[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7496-H7505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2669, COLLEGE COST REDUCTION ACT OF 
                                  2007

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 531

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 
     of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2008. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
     by the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the 
     bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of 
     the report on the Committee on Rules, if offered by the 
     gentleman from California, Mr. McKeon, or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall 
     be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 2669 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 531 provides for consideration of H.R. 2669, the 
College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking

[[Page H7497]]

member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order 
and provides appropriate waivers for a single amendment in the nature 
of a substitute offered by Representative McKeon of California or his 
designee.
  Mr. Speaker, educational opportunity is the backbone of what we are 
about and everything that makes this Nation great. For this reason, I 
am very pleased to support the rule and the underlying legislation that 
will give our students a real opportunity to go to college and give 
them the vital tools necessary to prepare them to enter the workforce 
and build a positive future.
  The College Cost Reduction Act addresses one of the most important 
and difficult issues facing our Nation. While access to higher 
education is more critical than ever for our younger generations, the 
cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low- and middle-income 
families. This problem is nothing less than a crisis. How many students 
have had their dreams shattered because they could not afford their 
tuition? And how much potential has our Nation lost because of the 
failure to address this issue?
  If students cannot afford to get the education and training necessary 
for them to make a productive and positive impact in our communities, 
it hurts us all. Investment in our younger generations not only 
improves their future, but it helps our economy and our retired workers 
whom they will help to support. It ensures our national security, 
continued improvements in health outcomes as well as advances in 
manufacturing and technology. Improving access to higher education is 
not only about helping America's middle class and our students and 
families who are in need. It is about strengthening America.
  But instead of helping our students prepare themselves for a better 
future, recent Congresses and the administration chose to cut funding 
for student loan programs and have allowed this issue to become the 
crisis it is today. It is time for priorities to change, and this bill 
is part of making that happen.
  Tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have 
risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. The typical American 
student now graduates from college with $17,500 worth of debt. If we do 
not take action immediately, financial barriers will prevent at least 
4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public 
college over the next decade. This Congress has a responsibility to 
help our students and our working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed the heartbreak of parents who work hard 
day in and day out who have to tell their child that they cannot afford 
to send them to college. I have listened to these struggling parents 
and heard the ache in their voices. It is a story that is far too 
common. It is unacceptable and we must take action. And today we do.
  H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will provide the single 
largest increase in college aid since the GI bill, and it will put 
college education back within reach of so many families. H.R. 2669 
follows on the College Student Relief Act that passed overwhelmingly, 
356-71, in this new Congress earlier this year. That bill cut interest 
rates in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years. For 
the average student in the State of Ohio at institutions like the 
University of Akron and Lorain Community College, this means a savings 
of roughly $4,320 once the cuts are phased in. It is estimated that our 
proposal will help roughly 175,000 students just in Ohio alone and 5.5 
million nationwide. Our bill increases the maximum Pell grant 
scholarship by at least $500 over the next 5 years while also expanding 
eligibility to include and serve more students with financial need. In 
Ohio, roughly 224,000 students will benefit from these changes to the 
Pell grant program. And nationwide, over 5.7 million students will 
benefit and another 600,000 will become eligible for the grants, making 
the possibility of a college education for them a reality.
  Additionally, this legislation recognizes the value of our public 
servants, and it shows how much we respect what they do. Individuals 
working jobs that make our world turn, teachers and firefighters, 
nurses, law enforcement officers, librarians, we provide upfront 
tuition assistance to qualified undergraduate students who commit to 
teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need 
subject areas. And we provide loan forgiveness for first responders, 
law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, 
prosecutors, early childhood educators, librarians and others. We are 
investing not only in the potential of individual students, Mr. 
Speaker. We are investing in the strength of our communities and our 
country. And the return on our investment as a Nation and our students 
and people will, without question, provide an enormous return.
  But our failure to invest likewise will have incredibly harmful 
consequences. Our bill makes clear we understand the importance of this 
investment.
  And, Mr. Speaker, to make a good bill even better, the College Cost 
Reduction Act will benefit all of these students and families at no new 
cost to taxpayers. We make these important investments in education 
through government spending cuts. With this bill, we take the billions 
of access taxpayer subsidies that have gone into the profit margins of 
private lenders and invest it in direct support for our students. 
Overall, H.R. 2669 will save almost $20 billion in taxpayer money and 
reinvest that money in the needs of our students. This is about where 
the priorities of our Nation and this Congress lie.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the lack of access to higher 
education is a crisis for our Nation, and it is a burden that no family 
in this great country should have to bear. The College Cost Reduction 
Act puts us in a position to help these families and assist our 
students who simply want to learn and be prepared to enter the 
workforce and contribute to society. This bill does more than just pay 
lip service to the virtue of a college education. Today we act to help 
families, students and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the 
Democrat majority approved what I consider an irresponsible budget plan 
that calls for more spending now followed by massive tax increases in 
the future. Their budget plan only called for one committee, the 
Education and Labor Committee, to find cost savings, and that turned 
out, Mr. Speaker, to be a mere $750 million over 5 years.
  In comparison, when Republicans were in control, the fiscal year 2006 
budget resolution called on eight House and Senate committees to find a 
total of $35 billion in savings over 5 years. As a result, Congress 
passed and President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act, 
which saved American taxpayers $38 billion.
  House Resolution 531 provides for the consideration of the Democrat 
majority's attempt to rein in spending, the College Cost Reduction Act. 
However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than an illusion. While 
the bill does find savings, it immediately spends most of it, $18 
billion, to create nine new entitlement programs. These entitlement 
programs, which grow automatically every year without congressional 
review, pose the largest threat to our long-term economic health. 
Essentially, these programs run on auto pilot with no accountability to 
the taxpayers writing the check.
  Entitlement programs currently today make up well over half of the 
Federal budget and in the next decade will consume nearly two-thirds of 
our budget. History has proven that once an entitlement program is 
created, it lives forever, and even improving these programs has proven 
to be a very difficult task.
  Taxpayers will be paying for the new entitlement programs created 
under this proposal for at least 5 years and likely for many years to 
come, thus wiping out any savings that may be achieved with this bill 
in the short term.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I share the goal of increasing access 
to higher education. Education in general

[[Page H7498]]

is very important to the future of our country. But there are many 
approaches the Democrat majority has chosen to take in this bill that 
shifts the responsibility for personal decisions made by students to 
the taxpayers. For instance, this bill guarantees that borrowers, no 
matter how much they borrow, will not have to pay more than 15 percent 
of their income in loan payments and allows the borrowers to have the 
balance of their loans disappear, disappear, Mr. Speaker, after 20 
years and thus be paid for by the American taxpayer. This bill also 
requires those same taxpayers to pick up the outstanding student loan 
tab for public sector employees after just 10 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, 
while I agree we should encourage people to enter the public sector, I 
feel this approach places too heavy a fiscal burden on American 
taxpayers.
  I believe that we must do all that we can do to make education more 
affordable for those who wish to pursue their education so that more 
Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. With 
tuition costs on the rise, students and their families are facing the 
inevitable question of how to pay for college education. The cost of 
attaining a college degree has increased over the years, and students 
are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for college without 
financial assistance.
  So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must take a balanced approach that 
increases the transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to 
the neediest students while controlling spending and lowering the 
deficit.

                              {time}  1045

  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will support the McKeon substitute 
amendment, which increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $350 next 
year and $100 thereafter and provides a plan for improved 
accountability with regard to tuition costs.
  If the McKeon amendment is not adopted, I will oppose the College 
Cost Reduction Act, which increases a maze of Federal regulations and 
bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate, directs more 
resources to institutions of higher education rather than students, and 
creates new entitlement spending at the long-term expense of the 
American taxpayer.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman, a member of the Rules Committee from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my home State of Massachusetts is famous for the quality 
of its colleges and universities. In the Third Congressional District 
alone, which I represent, there are 15 colleges and universities. Some 
of these schools specialize in the fields of medicine, nursing, 
pharmacy, and health sciences. Others are community and other 2-year 
colleges that provide education and training for students to earn 
associate degrees, transfer to 4-year institutions, or upgrade their 
skills and experience in order to become more productive in their 
chosen careers.
  We are privileged to have such internationally recognized colleges as 
Clark University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Holy Cross 
College in my district. I have many public and private institutions, 
such as Worcester State College and Assumption College, which provide 
students with a well-rounded advanced education.
  These schools attract a great diversity of students to central 
Massachusetts each year, over 30,000 in the Worcester area alone. H.R. 
2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will help these students realize 
the dream of a college education without mortgaging their futures in 
the process.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill overhauls the student aid system and provides 
debt relief in order to make college more affordable for students and 
their parents. As others have noted, it is the single largest 
investment in higher education since the GI Bill. And it provides these 
new benefits at no new cost to the taxpayer, reducing excess subsidies 
that have been paid by the Federal Government to lenders in the student 
loan industry.
  But this bill also supports and protects the 90 percent of student 
loan lenders that are nonprofit lenders or smaller community-based 
lenders. H.R. 2669 recognizes their unique mission, putting all their 
profits back into students and into our communities.
  The College Cost Reduction Act provides a fee reduction for these 
lenders, making them better able to compete with large national lenders 
and serve students and their families. The small lenders that make up 
the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority, for example, provide 
students and families with straightforward information and advice on 
how to apply for and choose a college financing plan. Along with free 
financial aid seminars and advice, they also provide low-cost loan 
programs for parents and students. H.R. 2669 will allow these types of 
lenders to better serve the students and families of central 
Massachusetts by making their loans even more affordable.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Miller and the members of the 
Education and Workforce Committee for bringing us a bill that provides 
such substantial increases for the Pell Grant program, initiatives to 
help control colleges costs, increased funding for Perkins loans, 
greater support for the critical Upward Bound program, and 
restructuring the way in which students repay their loans. If we look 
at the Pell Grant alone, over 87,000 Massachusetts students will 
benefit over the next 5 years from an estimated $357 million in 
additional Pell Grant funding.
  Mr. Speaker, the challenge of affordable education affects not just 
the poor, but the middle class as well. Parents and students alike have 
been frustrated by the lack of action by the previous congressional 
leadership. I love when I hear my colleague from Washington say we all 
share the goal of helping struggling students be able to afford a 
college education. Well, students don't need our sympathy. They don't 
want us to feel their pain. They want us to do something. And for years 
they haven't done anything. Well, today we are going to do something.
  Times have changed. And today we will pass a bill that will make 
higher education a reality for countless students and contribute 
greatly to a brighter economic future. We will not be able to compete 
in a global economy unless we have a well-educated workforce, and we 
need to invest in our students, and this bill does it.
  I urge bipartisan support for the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just point out to my 
friend from Massachusetts that, since Republicans have been in control, 
that Pell Grants, individually, have nearly doubled in that length of 
time. I think the students are being well served, and they are 
responsible. And I think that is a very, very good policy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from 
Minnesota, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee (Mr. 
Kline).
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. Once 
again, the majority has seen fit to stifle debate when considering 
significant legislation.
  Yesterday, I and several other members of the Education and Labor 
Committee presented amendments to the members of the Rules Committee 
with the expectation that those amendments would be seriously 
considered. It's now become apparent that that hearing was really just 
a facade; the decision had already been made to exclude those 
amendments.
  If I had had the opportunity to offer my amendment today under a fair 
rule, House Members would have seen that the concept of my amendment 
was simple: to ensure that those most in need, college graduates that 
serve the public interest and college students in need of government 
grants, are the direct beneficiaries of Federal interest rate 
reductions. Instead, the majority has treated us to a show worthy of 
the best Las Vegas illusionist, a reconciliation process intended to 
reduce the growth in entitlement spending that instead creates nine new 
entitlement programs. That's right. The reconciliation process is 
designed to reduce the growth in entitlement spending to cut the 
Federal deficit; and, instead, this bill creates nine new entitlement 
programs.

[[Page H7499]]

  While openly declaring that the underlying bill expands educational 
benefits for students, a little sleight of hand instead reveals 
legislation that fails to target aid to those students most in need.
  My amendment, rejected by the Rules Committee along party lines, 
would have focused our limited Federal funding on those college 
graduates that chose a path offering less monetary reward, but serving, 
arguably, a much greater public purpose. My amendment achieved this 
goal by ensuring that those graduates who can pay their loans under a 
higher interest rate do so by establishing an income cap of $65,000 for 
single graduates and $135,000 for married couples, the income levels at 
which the existing student loan tax reductions are phased out.
  After reaching that income level, which is almost twice the average 
family income of a student eligible to receive a subsidized student 
loan, the interest rate for a loan would have reverted to the current 
level of 6.8 percent. Those graduates who may not have as high an 
income, however, would have seen their interest rates stay at the 
reduced level. This includes, of course, those most in need because 
they chose to serve the public interest: members of the Armed Forces, 
first responders, nurses, teachers, and other graduates who choose 
careers in public service. By adding a fair, balanced income cap 
adjustment, we would have generated additional savings that could have 
been directed toward another truly deserving group, those utilizing 
need-based aid through the Pell Grant program.
  Unfortunately, more than 400,000 students, Mr. Speaker, are fully 
prepared to attend a 4-year college but will be unable to do so because 
of enormous financial barriers. As a member of the Education and Labor 
Committee, it is paramount for me to prioritize the expansion of 
secondary education access for low- and middle-income students whenever 
possible. I am disappointed, but sadly, not surprised, the majority has 
instead chosen to rely on the same tired strategy of expanding 
entitlement spending for institutions to the detriment of currently 
college students struggling to pay their high tuition costs.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee from Florida 
(Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague, Ms. Sutton from Ohio, who is a true 
fighter for education reform for the working families of Ohio and all 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the College Cost Reduction Act under 
this rule, as we are charting an historic new investment in our 
students and our communities.
  All Americans should salute the leadership of Chairman George Miller 
and Speaker  Nancy Pelosi for their leadership in education and this 
single largest investment in higher education since the 1944 GI Bill.
  Chairman Miller, on behalf of the students, colleges and universities 
in the State of Florida, I thank you for your dedication. And we also 
thank you in the State of Florida because you worked tirelessly with me 
and my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings, to ensure that 
students from States like Florida that have low tuition and low State 
support have access to additional need-based aid.
  Passage of this act will increase access to college by making it more 
affordable. The cost of higher education in this country has 
skyrocketed over recent years. Thousands of students are left with 
overwhelming debt after graduation due to higher student loan rates and 
declining financial aid. Some may not make it to the college classroom 
at all because it has become so cost prohibitive.
  In Florida, the average debt after college is more than $18,000 per 
student. But in America, no young person with a desire to learn should 
be barred from moving on to college due to financial hurdles, and this 
act removes many of those hurdles today. The College Cost Reduction Act 
cuts student loan interest rates in half and increases Pell Grants by 
at least $500 per student over the next 5 years. In the State of 
Florida alone, Federal loan and Pell Grant aid will increase by $762 
million that will benefit over 340,000 students. In my home area, the 
Tampa Bay area, we have the ninth largest university in the country in 
the University of South Florida, over 40,000 students in that 
university. In addition, there is the University of Tampa, the 
Hillsborough Community College, Manatee Community College and St. 
Petersburg College. So let the message go forth to those students and 
those families that help is on the way, that they will not have to 
struggle with those higher student loan interest rates; they can depend 
on a little more help when it comes to the Pell Grant.
  This bill also acknowledges that some high school students need a 
little extra help to be college ready, particularly students who may be 
the first in their family to attend college. We're going to keep these 
students on track to go to college and stand up for them and protect 
Federal dollars for their success.
  We owe a debt of gratitude to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby 
Scott, because he offered an amendment to this bill to maintain the 
Upward Bound program. I am proud to support his amendment which is 
contained in this bill that nationwide will protect the Upward Bound 
program.
  In my hometown of Tampa, this means standing up for those students I 
met on Monday. I met with students at the great Middleton High School 
in Tampa. Jasmyn Hendricks and Clifton Tyson are students in the Upward 
Bound program at the University of South Florida.
  Imagine a high school student that takes 20 Saturdays out of their 
life to learn about what it means to go to college, and then they spend 
their summers there, too. They are typically the first ones in their 
family to go to college. And we know that if they achieve their high 
school diploma, they will have a higher salary; but if they achieve 
their college degree, they are set up for success in life, and our 
communities benefit.
  Jasmyn said to me, as her eyes welled up with tears, that before 
Upward Bound, I knew I wanted to pursue higher education, but there was 
no way. Jasmyn considers her Upward Bound program her second family. 
She said, There was no money. I just couldn't see a way for me to get 
to college after high school. Then Upward Bound comes along and 
introduces us to the fact there are college scholarships, grants and 
help.
  Clifton, who is an athlete, said that he used to see sports as his 
only avenue to college; but since starting at Upward Bound, he now says 
sports is his second gateway. He wants to go to college for academics.
  It was completely unfortunate that the White House targeted the 
Upward Bound program for budget cuts. In this day and age when we are 
spending so much money overseas, up to $10 billion in Iraq, they target 
monies for folks that need to go to college.
  Mr. Speaker, the College Cost Reduction Act is a momentous and 
historic step in a new direction, the right direction for higher 
education in America. It opens the door to college to thousands of 
students where those doors were previously slammed shut.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, 
Mr. McKeon of California.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This rule would 
provide for consideration of fiscally irresponsible legislation that 
will create nine new entitlement programs and misdirect billions of 
dollars in aid towards colleges, universities, college graduates and 
even philanthropic organizations, rather than low-income students and 
parents and those who need it the most.
  My colleagues who were around in the last Congress may remember that 
when we passed a real budget reconciliation bill, the Education and 
Workforce Committee found some $18 billion-plus in savings, two-thirds 
of which we directed towards deficit reduction and one-third of which 
we directed towards increased student benefits, for real students, such 
as higher loan limits, more grant aid for low-income, high-achieving 
students and loan forgiveness for high-demand teachers. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 2669 takes us in a drastically different direction.

[[Page H7500]]

  The rule before us provides for continued abuse of the budget 
reconciliation process as a backdoor way to implement significant 
changes to programs best addressed through regular order. Not a single 
committee hearing has been held on this bill. The potential impact of 
many of its student loan cuts has never been weighed and no one has 
provided adequate reasons regarding why or how many of the nine new 
entitlement programs created under the bill are necessary or fiscally 
responsible.
  So, by creating a bundle of new entitlement programs, complete with 
new bureaucracy, rules, regulations, this bill places billions of 
dollars in new Federal spending on autopilot with no accountability to 
taxpayers whatsoever. Instead, this measure could be improved by 
infusing more savings into the Pell Grant program. Pell is a proven 
success that has helped millions of young people attend college, and I 
am grateful that this rule will give the House an opportunity to move 
billions out of new, misdirected entitlement spending and into Pell 
later today.
  Even so, the rule allows for the continuation of a budget 
reconciliation process that has been flawed, abused and used as a 
springboard for billions in new entitlement spending. As a result, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the College Cost Reduction Act and 
the rule which makes in order the manager's amendment to the bill. I 
would like to thank Chairman Miller and Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa 
for their work on this bill.
  We know that higher education is crucial, not only to the individual 
but also to our Nation. We know, for example, that the more you learn, 
the more you earn. We know that those who are in college are much less 
likely to be involved with welfare, much less likely to be involved in 
crime. Education is critical for our national economy. We know that the 
economic future of the United States depends on the success of our 
higher education policy.
  We live in a high-tech, high-information economy, so the number of 
college students that we have will be an important economic resource. 
We can't afford to have any of our children fail to achieve full 
potential because they were not able to afford to go to college.
  There are many improvements in the bill. The cost of education 
through student loans will be made more affordable. There are 
significant increases in Pell Grants. One of the major increases, the 
first in the last 4 years, $500 over the next 4 years, will be the 
increase in the maximum Pell Grant award. We know this is critical, 
because in the last 6 years, the cost of college education has gone up 
about 55 percent, but in the last 4 years, the Pell Grant didn't go up 
at all.
  This bill makes significant investments in Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. A 
significant portion of the students at these colleges and universities 
are first-generation students. We know they often come from low-income 
families, so support of these institutions is critical. We know that 
these colleges offer an opportunity that otherwise would not be there.
  This bill also makes improvements in Upward Bound. It provides 
additional funds for Upward Bound because many qualified Upward Bound 
programs were not funded this year because the program just ran out of 
money. Upward Bound focuses on those who have the potential to go to 
college but may not, just because they don't think they are expected to 
go to college. This bill makes critical improvements in the Upward 
Bound program and makes sure that those qualified programs can get 
funded.
  Mr. Speaker, the College Cost Reduction Act will reduce the cost of 
going to college. It will enable many to go to college that otherwise 
could not have afforded to go to college. Chairman Miller's amendment 
makes improvements to the bill, and therefore I support the rule and 
support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule for a number of reasons. 
Yesterday I testified to the Rules Committee regarding my amendment to 
allow the U.S. Department of Education to continue its evaluation of 
the Upward Bound program. I am astonished that, because of the Rules 
Committee action, the full House is not given an opportunity to 
consider this amendment.
  Let me first of all make it abundantly clear, I am a very strong 
supporter of the Upward Bound program. There have been some preliminary 
studies in the Department of Education that indicate the program may 
not be living up to its potential. I am not sure I believe those. But 
currently the Department of Education has announced a rigorous, random 
assignment study, that is considered the gold standard of research 
methodologies, to evaluate the Upward Bound program's impact on 
students most in need of services. I believe this is a very important 
study to determine exactly what works best in Upward Bound and how we 
can improve it.
  Unfortunately, during the Education and Labor Committee's 
consideration of the College Cost Reduction Act, the committee adopted 
an amendment by voice vote to prohibit this important evaluative study 
of the Upward Bound program, not so much because they were against the 
program, but because of an ancillary aspect of it that the amendment 
was aimed at. My amendment would have left the ancillary program out in 
the dust, but would have allowed the study to go forward. As a 
scientist and a strong advocate for research funding, I know it is 
imperative that we conduct rigorous evaluations using the most sound, 
scientifically robust methodology to identify best practices in Federal 
programs, and I wish that my amendment had been made in order.
  It is unfortunate that this bill does not promote good evaluation, 
which is critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely 
and effectively. It also ensures that students are benefiting from 
proven services.
  Finally, I want to express my dismay that the manager's amendment 
strikes the two amendments that I offered during committee 
consideration, which were adopted by voice vote and are 
noncontroversial. In particular, I am dismayed that an amendment I 
offered about sustainability programs at universities is removed by the 
manager's amendment.
  I thought with Speaker Pelosi's high priority on environmental 
improvement and saving energy, that the new majority would accept that 
amendment, as they did in committee, and would let it remain in the 
bill so that we can wake up some of our higher educational institutions 
and get them to adopt sustainability programs and also establish 
academic programs so that future students can be educated in 
sustainability principles, so that we in fact as a nation can ``go 
green'' much more rapidly.
  For these reasons, I will vote ``no'' on this unfair rule.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a leader in education policy.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for the time, 
and thank her for her leadership on education issues.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good day for students around the country, and 
it is a good day for all Americans, and I commend the Education and 
Labor Committee for their good work on this legislation.
  During the first 100 hours of this new Congress when we passed 
legislation to cut the interest rates on student loans in half, many of 
us stood in the well here and said, this is just the beginning. That 
was an important first step to making college more affordable and 
giving millions of students a chance to further their educations and to 
brighten their futures.
  We stand here today to take the next step, the largest investment in 
student loans since the GI Bill. We are keeping the promise that we 
made to the American people and American students,

[[Page H7501]]

cutting interest rates on student loans in half and now increasing Pell 
Grants, raising the cap on low-interest Federal loans and making it 
easier for students who are being pinched by other costs to pay back 
the payments on their interest rates and their loans.
  In addition, this bill makes it easier for young people to enter 
public service and serve their communities by extending loan 
forgiveness to law enforcement officers, first responders, librarians 
and nurses and giving more assistance than ever to undergraduates who 
commit to teaching in high-need locations or subject areas. As we make 
these very vital changes to give more opportunities to students, we do 
so in a fiscally responsible manner by cutting exorbitant fees to 
lenders.
  Mr. Speaker, by opening the doors to college and maintaining a 
balanced budget, we are working to ensure the best possible future for 
our young people. By increasing the opportunity incentive to enter 
public service, we harness the ability and ambition of our best and 
brightest. And by helping students achieve advanced degrees, we are 
ensuring that the United States remains on the forefront of innovation 
and discovery in an increasingly competitive global economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree, there is no better 
investment that we can all make than in the area of education. Students 
and middle America are feeling the pinch of rising costs in many areas. 
This helps provide them greater means to open the door of college and 
opportunity to more and more Americans.
  I encourage my colleagues to join with all of us in taking this very 
important step for the students of this country and, indeed, for all 
America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), another member 
of the Education and Workforce Committee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 2669, the so-called College Cost Reduction Act. Like many of 
my colleagues, I have serious concerns about the new mandatory spending 
that is included in this legislation. H.R. 2669 creates nine new 
entitlement programs, most of which do not attempt to address the 
hurdles many prospective and current college students face.
  Mandatory spending entitlement programs already consume the largest 
portion of the Federal budget. The uncontrolled growth of entitlement 
programs, particularly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, will 
eventually consume the entire Federal budget by 2050 if left unchecked. 
That means the Federal Government would have no available funds for 
programs other than entitlements; no militaries, highways, courts, law 
enforcement or border security.
  So how are we addressing this looming crisis today? Well, it seems we 
are addressing it by creating new entitlement programs, nine of them. 
The new programs created under this legislation will not undergo the 
annual scrutiny of the appropriations process. Regardless of the 
success or failure of these programs, the American taxpayer, our 
constituents, will continue to pay for these new programs available to 
anyone that meets the basic qualifications.
  Another serious concern is that some of the mandatory spending in 
H.R. 2669 is directed towards colleges, universities and philanthropic 
organizations. Traditionally entitlement programs have been directed at 
individuals who are in need of the Federal assistance, such as 
Medicare, Social Security, food stamps and student loans. Directing the 
mandatory funding under this legislation to institutions, instead of 
low- and middle-income students who need the assistance most, sends the 
wrong message about the priorities of this Congress.
  During the Education and Labor Committee markup, I supported a 
substitute amendment offered by Mr. McKeon that would have invested $12 
billion in the Pell Grant program, more than double the increase 
provided by this bill. It also reduced the PLUS loan interest rates for 
the Federal Family Education Loan Program to match the interest rate in 
the Direct Loan Program, currently 7.9 percent. The funding provided 
under the McKeon substitute would have been directed to those who need 
the assistance most, the students, without creating new programs and 
additional bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate.
  Finally, I have concerns about maintaining the viability of the 
FFELP. In the last Congress, the Education and Workforce Committee made 
$20 billion in changes to FFELP by eliminating and reducing Federal 
subsidies to lenders. Just 2 years later, we are back again squeezing 
student loan lenders. My concern is this legislation is using the 
reconciliation process as a backdoor attempt to kill FFELP.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that I have to oppose the rule and 
this legislation. There are a few provisions in this legislation that I 
believe would help college students and address some concerns in areas 
of academic need.

                              {time}  1115

  However, I cannot support a bill that creates new mandatory spending 
for institutions at a time when we are addressing the looming crisis 
with our existing entitlement programs for individuals. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the rule and against H.R. 2669.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who spent a long career 
in education and also a member of the Education and Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago I was in the 
position of the gentlewoman from Ohio managing some of the rules for 
the bills, and often I was chagrined and offended by people who would 
complain about amendments not being made in order when they had been 
fully vetted and defeated in the committee.
  I want you to know as I rise to talk about one amendment that was not 
made in order, this is not necessarily the case. Even though I had 
offered it in committee, I withdrew it in the committee in the spirit 
of comity to try to work towards a solution for this floor, not 
realizing that the Rules Committee would callously deny all amendments 
made in order on this bill.
  Reconciliation is already a procedural process that limits the right 
of the minority to have input. To further restrict their rights by not 
recognizing any amendments, and indeed taking out amendments that were 
passed in the full committee, is something that certainly is not the 
definition of open government.
  The issue I wish to address I will continue to talk about because 
philosophically I think it is larger than the bill we are actually 
discussing. The Department of Education drafted the language I 
presented, not to say they endorsed it, but to let you know this was 
not a cavalier but a serious effort at solving a problem. In fact, the 
amendment was passed last year by this body in the Higher Ed 
Reauthorization Act, but was one of the bills that the Senate refused 
to accept or consider during the last year.
  I want to publicly thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Kildee, for 
speaking to me about this amendment, Mr. McKeon, the ranking member, 
and his staff for talking to us at length about this amendment, and 
also the Department of Education.
  To the full committee chairman I wish to apologize. Part of my 
process with these types of amendments is to sit down with the ranking 
member as well as the chairman to explain my purpose and intent. Six 
different times since the committee met, I have made an effort to try 
to meet with the chairman of the full committee and each time those 
efforts were rebuffed. So I apologize to him for not doing what I think 
should be the normal process.
  The last time we did a reconciliation bill, there was a new 
entitlement that was inserted on the insistence of the Senate. That was 
the wrong process. But it did establish an increase in a new Pell Grant 
program which I like, and it required this Pell Grant to go to those 
who had a rigorous academic schedule, something else I like. But it 
also gave the Department of Education the right to establish criteria 
which would drive curricula. That is the part I cannot accept.
  In the charter of the Education Department, it was forbidden for them 
to have this power. In Federal statutes, it is forbidden for them to 
have this power. State constitutions forbid it; yet this program has 
opened the door for future abuse.

[[Page H7502]]

  In the committee it was asked: Shouldn't all States have common 
standards? To allow the Federal Government to establish those common 
standards gives the Federal Government power taken from parents and 
local school boards to drive curriculum decisions. It is almost like 
saying can't we be partially pregnant. No.
  If the Department of Education has the ability to establish some 
curriculum decisions, they also have inherently the ability to 
establish all curriculum decisions, even though the current Department 
of Education is trying hard not to abuse this power by still saying 
there are four broad areas that qualify. They themselves have admitted 
that it needs to be refined. And what the future Department of 
Education without this same kind of approach would have simply meant 
that there can be abuse of the system in the future.
  Most curriculums are always going to be driven, especially of 
electives, by a teacher. Other curriculum is driven by graduation 
requirements. But curriculum can also be driven by outside 
requirements. When the four colleges in Utah decided that students 
should have 2 years of foreign languages before they go to college, the 
enrollment in foreign language programs quadrupled. When the Federal 
Government can dangle out money for Pell Grants by taking specific 
classes, that will drive curriculum decisions, and it is 
philosophically wrong to give them that kind of power.
  In this bill there is much good. Much of the good has already been 
stated in forms of hyperbole. There is also much bad.
  In 2005 when this program to which I object was created, it was the 
wrong thing to do. This particular bill has nine different new 
entitlements which are also the wrong thing to do, so I am assuming 
this is probably about nine times as bad.
  It is a poor and abusive procedure when we deny amendments on the 
floor and you deny amendments that were passed in committee and remove 
them without having the chance to address them again. So I will vote 
against this rule because it is an abuse of the procedure that unfairly 
limits the rights of the minority.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pasco for yielding, 
and I congratulate him on his fine management of this rule; and I thank 
my friend from Ohio for her thoughtful remarks.
  I have to say, as I have been listening to the debate from my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, they continually say this is a great 
day for education. But the tragic thing is that this is a horrible day 
for future generations. Why? Well, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop), the former Rules Committee member, just stated, there are nine 
new entitlement programs included in this measure that is designed for 
budget savings. Reconciliation is all about trying to rein in the reach 
of the government, trying to bring about a modicum of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Yesterday up in the Rules Committee, the distinguished Chair of the 
committee, my friend from Martinez, California, Mr. Miller, when asked 
why it is we are making these mandatory instead of discretionary, 
meaning we would have the opportunity to look at them again, to 
possibly make modifications in them, he said we have authorization 
bills that are done and they end up dying, so we need to make these 
programs mandatory.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, every single Democrat and Republican regularly 
talks about the need to rein in the so-called mandatory spending. We 
spend our time around this place talking about discretionary spending, 
earmarks and what we expend on the discretionary level. And it is a 
drop in the bucket compared to the mandatory programs that are out 
there. As we all know, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, a 
wide range of mandatory programs exist, and this bill that is designed 
to bring about a reduction in spending establishes nine new mandatory 
programs.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that we need to defeat this rule 
and bring about a reconciliation bill that in fact will not expand the 
number of mandatory programs, and we have an opportunity to do that 
right now. When we go into this vote, Mr. Hastings is going to seek to 
defeat the previous question so we will have an opportunity to make in 
order the Castle amendment. A very, very respected member from 
Delaware, the former Governor of the State who is an expert on dealing 
with our Nation's education needs, offered an amendment in the Rules 
Committee that was unfortunately denied. That amendment simply said 
that as we look at these nine mandatory programs that are put into 
place, he goes ahead and establishes them. But instead of making them 
mandatory, he makes them discretionary, discretionary so that we will 
have an opportunity as Members of Congress to look at those issues. And 
the savings created go to what everyone says they want to increase, and 
that is the Pell Grant program.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to regularly support the notion of our global 
leadership role when it comes to trade, when it comes to technology, 
and I recognize that it is absolutely imperative for the United States 
of America to have the best education system possible so that we can 
remain competitive globally.
  I have just come back with a number of my colleagues from Indonesia, 
from Mongolia and other countries in Asia over the Independence Day 
break, and one of the things that we found is that education is a key 
issue in these countries. We all know that in the United States of 
America we seem to be falling behind, so it is imperative that we do 
all that we can to ensure that there is access to education for our 
young people. I believe that we can put into place policies that will 
allow us to make education more affordable and more accessible without 
a dramatic increase in the number of mandatory programs.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) talked about his amendment that 
was denied totally by the Rules Committee. The only thing made in order 
in this bill is a manager's amendment that will actually be self-
executed, not considered on the floor and debated but self-executed if 
this rule in fact passes, and the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that is going to be offered by the ranking member of the 
committee, Mr. McKeon. But other than that, all of the other amendments 
that were offered, Democrats and Republicans were denied an opportunity 
to offer any amendments.
  My California colleague, Mr. Bilbray, had a thoughtful amendment 
dealing with the basic pilot program as it relates to illegal 
immigration. All it was saying was that institutions that get Federal 
funding are required to comply with the basic pilot program as it 
relates to the hiring, potential hiring of people who are in this 
country illegally. That amendment is not going to be able to be debated 
or even considered in this measure.
  Mr. Ehlers had amendments that he sought to make in order, as did Mr. 
Kline. They were very thoughtful proposals. Not one of them was made in 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Hastings as he 
moves to defeat the previous question so that we can make Mr. Castle's 
amendment in order. That will allow us to take the expansive mandatory 
spending and shift it to discretionary spending, and the savings that 
we have go to the Pell Grant program.
  If we do in fact fail in our quest to defeat the previous question, I 
hope my colleagues will vote against this rule so we can start over and 
do a very good and decent reconciliation package on this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 19 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. 
Sadly, the Democrats only allowed one single amendment to be 
considered, as the ranking member pointed out. Even more concerning is 
that this rule provides that the Miller manager's amendment shall be 
considered as adopted once this resolution is adopted, if in fact it is 
adopted.
  They have carefully chosen to self-execute this amendment which does

[[Page H7503]]

not allow for a separate debate or clarification on the amendment, and 
the maneuver prohibits Members from voting specifically on the Miller 
manager's amendment. Members should be aware that the Miller manager's 
amendment reduces the amount of short-term savings to taxpayers.
  In addition, if this rule is adopted, the misdirected College Cost 
Reduction Act can be fast-tracked through the Senate and therefore 
protected from filibuster.
  So I am asking my colleagues to not only vote ``no'' on this 
restrictive rule, but also to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
we can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the amendment 
offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware and provide the appropriate waivers.
  As the ranking member pointed out, the Castle amendment would simply 
end the entitlements in this bill. I think that is a very important 
policy statement. Further, the savings from these entitlements would go 
to increase the Pell Grants by $100 in the next 2 years and $50 through 
2018. So by defeating the previous question, we will give Members the 
ability to vote on the merits of the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard here today why we must pass this rule and pass the 
College Cost Reduction Act, and I wanted to commend and thank Chairman 
Miller for his tremendous leadership in getting this done.

                              {time}  1130

  As I said earlier, educational opportunity is the backbone of our 
Nation, and our students, our families and our country have waited long 
enough for this to happen.
  With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who seem 
intent on further delay, 12 years of Republican rule provided ample 
opportunity to act on this issue and pass a bill, to act on amendments. 
The American people cannot wait any longer.
  This is an issue that many of us here in Congress hear about when we 
return to our districts because a lot of families are worrying about 
how they will pay for their children's education, and today, we are 
going to work with them. Their government is going to work with them 
and not against them.
  I'd like to share today on the floor a letter that I bet mirrors 
letters that every one of our Members receives. This is a letter that 
came to me from a constituent, and I will share part of it.
  It says: ``Is anything ever going to be done about the exorbitant 
cost of a college education in this country? How are the middle class 
supposed to save for retirement and also pay the exorbitant cost of a 
college education for our children?
  ``This country seems to be obsessed with debt, because the colleges 
and the high schools as well, tell you that you should expect to be in 
a certain amount of debt upon graduation from college. I guess if 
you're wealthy, it's not an issue. So the middle class are the ones 
that are left struggling.
  ``With such an importance put on having a college education to get a 
decent paying job in this country, how are our children supposed to be 
able to afford a home and car upon graduation from college when they 
will be so far in debt with student loans?
  ``As for the parents, any raises we receive go toward the continually 
increasing cost of medical insurance, gasoline, utilities, property 
taxes, et cetera. I know, in my own case, we seem to be going backwards 
instead of forward, and we by no means live extravagantly or beyond our 
means.
  ``I am looking forward to hearing from you.''
  Well, today, this constituent hears from me and hears from this 
Congress, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
rule.
  For my constituent and her daughter, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 531 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2669) to 
     provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report on the 
     Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from 
     California, Mr. McKeon, or his designee, which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered 
     as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; (3) the further amendment printed in section 3 of 
     this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Delaware, 
     Mr. Castle, or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2669 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of part A of title I of the bill add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 105. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN MAXIMUM FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

       (a) Funds for Additional Increase.--In addition to the 
     amounts made available to increase maximum Federal Pell 
     Grants by section 401(a)(9)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (as amended by section 101(b) of this Act), or by any 
     other section of this Act, there shall be available to the 
     Secretary of Education, from funds not otherwise 
     appropriated, the following additional amounts:
       (1) $420,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 
     2009; and
       (2) $207,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 
     2017.
       (b) Use for Additional Maximum Federal Pell Grants.--
     Amounts made available to the Secretary of Education pursuant 
     to subsection (a) of this section shall be used to provide 
     increases in the amounts of the maximum Federal Pell Grant 
     for which a student shall be eligible during an award year, 
     in addition to any increases provided by section 401(a)(9)(B) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended by section 
     101(b) of this Act), or by any other section of this Act, in 
     the following amounts:
       (1) $100 for each of the award years 2008-2009 and 2009-
     2010; and
       (2) $50 for each of the award years 2010-2011 through 2017-
     2018.
       Page 51, line 10, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated''.
       Page 62, line 8, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated'', and on line 12, strike 
     ``made available'' and insert ``authorized''.
       Page 78, line 17, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated''.
       Page 79, line 20, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated''.
       Page 109, line 4, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated''.
       Page 110, line 24, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated''.
       Page 129, line 18, strike ``shall be available'' and insert 
     ``are authorized to be appropriated''.
       Page 131, beginning on line 2, strike ``, and there are 
     appropriated to the Secretary, from funds not 4 otherwise 
     appropriated,''.

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H7504]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adopting House Resolution 531 (if ordered); suspending 
the rules and adopting House Resolution 526; and suspending the rules 
and passing S. 1701.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 198, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 607]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     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)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     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 (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     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
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     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
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bean
     Berkley
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Porter
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1157

  Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 222, 
nays 197, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 608]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     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)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     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 (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Aderholt
     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)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett

[[Page H7505]]


     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
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     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
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bean
     Berkley
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Porter
     Towns
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1205

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

                          ____________________