[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H597-H631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   COLLEGE STUDENT RELIEF ACT OF 2007

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 65, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 5

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``College Student Relief Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

       (a) FFEL Interest Rates.--
       (1) Section 427A(l) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1077a(l)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Reduced rates for undergraduate subsidized loans.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (h) and paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection, with respect to any loan to an undergraduate 
     student made, insured, or guaranteed under this part (other 
     than a loan made pursuant to section 428B, 428C, or 428H) for 
     which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 
     2006, and before January 1, 2012, the applicable rate of 
     interest shall be as follows:
       ``(A) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2007, 6.80 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(B) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2007, and before July 1, 2008, 6.12 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(C) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2008, and before July 1, 2009, 5.44 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(D) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, 4.76 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(E) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011, 4.08 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(F) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2011, and before January 1, 2012, 3.40 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.''.
       (2) Special allowance cross reference.--Section 
     438(b)(2)(I)(ii)(II) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``section 427A(l)(1)'' and inserting ``section 427A(l)(1) or 
     (l)(4)''.
       (b) Direct Loan Interest Rates.--Section 455(b)(7) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Reduced rates for undergraduate fdsl.--
     Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this subsection, 
     for Federal Direct Stafford Loans made to undergraduate 
     students for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
     July 1, 2006, and before January 1, 2012, the applicable rate 
     of interest shall be as follows:
       ``(i) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2007, 6.80 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(ii) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2007, and before July 1, 2008, 6.12 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(iii) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2008, and before July 1, 2009, 5.44 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(iv) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, 4.76 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(v) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011, 4.08 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(vi) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2011, and before January 1, 2012, 3.40 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.''.

     SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF LENDER INSURANCE PERCENTAGE.

       (a) Amendment.--Subparagraph (G) of section 428(b)(1) of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(G)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) insures 95 percent of the unpaid principal of loans 
     insured under the program, except that--
       ``(i) such program shall insure 100 percent of the unpaid 
     principal of loans made with funds advanced pursuant to 
     section 428(j) or 439(q); and
       ``(ii) notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this 
     subparagraph, such program

[[Page H598]]

     shall insure 100 percent of the unpaid principal amount of 
     exempt claims as defined in subsection (c)(1)(G);''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect with respect to loans made on or after July 
     1, 2007.

     SEC. 4. GUARANTEE AGENCY COLLECTION RETENTION.

       Clause (ii) of section 428(c)(6)(A) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(6)(A)(ii)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 24 percent of such payments for 
     use in accordance with section 422B, except that--

       ``(I) beginning October 1, 2003 and ending September 30, 
     2007, this subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `23 
     percent' for `24 percent';
       ``(II) beginning October 1, 2007 and ending September 30, 
     2008, this subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `20 
     percent' for `24 percent';
       ``(III) beginning October 1, 2008 and ending September 30, 
     2010, this subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `18 
     percent' for `24 percent'; and
       ``(IV) beginning October 1, 2010, this subparagraph shall 
     be applied by substituting for `24 percent' a percentage 
     determined in accordance with the regulations of the 
     Secretary and equal to the average rate paid to collection 
     agencies that have contracts with the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMER STATUS FOR 
                   LENDERS.

       (a) Elimination of Status.--Part B of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is 
     amended by striking section 428I (20 U.S.C. 1078-9).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Part B of title IV of such Act 
     is further amended--
       (1) in section 428(c)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(1))--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (H) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (G), respectively; and
       (2) in section 438(b)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(5)), by 
     striking the matter following subparagraph (B).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on July 1, 2007.

     SEC. 6. REDUCTION OF LENDER SPECIAL ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS.

       Section 438(b)(2)(I) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(I)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clauses:
       ``(vi) Reduction for loans disbursed on or after july 1, 
     2007.--With respect to a loan on which the applicable 
     interest rate is determined under section 427A(l) and for 
     which the first disbursement of principal is made on or after 
     July 1, 2007, the special allowance payment computed pursuant 
     to this subparagraph shall be computed--

       ``(I) by substituting `2.24 percent' for `2.34 percent' 
     each place it appears in this subparagraph;
       ``(II) by substituting `1.64 percent' for `1.74 percent' in 
     clause (ii); and
       ``(III) by substituting `2.54 percent' for `2.64 percent' 
     each place it appears in clauses (iii) and (iv).

       ``(vii) Smaller lender exemption.--Clause (vi) shall not 
     apply to the calculation of the special allowance payment 
     with respect to any 3-month period for any holder of eligible 
     loans that, together with its affiliated holders, is 
     designated by the Secretary as a small lender.
       ``(viii) Designation of small lenders.--In determining 
     which holders of eligible loans qualify for the exemption 
     provided under clause (vii), the Secretary shall, using the 
     most recently available data with respect to the total 
     principal amount of eligible loans held by holders--

       ``(I) rank all holders of eligible loans in descending 
     order by total principal amount of eligible loans held;
       ``(II) calculate the total principal amount of eligible 
     loans held by all holders; and
       ``(III) identify the subset of consecutively ranked holders 
     under subclause (I), starting with the lowest ranked holder, 
     that together hold a total principal amount of such loans 
     equal to 10 percent of the total amount calculated under 
     subclause (II), but excluding the holder, if any, whose 
     holdings when added cause the total holdings of the subset to 
     both equal and then exceed such 10 percent of such total 
     amount calculated; and
       ``(IV) designate as small lenders any holder identified as 
     a member of the subset under subclause (III).''.

     SEC. 7. INCREASED LOAN FEES FROM LENDERS.

       Paragraph (2) of section 438(d) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(d)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Amount of loan fees.--The amount of the loan fee 
     which shall be deducted under paragraph (1), but which may 
     not be collected from the borrower, shall be equal to--
       ``(A) 0.50 percent of the principal amount of the loan with 
     respect to any loan under this part for which the first 
     disbursement was made on or after October 1, 1993, and before 
     July 1, 2007; and
       ``(B) 1.0 percent of the principal amount of the loan with 
     respect to any loan under this part for which the first 
     disbursement was made on or after July 1, 2007.''.

     SEC. 8. INTEREST PAYMENT REBATE FEE.

       Section 428C(f)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1078-2(f)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Special rule--'' and inserting ``Special 
     rules--(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) For consolidation loans based on applications 
     received on or after July 1, 2007, if 90 percent or more of 
     the total principal and accrued unpaid interest outstanding 
     on the loans held, directly or indirectly, by any holder is 
     comprised of principal and accrued unpaid interest owed on 
     consolidation loans, the rebate described in paragraph (1) 
     for such holder shall be equal to 1.30 percent of the 
     principal plus accrued unpaid interest on such loans.''.

                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeLauro). The gentleman may state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, under what rule are we 
considering H.R. 5?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the resolution just adopted.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the rule under which we are considering 
H.R. 5 allow for an amendment to H.R. 5?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only by way of a motion to recommit.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Chair explain how a motion to recommit 
will be in order given that the committee hasn't met, formed or adopted 
any rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill was referred to a committee, and, 
therefore, its committal to that committee would be a recommittal.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Chair tell me whether or not the 
committee reported the bill out?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill has not been reported to the House.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 65, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 90 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide a great deal 
of assistance to those students who borrow from the subsidized student 
loan program. I want to thank the Rules Committee for providing for the 
passage of the rule for the consideration of H.R. 5, the College 
Student Relief Act.
  Today, millions of students and their families all across America are 
struggling to figure out how to pay for college. They are making 
critical decisions about whether college is in their future, based on 
what they can afford and how much debt they will be able to reasonably 
take on.
  We know that a college education is as important today as a high 
school diploma was a generation ago. Yet, since the 2000-2001 academic 
years, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities have soared 
by 41 percent, while those at the private universities have increased 
by 17 percent. This is not a problem that we can ignore.
  The College Student Relief Act helps students and their families by 
cutting interest rates for undergraduate subsidized student loans in 
half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, phased in over 5 years. Once 
this interest rate is fully phased in, a student with an average loan 
debt of $13,800 will save approximately $4,400 over the life of their 
loan.
  I am pleased to report that the College Student Relief Act is fully 
paid for, and complies with the House's new, strict PAYGO rules. 
Additionally, all changes to both students and lenders only apply to 
future loans.
  This legislation will give much-needed relief to some 5.5 million 
students who borrow subsidized loans each year. The majority of 
students helped by College Student Relief Act are low- and middle-
income students with family incomes between $26,000 to $68,000. Half of 
these students are eligible to receive Pell Grants, but many such 
students find that Pell Grants alone are insufficient. Because of the 
failure to increase the value of the Pell Grants over

[[Page H599]]

the last decade, the Pell Grant does not cover the cost of education, 
and so those students who are eligible for Pell Grants because of 
family income and resources also find out they have to borrow. They 
borrow from this program, so this program is an additional savings, 
when we pass this legislation, to those who are eligible for the Pell 
Grants.
  Providing debt relief to our students is the right thing to do. 
Current studies indicate that more students are borrowing more than 
ever. The debt level of graduates from public universities has 
skyrocketed by 58 percent in the past decade. The Pell Grant recipients 
and students with modest incomes are likely to borrow more often and in 
greater amount than other students.
  This is just the first step in helping students and their families 
with college education. We plan to increase Pell Grants later in the 
appropriation process in the amount which has seriously fallen behind 
the cost of college, and we need to again take a look at making college 
tax credits and deductions simpler to use and more robust. That is what 
this Congress is committed to doing in the future when we are done with 
these six bills in the first 100 hours.
  I also believe that colleges and universities should play their part 
in addressing affordability by becoming more diligent about cutting 
expenses and more transparent about college costs. We hope to address 
this in the 110th Congress when we reauthorize the Higher Education 
Act.
  We cannot ignore the fact that students and families are drowning in 
debt in such a way that many of them have been forced to make difficult 
choices. Some choose just not to go to school, they stop going to 
school or they defer going to school, or they choose professions that 
will be more lucrative, instead of public service professions such as 
teaching, social work, law enforcement and other such professions 
because they know the debt that they will have to repay.
  The debt issue and the agony families feel when they think about 
being able to afford college for their children is all too familiar a 
story to many of us who have been involved in this issue for some time.
  I am pleased this bill has earned wide support in the education 
community among students, with such groups as U.S. PIRG and the United 
States Students Association, with colleges and universities across the 
country, including the National Association for Independent Colleges 
and Universities and the American Council on Education, and with labor 
unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National 
Education Association.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5, the College Student Relief 
Act of 2007, so we can tell middle- and low-income families that we 
want to invest in a college education, we want to help these families 
find a way to pay for that, and we want to do whatever we can to reduce 
the burden of debt that these students are taking on today in 
unprecedented levels, the first generation to be put in that situation.
  I think this is a good beginning in the first 100 hours to put this 
Congress on record not just as hoping to do something for students, but 
in fact doing something for 5.5 million students who will be eligible 
for the benefits under this interest rate cut.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is a well-intentioned bill that I wish we had the 
chance to make better. Nonetheless, without the opportunity for 
amendments, I hope we can use these next 3 hours to analyze what H.R. 5 
does and what it doesn't do.
  Normally this is a task best reserved for regular order when you go 
through the committee process and have a chance to have hearings and 
have a chance to hear experts on the subject. We are forgoing that 
today because we are in this 100 hours of nondemocratic rule, and that 
is a result of the election. You won the majority, you use that 
majority the way you see fit; but I think that is unfortunate for 
America today.
  Since we have bypassed that process, I would like to spend some time 
doing so right here today. First, let me underscore once again the fact 
that this bill has never been considered in committee. It includes some 
changes impacting the student loan industry that have never been tried 
before and, worse yet, they have never even been discussed in any 
meaningful way. Is that bad policy? Well, maybe so. But is it 
irresponsible policy-making? Most definitely it is.
  Next, I caution my colleagues not to characterize what is before us 
today as a student aid bill. Ironically, the College Student Relief Act 
wouldn't impact a single college student. The way the loan program 
works, a student that wishes to borrow, and it is unfortunate, I think, 
that we are even having to have that kind of discussion today; I wish 
we were focusing on trying to keep the cost of education down so 
students didn't need to borrow a penny, but that is not going to be the 
debate.
  The way it works, a student borrows the first year, the second year, 
the third and fourth years if they so desire; and then after they 
graduate from school and have a 6-month respite period, they begin to 
repay that loan. So this bill today addresses an interest rate that a 
college graduate will pay back in the repayment period 6 months after 
they graduate from school when they are definitely no longer students.
  I also caution my colleagues not to buy into the talking point that 
H.R. 5 would save a typical borrower about $4,400 over the life of 
their loan because it just simply isn't true.
  Now what the Democrats talked about during the campaign of reducing 
all student debt by half may have met these requirements, but not what 
is actually on the floor here today. The fact is that a borrower cannot 
save nearly this much because under H.R. 5, the bill we are discussing 
here today, the interest rate phases down from the current 6.8 percent 
to 3.4 percent over a series of 5 years. The borrower, for them to 
receive the complete $4,400 in savings, the 3.4 percent interest rate 
must remain in effect the whole time and it only is actually in effect 
the last 6 months, and they must consolidate their debt at that time 
and stretch the repayment out over the whole 15 years.
  However, Democratic leaders have crafted the legislation to ensure 
that the 3.4 percent rate stays in effect only from July 1, 2011, 
through January 1, 2012, 6 months. On January 2, 2012, the interest 
rate returns back to the current 6.8 percent making the $4,400 in 
savings impossible to achieve.
  In reality, a college freshman in the fall of 2011, when the rate is 
at 3.4 percent, would end up saving $6.42 a month. That's right, $6.42 
once he or she begins repaying their student loan.
  More broadly, H.R. 5 falls woefully short in dealing with what I 
consider the twin priorities for addressing the college cost crisis. 
That is, expanding access, which should be the Federal role in higher 
education, and enhancing affordability. Those are two very important 
items.
  First, on access, as I said, by definition this legislation cannot 
expand college access because at its core it is not a student aid bill. 
Would it reduce payments for a limited number of college graduates who 
would see their interest rate gradually drop over the next 5 years? 
Yes.
  Would it bring a low- or middle-income student any closer to the 
dream of attending college? Unfortunately not.
  Compare this to the record $90 billion we are investing this year, 
$90 billion Federal investment this year, in student aid programs. That 
is an amount that has tripled over the last decade.
  We have heard today in part of the rule debate about how over the 
last 12 years we have done nothing. We have tripled the amount of 
funding available for those who are going to higher education, under 
the Republican majority in Congress, I might add, and it is difficult 
to understand why our friends on the other side of the aisle act as if 
they have a monopoly on the college access debate.

                              {time}  1330

  On impacting college affordability, Madam Speaker, once again, this 
legislation falls short, and I truly did not believe this would have to 
be the case.
  Consider this: On a 4-year public college education the tuition has 
risen 35 percent over the past 5 years. However, during the past 
decade, Federal aid for students has increased 300 percent.

[[Page H600]]

Now, I ask my colleagues, if funding alone was the solution to the 
college cost crisis, wouldn't we have realized it by now? Of course we 
would have. And that is why institutional accountability is so 
important. It is at the very heart of the college cost crisis.
  Yesterday, I introduced legislation, the College Affordability and 
Transparency Act, to help parents and students hold institutions more 
accountable for their role in the college cost crisis. I also submitted 
it, or tried to submit it, as an amendment to the Rules Committee, 
because I believed it was a vehicle through which we could have 
drastically improved the underlying legislation. Unfortunately, 
however, the closed process has placed the issue of affordability on 
the back burner, and these proactive commonsense reforms will have to 
wait for another day.
  That is right, giving parents and students more information, in an 
easy-to-use format, about college costs and outcomes? That will have to 
wait for another day.
  Establishing a system of simply and unmistakably comparing the cost 
increases of one institution against another? That will have to wait 
for another day.
  And asking colleges that increase their costs the most and most often 
to identify ways to bring tuition under control on behalf of parents 
and students? Well, that too will have to wait for another day.
  What is most disappointing is that many of these same reforms were 
passed by the House last year and Members on both sides of the aisle 
have backed exactly this type of approach. But to see them move forward 
from here, we will just have to wait for another day.
  In countless ways, Madam Speaker, we can do better than H.R. 5. I 
just wish we had that opportunity. Because although the bill before us, 
as well-intentioned as it is, is just not what it seems. It is not a 
student aid bill, it doesn't expand student access, and it doesn't 
enhance affordability of a college education.
  In the weeks and months to come, I hope we can work in a bipartisan 
way toward all of these things, and I look forward to working with 
Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee, and Members on the other side of the 
aisle to ensure that this happens.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) controls the time for the majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Student Relief 
Act. By making college more affordable for 5.5 million students each 
year, this bill is a big step in the right direction of helping low- 
and middle-income families achieve the American Dream. Not only is it a 
step in the right direction, but it is a step in a new direction.
  For years, the President and previous Congresses have passed billions 
of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans instead of 
investing in the potential of average Americans. The last Congress put 
college out of reach for many families by passing a $12 billion raid on 
student aid, the largest cut in the history of the student aid program.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5 will save the average borrower who starts at a 
4-year college at Michigan next year nearly $2,200 over the life of the 
loan, and will save the same student who starts in 2011 more than 
$4,200.
  Madam Speaker, when we debate the Federal budget around here, we talk 
about budget authority and outlays and offsets, and other complicated 
accounting procedures. But, in the end, what we really are talking 
about are not just numbers but real people in every corner of this 
country, making tough decisions about their lives.
  One of the toughest questions these days is whether they can afford 
to attend or stay in college, especially because a college education is 
more important now than ever. These are real people with names, not 
numbers, who ask that question. They are people who live in your 
district.
  Very simply, the reason I support this bill, and the reason I ask my 
colleagues to join me, is because this bill will help thousands of 
students to say yes to that question.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the ranking member 
on the Higher Education Subcommittee.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member on the Higher 
Education Subcommittee. I believe in higher Pell grants, lower interest 
rates, and a leveling off of college tuition. I come to this belief 
through my own life experiences. I grew up in relatively humble 
circumstances. My mom was a single parent who raised three kids on the 
modest salary of a secretary. If it wasn't for Pell grants and student 
loans, I wouldn't have been able to go to college and, ultimately, law 
school. I believe every child, rich or poor, deserves the chance to go 
to college.
  Let us turn to student loans and how that impacts that. When I 
graduated from college in 1986, the student loan interest rate I had on 
my loans was 9.5 percent. In 2002, during my first term here in 
Congress, we decided to do something about that and we joined together, 
Republicans, Democrats, and student groups, and approved legislation in 
January of 2002 fixing the student loan interest rate at 6.8 percent. 
On January 24 of 2002, Chairman George Miller supported the 6.8 percent 
rate. He voted for the 6.8 percent rate, and he said on this floor that 
we should be commended for passing the 6.8 percent rate.
  Last year, in March of 2006, when we were passing the higher 
education bill on the House floor, Chairman Miller said that he wanted 
to now cut the interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. It had a 
big price tag of $18 billion. He didn't offer any ways to pay for it.
  Today, he comes before us with another proposal to cut the rate from 
6.8 percent, down to 3.4 percent, phased in over a 5-year period, so 
you hit the 3.4 percent in the final year only. This price tag is 
smaller, at $6 billion. And to their credit, the Democrats have come 
forward with a way to pay for it, and that is mainly by taking money 
out of the student lenders' pockets.
  The question before us is one of access. What is the best way to 
expand college access? Should we help college students on the front end 
afford to go to school by increasing their Pell grants, or do we help 
college graduates on the back end by phasing down their loan interest 
rates?
  I think a better approach would have been to take some of this $6 
billion in savings and invest it in the Pell grant program. This is a 
program we Republicans have been pretty serious about during my 6 years 
in Congress, and I would like to show you a chart reflecting that.
  This is the 20-year history of the Pell grant program. As you can 
see, in yellow, this is the 10 years the Democrats were in control of 
Congress. The red represents when the Republicans took control of 
Congress. You see a steep increase. If they had adopted the proposal we 
set forth, these charts would be literally off the charts in terms of 
such a dramatic increase in Pell grants.
  Now, someone said earlier, well, we haven't done enough to increase 
Pell grant funding during our time in the majority over the past 6 
years. Let us take a look at that claim. Overall, Pell grant funding 
from 2000 to today has gone up 71 percent, from $7.6 billion to $13 
billion a year. And we have increased by 36 percent the number of 
children eligible for Pell grants from 3.9 million to 5.3 million. We 
have a pretty good record on Pell grants, one to be proud of.
  If they had taken the $6 billion and invested it in the Pell grant 
program, what a dramatic difference it would make when you consider the 
Pell grant program along with the Pell-eligible programs of 
competitiveness grants and SMART grants.
  This is the difference: First-year students would get up to $5,300 a 
year; second-year students would get up to $5,850; third-year students 
would get $8,050; and fourth-year students, up to $8,050. We made this 
proposal, went before the Rules Committee, and it was a

[[Page H601]]

closed rule. They didn't want to hear anything about it.
  We also had some ideas about the skyrocketing cost of tuition. It has 
gone up 35 percent in the past 5 years at public colleges. We had some 
pretty good ideas to help, mainly Chairman McKeon, now Ranking Member 
McKeon's, bill. He went before the Rules Committee. Closed rule. Didn't 
want to hear about it.
  Now, what did Chairman Miller and others say about this problem with 
not investing enough in Pell grants and the skyrocketing costs of 
tuition? We will come back to those issues. We will deal with that a 
later day.
  Now, here is the problem. Whatever we do on a later day with Pell 
grants will be $6 billion less than it could have been because this $6 
billion is gone. It is gone, based on this approach here.
  In summary, by ignoring our ideas about increasing Pell grants and 
addressing the rising tuition costs, the Democrats have managed to hit 
a single for themselves when they could have hit a home run for 
America's college students.
  Education should not be a partisan issue. No one party has all the 
answers. Today, I will show a little bit of good faith and vote ``yes'' 
on this bill. Tomorrow, I hope the Democrats will show a little bit of 
good faith by listening to what people like me have to say about Pell 
grants and the skyrocketing costs of tuition.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding, and I appreciate the presentation of my colleagues on the 
other side; their sort of would have, could have, should have.
  But the fact of the matter is, last year, when they had the Higher 
Education Act in front of them, the only thing they did was take $16 
billion out of the student aid accounts and give it to pay for tax cuts 
to the wealthiest people in this country. They didn't think about the 
Pell grantees at that time. They talked about them, but they didn't do 
anything for the Pell grantees. They didn't do anything to lower the 
student loans here.
  They took $16 billion, and we begged them, we went to the Rules 
Committee and we begged them to let us recycle that money on behalf of 
the students on loans or Pell Grants or whatever. They said, no, this 
is going to the richest people in the country. And the fact of the 
matter is, the Rules Committee was so generous that in the entire 
higher education bill of last year, we got one amendment. We got one 
amendment.
  So I think the point is that on this day, here in the first 100 
hours, we are going to take care of middle-and lower-income students, 5 
million of them who need these resources; then we will move on to tax 
deductions for families. And then we are going to move on and deal with 
increasing the Pell, something the President promised to do 6 years ago 
and has never been done.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to correct the record a little bit.
  Last year, when we did the reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act, we dealt with over 100 amendments, both Democrat and Republican, 
through the committee process that we have forgone today. And when we 
did take that money last year in the Deficit Reduction Act, we put over 
$9 billion back into students.
  What we did with that money for students, and these are students in 
school, we took the 4 percent loan fees that were being charged to many 
students and cut all loan fees to 1 percent. For the average borrower, 
that is, for students in school, it gave them a savings of $525.
  One of the problems we find is that students in their first and 
second years tend to drop out of school because they do not have enough 
money. So we gave them more of a chance to have their loans up front, 
and we increased those loan limits by $1,000 per year, from $3,500 to 
$4,500 for first- and second-year students.
  And we did some other things: High-achieving, low-income students in 
the first and second years are able to obtain additional grant aid. 
High-achieving, low-income students that major in math, science or 
certain foreign languages are eligible to obtain an additional $4,000 
in grant aid for their third and fourth years of college, and on and 
on. We put $9 billion of that back directly into student and student 
aid.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield to another ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), such time as he 
may consume.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Unfortunately, one concern that continues to arise, and has done so 
since I came to Congress, is the continuously rising cost of a college 
education. Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation, 
increases in family income, and even increases in State and financial 
aid which have grown tremendously in recent years. These cost increases 
are pricing students and families out of the college market. In a time 
when we have reports suggesting that today's high school students 
recognize more than ever the importance of obtaining a college 
education, these students should not shy away because of skyrocketing 
costs.
  While today's bill does seek to help graduates, it barely skims the 
surface of the true problem of how we can help increase access and 
affordability. I will support this effort but hope that this Congress 
will make substantive steps towards helping current and future 
students.
  We have all heard the statistics, and frankly we all deserve to hear 
them again. According to the College Board, the cost of attending a 
private college has soared by 52 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 
the 1991-92 academic year. Public colleges have increased costs by a 
whopping 86 percent in the same time span. In conjunction with these 
statistics, we don't often taught the fact that since 2001 under a 
Republican Congress, direct student aid has increased from $9.6 billion 
to $48 billion. During the same period, the number of students 
receiving such aid soared by nearly one-third, from 7.6 million to 10.1 
million. Yet we are still in a predicament of students needing help. We 
must begin to look seriously and holistically at this issue. There is 
neither a simple solution nor one entity responsible.
  First, it is my belief that one of the best things we can do is raise 
awareness, and to force transparency in the process. Legislation 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), which I support, 
seeks to provide parents and students the information that they deserve 
as consumers. They deserve the opportunity to understand why tuition is 
increasing at their universities. As educated consumers, it is my hope 
that they will in turn have the power to demand more, to demand 
answers, and ultimately drive down cost. Understanding that there are 
many moving parts to a solution, transparency is a good first step in 
the right direction.
  Second, we all must be part of the solution. The U.S. Secretary of 
Education, Margaret Spellings, and the Commission on the Future of 
Higher Education have helped to bring the issue of access and 
affordability to the forefront. They too have identified areas in which 
they may implement solutions, such as simplifying the Free Application 
for Federal Student Aid. Everyone is clearly beginning to recognize how 
they can alleviate this dilemma.
  Third, the institutions must accept some of the responsibility. There 
are some fabulous colleges and universities out there making it happen 
for a fraction of what they could charge. For all of those, however, 
there are also plenty who are not being as efficient as they should be. 
I believe that these institutions need to take a long, hard look at 
every aspect of their budgets to identify savings from within. As 
highlighted above, despite record increases in student aid, tuition 
continued to increase. Some have studied and argued that there is in 
fact a correlation. Further, it was maintained in today's Wall Street 
Journal that the increase in aid will permit colleges to raise their 
tuitions in order to reap the benefit. Without the aid, colleges and 
universities would be forced to be more careful. In December, the New 
York Times reported that based on the fact that some

[[Page H602]]

equate price with equality, some institutions raise their tuition for 
the sole purpose of matching their rivals. In some instances they also 
raise their discounts and assistance, but the fact remains that they 
are artificially raising the price which unfortunately may scare many 
students away from even applying. The reality is, Federal assistance 
does not give license to increase tuition. We cannot continue to offer 
the solutions. Don't be misled. I do support Federal assistance but do 
ask that colleges not take it for granted. Today's action must be 
coupled with responsible governing and accounting by our institutions 
of higher learning.
  Fourth, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to spend 
efficiently and effectively. While this proposal is well-intentioned 
and does reach our low- and middle-income classes, it unfortunately may 
not be the best use of $6 billion. Ideally, this money should be more 
evenly spent. Aid experts and those in the academic community often 
identify Pell Grants, the primary source of aid for the neediest 
students, as the best avenue for increasing affordability. Leading up 
to this bill, these groups argued that the money would be best spent in 
this manner. In the future, I hope that this Congress spends more time 
deciphering the best way to appropriate taxpayers' money.
  Finally, I believe that we have to begin gaining a better 
understanding of private student loans. With the escalation in college 
costs, students are exhausting their Federal loans and are forced to 
turn to private loans, something that has not been a part of the 
conversation. Consider this: 40 percent of private loan borrowers are 
from the bottom two income quartiles of students going to college. Five 
years ago, private loans made up only $4 billion of the $850 billion of 
the asset-backed securities market. Today, it comprises $13 billion. 
This is a completely different market and is not shaped with the policy 
goal of increasing access and affordability for students. There are 
many questions surrounding private student loans and I intend on 
beginning to ask these questions. If we are to tackle this issue, we 
must do so completely.
  The issue of college affordability and access is complicated but one 
that I trust we can come together to help resolve, not just those of us 
in Congress but also those in academia, the lenders, students, parents 
and institutions.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this debate is about a promise broken and a promise 
kept. When President Bush ran for President the first time in 2000, he 
promised to make the maximum Pell Grant $5,100 per year. Today, the 
maximum Pell Grant is $4,050 per year. It is true that the erstwhile 
majority spent more money on Pell Grants, but it is also true that 
many, many more people were eligible for Pell Grants and the value of 
the Pell Grant shrunk during the tenure of the erstwhile majority. The 
new majority is keeping a promise to significantly reduce student loan 
rates for students across this country. And we are keeping, in my view, 
a more important promise, to pay for keeping that promise by not adding 
to the deficit.
  Unlike the tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in 
this country, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. Unlike the 
seemingly endless misadventure in Iraq, this bill doesn't add to the 
deficit. Unlike the huge tax breaks for the energy industry at a time 
when they receive the most profit in their history, this bill doesn't 
add to the deficit. The ways that this bill is paid for invite careful 
review of how we balance the direct and private loan programs and they 
invite careful review of how we adjust the present programs. But this 
bill is paid for.
  This is the change that the American people voted for, help for the 
middle class, not increasing the deficit, and pay-as-you-go. I am 
delighted to hear that at least two of our colleagues on the other side 
will vote ``yes'' on this bill. I hope, Madam Speaker, that dozens or 
even hundreds of our colleagues on the other side will join us in 
voting ``yes'' in favor of middle-class students and deficit reduction.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my good friend from New Jersey talking about promises. 
My opponent during the campaign, and I don't know if this was the full 
Democratic Party, but what he said was they were going to cut student 
loan rates immediately in half. I know as we got here in Washington and 
they assumed the majority, we were told that that would cost about $60 
billion. So they had to cut back that promise to what they have done 
now is a phased in approach that cuts the student loan interest rate 
ultimately at the end of 5 years to 3.4 percent for subsidized loans, 
which is considerably smaller than their original promise. I just 
wanted to correct the record with that.
  I am happy now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Platts), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman 
from California for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I certainly support the underlying goal of this 
legislation about making higher education more affordable for our 
citizens, and I plan to support this legislation to move the process 
forward because it is an important goal we are after.
  I know from personal experience the importance of student loans. I am 
probably one of the few Members of this Chamber that was elected while 
still paying for student loans. In fact, my wife and I could not have 
afforded our undergraduate degrees and our graduate degrees without the 
support of grants and loans, and we were delighted when we were able to 
pay the loans back a few short years ago.
  While I support the underlying goal, however, I need to raise 
concerns about the manner in which we are attacking this issue and some 
of the substance of the issue.
  First, the process. This bill has not been allowed to have committee 
hearings. There has been no opportunity for amendments in committee, 
and certainly no opportunity for amendments here on the floor. In fact, 
we have a closed rule, no amendments. If we had followed regular order 
and taken this bill through the committee process, we could have taken 
a bill with a good intent and made it a good piece of legislation on 
behalf of all of our Nation's citizens and done even better than we 
will do today.
  I also need to address the failure of this legislation to address the 
reason that students are in need of more and higher student loans, the 
reason they need to borrow more and more, and that is ever-increasing 
tuition rates.
  To the great credit of the distinguished gentleman from California, 
in previous years we sought to address that issue. He led the charge to 
try to work with the institutions of higher education across this 
country to be reasonable, to be responsible. This legislation does not 
address that at all.
  I am often surprised when higher education institutions lobby for 
greater loan limits, and they don't disclose to their students the 
reason that they need higher loans is because those very institutions 
keep raising their tuition rates. This bill does not address that 
unfortunately.
  I am also very disappointed that this bill does not address the 
ability of students to get into colleges, those up-front costs and the 
initial costs. This is about graduates who are in repayment. It does 
not help new students to help families get their children into school.
  Unlike the Deficit Reduction Act, and this was addressed earlier by 
one of the previous speakers, that legislation actually gave additional 
assistance to students in going to school, significantly higher grant 
program amounts, I think over $5 billion in new grant programs; lower 
loan fees that the distinguished gentleman from California addressed, 
from 4 percent to 1 percent; higher loan limits for those early years 
of college.
  It made it more affordable for students, especially low- and middle-
class family students, to get into college and to pay their bills as 
they were in college. This bill does not address that.
  Finally, while I certainly support the pay-as-you-go approach and 
voted in favor of that reform this past week, this bill achieves that 
goal in a gimmick fashion. The way it spreads out

[[Page H603]]

the reduction and pays for this is not true pay-as-you-go. And I think 
if we are going to do right by our citizens, in this case by those 
seeking and getting higher education opportunities, we need to make the 
tough decisions and truly pay for what we are providing in assistance.
  I will vote in favor of this legislation to move the process forward, 
but I hope as it moves forward and we get to work with the Senate, that 
we will do much better in truly assisting the students who are trying 
to get into school or who are in school now with the cost of higher 
education. If we do so, as we have done in the past in some important 
ways with the Deficit Reduction Act, we truly will be about helping our 
Nation's students.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Michigan.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, a bill that would cut in 
half student loan interest rates and make college more affordable, 
improve our economy, and improve the quality of lives across America.
  The average student graduates with more than $17,000 in loan debt, 
almost 45 percent more than just a decade or so ago. In New Jersey, in 
my State, this bill would save the average student 4 or $5,000 over the 
life of the loans.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, half of the student 
loan borrowers who benefit under this legislation have family incomes 
under 60 or $70,000, and the median income of family borrowers is 
$45,000. These are ordinary folks. Now, each of my colleagues can find 
thousands of stories of citizens in his or her own district where these 
loans have given a greater lease on life and livelihood to ordinary 
folks.
  We can talk about might have been, should have been, things we can do 
to make college more affordable. This is something we can do right now. 
The legislation we are considering today will provide needed relief for 
cutting interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, and it will be 
a vital step toward making college more affordable for millions of 
Americans.

                              {time}  1400

  If we are going to stay competitive in the global economy, we must 
make access to higher education more possible; and helping qualified 
students pursue higher education is good not only for the individual 
students, but also for our economy, our competitiveness, our security, 
the future of this Nation.
  We have an opportunity to do it. The opportunity has been passed over 
sometimes in the past, but let's do it now.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes 
to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the 
committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleagues for 
giving me an opportunity to speak on this bill. I have been listening 
to the debate on this bill, and it is, again, an amazing situation for 
me.
  My colleagues on my side of the aisle have been extremely articulate. 
They have presented the facts, and I am amazed that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, at how they can stand up and simply not 
tell the truth over and over and over again. I am just astonished by 
it.
  I graduated from college after 7 years without a dime of debt. I 
worked my way through school. Any student who wants to go to college in 
this country can graduate from college without a dime of debt.
  We have all kinds of choices in this country as to where to go to 
college. If people want a college degree, they can do it.
  What we are doing, by decreasing, by the sham, it is nothing but a 
sham, and I think people have to say that over and over again. I am not 
going to repeat the statistics that have been given, because they have 
been given very well.
  My opponents simply cannot deny the facts, they cannot deny the 
numbers. How we have increased the Pell Grants, they can't deny, and 
how they did nothing to increase the Pell Grants. But they cannot deny 
the facts. They can give your opinions, but they cannot deny the facts.
  One of the facts is, there is going to be one time, 6 months, where 
this is going to be cut in half, as they said they were going to do. 
What a shame that they are doing that and making the people of this 
country believe that they are, quote, ``keeping their promises.'' They 
are not keeping their promises.
  All we are doing is inviting colleges and universities to increase 
their tuition and fees. I became a college administrator and a college 
president. So I know student financial aid from the inside and out. 
This is, again, a smoke-and-mirrors issue.
  We are not going to help students, we are not increasing 
accessibility for poor students. If we were, we would be putting this 
into either work-study or Pell. That is how you really help the low-
income students who are trying to go to school, not by decreasing to 
3.4 percent for 6 months, the loans.
  What they are really trying to do here, I think, is drive the private 
sector out of the market for having student loans. They would like the 
government, again, to take over this entire program.
  We are not increasing this issue of accountability. We don't know 
when our students graduate from college now what skills they have. 
Republicans have tried and tried and tried to get schools to be 
accountable for what they are charging for, and it is very expensive to 
get a college degree these days, especially if you go to private 
institutions.
  So we don't increase the accountability, but we increase what the 
colleges and universities are going to charge. I think it is a very 
cynical move on the part of the Democrats to do this, and I think it is 
very unfortunate.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Michigan 
for his leadership on this issue. I am proud as a 10-year member of the 
House Education and Labor Committee to stand here in support of H.R. 5.
  With all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, the 
previous speaker, facts can be a stubborn thing. The fact of the matter 
is, if we implement this law, if we get the President to support this 
cut in interest rate burden in half, over 750,000 undergraduates in my 
home State of Wisconsin will realize cost savings, over half of them in 
my home congressional district alone.
  They are looking at, on average, about a $14,000 debt burden by the 
time they finish school; and with this bill, they will realize close to 
$4,400 in savings with this interest rate reduction, which almost 
covers a full year of tuition at a public university in my home State 
of Wisconsin. So, yes, facts can be a stubborn thing. What we are doing 
here is real.
  But let us also recall why we are today, because we are following in 
the wake of the largest raid on student aid in our Nation's history 
when the Republican Congress last year, in their budget reconciliation, 
cut over $12 billion from the student aid program, that the President 
went along with.
  The irony is that budget reconciliations are supposed to reduce the 
deficit. What they did in delivering huge tax breaks to the most 
wealthy was doing that cut in student aid while also increasing the 
deficit, which is another thing that we need to emphasize here today, 
that we fully pay for this bill because of the pay-as-you-go budgeting 
rule we implemented this year.
  Can we do more on accountability? Should there be more transparency 
in why there are rising costs? Should we be doing more with direct 
grant programs? Of course.
  This isn't the final step of a long journey, but merely the 
beginning. I hope that by the rhetoric that we are hearing today that 
we will be able to produce a bipartisan higher education bill later 
this year that we can all be proud about, that will focus on access and 
affordability issues.
  I may propose one way to find some cost savings. The Congressional 
Budget Office indicates that if we expand access to the STAR program, 
the direct loan program, we could realize over $17 billion worth of 
savings over the next 10 years, and that is based on a very 
conservative utilization estimate from 25 to 44 percent. That is a very 
conservative increase in utilization.
  In fact, if every school participated in a direct loan program, we 
could realize savings of over $60 billion these

[[Page H604]]

next 10 years. Imagine what we can do for student-need-based programs 
and direct grant programs like the Pell Grant program with an 
additional $60 billion freed up for this higher education bill. So it 
is one proposal that I throw out there that maybe we can have a 
discussion about as we move forward with reauthorization of the higher 
education bill.
  But I suspect we are going to get bipartisan support with H.R. 5. We 
should with this bill today. Not only does it bring real savings to 
real students making college more affordable, but we do it in a 
fiscally responsible manner by paying for it all and not adding to the 
deficit.
  I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I would ask of people that are following this debate, if they 
would take the numbers and then realize that what the bill does, it 
takes the loan rate, which is 6.8 percent, and reduces it to 6.1 the 
first year, and then incrementally drops it, and then the last 6 
months, this is a 5-year bill, the last 6 months it goes to 3.4 
percent.
  If you will take those numbers and figure out how much to borrow each 
year to get to the 14,000 and then pay it off over the 15 years, if 
they consolidate the loan, pay it off over the whole 15 years, there is 
no $4,400 of savings. It is more in the neighborhood of a little over 
$2,000.
  Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to a new Member of Congress, 
Mr. Smith from Nebraska, 2 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about 
what I have heard from both sides of the aisle, and that is the rising 
cost of postsecondary education. It concerns all of us here, and I know 
that we all want to work together. I hope to address these costs. My 
concern is that this resolution will not address this issue.
  As we look to the larger issues of that growing cost, we have to look 
further than what many folks here can agree, that it is not a 
substantial effect that we can expect with H.R. 5. I hope that you will 
share my concern, and I hope we can continue to work in a direction of 
working together, hopefully through a committee process, and come up 
with something that will address these concerns.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in the last session, the Democrats did, in fact, file 
a bill that would have done a lot of things to make colleges more 
accountable and accessible. Unfortunately, that is not the bill that 
was moved through Congress, and very little of it got discussed or was 
paid attention to in the committee.
  This year, we hope to refile bills along that way and work in a 
bipartisan manner so those larger issues will have that opportunity, 
and we intend on doing that. In the meantime, this is a down payment. 
It is a down payment on the need to make college more affordable and 
accessible by cutting the interest rates on student loans, as has been 
described.
  We have more to do. We want to increase Pell Grants. Mr. Keller said 
that, and he is right. Last year, of course, the majority of then 
Republicans had a wonderful opportunity to do that. Instead, they 
decided to cut a net of $12 billion, basically to help the powerful and 
the privileged. They are busy trying to make sure that people have an 
incentive to get into a loan market for which no incentive is needed.
  In fact, there will be very little impact on lenders with the way 
they are paying for this particular bill. They will digest that very 
readily and still make a handsome profit. As Mr. Kind from Wisconsin 
said, there is every opportunity for us to do more direct loans and to 
recapture more money, to give further Pell Grants and campus-based aid 
like student work-study.
  We need to get States to reinvest more in education. They are falling 
off the cliff since 2001 in terms of their investment. We have a good 
bill that we will file and hopefully have the help of the Republicans. 
We will address that situation to get them back into the game.
  We need to allow more tax deductibility for tuition so that families 
have a break. And moving forward, if we are serious about how much 
education is required, given the nature of the workplace, given nature 
of the competitiveness of the international arena, we need more college 
students.
  There was a day when 8 years of school worked well for the 
agricultural era. Then it went to the industrial age where 12 years of 
school was necessary. We are beyond that now. For technology and other 
reasons, we need people to have more than 12 years; that means college, 
whether 2 years or 4 years. That means making sure that kids know they 
can get into college and afford to pay for it, with Pell Grants, with 
work-study, they still need loans.
  I don't know where the gentlewoman from North Carolina, what her 
college was, but if she knew the rest of the country, they need to 
borrow, they need a break in their loans. We are happy to provide that 
here today.
  Mr. McKEON. If I might inquire of the Speaker, what time is left on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) 
has 60\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has 
73 minutes available.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to my 
good friend from Utah, a member who is returning to the committee, Mr. 
Bishop, 4 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, you know, about roughly three 
decades ago, Congress decided to offer dental health plan benefits to 
Federal employees. And as they sent out the price sheet to all the 
Federal employees and circulated amongst them, on that price sheet was 
a column that said what is not covered in the dental health plan. 
Underneath that column of what is not covered in the dental health plan 
was ``teeth.''
  On the issue that we have before us right now, which deals with 
student payments and loans, I think if we had another column which said 
what is not covered in this bill, you might also have the word 
``students.''
  This particular bill is one that is extremely disappointing to me. Of 
the half dozen message bills that we had last week and continuing on 
this week, this is the one that for me held out the most hope for the 
future.
  In fact, my disappointment is only perhaps met by yesterday when I 
went to the airport planning to fly into Washington, DC, and ended up 
in Baltimore. No offense to some of our wonderful staff who live there, 
but I didn't want to be in Baltimore, it didn't help me out.
  This is another one of those bills. I say that from some kind of 
personal concept, because 2 years ago, I had four kids in college at 
the same time. This year, I have got three kids in college at the same 
time. Next year, I go back to four kids in college. Sometime, I hope 
the hemorrhaging will stop.
  But I was hoping in some way that this could do some wonderful things 
for me. But this bill does nothing to expand the opportunity for kids 
to go to college. It does nothing to actually help kids as they are 
going through college. It only impacts graduates, and then only 
temporarily for a small period of time, the very people who probably 
need it the least.
  Earl Weaver, the old manager of the Baltimore Orioles, used to try to 
bait the umpires by going in their face and simply saying, are you 
going to get any better, or is this it?
  In all good deference, is this it? There is a significant problem we 
have, and hopefully once the rhetoric of the power plays of the couple 
of weeks are past, we can do some bipartisan work. For, indeed, the 
ranking member from California, my good friend, Mr. McKeon, does have a 
bill which addresses the real needs of kids in public education and 
higher education at the same time, and it builds on a foundation of 
increasing support for higher education that has been going by the 
Republican Party for years and years and years.

                              {time}  1415

  It does try to expand access, which is what we should be doing. It 
does try and help those who are in school right

[[Page H605]]

now, to support them. To be honest, I may even vote for this bill. This 
is one of those whoop-te-do bills. It doesn't spend a whole lot, it 
doesn't address a whole lot, it doesn't help a whole lot.
  But, to be honest with you, what it does for my kids in college right 
now is nothing. What it does for the friends of my kids in college 
right now is nothing. What it does for the students I taught in high 
school who are still in college is basically nothing, when it could 
have done so much more and should have done so much more, and we need 
to move forward to do so much more.
  There has to be something more. This isn't hopefully as good as it 
gets.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) now controls the time for the majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the 
committee.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman on the 
Education Committee.
  Madam Speaker, I am watching and listening to this debate, and we 
certainly have had this debate going back into the committee last year. 
Many of us have said this is only the beginning of what we are going to 
be doing for our students.
  When you travel around the world and you look at those students that 
are going to school and you see what those nations are doing to make 
sure that their students are prepared for the global economy, I have 
always thought, what are we doing here? What are we doing here in the 
United States?
  I heard that some people say they can go to college without taking 
out a loan. Well, I wish a lot of my students back home, my 
constituents' children, could do that. Almost all the students that I 
know that are going to school have a job and go to school, because that 
is their dream.
  Then I hear that this is not going to do anything for our students 
that are in school. I sit on the Financial Services Committee also, and 
we know the burden that our young people are facing when they finish 
college because of the interest rates. We are trying to address that. 
As I said, this is the first of the things that we will be doing to 
make sure that our students have the opportunity to go to college, to 
keep the costs down and help them on every single level.
  This actually fits, in my opinion, with Leave No Child Behind, which 
we will be addressing in the committee this year also. We want our 
students to be well prepared so they are able to go to college, and it 
fits together, and we are going to make sure that we have a good plan 
for Leave No Child Behind. I am looking forward to working on that.
  College education is expensive, and yet we know that our students 
need to go to college to compete in the global economy that we are 
facing. This Nation has not stood up to help our students, and we need 
to do a better job of it. This is the beginning of that.
  I hope all my colleagues will support this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the 
College Student Relief Act. Once again, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle bring legislation to the floor today that will do nothing 
to solve the problem they have outlined.
  In this country, a college education is an accomplishment that all 
individuals should have the opportunity to pursue. I believe it is not 
only a noble, but also an essential endeavor for our government to 
pursue avenues to increase access to post-secondary education for any 
and all individuals interested. However, Madam Speaker, it needs to be 
said that this legislation does nothing to actually tackle that very 
real and crucial problem.
  Right now our country is in need of leadership that will tackle the 
tough issues head on, not hide behind some quick sound bite solutions, 
rhetoric that does not translate to sound policy that actually combats 
the problem.
  Madam Speaker, the problem really is the price tag of a college 
education. My colleague, the ranking member of the Education and Labor 
Committee, has brought this fact to the forefront of this Congress over 
a number of years, and certainly as chairman of this committee in the 
109th. This is the real problem, the sticker shock of these low-income 
families trying to pursue for their children a college education. And 
here we are offering them a little bit, a very little bit in small 
increments over a 5-year period, cutting the interest rate.
  I want to remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, of the old adage that 
you can absolutely go broke saving money. These kids cannot afford a 
college education because of the inflationary spiral of tuition and 
fees at our college campuses and universities, both public and private.
  So this is the kind of issue that we need to address, not this window 
dressing of just lowering the interest rate. They don't really get that 
break until they get out of college, 6 months after graduation, at a 
time where that shouldn't really be a problem for them. But coming up 
with that $10,000 a semester to go to school is wherein the real 
problem lies, especially for these low-income families that would be 
eligible for the benefit, this $6 billion benefit, which, by the way, 
Madam Speaker and my colleagues, was actually a $60 billion promise in 
these recent elections last November. Ninety percent of the promise has 
automatically disappeared.
  The point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that this bill could be a 
lot better had we had the opportunity for it to go through the regular 
process, the Education and Labor Committee, so that both Democratic 
members of that committee and Republican members, the minority, would 
have an opportunity to offer amendments to make this much, much better, 
and to let the American people know that we can do a much better job 
than this.
  So we can do a lot better than this, Madam Speaker, and I am going to 
oppose this bill. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to look at this and give us the opportunity to recommit with 
instructions, so we can send this bill not back to committee, but to 
the committee under regular order and get a better product.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5. As a first 
generation immigrant who came to the United States speaking no English, 
education was a great equalizer for me, which is why this bill is of 
particular importance to me. Access to education is critical, but 
college costs are so high that individuals and families are being 
priced out of the opportunity.
  I worked to put myself through college and law school, but I couldn't 
have done it without student loans. It took me 15 years to pay those 
loans back, but I was glad to have them.
  Today we have an opportunity to do something concrete, something 
real, to help make college more affordable and accessible. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Education should be the 
great equalizer, but that can happen only when every qualified student 
has the opportunity to pursue it. Mahalo.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as the first person on either side of my family to be 
able to have the opportunity to graduate from college, I understand 
what it is like for members of American families to have this dream of 
higher education and to have to work full-time, sometimes two jobs, and 
to go to school and to try to balance all that and see tuition keep 
climbing and climbing and the reach of a higher education starting to 
elude one's grasp.
  Millions of Americans are facing this. This is why the College 
Student Relief Act is so important. Last year, over the strong 
objections of students and many Members of Congress, Congress cut 
approximately $12 billion

[[Page H606]]

from the Federal student aid program. But at the same time the price of 
a college diploma at a public university has continued to grow at a 
rate that far outpaces inflation. Since 2001, tuition and fees at 
public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation.
  Now, are students suddenly finding themselves in a market where they 
are making 41 percent more? Not a chance. They are lucky to have a job 
at all. Are their parents making more money? No. Most of their parents 
are maxed out on their credit cards. This bill is critical when we 
consider what the needs are.
  We have to encourage innovation and talent of our youth and ensure 
that every American is given the skills and training necessary to reach 
their fullest potential. This Congress must work together to help 
ensure that every American, regardless of their income level, has the 
opportunity to continue their education.
  Our Nation benefits from an educated and skilled workforce. We must 
not hesitate to invest in education for our students. The passage of 
this bill is a vital step in our efforts to increase access to college. 
With the passage of this bill, we can take the first step towards 
increasing access to college and ensuring that students graduating from 
college are not weighed down for life with debt.
  I rise in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act.
  Last year, over the strong objections of students and many Members of 
this body, Congress cut approximately $12 billion from Federal student 
aid programs.
  However, the price tag on a college diploma at a public university 
has continued to grow at a rate far outpacing inflation. Since 2001, 
tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent 
after inflation.
  The prior Congress cut student aid, as the costs of attending a 
public university continued to rise.
  Therefore it is no surprise that over the next decade financial 
barriers will prevent 2 million high school graduates from continuing 
on to post-secondary education, even at a local community college.
  Furthermore, as Federal student aid programs have faced funding 
cutbacks, students have increasingly been forced to rely on loans as 
their primary source of support.
  It is outrageous that easy access to a college education be 
restricted to the wealthy while students from less advantageous 
circumstances must either do without or be saddled with a paralyzing 
debt.
  These plights make the passage of H.R. 5 all the more necessary. 
Cutting these interest rates is a first step towards ensuring the 
rising cost of tuition does not continue to place a college education 
beyond the means of many Americans.
  Today, with the passage of this bill, this House can take the first 
step toward increasing access to college and ensuring that students 
graduating from college are not weighed down for life with debt.
  When the interest rate reduction in this legislation is fully phased 
in the average borrower will save approximately $4,400 over the life of 
their loan. This action will cut the cost of college for over 5 million 
students.
  This Congress must work together to help ensure every American, 
regardless of their income level, has the opportunity to continue their 
education.
  The benefits of expanded access to college are not limited to the 
individuals continuing their education, but extend to society as a 
whole.
  We must encourage the innovation and talent of our youth and ensure 
that every American is given the skills and training necessary to reach 
their fullest potential.
  Our Nation benefits from an educated and skilled workforce and we 
must not hesitate to invest in the education of our students.
  The passage of H.R. 5 is a vital first step in our efforts to 
increase access to college and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the 
College Student Relief Act. And certainly what a relief it is.
  Madam Speaker, for years, students and families have been burdened by 
growing debt and Congress' unwillingness to budge on any key higher 
education issues. The fear of student loan debt causes many would-be 
students to forgo the better quality of life that a college education 
offers.
  These difficult decisions tangibly impact minority access to 
education. Over half of Arizona's K through 12 students are minority. 
By the year 2020, Latinos will make up almost one-quarter of our 
Nation's undergraduates.
  Now we have the chance to make up for the $12 billion cut in student 
loan programs that the former majority enacted during last year's 
budget reconciliation. This is just the first of many steps this 
Congress will take to achieve this end.
  This bill enjoys bipartisan support. Unfortunately, last night the 
President released a statement indicating a possible veto of the bill, 
reasoning that H.R. 5 would direct Federal subsidies to college 
graduates and not to students and their families.
  This statement is simply untrue. As an example, at the University of 
Arizona, in my district, all 6,200 Pell Grant recipients also receive 
subsidized Stafford loans. In our current higher education climate, 
subsidized Stafford loans are an integral part of a comprehensive, 
need-based financial aid package.
  The fast-rising price of post-secondary education, coupled with the 
decline in need-based aid, endangers the opportunities of low income, 
first generation and students of color in the pursuit of a better life 
through education. This bill brings need-based aid front and center and 
provides real relief for student borrowers.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5 and open the doors to college 
affordability once again for all.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee dealing with higher education, the Pell 
Grant expert.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding to me. I am back. Like gum under a bus seat, you can't get rid 
of me here. Let me just address a couple of issues to clarify some 
things.
  First, you keep hearing about a $12 billion raid on student aid. We 
didn't take a single penny away from a single student. Not one Pell 
Grant went down, not one student paid a higher interest rate on their 
student loans. What we did was take money away from lender subsidies.
  Now, when we took $12 billion away from lender subsidies, it is 
called a raid on student aid. When the Democrats today took $6 billion 
away from lender subsidies, it is called the College Student Relief 
Act.
  Now, they say, ``well, we poured that money back into helping 
students with lower interest rates, $6 billion of it.'' We poured $9 
billion back into helping college students. $4.5 billion went to Pell-
eligible students in something called Academic Competitiveness Grants 
and SMART Grants, giving high achieving Pell Grant students the 
opportunity to get an extra $4,050 their final 2 years. We also lowered 
the amount of origination fees students would pay for loans and 
increased their loan limits.
  So we poured $9 billion back, 33 percent more than they did. So don't 
be fooled by the funny little names characterizing things, because it 
is not a lot of straight talk.
  The second thing you hear is ``would have, could have, should have.'' 
They had been in power for 6 years. Why didn't they do more to increase 
Pell Grants? Pell Grants in 2000 were $7.6 billion. This past year, 
they were $13 billion. That is a 71 percent increase. We did increase 
it. In addition, we paid down the shortfall of $4.3 billion.

                              {time}  1430

  Second, if you look over here, in 2000, the maximum award was $3,300. 
In the final year, it was $4,050. This is an increase, not as much as 
many of us would like, but it is an increase.
  Finally, the reason this $4,050 did not go up to $5,100, as President 
Bush and I and others had hoped, is because we had a dramatic increase 
in the amount of students who were eligible for Pell Grants from 3.9 
million to 5.3 million. So the pie got a lot bigger, and rather than 
cut their grants, we still continued to fund them and had an extra 36 
percent enrollment of people who got Pell Grants.
  Now, what should we have done more? The Higher Education Act, we had 
language that I put in there that increased the Pell Grant 
authorization to $6,000. We made Pell Grants year round. I sent letters 
to the appropriators asking them to fund that

[[Page H607]]

amount. We had the funding up 71 percent. We have SMART grants and 
academic competitive grants. What more could we have done?
  At some point, we have to realize as the authorizing committee, we 
are kind of dependent on what appropriators are going to spend. We have 
a pretty good record on the Pell Grant issue, one we can be proud of.
  To see it visually a little easier, you can see the yellow marks the 
10 years when Democrats were last in control of Congress. The red is 
when the Republicans took over. You can see a dramatic spike in Pell 
Grants. And what is interesting, in the final 2 years when Democrats 
were in control, 1993 and 1994, they actually cut Pell Grants.
  So we have got a good record to be proud of, and that is one of the 
reasons we wanted some of this money to go to Pell Grants today so it 
would help people to actually go to college rather than just helping 
people on the back end.
  With that, I am not here to make fun of the proposal the Democrats 
have come forward with. I am going to vote for it. The thing I am most 
impressed with is, this time they have offered a way to pay for it. 
That is something they did not do last year. They should be commended 
in doing that.
  I just hope that, moving forward, they will work together with us in 
a bipartisan manner to address this skyrocketing increase in tuition 
costs and to help increase Pell Grants so that every child in this 
country, rich or poor, will have the opportunity to go to college.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5.
  This bill cuts student loan interest rates to a fixed 3.4 percent 
over 5 years.
  Right now, the average student loan debt is around $13,800. By 
passing this bill, we are saving a student with average debt $4,400 
over the life of their loan.
  Also, this legislation targets middle-class America. Half of the 
students that take on federally subsidized loans have incomes between 
$26,000 and $68,000 a year.
  This benefits millions of lower income families, but also hardworking 
middle-class Americans that are trying to give their children a leg up 
in living the American dream.
  College tuition has risen 41 percent since 2001. Just this year, the 
percentage of students relying on loans to get through school hit 52 
percent.
  This is a direct result of rising tuition costs in both public and 
private institutions.
  These families need help and we should give it to them. Twice a year, 
our office holds a Paying for College workshop.
  We bring in lenders and experts on filling out the FAFSA to help our 
students navigate through the application process and to come to terms 
with the amount of debt they may take on.
  The most important consideration for families in our Congressional 
District is what the cost of going to college will be.
  Financial barriers inhibit the ability of high school graduates to go 
to college.
  By reducing student loan interest rates, we are encouraging families 
and students to get a college education.
  When we pass this legislation, we are investing in the future of our 
economy because we will have more college graduates with a lower debt 
burden.
  This will enable graduates to do things like buy homes, invest and 
fuel our economy.
  To offset the costs of reducing interest rates, we are reducing the 
amount the Federal Government guarantees lenders.
  While this is not a popular idea with large lenders, smaller lenders 
will not be impacted by this legislation.
  Student loans are not the bread and butter of large financial 
institutions, but smaller local banks and credit unions often provide 
student loans in smaller communities.
  This is why lower volume lenders will not be impacted.
  Madam Speaker, this is a win for middle class America, future 
generations of college students and our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today's college students are graduating with 
increasing levels of student loan debt. In Illinois, the average 
Stafford loan debt for students who graduate from a 4-year university 
is over $14,000. Unfortunately, the cost of college tuition is 
skyrocketing, forcing more and more students to rely on loans than ever 
before. Because I believe higher education should provide economic 
opportunities for our students and not bankrupt them, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act.
  This legislation will cut interest rates on subsidized loans in half, 
saving the average student thousands of dollars over the life of his or 
her loan. Additionally, by making student loans more affordable, H.R. 5 
allows many qualified students from middle- and lower-income families 
to go to college who would not have been able to go to college before.
  On behalf of the many students in my district, such as those at 
Western Illinois University with whom I will be discussing this issue 
this weekend, I will vote for H.R. 5 and will work on the Education and 
Workforce Committee to find better opportunities for students and their 
hardworking families.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a 
member of the committee.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Student Relief 
Act. This bill will put college education back in reach for millions of 
students and their families.
  The debt relief in this bill is targeted to help the students who 
need it most, students from 5.5 million working and middle-class 
families across the country.
  Here I am, a kid from a family of seven whose parents came to this 
country without knowing English, without much money, and without jobs 
waiting for them. But with hard work, the great support of family and 
friends, and some good luck, and mostly because of affordable student 
loans, I made it where I am today. Each month when I write that check 
to make that payment on my student loan (because I am still paying off 
my student loans) I know that I am paying for an investment that was 
well worth it.
  Many young people today find themselves where I was at age 18, 
wondering what they will do with their lives; and to those students, 
especially those whose parents did not go to college, the prospect of 
student loan debt can be very frightening.
  When I was working as a bilingual aide in an elementary school to 
help pay my college bills, I would always talk to my students about 
going to college, what they would do when they went to college, and how 
hard they should work to prepare for college.
  I used to talk to my kids about college all the time, and finally, 
one of them asked me, Teacher, what is college?
  It is a long road from discovering what a college education is and 
what doors it can open to choosing the right college and then figuring 
out how to pay for it.
  This bill makes the paying-for-it part a bit easier for millions of 
hardworking students and families and helps students make an investment 
in themselves by reducing the burden of debt that high interest rates 
create.
  These students have worked hard to open the door of opportunity that 
a college education brings them. Those of us who have already stepped 
through that door have an obligation to hold it open for those who 
follow, and the College Student Relief Act does just that.
  This bill will help make the prospect of college debt less daunting.
  In this great Nation, what we teach kids from the youngest age is 
that there are no class barriers, that they can achieve anything they 
work for. Finances should not be a barrier between students and their 
educational training.
  This bill will save students and their families thousands of dollars, 
giving them the opportunity to earn a college education. It will bring 
many American dreams that much closer to reality.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I really want those who are watching this debate to understand how 
much I

[[Page H608]]

understand the importance of a higher education, how important it is 
and how necessary for someone to really achieve the American Dream; 
they need to get as much education as they can.
  What we are looking at with this bill, though, really what it does 
is, if you look at it from July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008, it cuts the 
fixed rate of student interest loans from to 6.8 to 6.1. A year later, 
it cuts it to 5.44; a year later to 4.76; a year later to 4.08. And 
then ultimately, 5 years from now, January 1, 2011, it cuts for 6 
months the rate to 3.4, which is what they are saying is, it cuts the 
interest rate in half. Well, it does for 6 months of the 5 years that 
this bill covers.
  I think what we need to really look at is the College Advisory 
Committee on Student Financial Assistance has done a study, and they 
show that 48 percent of low-income students cannot even get into 
college, into a 4-year institution. Twenty-two percent cannot even get 
into a community college because they cannot afford the upfront money.
  What I am saying is what we should be looking at, even though we are 
putting in $90 billion this year, three times more than just 10 years 
ago, it is still not enough to provide all of the things we would like 
to do for all of the students that need the opportunity to go to 
college.
  So, if you have to look at just what resources you do have, what we 
are saying is, why do we not put those resources to those students that 
are trying to get into college, rather than give a bonus to those that 
are graduating and are now going to repay a loan; and that is what this 
bill does.
  Those who have been fortunate enough to graduate are going to receive 
about $1 million more income in their lifetime than those who do not 
get to go to college. We are saying in the time of limited resources, 
why do we not try to help those who are trying to get on that economic 
ladder to realize the American Dream rather than give a bonus to those 
who have graduated.
  Even if you listen to the full debate, we are not even telling them 
the full facts. We are saying we are cutting your interest in half. For 
6 months, we are cutting it in half. The other time, it is a phased-in 
cut over 5 years, and then it goes back up to the rate of 6.8 percent.
  When I was chairman of the subcommittee when we did the last 
reauthorization in 1998, we came up with an interest rate that was the 
lowest in the history of the student loan business, and we did that in 
a bipartisan way, and it was good for students.
  Now interest rates have changed, and in a bipartisan way last year, 
we set the rate at 6.8 percent, which is what it is now, which is a 
pretty good interest rate. Would I like it to be lower? You bet.
  But I really think that we need to focus on helping those students, 
especially the lower- and middle-class that are just trying to get into 
school, that it will be 5 years. First they have to get into school, 
have enough money to pay their tuition and fees and make it through the 
5 years to graduate, and then they start reaping some of the benefits 
of this as they repay their student loans.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, introduced by Mr. Miller in the 
opening hours of this Congress, begins the critical work we must do as 
a Nation to build an economy that is based on an educated workforce.
  Make no mistake about it. The economic health of our country will 
turn on whether or not our children have the educational tools to 
compete and succeed. And make no mistake about it, all the present 
trends in access to higher education point to danger.
  The bipartisan National Conference on State Legislatures issued a 
report last month which described higher education in America as a 
system in crisis, largely due to the Federal Government's declining 
commitment to keeping higher education affordable.
  Coming from a congressional district that is home to the University 
of Connecticut, this finding comes as no shock. Students and their 
families all testify to the same grim condition: tuition has gone up 41 
percent since 2001, college costs have gone up faster than health care 
over the last 25 years, and in Connecticut, college is increasingly 
becoming the sole province of the well-to-do.
  According to the Hartford Current, 58 percent of Connecticut's young 
people from the top income tier are in school, and only 16 percent in 
the lowest are enrolled. Students are leaving college burdened with 
record levels of debt, and many are forced to leave early because of 
economic hardship.
  Even though all these disturbing trends are occurring, the last 
Congress did the unthinkable. It cut $12 billion of Federal assistance 
for college loans, pushing up the rate of interest for students. No 
other budget decision of the last Congress demonstrated how 
disconnected its priorities were than this cut, which hurt not only 
just students but America's future.
  H.R. 5 will begin to repair the damage of the 109th Congress' harmful 
cuts to student hopes and America's economic future. It will reduce the 
rates of student loans by 50 percent over a 5-year period, and it will 
do it in a fiscally responsible manner with offsets, not an increase in 
the deficit.
  Chairman Miller deserves great credit for H.R. 5 and represents a 
down payment on the efforts of the Education and Workforce Committee to 
strengthen, and not weaken, our economic future.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, as one who graduated from 
college with two of my elementary school teachers, because they did not 
have to have a college degree at that time and could not get one, I 
want to thank and commend Chairman Miller for bringing this legislation 
to the floor.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am 
proud to cosponsor this historic legislation that will make college 
more affordable to students in Illinois and across the Nation.
  A few minutes ago, I heard one of my colleagues from the other side 
of the aisle suggest that this was a sound bite of some kind, and I was 
thinking to myself, yeah, for those students in my district who live in 
and go to college at Columbia College, it is a savings bite of $2,430 
over the years that they will be in school; at Chicago State 
University, $2,270; Concordia University, $2,430; DePaul University, 
$2,410; Dominican, $2,580; and on down the line.
  Well, if it is a sound bite, I think the sound of this kind of saving 
sounds pretty good to the students who live in the city of Chicago, the 
State of Illinois and across the Nation. I urge its passage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, during the most recent vote to 
extend the Higher Education Act, I stood in this very spot and 
expressed my hope that during the next session of Congress, under a new 
majority, we would again address the needs of America's college 
students and make it this time about increasing access and 
affordability. Madam Speaker, that hope is now being realized.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief 
Act of 2007. This important legislation cuts interest rates for 
subsidized student loans in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over 
5 years. In my home State of New York, students will save an average of 
$4,500 over the course of their loan once the 3.4 percent interest rate 
takes effect. This reduction of the student interest rate will save 
millions of college students thousands of dollars, and it will help the 
estimated 4.4 million high school graduates who will be prevented from 
attending college this year because of financial barriers.
  It is important to note that all of the changes proposed here today 
are accomplished under this Congress' new PAYGO rules and are done 
without harming students' access to loans. In addition, all but one of 
the offsets included in the bill have been proposed by either the 
former Republican majority or by the President himself.

[[Page H609]]

  Madam Speaker, during the 109th Congress this Chamber chose to cut 
$12 billion out of the student loan program. These cuts, coupled with 
no increase in the Pell Grant maximum for 5 years, have sent a message 
to America's students that they are no longer among this Nation's top 
priorities. Today the message we send to students is loud and clear: We 
in this Congress are dedicated to helping you achieve the dream of a 
college education.
  The changes we make here today are just a first step in a series of 
proposals that will make it easier for students and their families to 
afford college. As we move forward with the long overdue 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I hope to see an increase 
in the maximum Pell Grant, simplification of the FAFSA, and an 
increased investment in campus-based aid programs. These changes are 
all part of an effort to narrow the expanding gap between the amount of 
available student aid compared with the cost of attaining a college 
education.
  As a former college administrator, I know firsthand the beneficial 
impact this legislation will have for needy students and their families 
who are working to help their sons and daughters realize their slice of 
the American Dream.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend 
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to discuss 
this matter.
  Madam Speaker, the speeches and claims that we have heard from the 
other side sound so wonderful. They sound so good. If only this bill 
did what they say.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is the hollow fulfillment of a solemn 
promise. It is the epitome of form over substance. And, Madam Speaker, 
it would be humorous if it weren't so serious. It would be humorous if 
it didn't increase the hopes and dreams of young people around this 
Nation only to callously and knowingly dash those hopes and dreams.
  A couple of specific items. This really is bait and switch. 
Supporters of this bill contend that a borrower with $13,800 of 
subsidized debt will save up to $4,400. This assumes that they will see 
4 years of loans made at the 3.4 percent rate. Under this legislation, 
however, no borrower will get more than one year of the 3.4 percent 
rate. And what happens in 2012? The rate goes right back up to 6.8 
percent. Bait and switch. It is a shell game. It will result in 
damaging cuts to the program that has worked well for the vast majority 
of colleges in this country and in my own district, and not one single 
new undergraduate will be helped by this legislation. Not one. It is 
the fulfillment of a hollow promise. Very, very sad.
  And it is the principle. Finally, as matter of principle, Madam 
Speaker, this proposal is a political gimmick. The majority proposes to 
rob $6 billion from the private sector loan programs, programs that 
work to not only offer and provide funding for college but also use 
market competition to drive down rates and offer borrower benefits the 
government can't match. And what will they do with the money? They will 
lower some rates for a short time on some borrowers who have in common 
only the fact that they have either graduated or left school and don't 
need the help as much as those who may lose the benefits and services 
that were cut in order to lower the rates.
  It is a shame that those of us who desire to have a real debate about 
government's role in assisting middle class students achieve the 
American Dream of higher education are instead asked to support an 
expensive counterproductive cut in a student loan program that is 
working. Madam Speaker, this would be humorous if it weren't so 
serious.
  I strongly support financial assistance for students who are in true 
financial need. Sadly, H.R. 5 is not a bill that will accomplish any of 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense recommit that will 
indeed help students who are in financial need, and oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, each year the number of jobs that require 
a college diploma grows. And with tuition swelling at the rate of 41 
percent over the last 6 years, so does the number of capable and 
dedicated Americans for whom that training is simply unattainable.
  H.R. 5 does more than save $4,000-plus for 5.5 million students 
annually; it offers a chance to those who deserve it most. These are 
students who have put in their work, have demonstrated the desire, and 
possess the intellect to go to college, but don't have the means. These 
are some of the best and brightest this country has to offer. These 
young people are the hope for America's future.
  Opposing this legislation is to turn our backs on these bright young 
dedicated citizens, creating a young workforce that is saddled with 
unmanageable debt, and each year preventing 200,000 of them from going 
to college at all. By failing to make education affordable, we are 
telling them we aren't interested in them or what they have to offer.
  The University of Louisville is among a handful of universities which 
have developed programs to help low income students who have 
demonstrated exemplary potential. Their cardinal covenant is an 
innovative and necessary initiative. Programs like these can be an 
excellent supplement to sound national policy but cannot substitute for 
our responsibility to ensure that the capable and dedicated are also 
educated.
  We have the chance to act on behalf of our country and our young 
adults; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
measure.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask if I might be 
apprised how much time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has 55\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon) has 43 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. At this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, 
Mr. McKeon, for his leadership and expanding opportunities for students 
to attend college.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. As the father of three 
college graduates and a college freshman, I am all too familiar with 
the financial burden higher education poses to families and students. 
That is why I am proud of the Republican efforts to expand college 
access and increase affordability.
  During the past decade, House Republicans under the leadership of 
John Boehner and Buck McKeon tripled overall Federal aid to a record 
$90 billion, helping millions of Americans achieve their dream of a 
college education.
  In addition, Republicans increased new aid for Pell students more 
than $4 billion over 5 years, establishing the first ever grant program 
for high achieving Pell students in their first and second years of 
college. The program also provides grant aid to low income, high 
achieving students pursuing degrees in math, science, and critical 
foreign languages in their third and fourth years.
  While the Democrat bill was well-intentioned, its focus on interest 
rate reduction does nothing to expand college access for new students. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the McKeon alternative, which 
will truly expand college access for young Americans.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for yielding his time.
  Madam Speaker, the cost of college education is becoming the great 
separator in American society. It threatens to make access to the 
American Dream a matter of means and not merit. If we let that happen, 
then we guarantee the decline of American competitiveness and risk a 
slow and steady slide into mediocrity.
  We can do better, and today we will do better. By passing the College 
Student Relief Act of 2007 and cutting the interest rates on student 
loans, we will take an important step in providing fairness and 
opportunity to the next generation.
  I want to tell you about a woman I met in Maryland during my 
campaign.

[[Page H610]]

She is the mother of three college age students, a professional woman 
who works here in D.C. She came up to me, she looked me right in the 
eye, she said, ``I have three children who are going to college and I 
can't afford it.'' And then she said, ``I did everything they told me I 
was supposed to do. I worked three jobs, my husband and I between us, 
we saved our money, and we told our kids if you work hard and study, 
you can make it in America. And now we can't afford college.''
  What she was saying is what millions of Americans are saying, which 
is we worked hard and played by the rules, and then we found out we 
couldn't make it.
  Madam Speaker, we have a chance today to begin restoring the bargain 
with America that so many fear is in jeopardy. No student who works 
hard and achieves should be denied the opportunity to attend college 
because they cannot afford it. Our country needs these young people if 
we are going to be strong. I urge passage of H.R. 5.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our 
friend from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman very much.
  This is a press release. It doesn't matter what press release it is, 
it is just a press release. Which means, it says something, argues a 
position on an issue, and it is on a piece of paper, but it doesn't 
actually do anything. It just talks about things.
  What is before us, this bill, is like a press release. It makes an 
argument, it is on a piece of paper, but doesn't really do anything.
  I heard everyone on the other side of the aisle here talk about how 
people can't afford to pay for college. Well, this bill doesn't help 
people pay for college. It claims to help them reduce their interest 
rate once they are college graduates, after they are out of college, 
but it certainly doesn't help you pay for college while you are there.
  I have also heard the argument that it cuts the rate for student 
loans in half, and in fact it does: For 6 months, 5 years from now. For 
6 months, 5 years from now, it cuts the rate in half, but the rest of 
the time the rate is either the same as it is now or somewhere in 
between those two. So let's not say that it cuts it in half.
  And, to its credit, the bill is cost neutral. Now, cost neutral, it 
doesn't cost the government anything because although it cuts interest 
rates to some degree, it also raises or reduces subsidies on fees. So 
it is like I give you a dollar with less interest rate and then I take 
that dollar out of your other pocket with less fees. If it doesn't cost 
anything, net, how is it supposed to help someone, net, pay for the 
program? And because, perhaps, some of the loan providers could choose 
to absorb some of these fees if they did that, then it would likely 
result in less student loans. You know, this is not a bill, it is a 
press release.
  Now, it is an issue we ought to be dealing with, because college 
tuition, I have two kids in college, has gone up four times the rate of 
inflation. But this is not the solution. This is merely talk and press 
and not substance.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 
minute.
  I just say it is an interesting discussion, but people who are 
betting with real money have a different discussion of this 
legislation. What they have said, the investment houses that are 
advising their people whether or not to buy stock in student loan 
lenders and others, have said that what we have done is absolutely 
manageable by these lenders. And, in fact, they were quite surprised 
that the committee had as light a touch on these lenders as we did. And 
that is interesting, because those are people who are advising mutual 
funds and others whether or not to buy the various lenders, and theirs 
was that this is essentially a neutral act and very manageable by those 
companies.
  And so I think we ought to have it not what the political politicians 
are saying but what people who are betting with their money are saying.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for 
his leadership on this issue which is so important.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation to 
reduce interest rates for student loans. In my previous careers, I 
spent years teaching and caring for students from all walks of life. I 
have seen firsthand the value of quality education for all students. A 
lack of good education hurts not only today's students and tomorrow's 
workers, it hurts our country's efforts to remain competitive in an 
increasingly global market.
  Madam Speaker, college is not for everyone, and not everyone needs a 
degree to achieve their goals, but no one should be denied an education 
simply because they can't afford the cost of tuition or because they 
fear being overburdened by tens of thousands of dollars in student 
loans over the years. We have all seen the rising cost of education; 41 
percent increase in the last 6 years alone.

                              {time}  1500

  Students today graduate with greater and greater debt, which not only 
hamstrings them but also makes it hard for occupations that need highly 
skilled graduates but can only afford modest salaries. For example, 
nearly 32 percent of graduates pursuing teaching careers can't afford 
to repay their student loans on a starting teacher's salary. And if new 
graduates can't afford to work in the careers where we need them the 
most, like teaching, nursing or in social work, then all Americans will 
suffer.
  By passing this bill, students starting school this year will be 
saving an average of $2,490 a year and by 2011 we will be saving 
students an average of $4,830 over the life of their loans.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5. Help our 
students pursue their dreams and build our country.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in tepid support of H.R. 5, the College 
Student Relief Act. As a result of this measure, approximately 55,000 
subsidized Stafford loan borrowers in Iowa, many of whom attend Iowa 
State University and other colleges in my district, will have their 
interest rates reduced upon entering repayment after graduation.
  The savings college graduates will realize through this interest rate 
cut, approximately $2,300 for students starting school this upcoming 
academic year, is commendable and deserves our support.
  However, any statements implying that this measure makes college more 
affordable or more accessible, those statements are simply incorrect. 
Several Members have made such statements and the official Website of 
the Democrat Caucus also claims the bill ``makes college more 
accessible and affordable.'' The fact is this legislation does neither.
  How can a reduction in student loan interest rates make education 
more accessible when students do not feel the effect of the rate cuts 
while they attend school? Only after the students are through school 
and enter repayment will they be able to take advantage of the 
provisions of this bill. So H.R. 5 does not expand college access for a 
single Iowa student in any way.
  Further, any claim that this measure makes college more affordable is 
pure conjecture. Institutions of higher education have been increasing 
tuition at an alarming rate, 35 percent in the past 5 years. According 
to the Department of Education, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 
million students from attending a 4-year public college and prevent 
another 2 million from attending any college at all over the next 
decade.
  Unfortunately, the Democrat majority did not make any amendments that 
might actually make college education more affordable, including 
Ranking Member McKeon's College Affordability and Transparency Act, 
which would hold schools accountable for the huge cost hikes that they 
implement year after year, in order under the rule.
  If recent pricing trends continue, any savings college graduates 
might enjoy from interest rate cuts will be negated within 3 years 
before the 3.4 percent interest rate takes effect.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud that the Republican-led Congress tripled 
student aid over the last 10 years, and I fully support measures that 
make college education more accessible and

[[Page H611]]

more affordable for America's working families. But this legislation 
falls woefully short of those important goals and is nothing but a 
cheap, or I should say a very expensive PR measure that allows Congress 
to get into the business of setting student loan interest rates based 
on campaign promises, not on sound fiscal or education policy.
  I had hoped that the Democrat majority would actually fulfill the 
promise to make college education more accessible and affordable. I 
guess I hoped for too much.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I find it very interesting that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle keep coming to the floor and saying this won't help a single 
student. You know who thinks this will help a single student, and in 
fact this will help 5 million students, are the students, the students 
who are getting ready to take out the loans to borrow money to pay the 
tuition, to pay their college costs. They overwhelmingly support this 
legislation because it will help them and their families finance their 
education.
  So apparently it won't help Republican Members of Congress, but it 
will help students and that is why the students support it. That is why 
we call them ``student loans'' because they go to students and then the 
students have to pay them back. You say they don't have to pay it back 
until after they graduate. Yes, but they borrowed the money their 
freshman year, their sophomore year, their junior year, and their 
senior year. They got the benefit. They were the students. So the 
students have decided that this bill is good, and it is really good for 
them, and it will make college more affordable for them and it will 
allow more of their colleagues to participate in going to college 
because the overall cost of that college education will be reduced 
through this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I rise in support of H.R. 5.
  Mr. Miller, I can tell you that a single mom who talked to me this 
past weekend also recognizes the value of this bill. This past 
Saturday, Madam Speaker, I was at one of my daughter's swim-and-dive 
meets in Arvada, Colorado, and a woman whose kids have gone to school 
with mine approached me and she thanked me for the action that we are 
taking reducing interest rates on student loans. She told me that one 
of her kids is in college now, and she has another one that will be 
going in a couple of years. She is a single mom, and her kids have done 
well in school, but the cost of college has become prohibitive for 
their entire family. She said her kids have been excellent students, 
but she was fearful they could not get into college and be able to pay 
for it. She was very happy we were taking these steps to reduce the 
interest rate on student loans.
  She thanked me for the actions we have taken during these first 100 
hours of this Congress to change the direction of this Nation and to 
change the focus and the cost of higher education for the millions of 
hardworking Americans in this country who want to send their kids to 
college just as she does.
  This is a bill that helps so many Americans that people approach 
Members at swim-and-dive meets. They appreciate this bill, and I would 
urge everyone in this Congress to support H.R. 5.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to some of the comments of my good friend, Chairman Miller.
  He mentioned that Republicans keep coming to the floor and saying 
this won't help students. Let me get away from Republicans and just 
read a few comments of people from the press.
  The first is in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The quote is: 
``The question is, What are you achieving by cutting the interest rate? 
asked Jamie P. Merisotis, President of the Institute for Higher 
Education Policy, a Washington-based research group.'' Not Republican. 
He stated, ``You are not encouraging any more students to go to college 
because you are cutting the interest rate on loans that students have 
already taken out.''
  Another one, Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst at the College Board 
and an economics professor at Skidmore College, said the interest-rate 
proposals ``costs a ton of money and is not a well-targeted policy.'' 
That was in Chronicle of Higher Education.
  In Congress Daily: ``The much-touted Democratic measure to slash in 
half student loan interest rates over 5 years has been drafted to offer 
only temporary relief with the lowest rate of 3.4 percent effective for 
only the last 6 months of 2011.''
  Now since we didn't have the opportunity to debate this bill in 
committee or explore it to any great extent, I can only guess that the 
bill was crafted so that the 3.4 percent interest rate is only in 
effect for half of that last academic year because the Democrats know 
the interest rate cut is unsustainable in that it would cost $22 
billion if it ran for 10 years.
  Another thing that was mentioned is that this will cut all student 
loans by half. I am hopeful that those students that are now in college 
that will benefit from this at some point out in the future when they 
become graduates will check to see if they are in a subsidized loan 
because they are the ones that will be covered. They should also check 
when they graduate to see what interest rate they will pay because 
again this just takes effect year by year. It doesn't reach the 
ultimate half until 5\1/2\ years from now. And also, those who are not 
on subsidized loans, don't get too excited about this because your loan 
interest will not be cut.
  Another thing that the chairman mentioned was that there was an 
article, a Wall Street analyst referring to this felt that it was okay, 
that this wouldn't hurt and you could still buy mutual funds and 
everybody would get along just fine. I read the same article, and I 
think he was referring to Sallie Mae, the giant, the largest lender, 
and he said he felt they would be okay, especially based on the promise 
that the hit was going to be for $60 billion, and when the bill was 
finally written last Friday it was $6 billion. He was comparing what 
they will have to live with versus what the original promise was of the 
$60 billion cut which would have cut all student loans in half instead 
of reducing year by year a little amount until we get to only the 
subsidized loans and only for 6 months that they enjoy that cut before 
it goes back up to the 6.8 percent.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  So under the gentleman's theory, apparently the Republican repeal of 
the estate tax is only good for one day because you have a sunset on 
it.
  And when the gentleman says one of the pundits, as opposed to a 
student who is going to get value for this, one of the pundits says 
this isn't good because it is on existing loans, no, it is on new 
loans.
  So the pundits don't like it, the Republican Members of Congress 
don't like it, but the students like this. Hey, a novel idea. Let's do 
something the students like that they think will help to make college 
education affordable. There is an idea. Let's vote for that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I 
also thank Speaker Pelosi for making this a national priority within 
our first 100 hours agenda
  This is about the middle class and those struggling to make it to the 
middle class.
  Frankly, I am stunned at the opposition from the Republican side. I 
guess I shouldn't be because the Republican Party opposed the GI Bill 
of Rights half a century ago which in so many ways created the middle 
class in this country by enabling soldiers coming back from World War 
II to be able to afford to go to college.
  I guess I shouldn't be stunned either given the fact that when 9 
months ago Chairman Miller suggested that we increase the value of Pell 
Grants for low income families and reduce the cost of student 
borrowing, it failed on virtually a party-line vote 220-200.
  I guess I shouldn't be stunned either because 6 months ago, the White 
House and what was then the majority Congress, decided it was more 
important to give tax breaks to the very wealthiest

[[Page H612]]

people in this country than to give some help to those middle class and 
working class, families who couldn't afford to go to college. Then they 
took $12 billion out of college student aid to pay for those tax cuts. 
You have to ask yourself, where are there priorities?
  You know, the cost of college has gone up by more than the cost of 
health care. It has gone up by more than the cost of inflation per 
capita personal income and by more than the cost even of health care.

                              {time}  1515

  The fact is, right now, here in January, there are hundreds of 
thousands of families trying to decide whether they can send their 
child to college. How can they afford it? And there are also any number 
of college students trying to decide whether they can become a teacher 
or work in health care or any other number of professions we critically 
need because they have to pay off their college student loans and those 
professions generally don't pay enough.
  This is the right thing for America. It will make America stronger 
and smarter.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to respond a little to the gentleman.
  He talked about the $12 billion in cuts. Yes, we cut $12 billion out 
of the lenders, and we put $9 billion of it back into students. Not 
graduates, students.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 
seconds to correct the record.
  You took $20 billion out of the lenders and put some back. And the 
rest of it you just took off with, and that could have been used.
  Mr. McKEON. For deficit reduction.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No, no, no, to pay for your tax 
cuts, which was driving the deficit.
  Mr. McKEON. Deficit reduction.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was your priority. You are 
welcome to do it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation that is 
very important to the many colleges and institutions in my district in 
upstate New York.
  The legislation before us is a promise made to the American people, a 
promise to make college more affordable to the Nation's future leaders 
and to the people that need it most, the middle-class families. We are 
doing that by cutting student loans in half over the next 5 years.
  It is no secret that rising tuition fees are making it more difficult 
for students to attend college. In response, we are taking action today 
to alleviate the heavy financial burden many students face after 
graduation when the loan collector comes knocking on their door. 
Through this legislation, we are providing relief where it is needed 
most, while at the same time creating incentives to attend college for 
those who otherwise might not, and we are doing it in a fiscally 
responsible way by meeting the pay-as-you-go requirements.
  Madam Speaker, the message from America is clear. The time to act is 
now. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and provide needed 
financial relief to the hardworking, middle-class families and students 
who need it most.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for introducing 
this legislation. I am a granddaughter of immigrants to this country 
that couldn't speak English. They had no education when they came to 
the United States. The only thing they had was a dream, and that dream 
was that their children and their children's children would lead a 
better life here in the United States.
  My father has a 9th grade education because he had to quit school in 
order to support his widowed mother and five brothers and sisters 
during the Depression. So my father had no education and my mother 
graduated high school, but the one thing they stressed in our home was 
that their children would get a good education.
  Now, my dad was a waiter all the years I was growing up. And if it 
hadn't been for Federal loans to help me get through college and law 
school, I guarantee I wouldn't be sitting here as a Member of the 
United States House of Representatives.
  For the people I represent, most of the students that attend college 
in Nevada are first-generation college-goers, just like I was. Their 
parents work in the casinos, they work in the service industry, and 
they didn't get an education, but they want their kids to. So these are 
the people that we are talking about.
  There are almost 11,000 students that are similarly situated to what 
I was when I was a student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 
There are 11,000 of them that are depending on these Federal subsidized 
loans. Of those 11,000, they are going to benefit if we pass this 
legislation to the tune of $2,300 over the life of that loan. That is a 
substantial amount of money when you are a first-generation college-
goer and your family works as a waiter or waitress or a keno runner in 
a Nevada casino.
  I cannot understand how anybody would think cutting an interest rate 
in half would not be a benefit to these students. I wholeheartedly 
endorse this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, since the Republican majority's record on 
student aid has been one of the things we have focused on today, as 
well as the Democratic leadership's rhetoric over the past few years, I 
believe it might be useful to take a few minutes to be perfectly clear 
about where Members on this side of the aisle stand when it comes to 
expanding college access.
  Now, I was really interested in the gentlewoman from Nevada's 
discussion about her family, because that is the beautiful thing about 
this country, that you do have the opportunity to go to college. My 
dad, during the Depression, didn't have the opportunity and my mother 
didn't have the opportunity. I was the only one of five sons that was 
able to graduate from college. It took me 30 years. I graduated with my 
oldest daughter.
  We have six children. Four of them have graduated from college and 
two are still working on it. We have 28 grandchildren. So I have a big 
interest in the opportunities of education, and I am hopeful that all 
of my grandchildren will be able to get an education.
  Before Republicans gained control of the House in 1995, there had 
been no serious congressional effort to address the issue of rising 
college costs or even discuss it. We have seen the charts. We have seen 
how from the time Pell Grants were instituted, all the time that the 
Democrats were in charge, they got the Pell Grants up to $2,000. In the 
12 years that we had the majority, we more than doubled that and put 
much more money into Pell Grant relief and to other student aid 
projects.
  Similarly, there has been very little discussion on whether our 
colleges or universities were producing graduates who were ready for 
the job market. In fact, the entire American competitiveness discussion 
we are having these days was not on the minds of those inside the 
Beltway at that time. But over the course of the past decade, we have 
made it a priority, often working in a bipartisan fashion. We gathered 
facts, talked within the higher education community, and worked to 
craft legislation that represented a fresh approach to policy.
  In fact, as I said earlier, we have been talking about student loan 
interests. And when we did the reauthorization in 1998, in a bipartisan 
way, we came up with the lowest interest rate in history, which has 
afforded many, many more students the opportunity to go to school. But 
what we came up with was something that was not necessarily 
revolutionary, but at the same time, it was vitally important.
  It was a two-pronged approach. First, we made an unprecedented 
commitment to student aid, and today our efforts are paying off. Some 
$90 billion in Federal resources currently fund student aid programs, 
from loans and grants to work-study programs and education tax 
benefits. That is nearly triple what it was just a decade ago. And 
within that $90 billion is a record $13 billion for Pell Grants, a two-
thirds increase over the past decade. That is a record we should be 
proud of.
  On top of that, we have also eliminated a troubling shortfall in the 
Pell

[[Page H613]]

program, placing it on a sound financial foundation for years to come. 
Beyond that, just last year alone we enacted legislation to increase 
loan limits to give students access to more financial aid; reduce loan 
fees so students can keep more of what they borrow, and this is 
students I am talking about, money they can put in their pockets; 
established $4.5 billion in new grant aid for low-income students 
studying math, science, and critical foreign languages, as well as 
high-achieving Pell eligible high school students; and we permanently 
expanded loan relief for highly qualified math, science, and special 
education teachers who commit to teaching in high-need K-12 schools for 
5 years. These are things that really help us in K-12 and in higher 
education.
  To pay for these new student loan benefits, which again included $4.5 
billion in new grant aid for our Pell students, we reduced the 
subsidies paid to student loan lenders by more than $20 billion, as the 
chairman previously stated. We need to be thoughtful about increased 
cuts to the private sector so that we don't leave students with the 
poorly run direct loan program as their only option.
  In short, Madam Speaker, our commitment to student aid has never been 
stronger. Anyone who says otherwise simply is not being candid.
  The second and equally important part of our two-pronged approach to 
expand college access gets to the heart of the college cost crisis 
itself, the actual cost of a college education. This is what we really 
should be talking a lot more about instead of trying to get a little, 
small reduction in the interest rate. We should be trying to cut the 
total cost.
  In short, we are aiming to bring greater accountability to an 
unchecked system so that consumers of a higher education have more 
information than ever before about the cost of a college education. As 
a result, we have dramatically shifted the college cost debate. A 
decade ago, the interest of students and colleges were seen as 
identical, and the conventional wisdom was that colleges knew what was 
best for students. A decade ago, the higher education establishment 
made clear that simply adding more Federal student aid was the solution 
to the problem of rising costs and that there was no point in 
questioning why costs rose.
  Today, while we maintain an unprecedented commitment to student aid, 
we have also identified students, parents, taxpayers, community 
organizations, and employers as legitimate stakeholders in the outcomes 
produced by our higher education system. We are asking hard questions 
of colleges, such as why costs are so high, how successful the college 
is in helping students graduate on time, which helps keep costs down, 
and whether the college will give them the skills needed to compete 
successfully in the workplace.
  Admittedly, we have gotten some blow-back. Some of these colleges 
don't want to answer these questions. They want us to just leave them 
alone, send more money. But you know what? We were and are right to 
demand such accountability, and we will continue to do so.
  I wish we were able, as part of this debate, but the closed process 
under which we are operating won't allow that possibility. Still, I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
as we do so in the weeks and months to come.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) now controls the time for the majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Student Relief 
Act of 2007. This legislation makes college more affordable and higher 
education more accessible for all Americans. But the bill, as we know, 
will do much more than help Americans make it to college. As we know, 
graduates today often spend years paying off their loans.
  This fall, a young woman named Amy wrote to me and explained the 
challenges her family faces. Their income is over $60,000 a year. She 
pays $700 a month in student loans. I am an attorney, she wrote, and my 
student loans are killing me. Without help, I risk never buying a home 
or being able to save for retirement.
  By reducing interest rates, those who graduate from college will save 
more than $4,500 over the life of their loan. Lower interest rates also 
mean that college graduates will have more money to contribute to the 
economy, start innovative businesses, that kind of competition we 
talked about, and save for their retirements. Do we really want to 
discourage our young people from taking the kinds of career risks that 
bring a benefit to society?
  This Congress has an opportunity to help a new generation become 
engineers, doctors, business leaders, teachers, public servants, or 
whatever they dream of becoming. So let us not shackle young adults 
with spiraling debt just as they reach independence. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 5.

                              {time}  1530

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeLauro). The gentleman from California 
has 25 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 41 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Chairman Miller, 
for bringing this bill to the floor. We campaigned on the fact that we 
would do certain things; one of those was to try to bring down college 
costs as they escalate throughout this country. All of us heard, 
throughout this country, parents who came up to us, students who came 
up to us and said, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon, we need that 
done. Mr. Wicker, we need that done.
  This bill is not perfect. It doesn't go as far as some would like. 
Frankly, I would like to have very substantial impact on the Pell 
Grants, but we have adopted pay-as-you-go because we think you need to 
pay for what you buy. So we are constrained. But I hear people saying 
this isn't going to do anything for anybody. I disagree with that.
  Madam Speaker, our Nation's economic security and future prosperity 
are inextricably bound to our ability to compete in the global 
marketplace. And in the 21st century, a century in which knowledge, 
skills and creativity are key, our competitiveness necessitates a 
highly educated citizenry.
  As the journalist and author Tom Friedman has observed, and I quote, 
``The main challenge to America today comes from the fact that all the 
walls are being taken down and many other people can now compete and 
collaborate with us much more directly.'' In fact, he has observed that 
the world is flat. That means we are more competitive. That means that 
we need to be better able to compete. That means that our young people 
need to be better educated. That means that we need to give them access 
to affordable, quality higher education.
  Former President Clinton also has remarked that, and I quote, ``We 
are living in a world where what you can earn is the function of what 
you can learn.'' I think all of us agree with that. That is not a 
debating item. It is, how do we get there?
  Today, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation, the 
College Student Relief Act of 2007, which is the first step by House 
Democrats to make college more affordable and accessible.
  In short, this bill will cut interest rates on need based Federal 
student loans for undergraduate students from 6.8 percent to 3.4 
percent over 5 years. Why over 5 years? Because we have got to pay for 
it. It would be very nice to do it like that if we could pay for it. 
But we are in a position where we are in deep debt. We can't do that.
  This legislation will cut the cost of college for an estimated 5.5 
million undergraduate students and their families. That is a 
significant number of people. And when fully phased in, it will save 
the typical borrower, with $13,800 in need-based student loans, $4,400 
in savings over the life of the loan.
  Now, frankly, that is not a big sum when you think of the life of the 
loan. I understand that. But, frankly, we view large sums differently 
than some

[[Page H614]]

others, but we make $165,000 a year. Very few Americans are so 
privileged.
  The irony of course is that at a time when an education is more 
important than ever to one's success, the costs of attending college 
have continued to skyrocket. For example, just since 2001 the tuition 
and fees at public universities have increased 44 percent when adjusted 
for inflation, and tuition and fees at private universities have risen 
17 percent.
  Madam Speaker, we simply need to make a college education more 
affordable and accessible, and this legislation helps us to do that.
  Let no one be mistaken, H.R. 5 is not a panacea to the high costs of 
college education. But it is a good first step, and I know that Mr. 
Miller and Mr. McKeon are going to be looking at ways and means to do 
better for our students.
  In the weeks ahead, House Democrats will continue to work on efforts 
to make college more affordable and to help our Nation maintain and 
strengthen its leadership role in education and the world economy.
  Finally, I should note, Madam Speaker, that this bill contains no new 
costs for taxpayers. It meets all pay-as-you-go budget requirements, 
containing offsets that pay for the cost of cutting interest rates. 
This legislation is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. 
Eighty-eight percent is the figure, but whether or not they 
specifically know about this legislation, the overwhelming majority of 
Americans know that we have to bring the cost of college education down 
if we are going to remain competitive.
  I congratulate Mr. Miller on his leadership, and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation as a step, a 
good step that we can take to make ourselves more competitive and to 
give our students greater access to college.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with much of what the majority leader just said. I think we 
do have to expand access. We have to give opportunities to students.
  My real concern is at the end of this debate, I am hoping that 
students understand that the 6.8 percent interest right now, tomorrow, 
doesn't go to 3.4; even if the Senate were to act on this and pass this 
bill exactly, that it would be almost 5 years, and then it only is cut 
in half for a 6-month period. So that if you look at how much they 
really would save over the period of a repayment, the way it works is 
when they graduate, 6 months later, they have to, or they have the 
opportunity to consolidate their loans and they can take all the loans 
because they get one their first year, one the second year, third year, 
and if they go through in 4 years they probably up end up with four 
loans. They consolidate those loans and they will take the interest 
rates, well, anyway, they are 6.8 now, and then they go to 6.1 and then 
they work their way down to 3.4. They will take how much they borrowed 
each year. They consolidate those loans. They average those out, and 
they will probably get a reduction of about like 4\1/2\ percent. And if 
they borrow the maximum during that period of time, they will end up 
with a savings of a little over $2,000, not $4,400, as some are saying.
  I think it is really important to really have the true facts out 
there so that we don't give people this idea that tomorrow my interest 
rate is cut in half.
  And also, that only pertains to the 50 percent of students that are 
borrowing on the subsidized basis. I know the promise during the 
campaign was, we are going to cut student loans across the board in 
half for all students. But when you tested that out you found out it 
cost about $60 billion, and to comply with the PAYGO they had to come 
back with this reduced offer.
  Again, it will help people that have graduated from college, but 
those people are already well on their way to realizing the American 
Dream. If we could just take this same amount of money, the savings and 
try to help those who are trying to get into college, that is probably 
the major difference in our debate, is how we help people get an 
opportunity, not those who are now graduating and are benefiting from 
the college graduation and also benefiting from this reduced student 
loan rate.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy now to yield to my friend from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker) 4 minutes.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, I expect a lot of Members on both sides of 
the aisle are going to vote for this legislation. I can't vote for it 
because it doesn't live up to the rhetoric that we have heard from the 
proponents of the legislation in debate today.
  If you want to come up with a bill to, indeed, make college more 
affordable for middle America, then count me in. If you want to improve 
access to a college education for millions and millions of American 
young people, then count me in. If you want to do something about the 
very real problem of slowing the growth rate of college tuition, which 
is really what we should be getting at, then count me in. But I don't 
think this bill does any of that. And frankly, I am afraid that in the 
end this legislation, if enacted, would actually make a college 
education more expensive.
  But I have to respond to some comments made by my friend from 
Virginia, Mr. Moran, just a few moments ago to the effect that 
Republicans are not interested in helping Americans get a college 
education, that we somehow have a poor record in supporting student aid 
and higher education. I would take strong exception to those remarks, 
and I would submit to the contrary, Madam Speaker, that House 
Republicans, over 12 years of Republican majorities in this House of 
Representatives, have a proud record of working to expand college 
access through a two-pronged effort: Number one, working to hold 
institutions more accountable for their role in college costs, and this 
bill does nothing to address that whatsoever, and number two, 
maintaining a historic bipartisan commitment to Federal student aid. 
Under 12 years of a Republican majority in this House of 
Representatives we have achieved record levels of overall student aid, 
more than tripled what it was a decade ago. We funded more Pell Grants, 
a two-thirds increase over the past decade. In addition, the Republican 
record on student aid includes new grant aid for Pell Grant students, 
higher loan limits to give students access to more financial aid, lower 
loan fees so that students can keep more of what they borrow, tuition 
savings and deductibility, reduced student loan payments and ending the 
single holder rule, student loan relief for higher demand teachers--and 
certainly, that is something that we could have hearings about and have 
a bipartisan consensus about, Madam Speaker, targeting this student aid 
to those students who plan to go into difficult areas where there is a 
great need in this country--taxpayer savings through fewer lender 
subsidies and, finally, less fraud and abuse in Federal student aid.
  So I would submit that this party has had a proud 12-year record of 
accomplishment in student aid, and I could not let the statements of my 
very good friend from Virginia go uncontested. We are all for helping 
students, for making college education more affordable and more 
accessible and for helping move more people into a higher education and 
a better way of life for them and their families. And I don't think 
this bill gets us there. I think 12 years of Republican leadership is 
something that we can all be proud of. So I will be voting against the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) now controls the time for the majority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment, 
just one moment, to thank Chairman Miller on behalf of hundreds and 
thousands of students attending the eight colleges and universities in 
my district for bringing this legislation to the floor. They will be 
more than grateful to you forever for bringing this legislation to the 
floor, and I want to thank you, Chairman Miller.
  Madam Speaker, for too long the doors to our colleges and 
universities have been closed to too many of our young people. Too many 
of our best and brightest cannot afford to go to college, and those who 
do are buried under a mountain of debt when they graduate. Today we can 
ease that burden. Today we can make colleges and

[[Page H615]]

universities more affordable by passing H.R. 5. The best and brightest 
American minds, rich and poor, all of our children, must have access to 
higher education. Our young people will be competing with young people 
from around the world, not just on this little piece of real estate we 
call America, but from around the world, and they must have every 
opportunity to succeed. I am the first person in my family to finish 
high school, to go to college.

                              {time}  1545

  I worked in a kitchen washing dishes, pots and pans, serving food, 
working as a janitor. That is how I made it through school. But today, 
hundreds of thousands of our young people cannot make it because of the 
debt, because of the high cost of student loans. American students 
should never, never be turned away from college because they cannot 
afford it.
  It is unacceptable, it is a shame, it is a disgrace that our country 
is willing to spend millions and billions of dollars to fight a war in 
Iraq that we know is a mistake, while the doors to our colleges and 
universities are closed to too many of our young people.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5, vote for America's future. Vote for our young 
people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pascrell). The time remaining for Mr. 
Miller from California is 38 minutes. Mr. McKeon from California has 
18\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, maybe if I reserve for a while, you can 
catch up with us a little bit.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I want to thank Chairman Miller for yielding time and 
for bringing the bill to the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 5, the College 
Student Debt Relief Act of 2007. Last year, the 109th Congress cut $12 
billion from the student loan programs. These savings were not 
reinvested in helping low- and moderate-income families send their 
children to college. Instead, the $12 billion from the student loan 
program was used to underwrite the irresponsible deficit spending 
generated by the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Those cuts 
severely hampered our Nation's ability to close the college access gap 
for Hispanics and other low- and moderate-income students.
  The 110th Congress has a new set of priorities. H.R. 5 will cut in 
half the interest on subsidized student loans by the year 2011. This 
legislation will save average borrowers $4,400 over the life of the 
loan.
  The student loan programs have become an important piece of the 
access puzzle for Hispanic families. This interest rate reduction is 
part of the solution. Hispanic students borrow less on average than 
other groups. The reluctance to assume debt that could be difficult to 
repay has pushed many Hispanic students into attendance patterns that 
jeopardize their ability to persist until graduation. Nevertheless, 
according to the report, ``How Latino Students Pay for College, 
Excelencia in Education,'' the average loan amounts exceeded the 
average grant amounts by more than $1,800.
  It is of critical importance to the Hispanic community that we 
provide assurances to borrowers that there are protections to help them 
meet their student loan obligations. We are committed to addressing the 
other pieces of the access and affordability puzzle as well. We will 
move forward to ensure that academic preparation is no longer a missing 
piece of the puzzle.
  The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance estimates that 
in 2003 more than 400,000 college-qualified low-income students did not 
enroll in a 4-year college and 170,000 did not enroll in any college at 
all because of financial barriers.
  We here in the 110th will right a wrong and place savings from the 
student loan program where they belong, with our low- and middle-income 
students. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this down payment on college access and affordability and to vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 5.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my good friend from Texas, whom I have worked with in the 
1998 reauthorization when we helped the Hispanics, adding the title 
that helped the Hispanic community. He was one of the strong leaders 
that really helped his people and community. We worked together then. 
We worked together last year in bringing the bill to the floor that 
unfortunately died in the Senate, but it would have reauthorized the 
Higher Education Act.
  I want to congratulate him. I understand he is going to be the 
chairman of the subcommittee in this Congress, and I am looking forward 
to working with him.
  But I just want to say one thing to straighten the record out, we 
took $20 billion in the Deficit Reduction Act last year from the 
student lenders. We put $9 billion of it back into student services to 
help them; the balance we used in the deficit reduction which resulted 
in the $71 billion decrease, the deficit right now, versus last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a 
unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the legislation to 
lower student loan interest rates.
  According to the Department of Education, two-thirds of undergraduate 
students will take out a Federal student loan this year to help finance 
their college education.
  As tuition costs swell and grant-aid fails to keep pace, students and 
their families are increasingly turning to loans as the primary 
mechanism to finance a higher education. While student loans make the 
college dream a reality for millions, they all too often turn into a 
nightmare of debt.
  Over the past eight years the typical student loan debt has more than 
doubled to approximately $19,000. In addition, 39 percent of all 
student borrowers now graduate with unmanageable debt levels. Too many 
student borrowers struggle to make their monthly loan payments, and 
many must forgo savings, public service careers, and home ownership.
  Borrowing for higher education should be a sound investment for the 
future, both for the student, and our society. Yet, today we are asking 
far too many students to mortgage their future at too high a cost.
  I am proud to support this legislation which will help ease the 
burden of student loans. H.R. 5 will cut the interest rate for 
subsidized student loans in half to 3.4 percent. For a student with 
$13,800 in student loans, this will save them $4,400 in interest over 
the life of their loan and will help make the college dream a viable 
reality for countless students.
  I have been working in Congress to do just that. I have been pushing 
for legislation that will not only make student financial aid more 
flexible for students but also ease the financial burden of student 
loans.
  For instance, I have been pushing for passage of the Student Loan 
Interest Full Deductibility Act, which would allow eligible taxpayers 
to deduct the full amount of their student loan interest and would 
remove the current income cap limiting the deduction. Current law only 
allows for $2,500 to be deducted, even though many students pay 
thousands more each year in student loan interest, and phases out this 
deduction if a taxpayer's income is greater $50,000 a year.
  I have also been advocating for the Community College Partnership 
Act, which would create partnerships between community colleges and 
four-year institutions to encourage students to continue their 
education at a college or university. This is based on an Oregon idea 
where colleges noticed their students were taking classes in non-
traditional ways. Students would take classes at a community college in 
the morning, go to work, and then take another class at a different 
campus at night, or vice versa. However, in order to create such a 
class schedule, the students had to deal with two sets of 
administrations, two sets of paperwork, and two sets of financial aid. 
In order to encourage more of these students to continue and complete 
their studies at the 4-year institution, Portland State University 
partnered with neighboring community colleges to make this transition 
seamless through dual enrollment programs in which enrollees' class 
credits, financial aid, and administrative paperwork seamlessly 
transfer between the schools. The Community College Partnership Act 
expands on this idea by establishing a competitive grant program to 
encourage or expand similar partnerships throughout the United States.

  Finally, I am proud to be investigating the high price of college 
textbooks. Recent news reports have exposed what has long been 
experienced by students and college bookstores: often the exact same 
college textbooks that American college students are required to buy 
for class are sold overseas for less than half the price. This 
situation does not meet the test

[[Page H616]]

of fairness and common sense, and it is especially troubling when one 
considers the skyrocketing cost of higher education in general and of 
college textbooks in particular. It is increasingly common for students 
to pay in excess of $1,000 per school year for textbooks and supplies 
alone. Last Congress, I was successful in getting the Government 
Accountability Office to investigate the high price of college 
textbooks and the disparity of prices between textbooks sold in the 
United States and overseas. The GAG report unmasked the problem of 
rising prices of college textbooks. Given this, Congressman Buck McKeon 
and I commissioned the Advisory Committee on Student Financial 
Assistance to further study the problem and to develop solutions.
  Again, I am pleased to support H.R. 5 today because it will help 
address the rising cost of college. We are at the dawn of a new 
economy--one that is based on knowledge. A higher education is more 
important than ever in this economy. We must work on policies that not 
only improve access to a higher education but also makes this education 
more affordable. That is what H.R. 5 is about, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, of all the barriers that families have 
faced these last several years, from the rising cost of health care and 
energy, to the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, few have had 
as chilling an impact on opportunity as the skyrocketing cost of 
college tuition. The last 5 years, tuition at public universities shot 
up more than 40 percent.
  These kinds of financial barriers prevent about 4.4 million high 
school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next 
decade, 2 million high school graduates finding themselves unable to 
attend any college at all. This, when the United States has talked 
about a proposed projected shortage of up to 12 million college-
educated workers by 2020.
  There are so many challenges before us, breathtaking challenges that 
impact every American. This Congress has to recognize how closely tied 
access to a quality education is to our economic prosperity, our 
national security, our civic health. Strengthening those bonds, 
reaffirming our commitment to our Nation's family, that is what this 
legislation is about. Cutting the interest rate for undergraduate 
students with a subsidized student loan in half over the next 5 years, 
we can help 5.5 million students fulfill their dream.
  In Connecticut, more than 33,000 students currently take out 4-year 
loans. They have an average debt of $14,200. We are going to help these 
youngsters save more than $2,300 over the life of the loan.
  I happen to represent an area with many first-rate universities. The 
time has come to make these universities and the lifetime of 
opportunity they unleash accessible to every American, to every parent 
who wants to send their child to college.
  Lowering college costs is about expanding opportunity. It is what 
government should be all about. It is the reason why the people in our 
communities send us here, to try to help them have the opportunity to 
have an education for their children at a rate that they can afford, an 
interest rate that they can afford.
  Let's help them with the college loans. This legislation deserves our 
support.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller) will control the time for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve the 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a moment to 
thank Chairman Miller and the Democratic leadership for the powerful 
groundwork that they are laying to provide relief to the Nation's 
college students and aspiring college students seeking an opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of Horatio Alger stories here on 
the floor of the House, representing the lives of so many of my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and I salute them. So many of us 
are first-generation college students who have had the opportunity to 
receive a degree in the Nation's institutions of higher learning.
  But let me cite for my friends and colleagues the landscape of the 
21st century when China is producing more engineers in 1 month than 
America is producing in 1 year. It is a landscape that my friends from 
the other side of the aisle created, for over the last couple of years, 
Pell Grants have had no meaningful increase in the last 5 years. Last 
year, the maximum Pell Grant was worth $900 less in inflation-adjusted 
terms than it was in 1975 and 1976. Since 2001, Pell Grants have only 
increased by $300. Yes, more students are getting Pell Grants, Mr. 
Speaker, because more are eligible because they are poor.
  So there has been no educational agenda, but I am delighted that we 
are going to fix it for Texas. In the name of my schools, Texas 
Southern University, the University of Houston, Rice University, 
Houston Baptist University, Houston Community College, North Harris 
Montgomery Community College and University of St. Thomas, University 
of Houston-Downtown, we will finally, for the 208,000 students in 
Texas, bring down the cost of student interest rates some $4,000 over 
the next 5 years. This is relief, and this is opportunity.
  We need to move quickly to pass this legislation to go to the Senate 
and, yes, to have the President's signature. This is long overdue, and 
this is a meaningful response to students who are seeking an equal 
opportunity.
  I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5. It is the right thing to do. 
It is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the College Student 
Relief Act of 2007. This bill does much more than ease the burden of 
student loans for college graduates--it will make the American dream 
possible for the children of more than 5.5 million working and middle-
class Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, in 21st century America, a college education is critical 
for individual success and the strength of our nation. Higher education 
is associated with better health, greater wealth and more vibrant civic 
participation, as well national economic competitiveness in today's 
global environment. As the need for a college degree has grown, 
however, so has the cost of obtaining that education. The result is 
rising student debt.
  About 5.5 million students borrow subsidized Stafford loans every 
year. Of those borrowers, nearly 3.3 million attend four-year public or 
private nonprofit institutions. The vast majority of these borrowers 
come from low- and middle-income families. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, 75% of traditional-aged borrowers with 
subsidized Stafford loans come from families with incomes below 
$67,374. The median income for an American family of four is $65,000.


                   H.R. 5 Cuts Interest Rates in Half

  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5 because it cuts the fixed interest rate 
on subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 
percent over the next five years. Loans originated during the 
intervening five years would be set at fixed interest rates of 6.12 
percent in 2007-2008, 5.44 percent in 2008-2009, 4.76 percent in 2009-
2010, 4.08 percent in 2010-2011, and 3.4 percent from 2011 forward. 
After graduation, students could consolidate their loans into one loan 
at the weighted average of the interest rates of their various loans.
  Mr. Speaker, by lowering interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans, 
Congress can save college graduates thousands of dollars over the life 
of their loans. For example:
  The average four-year college student starting school in 2007 with 
subsidized Stafford loans would save about $2,280 over the life of his 
or her loans under the proposed legislation.
  When the interest rate cut is fully phased in, the average four-year 
college student starting school in 2011 with subsidized Stafford loans 
would save $4,420 over the life of his or her loans.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5 because it will bring relief to the 
more than 205,000 student loan borrowers in my state of Texas. Today, 
the average subsidized Stafford Loan debt for a 4-year graduate of a 
Texas public college is more $14,230. Under H.R. 5, the savings for the 
average student starting school in Texas this year will be $2,350 over 
the life of his or her Stafford Loan and more than $4,500 for a student 
starting college in Texas in 2011.
  Last year, the Republican-led Congress cut $12 billion in federal 
student aid to give tax cuts to the wealthy. H.R. 5 would serve to give 
just a bit of that back by cutting interest rates on student loans in 
half by 2011. It may seem like just a small step, but reducing the 
interest

[[Page H617]]

rate on student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent will do a lot for 
many Americans.


 High Student Debt Deters College Graduates from Becoming Teachers and 
                             Social Workers

  Mr. Speaker, recent graduates, especially those with low and moderate 
incomes, must spend the vast majority of their salaries on necessities 
such as rent, health care, and food. For borrowers struggling to cover 
basic costs, student loan repayment can create a significant and 
measurable impact on their lives. Crushing student debt also has 
societal consequences, Mr. Speaker. According to a report by two highly 
respected economists, Drs. Saul Schwarz and Sandy Baum, the prospect of 
burdensome debt likely deters skilled and dedicated college graduates 
from entering and staying in important careers educating our nation's 
children and helping the country's most vulnerable populations.
  To solve this problem and ensure that higher education remains within 
reach for all Americans, we need to increase need based grant aid; make 
loan repayment fair and affordable; protect borrowers from usurious 
lending practices; and provide incentives for state governments and 
colleges to control tuition costs. H.R. 5 is an important step in a new 
and right direction for America. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for yielding time. Americans have 
always seen access to higher education as one way to help them live out 
the American dream. Starting with the Greatest Generation and the GI 
Bill, our Nation's citizens have been able to pursue an education 
beyond high school because of Federal assistance.
  Today's job market is increasingly knowledge driven, and people are 
deciding they need skills beyond what is taught in high school. Whether 
it is 2 years, 4 years, public, private or community based, students 
are realizing there are economic benefits to expanding their skill set 
beyond a high school education. An educated workforce will also stem 
the flight of jobs overseas.
  When I meet with the college students in my district, one of their 
biggest worries is, how am I going to pay off my student loans. I was 
talking to one young woman who had a great job. She said, I have to 
find a new job. She said, there is no way I can keep this job and still 
pay off my student loans.
  As college tuition continues to skyrocket, more and more students are 
turning to loans to help meet the costs. In my State, the average debt 
for students coming out of a 4-year school is $15,000. This legislation 
will save those students, on average, $4,400 over the life of the loan.
  I applaud Chairman Miller and his committee for the work they have 
done on behalf of American students and recent college graduates. They 
have done the work necessary to prevent higher education from again 
becoming a luxury of just the wealthy.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for gathering support from 
both sides of the aisle. To those who have said this is a Pyrrhic 
victory, I ask them to look at the record here. This is a victory for 
undergraduates and future undergraduates.
  What I also hear on the other side is that, perhaps, why are we 
waiting till students get out of school, why don't we do something 
about the tuition in school? We believe, most of us, on both sides of 
the aisle, in the free market. You certainly aren't suggesting that we 
inject ourselves in what colleges charge as tuition. I don't think that 
is what you mean. But I don't know what you mean.
  What I do know is what I have heard on the other side of the aisle 
from too many that defend the lenders and not college students.
  I am the first member of my family to have the opportunity to go to 
college. I am a strong believer in the importance of higher education, 
like many in this room today. Our success in educating today's 
generation of students will have a striking and lasting impact on the 
Nation's success.
  According to the Department of Education, financial concerns will 
prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year 
college. That is not acceptable to anybody here. It will prevent 
another 2 million high school graduates from attending college at all 
at any time. That is not acceptable either.
  As tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have 
risen 41 percent, after inflation, since 2001, the typical student now 
graduates with an enormous $17,500 in total Federal debt. Besides what 
we are doing on interest rates, we will be working in the future, down 
the road, consolidating these debts, providing some loan flexibility 
within this program and loan forgiveness for many public service 
employees who give their lives and put their lives on the line today.

                              {time}  1600

  In my home State of New Jersey, the College Student Relief Act will 
save students an average of $2,370 on interest payments over the life 
of their loan if the student starts school this September. And if the 
student starts school in 2011, he or she will save $4,600 over the life 
of the loan. This is not theory, this is not empty. This is 
substantial.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) will control the time for the minority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
  Madam Speaker, following each statement I will provide a translation 
in Spanish.
  Today, I join my colleagues to support the College Student Relief 
Act, H.R. 5. A competitive global economy cannot be sustained without 
an educated workforce and the affordable education for those people.
  Hoy, acompano a mis colegas en apoyar la propuesta. La economia 
competitiva global no se puede llevar acabo sin tener ciudadanos 
educados y hacer educacion accesible.
  Like many students from my district, Jenna, a Pomona student, 
recently spoke of her $30,000 debt for her post-graduate degree.
  (En Espanol) Como muchos estudiantes de mi distrito, estudiante Jenna 
recientemente hablo sobre su deuda de 30 mil dolares, el costo para 
obtener su licenciatura posgraduada.
  She is burdened not only by the high cost of education tuition, the 
loan payments, but also by having to look for employment, much like 
many of the other minority and Hispanic peers.
  (En Espanol) No solo tiene la deuda de su colegiatura y de su 
prestamo, tambien tiene que buscar empleo, como la mayoria de sus 
colegas Hispanas y otras menorias.
  Students like her will save $2,500 over the life of their loan at no 
additional cost to the taxpayer.
  (En Espanol) Sin costo adicional al los que pagan impuestos, 
estudiantes podran ahorrar mas de $2,500 sobre el total del prestamo.
  It is time to help our students. Give them the aid they need. Lower 
the student loan rates. I certainly want to ensure that all my 
colleagues on both sides vote for this proposal, H.R. 5.
  Es tiempo que ayudemos a nuestros estudiantes. Denles la ayuda 
necesaria!! Bajemos la tasa del prestamo!
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the 
chairman, Mr. Miller, for carrying this legislation. It is very 
important to thousands of students and giving them the accessibility to 
education. It is about time.
  As Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I believe this bill is 
a good start in helping Hispanic students across the Nation. I thank 
Congressman Ruben Hinojosa as Chair of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus Education Taskforce for working to ensure Hispanic students have 
equal opportunity. Let's make sure that college is affordable and 
accessible for all students.
  We need to prepare our students to make sure that we have a workforce 
for the 21st century. The only way we

[[Page H618]]

can do that is to make sure that all students have access to affordable 
education.
  We know that most of the students right now are relying on student 
loans. Forty-one percent right now have increased the student loans 
since the year 2001. So more students are relying on student loans. We 
want to make sure that it is affordable for every student.
  Hispanics: 33 percent of Hispanics in their communities are under the 
age of 18 and the number of Hispanics attending colleges are growing in 
numbers. We want to make sure that they have access and an opportunity 
to fulfill their goals. It is not just about attending college. It is 
about completing college and making sure they become part of our 
workforce. In order to have a strong America, we must make sure that 
they fulfill their dream and opportunity. I am like many of those, the 
first one out of a family of 15 that was able to graduate; out of 15, 
the first one to graduate and obtain college. I went through the 
military, obtained the GI bill, obtained loans.
  We want to make sure it is accessible and individuals have that 
opportunity. An educated nation is a successful nation. The only way we 
can do that is providing this service.
  I encourage everyone to support H.R. 5. I thank Mr. Miller for 
carrying this legislation and caring about many individuals, and I 
thank my colleague across the aisle too as well, because he has cared 
about education.
  We need to support this legislation to make sure that every student 
has access to affordable education, to make sure that we have the 
workforce that meets the needs of the 21st century.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 5.
  The high cost of education and the lack of adequate financial aid 
make obtaining a higher education unattainable for many of America's 
working families, including Latinos. This has been a great challenge 
for us in the last decade.
  Since 2001, tuition and fees have jumped by 17 percent at private 
universities and by 41 percent at public universities and student loan 
interest rates have risen by 2 percent. According to the Congressional 
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, the cost of higher 
education will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending 
a 4-year public college or institution.
  Obtaining a higher education is especially difficult for Latinos, who 
face low family incomes, low financial aid awards and a reluctance to 
assume debt. The median household income for Latino families has fallen 
by over 4 percent over the past 5 years.
  Latinos, as you know, represent about 15 percent of the college-age 
population, and yet only represent 12 percent of all undergraduates in 
U.S. colleges and universities and only represent 5 percent of those 
students in graduate schools.
  Of all undergraduate students enrolled in the 2003-2004 academic 
year, 49 percent of Latino undergraduates were more likely to be first-
generation students, much like myself. Fifty-one percent are enrolled 
on a part-time basis and the majority are coming from low income 
households. Yet Latinos receive the least financial aid of any ethnic 
group in the country.
  Latinos and other low income communities deserve the security 
provided by an affordable higher education. H.R. 5 is part of that 
solution. Cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans in half 
from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent will make college more affordable for 
many thousands and thousands of Latino students.
  A higher education should not be a privilege and available only to 
the few. Today, we are fulfilling that promise by passing this bill, 
H.R. 5.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Miller, for this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Student Relief 
Act, a bill that will lower the interest rates that college students 
pay for subsidized loans from the current fixed rate of 6.8 percent to 
3.5 percent over 5 years.
  This is a fair bill that pays for itself by reducing the profit that 
the top lenders make from subsidizing loan debt, and it gives help to 
lower and middle income students who want to go to college but cannot 
afford it.
  The Project on Student Debt states that over the past 10 years debt 
for graduating college seniors has increased by 108 percent. For 
graduates from public universities it has more than doubled, increasing 
by 116 percent.
  This bill is needed because we want students to receive a college 
education without the stress of leaving with massive amounts of debt 
that will force them into jobs just for the sake of saving their 
credit. Furthermore, we do not want students to decide not to enter 
college because they are afraid of acquiring unmanageable debt.
  According to Baum and O'Malley, in 2002, loan debt caused 14 percent 
to postpone marriage, 30 percent to postpone buying a car, 21 percent 
to wait on having children and 38 percent to wait on buying a house.
  This bill chips away at the opportunity gap that keeps students of 
needy families and communities of color at the bottom of the ladder of 
success. Half of the students with Federal loans come from families 
with incomes between $26,000 and $68,000. The lower end of this range 
is close to the national poverty level for a family of four of $20,000.
  Many parents who want to send their children to college have to take 
on large debt, rather than invest in homes or their retirement.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the strong position you 
have taken on the floor today as you have presented this bill, and I 
would like to ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, if 
they had an opportunity to reduce the interest rate on their mortgage 
loans by 50 percent, on their automobile also by 50 percent, or any of 
their other debt, would they think it was such a terrible thing, as 
they think about this that we are doing today?
  I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the College 
Student Relief Act. A college education is the foundation of economic 
mobility in America. College graduates enjoy higher incomes, better 
career opportunities and more financial stability.
  College has never been more important than it is today and, sadly, 
never more expensive. But in the last few years Federal support for 
higher education has declined. We have been moving in the wrong 
direction.
  That is why H.R. 5 is so critical. It will save middle and low income 
students thousands of dollars in debt. The bill cuts the interest rates 
on federally subsidized Stafford loans in half over 5 years. It will 
save the average college student in Maine who starts school next fall 
$2,170 over the life of his or her loan. Maine students starting in 
2011 or after will save an average of $4,200.
  Sixty years ago, the GI bill sent a generation of veterans to 
college. Thirty years ago, Pell Grants and Stafford loans extended this 
opportunity to more working class Americans. The future economic 
prosperity of America turns on giving today's students the same 
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to respond to the words that we just heard.
  If a student in 5 years takes out a loan, they will not save $4,000, 
because this ends at the end of 5 years and the 3.4 percent is only 
good for that 6 months, the last 6 months of the bill. Then the loan 
goes back up to 6.8 percent. So at the end of 5 years, the student will 
be paying the same as they are now.
  We just have to keep the facts correct. The rhetoric is good, but we 
should try to keep the facts correct.
  Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield 6 minutes to my friend the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

[[Page H619]]

  As I sit here, I am reminded of the story we have all heard about the 
guy who goes on the $100 cruise. He sees an advertisement for a $100 
cruise. Like all of us, especially a guy like me, I have never been on 
a cruise, he goes down to the dock real excited about it and he gives 
the man $100. The man pulls out a two-by-four, hits him over the head, 
puts him on an inner tube and pushes him into the water. And he is 
cruising along. After a while he wakes up. He bumps into another guy 
with an inner tube and he is rubbing his head. Finally, the first guy 
says to the other guy, ``Hey, do they serve drinks on this cruise?'' 
And the second guy says, ``Well, they didn't last year.''
  Now, the point is, how vulnerable could you be to do this twice? How 
vulnerable would these students be to believe what they are hearing 
about an interest rate that, it is true, it does go to 3.4. It dips 
down to 3.4, and then it springs back up.
  I only wish the stock that I owned in whatever my savings account is 
would dip down like that and then go immediately back up the way the 
Democrat Party is.
  But this bill had no hearings. A broken promise right off the bat. We 
would have hearings, we would have amendments. There are no amendments, 
there are no hearings.
  What happens when you have no hearings and no amendments? You can get 
to only what can be called the tuna fish clause. We know what the tuna 
fish clause is. That is where there is something embarrassing stuck in 
a bill that nobody quite understands. And I think Mr. McKeon over and 
over again has pointed out what the tuna fish clause is in this, and 
that is that the 3.4 percent interest rate is only in effect for 6 
months, from 2011 to 2012.
  Now, I want to explain to the folks who haven't been paying 
attention, when we passed the minimum wage bill the other day and we 
heard over and over again how it was going to help save the workers of 
America and how it was good for all, at the same time the very people 
who were telling us what a great bill it was had put in a scheme to 
exempt the tuna fish industry from American Samoa, the very people who 
are telling us this is great for all.

                              {time}  1615

  So it can be called the tuna fish clause. We are going to look for 
the tuna fish clause over and over again.
  Now, one thing that we have not talked about is that universities 
have had a 35 percent inflation rate over the last 5 years. That is 
relevant because not everybody is going to go to college on a loan or 
on a scholarship, and so when you have a 35 percent inflation rate, you 
have got to say, well, what does that do to the rest of the student 
population. That is something the Republican Party and, frankly, the 
Democrat Party should focus on, what can we do to bring this under 
control.
  The second thing is, there has been a commitment on this. Frequently, 
you hear about a poll that is taken that says 90 percent of the people 
of America believe in clean air. Oh, my goodness, 90 percent. Please 
tell me about the 10 percent who do not believe in clean air. So when 
you hear the guy standing on the dock with the $100 cruise, that this 
is good for education, of course, it is good for education. Who does 
not want more kids to get a college education? Because our kids today 
are going to be competing against kids from Tokyo, and from Moscow and 
from Beijing.
  It is important in an international global economy that we have kids 
that are as competitive as possible, and that is why we have always 
worked on a bipartisan basis. I mean, think about this. In 1995, when 
the Republican Party took over the House, the Pell Grant money was 
$2,340. We increased it the next year to $2,470, and now it is at 
$4,050. We did not do that only with Republican votes. We did it with 
Republican leadership, but the Democrats were there with us. We think 
bipartisanship is very important.
  In addition to that, we have together worked on Perkins loans, on 
college work student loans, on supplemental education grants. It is 
very important that we as a bipartisan body come together on education 
just like national defense issues, because education no longer ends at 
the water line. It goes internationally.
  So when we hear over and over again that this bill will save a 
student $4,400 over the life of the loan, it is absolutely 
mathematically impossible, and maybe that is one thing we need more of, 
math education, so folks could tell a fraud when they see it.
  In order for you to save that kind of money, the 3.4 percent interest 
rate would have to stay in effect for years at a time, but as Mr. 
McKeon said over and over again, it is only in effect from July 2011 to 
January 2012. That is the tuna fish clause of this bill.
  If we had worked through committees on a bipartisan basis, regular 
order, hearings and amendments on the floor, we could get rid of the 
tuna fish clause in this, and we want to do that.
  I am the son of a college professor, the brother of a college 
professor. I am the only one in my family who only has an undergraduate 
degree. I believe in higher education. Who does not believe in higher 
education? But I also believe in truth in representation and in 
bipartisanship.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Across America, our Nation's young people are burdened with this 
President's misplaced priorities. With the debacle in Iraq, many of our 
young people actually give their life or their limb, and with the 
soaring national debt combined with the personal debt for the cost of 
going to college, many of our young people find that their future is 
already mortgaged.
  Escalating costs for tuition, the textbooks, for the cost of gasoline 
to get to and from school and work, they all impact who can afford the 
opportunity of higher education.
  It was Thomas Jefferson who urged public support of higher education, 
wanting the youth of all of our States to, ``drink from the cup of 
knowledge.'' But today, those students, thirsty for knowledge, confront 
too often a parched, unwelcoming desert of financial need and debt; and 
the last Republican Congress just made matters worse.
  This bill represents a constructive step forward in making the dream 
of attending quality institutions a reality. It is a reality that will 
be there, now available, for 47,000 students each year in Texas who 
choose not to get a higher education because of financial barriers.
  It lends a hand to working parents who want to earn a degree and 
provide a better life for their children.
  It lends a helping hand to a young person who is the first in her 
family to see the inside of a college classroom.
  And it lends a hand to middle-class Americans who struggle to save 
for college while their cost of living continues to increase.
  A skilled, productive workforce is an investment in our future. We 
cannot afford to leave higher education unaffordable to so many of our 
neighbors.
  Pass this bill because our youth are worth the investment
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I have here a copy of three letters that I have 
received out of 500 letters I have received on this bill that we are 
addressing today, from my constituents in my district in central Texas. 
They are raising a lot of issues that they are very, very concerned 
about.
  The trend of the letters is, we were promised a 50 percent reduction 
in interest rates for the money that we borrowed to go to school or 
that we are going to borrow to go to school and we are not getting 
that. The only subsidized loans for undergraduates fall in the category 
of this bill. They are concerned about that. They are unhappy and mad 
about that.
  Then the cost of this bill comes out of the Federal Family Education 
Loan Program, those other loans that are not being addressed in this 
bill, to reduce the interest rate which was promised to the American 
people by the other party. This is a concern for people in my district 
because many of those people are going to school with the same 
financial burdens that they thought that were going to be addressed by 
the bill, that are not being

[[Page H620]]

addressed; and the programs that they work through are going to bear 
the cost, which is going to make that market weaker and less available 
for those students who have to go to that market so they can go to 
school. Quite frankly, these letters are very concerned about that.
  And then I have letters from people who work in the FFELP program, 
who are concerned about the fact that what this bill is going to do is 
put them out of work. Eight hundred people in my district work in the 
student loan program and have expressed a concern that this bill will 
put them out of work because it actually puts the burden of taking care 
of the subsidized undergraduate students on all the other Federal 
programs in fees and taxes that are added on.
  So I have 500 letters in my office expressing concern, three of which 
I have with me.
  When we tell the American people we are going to do something, we 
ought to do it. This bill would be much more acceptable, I think, to 
these people who have written me from my district if we were meeting 
the promise that was made to the American people, and, more 
importantly, to our college students, and addressed lowering interest 
rates for everyone.
  So I rise today on behalf of the 500 letters that I have received in 
my office since this bill came on the radar screen, and I rise on 
behalf of those of us who wish we could have had some input into this 
bill so that possibly we could have addressed these issues and possibly 
we could have come up with better solutions that would not deprive 
others of the ability to go to school.
  Finally, nothing is done here to address the real costs of education 
for our American students, which is also a promise broken.
  So I rise here on behalf of the people of central Texas to express 
our concern about promises broken
  I must oppose this legislation because of the negative effects this 
program will have on the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFELP, 
program. The new taxes and fees imposed by this legislation will 
devastate the FFELP industry--an industry that has been proven 
successful by any imaginable measurement. FFELP makes higher education 
more affordable by using market forces to provide borrowers with the 
most competitive rates. FFELP also works with students to manage their 
debts, an effort that has led to record-low default rates. By attacking 
the FFELP industry, this language will cause decreases and lender 
competition and affect the ability of families to choose the lender 
that best suits their needs. I wholeheartedly support attempts to lower 
the costs of higher education, but the unspoken consequences of the 
bill will result in less competition and fewer options for these 
students. That is a consequence I cannot support.

                                                December 21, 2006.
     Hon. John Carter,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I have worked at Sallie Mae for 17 
     years and am a supervisor in Killeen, Texas.
       Sallie Mae does a great job helping students and parents 
     get the loans they need for college.
       Sallie Mae also works hard to help make our community a 
     better place and just received an important award from the 
     President for its community service.
       Please continue to support the Field Program that has 
     worked so well.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Don McCannell.
                                  ____

                                                December 18, 2006.
     Hon. John Carter,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I'm a Sallie Mae employee and now 
     company officer, and have worked here for over 17 years. I'm 
     really proud of what I do at this company to assist students 
     to go to college. Not only do we help students and their 
     families but we give back to our communities here in Texas. 
     The Killeen/Ft. Hood area benefits greatly.
       As you get ready to start the new Congress, I ask that you 
     please remember the great help that the guaranteed education 
     loan program provides for our Nation's students.
       Thanks for all your support of higher education. It's 
     priority for us and I know it's a priority for you.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Deborah J. Bragg Sather.
                                  ____

                                                December 18, 2006.
     Hon. John Carter,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative, I am a Sallie Mae employee and have 
     worked here in Killeen, Texas for 15 years. I can say in all 
     honesty, I have never worked for a more caring, generous and 
     respectful company than Sallie Mae.
       I am very proud of the part I play at this company to help 
     students go to college. Not only do we help students and 
     their families, we give back to the community here at Sallie 
     Mae.
       When I tell my family and friends all the charitable events 
     we participate in, they are amazed. Their amazement is not 
     because I participate but because of the extent Sallie Mae 
     the corporation participates, matching our donations (2:1), 
     giving employees time off for fund raising and encouraging 
     all employees to give back to the community. I personally 
     participate with, The American Cancer Society, March of 
     Dimes, United Way, American Heart Association, Families in 
     Crisis and a few others. The giving doesn't stop with our 
     local communities, Sallie Mae reaches across the country to 
     people in so many ways.
       I had the privilege to participate in one of the Sallie Mae 
     Fund's National Latino ``Paying for College'' Bus Tour 
     events. I cannot express in words how overwhelmed I was to 
     see the company I work for reach out to young Hispanic 
     adults, showing them the way to a better life through higher 
     education. Thirty years ago, I was a young Hispanic adult 
     with parents who did not speak English and there was no 
     ``Sallie Mae'' to help me find the path to higher education. 
     Although I did not go to college, Sallie Mae has given me an 
     opportunity to succeed and achieve my goals in life. I have 
     been able to use the tools Sallie Mae has shared with 
     thousands of people to ensure my children follow that road to 
     higher education. I do not understand how Senator Kennedy and 
     others can say Sallie Mae puts profits ahead of students. 
     Over the past five years alone, The Sallie Mae Fund has 
     distributed nearly $90 million in philanthropic giving to 
     support programs and initiatives that help open doors to 
     higher education, prepare families for their college 
     investment, and bridge the gap when no one else can.
       As you move forward to help families afford the rising 
     college costs, I ask that you not dismantle the FFELP loan 
     program that has worked so well to help millions of Americans 
     go to college and achieve their dreams.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Blanca Vazquez.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman of 
the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller, for his work on this 
and other education issues, as well as my other colleagues.
  It is interesting to hear people talk about the fact that this does 
not totally reduce the cost of going to college when, for the past many 
years, this body has not delivered on that commitment to the American 
people.
  In the last campaign, we did make a commitment to reduce the cost of 
going to college, and this bill is a follow-through on that commitment, 
and we will reduce the cost. We know in this country that one of the 
greatest impediments we have to people getting ahead is the burden of 
the cost of college tuition, a burden that has risen dramatically over 
the years.
  Right now, many students who graduate from college are faced with a 
big debt burden that takes a long time to retire, and even worse than 
that is the number of students who are deterred from even going to 
college in the first place because of the cost of going to college and 
the debts they will incur. This bill takes a significant step toward 
reducing that burden and opening up the doors of opportunities.
  We lose some of the very best and brightest in this country who have 
the ambition to go out and learn, who are qualified to go out there, 
who have done the work and gotten the grades, and because of the high 
costs are prohibited from going forward. In fact, about 4.4 million 
students are essentially deterred from going to college it is estimated 
over the next 10 years as a result of these high costs.
  So, yes, during the last campaign this was a very, very important 
issue to the American people. Instead of raising the costs of going to 
college, instead of cutting $13 billion from higher education as was 
done in the last Congresses, we said, we are going to turn that around; 
we are going to make it easier for people to go to college; we are 
going to open the doors of opportunity, not just because it is the 
right thing to do to make sure that every individual has the 
opportunity to reach his or her full potential, but because our Nation 
needs to make sure we do that in this competitive era.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H621]]

  Let me remark again, as I said earlier, the Advisory Committee on 
Student Financial Assistance issued a report saying that 48 percent of 
our low-income high school students are not able to enter a 4-year 
university, and 22 percent of them cannot even get into a community 
college. I think we are in total agreement that we want to do what we 
can to help them get into school, and the numbers are not much 
different for the middle-income students.
  The one thing that we are not really talking about too much is the 
cost of the education. I am concerned that the young people are 
graduating from college with a mortgage and no home. This debate we are 
hearing is all about the interest rate on that mortgage, on that loan, 
but what we should really be addressing is the cost of higher 
education.
  I would like to just mention a few things that are driving that cost 
of education, some examples of some extravagant spending on college 
campuses, that if we had held hearings, we could have talked about a 
little bit. We have done this over the past when I was a chairman. We 
did have some hearings about this, but let me get some of these in the 
Record.
  Cornell is investing $259 million in what it calls student life and 
residential facilities alone.
  Ohio State University is spending $140 million to build what its 
peers enviously refer to as the Taj Mahal, a 657,000-square foot 
complex featuring kayaks and canoes, indoor batting cages and ropes 
courses, massages and a climbing wall big enough for 50 students to 
scale simultaneously.
  The University of Cincinnati is spending $250 million on a Main 
Street of sorts, with everything from outdoor cafes to what is called a 
mall-style student center.
  The University of Houston spent $53 million on a wellness center, 
including hot tubs, waterfalls and pool slides. The school has a 5-
story climbing wall, while boulders and palm trees frame the leisure 
pools outside.
  The University of Vermont plans to spend $70 million on a new student 
center, a colossal complex with a pub, a ballroom, theater, an 
artificial pond for wintertime skating and views of the mountains and 
Lake Champlain.
  Now, we are not going to be able probably to talk about extravagant 
spending by the schools because we are not talking about the cost of 
college. We are talking about the cost of student loans that, because 
of this extravagant spending, students are having to take out to go to 
college.
  Makes me want to go back to school. Some of these things sound pretty 
enticing. Some are pretty nice.

                              {time}  1630

  But what about the kids that are trying to get an education? They 
don't really, some of them, have time to use these hot tubs, anyway. 
They are working to put their way through school. Why don't we focus 
some of that stuff on the cost of an education rather than on just 
trying to save a few students who have already graduated, who are 
already on the ladder to receiving the American Dream.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  In listening to my friends from the other side of the aisle, first of 
all, I am sorry my friend from Georgia is not here because I think I 
could tell him who the 10 percent are who don't believe in clean air, 
at least I could direct him to people in the administration and to the 
committee leadership on the other side of the aisle for the last 12 
years who proposed policies that clearly indicate that they don't care 
about clean air.
  It is amusing to hear from our friends from the other side of the 
aisle who for 12 years have run the show and are complaining about some 
of the choices that are being made by some 4,000 institutions of higher 
education. If they had something that they wanted to do, I am sorry, 
but they didn't for the last 12 years. But what we have done in the 
first 12 days is to act to make a difference.
  Mr. McKEON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield on the gentleman's time?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute so we could talk about that.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to.
  Mr. McKEON. I introduced a bill that really would have addressed some 
of these issues. In fact, in the last Congress we passed a bill out of 
this body. It stalled on the other side of the Capitol, but we passed a 
bill out of this body that would have addressed some of those issues, 
and we did it in a bipartisan way. I appreciate those who voted for it 
on that side of the aisle.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I am saying for 12 years they had a chance. I am 
sorry if you couldn't work with the administration and the Republicans 
who ran the other Chamber. But my point is I am not dealing with Taj 
Mahals; I am dealing with community colleges that have not had the 
basics. I am not talking about rock walls for 50 students at one time; 
I am talking about basic laboratory space, classroom space, library 
space, people who are having difficulty getting access.
  The point is that the people on the other side of the aisle have been 
talking about this while they have been cutting opportunities and 
cutting budgets, cutting taxes. This bill continues our commitment to 
working families, promoting competitiveness in the workforce by 
starting by cutting interest rates on these subsidized undergraduate 
loans. It targets the lower and middle income students and their 
families with the most financial need and the least support.
  The poor often get grants; the rich don't need them. This bill would 
save that college borrower in the middle thousands of dollars. In my 
State in Oregon, our students have the second highest amount of debt in 
the country. Over 40,000 Oregon students a year will be substantially 
helped by this legislation amongst the 5\1/2\ million students around 
the country in times of skyrocketing tuition.
  Now, unlike the Republican approach of the last 12 years of cutting 
budgets and cutting taxes and putting the tab on the credit cards of 
our youth, this bill is fully paid for by offsets. Five of these six 
were included in President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget and have 
bipartisan support.
  We owe it to our students, our communities, and hard pressed families 
to make college not just a dream but an affordable reality, and I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 5 as an important first step in making 
that happen
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) for 1 minute.
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the Chairman for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5. This legislation 
will help ease the burden of student loans that so many of today's 
young people face by cutting loan interest rates in half over the next 
5 years.
  As the father of three, I am all too familiar with the challenges of 
financing a college education. I have one child in law school, one in 
undergraduate school. It is very, very difficult. I can imagine the 
vast majority of the American families that don't make what Members of 
Congress make, how even more difficult it is for them. So a college 
education becomes out of reach for many families. It is very, very 
important.
  We are going to cut student loan interest rates in half by the next 5 
years. The vast majority of student loan borrowers are low to middle 
income students who are burdened with huge amounts of debt upon 
graduating. In my home State of New York, the average subsidized 
Stafford loan debt for a 4-year graduate is over $14,000, and a student 
starting school in 2007 will save $2,360 over the life of his loan; a 
student who starts school in 2011 will save over $4,500 over the life 
of this loan.
  These are real savings put directly into the pockets of people who 
need it most, and I am proud that Democrats have made it a priority to 
make college more affordable in this 110th Congress. This is the right 
first step. I commend the Chairman and I commend the leadership of the 
Democrats here in the 110th Congress.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I now yield to Mr. 
Etheridge from North Carolina for the purposes of engaging in a 
colloquy.

[[Page H622]]

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the chairman for yielding to me and I support 
this bill to cut interest rates in half for our students.
  Let me say, as the first member of my family to graduate from 
college, I know firsthand that affordable access to higher education is 
the key to the American dream for working families. The cost of 
attending college continues to skyrocket and puts it out of reach, as 
we have already heard and I won't state the numbers, for many working 
families and students.
  In our State of North Carolina, Mr. Chairman, we have a unique 
situation where our State nonprofits provide significant benefits to 
students. I am concerned that this legislation could have the 
unintended consequences of reducing the benefits that our students will 
receive through our nonprofit lenders.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his 
inquiry, and I would say to the gentleman that I appreciate you sharing 
your concerns with me. Nonprofit lenders, certainly, our guaranty 
agents all play a necessary role in the Federal student loan program. 
Our goal is to ensure in the end that our policy benefits all students, 
and I pledge to work with you to ensure that we meet this goal and 
maximize the benefits of the most number of students.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman, and look forward to working 
with you as the bill moves along to make sure that this takes care of 
our students.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5 and urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting to pass this important first step toward making 
college more affordable.
  As the first member of my family to graduate from college, I know 
firsthand that affordable access to quality higher education is the key 
to the American Dream for working families. The costs of attending 
college continue to skyrocket and putting college out-of-reach for 
middle class families. Since 2001, tuition and fees at public 
universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation, and tuition 
and fees at private universities have jumped by 17 percent after 
inflation. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student 
Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million high 
school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the 
next decade, and prevent another two million high school graduates from 
attending any college at all.
  Unfortunately, recent Congresses and this Administration have failed 
to take action to help our working families and college students. In 
fact, the 109th Congress raided billions of dollars from federal 
support for college aid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest few. 
And even yesterday, the Administration announced its opposition to H.R. 
5 by stating college students do not need more help because college 
graduates ``have higher lifetime earnings.'' Sadly, this Administration 
just doesn't get it.
  H.R. 5 is designed to make college more affordable and accessible by 
cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans for 
undergraduates in half over the next five years. H.R. 5 will cut the 
interest rate from the current 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. As a strong 
supporter of education, I support H.R. 5 and also want this Congress to 
increase investments in Pell Grants for low-income families and other 
federal financial aid for college. Education is the great equalizer in 
our society because it gives each citizen the opportunity to make the 
most of his or her God-given abilities. The new Democratic Majority 
must reverse the failed priorities of the past and invest in education 
for greater opportunities for all Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support budget discipline, and I am pleased 
the Democratic Leadership has made good on our promise of no new 
deficit spending.
  I urge all my colleagues in joining with me to pass H.R. 5.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, once again, we just heard that 5 years from now 
somebody that takes out a loan will save $4,400. Five years from now, 
there will be no savings based on current interest rates which are 6.8 
percent because that is what the rate will go back to. There will be a 
6-month window; if somebody takes a loan out at that point, that 
particular loan they will repay at 3.4 percent. The rest of the time it 
goes back.
  Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Had this debate been held in the 
Education and Labor Committee, I believe the bill we are slated to vote 
on in a few minutes would have been substantially better.
  What could we have done in committee to improve upon this badly 
flawed legislation?
  For starters, we would have been able to change the fact that college 
students won't even feel the slightest impact from this plan until they 
begin repaying their loans when they aren't even students anymore. In 
other words, we would have made clear that this proposal does nothing 
to expand college access. And, as a result, we could have done better.
  Had we done our work through regular order, rather than providing 5 
years of gradually increasing benefits to college graduates, we could 
have crafted a reform measure that continues our commitment to real 
student aid, a reform measure, while ensuring a sharper focus on 
institutional accountability. And, as a result, we could have done 
better.
  And, had this bill gone through committee we also would have been 
able to work to ensure this proposal included language that improves 
college affordability. We would have discussed the fact that we are 
spending some $90 billion this year on Federal student aid, triple what 
it was just a decade ago, and we also would have reminded one another 
that even in spite of this dramatic increase in aid, tuition continues 
to skyrocket. And, as a result, we could have done better.
  In committee, Madam Speaker, we also would have more quickly exposed 
those who were playing fast and loose with the facts. For example, when 
some on the other side of the aisle say that a typical borrower would 
save about $4,400 over the life of his or her loan because of H.R. 5, 
we would have made clear that this simply is not possible. We would 
have explained to our committee colleagues that for a borrower to 
receive the complete $4,400 in savings, the 3.4 percent rate must stay 
in effect for years at a time rather than the 6-month window, and they 
must consolidate their loans and stretch out repayment over 15 years.
  In reality, Madam Speaker, for a college freshman who receives a loan 
at 3.4 percent in the fall of 2011, the only semester during which such 
loan rate will be available, he or she would save a whopping $6.42 a 
month in repayment. That is right, $6.42, thanks to the bait and switch 
tactic disguised as a sunset in this flawed legislation.
  Consider this: If we were to put the same savings into Pell Grants, 
for example, that H.R. 5 earmarks for these gradually reduced interest 
rates for college graduates, we could increase Pell by about $500.
  I only wish we were afforded that opportunity. However, we weren't, 
and the legislation before us is little more than a reflection of the 
broken process by which it was cobbled together.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the staff of the majority 
side of the committee, Gabby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Lisette Partelow, 
Stephanie Moore, Brian Kennedy from my staff for their great efforts in 
helping to prepare this legislation for the 100 hours, legislation that 
will have a dramatic and important impact on the cost of student loans 
for students borrowing from the subsidized loan program.
  Madam Speaker and Members of the House, we come to the end of this 
debate on the question of whether or not we ought to make an effort to 
reduce the cost of college for millions of college students who will be 
taking out loans in the future to try to pay for that cost of college, 
and I think the resounding answer of this Congress in a few minutes 
will be: Yes, we should. Because we understand from discussions with 
our families, with our neighbors, with people in our communities that 
families are struggling with their children to try and figure out how 
they can afford them the opportunity that has become so terribly 
important in the economic future of these young people, and that is a 
college education. No longer today can you get by with a high school 
education. In fact, for most jobs now and most jobs certainly in the 
future we know that employers are telling us that at a minimum 2 years 
of college education is required. So this bill is about the opportunity 
to provide those students the means by which they go to college.

[[Page H623]]

  I have listened to all of this discussion on the other side of the 
aisle. The fact of the matter is they simply don't understand the bill. 
When a person is deciding whether or not they are going to pay the 
tuition this year, some of these students are eligible for a Pell 
Grant, they will get their $4,100; they still won't be able to meet the 
cost of the college, and they will borrow money. And under this 
legislation, after July, they will start to get a reduced interest 
rate, and next year they will get a further reduction in the rate and 
it will continue on. Unless the Republicans are going to repeal this 
legislation, maybe you are going to repeal it and take away this 
benefit for the students, it will continue on, as the gentleman knows. 
Just as we have a sunset in the Higher Education Act, a reauthorization 
of No Child Left Behind, we continue to reauthorize them time and time 
again because that is the commitment of this Congress, and I don't 
think the gentleman is suggesting that.
  So what we have today is the opportunity for this Congress in the 
first 100 hours, in the first 100 hours of legislative business to 
reduce the student loans for those people on a subsidized loan from 6.8 
percent down to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years and then thereafter. 
That is a magnificent opportunity.
  When it is fully implemented this legislation will provide $4,400 in 
interest rate relief. $4,400 is a very substantial relief to low income 
and middle income families when they look at the life cycle cost of 
what it is going to cost to acquire 4 years of education to get that 
basic B.A. degree. When they look at that, they will see that this 
legislation will substantially reduce their costs.
  But as Speaker Pelosi made very clear about this 100 hours, this is 
only the beginning. This is a down payment on our efforts to reduce the 
cost of college.
  Yes, we want to follow along with Mr. McKeon's suggestions and his 
work in talking to the universities about whether or not they are doing 
all they can to keep the cost of college down and to make it 
affordable. We want to increase the Pell Grant, and we will be doing 
that in this committee and in the Appropriations Committee. And we hope 
to be able to enlarge the tax deduction for parents who are paying for 
the tuition and the cost of college beyond that.

                              {time}  1645

  So, yes, in this 100 hours, this is what we can do. This is what is 
affordable. Yes, my colleagues talk about all that they wanted to do. 
They paid for none of it. They sent the bill to these very same college 
students in terms of deficit, in terms of debt, in terms of interest on 
the debt, trillions of dollars of debt. This they may think is too 
small now, but the fact of the matter is, it is very important to these 
families that it is paid for so we don't continue to add to the debt 
because we have said we were also going to be fiscally responsible and 
have pay-as-you-go.
  Finally, there has been a lot of discussion today about who doesn't 
like this bill. Maybe some of the lenders don't like this bill, some of 
the pundits don't like this bill. Maybe some of the people who work 
with the lenders don't like this bill. The people who like this bill 
and the people who matter are the students. And that is why U.S. PIRG 
and the U.S. Student Association and so many students support this 
legislation, because they know what this means to them with the passage 
of this bill, that their interest rates will be lower. They know this 
will lower the cost of college.
  That is what we said we would do. That is what we are going to do. 
That is what the 100 hours have been about. That is what is going to 
happen with the passage of this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Help these students 
and help families with the cost of college.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I believe we can all agree that we must 
work to increase opportunities to enhance the education of America's 
men and women. Education provides the needed foundation for helping 
Americans become productive working citizens. This makes our country 
stronger and more competitive both now and in the future.
  Because I believe we must open the doors to higher education while 
ensuring taxpayers are protected, I plan to vote in favor of H.R. 5. 
This bill cuts subsidized student loan interest rates from 6.8 percent 
to 3.4 percent over a period of 5 years and includes offsets within the 
federal budget to ensure the budget deficit is not increased. This 
makes the bill a ``win-win'' situation for both college graduates and 
taxpayers.
  However, the bill before us contains serious weaknesses--weaknesses 
that could have been avoided had the Majority allowed for a more open 
discussion both in committee and on the House floor. The bill lacks in 
its ability to help individuals who need to fund their education today. 
To truly increase college enrollment and affordability, students need 
to have increased access to financial aid while they are attending 
college.
  Last year Republicans brought to the House floor more comprehensive 
legislation that created Academic Competitiveness and Science and 
Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant programs to 
supplement the existing Pell Grant program. I supported this measure as 
well as an increase in student Stafford loan limits from $2,625 to 
$3,500 a year for first year students and $3,500 to $4,500 a year for 
second year students. These measures were signed into law on February 
8, 2006 and are helping students get increased access to financial aid 
as we speak.
  By focusing on the principles of fairness, accountability, 
affordability and quality, we can continue to reform federal student 
aid programs to both maximize the benefits for students and spend 
taxpayer dollars wisely. I look forward to the Majority changing their 
closed door policy and giving all Members of Congress an opportunity to 
put forth their ideas to develop comprehensive higher education reform 
this year. We must continue to improve our efforts to increase college 
access and affordability to help Americans achieve a better future for 
themselves and their families.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007, a bill to amend the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers. 
This bill would provide a fifty percent reduction in the interest rates 
applied to loans provided through the Federal Family Education Loan and 
Direct Loan programs to undergraduate students over the next five 
years. These interest rates would be reduced to the 3.4 percent by the 
year 2011.
  Tuition costs and fees for four-year-colleges and universities in the 
United States have risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. The 
Congressional Advisory Commission on Student Financial Assistance 
reports that nearly 4.4 million high school students will not be able 
to afford to attend a four-year public college over the next 10 years. 
If we do not act today, Madam Speaker, 12 million fewer college-
educated workers will be among America's workforce by the year 2020.
  The interest rate cuts proposed by H.R. 5 are significant, and will 
help stem this potential crisis. For example, a student with a $13,800 
loan will save nearly $4,400 over the life of their loan. This will 
serve to mitigate the rise in college tuition, and will allow nearly 
5.5 million students in the United States and the territories--
especially those in the middle- and low-income brackets--to pursue and 
attain a quality higher education. Increasing the numbers of American 
workers who earned a college degree will help ensure the strength and 
vibrancy of America's economy into the next generation. The realities 
of the global marketplace place a high premium on workers with advanced 
education and training. We must do all that we can to make such 
education and training accessible to as many of our children as 
possible.
  I represent the territory of Guam. This legislation is of great value 
to my constituents who plan to seek higher education. It is my hope 
that enactment of the provision of this bill into law will those among 
my constituency who previously believed higher education to be 
unaffordable to reconsider and pursue college degrees. This legislation 
will significantly lower the overall financial burden of higher 
education for Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5, the College Student Relief 
Act of 2007.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of 
the College Student Relief Act of 2007. This bill will make college 
more affordable for the more than 5.5 million students who depend on 
subsidized student loans to pay for a higher education.
  If our country is to continue as the world leader and remain 
competitive in today's highly technical global economy, we must 
maintain a highly educated workforce. To achieve that goal, we must 
give all America's children the opportunity to develop their talents 
and reach their full potential.
  Tragically, our country fails to benefit from the talents of so many 
of our students simply because they cannot afford a college education. 
Tuition and fees at most four-year institutions have skyrocketed in 
recent years, rising 41 percent since 2001. These high costs are 
financial barriers for many students seeking a college degree. In fact, 
over the next ten

[[Page H624]]

years the cost of higher education will prevent nearly 4.4 million high 
school graduates from attending a four-year public institution and 
another 2 million from going to college at all.
  The passage of the College Student Relief Act will help to alleviate 
this financial burden for talented, hardworking students who cannot 
afford their education without financial assistance. For example, over 
five years, the bill will cut student loan interest rates in half, 
saving a student on average $4,400 over the life of his or her loan. 
That $4,400 in savings will be a lifeline to low and middle income 
students as they deal with the financial pressures of life after 
college, such as paying for rent, utilities, groceries, health care, 
and other essential costs, in addition to paying off their loans.
  I am especially excited about this bill because it will greatly help 
poor and middle-income students in my district realize their dream of a 
college education. These students, many of whom are the first in their 
families to attend college, pay for college through a combination of 
scholarships, need-based loans, and jobs on the side. I am always 
impressed that, even in the face of so many obstacles and sacrifices, 
they remain determined to succeed, make their family proud, and give 
back to their community.
  Madam Speaker, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans 
today will not only help students across our country realize their 
dreams, but it will also help to make our country stronger. I support 
the bill before us today and I will continue to support other 
legislation to lower the financial barriers to a college education for 
our nation's children.
  It is time to pass the College Student Relief Act.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 5, the College Student Loan Relief Act. As many of my 
colleagues have explained, H.R. 5 cuts in half over the next five years 
the interest rates on subsidized student loans for undergraduate 
students. This will make college more affordable and accessible for 
low- and middle-income students and their families.
  Since 2001 tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 
41 percent after inflation. During that same period tuition and fees at 
private universities have also increased by 17 percent after inflation. 
At the same time, interest rates on student loans have risen by almost 
2 percentage points, adding another increasing cost to students and 
their families. It is estimated that 4.4 million high school students 
will be prevented from attending a four-year public college over the 
next decade, and another two million high school graduates will be 
prevented from attending any college at all, because of financial 
barriers.
  In my home state alone, over 20,000 students currently have 
subsidized loans at four-year institutions, at an average debt of over 
$12,000. For these students starting school in 2007, over the life of 
the loan they will save over $2,000, while the average student starting 
school in 2011 will save over $4,000 over the life of the loan. While 
this savings is certainly significant, more than saving money, this 
legislation will provide opportunity to students across New Mexico, and 
the country, who otherwise might not be able to attend college. This is 
an inestimable value both to each of these students, as well as to our 
respective state's and our nation, which benefits from having a highly 
skilled and well-educated workforce.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
America's college-bound students. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 5, 
the College Student Relief Act, I join my colleagues in helping 
increase the access and affordability of college to over 5 million 
students.
  In today's economy, the key to higher wages is through higher 
education. Unfortunately, the soaring cost of college education has 
left many of America's young adults behind. No student should ever be 
turned away from college for fear of being unable to pay the debt.
  The College Student Relief Act of 2007, H.R. 5, makes good on the 
Democratic pledge for a New Direction for this country. This smart, 
fiscally-responsible bill would cut the interest rate for undergraduate 
students with subsidized student loans in half over the next five 
years, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. H.R. 5 is targeted to help the 
students most in need, those with subsidized loans from low and middle 
income families. The bill's cost is offset with six modest reductions 
in various subsidies to lenders and guaranty agencies.
  In my home state of Connecticut, over 33,000 students with subsidized 
loans would benefit from this bill. For those entering college in 2007, 
they will save more than $2,000 over the life of their loans. When the 
rate cut is fully implemented in 2011, students will save over $4,000. 
This is a substantial savings for students entering our workforce.
  Today's legislation is about helping students and their families. The 
opportunity for a college education should be available to all 
Americans. As a Nation, we must invest in our youth and insure they 
have every tool and opportunity to succeed in the global economy. I 
urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, a 
bill that would expand educational opportunity for millions of young 
Americans by slicing interest rates on federally subsidized student 
loans in half.
  This fair, well-balanced legislation would open the doors to 
America's colleges and universities for millions of our sons and 
daughters who would have otherwise been dissuaded by the high cost of 
pursuing a higher education. Among those millions will be young men and 
women who will be the first in their families to attend college. There 
will be inventors and innovators, businessmen and women, generals, 
scientists, leaders of all stripes, and, surely, future members of this 
body.
  At the University of Texas at El Paso, UTEP, in my district, students 
entering school in 2007 will save $2,300 on an average debt of $13,800, 
and students entering in 2011, when the full interest rate cuts take 
effect, will save over $4,400 on the same amount of debt.
  These savings would mean the world to my community of El Paso and to 
Latino communities across the country. This is true because Hispanic 
students have historically borrowed less on average than other groups, 
a reluctance that means students are often too busy working for a 
paycheck to complete their degrees in a timely fashion. The six billion 
dollars in loan relief we are passing today will mean our kids will 
have the ability to borrow the money they need to finance their 
educations and ultimately get the jobs that will allow them prosperous 
lives.
  What we are doing today also has broader significance. It is 
significant to the strength of our economy and the security of our 
country. If America is to compete economically with countries like 
China and India and fill key positions in our national security 
agencies, we need to start by sending more kids to college. Under 
current policy, financial barriers will prevent 6.4 million high school 
graduates from attending college and would cost our economy 12 million 
college-educated workers by the year 2020. This is a crisis, Madam 
Speaker. We need to recognize right now that the investments in 
education we make or choose not to make today will determine our 
economic future--whether or not our grandchildren and great-
grandchildren have high-quality jobs.
  College access is an integral part of our competitiveness and 
security puzzle, because we will not find the answers to the challenges 
we face as a Nation without a well-educated and innovative workforce. 
The bill we are passing today will make our country a safer and a more 
prosperous place.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and I look 
forward to continuing this dialogue about the importance of education 
for national competitiveness and security.
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of 
H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007.
  I was proud to cast my support for this bill earlier today and 
commend the democratic leadership for making college affordability one 
of our first items of business in the 110th Congress.
  Our children's future is very important to America's families. A 
quality education is key to that future.
  However, many of America's working families, including Latino 
families, struggle to provide this future for their children.
  The high cost of an education and the lack of adequate financial aid 
makes obtaining a higher education unattainable.
  Since 2001, tuition and fees at private universities have jumped by 
17 percent after inflation.
  At public universities tuition and fees have increased by 41 percent 
after inflation.
  In addition to tuition and fees rising, interest rates on student 
loans have risen.
  Over the last 5 years, the interest rates on student loans have 
jumped by almost 2 percent--further increasing the cost of college.
  During the same period of time that tuition jumped by 41 percent, the 
median household income for Latinos fell by 4 percent.
  Of the millions of student loan borrowers with need based loans, half 
have family incomes between $26,000 and $68,000.
  According to the 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 73 
percent of Latino families had incomes below $62,240. Forty-seven 47 
percent of Latino families have incomes less than $34,288 per year.
  In 2005, the total cost of college for one Latino student was 32 
percent of a median household's income for a public institution.
  It nears 75 percent of a median household's income for a private 
institution.
  Yet Latinos receive the least financial aid of any ethnic group, 
including Federal and non-Federal aid.
  While the average total aid award for all undergraduates in 2003-04 
was $6,890, Latinos

[[Page H625]]

received the lowest average aid award of $6,250.
  The high cost of higher education leaves many Latino students with no 
choice.
  According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student 
Financial Assistance, the cost of a higher education will prevent 4.4 
million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college 
over the next decade.
  And would prevent another two million high school graduates from 
attending any college at all.
  This road is especially difficult for Latinos, who face low family 
incomes, low financial aid awards and a reluctance to assume debt.
  Latinos represent 15 percent of the college-age population, yet only 
12 percent of all undergraduates in U.S. colleges and universities, and 
5 percent of students in graduate programs.
  Only 12 percent of Latinos over the age 25 have a bachelor's degree.
  Of all undergraduates enrolled in the 2003-2004 academic year, 49 
percent of Latino undergraduates were more likely to be first-
generation students, 51 percent are enrolled on a part-time basis and 
the majority have low-incomes.
  Latinos and other low income communities deserve the security 
provided by an affordable higher education. H.R. 5 is part of the 
solution.
  Cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans in half from 
6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next five years will make college 
more affordable for thousands of Latino students.
  In fact, this bill will save students with $13,800 in subsidized 
federal student loan debt approximately $4,400 over the life of their 
loan.
  At a time when financial barriers are preventing millions of young 
Americans from attending college we must make college more affordable.
  I was fortunate to have access to federal and state programs such as 
the Pell Grant and Work-Study Program.
  As Director of the California Student Opportunity and Access Program, 
I was able to help students find ways to afford their college 
education.
  As a former Member of the Rio Hondo Community College Board, I know 
the struggles our colleges face in providing services to students.
  My experience taught me that access to higher education should not be 
a privilege available to a select few, but a right available to all.
  Investing in affordable higher education for every child benefits our 
society as a whole.
  Today we are fulfilling our promise to make college more affordable 
for students.
  Cutting interest rates in half on student loans is the first step.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensuring our 
children--all of our children--have a brighter future through 
education.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of the New Direction for 
America was a promise to make higher education more affordable and 
accessible so that more Americans can advance their education and 
enhance their economic future in an increasingly competitive global 
economy. Today we are taking a first step towards achieving this goal.
  For a country whose economic success relies on the very best colleges 
and universities in the world, we are at an important crossroads. 
Today's college students are graduating with increasing levels of 
student loan debt--$17,500 on average. In many cases, this debt is 
simply too substantial to manageably repay. For many young people, the 
mere thought of putting themselves in such enormous debt could lead 
them to delay or forgo college. Indeed, according to the Congressional 
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers 
will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending 
a four-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 
million high school graduates from attending any college at all.
  At a time when college tuition is skyrocketing--increasing by 35% at 
four-year public institutions over the past five years--it is clear 
that Congress needs to act and act now to make college more affordable.
  The College Student Relief Act cuts the interest rates for 
undergraduate students with subsidized student loans in half over the 
next five years at no cost to the taxpayer. This commonsense 
legislation will help 5.5 million students across the country.
  In Michigan, for about 144,000 student borrowers who will graduate 
from Michigan colleges and universities, this bill would generate 
savings of over $4,200 on average over the life of their loans. For 
example, these savings will benefit close to 1,200 students at Lawrence 
Tech and 3,500 students at Oakland University.
  For Michigan, the benefits of this loan relief couldn't be clearer. A 
report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on Higher 
Education and Economic Growth spelled out how Michigan's economic 
future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the completion 
of degrees of higher education. Two-thirds of the jobs created in the 
next decade will require post-secondary education and training.
  By making a higher education more affordable for thousands of 
Michiganders we are not only helping them realize their dreams, but we 
are also helping ensure the future of our state.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand today with our students and 
support the College Student Relief Act.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, a bill to 
lower the cost of college for millions of middle class Americans.
  Tuition all over the country has sky-rocketed. The State University 
of New York (SUNY) costs over $12,000 a year to attend for a commuter 
and almost $17,000 a year to live on campus.
  And these are resident in state tuition figures.
  The GOP's response to the sky-rocketing price of college tuition: 
Last year, Republicans cut $12 billion from student aid. To add insult 
to injury on December 23, 2004 with a Christmas gift only worthy of the 
Grinch, the Republicans actually cut back college grant programs to 1.3 
million students.
  Democrats offer a New Direction. Our American direction is designed 
to make college more affordable for Americans by cutting the current 
interest rate for student loans in half. Our bill will save middle 
class families in New York and nationwide approximately $4,400 over the 
life of their loan.
  Democrats are putting our money where our mouth is and passing 
legislation to actually benefit middle class families. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this common sense legislation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the ``College 
Student Relief Act of 2007,'' H.R. 5. Every opportunity I get, I tell 
young people about the benefits of a college education. I use my own 
experience as an example of the opportunities that higher education can 
afford. I have a bachelor's degree from Howard University and a law 
degree from the University of Maryland and I am convinced that, without 
those degrees, I would not be standing before you today. The statistics 
support this assertion. The poverty rate for college graduates is about 
one-third that of high school graduates and individuals with college 
degrees are less likely to be unemployed. Further, women with 
bachelor's degrees earn 70 percent more than those with high school 
diplomas, and for men the difference is 63 percent.
  Regrettably, a college education is becoming increasingly 
inaccessible in this country. A recent assessment by The Education 
Trust entitled, ``Engines of Inequality: Diminishing Equity in the 
Nation's Premier Public Universities,'' finds that public institutions 
are no longer the engines of upward social mobility that they once 
were. To the contrary, these institutions are pursuing increased 
selectivity over expanded opportunity--targeting wealthier students to 
improve rankings in college guides. Some argue that the system is now a 
meritocracy, but this is by no means the case. The highest achieving 
students from high-income families are nearly four times more likely to 
attend a highly selective university than the highest achievers from 
low-income families.
  Our nation's low-income and middle-class students are being pushed 
out of premier colleges and universities simply because they cannot 
afford to attend. Tuition and fees have risen by 35 percent in the past 
five years, and the typical student now graduates with $17,500 of debt. 
The Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 
predicts that rising costs will prevent at least 4.4 million high 
school graduates from attending college over the next decade. This 
trend affects not only individual students, but our nation as a whole. 
By 2020, the U.S. is expected to experience a shortage of nearly 12 
million college-educated workers, losing its competitive edge in the 
global marketplace.
  That is why I stand before you today to express my strong support for 
this bill, which would cut student loan interest rates in half over 
five years--giving 5.5 million students a much needed break in the cost 
of college. In my home state of Maryland alone, 48,484 students would 
get a break. We must do all that we can to provide every American with 
access to a college education. I want to thank Mr. Miller and the 
Democratic leadership for introducing this vitally important 
legislation and bringing us one step closer to achieving that goal.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of making 
higher education more affordable. Access to college is absolutely 
necessary if our country is to fulfill its promise of economic, social, 
and political inclusiveness for all individuals. By cutting interest 
rates in half on needs-based student loans, we will make college more 
accessible to hundreds of thousands of students from low- and middle-
income families.
  Last November, the American people sent a clear and powerful message. 
They are tired of

[[Page H626]]

business as usual in Washington. Instead of economic policies that help 
the rich get richer, they want education policies that will help their 
children to realize an American dream that is increasingly difficult to 
come by. Since 2001, college costs have risen by 41 percent. According 
to the Department of Education, such increases put college out of reach 
for as many as 200,000 would-be students a year. Rising costs have also 
forced more and more students to rely on loans to pay for college, 
which now saddle the average graduate with $17,500 in Federal student 
loan debt.
  The College Student Relief Act, H.R. 5, offers real relief to 
students priced out of college and burdened by debt. According to 
USPIRG, my home State of California has 228,500 subsidized loan 
borrowers. This bill will save the average California student enrolling 
in college this fall $2,490. When fully implemented, it will save the 
average student who starts college in 2011 $4,830.
  Today's legislation is an important first step in what I hope will be 
an ongoing effort to make college more affordable. This effort should 
include raising the maximum Pell Grant amount and exploring other 
policies to open the doors to college to a larger slice of our society. 
Our guiding principle should be ensuring that all students who meet 
academic requirements for undergraduate study can afford to attend 
college, not just those from wealthy families.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the voice of the American people and 
take this initial step toward making higher education accessible to 
all.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
College Student Relief Act.
  The strength of our economy relies on a highly-educated workforce. 
That's why Congress can and must do more to help families afford 
college. Cutting the interest rate on student loans is a good place to 
start in reducing the financial burden students and their families 
face.
  Each year the high costs of college education will prevent many 
American students from pursuing a college education. The savings 
created by reducing the interest rate of student loans from 6.8 percent 
to 3.4 percent will provide an opportunity for more of those students 
to afford a higher education.
  According to analysis provided by U.S. PIRG, there are over 94,000 
students in the State of Indiana who are currently receiving subsidized 
loans. Upon graduation from a 4-year institution, these Hoosier 
students are saddled with an average Stafford loan debt of $12,967. 
Enactment of this bill will bring an average savings of $2,140 to 
$4,140 over the life of the student's loan.
  The financial burden of today's college graduates continues to worsen 
as college tuition escalates at a steady clip. This weekend I heard 
this very sentiment from students at the University of Southern Indiana 
in Evansville and Indiana State University in Terra Haute. Passage of 
H.R. 5 will help ease this burden and give college graduates a break as 
they begin their career.
  Enacting H.R. 5 is only a start. Congress must press ahead by finding 
sensible ways to make college education both affordable and assessable 
to students from low- and middle-income families. Our strength as a 
nation depends on fostering a highly-educated workforce.
  It is also important to note that the College Student Relief Act 
adheres to the pay-as-you-go budgeting rule that Congress adopted 
earlier this month.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act, shows Congress 
can make a significant difference in the lives of average Americans 
without raising taxes or adding to the staggering national deficit. I 
am proud to support this bill and I look forward to keeping the focus 
on making a college education accessible and affordable for Hoosier 
families.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 5, the 
``College Student Relief Act of 2007.''
  I want to thank Chairman George Miller for his leadership on this 
bill, and thank Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership team for 
making this a priority during the first 100 hours of the 110th 
Congress.
  Madam Speaker, today, we take an important step in the right 
direction--a direction that leads to closing the gap between the have's 
and the have not's in this Nation.
  And in doing so, Madam Speaker, today the doors of opportunity will 
swing open to a whole new generation.
  Cutting the interest rate on student loans in half will have a 
tremendous impact on our nation's students and allow millions of others 
to pursue their dreams of higher education. In my home state of 
California, the estimated savings for one student will be over $4000. 
By making this cut, we are alleviating the burden on lower and middle 
class families, and allowing their children to reach higher.
  Madam Speaker, we all know that there are many challenges in our 
current educational system. Excessive student loan payments are just 
one of many obstacles. Today, we remove an obstacle placed in the path 
of the students that need this help the most.
  We need to be creating the workforce of the future. It is estimated 
that 42 percent of all jobs next year will require post-secondary 
education. That is why, I know, that today is just one step in many 
this Democratic House will take in improving the accessibility to our 
institutions of higher education.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5, for the future 
of our children.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
strong support of the College Student Relief Act, as it will give 
financial assistance to millions of student borrowers.
  In order to remain competitive in a global economy, students are 
taking out more loans and falling further into debt. The College 
Student Relief Act will go a long way towards making college more 
affordable and accessible. H.R. 5 will cut interest rates in half on 
certain federally subsidized student loans over the next 5 years. These 
cuts will particularly impact low- and middle-income students saving 
the typical borrower approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan. 
These interest rate cuts will help more than 5.5 million undergraduate 
students once they are fully phased in.
  With the cost of higher education continuing to skyrocket, this is an 
important first step in easing the financial burden for millions of 
students and their families. It's estimate that around 200,000 students 
delay or completely forgo going to college due to the associated costs. 
This is simply unacceptable. We will not be able to continue to compete 
in the global economy if we continue to throw hurdles in front of our 
young people. Today's vote to ease the debt burden for millions of 
students will go a long way toward increasing access to higher 
education.
  If Americans fail to address these issues now, we will default on our 
traditional commitment to a better future for our children. We owe it 
to our young people to provide the opportunities that will allow them 
to become successful and productive adults.
  I would like to commend the Democratic Leadership for their 
dedication to this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5, 
the College Student Relief Act.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 5, the so-called ``College Student Relief Act.'' Although its 
supporters would have the public believe that implementation of this 
bill would be a cure-all to the skyrocketing costs of higher education, 
the truth is that H.R. 5 does nothing to address tuition costs for 
students and could actually end up making college even more expensive.
  In fact, the only students who will be fortunate enough to reap the 
full benefits of this proposal are those who take out their loans 
during the small 6-month window from July 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012. 
Before that date, the promise of halving the interest rates is 
unfulfilled. And, after that date, the interest rate will again double.
  While this bill provides great sound bites and interesting political 
opportunities for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it also 
demonstrates that they have no intention of implementing an enduring 
plan which will address the costs of higher education. And, while this 
bill purports to help those in financial need, in reality, it only 
applies to college graduates who have already reaped the financial and 
other benefits of that education.
  I am concerned for those students who apply for loans on January 2, 
2012 and any date afterwards, for they will not only have missed the 
boat on a low-interest rate loan, but they will also bear the brunt of 
having to pay higher tuition costs. The proposal before us will 
exacerbate perverse incentives already at play with regard to 
government subsidies for student loans. College tuition costs have 
skyrocketed by almost 300 percent between 1982 and 2003. The only 
segment of our economy that comes even close to such growth--where 
costs have also outpaced inflation by such a dramatic gulf--is health 
care, which grew by nearly 200 percent. As the Wall Street Journal 
noted in an editorial today, ``it's no coincidence that third parties 
foot the bill for big chunks of both higher ed and health care 
spending. . . .''
  Colleges are serving up these Federal subsidies to education-hungry 
students knowing full well that those students will not be able to 
realistically judge the costs of the education they receive. Those 
students who apply for loans in that first semester of 2012 will be 
forced to pay for the sound bite we consider today.
  While cutting the interest rates on students' loans made for an 
attractive campaign slogan, the new leadership is creating a program 
which is costly, has negligible effects for those it purports to help, 
and has retroactive consequences for many aspiring scholars. I 
challenge my colleagues to evaluate this bill for what it truly is: a 
political stunt which sorely

[[Page H627]]

lacks an effective plan to cut college costs for future students.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, but I also 
stand to say that the legislation should be expanded to address not 
only college graduates but also students who are in college now and 
struggling with the weight of mounting tuition and expenses--or 
families that are considering college for their high school children.
  The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this month that average 
tuition and fees at four-year colleges have increased by 38 percent in 
recent years. ``Tuition inflation'' far exceeds inflation in the 
general economy, and is pushing the dream of a college education away 
from too families and students. For too many parents and too many 
children, college simply isn't an option because it's not affordable.
  That's wrong. But while H.R. 5 would aid college graduates, it would 
do nothing to help today's college students or families that are 
struggling to pay for their children's college expenses. H.R. 5 does 
not address the growing barrier that restricts access to higher 
education and new opportunities.
  That's a missed opportunity--not only for this House but also for the 
families who cannot afford their children's college tuition and fees.
  As H.R. 5 is considered in the Senate and later in the legislative 
process, it is my desire that its scope include not only college 
graduates but also current and prospective college students--and their 
families.
  It is my further desire that the legislation should not hamper 
competition and restrict access to student loans for future graduates.
  During the last six years, Congress increased spending on federal 
student aid by 57 percent. Funding for Pell Grants increased by nearly 
50 percent. These programs have helped college graduates and current 
students.
  It is my hope that before we vote again on H.R. 5, its scope is 
expanded to address the urgent needs of prospective and current college 
students, too.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, like many of my colleagues have mentioned 
today, my brothers and sisters and I were the grandchildren of 
immigrants who barely knew English, and the first in our family to go 
to college. Although my mother was only able to attend school through 
the 5th grade, she instilled in us the importance of an education. My 
mother led by example, receiving her GED on her 80th birthday, and all 
six of us received at least one college degree. And we all worked our 
way through college, I myself swept floors. She wanted us to have a 
better life, to be able to provide for our families without constantly 
worrying and living paycheck to paycheck. And we have all led 
successful and happy lives thanks to her encouragement and strong will.
  But this Nation has lost sight of the importance of an education. We 
have allowed our education system to fall to the wayside, and put our 
citizens at a disadvantage--when they try to move up the career ladder, 
and when our Nation competes on a global level. We have failed our 
constituents when we fail to not only provide access to education, but 
when we fail to encourage our young people to dream and to achieve.
  America is now 39th in the world in math and science. As a former 
physical science teacher and the current representative for Houston's 
Johnson Space Center I find this simply unacceptable. During the Apollo 
years, our Nation united behind a vision, and backed that vision with 
proper resources, in turn inspiring millions of children to go into 
these fields. The technological and medical advances that followed 
continue to benefit our Nation and the world. We have lost our vision. 
Our commitment to education and our position as a global leader.
  Now is the time to repair the foundation that our country is based 
on--equality. It has long been said that education is the great 
equalizer. In recent years, millions of working and middle-class 
families have been left behind as college tuition has skyrocketed and 
student loan interest rates have risen sharply. By taking this 
important first step--making college more affordable and accessible for 
all Americans--we are showing our Nation's young adults that we are 
dedicated to their future. We will not make it to Mars, grow new hearts 
in Petri dishes, or develop new fuels without a renewed commitment to 
education.
  A commitment to education should include all types of post-high 
school programs. We must encourage young adults to attend vocational 
schools as well as universities. Those who work as skilled laborers, 
such as mechanics and electricians, keep our society running and 
deserve encouragement and aid as well.
  This bill, H.R. 6, The College Student Relief Act of 2007, is a 
fiscally responsible measure that meets our new pay-go requirements. It 
will ease the burden students and families bear as they strive to 
improve their situations and contribute to our Nation's economy, but 
not increase the burden on taxpayers. This is not merely a win-win 
situation; this is a win-surplus. Our country will benefit immensely 
both globally and locally through a renewed commitment to education.
  Our students deserve the best. They are our future, and by cutting 
student loan interest rates and expanding access to higher education we 
are ensuring our Nation's future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
College Student Relief Act of 2007. Currently, Massachusetts has about 
99,000 undergraduate students attending 4-year colleges and 
universities who receive federal need-based college loans--or Stafford 
Loans.
  In my own district, the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts, 
at Worcester State College, a 4-year public college, more than 1,300 
students have Stafford Loans; and at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a 
4-year private college, more than 1,700 students have Stafford Loans.
  In Massachusetts, the average Stafford Loan Debt is about $14,000 
($13,994).
  Even though, under H.R. 5, the full reduction to the interest rate 
takes five years to achieve--because Democrats believe in making sure 
their proposals are fully paid for--Massachusetts students starting 
college in 2007 will benefit immediately from these changes to the 
interest rates. The savings for the average student in Massachusetts 
receiving a Stafford Loan who starts school in 2007 will be $2,310. 
That translates into $1,760 for that student at Worcester State College 
and $2,750 for the student at WPI.
  And for the students who start school in 2011, when the interest rate 
reduction is fully phased in, their savings will increase to $4,470. Or 
once again, about $3,420 for the student at Worcester State College, 
and about $5,330 for the student at WPI.
  These figures have real meaning to low- and middle-income students 
and their families. They are targeted at families whose annual income 
is less than $70,000. These are the families and individuals who most 
need our support to achieve the dream of a college education. According 
to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial 
Assistance, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high 
school graduates from attending 4-year public colleges over the next 
decade--and another 2 million high school graduates from attending any 
college at all.
  These reductions won't cost the U.S. taxpayer a single dime.
  They will barely cause a ripple in the profitability of banks and 
lenders currently doing business with the federal government in 
managing Stafford Loans--no matter how much complaining and moaning 
we're likely to hear from them.
  And let me emphasize one other point--I agree with my friends on the 
other side of the aisle that there are many reasons why a higher 
education is increasingly out of reach for many American families: The 
failure over the past several years to increase the maximum Pell Grant 
level, the stagnation of funding for campus-based aid programs, and the 
soaring costs of college tuition, fees, room and board--to name just a 
few. As my colleagues know, I have been a particular champion of 
significant increases both to the Pell Grant maximum level and overall 
funding of the program.
  It's my understanding that the gentleman from California, Chairman 
George Miller, will begin hearings on these and other issues related to 
the affordability of a college education. Working through the Education 
and the Workforce Committee, legislation will be drafted and marked up 
through regular Committee process, reported out, and hopefully be 
scheduled on the House legislative calendar in the 110th Congress. So 
these profound issues that concern Republicans and Democrats alike will 
proceed through regular order with the full participation of the 
Minority.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
rule and the underlying bill. The cost of public university tuition has 
increased a staggering 41 percent since 2001. In my district in 
California's Central Valley, high college costs have been a persistent 
barrier for working families seeking to send their children to college.
  If our country is serious about preserving the American Dream and 
extending educational opportunity to the next generation of Americans, 
then we must take action. The College Student Relief Act would cut the 
interest rate on federal, subsidized loans in half over five years.
  As a Blue Dog, I am proud to say that this bill is fiscally 
responsible: the cost will be offset by reductions in subsidies to 
lenders which have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. This is a 
good bill for the American people, and I urge my colleagues to open the 
doors of opportunity for young Americans and support this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the 
College Student Relief Act.

[[Page H628]]

  This much-needed legislation will make college more affordable and 
accessible by cutting the interest rate in half for undergraduates who 
take out subsidized Stafford loans. Because subsidized loans are need-
based loans, the primary beneficiaries of this legislation will be low- 
and middle-income families.
  In Michigan's 15th Congressional District, the average amount 
borrowed under the subsidized loan program is about $14,000 per 
student. If this legislation is enacted, students who take out loans 
this fall will save $2,300 over the life of the loan and students 
starting in 2011 will save nearly $4,500. This is a significant amount 
of money, especially for a college student.
  I would like to point out that despite all of the arguments I've been 
hearing about how much this bill will cost, I am proud to say that the 
Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility and have drafted this 
bill to fully comply with the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgetary 
requirements passed earlier this month. The PAYGO rules require any new 
spending to be offset in other spending areas. The costs of this 
legislation are entirely offset by six modest reductions in subsidies 
to lenders and guaranty agencies, five of which were proposed by 
President Bush in his budget for fiscal year 2006.
  Our goal of creating a highly skilled and innovative domestic 
workforce begins with a college education. This bill is a bold step in 
the right direction towards advancing America's competitiveness in the 
global marketplace. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
future on additional measures such as increasing the maximum Pell 
grant, which will contribute to our mutual goal of higher education for 
all Americans.
  Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the 
College Student Relief Act, which cuts interest rates in half over the 
next five years for undergraduate students with subsidized loans. As a 
former teacher, I understand how important education is to every child. 
It ensures that everyone has the opportunity to succeed and to make the 
most of their dreams.
  Yet college is soaring out of reach for American students. Today the 
average student graduates with $17,500 in loan debt; almost 45 percent 
more than just 11 years ago. H.R. 5 makes a great first step in 
reducing the burden on students with these loans. In my home state of 
New Jersey, the typical student loan borrower will save approximately 
$4,600 over the life of their loan because of this legislation.
  Not only does this bill make college more affordable, it does so 
without further increasing the nation's debt. Specifically, this bill 
is paid for by six modest reductions in various subsidies to lenders 
and guaranty agencies.
  I urge everyone to support making college more affordable by voting 
in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, Ohio students and their families 
are struggling. In fact, Ohio ranks 49th in affordability of college.
  Sadly, this is a barrier many hard-working families cannot overcome. 
Bright young Ohioans are being shut out because college costs too much.
  Today, by cutting student loan rates in half, we are opening up 
important opportunities for thousands of young Ohioans and young people 
across the nation.
  Just in the first two years, this bill will save Ohio students an 
average of $2,230 and in four years $4,320.
  We should ease the burden on our working families. We should put our 
students in a position to succeed in school and beyond. This bill, 
which cuts student loan rates, does just that.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College 
Student Relief Act, which over the next five years will cut the student 
loan interest rate in half for undergraduate students with subsidized 
loans. And, I take exception to this Republican rhetoric about what the 
Democrats could have done under Republican domination.
  Madam Speaker, Since 2001, tuition and fees have increased by 41 
percent, after inflation, at four-year public colleges and by 17 
percent (after inflation) at four-year private colleges.
  Now, we have a chance to act; otherwise financial barriers will 
prevent more than 4 million students from attending a four-year college 
and more than 2 million from attending any college in the coming 
decade.
  That would be a crisis for millions of hard-working families--but it 
also would be a crisis for our country's ability to compete in the 21st 
century economy.
  In his article, ``It's a Flat World, After All,'' Thomas Friedman 
argues that America's historical economic advantages have disappeared 
because ``the world is flat, and anyone with smarts; access to Google; 
and, a cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation fray.'' No matter 
where they live in the world.
  This means we must invest more in our most valuable resource--our 
people--and this bill would do just that.
  For example, this bill will save the average student borrower who 
starts at a four-year college in California next year nearly $2,500 
over the life of a loan--and will save the same student who starts in 
2011 nearly $5,000 over the life of a loan.
  Those savings are necessary to make a difference in the lives of 
millions of Americans and in the life of our country as to success over 
failure.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I am proud, as part of our first 
100 hours, that Congress has committed to expanding higher education 
opportunities to more Americans. Education has always been the great 
equalizer in this country. With each generation doors are opened 
through greater access to education.
  The health of our economy and prosperity of our middle class rests on 
having a highly-skilled and well-educated workforce. We all know 
stories of working class families struggling to make ends meet to put a 
child, sometimes the family's first generation, through college. It is 
a struggle millions of families go through, as college costs skyrocket 
year after year. Reducing the debt burden these families and students 
face is the least Congress can do to help meet their commitment and 
sacrifice.
  H.R. 5 will provide a significant reduction in student loan interest 
rates for students who borrow under the subsidized student loan 
program.
  This legislation is worthy in its intent and it is legislation I 
support. However, it is my hope to work with my fellow members and the 
distinguished Chairman of Education and Labor to recognize the 
important role small, not-for-profit lenders play in opening doors to 
more working families. I believe it makes sense to distinguish not only 
between large and small lenders, but those that lend on a not-for-
profit basis and who reinvest all revenues into additional student 
financial assistance.
  Our goal is to improve educational opportunities for students and it 
is a goal I know our non-profit lenders share.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5.
  In today's increasingly competitive economy, a college education is 
more important than ever. That's why it's essential for us to ensure 
that anyone who has the desire to receive a higher education has the 
opportunity to do so. Higher education shapes citizens as well as the 
future of our country.
  Today escalating college costs and legislation passed by the 
Republican Majority in 2006 are creating insurmountable barriers across 
the country for students to afford a college education. According to 
the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 
financial obstacles will prevent at least 4.4 million high school 
graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next 
decade. This is an inexcusable waste of our most valuable resource, the 
young people of our country.
  H.R. 5 will lower these barriers, cutting interest rates in half over 
the next five years for undergraduate students with subsidized student 
loans. This relief is targeted to reach those most in need . . . 
students and families making between $26,000 and $68,000. When fully 
phased in, this legislation will save the typical borrower in 
California with $15,125 in subsidized federal student loan debt 
approximately $4,830 over the life of their loan. All told, this 
legislation will provide students with $5.5 billion in financial relief 
and is entirely paid for through adjustments in lender rates, 
participation fees for financial institutions and collection fees for 
defaulted loans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. By 
doing so we will take an important step to improve access to higher 
education across the country as well as helping to relieve the burden 
on middle class families across the nation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 65, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McKeon

  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McKEON. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. McKeon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5 to the 
     Committee on Education and

[[Page H629]]

     Labor with instructions to report the same back to the House 
     forthwith with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. BENEFITS CONTINGENT ON INCOME OR MILITARY SERVICE.

       (a) Eligibility for Reduced Rates.--Notwithstanding the 
     amendments made by section 2 of this Act, a borrower shall 
     not be eligible for a reduced interest rate under the 
     amendments made by such section for any year during the 
     repayment period of the loan unless--
       (1) the borrower demonstrates, in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, that the borrower's 
     adjusted gross income for the most recently preceding year 
     was less than $65,000; or
       (2) the borrower, during any part of that year--
       (A) is serving on active duty during a war or other 
     military operation or national emergency (as such term is 
     defined in section 481(d)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 188(d)(4)); or
       (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a 
     war or other military operation or national emergency (as 
     such term is defined in section 481(d)(5) of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 188(d)(5)).
       (b) Income Verification.--In prescribing regulations for 
     purposes of subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall provide 
     methods for verifying the adjusted gross income of a borrower 
     that are, as nearly as practical, identical to the methods 
     used to determine adjusted gross income and to verify that 
     income for borrowers of income contingent loans under section 
     455(e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1087e(e)).

  Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, as I have said repeatedly today, the 
process followed to get this bill to the floor was badly flawed, and 
the legislation in question is a reflection of that. Our inability to 
amend the bill means that the bill we have before us today is exactly 
the same well-intentioned, yet completely misdirected proposal the 
majority leader thrust upon us just days ago.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle have been touting H.R. 5 
as a student aid bill during this debate. However, as we have pointed 
out time after time, not a single college student or potential college 
student will benefit from this legislation. It impacts only those who 
graduate when, by definition, they are no longer students.
  However, Madam Speaker, this motion would transform H.R. 5 from a 
critically flawed gimmick into a proactive measure that indeed could 
benefit borrowers, students, and taxpayers alike.
  To begin, this motion would not block the new majority's promise to 
reduce college loan interest rates. In fact, it would allow reductions 
to take place as scheduled for many of the very same graduates who 
would benefit from them in the first place. However, to ensure that 
those graduates who could pay their loans under a higher interest rate 
will do so, this motion establishes an income cap of $65,000, the 
income level at which the existing student loan tax deduction is phased 
out, at which the interest rate for a loan will revert back to the 
current level of 6.8 percent.
  That is almost twice the average family income of a student eligible 
to receive a subsidized student loan. However, graduates who may not 
have as high an income, those men and women who need a little extra 
help after graduation, will see their interest rate stay at the same 
exact level as directed by this legislation, as will active duty Armed 
Forces personnel.
  This means for many first responders, nurses, teachers and other 
graduates who choose public careers, their interest rates will remain 
as scheduled, under H.R. 5. In other words, this motion will maintain 
most of the same borrower benefits embraced by the Democratic 
leadership. However, unlike H.R. 5, this motion reduces college loan 
interest rates and then some. By making the interest cap adjustment I 
just described, this motion will generate additional savings within the 
legislation, savings that can be directed toward deficit reduction or 
an increase in need-based aid such as Pell Grants.
  I have argued throughout today's debate, and for years, frankly, that 
our first priority in higher education must be to expand access for 
low- and middle-income students. This motion embodies that very 
philosophy.
  With the savings we will generate as part of this motion, we could 
provide more aid to a student struggling just to find the means to pay 
for college. Sadly, more than 400,000 students are fully prepared to 
attend 4-year college, but will be unable to do so due to record high 
financial barriers, according to the Advisory Committee on Student 
Financial Assistance. For these students, the promise of a college 
education is an empty one, and for our Nation, the loss of human 
capital is a serious economic and social tragedy.
  Under H.R. 5, highly paid college graduates would reap the benefits, 
but those struggling to find a way into school, they are forgotten 
altogether. It is ironic that the very same Members who supported the 
minimum wage increase a week ago for ``fairness'' reasons are today 
champions of a bill that would undermine that same principle.
  Madam Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on this motion is a vote for lower 
college loan interest rates, more needs-based aid, and additional funds 
to pay down the Federal deficit. A ``no'' vote is a vote for providing 
benefits to well-paid graduates, not low-income students.
  Let's give borrowers, students, and taxpayers a better deal. Let's 
improve this flawed legislation. Let's vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I would hope that the 
House would turn down this motion to recommit because if you don't, 
there is going to be an awful lot of people who are going to be 
terribly disappointed.
  This motion as presented today would knock almost a million students 
out of the benefits of this legislation, the benefits of a reduced 
interest rate on their college loans.
  This motion if it is accepted would mean that families that might 
have one, two or maybe three kids in college, if they earn more than 
$68,000, they wouldn't get the benefits of this program.
  This amendment, as offered and if it is accepted, means that perhaps 
a firefighter who is married to a teacher or teachers who are married 
to one another would not be able to get the benefits of this program 
for their families.
  Is that what we want to do? Is that what we really want to do? We 
knock a million of the 5.5 million beneficiaries off eligibility for 
this interest rate reduction? Do we want to knock off families that may 
have more than one child in college off of this ability to benefit from 
the interest reduction? Do we want to take middle-class families, where 
a teacher might be married to a firefighter or teacher married to a 
nurse, and say to them, you are not eligible for this? I don't think 
you want to do, and I certainly know that the Congress doesn't want to 
do that.
  This is aimed, based upon income, the cost of the institution you go 
to, the number of children in your family, income determinate, you get 
a subsidy. What they want to do now is put a cap on the income of about 
$65,000, which means if you have more than one child or two children in 
college, you still have the income cap and you can't get help.
  So we are sending a message that you can help make your first child, 
but not the second child? That is what we are going to tell families? 
Their income didn't go up, but their cost just went up because another 
child is eligible for college? Another child said, I want to go to 
college. The family has to say, We can't help you because there is a 
cap.
  That is why this is called the subsidized loan program, because we 
recognize there are people within the middle class, at the lower end of 
the middle class who need this help. Two and a half million of the 
recipients are eligible for Pell. They are going to get this help. That 
is what this is designed for.
  This is designed for those families in the middle class that need 
this kind of interest rate help and is designed for those in Pell who 
still need additional

[[Page H630]]

money to go to school. That is why we picked this category of people.
  But to now tell hardworking Americans because of a cap you pulled out 
of the sky in the last 5 minutes that they can't help their children 
with the cost of education, that they are not eligible for this subsidy 
of cutting the interest rate from 6.8 to 3.4 percent, I don't get it. I 
don't understand it, and I don't think the Congress should support it.
  I don't think that is the message that we want to send to those 
working families. I don't think that is what we want to do.
  You think of your districts and you think of somebody with a family 
income of $65,000, and you start thinking who you are telling, you are 
not prepared to help with reducing the cost of college for those 
families. Start thinking now because you are going to vote in a few 
minutes. Think about that family, two parents working their tails off 
to make ends meet. They are firefighters, construction workers. They 
don't work all year round. They get laid off. They are married to a 
nurse or a teacher or a policeman. All of a sudden they find out that 
they are not eligible for this.
  I ask this House to give this a resounding ``no.'' This isn't fair, 
it isn't just, and it is wrong. It is going to drive up the cost of 
college for the very families and students who need it the most.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of 
H.R. 5, if ordered, and the motion to suspend on H. Res. 58.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 241, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                               YEAS--186

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Aderholt
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Johnson, Sam
     Lucas
     Norwood
     Obey

                              {time}  1726

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RENZI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardoza). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 356, 
nays 71, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               YEAS--356

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin

[[Page H631]]


     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--71

     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Coble
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Granger
     Hastert
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Issa
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pence
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Aderholt
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Johnson, Sam
     Lucas
     Norwood
     Obey

                              {time}  1735

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________