[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.

                          ____________________