[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H588-H594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, COLLEGE STUDENT RELIEF ACT OF
2007
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 65 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 65
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5)
to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest
rates for student borrowers. All points of order against the
bill and against its consideration are waived except those
arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am, as many
in this Chamber are, a proud parent and almost embarrassingly proud
grandparent. All parents and grandparents are different, of course, but
I believe almost all of us share one thing in common, and that is a
hope that our children and our grandchildren will have a chance to do a
little better, to go a little further, to have a little easier time
than their parents and grandparents. That aspiration has a name in this
country; it is called the American Dream. And the American people
understand that education is the key to making that dream a reality.
Today, we consider legislation to combat a very real threat to that
dream. The unfortunate reality is that skyrocketing college costs are
putting a college education out of reach for many middle class
families. Tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41
percent after inflation since 2001. At private universities, tuition
has increased by 17 percent after inflation. It is worth repeating
because it is truly shocking: these figures are after inflation.
Indeed, according to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent almost 4\1/2\
million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college
over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million from attending any
college at all. Those statistics are very sobering, and the sound they
make is that of the door of opportunity being closed on many young
people.
That is why I am very pleased that our congressional leadership has
made cutting interest rates on student loans one of its top priorities
for the first 100 hours of this Congress.
The legislation being considered today will cut interest rates for
subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years from 6.8 percent
to 3.4 percent.
{time} 1130
As a result, we will help around 5.5 million more students afford
college.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are demanding quick action on this
legislation, and with good reason. With Sacramento State University in
my district and the University of California at Davis nearby, they are
all too aware of the impact rising tuition costs are having on students
and their families.
A recent study demonstrated that this legislation would, on average,
save the average student borrower in California starting school this
year almost $2,500 over the life of the loan. For students beginning
college in the year 2011, the legislation will save almost $5,000. We
will need to do more to make college affordable, but my constituents in
Sacramento who are struggling to afford college will welcome this very
important first step.
Mr. Speaker, helping all qualified students attend college is
essential for our economy, for our competitiveness and for our future;
but not only that, it is essential for ensuring that the American Dream
remains a reality for our young people. That is why there is a
remarkable consensus supporting this proposal across our country.
Newsweek reports that 88 percent of the country supports this
legislation, including wide majorities of both Democrats and
Republicans. We are not talking about the Democratic dream or the
Republican dream, but the American Dream.
Further, this legislation meets our pay-as-you-go requirements and,
therefore, will not add to our budget deficit. Fully five of six of the
offsets have been approved previously by the Bush administration or
Republican congressional leaders. That, again, is a remarkable
consensus. It is now time to act.
All too often the American people look at Congress and they hear a
lot of argument and see a lot of activity, but wonder though what
Congress is doing to improve their lives. If we act on this legislation
quickly, however, students will start to see a difference as soon as
July 1. So let us surprise our skeptics, take action, and pass this
legislation now on a bipartisan basis.
[[Page H589]]
It has been gratifying to be a Member of Congress for the first few
weeks of this Congress, which by wide bipartisan majorities has
increased the minimum wage, approved potentially life-saving research
and enacted genuinely bipartisan recommendations to improve our
Nation's security.
Our first 100 hours has been a good time for the middle class and for
Americans who favor progress over partisanship. This legislation is
another such opportunity. Americans of every political stripe
understand that if we allow college education to become too expensive
for hardworking and qualified middle class students, we will have lost
something very special in this country, we will have lost a part of the
American Dream. Let's show them today that we understand that as well,
and that we are doing something about it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the last 12 years the Republicans,
when we were in the majority, always led off every single rule by
describing the rule and the actions of the Rules Committee.
I would like to yield to my friend from California to explain this
rule again that we are offering today that is progress over
partisanship.
Ms. MATSUI. We are dealing today with our agenda of 100 hours. As my
colleague from Texas understands, the American people have spoken, and
we intend to make progress quickly; that is why we are doing this bill
today.
Mr. SESSIONS. So in other words, what the gentlewoman has said is
that this five-step process that we are going through right now means
that there will be no committee hearings, no expert witness testimony,
no information that is available really to the membership of this body,
but mostly would be necessary for new Members. And then when someone
does come to the Rules Committee we are told before the session even
starts there will be no amendments and a closed rule, and yet progress
over partisanship is what we are doing here. Interesting day, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this
underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to
bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order,
committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or
amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the
minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative
process.
Every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, understands
the importance of higher education in the competitive global world
environment that our students and workers face in keeping the United
States at the vanguard of the global economy.
I am greatly disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen
to bring this narrow legislation of questionable effectiveness forward
rather than engaging in an honest debate which has taken place for 12
years, as education has always been considered a bipartisan effort.
It is true that the gentlewoman did describe that it will be a
bipartisan act that we do today, but this was simply the first step in
education and doing the right things for our students. I disagree with
that. I think members of the minority have been given the opportunity
for 12 years to be a part of the progress that has taken place,
offering amendments that would actually make college more affordable
for parents and students, as well as the cost effectiveness of the
American taxpayer who foot the bill for tens of billions of dollars
each year spent on Federal student aid programs.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisanship that I talked about for 12 years was
led by Republicans in support of making sure that college was more
affordable. Over the past 6 years, spending on Federal student aid has
increased by 57 percent, and funding for Pell Grants has risen by
nearly 50 percent.
We also think about lower education also where, as a result of
Republicans for the last 12 years, education has risen in spending from
Washington, DC, 256 percent. Today, some $90 billion a year in Federal
resources fund student aid programs from loans and grants to work study
programs and educational tax benefits.
This is not a first step that we are taking today, it is another step
that was not begun or born out of bipartisanship, but rather out of
bumper sticker politics.
What we have talked about is that Republicans have more than tripled
what spending was helping students over the last decade. Yes, it was
done in a bipartisan way before today. Open committee hearings and
feedback make bills better.
Republicans, through our leadership, have also made sure that more
than $4 billion for new and high achieving Pell students pursuing
degrees in math, science and critical foreign languages was included
these last 12 years. We slashed the total loan fees so students can
access more of the money that they borrowed for education purposes. We
cut $20 billion in Federal subsidies to student loan lenders through
the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2006, which provided
substantial savings for U.S. taxpayers while ensuring that these tax
programs would operate efficiently by not cutting one penny in student
loans.
But rather than continue along this path of making college more
affordable and increasing the transparency not only in this body, but
also as it relates to college costs so that students and their parents
can see why higher education costs are rising, today Democrats are
imposing, in a closed rule, without feedback, upon the House
legislation that would do nothing to expand college access or improve
affordability. Instead, their plan will not benefit a single college
student, only former students.
Let me say this very plainly, not one additional student will be able
to attend college because of this proposal, unlike the bipartisan
efforts of the past where we worked to make sure that it impacted more
students' ability to go to college. In fact, today's legislation is no
more than a flawed answer in search of a problem.
In 2004, the Federal Government spent less than four-tenths of a cent
on every dollar in providing these student loans. Since 2001, the
program the Democrats today seek to change, Republicans, through a
bipartisan effort before today, returned over $12 billion to the U.S.
Treasury because the cost of administering the program needed to be
changed.
Once again, we find ourselves with a great example of the private
sector doing a job better, more efficient, with less risk to the
taxpayer, and the government and taxpayers will see the benefit.
This legislation also does not make good on a common Democrat
campaign promise in the highly touted ``Six for `06'' program. Many
Democrats on the campaign trail made broad promise about cutting
interest rates in half immediately for all student loans, both
subsidized and unsubsidized, as well as loans made to parents. Instead,
in a classic bait-and-switch for voters, the Democrats are really
bringing to the floor today legislation that only addresses subsidized
loans and phases these savings in over 5 years before they sunset and
then disappear.
Additionally, they proposed to pay for this weakened $6 billion plan
with many of the same lender cuts passed by Republicans and Democrats
in the last Congress, the same subsidy cuts that Democrats opposed
because during the election they called a ``Raid on Student Aid'' when
in fact it is exactly what they do today.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a comprehensive alternative to the
flawed Democrat plan. The College Affordability and Transparency Act
would provide students and parents with more and better information
about college costs, helping students to become better consumers of
higher education. It will add great transparency and accountability by
establishing a user friendly college affordability comparison creating
quality, efficiency task forces to determine the causes for tuition
hikes at the schools with the greatest tuition increases and provide a
demonstration project for up to 100 schools, freeing them from the
costly regulatory requirements and driving down one of the main reasons
that schools raise costs.
Mr. Speaker, today 80 percent of the student loans made are
originated by the private sector at an efficient cost and enhanced
borrower services, such as reduced charges, financial education tools
and reduced student interest obligation, all of which would disappear
if
[[Page H590]]
we allow the Federal Government to crowd out the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, this was our idea, and we would have brought this forth
if we were allowed to do so in a rule where Members could openly vote
for this and have an honest debate through the entire committee system.
I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume to point out that during last year's
debate on budget reconciliation, the contrast in approaches could not
be sharper. In that bill, in a time of war, the Republican leadership
passed an enormous tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent in this
country. Most of it was paid for by running up a deficit for our
grandchildren to pay, but a small slice of it was paid for by cutting
$12 billion in Federal student loan support. I think it is clear that
the American people rejected that kind of short-sightedness this past
November.
Today, Democrats are cutting student loan rates in half, without
adding one cent to the deficit. That is common sense for students, and
a responsible policy for this country's working class.
Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the new Member, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding such time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the action we take today to
cut interest rates on student loans for 5.5 million of our students
most in need of financial assistance. This cut is vital because there
is nothing more important than ensuring our students are well prepared
to enter the workforce.
{time} 1145
Many students in our Nation lack access to affordable higher
education, and this has to be considered a crisis. While access to
higher education has become more critical for our younger generation,
the cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low-income and middle-
class families in this country.
Tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have
risen 41 percent, after inflation, since 2001. The typical American
student now graduates from college $17,500 in debt. This Congress, past
Congresses, should be ashamed that financial barriers will prevent at
least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public
college over the next decade if we continue on this course. Costs will
also prevent another 2 million high school graduates from attending any
college at all.
Amazingly, instead of helping our students prepare themselves for a
better future, recent Congresses have cut funding for student loan
programs. With this step, we begin today to reverse that trend, which
has hurt our students and has hurt our economic well-being as a Nation.
Despite what we may hear from some on the other side of the aisle,
our proposal to cut student loan rates in half, in half, will help
roughly 175,000 students in the State of Ohio, at universities like the
University of Akron and Lorain Community College in my district.
Starting this year, it is estimated that these students will save over
$2,200 over the life of their loan, and that savings number is expected
to increase to over $4,300 starting in 2011.
This is about opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Investment in our younger
generations not only helps their future, but it helps our economy and
our retired workers whom they will support. Cutting interest rates on
student loans is not only about strengthening America's middle class
and improving access to higher education for our students and families
who are most in need, it is about strengthening America.
Education is the backbone of what we are about and everything that
makes our Nation great. Let us pass H.R. 5 and give our students the
opportunity they deserve and the American people what they have asked
for through these recent elections. Today, we deliver on a promise.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4
minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the former
chairman, from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding,
and I appreciate his fine management of this rule.
I rise in opposition to the rule, and I do so as we all share a very
strong and passionate commitment to doing everything we possibly can to
increase access and affordability for young people in this country who
want to have an opportunity to gain the best education possible.
As I listened to my friend from Sacramento respond to Mr. Sessions,
she was talking about the fact that tax cuts for the rich had in fact
played a role in creating this huge deficit that we have today and that
we need to focus on education rather than giving tax cuts to the rich;
that we have this sea of red ink. Mr. Speaker, I just can't comprehend
what it is that is being argued by our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle.
Today, we have seen a reduction of $71 billion in the Federal deficit
over what it was a year ago. The deficit is on a downward slope. Why is
that? It is the fact we put into place growth-oriented tax cuts.
Now, a few years ago, the American people were decrying the fact if
we graduated students, there wouldn't be jobs out there, there wouldn't
be an opportunity for students once they graduated. And guess what has
happened? Since we have put into place these tax cuts, we not only have
reduced the deficit, we have created 7.2 million new jobs, many of
which are being filled by young people who are graduating.
Now, we all recognize that it is absolutely essential that we do
everything that we can, everything within our power, to make sure that
young men and women have an opportunity to get into the best college
possible and are able to afford their education. The tragedy is, as I
listened to my colleague from Ohio, the new member of the Rules
Committee, Ms. Sutton, she very, very eloquently argued on behalf of
what we all aspire to, and that is making sure that we can be
competitive, making sure that we have the best students possible, and
that they graduate to the best jobs.
This bill, unfortunately, is very flawed. We had this campaign
promise that was made; that we were going to cut all student loan
interest rates in half so that we wouldn't see this huge burden imposed
on the young people in our country. Well, unfortunately, this bill now
is just making a very, very modest, minuscule step towards that goal of
ensuring we bring about this massive reduction in interest rates.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I think is very important for us
to point out is that there will not be a single student who will have
an opportunity to go to college because of this bill, and there will
not be a single student who will see their tuition reduced because of
this bill. And I believe that what we need to do is, we need to
recognize that there is much work that needs to be done. We want to
make sure that we lower those costs and do everything that we can to
put into place greater transparency and disclosure.
This rule, unfortunately, denied us the opportunity to propose a very
thoughtful amendment that was bipartisan. I know the Democrats would
have joined in this if there had been an opportunity, because Democrats
and Republicans both were denied an opportunity to participate in this
process that would have allowed for disclosure of tuitions, and it
would have incentivized institutions in this country to do everything
possible to try and work to get those tuition rates down.
We need to make sure we have the best students possible. We need to
make sure we have the best education possible. We need to focus on
that. The real problem in this country is on K-through-12 education.
That is where we need to focus our attention so that we can make sure
we have people trained at an early point in life, so that they can then
be poised to get into higher education.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very flawed bill itself. The rule is an
absolute outrage, the fact it denies any Democrat or Republican an
opportunity to participate, and I urge opposition to it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a new Member, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
[[Page H591]]
Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to act to cut student loan
interest rates in half and thereby ease the financial burden of college
tuition. Cutting interest rates is more than a cost-saving measure for
parents and students, it is also the best means of ensuring access to
higher education and, ultimately, a successful career.
This Democratic Congress is committed to making college more
affordable for all. As a mother with two school-age daughters, I, like
many parents across the country, look apprehensively at the cost of
tuition today. Tuition costs have skyrocketed. The average tuition at a
4-year public college is almost $6,000, which is a 35 percent increase
over the past 5 years. Today's college students typically incur over
$17,000 in loan debt, which is a 45 percent increase over the past 11
years.
Now, last year, when the Republican Congress made it harder for
families to afford college by refusing to increase Pell Grants and
proposing a $12.7 billion in Federal student loans, I brought students
from the University of Tampa and the University of South Florida
together to speak out against the antistudent policies.
German Castro, an economics major at the University of Tampa, was
worried he would not be able to complete his education without student
loans. After all, the annual tuition at the University of Tampa is
$18,000, not including room and board. He is working two jobs. He noted
many students who have to work full-time jobs end up making bad grades,
and bad grades result in loss of scholarship money and, eventually,
students have to drop out.
For Jill Mitchell, at the University of South Florida, she would
prefer not to have to move back in with her parents and take a job
while she is concentrating on her studies.
This isn't merely about financial solutions, it is also about putting
our students in a position to succeed.
Now, during the first 100 hours of this new Congress, we are here to
change the priorities, to reflect the real desires of Americans. In
some of our working-class neighborhoods, student loans are the only
means available to pay for the dream of a higher education.
The health of our economy rests on having a highly skilled and well-
educated workforce. By the year 2020, the United States is projected to
face a shortage of up to 12 million college educated workers.
So, Mr. Speaker, today I call on my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support students by encouraging their efforts to seek higher
education. I ask that we pass H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of
2007. This legislation will go a long way to provide relief to the 5.5
million graduates, making college education far more accessible for
families.
Let us act to remind the families back home that we value education
and we are willing to fight to ensure access to it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, I saw
something, well, I saw several things that I had not seen in the 8
wonderful years I have served on the Rules Committee, but I have been
told by those who have longer tooth than I that they had not seen in
the 12 years the Republicans were in the majority, where people were
greeted to the Rules Committee by the chairman saying, your amendment
will not be made in order and it is a closed rule.
The interpretation for the membership of this body was, you need not
apply. Please, just don't even come and give your story because we are
not open for business. We are closed before we are open.
Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues, Ric Keller, did come up. And
despite being told this right up front, in an honest way, by the
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), he still stuck around for another hour. He still was there
to present his thoughts and ideas, even though he knew before the
meeting even took place, before a vote ever took place, that he would
not have anything made in order, his ideas, which he has been
presenting in a bipartisan way for the last few years, would not even
see the light of day.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be able to be on the floor today and
to discuss this. He is a kind and wonderful gentleman who cares a lot
about students and student aid, and so I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I rise today to oppose this rule. It is, after all, a
closed rule. There were no hearings, no committee work, no markups, no
amendments allowed, no due process.
Mr. Speaker, we have 54 new Members of Congress. That is 12 percent
of this body who haven't benefited from any of this legislative work or
hearings. Now, I happen to be the ranking member on the Higher
Education Subcommittee. And before the last election, I was the
chairman of this subcommittee. So, luckily, I happen to know these
issues cold, and I can tell you there is a lot to know.
With regard to student loans, there are Perkins loans, Plus loans,
Stafford loans, direct loans, private loans, subsidized loans,
unsubsidized loans, and consolidated loans. With regard to Pell Grants,
there are regular Pell Grants, academic and competitiveness grants, and
there are SMART Grants.
The new Members would have benefited from some hearings and
legislative work on this matter. But the other side said, well, these
are smart people. Well, let us assume that every single freshman is a
genius and they know these issues cold; and I am willing to make that
assumption. I would have loved to have listened to their ideas in the
hearings. I would have loved to have considered their suggestions. I
would have loved to have accepted their positive amendments to make
this bill better. But we were denied the whole process because of a
closed rule.
I showed up to the Rules Committee, and I had two amendments that
would make it better for kids to go to college. One dealt with the high
cost of tuition that has gone up 35 percent in the last 5 years at
public colleges. Another dealt with Pell Grants, to actually help
people go to college. Before I even opened my mouth as the ranking
member of Higher Education, the chairwoman on the Rules Committee said,
there will be no amendments accepted whatsoever. This is a closed rule.
Now, the American public is pretty smart. They recall that Speaker
Pelosi, sitting in your chair on January 4, said she is going to lead
with partnership, not partisanship. Yet when you show up, if you have
an amendment from the other side, it is not even considered, not even
heard. The American people are smart, and they know actions speak
louder than words.
I am told by the gentlewoman from California that 88 percent of the
people support this bill and they do not need any more open process.
{time} 1200
Well, if you ask someone would you rather have a 6.8 percent rate or
a 3.4 percent rate, of course they are going to say 3.4. But if you ask
them would you rather have a student loan at 3.4 percent or a Pell
Grant that you never have to pay back, 100 percent would prefer the
Pell Grant. We should have helped people with this $6 billion on the
front end with increased Pell Grants to go to college rather than
helping college graduates on the back end.
Mr. Speaker, by ignoring our suggestions to increase Pell Grants and
address the skyrocketing costs of tuition, the Democrats have managed
to hit a single for themselves, when they could have hit a home run for
America's college students.
The American people want us to work together, and they realize that
education is not a partisan issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume to point out to you that we are doing
this because the American people have spoken. They spoke in November.
They want us to make progress; and that every single reform in the
Democrats' 100-hours agenda has passed with broad bipartisan support
thus far. And today, we are cutting student loan rates in half in the
same manner they garnered broad bipartisan support last week.
I think that all Members realize that the American people want
results. House Democrats plan on delivering for them, and we continue
to work with
[[Page H592]]
those on the other side of the aisle to do that. You have not heard the
last of us from this side at all. This is only the beginning. This is a
step forward.
Now, at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a
new Member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, if you are a young person who has been
waiting to see a stop in these galloping prices of college education,
today is a good day. Just like last week, if you were a senior, waiting
for prescription drug prices to have a sane policy, last week was a
good week. Just like if you were a hardworking minimum wage worker, you
saw that last week was a good week.
Now, we have been waiting around for about the last 12 years for good
weeks to happen for the hardworking people of the United States, and
this week and today those days are coming to fruition.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, let's vote, let's pass this tuition
decrease, let's pass this cutting in student loan interest rates. Let's
make college more affordable for all Americans. And let's remember that
the party opposite had a long time to solve these problems. They
didn't. We did. Thank goodness for it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker is a prime example of
the new Members of this body who are completely clueless about the 12
wonderful years of bipartisanship that have taken place out of this
Education and Workforce Committee to make education strong, to give
money where it has needed to be, and really, if we want to tell the
truth, to take what we inherited 13 years ago from the Democrats from a
failed student loan program that didn't even work, that was bankrupt.
So, Mr. Speaker, yet another good reason why I wish we had had
regular order, so these new Members of Congress could speak from the
facts of the case rather than holding hostage the truth.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 5,
and we will have an opportunity later on in the day to discuss that
thoroughly. But, mainly, at this point, Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the rule. You know, I heard my colleagues just say, the
gentleman from Illinois and others, some of them new members of the
Rules Committee, that in November the American people have spoken and
they have asked for a break, a Federal break so that more students can
go to college and get these low interest loans and Pell Grants. But I
think what the American people said, my colleagues, in this last
election, more than anything else, is don't trample on the rights of
the minority.
And as a former member of the Rules Committee, my colleagues who are
still on the Rules Committee, including the chairman, and Ms. Matsui,
and others, we heard this repeatedly, Mr. Speaker. Don't trample on the
rights of the minority.
I will say this. We did occasionally have closed rules that probably
should have been open. But we always had a rule. And what this new
majority has done in these first 100 hours is brought six pieces of
legislation, four without any rules whatsoever. And now the very first
piece of legislation, H.R. 5, it is a very important subject to try to
help low income students afford a college education, there is a closed
rule, immediately doing the things that you have railed against us
about.
And I think this is what the American people basically said. They
want you to guarantee the rights of the minority. You have heard from
the ranking member of the Higher Education Subcommittee. You are going
to hear from the ranking member of the overall Committee on Education
and Labor in just a minute.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, they speak for every Republican member of
that committee, and they speak on this issue for every 202 Republican
Members of this body who represent virtually half of this country. And
you are taking their voice away. So this is really what this is all
about. This is the time really to discuss the rule.
And, of course we can talk about the bill itself, as former Chairman
Dreier did, and the fact that what you promised the American people in
these fall elections is you were going to give them a $60 billion break
on higher education, which all of a sudden you have reduced down to 10
percent of that, $6 billion, which virtually does nothing.
But as I say, Mr. Speaker, we will get into that discussion when we
talk about the bill, when we finish discussing the rule. But I just
want to say to my colleagues, all of whom, the former four Members, now
the majority, and the new Members, that I respect, these are my
friends, and we can talk about this, and we should. This is an
opportunity to say to them, you said if you got the majority, which you
now have and enjoy, and you worked hard and you deserve it, that you
would not do the same things that you felt like we were doing to you,
and I think in some instances you were correct.
So stand up, be men and women of your word, and do what you said you
were going to do and not close this process down.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has been on the Rules Committee for 4
years.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Dr. Gingrey,
speaking just a moment ago, said, stand up and be the men and women
that you should be.
Let me tell you, I heard my other colleague, Mr. Sessions, talk about
all this wonderful bipartisanship that took place for 12 years. Well, I
have been here 14, and all I know is rancor and disagreement and very
little in the way of bipartisan spirit that has been engendered here in
this body.
But let me talk about this business about closed rules. It was
understood that in the ``Six for '06'' that the rules would be closed.
I assure you, and everyone else has, that there will be more open rules
than you provided. You had 195 total rules in the 109th Congress.
Twenty-two open rules. Twenty-two open rules, 20 of which were
appropriations bills, only truly open. And you had 50 closed rules, 67
restrictive rules, 26 conference report rules and 30 procedural rules.
We will match you in time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire on the time that
remains for both sides, please, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes,
and the gentlewoman from California has 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could at this time, I would like to
ask the gentlewoman if she could engage in running down her time, it
would bring us to some more parity and allow her speakers that time at
this juncture.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6
minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the Education and
Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and, more
to the point, I rise in strong opposition to the decidedly unfair
closed and heavy handed process that preceded our time on the floor
today.
Over the past several years, few would argue with the assertion that
the Education and the Workforce Committee was among the fairest
committees when it came to member input from both the Republicans and
Democrats alike. Likewise, it was home to some of the most robust
debate in the House. From No Child Left Behind and the pension reform
to the reauthorizations of the Older Americans Act and the Higher
Education Act, our panel held extensive hearings and markups prior to
the floor consideration of all major pieces of legislation within our
jurisdiction. For that, our committee and the House were better off.
I have little doubt that this will, in large part, I hope, continue
over the next 2 years. But in the early days of this Congress, I can't
help but be concerned about the way the new majority has turned its
back on regular order. As we consider legislation with such far
reaching consequences, for example, the bill before us today impacts
education and labor's largest entitlement program, but not a single
hearing or markup was held on it prior to its arrival here on the
floor. We didn't actually see this bill until last Friday afternoon.
And not a single bipartisan
[[Page H593]]
conversation took place as the legislation was written and rewritten
time after time by the majority leadership.
The last time we were on the floor considering a major higher
education bill, the process we followed to get here was decidedly
different. Before we sent the College Access and Opportunity Act to the
floor last spring, countless hearings and markups were held in the
Education and Workforce Committee where Members debated, amended and
voted on the legislation. In fact, through subcommittee and full
committee processes we addressed over 100 amendments from both sides of
the aisle. We even considered a 40-page manager's amendment that we
worked for weeks on with both sides of the aisle. But today we have
nothing of the sort, and for that and for the closed rule thrust upon
us today, I am deeply disappointed.
Now the other side has said, well, it was understood during the
campaign that we would bring up six items, we would eliminate the
democratic process, we would just bring them to the floor, shove them
through, and everybody understood that process.
In fact, if I were watching this debate, I would think that right
now, I would, when I get my paycheck this week, I would have a higher
paycheck if I were working under the minimum wage. That has already
been taken care of. And I think that probably some students are
thinking that next week their loan payment is going to go down. This
process is maybe being rushed on this side, but before a bill becomes
law it has to go through the other body and it has to be worked out,
the differences, and then it has to go to the President, and the
President does not support this bill that is on the floor here today.
Mr. Speaker, to understand the importance of a robust committee
process, we need to look no further than another piece of Education and
Labor Committee legislation considered by the House just last week. In
it, the Federal minimum wage was increased for all 50 United States and
all of our territories, all except one, that is.
We are now told that, as a matter of fact, our committee soon will
consider legislation to correct this apparent oversight that happened
last week. Still, I can't help but think that this extra step may not
have been necessary had regular order been followed in the first place.
Suffice to say I hope we don't find ourselves in the same situation
after we act today. However, I can't help but be concerned by the fact
that the underlying legislation would provide convicted felons
unfettered access to the same or, in some cases, lower student loan
interest rates as their law abiding counterparts, something we didn't
get a chance to look at.
The heavy handed process carried out prior to today also has taken
away our ability to improve this legislation, improvements that I
believe could have been bipartisan in nature.
H.R. 5 is a well-intentioned bill, but I also believe it to be badly
misdirected and ripe for improvement. Sadly, those many improvements,
including an affordability amendment that I offered at the Rules
Committee yesterday, even after I had been told that we had no chance
to offer amendments and that it would be a closed rule, will never see
the light of day.
{time} 1215
We are stuck with a flawed bill, one that we could have made much
better with little effort at all.
As we continue our debate today, and, more importantly, as we
consider more comprehensive higher education measures in the months to
come, I look forward to having a seat at the table, the same seat I
provided my friends on the other side of the aisle a year ago when I
was chairman.
In the meantime, I reiterate my opposition to this rule and urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for
consideration of the College Student Relief Act. This bill is good for
students, it is good for the budget, and it is deserving of our
support. This bill will help make college more affordable to students
who need it most by cutting the interest rate in half on subsidized
student loans.
College costs, as we all know, have risen dramatically. In the last 5
years, the cost of attending a 4-year public college increased $3,095,
or by 34 percent. Interest rates the students pay on college loans have
also risen this year to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent. This combination
of factors makes attending college more expensive, if not impossible,
for some of today's high school students.
This bill, the bill before us, takes a long first step towards making
college more affordable. Each year it cuts the interest rate that
undergraduates will pay on the standard subsidized student loans until
that rate is cut in half to 3.4 percent in the year 2011. At the same
time, the bill we have before us will save the Federal Government by
reducing the deficit by a significant sum.
That is why this bill meets all of the tests laid down by the pay-as-
you-go rule which the House adopted on January 5. That rule requires
that direct spending or mandatory spending be budget neutral or deficit
neutral over 6 years, 2007 through 2012, and over 11 years as well,
2007 through 2017, which is as far out as our cost estimates run. This
bill is more than deficit neutral or budget neutral because it actually
reduces the deficits in most years, saving $1.5 billion in 2007, $65
million over 6 years, and a total of $7.1 billion over the next 11
years, 2007 through 2017.
So, overall, this bill helps students get a good college education
while helping us reduce the deficit. It meets the requirements of
PAYGO. It is a bill and a rule that deserves our support.
I would urge every Member on both sides to vote for this rule and
vote for the rule that enables it to come to the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would take the prerogative of
reminding the gentleman and the gentlewoman that the gentleman has 2
minutes left and the gentlewoman has the right to close, and she has
approximately 12 minutes left.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Speaker. I also thank the gentleman, a dear
friend of mine from South Carolina, for talking about how great this is
for the budget. Yet the rule waives points of order that are contained
in the budget. Being specific, it is an explanation of the waivers that
we found out about.
The bill violates section 302(f) because its direct spending will
exceed the Committee on Education and Labor's allocation, but that is
good for the budget.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have had an opportunity on this side to
talk about why we are disappointed in this closed rule and in the
Democrats' failure to provide a comprehensive solution to increasing
higher education access for our students that will help keep America
competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert in the Record an article printed
in The Dallas Morning News, my home newspaper, from January 12,
outlining the way today's Democrat proposal fails and falls short of
their past promises.
[From the Dallas Morning News, Jan. 12, 2007]
Dems Push Rate Cut for Student Loans
Washington.--Following up on an election-year promise,
House Democrats said Friday that they plan quick action to
lower interest rates for student loans.
Their proposal, scheduled for a vote next week, would cut
interest rates on some student loans in half. However, the
college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first
touted on the campaign trail last year.
The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based
loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized
student loans--a distinction not made in the campaign
literature Democrats handed out before winning control of
Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to
reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with
their kids' college costs.
The rate cut for subsidized student loans--from 6.8 percent
to 3.4 percent--would be phased in over 5 years.
The measure would cost just under $6 billion, according to
the Congressional Budget Office.
To avoid increasing the deficit, the bill's cost would be
offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and
reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students
default. Banks also would have to pay more in fees.
An estimated 5.5 million students receive subsidized loans.
Republicans pushed a budget bill through Congress last
session that cut $12 billion from student loan programs.
Democrats and student groups argued the money should have
been preserved.
[[Page H594]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
closed rule and the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, the House will have the opportunity to debate this important
amendment offered by Republican Ranking Member Buck McKeon so that
convicted felons will be considered ineligible to receive the Democrat
interest rate reduction.
Mr. Speaker, today this debate has been very succinct and to the
point. That is that we believe that for 12 years that Republicans and
Democrats have worked very carefully on education issues that will help
this country out, through difficult times, through difficult processes,
increasing the amount of money that is available, not only for people
to attend school, but also reducing the costs that were impediments in
the program.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the way it is being pitched today
is, well, the Republicans were just headed in a bad direction and had
12 years to do this, when in fact we have been doing this in a
bipartisan way for 12 years. Today, we are going to hear it and have it
the Democrats' way.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, I wish to thank all the Members who participated in this
discussion on the importance of increasing opportunity and
affordability for all of our Nation's young minds. We are all in
agreement on the importance of education and the central role it played
in expanding the next generation's horizons.
Mr. Speaker, as I described in my opening remarks, the resolution
before the House allows for a vote on a Democratic proposal to cut
subsidized student loan rates in half over the next 5 years. It will
reduce the cost of college to some 5 million students by an average of
$4,400. This is good, responsible progress for America's middle class,
for our working families looking out to provide the next generation
with a brighter future. Today's vote on the issue can make it a
reality.
Last week, as part of Speaker Pelosi's 100-hour agenda, Democrats
acted swiftly to help average Americans. We voted to increase the
minimum wage, expand Federal stem cell research, negotiate lower drug
prices for our seniors, and implement 9/11 Commission recommendations.
All of these issues passed by wide bipartisan margins and enjoyed
significant bipartisan support.
I expect that today's bill will be no different, so let's get to it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 65 Offered by Mr. McKeon of California
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for
student borrowers. All points of order against the bill and
against its consideration are waived except those arising
under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of
debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in section 2 of this
resolution if offered by Representative McKeon of California
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall
be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows:
At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the following new
subsection,
(c) Ineligibility of Felons for Interest Rate Reductions.--
Notwithstanding the amendments made by subsections (a) and
(b) of this section, an individual shall not be eligible for
the reduced interest rates provided under such amendments on
any loan if the individual was convicted of a felony that
occurred during or after a period of enrollment when the
individual was receiving the loan.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress. Only political affiliation has been changed.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration ofthe subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer a amendment to the rule, or yield for the
purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________