[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.

                          ____________________