[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7605-H7609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THIRD HIGHER EDUCATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2006
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6138) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher
Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows
H.R. 6138
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Third Higher Education
Extension Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.
Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2006'' and inserting ``June 30, 2007''.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBLE LENDER TRUSTEE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELIGIBLE
INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 435(d) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(7) Eligible lender trustees.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, an eligible lender may not make
or hold a loan under this part as trustee for an institution
of higher education, or for an organization affiliated with
an institution of higher education, unless--
``(A) the eligible lender is serving as trustee for that
institution or organization as of the date of enactment of
the Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006 under a
contract that was originally entered into before the date of
enactment of such Act and that continues in effect or is
renewed after such date; and
``(B) the institution or organization, and the eligible
lender, with respect to its duties as trustee, each comply on
and after January 1, 2007, with the requirements of paragraph
(2), except that--
``(i) the requirements of clauses (i), (ii), (vi), and
(viii) of paragraph (2)(A) shall, subject to clause (ii) of
this subparagraph, only apply to the institution (including
both an institution for which the lender serves as trustee
and an institution affiliated with an organization for which
the lender serves as trustee);
``(ii) in the case of an organization affiliated with an
institution--
``(I) the requirements of clauses (iii) and (v) of
paragraph (2)(A) shall apply to the organization; and
``(II) the requirements of clause (viii) of paragraph
(2)(A) shall apply to the institution or the organization (or
both), if the institution or organization receives (directly
[[Page H7606]]
or indirectly) the proceeds described in such clause;
``(iii) the requirements of clauses (iv) and (ix) of
paragraph (2)(A) shall not apply to the eligible lender,
institution, or organization; and
``(iv) the eligible lender, institution, and organization
shall ensure that the loans made or held by the eligible
lender as trustee for the institution or organization, as the
case may be, are included in a compliance audit in accordance
with clause (vii) of paragraph (2)(A).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to any loan under part B of
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071
et seq.) disbursed before January 1, 2007.
SEC. 4. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Definition Changes.--Section 502(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)) is amended --
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A);
(B) in subparagraph (B) --
(i) by striking ``at the time of application,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``at the end of the award year
immediately preceding the date of application'' after
``Hispanic students'';
(C) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting a period; and
(D) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(2) by striking paragraph (7).
(b) Wait-Out Period Eliminated.--Section 504(a) of such Act
(20 U.S.C. 1101c(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Award Period.--The Secretary may award a grant to a
Hispanic-serving institution under this title for 5 years.''.
SEC. 5. GUARANTY AGENCY ACCOUNT MAINTENANCE FEES.
Section 458(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087h(b)) is amended by striking ``shall not exceed''
and inserting ``shall be calculated on''.
SEC. 6. 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
servant'' 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 section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act (20
U.S.C. 1232); 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, except that nothing
in this section shall be construed to authorize any refunding
of any repayment of a loan.
(f) Deadlines and Procedures.--Sections 482(c) and 492 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098(a))
shall not apply to any regulations required by this section.
SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension
Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to
limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of appropriations
for, or the durations of, programs contained in the
amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-171) to the provisions of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 6138.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of H.R. 6138, the Third Higher Education
Extension Act of 2006.
Some of the most important programs in the Higher Education Act, such
as Pell Grants and Perkins student loans, are set to expire on
September 30, 2006. Pell Grants and Perkins loans are the passports out
of poverty for millions of worthy young people, and they deserve to be
reauthorized. H.R. 6138 ensures that these provisions will not expire
at the end of this fiscal year by extending them for another 9 months,
through June 30, 2007.
While the House acted on permanent reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act by passing H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity
Act, in March of this year, the Senate has not yet acted. The Senate
should soon act to pass their reauthorization bill so we can negotiate
a final bill and have these important higher education reforms signed
into law. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, this extension will allow the
important programs of the Higher Education Act to continue past their
current September 30, 2006, expiration date.
In addition to extending the programs under the Higher Education Act,
H.R. 6138 includes additional provisions to benefit students and
institutions. Specifically, it reduces red tape for Hispanic-serving
institutions by eliminating the 2-year wait-out period between grant
applications. The extension repeals an outdated and burdensome
requirement that Hispanic-serving institutions document the percentage
of low-income students enrolled at the institution.
H.R. 6138 also eliminates the ability of schools to circumvent the
new school-as-lender restrictions by forming an eligible lender-trustee
relationship. And, finally, it provides loan forgiveness to spouses and
parents of those who died or became disabled in the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6138
because we must not break our commitment to America's students.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise today in support of the Higher Education Extension Act.
First, I would like to recognize that there are items in here that we
all agree are important and that will help students, including changes
to the Hispanic-serving institutions program and
[[Page H7607]]
loan forgiveness for 9/11 survivors and their families. These changes
will ensure that Hispanic-serving institutions can continue to serve
their important role in educating minority students and that families
who fell victim to the terrible attacks of September 11 will have
welcome financial relief.
Unfortunately, however, this extension is a reminder that we have
failed to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and H.R. 609, passed
earlier this year, was only another missed opportunity to help students
and families. H.R. 609 failed to restore the $12 billion raid on
student aid that was included in the Budget Reconciliation Act.
These cuts come at a time when college costs are on the rise. At 4-
year public colleges and universities, tuition has skyrocketed by 40
percent between 2001 and 2005. Additionally, this is really the first
time that we have asked an entire generation to go deeply into debt in
order to get a higher education. The typical student leaves college
today with $17,500 in Federal loan debt.
Democrats would also boost the Pell Grant scholarships for students
most in need. The value of Pell Grant scholarships are now worth nearly
$1,000 less in inflation-adjusted terms than they were 30 years ago. My
friends on the other side of the aisle may say that they have increased
Pell Grants, but the only reason there is more appropriated for Pell
Grants is because there are more and more students that qualify for
those grants.
The only way to ensure that students receive meaningful aid through
the Pell Grant program is to restore the purchasing power of the Pell
Grant and significantly increase the maximum award.
Mr. Speaker, oftentimes I believe we have lost sight of what the
Federal role is for higher education. It is to provide access to any
and all qualified students to ensure they can get into higher education
if they want to. I urge that we work together to provide real relief to
students and families and reverse the raid on student aid.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the full
Education and Workforce Committee and author of the higher education
reauthorization bill.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6138, a measure to
extend the programs under the Higher Education Act that are set to
expire at the end of this month.
I thank the chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee, Mr. Keller, for his work on this bill as well as his
consistent efforts on behalf of our Nation's college students and their
families. I also thank Ranking Member Kildee for his help on this
effort of getting this bill reauthorized.
Earlier this year, when the Deficit Reduction Act was signed into
law, we authorized the Act's mandatory spending programs. In this
process, we reduced lender subsidies, increased loan limits for
students, simplified the financial aid process, and provided additional
resources for needy students studying math, science, and critical
foreign languages in college. And we managed to achieve all that while
making certain that student aid programs operate more efficiently,
saving U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars.
The House followed in March by passing the College Access and
Opportunity Act. This bill would reauthorize the remaining program
under the Act. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet acted on
reauthorization legislation of its own. Therefore, the measure before
us simply extends these remaining Higher Education Act programs until
June 30, 2007, which will give us time to finish up the bill in the
next Congress.
Additionally, H.R. 6138 includes benefits for college students and
institutions of higher education. For example, this legislation reduces
red tape for Hispanic-serving institutions by eliminating the 2-year
wait-out period between grant applications. It repeals an outdated and
burdensome requirement that Hispanic-serving institutions document the
percentage of low-income students enrolled at the institution.
It continues current law with respect to payments made to Guaranty
Agencies so that those agencies can continue working to help students
avoid defaulting on their loans.
It eliminates the ability of schools to circumvent the Deficit
Reduction Act's new school-as-lender restrictions by forming an
eligible lender-trustee relationship.
And it provides loan forgiveness to spouses and parents of those who
died or became disabled in the September 11, 2001, attacks on our
Nation.
These student benefits, coupled with H.R. 6138's extension of vital
higher education programs, are worthy of our strong, bipartisan
support. At the same time, I am hopeful that our friends on the other
side of the Capitol will renew their commitment to a reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act. These extensions, and we are now on the fifth
in this Congress alone, ought to become a thing of the past.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary of Education Spellings outlined her
vision for the future of higher education, following the release of a
report from the Commission she formed a year ago to recommend ways to
ensure our colleges and universities meet the challenges of the 21st
century. As we extend these programs today, we should also commit
ourselves to review the recommendations of the Commission and work with
Secretary Spellings to expand college access and strengthen the quality
of higher education in this country.
As I noted, in March, the House passed a reauthorization that I
believe would go a long way toward doing that, even before the report
was issued. Our bill would strengthen the Pell Grant program, empower
parents and students through sunshine and transparency in college costs
and accreditation, improve college access programs, and much more. Now,
with the new report in the mix, we have a chance to do so again in the
next Congress, potentially with important improvements incorporated
between now and then.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle and on both sides of the Capitol in completing our work early on
in the 110th Congress. In the meantime, however, I urge my colleagues
to join me in supporting this extension.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, almost 3 months ago to the day,
I stood in this exact spot and spoke on the extension to the Higher
Education Act, as I have done for each of the past four extensions,
each time hoping it would be the last short-term measure we needed to
pass before we finally produce an improved, bipartisan, and long-
overdue reauthorization bill that reflects the best interests of
America's college students and the families who support them.
I now rise with a different hope, and an even stronger conviction. It
is now my hope that the current flawed version of the Higher Education
Act reauthorization passed by the House never takes on the force of law
and that during the next session of Congress, under a new majority, we
can again address the Higher Ed Act and truly make it about increasing
access and affordability.
Recently, Secretary Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher
Education released its final report on the status of postsecondary
education. That report highlighted the dire need for increased Federal
aid in the form of Pell Grants. It is puzzling that the Commission
would release its findings on increasing access and affordability after
the House has addressed its version of the Higher Ed Act and at the end
of this budget cycle when it is too late this year to help students
afford a college education.
I can only hope that the Secretary is planning on briefing the
Congress on the Commission's findings and that she would respect this
body enough to push for legislative remedies, rather than implementing
the Commission's recommendations through negotiated rulemaking.
Certainly a comprehensive strategy for postsecondary education that
will meet the needs of America's future deserves congressional
consideration. Otherwise, it would be an abrogation of our oversight
responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the extension that we are considering
here today, but I do not support the direction and actions of this
Congress as it relates to higher education. We must
[[Page H7608]]
do more to ensure that every qualified student has the chance to go to
college. Our future depends on nothing less.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Higher
Education extension.
I am pleased to see that it includes bipartisan language that
provides student loan forgiveness to the spouses of first responders
lost or disabled in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
This year marks the fifth anniversary of 9/11. I first introduced
this bill in October, 2001; and I am pleased to see that we have worked
together to finally pass this provision. This is long overdue and will
provide welcome financial relief to families most affected by 9/11.
Many of the heroes of 9/11 left behind families who had to contend
with the loss of a loved one and tremendous financial obligations.
{time} 2015
The victims who died or were disabled on 9/11 had their loans
forgiven, but that is not the case for their spouses. Anyone who loses
a spouse faces severe financial challenges. This bill will help those
who relied on their spouse's income to pay off students loans. This
bill also works with parents who took out loans for their children's
education.
Mr. Speaker, I really would like to say thank you to Ranking Member
Miller and his staff for the work they have done, as well as Chairman
McKeon and his staff for the hard work they have done. I truly
appreciate working with them and look forward to next year when we work
together to pass the higher education bill. I also thank Mr. Kildee for
helping me out on this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation. Again, working on the Education Committee, we have a lot
of challenges. We always face a lot of challenges. But in the end I
think we will hopefully work together again when we come back in
January and pass some good legislation. I think everybody cares about
the children of this Nation, and together we will make it even better.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, while I intend to cast my vote in
support of the Higher Education Act extension, I am extremely concerned
about the unintended consequences on students at Nova Southeastern
University in my congressional district and many other degree-seeking
students that rely on financial assistance.
Nova Southeastern University is the largest independent institution
of higher learning in Florida, offering the benefits of education to
25,000 students. Nova Southeastern's student body is unique. Eighty
percent are evening and part-time graduate degree-seeking students who
participate in the workforce while they are seeking their degree.
Nova ranks first in the Nation in awarding postgraduate degrees to
Hispanic students and is among the leaders in awarding advanced degrees
to African American students and disadvantaged students who depend on
financial assistance to further their education.
Until earlier this year, Nova was also one of the Nation's leading
participants in the School as Lenders program. This program allowed
Nova to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in low-cost loans to
students. Premiums from the sale of these loans provided the university
with millions of dollars annually which it used to educate its
students. School officials estimate that this year's premiums issued
through an Eligible Lender Trustee may be worth as much as $10 million
for the school.
But this is not just about one institution in south Florida. The
version of H.R. 6138 that the House will vote on and ultimately pass
today threatens to eliminate the ability of every school issuing loans
through an Eligible Lender Trustee to control these premiums.
Ultimately, the students seeking to improve their lives through higher
education will bear the brunt of this change.
H.R. 6138 also eliminates the ability of school lenders and Eligible
Lender Trustees to issue low-cost PLUS loans to graduate students. The
expensive cost of graduate and professional school programs often
requires students to withdraw multiple loans. Eliminating an important
source of these loans will drive graduate students to seek more
expensive loans, with greater fees and risks to the students.
While the overall goals of this legislation are noble and I support
the programs that benefit so many, I encourage Members to carefully
review the legislation because some of the provisions will hurt
students more than help them and in some cases destroy a young person's
dream of a higher education and a better future.
I understand and support this legislation but believe that not every
aspect of it includes the rosy picture that has been painted here
today.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time. I thank Mr. Keller for his fine work
working with us on this extension and look forward to continuing to
work with him.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me address a couple of things. First let me address
some of the comments by the gentlewoman from Florida, my friend and
colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I appreciate the fact that she is
going to vote for the ultimate bill here. Just to address some of the
School as Lender issues.
All schools in the School as Lender program may continue to operate
as they have been. All schools that have an Eligible Lender Trustee
agreement in place may continue to operate, but they must comply with
the School as Lender program requirements. It is only fair that schools
that make loans to their students under the Federal student loan
programs comply with the same rules, whether they provide the loans
directly or through a trustee.
No student's loan is in jeopardy, every eligible student will get a
loan, and it will now be a low-cost loan because of the fierce
competition in the student loan market. In fact, because all schools
must use the funds earned on these loans for need-based grants,
students are the big winners under these rules. Indeed, Senator Ted
Kennedy has written a letter to Secretary Spellings on August 1
demanding that this loophole under the School as Lender provision for
those Eligible Lender Trustee agreements be eliminated.
Shame on those schools who don't want to use these funds for need-
based grants for their students, but instead on their inflated
administrative budgets.
Finally, let me just comment on the work that we have done on Pell
Grants. Since I was elected in 2000, I can tell you, I am pretty proud
of the record of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, in terms of
increasing Pell Grant funding.
Since 2000, we have increased Pell Grants by 71 percent, from $7.6
billion a year to $13 billion a year. The maximum award since 2000 has
gone up from $3,300 per student to $4,050 per student. Since 2000, we
have had an increase in enrollment of 36 percent, from 3.9 million
students to 5.3 million students. And under the underlying Higher
Education Act, we have even strengthened the Pell Grant program
further. We have provided for year-round Pell Grants for the first
time. We increased the authorization level to $6,000, the highest
amount in history. We have also had Pell-Plus initiatives, to say if
you are a high achieving low-income student, you will get an extra
$1,000 your first 2 years; and in your third and fourth year, if you
are a high achieving student who is Pell-eligible and you have a 3.0
GPA and you agree to major in math, science or foreign languages, you
will get an additional $4,000 per year. So we have the strongest, most
vibrant Pell Grant program in history. It is one that we can all be
proud of.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this extension because truly
Pell Grants and Perkins loans are the passport out of poverty for young
people.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6138, the third
extension of the Higher Education Act. Although I would prefer that we
would consider a conference report to
[[Page H7609]]
complete the reauthorozation of the Higher Education Act. I would like
to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me and the
Congerssional Hispanic Caucus to include two amendents of critical
importance to Hispanic-serving institutions.
One amendment would eliminated the 2-year wait out period that
interrupts HSI's ability to benefit from the title V Developing
Institutions grants. The second amendment will finally put an end to
the so-called ``50 Percent Rule'' that became an intrusive requirement
mandating that Hispanic-serving institutions collect and report to the
Department of Education individual information on family income and
family size for every Hispanic student on campus in order to
demonstrate that 50 percent of the Hispanic student enrollment meets
the definiation of low income.
HSIs already are required to demonstrate that they have a high
population of needy students as measured by eligibility for need-based
student aid. The 50 percent rule added nothing to the targeting of
funds to those with greatest need and only created an administrative
nightmare that was a disincentive to participation in the title V
program.
The 2-year wait out period and the 50 percent rule have been barriers
that have been harmful to the HSI program to the detriment of the
institutions and the students they serve. It is high time that we
remove these barriers and I am pleased that we will not make our
community wait until reatuhorization is complete to move forward.
I, along with my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
have been working for over 4 years to remove these barriers.
At the beginnin of this Congress, we introducated H.R. 761, the Next
Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act. This legislation included
both of these amendments for HSIs. Our bill also included provisions to
establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs. With the passage of
H.R. 6138, we will be two thirds of the way toward our goal. It is my
hope that we can complete the job before the 109th Congess adjourns.
Again, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member as well
as my good friend from New Mexico in the other body for working with us
to improve the HSI program. These are very important amendments.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6138.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the
inclusion of provisions in this bill related to eligible trustee
relationships with eligible institutions and the negative implications
that these provisions will have on the availability of low-cost Federal
loans and need-based grants in Pennsylvania and across the Nation.
I am also concerned that this legislation was not discussed with the
affected institutions and is being brought to the floor for a vote less
than a week after it was introduced.
Nearly 150 institutions of higher education participate as Federal
Family Education Loan--FFEL--program lenders to their graduate and
professional students, including many of the leading medical and law
schools in the country. The financial benefits offered to students who
borrow through their institution are better than what was available to
students at the institution prior to the school becoming a lender.
These institutions are required to pay the loan origination fees or
reduce the interest rates that their borrowers are charged, and many
institutions choose to do both.
Over the past 8 years, Widener University in my district has been
able to provide nearly $8 million more in grant aid to needy students
as a result of its activity as a school lender. Over 90 percent of the
students at Widener require financial aid to pursue their studies. In
addition, Widener also provided loans at lower costs than Sallie Mae
and the big banks and has charged no up-front fees to students
borrowing their loans from the university.
The provisions in H.R. 6138 would not allow school lenders to make
Graduate PLUS loans to their students after December 31, 2006. The
Graduate PLUS loan program has only been available since July 1, 2006,
and was designed to replace graduate students' need to borrow higher-
cost private loans to cover their remaining need. A number of
institutions have sought to meet their borrowers' financing needs
though eligible lender trustee arrangements under which a bank
originates and holds loans on behalf of a trust established by the
institution. The proceeds from the sale and repayment of these loans
are used to help students. By continuing to deny school lenders the
ability to make Graduate PLUS loans directly and stopping them from
making them under trustee arrangements, the bill shifts millions of
dollars from funds to help needy students to the profits of the big
corporate lenders.
The inability to make Graduate PLUS will result in a loss of over $50
million need based grant aid for students at the 14 school lenders in
Pennsylvania. In addition to Widener University in my district, the
University of Pennsylvania, University of Scranton, Drexel, Duquesne,
Carnegie Mellon, Temple, University of Pittsburgh, and seven other
medical and professional schools in Pennsylvania also participate as
school lenders.
In addition, the provisions also impact existing structures that have
been in place for many years. A 2005 U.S. Government Accountability
Office--GAO--study found a wide diversity in how these institutions
finance, administer, and structure their FFEL lending programs. For
example, some have used affiliated foundations as the lender because of
State laws prohibiting institutions from incurring debt directly or
because they have chosen to issue taxable bonds to finance their loans.
Some of these arrangements involve eligible lender trustee
relationships as well as affiliate organizations. The bill would not
allow institutions to use or modify these types of structures after
date of enactment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 6138, a bill intended to extend the programs under the Higher
Education Act of 1965. The Higher Education Act--HEA--authorizes the
major Federal student aid programs that are responsible for the
majority of financial assistance to postsecondary students.
The provisions in this bill will ensure that the HEA will not expire
at the end of this fiscal year by extending its provisions another 9
months through June 30, 2007.
In 1965, the Higher Education Act was established to help low- and
middle-income students pursue higher education. Today, the Federal
Government invests more than $70 billion in direct financial aid to
students and families, and hundreds of millions of dollars are provided
to colleges and universities so that they may better serve their
students.
However, it seems as though every time we extend this crucial
legislation, the provisions it contains divert the resources further
and further away from where they are most needed. Eighty-six percent of
high school graduates from families with incomes over $80,750 go on to
college while only 57 percent of graduates from families earning less
than $33,000 do so. Pell grants and student loans are supposed to help
narrow this gap. And yet, when dollar amounts are scoffed at as
expenses rather than investments, it is our next generation of doctors,
lawyers, teachers, civil servants, and other professionals who suffer.
This will be the fifth time this Congress that we have extended the
Higher Education Act. Although I am disappointed that we have not been
able to reauthorize this crucial bill, I am pleased that we can manage
to keep these programs active for the time being.
In addition to the existing provisions for Pell grants, teacher
training, student loans, and distance education, H.R. 6138 contributes
further language to increase the accessibility of higher education by:
reducing red tape for Hispanic-serving institutions by eliminating the
2-year wait-out period between grant applications; continues funding
payments made to guaranty agencies so that those agencies can continue
working to help students avoid defaulting on their loans; provides loan
forgiveness to spouses and parents of those who died or became disabled
in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6138, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________