[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.
____________________