[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 113 (Monday, July 16, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   COLLEGE COST REDUCTION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. PETER HOEKSTRA

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 11, 2007

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2669, 
the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. A classic Democrat bait and 
switch proposal.
  What the Democrats propose is a historic investment in student aid--
what they deliver is massive new entitlement spending on programs 
controlled and run by their friends.
  These new entitlement programs, which are exempt from annual 
congressional review, are replete with layers of bureaucracy, rules and 
regulations, and require virtually no accountability to the American 
taxpayer.
  If the Democrats were serious about stemming the dramatic rise in 
college education costs, they would not use a reconciliation bill--a 
vehicle meant for deficit reduction--to push their agenda.
  Yes, the legislation provides cuts to student loan providers 
estimated at $18.58 billion over 5 years, but instead of using that 
money to lower the deficit as is custom, this legislation actually 
spends $17.13 billion (almost 92 percent) during that same period on 
multiple programs--including 9 new areas of mandatory Federal 
entitlement spending.
  This bill will not improve access to higher education for low and 
middle-income Americans. In fact, it has the potential to cost student 
borrowers and their parents thousands of dollars more in interest on 
Federal student loans by wiping out the interest rate discounts 
currently available to borrowers. Furthermore, this legislation could 
lead to the elimination of consumer choice and lender competition, 
making it a boon to the Direct Loan Program.
  In recent years, the Direct Loan Program's market share has fallen to 
22 percent because schools have chosen to participate in the FFEL 
Program instead. Cutting the successful FFEL program is a back-handed 
way to increase the competitive position of direct lending, a program 
that up until now has been withering on the vine through the voluntary 
attrition of colleges.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2669. Our students 
deserve more from us than to play politics with their college 
education.




                          ____________________