) Nurse.--The term `nurse' means a nurse who meets all
of the following:
``(A) The nurse graduated from--
``(i) an accredited school of nursing (as those terms are
defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 296));
``(ii) a nursing center; or
``(iii) an academic health center that provides nurse
training.
``(B) The nurse holds a valid and unrestricted license to
practice nursing in the State in which the nurse practices in
a clinical setting.
``(C) The nurse holds one or more of the following:
``(i) A graduate degree in nursing, or an equivalent
degree.

[[Page H1347]]

``(ii) A nursing degree from a collegiate school of nursing
(as defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 296)).
``(iii) A nursing degree from an associate degree school of
nursing (as defined in section 801 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296)).
``(iv) A nursing degree from a diploma school of nursing
(as defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 296)).
``(7) Speech-language pathologist.--The term `speech-
language pathologist' means a speech-language pathologist who
meets all of the following:
``(A) the speech-language pathologist has received, at a
minimum, a graduate degree in speech-language pathology or
communication sciences and disorders from an institution of
higher education accredited by an agency or association
recognized by the Secretary pursuant to section 496(a) of
this Act; and
``(B) the speech-language pathologist meets or exceeds the
qualifications as defined in section 1861(ll) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x).
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2007 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
years.''.

SEC. 10. ADDITIONAL CONSOLIDATION LOAN CHANGES.

(a) Additional Amendments.--Section 428C(b)(1) (20 U.S.C.
1078-3(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking everything after ``under this section'' the
first place it appears in subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking ``(i) which'' and all that follows through
``and (ii)'' in subparagraph (C);
(3) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(4) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G);
and
(5) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) that the lender of the consolidation loan shall, upon
application for such loan, provide the borrower with a clear
and conspicuous notice of at least the following information:
``(i) the effects of consolidation on total interest to be
paid, fees to be paid, and length of repayment;
``(ii) the effects of consolidation on a borrower's
underlying loan benefits, including loan forgiveness,
cancellation, deferment, and reduced interest rates on those
underlying loans;
``(iii) the ability of the borrower to prepay the loan, pay
on a shorter schedule, and to change repayment plans;
``(iv) that borrower benefit programs may vary among
different loan holders, and a description of how the borrower
benefits may vary among different loan holders;
``(v) the tax benefits for which borrowers may be eligible;
``(vi) the consequences of default; and
``(vii) that by making the application the applicant is not
obligated to agree to take the consolidation loan; and''.
(b) Effective Date for Single Holder Amendment.--The
amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall apply with respect
to any loan made under section 428C of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3) for which the application is
received by an eligible lender on or after July 1, 2006.

SEC. 11. SIGNIFICANTLY SIMPLIFYING THE STUDENT AID
APPLICATION PROCESS.

(a) Improvements to Paper and Electronic Forms.--
(1) Common financial aid form development and processing.--
Section 483(a) (20 U.S.C. 1090(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (5);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), (6), and (7), as
paragraphs (9), (10), (11), and (12), respectively;
(C) by inserting before paragraph (9), as redesignated by
subparagraph (B), the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
representatives of agencies and organizations involved in
student financial assistance, shall produce, distribute, and
process free of charge common financial reporting forms as
described in this subsection to be used for application and
reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a
student for financial assistance under parts A through E
(other than subpart 4 of part A). These forms shall be made
available to applicants in both paper and electronic formats
and shall be referred to as the `Free Application for Federal
Student Aid' or the `FAFSA'.
``(2) Early estimates.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall permit applicants to
complete such forms as described in this subsection in the 4
years prior to enrollment in order to obtain a non-binding
estimate of the family contribution, as defined in section
473. The estimate shall clearly and conspicuously indicate
that it is only an estimate of family contribution, and may
not reflect the actual family contribution of the applicant
that shall be used to determine the grant, loan, or work
assistance that the applicant may receive under this title
when enrolled in a program of postsecondary education. Such
applicants shall be permitted to update information submitted
on forms described in this subsection using the process
required under paragraph (5)(A).
``(B) Evaluation.--Two years after the early estimates are
implemented under this paragraph and from data gathered from
the early estimates, the Secretary shall evaluate the
differences between initial, non-binding early estimates and
the final financial aid award made available under this
title.
``(C) Report.--The Secretary shall provide a report to the
authorizing committees on the results of the evaluation.
``(3) Paper format.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall produce, distribute,
and process common forms in paper format to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall develop a
common paper form for applicants who do not meet the
requirements of subparagraph (B).
``(B) Ez fafsa.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and use a
simplified paper application form, to be known as the `EZ
FAFSA', to be used for applicants meeting the requirements of
section 479(c).
``(ii) Reduced data requirements.--The form under this
subparagraph shall permit an applicant to submit, for
financial assistance purposes, only the data elements
required to make a determination of whether the applicant
meets the requirements under section 479(c).
``(iii) State data.--The Secretary shall include on the
form under this subparagraph such data items as may be
necessary to award State financial assistance, as provided
under paragraph (6), except that the Secretary shall not
include a State's data if that State does not permit its
applicants for State assistance to use the form under this
subparagraph.
``(iv) Free availability and processing.--The provisions of
paragraph (7) shall apply to the form under this
subparagraph, and the data collected by means of the form
under this subparagraph shall be available to institutions of
higher education, guaranty agencies, and States in accordance
with paragraph (9).
``(v) Testing.--The Secretary shall conduct appropriate
field testing on the form under this subparagraph.
``(C) Promoting the use of electronic fafsa.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall make an effort to
encourage applicants to utilize the electronic forms
described in paragraph (4).
``(ii) Maintenance of the fafsa in a printable electronic
file.--The Secretary shall maintain a version of the paper
forms described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) in a printable
electronic file that is easily portable. The printable
electronic file will be made easily accessible and
downloadable to students on the same website used to provide
students with the electronic application forms described in
paragraph (4) of this subsection. The Secretary shall enable
students to submit a form created under this subparagraph
that is downloaded and printed from an electronic file format
in order to meet the filing requirements of this section and
in order to receive aid from programs under this title.
``(iii) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary shall report
annually to Congress on the impact of the digital divide on
students completing applications for title IV aid described
under this paragraph and paragraph (4). The Secretary will
also report on the steps taken to eliminate the digital
divide and phase out the paper form described in subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph. The Secretary's report will
specifically address the impact of the digital divide on the
following student populations: dependent students,
independent students without dependents, and independent
students with dependents other than a spouse.
``(4) Electronic format.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall produce, distribute,
and process common forms in electronic format to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall develop
common electronic forms for applicants who do not meet the
requirements of subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
``(B) State data.--The Secretary shall include on the
common electronic forms space for information that needs to
be submitted from the applicant to be eligible for State
financial assistance, as provided under paragraph (6), except
the Secretary shall not require applicants to complete data
required by any State other than the applicant's State of
residence.
``(C) Simplified applications: fafsa on the web.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and use a
simplified electronic application form to be used by
applicants meeting the requirements under subsection (c) of
section 479 and an additional, separate simplified electronic
application form to be used by applicants meeting the
requirements under subsection (b) of section 479.
``(ii) Reduced data requirements.--The simplified
electronic application forms shall permit an applicant to
submit for financial assistance purposes, only the data
elements required to make a determination of whether the
applicant meets the requirements under subsection (b) or (c)
of section 479.
``(iii) State data.--The Secretary shall include on the
simplified electronic application forms such data items as
may be necessary to award state financial assistance, as
provided under paragraph (6), except that the Secretary shall
not require applicants to complete data required by any State
other than the applicant's State of residence.
``(iv) Availability and processing.--The data collected by
means of the simplified

[[Page H1348]]

electronic application forms shall be available to
institutions of higher education, guaranty agencies, and
States in accordance with paragraph (9).
``(v) Testing.--The Secretary shall conduct appropriate
field testing on the forms developed under this subparagraph.
``(D) Use of forms.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to prohibit the use of the forms developed by the
Secretary pursuant to this paragraph by an eligible
institution, eligible lender, guaranty agency, State grant
agency, private computer software provider, a consortium
thereof, or such other entities as the Secretary may
designate.
``(E) Privacy.--The Secretary shall ensure that data
collection under this paragraph complies with section 552a of
title 5, United States Code, and that any entity using the
electronic version of the forms developed by the Secretary
pursuant to this paragraph shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the
information, and to protect against security threats, or
unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information provided
on the electronic version of the forms. Data collected by
such electronic version of the forms shall be used only for
the application, award, and administration of aid awarded
under this title, State aid, or aid awarded by eligible
institutions or such entities as the Secretary may designate.
No data collected by such electronic version of the forms
shall be used for making final aid awards under this title
until such data have been processed by the Secretary or a
contractor or designee of the Secretary, except as may be
permitted under this title.
``(F) Signature.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Secretary may permit an electronic form under
this paragraph to be submitted without a signature, if a
signature is subsequently submitted by the applicant.
``(5) Streamlining.--
``(A) Streamlined reapplication process.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop streamlined
reapplication forms and processes, including both paper and
electronic reapplication processes, consistent with the
requirements of this subsection, for an applicant who applies
for financial assistance under this title--

``(I) in the academic year succeeding the year in which
such applicant first applied for financial assistance under
this title; or
``(II) in any succeeding academic years.

``(ii) Mechanisms for reapplication.--The Secretary shall
develop appropriate mechanisms to support reapplication.
``(iii) Identification of updated data.--The Secretary
shall determine, in cooperation with States, institutions of
higher education, agencies, and organizations involved in
student financial assistance, the data elements that can be
updated from the previous academic year's application.
``(iv) Reduced data authorized.--Nothing in this title
shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary
to reduce the number of data elements required of
reapplicants.
``(v) Zero family contribution.--Applicants determined to
have a zero family contribution pursuant to section 479(c)
shall not be required to provide any financial data in a
reapplication form, except that which is necessary to
determine eligibility under such section.
``(B) Reduction of data elements.--
``(i) Reduction encouraged.--Of the number of data elements
on the FAFSA on the date of enactment of the Reverse the Raid
on Student Aid Act of 2006 (including questions on the FAFSA
for the purposes described in paragraph (6)), the Secretary,
in cooperation with representatives of agencies and
organizations involved in student financial assistance, shall
continue to reduce the number of such data elements following
the date of enactment. Reductions of data elements under
paragraph (3)(B), (4)(C), or (5)(A)(iv) shall not be counted
towards the reduction referred to in this paragraph unless
those data elements are reduced for all applicants.
``(ii) Report.--The Secretary shall annually report to the
House of Representatives and the Senate on the progress made
of reducing data elements.
``(6) State requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall include on the forms
developed under this subsection, such State-specific data
items as the Secretary determines are necessary to meet State
requirements for State need-based financial aid under section
415C, except as provided in paragraphs (3)(B)(iii) and
(4)(C)(iii) of this subsection. Such items shall be selected
in consultation with State agencies in order to assist in the
awarding of State financial assistance in accordance with the
terms of this subsection, except as provided in paragraphs
(3)(B)(iii) and (4)(C)(iii) of this subsection. The number of
such data items shall not be less than the number included on
the form on October 7, 1998, unless a State notifies the
Secretary that the State no longer requires those data items
for the distribution of State need-based financial aid.
``(B) Annual review.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual
review process to determine which forms and data items the
States require to award State need-based financial aid and
other application requirements that the States may impose.
``(C) State use of simplified forms.--The Secretary shall
encourage States to take such steps as necessary to encourage
the use of simplified application forms, including those
described in paragraphs (3)(B) and (4)(C), to meet the
requirements under subsection (b) or (c) of section 479.
``(D) Federal register notice.--The Secretary shall publish
on an annual basis a notice in the Federal Register requiring
State agencies to inform the Secretary--
``(i) if the State agency is unable to permit applicants to
utilize the simplified application forms described in
paragraphs (3)(B) and (4)(C); and
``(ii) of the State-specific data that the State agency
requires for delivery of State need-based financial aid.
``(E) State notification to the secretary.--
``(i) In general.--Each State agency shall notify the
Secretary--

``(I) whether the State permits an applicant to file a form
described in paragraph (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(C) of this
subsection for purposes of determining eligibility for State
need-based financial aid; and
``(II) the State-specific data that the State agency
requires for delivery of State need-based financial aid.

``(ii) Acceptance of forms.--In the event that a State does
not permit an applicant to file a form described in paragraph
(3)(B) or paragraph (4)(C) of this subsection for purposes of
determining eligibility for State need-based financial aid--

``(I) the State shall notify the Secretary if the State is
not permitted to do so because of either State law or because
of agency policy; and
``(II) the notification under subclause (I) shall include
an estimate of the program cost to permit applicants to
complete simplified application forms under paragraphs (3)(B)
and paragraph (4)(C) of this subsection.

``(iii) Lack of notification by the state.--If a State does
not notify the Secretary pursuant to clause (i), the
Secretary shall--

``(I) permit residents of that State to complete simplified
application forms under paragraphs (3)(B) and paragraph
(4)(C) of this subsection; and
``(II) not require any resident of that State to complete
any data previously required by that State under this
section.

``(7) Charges to students and parents for use of forms
prohibited.--
``(A) Fees prohibited.--The FAFSA, in whatever form
(including the EZ-FAFSA, paper, electronic, simplified, or
reapplication), shall be produced, distributed, and processed
by the Secretary and no parent or student shall be charged a
fee for the collection, processing, or delivery of financial
aid through the use of the FAFSA. The need and eligibility of
a student for financial assistance under parts A through E of
this title (other than under subpart 4 of part A) may only be
determined by using the FAFSA developed by the Secretary
pursuant to this subsection. No student may receive
assistance under parts A through E of this title (other than
under subpart 4 of part A), except by use of the FAFSA
developed by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection. No
data collected on a form for which a fee is charged shall be
used to complete the FAFSA.
``(B) Notice.--Any entity that provides to students or
parents, or charges students or parents for, any value-added
services with respect to or in connection with the FAFSA,
such as completion of the FAFSA, submission of the FAFSA, or
tracking of the FAFSA for a student, shall provide to
students and parents clear and conspicuous notice that--
``(i) the FAFSA is a free Federal student aid application;
``(ii) the FAFSA can be completed without professional
assistance; and
``(iii) includes the current Internet address for the FAFSA
on the Department's web site.
``(8) Application processing cycle.--The Secretary shall
enable students to submit a form created under this
subsection in order to meet the filing requirements of this
section and in order to receive aid from programs under this
title and shall initiate the processing of applications under
this subsection as early as practicable prior to January 1 of
the student's planned year of enrollment.''.
(2) Master calendar.--Section 482(a)(1)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1089)
is amended to read as follows:
``(B) by March 1: proposed modifications, updates, and
notices pursuant to sections 478, 479(c)(2)(C), and 483(a)(6)
published in the Federal Register;''.
(b) Increasing Access to Technology.--Section 483 (20
U.S.C. 1090) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Addressing the Digital Divide.--The Secretary shall
utilize savings accrued by moving more applicants to the
electronic forms described in subsection (a)(4) to improve
access to the electronic forms described in subsection (a)(4)
for applicants meeting the requirements of section 479(c).''.
(c) Expanding the Definition of an Independent Student.--
Section 480(d) (20 U.S.C.1087vv(d)) is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court,
or was in foster care or a ward of the court until the
individual reached the age of 18;''.

SEC. 12. DISCRETION OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ADMINISTRATORS.

Section 479A(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087tt(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting the
following:

[[Page H1349]]

``(a) Authority to Make Adjustments.--
``(1) Adjustments for special circumstances.--'';
(2) by inserting before ``Special circumstances may'' the
following:
``(2) Special circumstances defined.--'';
(3) by inserting ``a student's status as a ward of the
court at any time prior to attaining 18 years of age, a
student's status as an individual who was adopted at or after
age 13, a student's status as a homeless or unaccompanied
youth (as defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act),'' after ``487,'';
(4) by inserting before ``Adequate documentation'' the
following:
``(3) Documentation and use of supplementary information.--
''; and
(5) by inserting before ``No student'' the following:
``(4) Fees for supplementary information prohibited.--''.

SEC. 13. POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC
AMERICANS.

(a) Establishment of Program.--Title V is amended--
(1) by redesignating part B as part C;
(2) by redesignating sections 511 through 518 as sections
521 through 528, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after section 505 (20 U.S.C. 1101d) the
following new part:

``PART B--PROMOTING POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC
AMERICANS

``SEC. 511. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this part are--
``(1) to expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities
for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic
students; and
``(2) to expand the postbaccalaureate academic offerings
and enhance the program quality in the institutions that are
educating the majority of Hispanic college students and
helping large numbers of Hispanic and low-income students
complete postsecondary degrees.

``SEC. 512. PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBILITY.

``(a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of
funds appropriated to carry out this part, the Secretary
shall award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving
institutions determined by the Secretary to be making
substantive contributions to graduate educational
opportunities for Hispanic students.
``(b) Eligibility.--For the purposes of this part, an
`eligible institution' means an institution of higher
education that--
``(1) is an eligible institution under section 502(a)(2);
and
``(2) offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or degree
granting program.

``SEC. 513. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

``Grants awarded under this part shall be used for one or
more of the following activities:
``(1) Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or
laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including
instructional and research purposes.
``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement of classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other
instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of
telecommunications technology equipment or services.
``(3) Purchase of library books, periodicals, technical and
other scientific journals, microfilm, microfiche, and other
educational materials, including telecommunications program
materials.
``(4) Support for needy postbaccalaureate students
including outreach, academic support services, mentoring,
scholarships, fellowships, and other financial assistance to
permit the enrollment of such students in postbaccalaureate
certificate and degree granting programs.
``(5) Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development,
faculty research, curriculum development, and academic
instruction.
``(6) Creating or improving facilities for Internet or
other distance learning academic instruction capabilities,
including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology
equipment or services.
``(7) Collaboration with other institutions of higher
education to expand postbaccalaureate certificate and degree
offerings.
``(8) Other activities proposed in the application
submitted pursuant to section 514 that--
``(A) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this part;
and
``(B) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review
and acceptance of such application.

``SEC. 514. APPLICATION AND DURATION.

``(a) Application.--Any eligible institution may apply for
a grant under this part by submitting an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as determined by
the Secretary. Such application shall demonstrate how the
grant funds will be used to improve postbaccalaureate
education opportunities in programs and professions in which
Hispanic Americans are underrepresented.
``(b) Duration.--Grants under this part shall be awarded
for a period not to exceed 5 years.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award more than
one grant under this part in any fiscal year to any Hispanic-
serving institution.''.
(b) Cooperative Arrangements.--Section 524(a) (as
redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) (20 U.S.C. 1103c(a)) is
amended by inserting ``and section 513'' after ``section
503''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subsection (a) of
section 528 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this
section) (20 U.S.C. 1103g) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorizations.--
``(1) Part a.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part A and part C of this title $96,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
``(2) Part b.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part B of this title $59,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5
succeeding fiscal years.''.

SEC. 14. CANCELLATION OF STUDENT LOAN INDEBTEDNESS FOR
SURVIVORS OF VICTIMS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001,
ATTACKS.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Eligible public servant.--The term ``eligible public
sesrvant'' means an individual who, as determined in
accordance with regulations of the Secretary--
(A) served as a police officer, firefighter, other safety
or rescue personnel, or as a member of the Armed Forces; and
(B) died (or dies) or became (or becomes) permanently and
totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist
attack on September 11, 2001.
(2) Eligible victim.--The term ``eligible victim'' means an
individual who, as determined in accordance with regulations
of the Secretary, died (or dies) or became (or becomes)
permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in
the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.
(3) Eligible parent.--The term ``eligible parent'' means
the parent of an eligible victim if--
(A) the parent owes a Federal student loan that is a
consolidation loan that was used to repay a PLUS loan
incurred on behalf of such eligible victim; or
(B) the parent owes a Federal student loan that is a PLUS
loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(5) Federal student loan.--The term ``Federal student
loan'' means any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part
B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
(b) Relief From Indebtedness.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the
discharge or cancellation of--
(A) the Federal student loan indebtedness of the spouse of
an eligible public servant, as determined in accordance with
regulations of the Secretary, including any consolidation
loan that was used jointly by the eligible public servant and
his or her spouse to repay the Federal student loans of the
spouse and the eligible public servant;
(B) the portion incurred on behalf of the eligible victim
(other than an eligible public servant), of a Federal student
loan that is a consolidation loan that was used jointly by
the eligible victim and his or her spouse, as determined in
accordance with regulations of the Secretary, to repay the
Federal student loans of the eligible victim and his or her
spouse;
(C) the portion of the consolidation loan indebtedness of
an eligible parent that was incurred on behalf of an eligible
victim; and
(D) the PLUS loan indebtedness of an eligible parent that
was incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
(2) Method of discharge or cancellation.--A loan required
to be discharged or canceled under paragraph (1) shall be
discharged or canceled by the method used under section
437(a), 455(a)(1), or 464(c)(1)(F) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087(a), 1087e(a)(1),
1087dd(c)(1)(F)), whichever is applicable to such loan.
(c) Facilitation of Claims.--The Secretary shall--
(1) establish procedures for the filing of applications for
discharge or cancellation under this section by regulations
that shall be prescribed and published within 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act and without regard to the
requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code;
and
(2) take such actions as may be necessary to publicize the
availability of discharge or cancellation of Federal student
loan indebtedness under this section.
(d) Availability of Funds for Payments.--Funds available
for the purposes of making payments to lenders in accordance
with section 437(a) for the discharge of indebtedness of
deceased or disabled individuals shall be available for
making payments under section 437(a) to lenders of loans as
required by this section.
(e) Applicable to Outstanding Debt.--The provisions of this
section shall be applied to discharge or cancel only Federal
student loans (including consolidation loans) on which
amounts were owed on September 11, 2001. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to authorize any refunding of any
repayment of a loan.

SEC. 15. GENERAL EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Extension of Duration.--Except as otherwise provided in
this Act, the authorization of appropriations for, and the
duration of, each program authorized under the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall be
extended through July 1, 2012.
(b) Performance of Required and Authorized Functions.--If
the Secretary of

[[Page H1350]]

Education, a State, an institution of higher education, a
guaranty agency, a lender, or another person or entity--
(1) is required, in or for fiscal year 2004, to carry out
certain acts or make certain determinations or payments under
a program under the Higher Education Act of 1965, such acts,
determinations, or payments shall be required to be carried
out, made, or continued during the period of the extension
under this section; or
(2) is permitted or authorized, in or for fiscal year 2004,
to carry out certain acts or make certain determinations or
payments under a program under the Higher Education Act of
1965, such acts, determinations, or payments are permitted or
authorized to be carried out, made, or continued during the
period of the extension under this section.
(c) Extension at Current Levels.--Unless the amount
authorized to be appropriated for a program described in
subsection (a) is otherwise amended by another section of
this Act, the amount authorized to be appropriated for such a
program during the period of extension under this section
shall be the amount authorized to be appropriated for such
program for fiscal year 2004, or the amount appropriated for
such program for such fiscal year, whichever is greater.
Except as provided in any amendment to the Higher Education
Act of 1965 enacted during fiscal year 2005 or 2006, the
amount of any payment required or authorized under subsection
(b) in or for the period of the extension under this section
shall be determined in the same manner as the amount of the
corresponding payment required or authorized in or for fiscal
year 2004.
(d) Advisory Committees and Other Entities Continued.--Any
advisory committee, interagency organization, or other entity
that was, during fiscal year 2004, authorized or required to
perform any function under the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or in relation to programs under
that Act, shall continue to exist and is authorized or
required, respectively, to perform such function for the
period of the extension under this section.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. McKeon) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5
minutes.
The Democratic substitute has been made in order to address some
critical shortcomings in the underlying bill. My cosponsors, Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Grijalva,
join me in offering this substitute.
First and foremost, this substitute will make a downpayment on the
first year's effort to reduce college costs to those students most in
need by cutting the interest rate, the new fixed rate interest rate, in
half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in July of this year. This will be
the first effort to reverse the most egregious action that this
Republican-led Congress did to America's families and to the students
and children who are trying to pursue a college education when they
took $12.5 billion out of the student aid accounts, took it and whisked
it away to tax cuts for the oil companies, tax cuts for the wealthiest
people in this country, and raised the cost of education to America's
families and students at a time when the cost of education is
outstripping the ability of those families to pay for it.
This amendment would also establish a new predominantly black-serving
institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-
income black students, including students in rural areas who attend 2-
year colleges. It creates a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution
program and significantly simplifies the student aid application
process by creating a simplified and short application, repeals the
anti-consumer single lender rule so that borrowers can choose with
which lender they want to consolidate their loans, and does a number of
other things in the underlying bill.
But the critical point here is to reverse the rate on student aid, to
reverse the largest cuts in the history of the program. Why do we say
that is necessary? Because here is the situation. This is the trend
line on the percentage of the college education that a maximum Pell
Grant will cover. In 2000, it was about 41 percent. Now what we see is
it is drifting down to 30 percent, and it is headed down to 27 percent
because of that.
In this legislation, the Republicans will tell you that they have
authorized an additional $200 on the Pell Grant. That will barely have
any effect on this graph. But more importantly, last night, their
Budget Committee did not report out a budget that has that money in it.
So it is interesting rhetoric, but it does not have any money for these
same low-income students that are losing their ability to cover the
cost of an education.
It used to be, this year and last year, if this student worked full
time during the summer, if this student worked part time during school,
they could cover this gap. That is no longer true. This year, they are
not going to be able to cover it with the jobs that most students have
during the school year, and that gap is getting worse and it is
widening.
That is why it is essential that we vote for the substitute amendment
to make a downpayment on reversing the new costs that are imposed on
these families and these students who are struggling to purchase an
education. That raid on student aid last year was the most expensive
raid to families in the history of this program.
They can talk all they want about the additional money going to Pell
Grant, it is an entitlement program, but the fact of the matter is the
money that students are getting is covering a lower percentage of the
cost that they encounter when they go to school.
This is a fundamental determination. Pick your side, folks. You can
be on the side of tax cuts for the oil companies, or you can decide you
are going to help families and students that are struggling to get what
is now absolutely essential to their future participation in America's
economy.
As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was
not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to
know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today,
those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college
education is going to have to become as common as a high school
education.
But if families can cannot meet this gap, if they cannot provide that
money, if the government will not help, you are talking about millions
of students who are not going to be able to participate. That is not
good for those students, it is not good for those families, it is not
good for the economy, and it is not good for America.
This is a chance to reverse that action. This is a chance to make a
downpayment on reducing the cost, increasing the affordability. All of
the studies tell us that the increasing costs are outrunning the
ability of families and students to pay for that education.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is an interesting debate we have had to this point. This is a
bill we have been working on now for 3 years. Up until 2 days ago, it
was totally a bipartisan effort. As you can see in their substitute,
they include many of the things that we have in the underlying bill. We
have a basic difference of opinion that the gentleman has pointed out.
I look at it a little differently than he does. I feel it is not
totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of
higher education. When I introduced a bill a few years ago to try to
keep the cost of higher education down, because it has been going up
for the last 20 years at four times the ability of people to pay, I
said it is important that the Federal Government, the State government,
the schools, the lending institutions, the parents, the students all
come together to solve this problem, and I still feel that way. I feel
it is important for all of us to come together to solve this problem,
not simply the Federal Government to pick up whatever the difference
is. As schools continue to increase their fees and tuition, the Federal
Government should not have the responsibility of picking up all of the
difference.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher
Education to let him further go into some of the differences and some
of the things that we have done in the past and some of the things that
we do in the underlying bill for the importance of higher education for
our students of this country.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people are entitled
to some straight talk when it comes to higher education funding. This
bill

[[Page H1351]]

strengthens Pell Grants. It expands Perkins student loans and increases
access to college for millions of students.
Now Mr. Miller has a substitute that he would like us to vote for,
but it has three critical flaws. The first flaw is the name itself,
``Reverse the Raid on Student Aid.'' Don't believe the hype. Not one
student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not
one.
The heart of our bill is Pell Grants, the heart of all financial aid
on the Federal level.
Now let's look at the history of Pell Grant funding over the 20
years, and see if Republicans are in fact making, quote, ``a raid on
student aid.'' The yellow here shows the time period of 10 years when
Democrats were in control of Congress, and the red shows when
Republicans were in control of Congress. You see a dramatic increase in
the maximum Pell Grant award. Does this look like a raid on student aid
to you? You have got to be kidding me.
In fact, what is really instructive is, if you look at the last 3
years when the Democrats were in control, they had a Democrat House and
a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, and they actually cut Pell Grant
funding 3 years in a row. It went from $2,400 down to $2,300.
The second critical flaw with the Miller substitute is this amendment
does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our
legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum
award. So this substitute legislation, Reverse the Raid on Student Aid,
provides less for Pell Grants.

{time} 1300

Instead of $6,000, $5,800--how could that possibly be that we have a
Democrat substitute that actually calls for less awards of Pell Grants?
Well, don't call it a comeback. We have been here for years. It
happened before. Their last 3 years in power cut Pell Grants. Here we
have another attempt to do the same thing.
It has a third flaw. It says that we are going to have a 3.4 percent
interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has
no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us.
Well, if it is just a gimmick to have a lower rate without any way to
pay for it, why make it 3.4 percent? Why not 2 percent? Why not 1
percent? Why not interest-free loans? It is crazy. The truth of the
matter is in 2002 Republicans and Democrats and student groups all got
together and decided in a bipartisan manner what would be a fair fixed
interest rate. They decided on 6.8 percent. They voted in favor of this
in 2002, the Democrats who offer this motion. In fact, in December of
this last year when we supposedly cut all this money, it was going to
be the interest rates were going to remain at 6.8 percent. That is the
existing law. And, in fact, in July they would go to 6.8 percent. How
much is the interest rate in our bill? 6.8 percent. No increase
whatsoever. And so now they are opposing something that they all
thought was a good idea.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue that we have a pretty darn good bill
that we can be proud of, a bill that increases Pell Grants, a bill that
expands Perkins loans, a bill that is going to make it possible for
young people all across America to go to college. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the Miller substitute and vote ``yes'' on the
underlying bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, I would like to be
down here on the floor to say that H.R. 609 is a genuine bipartisan
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. That is really not the
case. Two months after the $12 billion heist on student aid, we are
considering another bill that is a missed opportunity. I am proud to
join Ranking Member Miller, along with Representatives Bobby Scott,
Danny Davis, and Raul Grijalva in offering a higher education bill that
is in touch with the needs of everyday Americans.
Instead of missing another opportunity to expand college access, this
substitute seizes this opportunity to make college more affordable by
slashing interest rates in half for the next year. This is a down
payment on reversing the raid on student aid. Additionally, it will
expand college participation rates for minority students by
establishing a graduate Hispanic-serving institution program and a
predominantly black institution program and by providing additional
assistance for tribal colleges.
Instead of supporting the Missed College Opportunity Act, I ask my
colleagues to seize this opportunity to act in the interest of students
and families. America's students and families deserve better. Vote
``no'' on H.R. 609. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the
gentleman from California for yielding.
You know, I have listened to this debate for the last several days,
and even several weeks. And how you can take $12 billion out of the pot
and then tell us that you are going to expand and increase student aid,
I just can't reconcile that. I just don't know how to reconcile that
kind of language.
But I do stand in strong support of the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-
Grijalva substitute because it cuts interest rates in half for the
borrowers, for the students, those who need the money the most. It
would make college affordable for large numbers of individuals who
otherwise will never see the light of day. But it also would establish
programs for individuals who are missing out already.
There is nothing more important than the opportunity to achieve some
form of higher education, and, Mr. Chairman, I just had hoped that I
was going to be able to vote for a bill that expanded opportunities.
Unfortunately, this bill will not expand opportunities. Therefore, I
will have to vote against it and urge that we vote in favor of the
Miller substitute.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of interesting things
about this substitute. One is that, as we just heard from Subcommittee
Chairman Keller, it is apparently a guideline of the House that when
the Democrats do cuts, and they are real cuts in education, it is not a
cut. But when the Republicans actually increase, it is somehow a cut.
And apparently the reason is because they are pro-education and we are
anti-education. So if we increase the money, it is still a cut. But if
when they were in power they cut the money, it is not a cut. And it
becomes very confusing to the American people because they thought the
way you measure a cut is if the spending goes down like it did under
Democrat control. And they thought the way you measure an increase is
when the spending goes up, not just based on a claim that you are more
pro-education or anti-education.
Another interesting thing here is that when the Republicans float out
things for 1 year, as 1-year proposals, we hear it is a gimmick, it is
a gimmick, they are merely trying to posture for the election. But when
the Democrats roll out a 1-year rollback, apparently that is not
posturing for an election. That is real serious policy trying to
benefit the students of America because there is a terrible raid on the
student loan system. But a 1-year moratorium from the other side
couldn't possibly be a gimmick because Democrats don't do gimmicks.
Only Republicans do gimmicks. Democrats don't do cuts in education
because only Republicans do cuts in education.
Now, fundamentally, we have had a lot of misinformation and
struggling about this student loan question. At least we aren't hearing
about the failed policies of direct lending. We are now arguing how you
do this in the domestic market because, in fact, the private sector
market showed you could more efficiently do student loans and you could
manage student loans better and have fewer bad debts and get the rates
down for students. And that is why we are not arguing direct lending
today; we are arguing, in fact, a process of what happened in the
budgetary accounting of when we went to a fixed rate versus a variable
rate. In fact, the rate for student loans is higher right now than it
is in the bill, 6.8. But because of the variable rate that was left

[[Page H1352]]

in the previous bill, it was scored differently.
Now, in fact, the government has to pick up the difference. If the
rate goes higher, we fix the students at 6.8. Now, if there is a
criticism to be made of the Republicans, it is that the alleged savings
may not be real if the interest rates go up. But there is no cut to
student loans to students. It is cheaper for students, and we have
guaranteed now a fixed rate so they don't have this bubble that hits.
And just because there is a lot of confusion, because of the accounting
of how you do student lending doesn't mean that you can come to the
House floor and demagogue like we have cut student loans, that we have
taken the money out.
Furthermore, there is no offset to this. To the degree that we are
going to give them a 1-year gimmick loan, how are we going to pay for
it?
My friend and colleague who I have known for many years and I know he
is very passionately in favor of education, the only thing he mentioned
as an offset are tax cuts for the rich, which apparently we have
different definitions of rich, but apparently this means, as we have
battled on this House floor, increasing the taxes again on families who
have the child credit, because that is what we are trying to extend and
which is being blocked. And you can't give a 1-year bonus to a family
by subsidizing at the Federal level the student loan and then take it
back by taking away their child credit. What does that do? That is more
than the loan. And it is not 1 year; it is for multiple years.
Furthermore, they favor taking away the dividend and capital gains
credits. Well, how do people get jobs? So if you don't grow jobs in
Indiana and the rest of the country and then you say good luck getting
a student loan, to work where? If we don't keep the economy growing, if
we tax the economy to fund a temporary 1-year gimmick in the student
loan and kill the economy, why do we need to go to college?
Now, we all know that, as Mr. Miller said, everybody is going to need
a college degree if you are going to compete in the world economy; and
a graduate degree is going to be like the old days of the college
degree. And we have to tackle this spending question. Every time we
reduce student loans, tuition goes up. And quite frankly, in Indiana
and elsewhere, we have increased money dramatically in Washington.
Where are the States?
Individuals have a responsibility too. It isn't just the Federal
Government that has to meet this challenge in funding it; but the
States need to, endowments need to, and the private sector needs to. We
have a share of that. We are guaranteeing most of these loans. We have
increased the Pell Grants. We have increased the pool. We have made a
stable interest rate now. We have lowered the cost of education and
increased the Federal funding. And I urge a strong ``no'' to this
Democrat substitute amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic
substitute. I was proud to put my name on that substitute because I
believe that it does more for students than the underlying bill in
front of us today, and because, quite frankly, I want our children and
our grandchildren to be able to afford to go to college.
H.R. 609, coupled with the $12 billion Congress cut from student aid
and the President's zero funding of key student loan programs, is
setting us back, not forward. I remember when the Federal Government
actually helped students go to college, when a Pell Grant covered
almost all of tuition expenses in a public university. Today, a maximum
Pell Grant barely covers a third.
I oppose 609 because it includes many provisions that hurt students
in the long run and omits many others that would have helped them.
If the Rules Committee would have allowed the amendment to prevent
the Department of Education from carrying out the $664 million recall
of the Federal Perkins loan fund, a recall mandated by the President's
2007 budget, that is potentially 463,000 lower-class and middle-class
students and their families who will lose out on a key part of
financial aid. We did nothing about that.
Another example is the single definition of an institution of higher
learning I think poses a dangerous threat. It opens the door to
potential future abuse of Federal aid by for-profit institutions. We
should be protecting our students from fraud, not welcoming it through
the door.
H.R. 609 falls short again on funding Pell Grants. A $200 increase
through the year 2013 barely covers the real costs, and the President
has frozen the maximum grant at 4,050 for 4 consecutive years.
I think the substitute does provide for the real value of Federal aid
in helping students realize their dream and helping their families
realize the dreams of their kids going to college.
But I think what the substitute says, above all, is that we can and
we must do better. In December, the House Republicans voted to cut $12
billion from the Federal student aid program. Democrats came out in
force and not one of us voted in favor of that bill. I ask my
colleagues to join me again in opposing H.R. 609 because it is not
enough, and support the Democratic alternative and then vote ``no'' on
the final passage of the Missed College Opportunity Act.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
committee, we have come to the end of this debate, and we must address
a fundamental distinction between these bills.

{time} 1315

One of these bills recognizes the affordability gap, if you will,
between the cost of a college education and the struggles of American
families and students to purchase that education. I appreciate all the
discussion by the previous speakers as to how they have authorized an
increase in the cap and they have done all this. The fact of the matter
is, there is no money for that authorization. The President promised
that he was going to raise it to $5,100, no money has been forthcoming.
In fact, if you look over the last 5 years, there is $16 billion in
additional spending for education that is over and above what the
Republicans have reported out of the appropriations cycle over those
last 5 years. So this promise of additional money some time in the
future if you vote for this authorization is brought to you by the very
same people who, over the last 5 years, have been cutting education
over and over and over. And that is why you see this gap, this gap
between the cost of an education and the ability of a family to pay for
it and what a full-time Pell grant means to these students, that we are
down now to about 30 percent of the real cost of that education.
What does that mean? That means that these students are struggling
and in many instances fully qualified students are not able to take
advantage of going to college. That is just unacceptable in this
country.
They said that they did not do more of this because they did not
think it was totally the responsibility of the Federal Government to
pay for an education. Well, let me explain to them, students are deeper
in debt. Families are deeper in debt. They are borrowing more money
than ever. You have raised the limits on how much they can borrow
because they have to borrow. More students are working more hours to
try to make up for the money that they cannot borrow, the money that
they do not get in grants. And what we are suggesting is for the
students and the families in the most need, in the most need, that we
roll back the increased cost that you are going to saddle them with in
July and go to a 3.4 percent interest rate rather than a 6.8 percent
interest rate.
There is no way to suggest that somehow this would make it totally
the responsibility of the Federal Government. That is laughable around
every kitchen table in America. As families are sitting down with their
young people and trying to put their aid packages together, the loans,
the grants, the borrowing, the family contribution, the work of their
students, to see whether or not they can acquire a 2-year or 4-year
education, they would laugh in your face if you said, well, this is all
the responsibility of the Federal Government. No. The Federal
Government made a decision after World War II that we thought that
people should not be turned away from college because they cannot
afford it.

[[Page H1353]]

And that is the people that we are trying to help, and that is the
people, those most in need, that we are trying to help with this
substitute, with Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Scott, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kildee, and
myself, because those are the people who tragically and unfortunately
and unnecessarily are making a decision.
The other charge was that the only thing I could suggest where you
could pay for this was tax cuts to the wealthy. I will give you another
one. How about the tax cuts to the oil companies that you did in the
energy bill? Maybe you can take those oil companies that have world
record-breaking profits and maybe you could ask them to give back some
of the tax cuts you gave to them last month or the month before and use
that to help pay for the education of those families and children most
in need.
So this legislation just shows two real differences between the
parties: The party that continues to cut education almost $16 billion
more than what Congress finally reported out because the Democrats took
them dragging and screaming, and the party that is going to decide that
we are going to help these families. And we are either going to roll
back that raid on student aid with this down payment or you are going
to neglect the needs of these families and students. And I hope that
people will vote for the substitute and against the bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate. I hope those who
have followed it have followed it closely. I think if you have listened
to most of what the other side has talked about, they are complaining
about what we did a couple of months ago in the Deficit Reduction Act
to try to bring some controls to the budget. There have not been many
challenges to the bill, and you can see the substitute that they are
putting in now, most of what they have in the substitute we have in our
bill.
The new graduate Hispanic-serving institutions program, very
important. Year-round Pell Grants. These are things we have in the
bill.
As you can see this chart shows how public 4-year institutions' and
private 4-year institutions' costs, tuition and fees, have been going
up in the last 10 years. If we carried it back further, you can see it
is even worse. For over 20 years, the cost of college university higher
education has gone up at four times people's ability to pay. We are
very concerned about that. That is why it is important that we do the
things that we are doing in this bill to bring more affordability, more
accessibility, more accountability to higher education.
In the bill, we strengthen Pell Grants. We provide students and
parents with more information, and we shine a spotlight on excessive
tuition rates. And we enhance American competitiveness. All very
important things that we are dealing with at the current time.
One of the other things they have in their substitute is they lower
student loan interest rates. Now, interest rates are really an
interesting thing. I remember back about 30 years ago when Mr. Carter
was President, interest rates got up to 19, 20, 21 percent, and that
just seemed to be the norm. It looked like it was going to go on
forever. When we passed the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
in 1998, we lowered interest rates, and we have been living with lower
interest rates for students even though their loans have gone up from
$8,000 average to $18,000 average. They are still paying about the same
amount of interest in repayment. That was due to the work that Mr.
Kildee, myself and the Congress did in 1998. That was a good thing for
students. Now they are talking about how bad the interest rate of 6.8
percent is. The Fed increased the interest rate this last week.
Interest rates are going up. Who knows what they are going to be like
in the future?
Let me read what Mr. Miller said when we worked together in 2002 to
set the interest rate: ``Over the last several months, PIRG has worked
closely with other student advocates and the lending community to
develop a compromise that will deliver low-cost loans to student
borrowers and maintain the stability of the guaranteed student loan
program. We're confident that S. 1762 does this, and we applaud the
passage of the provision.''
What that did was set interest rates at 6.8 percent.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was a 6.8 cap with a variable
rate underneath.
Mr. McKEON. You were not alone, Mr. Miller. The Student Association
said: ``The advocates say they arrived at the proposed 6.8 percent by
determining the average rate that borrowers would pay over the next 10
years, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, if the formula
change were to take effect. `Financially we believe that this would be
a very good deal for students,' said Corye Barbour, legislative
director for the United States Student Association. `We also think this
would add much needed simplicity to the student loan program,' '' 6.8
percent, what this law that we are asking you to support puts into
effect.
We really need to come together, the Federal Government, State
government, schools, lenders, parents, students, to solve this problem.
The bill that we have before us today, H.R. 609, goes a long way to
making that happen. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the
substitute; vote for the underlying bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Republican
leadership brought their higher education bill to the floor. Their
claim was that it would strengthen and improve the nation's higher
education system by expanding college access for low- and middle-income
students. But in reality it fails to provide urgently needed assistance
for millions of low- and middle-class families that are trying to
figure out how to pay for their children to go to college.
This past December House Republicans voted to cut the student loan
programs by $12 billion and these cuts included many significant
changes to the Higher Education Act, none of which expand access to
college or make college more affordable for students and their
families. The bill put forward by the majority does nothing to make up
for these draconian cuts.
Today Mr. Chairman, we offer our substitute in an attempt to make
students whole again. Our substitute offers real financial assistance
to needy families. It cuts interest rates in half for borrowers in most
need by lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and
their families. It lowers the cost of student loan interest rates for
middle and low-income families. Specifically, we offer a 3.4 percent
fixed interest rate to students who take out subsidized loans between
July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.
Our Substitute also helps boost college participation rates for
minority students. It establishes a graduate Hispanic Serving
Institution program. It establishes a Predominantly Black Institution
program that would boost college opportunities for low-income and
first-generation Black college students. Our substitute also increases
the tribal college minimum grant and stabilizes tribal college
construction by ensuring that funds for used for construction under HEA
are guaranteed.
Mr. Chairman, the cost of tuition should not stand between a
qualified student and a college education. Congress should not miss an
opportunity to help American families pay for college. Our bill offers
families a real solution to the problem of rising tuition costs. We
make good on our promise to put a college education within the reach of
American students and families. I urge my colleagues to support this
substitute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the College Access
and Opportunity Act of 2005, H.R. 609, and in support of the Democratic
Substitute.
Helping millions of Americans reach the fullness of their potential
is the 40 year legacy of the Higher Education Act that we are called to
honor in the reauthorization bill before us today. Unfortunately, H.R.
609 falls short of fully embracing this legacy, for it fails to ensure
that those who wish to better themselves through a postsecondary
education are able to realize that goal unrestrained by the shackles of
financial disadvantage.
Make no mistake, in today's global economy characterized by
competition and transformation, a postsecondary education has never
been so vital to so many. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recognized
this when it concluded that a postsecondary education will be necessary
for 42 percent of the jobs created in this decade.
The U.S. Census Bureau acknowledged this fact when it reported that
those with a bachelor's degree earn on average $1 million more over
their lifetime than those with only a high school diploma. The fruits
of a postsecondary

[[Page H1354]]

education also frequently include improved access to high-quality
healthcare, housing, childcare, and a host of other social benefits
that typify the fulfillment of the American dream.
With limited Federal resources, dramatic tuition increases, and our
nation's continuing shift to a knowledge-based economy, the need to
ensure that the programs authorized under the Higher Education Act are
effective and efficient has never been greater.
Unfortunately, the bill before us would be more aptly named the
``Missed College Opportunities Bill.'' To begin, H.R. 609 represents a
wasted opportunity to deal with the $12 billion that was eviscerated in
student aid programs under the recently passed reconciliation bill.
At a time when we should be using the reauthorization of the HEA to
right the wrongs of reconciliation by redirecting those funds to expand
and strengthen grants and low-interest loans, H.R. 609 simply does too
little, too well.
More specifically, I am deeply troubled that H.R. 609 does not
include a mandatory increase in the Pell Grant, the cornerstone program
of federal financial aid.
The maximum Pell Grant award for the last three years has been frozen
at $4,050 and its purchasing power has withered away to cover just 30
percent of the average cost of attendance at a four-year public
college.
Yet H.R. 609 authorizes only a paltry increase of $200 in the Pell
Grant. Moreover, the bill does not comprehensively lessen the college
loan burden at a time when the average college graduate now owes
$17,500.
The bill also continues to encourage the waste of billions of tax
payer funds by not encouraging the utilization of the Direct Loan
program, which a large body of evidence has shown to be the more cost
effective Federal loan program.
Surprisingly, just months after the President acknowledged in his
State of the Union address that we need to expand our commitment in the
fields of math, science, and engineering to maintain our economic
preeminence, H.R. 609 fails to address this National crisis in any
comprehensive manner.
The Democratic Substitute would correct these inadequacies, cutting
in half interest rates on loans for low- and middle-income students
most in need of help--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--starting in July
2006. The Substitute also establishes a Predominantly Black Institution
program; a graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; and, provides
additional assistance for tribal colleges.
On balance, there are some features in the base bill that I support.
I am encouraged by: (1) the inclusion of Coppin State University as a
qualified graduate program, in my district; (2) the authorization of
year-round Pell Grants; (3) the creation of new loan forgiveness
provisions in areas of national need; and (4) the change in the needs
analysis that permits early estimates to help students and families
anticipate financial aid eligibility. But these changes are not enough
to overcome the bill's shortcomings.
Mr. Chairman, the measure of our commitment to postsecondary
education is found not in the quality of our towering words, but by the
quality of our actions that help needy students and families afford a
first-rate higher education that is relevant in the 21th Century.
By providing students in our Nation with such an education, we help
save our children from the clutches of poverty, crime, drugs, and
hopelessness, and we help safeguard our Nation's prosperity for
generations yet unborn.
If the Democratic substitute to H.R. 609 is not adopted, I encourage
my colleagues to vote against H.R. 609 on final passage.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Democratic alternative to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity
Act that would help more students and families pay for higher
education.
With millions of American families struggling to pay for college, it
is critical that Congress act to make college more affordable.
Unfortunately, H.R. 609 does little to increase the access and
affordability of higher education and actually cuts $8.7 billion from
student aid programs. This bill would, among other things, freeze the
authorized level of maximum Pell Grant scholarships $200 above the
current level through 2013. With the cost of tuition rising more than 6
percent every year, a flat-lined $200 increase provides no relief for
the 37,500 students in my home state of Connecticut that receive Pell
Grants.
According to the College Board, the typical student who borrows to
finance a bachelor's degree at a public college or university graduates
with $15,500 of debt and at private nonprofit institutions graduates
with $19,400 debt. To assist students and families struggling with this
debt, Congress passed legislation in 2002 that lowered the interest
rate cap on student loans to 6.8 percent starting in July of 2006.
However, the bill on the floor today would raise the interest rate cap
to 8.25 percent. As a result, the typical student borrower, with
$17,500 in debt, would be forced to pay as much as $2,600 more in
interest on those loans.
In contrast, the Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in
half for students with subsidized loans--from 6.8 percent to 3.4
percent--which means $2.5 billion in interest rate relief for middle
and low income families. The Democratic substitute would also create a
pilot program for year round Pell Grants, simplify the student loan
application process, and provide loan forgiveness for nurses, highly-
qualified teachers in bi-lingual and low-income communities,
librarians, first responders and other public servants.
As a nation, we must invest in higher education if we are going to
boost America's economic competitiveness and continued prosperity.
Hardworking families and students deserve better. I urge my colleagues
to join me in rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the
Democratic alternative that would truly make college more accessible
and affordable to more Americans.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McKeon

The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 109-401.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I have a pro forma amendment made in order
under the rule.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy
with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on the great job you have done
with this bill and let you know how heartily I support it.
There is a national program that you are aware of, Project GRAD,
which has proven highly effective in increasing the number of low-
income students who graduate from high school and enroll in college by
reaching out to students beginning in kindergarten and staying with
them through college. Project GRAD has four sites in my home State and
several theater schools.
Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the committee that this bill
will allow funding for this type of program?
Mr. McKEON. Yes. H.R. 609 incorporates a new use of funds under the
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education for integrated
education reform services in order to improve college access and
opportunity. Under this allowable use, Project GRAD will be able to
compete for Federal funding.
I recently had the opportunity, at your urging, to visit a Project
GRAD program in my home State of California, and they are doing a
wonderful job and generating very impressive results. I am grateful to
you and Mr. Tiberi and Mrs. McCarthy for your diligent efforts in this.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the chairman so very much for his
willingness to include this language in the bill and for his efforts to
support this valuable program.
I would like now to yield to the gentlewoman from New York, who has
been a tireless advocate for Project GRAD and a leader on this issue.
Mrs. McCARTHY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I too would like to thank the chairman for his comments and support.
We are fortunate to have a Project GRAD program in my district on Long
Island. It is making a critical difference in the lives of many of the
students. I appreciate all the help. I hope we can eventually get
funding for these programs.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I
also would like to acknowledge the hard

[[Page H1355]]

work of Congressman Tiberi on this issue as well and thank him for his
efforts and, once again, thank the chairman.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I yield to
the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I too want to congratulate you for the
hard work that you have put into this legislation and thank you for
that.
I know that you agree that peer to peer piracy is a serious challenge
on college and university campuses. This activity is not only theft but
also exposes college and university information technology
infrastructures to security risks from spyware. There is bipartisan
agreement that these institutions should have effective policies and
punishments in place to deter this illegal activity, and I am asking if
you would commit to working with me to combat peer to peer piracy on
college and university campuses.
Mr. McKEON. I certainly understand and share the gentleman's belief
that illegal downloading of copyrighted material on college campuses is
a serious matter. I strongly believe that policymakers, institutions of
higher education, and those in the recording and motion picture
industries have to make a renewed commitment to address the important
issue of piracy on college campuses. You have my commitment to work
with you on this issue.
I now yield to the gentleman from California for his comments.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding. I congratulate him on
his new position.
The gentleman from Virginia, the gentleman from Maryland, the
gentlewoman from California, myself, and a number of other Members of
the House are driven by our concerns related to the lack of information
available from the university community about their antipiracy efforts.
A Judiciary subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Smith of Texas, has issued a
request to the Government Accountability Office to gather data on
whether schools have adopted strong acceptable use policies,
enforcement mechanisms, in addition to whether they are taking action
on DMCA notices, and monitoring local agency networks where much of
this piracy is taking place. This information is important so that the
extent of the problem can be assessed.

{time} 1330

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his work on this
issue. I am aware that there has been resistance to efforts to gather
this information. I hope it is clear to the university community that
Congress will continue to monitor such efforts.
I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
Mrs. BONO. I thank the chairman for your willingness to address the
issue, and I also want to congratulate you.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, do I have 5 minutes?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes
to the chairman for the purpose of these colloquies.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. BONO. What perfect timing, Mr. Chairman. I can thank you again
and congratulate you again on your position and also thank the ranking
member for his generosity.
I want to join my colleagues to remind everybody that in college,
plagiarism can be an expellable offense. Colleges play a key role in
teaching us that stealing someone else's work by plagiarism is just not
acceptable.
Just imagine the positive contributions colleges and universities
could lend our economy and way of life if they took the lead in
teaching students the value of intellectual property.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will work with me and my
colleagues to create such a new environment, including possibly holding
a hearing before the House Education and the Workforce Committee. I
look forward to doing so with you and with your leadership.
I yield to you for your comments.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership
on this issue and share her concerns. We will work on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman. The
gentlewoman from California and I have cochaired a caucus on
copyrights. We have worked very closely with Mr. Goodlatte, and my good
friend, Mr. Berman.
I do want to acknowledge that the education community and the
entertainment community have been working cooperatively, Mr. Chairman,
for more than 2 years to develop ways to reduce illegal file sharing
and develop legal alternatives.
Some universities are true leaders, in fact, in combating piracy on
campus. But we have no data, Mr. Chairman, that ensures that all
institutions are aggressive in their efforts to educate students on
piracy and in deterring this activity. I thank the gentleman for
agreeing to work with us on this critically important issue, and I
yield back to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
work on this issue. As this bill moves through the process, I will work
with the gentlewoman, with my good friend from the State of California
(Mr. Berman), my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my friend
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); you can see this is a coast-to-coast issue;
and others to ensure that we have additional compliance from the higher
education community on the illegal downloading of copyrighted material,
including working on report language during the conference committee to
ensure that colleges and universities take seriously their obligation
to aggressively tackle this problem.
Schools should have policies in place accompanied by strong
punishments to notify students that unauthorized downloading and
sharing is illegal. I thank the gentleman for his strong leadership on
this issue and for bringing attention to this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. McKEON. And the gentleman from California has?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for entering into these colloquies, especially the colloquy on the
question of intellectual properties and the protection of intellectual
properties.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I would simply say that I
think with the substitute that we will be voting on here in a few
minutes and the other votes, and finally the vote on final passage,
that we will have a clear choice in this House.
I would hope that Members of the House would join a very broad array
of education organizations across the country, from the American
Federation of State and Municipal Employees, to the American Federation
of Teachers, the American Medical Students Association, the Council of
Christian Colleges and Universities, Lutheran Educational Conference,
Minnesota's Private Colleges, the National Association of College
Admission Counselors, the National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities, the National Education Association, the Service
Employees Union, State Public Interest Research Group, St. Mary's
College in California, my father's alma mater, as a matter of fact, the
United States Students Association, the University of Michigan Women's
College Coalition, to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and joining the
organizations like NAICU that say that they will not support this
legislation, but like myself and others, they want to continue to work
with the chairman as this legislation moves forward into a conference
committee, hopefully soon with the Senate.
But I think the correct vote here at this time for America's families
who are struggling to pay for the cost of college, for the students who
are struggling to pay for the cost of college, and for the contribution
that these students, should they successfully complete their college
education, the contribution that they will make to our

[[Page H1356]]

society and to our economy, it is most important that we take this step
provided in the substitute to make a down payment on reversing that
raid on student aid and making a down payment on the future of these
students, their families, our communities and this country.
There is no other way to do it, because with the current aid that we
are providing, and the increases in the costs that will come on line on
July 1, because of the actions this Congress took just a couple of
months ago, I know they want to divorce these two bills, but they are
both parts of the Higher Education Act in this Congress.
Because of the actions they took, these families, unless you vote for
the substitute, they will be saddled with higher interest costs. Those
families are being put on notice now as they are seeking out the loans
necessary to pay for that education.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should send them some good news as they
gather around that kitchen table to try to determine whether or not
they will be able to take the opportunity available to them in this
country for a college education, an opportunity that should never, ever
be foreclosed, simply because somebody cannot afford to take advantage
of it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the substitute, and
to vote no on the bill on final passage, and as I say, to join a very
wide array of educational organizations, private, public, small, large,
all across this country that have very serious problems with this
legislation. Let's not turn it into the missed opportunity that we
believe it is.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a good debate. I want my colleagues to
understand we urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. We urge an ``aye''
vote on final passage.
Before I conclude I would like to thank all who helped to make this
bill possible. I do want to thank Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member
Kildee, Subcommittee Chairman Keller and all of those who have worked
on this bill.
I want to thank Ellen Bammon for the good work she did, and the
members of the staff on the other side of the aisle. I want to thank
Amy Raaf on our committee, who has been working night and day to get us
to this point.
I want to thank Krisann Pearce, who will be departing from the
committee, who has done yeoman's work. I mentioned yesterday Sally
Lovejoy, who has been with the committee for 25 years, who is leaving.
I want to thank Heath Weems from my personal staff; Bob Cochran, my
chief of staff, who have all done great work on this.
I want to thank Kathleen Smith and Alison Griffin, who have been
working on this project for years and have since left the committee.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 609, the
Higher Education Reauthorization Bill. Today the House of
Representatives wasted an opportunity to help millions of American
students achieve a higher education and a more secure future. Just 2
months after Republicans cut student aid by $12 billion in the budget
reconciliation bill to, the largest cut in history, they are again
making higher education less affordable by placing the burden of
financing tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of students and their
families.
It is ironic that this bill is entitled the College Access and
Opportunity Act, because in reality it restricts access and denies
opportunity. This bill breaks a promise to lower interest rates to 6.8
percent for student borrowers. The bill could reduce the number of
doctors by making it overly cost prohibitive for students to study
medicine by further restricting their ability to consolidate debt or to
receive a lower rate. Additionally, the bill freezes the maximum Pell
grant award and the Federal Work Study Program for the next 6 years; so
much for access and opportunity.
I voted against H.R. 609 because there is a better option--the
Democratic substitute. The substitute would have re-directed Federal
dollars recently cut from student aid to low interest loans or grants
to help students. But that better option was voted down by the
Republican majority. The substitute would have cut interest rates for
students with subsidized loans in half, providing $2.5 billion in
interest relief for America's middle and low income families. The
substitute would also have established a new Black Serving Institution
Program and a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution Program to
boost college participation rates of low-income, black, and Hispanic
students and to encourage minority students on campus. Sadly,
Republicans rejected the amendment.
Congress has a responsibility to help hardworking young men and women
realize their potential through educational opportunities so that they
can achieve the American dream. At a time when college costs are rising
faster than inflation, we should not be restricting student financial
aid, we should be encouraging young men and women to continue their
education, so that they can compete in the 21st century global
marketplace.
I am saddened that this Congress passed up the opportunity to create
real access and real opportunity for the men and women of my district
in western New York, but I want them to know that I will keep fighting
on their behalf.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 609.
I ask you, when will the raid on student aid stop?
H.R. 609 continues to deepen the wound already inflicted by the
Republican tax reconciliation bill that cut $12 billion in student
loans, an continues the damage in President's proposed budget.
Mr. Chairman, today's students are taking out more loans, working
longer hours, and graduating with record amounts of debt, yet this bill
does nothing to increase the Pell grant.
The goal should be to make college affordable and accessible for all.
Yet again, with this bill the Republican leadership's rhetoric is out
of step with its actions. Attempts to make this misguided bill better
have been stifled.
Mr. Chairman, for example, I offered an amendment with the purpose of
helping those who help our students.
Unfortunately, my amendment hasn't been made in order.
My amendment would include those who work as school counselors,
school social workers, and school psychologists in the student loan
forgiveness program.
Currently, the U.S. national average student-to-counselor ratio is
488: 1. In contrast, the maximum recommended student-to-counselor ratio
is 250: 1. Sadly, some schools don't even have one full-time counselor.
Mr. Chairman, my home State of California ranks last in student-to-
counselor ratios, at the astounding rate of 945 students for every 1
counselor.
School counselors provide valuable skills and coping strategies for
dealing with issues as diverse as home issues, career counseling,
college placement and academic issues, conflict resolution, and drug
and alcohol issues.
Congress intended loan forgiveness to encourage education
professionals to serve in needy areas of the country.
Counselors do a great deal to help improve students' readiness to
learn, their quality of life at school, and their consequent
educational achievement.
Mr. Chairman, let's make sure we are making our future the priority,
and stop this on-going raid on student aid.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the Republican higher
education bill, the College Access and Opportunity Act, H.R. 609,
represents a missed opportunity to make college more affordable, boost
America's economic competitiveness, and invest in America's future.
At its core, the Higher Education Act, HEA, historically has sought
to improve access to a college education for our Nation's most needy
students. The current reauthorization bill does little to fulfill this
premise and has the potential to greatly detract from that important
goal. The goal of Congress and this bill should be to expand higher
education opportunities, not restrict them.
Despite Republican leadership's claims, H.R. 609, the ``Missed
College Opportunities Act,'' does little to help the students it claims
to help. Just a month after cutting student aid by $12 billion,
Republicans continue to be out of touch with the needs of American
students and families.
H.R. 609 fails to provide a real increase in student aid.
H.R. 609 fails to lower college loan interest rates.
H.R. 609 freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell Grant
scholarship--at just $200 above current levels--through 2013 and it
does not include any mandatory increase in Pell.
The Democratic substitute, which was not adopted, would have cut
interest rates in half for the borrowers, from a fixed rate of 6.8
percent to a low fixed rate of 3.4 percent. As a result the costs of
college would be lowered by $2.4 billion for low- and middle-income
students.
In addition to making college more affordable, the Democratic
legislation would have boosted college opportunities for minority
students by:
Establishing a new Predominantly Black Serving Institutions program
to increase college participation rates of low-income black students;

[[Page H1357]]

Creating a new Graduate Hispanic Serving Institutions program; and
Creating a pilot program for year round Pell grants.
Traditionally, higher education legislation has enjoyed widespread
bipartisan participation and support but today I will vote against this
higher education bill. American students and families are struggling to
pay for college. Congress should pass legislation to control tuition
costs and increase student aid and not miss this opportunity to help
American families.
I strongly support the Democratic substitute. I will vote against the
underlying bill, H.R. 609, because it does not make college more
affordable for American students and families.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, America's economic prosperity, security, and
health are more dependent than ever on students' access to higher
education opportunities. Unfortunately, the rising importance of
college for individuals and our society has corresponded with
skyrocketing tuition costs, causing students to take on massive amounts
of loan debt--$17,000 on average; to work long hours that interfere
with academic success; or to forgo college altogether.
H.R. 609 contains some positive provisions. I am pleased that the
bill includes year round Pell grants for all colleges, including
community colleges at least on a provisional basis. I am pleased that
the bill includes up to $5,000 of student loan forgiveness if you are
an elementary or secondary school teacher of a critical foreign
language or a government employee who a critical foreign languages. The
bill also authorizes Mathematics and Science Honors Scholarships to
students pursuing a baccalaureate, masters, or doctoral degree, or a
combination thereof, in physical, life, or computer sciences,
mathematics, and engineering. The bill also creates Mathematics and
Science Education Coordinating Councils, composed of education,
business, and community leaders, which will implement State-based
reform agendas that improve mathematics and science education; and
support services that lead to better teacher recruitment and training,
increased student academic achievement, and reduced need for
remediation at all levels.
Unfortunately, H.R. 609 comes on the heels of the budget
reconciliation bill, which cut $12.76 billion in Federal student
financial aid by increasing interest rates, charging students more fees
on their loans, and reducing subsidies to lenders. This was the largest
cut in the history of Federal student financial assistance. The result
will be nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise the cost of
college loans for millions of American students and families who borrow
to pay for college. For the typical student borrower, already saddled
with $17,000 in debt, these new fees and higher interest charges could
cost up to $5,800. New Jersey students and families were hit hard--over
125,000 college students in New Jersey will be affected. H.R. 609 fails
to reverse this raid on student aid.
Congress' recent policies with regard to student aid have abrogated
the responsibility that the Federal Government accepted with the Higher
Education Act. Supporting students and families who take out college
loans is an investment in the American economy and our society at
large. Congress should lower interest rates and provide additional
benefits for student borrowers to encourage responsible repayment and
support this educational borrowing. Instead, H.R. 609 fails to make
loans more affordable. Rather than increasing opportunity, H.R. 609
freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell grant scholarship--at
just $200 above current levels--through 2013 well below the historic
value of Pell grants.
H.R. 609 should be doing more to provide access to college. Pell
grants should be doubled, not frozen at a level that will mean a
reduction in value over time. Perkins loans should be increased, and
work study should be increased. As currently written, H.R. 609 will not
help us maintain our competitive edge in the global community.
Together we can do better.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of
the single holder rule, and in support of Americans pursuing secondary
education.
As the law currently stands, student loan borrowers attempting to
refinance and consolidate their loans face unfair restrictions from the
so-called ``single holder rule.'' This rule limits the search of these
students to their current lender for a Consolidation Loan, if the
current lender is the holder of all of the Federal Family Education
Loans (FFEL) they wish to consolidate.
Mr. Chairman, with tuition prices on the rise, it should be the role
of the Federal Government to help those Americans pursuing higher
education, not impede them. Competition amongst the lender industry for
these Consolidation loans would help lower interest rates for these
loans, lowering the cost of secondary education for countless
Americans. At a time when the dream of higher education has become
farther out of reach for many families, it would be irresponsible for
this Congress to stand in the way of the elimination of these
restrictive provisions.
Furthermore, we have learned a great deal in recent months of
increased competition from overseas in the areas of math and science.
In order for our Nation to remain a leader in innovation, and maintain
our status in the international economy, we must make educating the
next generation of Americans a priority. The single holder rule serves
only as a barrier to this critical education.
I do not stand alone in my support of the elimination of the single
holder rule. Rather, I am lending my voice to a bipartisan chorus. The
Conference Report on the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act urged the
authorizing committees to repeal the single holder rule to ``ensure
borrowers have the best options available to them in order to manage
their student loan obligations.''
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that both the House and Senate
versions of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to pass out
of conference would finally repeal the single holder rule. This rule
does nothing more than pander to the student loan industry special
interests at the expense of America's students. While I will not be
lending my support to H.R. 609 today for other reasons, I applaud the
efforts of both Republicans and Democrats to eliminate this harmful
rule.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we stand here today with a historic
opportunity to improve higher education in this country. The average
tuition and fees for four-year public colleges have risen over 40
percent since 2001. The average student now leaves school with $17,500
in debt. Above anything else, it is absolutely essentially that any
legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act help make a college
education more affordable, so that we can expand this great opportunity
to more young people across the country. I know this issue is immensely
important to many of my constituents in Michigan.
Unfortunately, the misnamed ``College Access and Opportunity Act of
2005'' does absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of a college
education. When Pell Grants were first enacted to help low-income
families, it covered 72 percent of the average cost of a four-year
public college, today it pays for only 30 percent. This bill would
increase the maximum amount a Pell Grant could cover by a pathetic $200
while the President's proposed budget continues to flat fund this vital
program.
It is now just two months after this Republican Congress voted to cut
Federal student aid by $12 billion--the largest cut in the history of
the program. Most of the cuts in mandatory spending in that bill were
generated by cutting back on excessive lender fees on student loans.
Yet instead of investing this additional revenue into scholarships and
reductions in student loan fees, Republicans chose to put this money
towards tax cuts for the super wealthy.
At a time when we are faced with fierce global competition from
countries like India and China, it is absolutely essential that we
invest in higher education. Last year China graduated more English-
speaking engineers than we graduated here the United States. I wonder
how it is that the majority would have us believe that an investment in
tax cuts for the very rich would help us to remain an economic
superpower.
A report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on
Higher Education and Economic Growth spelled out how Michigan's
economic future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the
completion of degrees of higher education. Two-thirds of the jobs
created in the next decade will require post-secondary education and
training. I wonder how it is that the majority believes that cutting
student loans will make it easier for the thousands affected by the
manufacturing jobs crisis in Michigan.
Republicans here in Congress would have us believe that $12 billion
in cuts to the student loan program and reauthorizing the Higher
Education Act are unrelated. I say they couldn't be more out of touch.
Democrats have offered an alternative. This substitute would begin to
reverse the damaging cuts made to student aid by cutting interest rates
on loans for low and middle income students in half starting in July of
2006. This would lower the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students
and their families. This measure is a down payment on the future of our
Nation's students who are, after all, the key to the success of our
Nation in the days that come. I will vote against this harmful
legislation today, and in favor of the Democratic substitute.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called
College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609). This Republican
bill represents a significant missed opportunity to rollback the raid
on student aid and make higher education more affordable and accessible
for America's students.

[[Page H1358]]

When it comes to helping families pay for college, Republicans never
miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But when their campaign
contributors say jump, Republicans always ask how high.
In December, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while
Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Representative
Boehner assured nervous private lenders--who in 2003-2004 contributed
more than $250,000 to his campaign--that they would gain rather than
lose under the Deficit Reduction Act. ``Relax. Stay calm,'' Boehner
told the Consumer Bankers Association. ``At the end of the day, I
believe you'll be at least satisfied, or even perhaps happy. Know that
I have all of you in my two trusted hands.''
Instead of reducing lender subsidies as was originally proposed,
Congressional Republicans subsequently raised interest rates on parent
borrowers and required student borrowers to continue paying excessive,
above-market interest rates. In total, Republicans cut $12 billion from
student loan programs--the largest cut in our nation's history.
Today, Representative Boehner is back to his old tricks, protecting
the bottom lines of private lenders rather than the pocketbooks of
hard-working students. H.R. 609 does nothing to restore the much-needed
student loan subsidies cut under the Deficit Reduction Act. Rather,
this legislation keeps student loan interest rates for low- and middle-
income Americans at an unnecessarily high 6.8 percent, guaranteeing
private lenders a profit and students mountains of debt after
graduation.
Further, H.R. 609 continues to underfund the Pell Grant program, even
as the program's purchasing power declines on annual basis. The bill
freezes through 2013 the authorized maximum for a Pell Grant
scholarship--at just $200 above current levels. Even as the cost of
education rises, the purchasing power of Pell Grant loans declines.
It is past time that we had a higher education bill that makes
college more affordable, boosts America's economic competitiveness, and
invests in America's continued prosperity. This legislation does none
of the above. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R.
609 so we can bring forth a bill that actually does what's needed for
higher education.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the global economy
demands a highly trained, educated workforce, Congress is making it
more difficult for our students to succeed. The Higher Education
Reauthorization Act represents a missed opportunity at a critical time
for improving education.
All across America, communities are struggling to deal with education
funding for preschools through high schools. Many of these communities
are recovering from difficult economic times and have financially
stressed the local education systems. Many states have responded to
budget crunches by reducing their support for postsecondary education
at a time when we need to be desperately training students for their
own as well as the country's future. It is expected by 2020, the U.S.
will experience a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated
workers. We are providing less support as a percentage of overall
educational costs than ever before.
In part, it is because of a tragic decision of the Republican
majority to sacrifice education for $70 billion in tax benefits for
America's wealthiest individuals. This has made the funding problem
even worse than it needs to be. There are opportunities to simplify
financial aide forms, to increase access to higher education and to
improve higher education, but instead that focus is lost. Had a truly
bipartisan approach been taken by Congress a much better bill would
have been possible.
Tuition and fees have already climbed by 46 percent at four-year
public colleges since 2001, nearly six times faster than Pell Grant
Scholarships. Students are taking on record high loan debt and working
longer hours in order to attend college. There are over 90,000
Oregonians borrowing money to attend college. While costs are going up
and burdens on families are greater, there is less federal support.
Many of the higher education professionals that I have worked with
suggests they would rather have another extension of the current law
than this reauthorization, quite an indictment and a signal of what we
should be doing. I am hopeful that as this bill works its way through
the legislative process that logic and the needs of students, families
and our society for a well educated citizenry will prevail. Although, I
am pleased the bill includes the bipartisan Blumenauer-Ehlers-Wu
amendment to convene a summit of higher education experts working in
the area of sustainable operations and programs, we can make this bill
better and until that happens I cannot support it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to
legislation on the floor, H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity
Act of 2005. Many of my colleagues have renamed this bill ``the Missed
College Opportunities Act'' for good reason.
Two months ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for
a budget reconciliation bill that slashed funding for student aid
programs by $12.7 billion--the single largest cut to the Federal
student aid program in its 40-year history. This ``raid on student
aid'' could not have come at a worse time for American families, as the
cost of a college education today continues to rise while more and more
working families fall into poverty. At a time when our government
should be increasing access to higher education, this bill is taking
away this opportunity for many young students.
The ultimate goal behind the Higher Education Act has always been to
improve access to college education for those in greatest need. Today's
students are increasingly taking on higher loan debts, working longer
hours or, in some cases, forgoing college altogether. Increasing access
to higher education is critical to the development of a highly skilled
workforce, which will ensure that America remains competitive in the
global marketplace. Today's economy demands that workers are better
educated and this bill does little to make college more affordable. As
it is now, the average student owes $17,500 when he or she graduates.
Not only is this legislation troublesome for our students, it is also
troublesome for our colleges and universities. The bill in its current
form includes provisions that undermine the autonomy of colleges and
universities by creating intrusive new reporting requirements. In
particular H.R. 609 imposes price controls on colleges through the new
``College Affordability Index'' which would compare tuition increases
to the Consumer Price Index without taking into consideration what
individual institutions have done to offset tuition increases. Cost
increases can be attributed to a combination of different factors, all
of which vary between different institutions, making the College
Affordability Index a poor measure of the affordability of an
individual college or university.
Furthermore, a proposed amendment to this legislation would create an
unnecessary burden on our universities' admission policies by requiring
institutions that receive any Federal funding, including grants and
scholarships, to submit to the Department of Education an annual report
stating whether race, color, or national origin is considered in the
student admissions process.
This amendment is unnecessary and redundant because universities
already publicly disclose their admission policies, as required by the
Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The
amendment will only burden university staff members with unnecessary
and extensive paperwork. Additionally, the amendment jeopardizes
individual applicants' privacy and confidentiality in violation of the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA, which generally
prohibits educational institutions from disclosing personally
identifiable information from students' education records without
consent.
The proposed amendment, by contrast, would require universities to
submit to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights,
OCR--and from OCR to the public--``all raw admissions data for
applicants'' on each quantifiable factor considered in admissions
except for the name of the applicant. Publication of raw data in this
form--without any corresponding safeguards on use of the raw data--will
almost certainly permit OCR and others to ascertain the identities of
individual applicants. In so doing, it will be possible to determine
individual applicants' test scores, high school grades, and so forth--
all in violation of FERPA.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree that more should be done so that all
deserving students have the opportunity to receive a higher education,
which is why I support the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-Grijalva
alternative. The Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in
half for the borrowers in most need--lowering the cost of college by
$2.4 billion for students and their families. It would also create a
pilot program for year round Pell grants to allow students to
accelerate their degree. We must never let a student's economic
situation hinder his or her ability to obtain access to a college or
postgraduate degree.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in reversing the
Republican raid on student aid by opposing H.R. 609 and supporting the
Democratic alternative.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, anyone in need of proof that Federal control
follows Federal funding need only examine H.R. 609, the College Access
and Opportunity Act. H.R. 609 imposes several new mandates on colleges,
and extends numerous mandates imposed on that previous Congress imposed
on colleges. H.R. 609 proves the prophetic soundness of people who
warned that Federal higher education programs would lead to Federal
control of higher education.
Opponents of increasing Federal control over higher education should
be especially concerned about H.R. 609's ``Academic Bill of

[[Page H1359]]

Rights.'' This provision takes a step toward complete Federal control
of college curriculum, grading, and teaching practices. While this
provision is worded as a ``sense of Congress,'' the clear intent of the
``bill of rights'' is to intimidate college administrators into
ensuring professors' lectures and lesson plans meet with Federal
approval.
The Academic Bill of Rights is a response to concerns that federally
funded institutions of higher learning are refusing to allow students
to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from
those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of
``political correctness'' on college campuses is largely a direct
result of increased government funding of colleges and universities.
Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from
market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their
``politically correct'' views regardless of whether this type of
instruction benefits their students--who are, after all, the
professors' customers. Now, in a perfect illustration of how
politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the
market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes
to use the problem of ``political correctness'' to justify more Federal
control over college classrooms.
Instead of fostering open dialog and wide-ranging intellectual
inquiry, the main effect of the Academic Bill of Rights will be to
further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many
administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious
and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with
the Federal Government. Those who doubt this should remember that many
TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 60s and
70s in order to avoid running afoul of the Federal ``fairness
doctrine.''
I am convinced that some promoters of the Academic Bill of Rights
would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill
silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the
organizations promoting the Academic Bill of Rights and you will also
find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of
American foreign policy.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 609 expands Federal control over higher education;
in particular through an Academic Bill of Rights which could further
stifle debate and inquiry on America's college campuses. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R.
609, the Republican higher education bill.
I am reluctant to oppose H.R. 609 because it contains my amendment to
add Fayetteville State University, in my congressional district, to the
list of eligible schools under title III B for Historically Black
Graduate Institutions. Fayetteville State University holds the
distinction of being one the Nation's most racially diverse educational
institutions. Receiving funding under title III would enable the
university both to enhance its existing graduate programs and to
develop additional graduate programs in disciplines in which African-
Americans are underrepresented in the Nation.
I am grateful to the committee chairman for adding the Etheridge
amendment to H.R. 609 to include this outstanding institution of higher
learning among its expanded lists of participants in title III B to
enhance its historic mission of expanding opportunity in America.
Unfortunately, the underlying bill is fundamentally flawed. H.R. 609
represents a major missed opportunity to make college more affordable
and accessible, to boost America's economic competitiveness, and to
invest in America's continued prosperity. Just 2 months after
Republicans in Congress voted to raid $12 billion from Federal student
aid, this bill does very little to help American students and families
to pay for college.
H.R. 609 fails to reverse the Republican raid on student aid. H.R.
609 fails to make college loans more affordable. H.R. 609 freezes the
authorized level of the maximum Pell grant scholarship through 2013 and
it does not contain any mandatory increase in Pell. I support the
Miller substitute to H.R. 609 that would cut interest rates for
borrowers in most need and lower the cost of college by $2.4 billion
for students and their families. In addition to making college more
affordable, the Miller substitute would boost college participation for
minority students by establishing a predominantly black institution
program and establishing a graduate Hispanic serving institution
program.
I hope as this legislation moves forward, the shortcomings can be
corrected, and I can support the conference report on this important
bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 609,
the College Access and Opportunity Act, I want to highlight the teacher
recruitment and retention provisions that have been included in this
legislation.
In order to keep pace with anticipated teacher retirements and the
growing student population, local school districts will need to hire an
estimated 2.5 million teachers over the next 10 years. And not just any
warm body will do. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, every teacher
must be ``highly-qualified'' by the current 2005-2006 school year, a
goal I suspect has not yet been achieved. In order to meet these
challenges, we must embark on an unprecedented teacher recruitment and
retention effort.
Fortunately, we already have evidence of what works. In 1986, the
North Carolina General Assembly established the Teaching Fellows
program, which currently produces 500 highly qualified and enthusiastic
new teachers each year. I believe it offers a model for national
emulation, and that is why I reintroduced the Teaching Fellows Act as
H.R. 1801 early in the current Congress.
In the 108th Congress, I was pleased that the bipartisan committee
leadership worked with me and former Congressman Cass Ballenger to
enhance the teacher recruitment provisions of the Ready to Teach Act in
accordance with the Teaching Fellows Act--H.R. 1805, 108th Congress.
Much as we envisioned in the Teaching Fellows Act, the Ready to Teach
Act would authorize State scholarship programs to attract the best
students to the teaching profession, and provide support and mentoring
programs that will help teachers make a long-term commitment to the
field.
Those provisions have again been included in the comprehensive higher
education legislation we are considering today. I want to commend
Representatives McKeon and Kildee and other committee members for their
willingness to work with me on this particularly important component of
the bill.
With provisions added from the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 609 would
establish scholarships for those coming out of high school or in their
sophomore year of college, when students would perhaps be better
prepared to make a mature choice about committing to a teaching career.
In addition, through partnerships with community colleges, H.R. 609
would offer fellowships to students, particularly those being trained
as teaching assistants, to go on and obtain a bachelor's degree and
full teaching certification. Students attending community colleges are
often deeply rooted in their local communities, including rural and
inner-city areas where the need for well qualified teachers is the
greatest. So identifying and training a cadre of ``homegrown'' teachers
is a promising strategy for meeting our most pressing teacher
recruitment challenges.
These programs do not merely throw money at individual students but
seek, through rich extracurricular programs, to promote esprit de corps
and collaborative learning, to strengthen professional identity, and to
provide a support system as students first enter the classroom as
teachers. Students would participate in various community and school-
based internships and experiences that go well beyond normal teacher
preparation. These enrichment programs could feature a variety of
components ranging from school system orientations and educational
seminars to Outward Bound programs and international travel.
In exchange, scholarship recipients would be required to teach in a
public school for a minimum of 1 year plus a period of time equivalent
to the length of their scholarship. The idea of reciprocal obligation
and community service are essential to the success of these programs.
Although I am pleased with these teacher recruitment and retention
components of the bill, H.R. 609 is, in my view, lacking in serious
ways. First, it seeks to make college affordable by squeezing colleges
and universities. The bill's College Affordability Index would insert
the Federal Government into the decision processes of institutions of
higher education regarding tuition-setting, essentially establishing
price controls. Secondly, it seeks to make college accessible by
squeezing students and families. The bill would provide a very modest
increase of $200 in the maximum Pell grant through 2013.
I am also concerned about the bill's provision to create a Title VI
International Higher Education Advisory Board that would have an
inappropriate and unnecessary role in curriculum decisions at colleges
and universities.
We desperately need to enact a long-term reauthorization of higher
education programs, and I hope we can make improvements to this bill in
conference and achieve that goal prior to adjournment. I look forward
to working with Members from both sides of the aisle to encourage our
best and brightest students to enter and remain in the field of
teaching.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I believe
my Republican colleagues are sending a mixed message by offering this
legislation.
This bill increases the authorization for the maximum Pell grant to
$6,000, reauthorizes funding for Hispanic-serving institutions and
historically Black colleges and universities.
From the looks of this authorization bill, you would think the
majority leadership in this Congress cared about getting low- and
middle-income students through college.

[[Page H1360]]

However, this authorization bill does not fund these programs. Just 2
months ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to cut
student aid by $12 billion by passing the budget reconciliation bill.
I don't understand why my Republican colleagues care more about
giving tax breaks to the wealthy than helping low- and middle-income
families send their children to college.
The budget reconciliation bill raised interest rates on parent
student loans, raised loan consolidation fees, and required that
student and parent borrowers pay a 1 percent insurance fee on college
loans.
We need to do something to help people get through college, not
charge them a 1 percent insurance fee and make their education even
more expensive than it is now.
Since 2001, college tuition in this country has increased 40 percent.
Students are graduating with over $17,000 of debt. And what has
Congress done?
We've consistently flat-funded Pell and raised the maximum Pell award
by small amounts that don't keep up with rising tuition rates,
including this increase.
When Pell first started, it covered over 70 percent of the average
cost of a 4-year education. Now, it pays for 30 percent of the cost of
a college education.
While I appreciate the effort of the bill sponsors to increase the
Pell maximum grant, it is still not enough to truly help low-income
families send their children to college.
I hope in the future appropriators will enable us to show a true
commitment to higher education by bringing us an appropriations bill
that reflects the priorities outlined in H.R. 609.
Working families need more than the numbers offered in this bill,
they need to see real dollars put into these programs.
My Republican colleagues have not adequately funded the very programs
they are on the floor supporting today.
I hope that in the future, we fund the programs that are so important
to us today.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. George Miller of California.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
``ayes'' prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418,
noes 2, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 77]

AYES--418

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--2

Edwards

Musgrave

NOT VOTING--12

Beauprez
Clay
Davis (FL)
Evans
Franks (AZ)
Gilchrest
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Ruppersberger
Watson

{time} 1402

Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, DeLAY, MANZULLO, MARCHANT, DAVIS of
Illinois, CHANDLER and ANDREWS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 77, I unintentionally
voted ``no''. I would like the Record to show that it was my intention
to vote ``aye'' on rollcall No. 77.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page H1361]]

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 380,
noes 38, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 78]

AYES--380

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--38

Akin
Bishop (UT)
Brady (TX)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Carter
Culberson
DeLay
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Hefley
Hensarling
Hostettler
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
Manzullo
McCrery
McHenry
Miller (MI)
Neugebauer
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Putnam
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Shadegg
Souder
Stearns
Wamp

NOT VOTING--14

Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cantor
Clay
Conyers
Davis (FL)
Evans
Gilchrest
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Ruppersberger
Watson

{time} 1410

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 79]

AYES--83

Aderholt
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Feeney
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McHenry
McMorris
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Putnam
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Young (AK)

NOES--337

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey

[[Page H1362]]

Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Clay
Davis (FL)
Evans
Gilchrest
Gohmert
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Ruppersberger
Watson

{time} 1419

Mr. MORAN of Kansas and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RADANOVICH and Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 79 I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 Offered by Mr. George
Miller of California

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 80]

AYES--200

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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
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)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
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
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--220

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
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
Gordon
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, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Millender-McDonald
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
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
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)

NOT VOTING--12

Clay
Cole (OK)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Evans
Gilchrest
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Ruppersberger
Watson

{time} 1427

So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 80, had I
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________