[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       RULE PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 609

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2006

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive 
rule and in opposition to H.R. 609.
  First, I would like to state my support for specific provisions in 
the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 609 that eliminated the funding formula 
change to campus-based aid.
  As introduced, H.R. 609 changed the formula for campus-based aid 
programs, including Work Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity 
Grants and low-interest Perkins Loans. This would have resulted in 
substantial losses of this aid to schools across the country with a 
history of participation in the program. Students at schools in my 
state of Massachusetts would have lost $9.4 million in work study and 
other programs.
  During Subcommittee and full Committee mark-ups, Mr. Kind and I 
offered amendments to ensure that students were not unfairly punished 
by the changes to the campus-based aid funding formula in H.R. 609. Our 
amendments gained support from both sides of the aisle and the votes 
were tied in both mark-ups. We were also joined by more than 80 of our 
colleagues in sending a letter to the Chairman of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee asking for these funding formula changes to be 
taken out of the bill before floor consideration. I would like to 
express my thanks to the outgoing and incoming Chairmen for heeding our 
call. They realized that changing the distribution formula would harm 
thousands of students because it would have simply taken funds from one 
group of needy students and shifted those funds to another group of 
needy students. Unless we increased the appropriations for campus-based 
aid, Mr. Kind and I felt strongly that we could not in good faith 
change the funding distribution formula.
  While I am extremely pleased that the Manager's Amendment eliminates 
the campus-based aid cuts, I must turn now to the Rule before us today.
  I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this restrictive rule does 
not make in order the amendments I brought before the Rules Committee 
on Tuesday afternoon.
  My amendments would have helped make college more affordable for low- 
and middle-income students and families across the country. After all, 
what is the point of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act if we 
aren't going to make college more affordable?
  Ms. McCollum and I attempted to offer several amendments, including 
an amendment based on our bill, the College Affordability and 
Accountability Act. Quite simply, the amendments would make college 
more affordable by:
  Renewing states' commitment to affordable college education by 
ensuring that they maintain their own level of college financing, so 
states will no longer be able to push higher tuition taxes onto 
students and families;
  Providing incentives to make tuition affordable;
  Engaging schools in cost containment strategies; and
  Putting students and families in control by giving them access to 
accurate information about the cost of college and steps individual 
schools are taking to offer affordable rates of tuition.
  We also offered an amendment to commission a Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) study on college costs and the impact of 
state support for higher education on college costs. In my home state 
of Massachusetts and in other states around the country, state support 
for higher education has plummeted, pushing more of the burden of 
college on students and families.
  I also sought to offer an amendment to commission a study by the 
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to review current 
student aid programs and recommend the steps that Congress must take in 
order to ensure that every qualified eligible student receives a 
sufficient comprehensive financial aid package. This financial aid 
package should come from a variety of sources, including the federal 
government, state governments, institutions of higher education and 
private sources, and it should cover at least the equivalent of a four-
year public higher education.
  All qualified high school graduates should be able to afford at least 
the equivalent of a four-year public higher education. Today, that is 
not the case. Many students are foregoing college, dropping out or 
incurring unmanageable levels of student loan debt.
  Young people in their 20s and 30s are not only leaving college with 
much more personal debt--students graduate with an average of almost 
$20,000 of student loan debt--but also are burdened by rapidly 
increasing health care, energy and housing costs. To make matters 
worse, according to recent studies, young people are working longer 
hours and still earning less money. We must do more for young people in 
America today. We must restore the American dream so that young people 
can achieve financial prosperity through hard work and determination.
  The amendments I offered to the Rules Committee would have helped us 
make college affordable and accessible for students and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity to help make college 
affordable today, but instead students and families will be left to 
struggle with sky-rocketing tuition costs and mounting debt on their 
own. H.R. 609 will not make college more affordable. I urge Members to 
oppose the restrictive rule and oppose final passage of H.R. 609.

                          ____________________