[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E533-E534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 29, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 609) to 
     amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965:

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. H.R. 609 reauthorizes the 
Higher Education Act (HEA), including all discretionary programs under 
the HEA, such as Federal student financial aid programs, teacher 
training programs, and programs that provide aid to institutions of 
higher education serving minority populations. Reauthorizing the HEA 
provided the House with an excellent opportunity to invest in our 
Nation's future by making college more accessible and affordable. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 609 does not provide the investment in higher 
education

[[Page E534]]

necessary to make college more affordable and to ensure our Nation's 
future economic competitiveness and prosperity.
  HEA reauthorization bills typically include all mandatory and 
discretionary programs in the HEA, and H.R. 609, as reported by the 
House Education and Workforce Committee, included both mandatory and 
discretionary programs. The recently enacted Deficit Reduction Act 
(P.L. 109-171) reauthorized the mandatory Federal student loan 
programs, but cut Federal student aid programs by $12.7 billion--the 
largest cut ever in the Federal student loan program.
  Specifically, P.L. 109-171 doubles the origination fee for students 
getting Direct Loans from an effective 1.5 percent to 3 percent in 
2006. Additionally, P.L. 109-171 requires lenders to collect a 1 
percent fee on Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) that may come 
directly from students' pockets or the lenders' own operating expenses. 
P.L. 109-171 also increases the fixed rate on parent loans to 8.5 
percent (Under current law, beginning in July 2006 parent loans would 
have a fixed rate of 7.9 percent). Finally, P.L. 109-171 eliminates all 
mandatory spending for administration of all higher education programs, 
which shows a savings of $2.2 billion; however, the only way these 
savings can occur is if Congress chooses not to appropriate this 
money--which could jeopardize not only student loan programs, but also 
programs like Pell Grants, TRIO, and Work Study programs.

  H.R. 609 presented the House with an opportunity to correct these 
misguided increases in fees and rates on students and their families. 
Unfortunately, the House approved a rule for consideration of H.R. 609, 
which prohibited amendments from being offered addressing the fee and 
rate increases for students and their families.
  Additionally, while H.R. 609 authorizes a maximum Pell Grant 
scholarship award of $6,000, the bill does not include any mandatory 
spending increases for Pell Grant funding, which will ensure that the 
amount actually appropriated remains frozen. For instance, the Bush 
Administration's FY 2007 budget proposes to freeze maximum Pell Grant 
scholarship award at $4,050, where it has been held since 2003. This is 
troubling because, during this same period, the average tuition and 
fees at a four-year public college have risen by $1,393. Further, when 
adjusted for inflation, the maximum Pell Grant award is actually worth 
$900 less than the maximum scholarship 30 years ago.
  I instead supported the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-Grijalva substitute 
amendment that boosts college opportunities and makes college more 
affordable. Specifically, this legislation would offer the 3.4 percent 
fixed interest rate to students who take out subsidized loans between 
July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, which would lower the cost of college 
by $2.4 billion for students and their families. This amendment would 
have also repealed the single holder rule, which requires student 
borrowers to consolidate their loans with their existing lender. Under 
the substitute amendment, the borrower could choose which lender he or 
she wished to use to consolidate loans. Additionally, this substitute 
amendment would have provided loan forgiveness for nurses, highly 
qualified teachers in bilingual and low-income communities, librarians, 
first responders, and other public servants.
  With our Nation is facing increasing competition from rising economic 
powers, such as China and India, it is more important that ever that 
Congress work to improve the accessibility and affordability of a 
college education. Funding for higher education is an investment, not a 
cost, which will produce an educated, talented workforce to ensure our 
nation's future economic competitiveness and prosperity.

                          ____________________