[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 132 (Friday, September 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10259-H10270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2669, COLLEGE COST REDUCTION AND ACCESS ACT
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 637, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2669)
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Solis). Pursuant to House Resolution
637, the conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 6, 2007 at page H10168.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
[[Page H10260]]
Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) will each
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on
H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, legislation that
provides for cutting the interest rates on subsidized student loans
from 6.8 to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years; that calls for the
biggest increase in the Pell Grant in the history of the program,
$1,000 new dollars over the next 5 years; that provides for an income-
contingent payment plan where people will not have to pay more than 15
percent of their income on student loans; and if they go to public
service, that loan can be forgiven for 10 years; and provides major
support for the minority-serving institutions of this country. This is
all done within the PAYGO rules because of the $20 billion in excessive
subsidies that were being paid to lenders in this field, and so we
comply with the Budget Act.
I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 2669, the College
Cost Reduction and Access Act.
Yesterday, we held a rally to highlight the benefits of this
legislation for out nation's students and families. It is clear from
listening to the students at the rally that one of the greatest
challenges facing them today is the rising cost of college and high
student loan debt.
With students returning to campuses, I can think of no better back to
school gift than passing a bill that represents the greatest effort to
help students and families pay for college since the GI Bill was passed
more than fifty years ago. This is no ordinary gift. This is real money
we are providing for students and families which translates into real
relief.
As we have mentioned since the beginning of this process, these
historic investments in education are being done in a fiscally
responsible way. This conference report will fully comply with new
House rules that require all federal spending to meet tough pay-as-you-
go budget rules.
Additionally, the conference report will set aside $750 million in
budget deficit reduction, demonstrating that with smart policy, we can
be fiscally responsible and be responsive to the concerns of the
American people. This conference agreement significantly increases the
Pell Grant scholarship over the next five years to a maximum of $5,400.
This investment--almost double the investment in the House bill, and
the largest increase in the scholarship's history--will greatly restore
the purchasing power of the scholarship for students with the most
financial need, meet the President's 2008 budget request, and also
address concerns raised by Mr. McKeon during House consideration of
this measure.
This agreement also: Cuts interest rates in half for need-based
student loans from 6.8% to 3.4% over 4 years. When fully phased in it
will save the typical student $4,400 over the life of the loan. This
measure was overwhelmingly supported by this body in January; makes new
investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and other minority serving schools--to ensure
that students will not only enter college, but remain and graduate;
makes debt more manageable for students through an Income Based
Repayment program; provides loan forgiveness and loan repayment options
for those providing a public service; and ensures that we place a
highly qualified teacher in every classroom through the creation of
TEACH grants.
As mentioned before, this bill is fully paid for with cuts to lender
subsidies.
It builds on proposals we passed in H.R. 5 and on proposals outlined
by the President in his 2008 budget.
We believe the reasonable offsets in the final package meet our goal
to ensure the continued participation by the lenders in the FFEL
program as anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office. While a
challenge, we believe this final package balances our commitment to
minimizing the burden placed on lenders with our commitment to helping
students.
As you can see, this conference agreement is a remarkable step
forward in our efforts to help every qualified student go to college.
This is a foundation we will continue to build on. As I mentioned at
the conference meeting, I am committed to continuing these efforts when
the House considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
this year.
Given that we have addressed many of the concerns raised by the
Administration, I received confirmation yesterday from Secretary
Spellings that the President is expected to sign the final bill.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will follow
the lead of the White House and the Senate--who overwhelmingly passed
this legislation not too long ago--and vote in favor of this carefully
crafted compromise.
Rather than stand between our nation's students and their ability to
access much needed financial relief, I urge all members to vote in
favor of the conference report on the College Cost Reduction and Access
Act.
Today this body is voting to do what is right for students, our
economy, and our nation's future. Together we are putting the American
Dream back within reach of every family in this country.
Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
agreement on H.R. 2669. I am proud to say that this is a reconciliation
bill which originated with the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008.
This is also a happy occasion where good policy for education is also
good for the budget's bottom line. This bill will reduce the budget
deficit. That's right, it will reduce the budget deficit over 5 years
by $750 million at the same time that it invests in human capital and
makes colleges more affordable for millions of students.
I am proud to see this outcome, proud to have gotten the ball rolling
in the Budget Committee to start the process, and I commend the
chairman who has taken this bill from January to September, passing it
step by step through the House, through the Senate, conferencing it, in
no small part due to the reconciliation status it enjoyed in the
Senate, and I hope that the whole House will note the support that it
has gotten. This is a solid, substantive bill for college students. I
hope the conference report will pass handily in both Chambers and I
hope the President will take note and sign this bill into law.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement
on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. I am proud to
say that this is a reconciliation bill, which originated with the
budget resolution for fiscal 2008. This is also a happy occasion where
good policy is good for the budget's bottom line. This bill will reduce
the budget deficit at the same time that it invests in human capital
and helps make college more affordable for millions of students.
The conference agreement complies with our budget resolution for
fiscal year 2008, which instructed the House Committee on Education and
Labor to cut spending under its jurisdiction by $750 million by 2012.
By passing this measure, the House maintains the tough pay-as-you-go
rule and the rule barring reconciliation bills that increase the
deficit, a rule the House instituted for the 110th Congress in January.
These budget rules require Congress to make tough choices to meet
priorities while restoring the budget to balance, and the House has
insisted on enforcing these rules in every case.
This reconciliation bill is a stark contrast from those enacted by
Republican-controlled Congresses. Every Republican reconciliation
directive since 1994 has resulted in reconciliation packages consisting
primarily of huge tax cuts that increased the deficit. In contrast,
this reconciliation bill is better than budget-neutral; over fiscal
years 2007 through 2012, it results in budgetary savings of $752
million.
In addition to making a net reduction in the deficit, this bill makes
improvements in student loans and grants, paid for by cuts in subsidies
to student loan lenders. It provides more than $20 billion in new
resources to make college more affordable by lowering the cost of
student loans or by increasing the grant available. For example, by
2012 the bill increases the maximum Pell grant to $5,400, a 33 percent
increase over what the maximum grant was when the 110th Congress was
sworn in. The bill also cuts by 50 percent the interest rate that
students pay on subsidized student loans.
To offset the cost of these student benefits, the bill reduces
subsidies that the government pays to banks. These reductions are
similar to those in H.R. 5, which passed the House in January by a
bipartisan vote of 356-71, and to the subsidy cuts in the President's
2008 budget proposal.
I commend the committee, and its able chairman, Mr. Miller, for
moving this bill step by step from January to September, passing it in
the House and conferencing it. I hope that this bill will pass handily
in both bodies, and I hope that the President will take note, and sign
this bill into law immediately.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
[[Page H10261]]
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to this conference report which is the product
of both a flawed policy and a flawed process.
The conference report was made available to Republicans for the first
time less than 24 hours before it reached the Rules Committee.
Unfortunately, that was just the latest in a series of disappointments
we have endured throughout the process. But perhaps my greatest
disappointment is the sinking reality that this conference agreement
could have done more to help low-income students gain access to
college. Instead, I fear we have squandered a tremendous opportunity.
College Cost Reduction, the name of this act, really is not a part of
this bill. It is a huge spending bill. There is one element of this
conference report worthy of praise, and I would like to begin there.
This conference agreement will invest approximately $11 billion in
Pell Grants, which I believe are the single most effective tool to help
open the doors of higher education to low-income students.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the senior Republican of the
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and
Competitiveness, deserves great credit for the Pell Grant increases
that have been provided over the last several years. Mr. Keller is a
champion for the Pell Grant program, having founded the Congressional
Pell Grant Caucus to advocate for this critical program. The recipient
of a Pell Grant himself, Mr. Keller has shined a spotlight on the
importance of targeting the Federal investment in higher education to
serve low-income students.
If I had been in the room when this agreement was reached, I would
have preferred to invest even more in Pell Grants. In fact, I advocated
a straightforward approach to reform that would have saved billions of
dollars by making the student loan program more efficient and plowed
those resources directly into Pell Grants. It is an approach that I
continue to believe would have received strong bipartisan support in
both the House and the Senate. Instead, the Democrats opted to
jeopardize the stability of the Federal Financial Education Loan
program by imposing excessive cuts, created an unnecessary complex and
cumbersome auction scheme that will deny parents a choice of loan
providers, imposed an impossible timeline for implementation that sets
students up for confusion and program participants up for failure, and
created massive new entitlement programs.
I harbor serious concerns about this conference report when it is
simply taken at face value. Unfortunately, I fear that when we consider
the long-term ramifications, these concerns grow much more serious.
First, the conference report creates new entitlement programs, but
only provides short-term funding. Every single person in this room
knows that once created, an entitlement will not die. That means in 5
years we will be forced to make additional cuts to fund these new
entitlements.
{time} 1130
Second, the conference report includes the misguided plan to
temporarily reduce interest rates. What once was a campaign promise has
become a trap that will ensnare either students or taxpayers, and
possibly both. The plan would temporarily phase down interest rates
over the next 4 years, and just as soon as the rate gets down to half
the level it is today, as Democrats promised during the campaign, it
will jump back to its current level. The choice then becomes whether we
break the promise to students and allow the rates to rise or break the
promise to taxpayers that this legislation is paid for and stick them
with an additional 20 to $30 billion to pay for those cuts over the
next 5 years.
The third consequence of this proposal, which I believe the majority
has not considered, is the undue burden that will be caused by its
hasty implementation. The conference report presumes that complex
technological and service changes will be implemented in a matter of
weeks. It seems almost inevitable that this unrealistic timeline will
create chaos within these programs for students, program participants
and the Department of Education.
And, finally, let me be perfectly clear. I have absolutely no
confidence in the Department of Education's ability to implement the
changes outlined in this conference report, particularly with the
timeline it sets. It gives me no pleasure to point out this obvious
fact, particularly in a Republican administration, but it's true, and
sadly, we will all be watching this failure play out in the weeks,
months and years ahead.
There's another issue that bears mentioning, and it's what this
conference report unfortunately does not do. Despite its lofty name,
this legislation does nothing at all to reduce the cost of college. It
didn't have to be this way. In fact, the bill that passed the House
contained provisions that I championed to make college cost increases
more transparent to students and parents. These commonsense reforms
were stripped away, leaving consumers with nothing.
The majority will tell you these college cost provisions were removed
because they did not meet the stringent rules applied to a budget
reconciliation package. That may well be true. If so, I consider it
further proof that by abusing the reconciliation process we missed key
opportunities to help students.
While this conference agreement is unmistakably a product of the
Democratic Congress, I cannot help but express my disappointment in the
administration for their role in this process. The fiscal year 2008
budget request proposed excessive cuts to the student loan programs,
cuts that I believe may ultimately destabilize the largest source of
Federal financial assistance. And when the bill left this House, the
administration promised to veto the bill if some of these egregious
measures were left in the bill. They are still there, and I now
understand the President will sign the bill.
This conference agreement makes a significant investment in the Pell
Grant Program. For that, I'm appreciative. I only wish it had done
more. I wish that we could have seized upon the opportunity, worked
together in a bipartisan fashion, and produced a conference report that
lived up to its name.
Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the conference report we
are considering and the process that was used to get here, and so I
must oppose final passage.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who has worked
very hard on this legislation. Thank you for that.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from
California for his leadership on this legislation. We will pass this
legislation, and now the President's agreed to sign the most aggressive
college student aid package since the GI bill 60 years ago. In an era
where you earn what you learn, this bill will ensure that more
Americans have access to a college education.
Today, the average student graduating from college graduates with
$19,000 of debt. So, on graduation day, you get a diploma on one side
and you get a $19,000 bill on the other side. This legislation will
ensure that more and more Americans have the access to a college
education. Not one of us would be here if it wasn't for the fact that
we had had access to a college education and the ability to make
something of ourselves.
This will ensure that middle-class families and their children do not
suffer under the burden of the cost of rising costs of a college
education.
I remember when I was running for office and I met a family in
Chicago, Illinois. He was a police officer for 11 years. His wife was a
teacher in a parochial school. They had two kids in high school, and
they looked at me on their doorstep, and they had to make a decision: a
third job among them, a second mortgage on their home, or burdening
their children with $19,000 of additional debt.
This legislation ensures they are both good parents and their
children have access to a great college education.
And I again want to compliment the leadership from my colleague
Congressman Miller for producing this legislation in such a speedy
time.
[[Page H10262]]
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana, a member of the committee, Mr. Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member,
and I stand up in opposition to this bill, not because I don't want to
control tuition costs. This bill doesn't control tuition costs. This is
a fundamental disagreement about the direction of our government.
Do we believe in markets or do we believe in the Federal Government?
This is a remnant of the battle where we moved from direct lending over
to free-market lending, that this bill, in fact, does nothing to
control costs. Inevitably it will lead to the government taking over in
direct lending and government having to try to fix costs of lending and
then to fix the tuition costs, because there's nothing in here that
balances tuition costs.
Previously, students and parents, if they had to factor in rising
tuition costs and they couldn't get affordable loans, the pressure of
the market would come on universities and colleges and alternative
forums, and the market would respond, but this bill releases the market
pressure.
Furthermore, in this bill there are other things that, instead of
putting the money for those students who are highest risk and have the
least income in Pell Grants, we've expanded into the middle class where
the only hopeful pressure for tuition costs would come from. Students
who could achieve academic scholarship in most universities can get
into the highest universities if they can achieve the scholarship
level. Let's look at this debate where it really is. It's in the middle
class. It's about does the private sector manage loans better than the
public sector and how does that triangle work with the universities.
For example, under private sector lending, bad debts have gone down.
Why? Because you get financial counseling. There's a private sector
incentive to make a profit that results in counseling of saying, will
your degree match up your ability to repay or we won't give you the
loan. They also put the pressure on the institutions, even with a small
portion of the student loan being actual private sector.
But there's a provision in this bill, and I don't use this in a
pejorative term, I use it in actual dictionary term, is the most
socialist provision that I have seen in a bill, and it's the income-
based repayment plan. It says that you only take 15 percent of your
discretionary income to repay the interest, which then gets capitalized
into the capital. Let me use my own personal example.
My father, we came from a nice middle-class family but middle class
at best, in retailing. My dad told me he would either pay my way
through grad school or undergrad. If I wanted to go to grad school, the
college of my choice, he had saved a certain amount of money. I would
have to live at home and go undergraduate. I got a great education at
Indiana Purdue University in Fort Wayne, and then went to the
University of Notre Dame. My father would have had no incentive under
this bill to do so because in furniture retailing, followed by being a
congressional staffer, I did not make enough money that I could have
repaid my loan to Notre Dame or my undergraduate loan, and I would have
had that loan excused at 25 years. I would have never paid, probably
based on my salary, based on inflation adjustment, not a dime on the
principal. There would have been no market management on my dad to save
the money or on me.
This bill, by undermining both the lending premise of the private
sector and the personal responsibility of parents and students to
balance this, is a purist government takeover of a project that will
not reduce the cost of student loans but will expand the power of
government and the inefficiencies of government and ultimately damage
students of America.
No matter how good and tempting it sounds, no matter what the
campaign commercials sound like, it is a terrible, terrible bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is the
subcommittee Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee and who has
just been so instrumental in the success of this legislation.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support this conference report.
Today, the payoff for investing in education is even greater and the
stakes are higher. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act will open
the doors of higher ed to a new generation of students. This is our
moment to take a stand for our future competitiveness and prosperity.
Investment in Pell Grants is increased significantly.
It supports college success for first generation, low-income students
by dedicating additional resources to Upward Bound and College Access
Challenge grants. It invests in our public servants and in our
teachers.
I am particularly proud of our work to strengthen the institutions
that are the gateway of access to higher ed for minority students.
Through this legislation, we will increase funding over several years
by $510 million in HSIs, HBCUs, tribal colleges, Native Hawaiian
institutions and newly designated predominantly black institutions, as
well as institutions serving Asian Americans.
I commend Chairman Miller, Senator Kennedy and all my House
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Education and Labor
Committee for their hard work and leadership in crafting the College
Cost Reduction and Access Act. It has been my privilege to work on this
legislation.
This conference report has already been passed in the Senate, and I'm
very happy about that. I urge my colleagues to support this conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this conference report. H.R. 2669, the College
Cost Reduction and Access Act, represents the largest investment in
college access since the GI bill. Over the next 5 years, we will
increase our federal support for higher education by $20 billion. This
is a once in a generation opportunity.
I can still remember when, college was not even in the realm of
possibility for people who came from communities like mine. That was
until the GI bill opened our college campuses to our returning
veterans--rich, poor, black, Hispanic--they all had a shot at the
American Dream of a college education. Our nation became smarter,
stronger and richer as a result of this egalitarian investment in
education.
Today, the pay off for investing in education is even greater and the
stakes are higher. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act will open
the doors of higher education to a new generation of students. This is
our moment to take a stand for our future competitiveness and
prosperity. Investment in ``Pell Grants'' is increased significantly!
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act is a strategic package of
investments to expand higher education opportunities. It guarantees a
minimum increase of $1090 in the maximum Pell grant over the next 5
years--reversing the last five years of stagnant funding.
It supports college success for first-generation, low-income students
by dedicating additional resources to Upward Bound and College Access
Challenge grants. It invests in our public servants and in our
teachers.
I am particularly proud of our work to strengthen the institutions
that are the gateways of access to higher education for minority
students. Through this legislation, we will increase funding over
several years by $510 million dollars in HSIs, HBCUs, tribal colleges;
Native Hawaiian Institutions, and newly designated predominantly Black
Institutions; and Institutions serving Asian Americans.
Some on the other side will say that we are investing in institutions
at the expense of students. This argument reflects a fundamental lack
of understanding of the communities that will fuel the growth in our
workforce and the need to develop their capacity to provide higher
education opportunities.
The 2007 Condition of Education reports that 42 percent of our public
school children are racial or ethnic minorities--one in five is
Hispanic. HSIs, HBCUs, and other minority-serving institutions are only
going to grow in their importance for ensuring that our nation
continues to have enough college graduates to fill the jobs in our
knowledge-based economy. They are a worthy investment.
I commend Chairman Miller, Senator Kennedy and all of my House
colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee for their hard work and
leadership in crafting the ``College Cost Reduction and Access Act''.
It has been my privilege to work on this legislation. This conference
report has already passed in the Senate!
[[Page H10263]]
I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I come to the floor today opposed to this bill. This budget
reconciliation conference report before us today creates five new
entitlement programs and abuses the protection of the reconciliation
procedures.
A number of programs that were a part of discretionary spending, that
depended as to whether the money was available in the budget or not and
whether we had the money available to fund those programs, determined
exactly how much money would be spent on those programs, but now they
will be moved into entitlement status. More money, rather than going
through a process where we review the spending every year, is on
automatic pilot. And sure, the bill says that these programs will
sunset, but those of us that have been here for a while know that
entitlement programs never sunset. They just grow larger and larger and
larger. And the Federal Government and this Congress loses control over
that spending.
The discussion about the student loan interest, cutting it in half,
it goes down and scales down over a period of 4 or 5 years and in the
5th year it comes back to its full amount. Why? Because we can't afford
it or the other side hasn't been able to find the 20 to $30 billion
that's estimated would actually be necessary to continue this program
in the past. Will they find it in the future? Probably. It will be
called deficit spending.
This bill is a massive attack on the private sector. There are
significant increases in new Federal mandatory spending. It grows
government one more time. It puts the Federal Government in control of
more parts of the education sector, the education process, squeezing
out the private sector, squeezing out parents and inserting big brother
and big government in the process.
But under this administration, when it comes to education, why am I
not surprised that we're talking about more government and less
parental involvement?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate my chairman and
friend for this excellent piece of work.
When middle-class people, when police officers and real estate agents
and computer programmers sit down to fill out the forms at the kitchen
table and apply for financial aid, they end the process very frustrated
because they quickly conclude there's nothing in there for them. After
hours and hours of putting their tax returns forward, filling out
forms, there's nothing in the financial aid laws for middle-class
people. That's the way people feel.
This bill changes that. For the first time in a long time, there is
aid to middle-class students under this bill, and here's the way it
works.
{time} 1145
When your son or daughter borrows money, and we wish there were less
borrowing and more scholarships, but the reality is, given the fiscal
constraints we have, there is going to be borrowing. When your son or
daughter borrows money, their repayment of that loan will rise as their
income does. So when they are new, they have their first apartment,
their first car payment, other issues in their life, their payments
will be low. But as their incomes rise, their payments will rise to pay
their loans back.
This is a loan repayment program that works the way life does. You
start out with a low income and a lot of obligations, and hopefully
your income grows. When it does, your payments do; but if it doesn't,
then your payments stay reasonable.
This is the way life works. This is the way the student loan program
ought to work, and I commend the chairman for his leadership in making
this happen and urge a ``yes'' vote for this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from California for his
wonderful and diligent work in this area, an area that we ought to have
had a bipartisan bill.
Madam Speaker, this bill is interesting and a curious work product of
this House, one that I believe will be troubling to the Nation. What
the Democrat majority has done is brought together the ingredients in a
huge recipe for bad policy.
So far, the new majority has kept the Republicans out of the process.
Not a single House Republican, not one, was involved in the conference
committee report or signed it. They have manipulated the
recommendations of the administration to serve their ulterior motives,
and they have disregarded input from key stakeholders and students and
parents across this Nation.
As a result of this recipe, the Congress has a final product that
distorts the reconciliation and puts at risk expanding college access
for students over the long term.
We predicted, during the debate of the budget resolution, that the
``savings,'' ``savings'' in the reconciliation process were a fig leaf.
Today the House is debating a bill which spends nearly $22 billion more
in new entitlement spending just to get $750 million in savings. That's
fuzzy math.
Fact, entitlement growth, automatic spending is unsustainable and
consumes more than half the entire Federal budget. It is also fact that
if left on autopilot, by 2030 that automatic spending will consume the
entire Federal budget.
Without true spending reform, entitlements will crowd out all other
spending. This bill, H.R. 2669, makes a major mistake of magnifying the
problem by adding new entitlement monies.
In fact, the conference agreement dedicates $1.17 billion to new
automatic spending programs. At a time of run-away spending, the
Democratic majority is intent on creating these massive new spending
programs instead of dedicating the savings to deficit reduction. Such
an approach continues us down the path to fiscal irresponsibility.
Now, all of that might be okay if, if the changes offered would truly
help students, but they don't. The Democrats have decided to favor a
Washington-run bureaucrat student-lending system rather than a
flexible, responsive free market alternative. This bill cuts over $22
billion in the Federal Family Education Loan program. The only
conceivable reason to do that is to paralyze it and put it at a
disadvantage to the direct government loan program or Washington-run
program.
This is unfortunate because that Federal Family Education Loan
program has proven to be far more successful, does a better job of
providing student loans. This is reflected in the fact that for nearly
every government loan, there are four loans by the Federal Family
Education Loan.
In the end, Democrats want to cripple this program because they favor
a centralized governmental approach to this Nation's challenges. All
these drastic cuts do is put at risk the need for students and the
access that they will have to a college education over time.
For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill
on the floor.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader,
former chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I express my disappointment in having to oppose the
gentleman's bill.
I know Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard over the
last few years, including efforts on my own behalf when I was chairman
of the Education and Workforce Committee, to help make college more
affordable for more of America's students.
Most of us wouldn't be here had it not been for a chance at a decent
education and a college education to allow us the opportunity to be all
that we can be here in America.
I think all of us agree that we want these opportunities for all
students.
[[Page H10264]]
That's why 18 months ago, when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act, we
fundamentally reformed the college loan system and saved some $16
billion.
In that same bill we offered benefits for students, low-income
students who would enter into an agreement to study math and science at
4-year institutions. I thought this was a sound bill, and we made sound
efforts.
When I look at the bill before us, there are a number of concerns
that I have. First is that the cuts to the private sector loan program
that are involved in this bill, I think, will cripple the private
sector loan program.
When you look at what the private sector has brought to students and
their parents across the country, they have brought a lot of
innovation. They have brought new ideas, new techniques to help more
students and their families be able to afford a college education.
To cripple that, in my view, is an effort to drive more of those
families and students to the direct loan program, this government-run
program that, in my view, is misguided. I didn't support it, as my
friend from California well knows, didn't support it when it happened
some 16 years ago.
As we look at the direct loan program, it looked like a government-
run program, with very few benefits for students and, clearly, not very
cost-effective as well. That's my first concern.
My second concern is that we all around here, over the 17 years that
I have been here, pledged fiscal responsibility. We have got to be
careful about how we spend the taxpayers' funds.
When we look at the bill before us, we create five new entitlement
programs. These are the programs that get put on automatic pilot. While
they may be paid for here in the first 4 or 5 years, some of the
provisions in this bill will cost 10 to $20 billion over the next 10
years that's not paid for. That's according to the CBO.
While we pledge fiscal responsibility, at the end of the day, we have
to stand up and do it. You know, the American people send us here to
make decisions on their behalf, and fiscal decisions on their behalf.
We ought to make those real decisions. But when you look at the real
long-term cost of this program, I think it's not paid for, it's
fiscally irresponsible. At a time when we are trying to balance the
Federal budget, this is a step in the wrong direction.
I applaud my colleague from California, the chairman of the committee
and my friend. We have worked together for a long time on these issues.
I applaud him for his tenacity in putting this bill together.
There is no surprise to him nor me that we would disagree about the
benefits of this bill. He sees his glass as half full; I see it as half
empty. I really see it empty when it comes to the issue of being
fiscally responsible and standing up to do the right things that the
American people sent us here to do.
I would ask my colleagues, these are the hard decisions, well-meaning
bill, well meaning, well intentioned, but, long term, I think it's a
real mistake for students and taxpayers here in America.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah, a member of the committee, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the ranking member from California.
Madam Speaker, I stand, I guess, to oppose the reconciliation bill
that doesn't reconcile much. In this particular bill, it encourages
direct loan programs, programs that are paid for and controlled by the
Federal Government, and whether intentionally or not, a tax to
discourage programs like FFEL, which are public-private partnerships
where the government actually provides funds, but they are not
administered by the government.
In a clumsy way of verbiage, by lumping not-for-profit programs, and
not-for-profit program lenders in the same category as for-profit
lenders, it creates an unintended consequence that does harm to college
students in my State.
My State has a higher education authority program. It's a not-for-
profit-program administered by the State that provides students who
have loans under this program with deductions. It's 1\1/4\ percent
automatic deduction if you have an automatic payment program. It's a 2
percent deduction on the rate after 48 consecutive payments have been
on time, which means for a kid on this program on a standard $15,000
Stafford loan, he could actually save $2,000 over the cost of that loan
and over what would happen in a direct pay program. Perhaps I am a
little bit sensitive to this because I still have four kids in college,
and I know what the expense of college actually means.
In this reconciliation bill, by lumping the not-for-profit programs
with profit programs, the margins that they have in these not-for-
profit programs are so small that these deductions will no longer be
available, if, indeed, the program can survive by itself.
It will force students in my State either to pay the full government
rate without any deductions or go to the full rate of a for-profit
lender.
I know the intention of this bill is not to hurt kids. The intention
of this bill is perhaps to rid FFEL programs; but in so doing, it
actually does, in fact, hurt real kids who have programs right now or
who may be having programs in the future.
Oftentimes when we fiddle around education, we have unintended
consequences; but our actions here, because it is at such a gross
level, have unintended consequences of hurting real live people. This
bill does that. Not intentionally, but it still does that.
It would have been far better for us to do the program that the
ranking member was always talking about, encouraging and expanding Pell
Grants. That would do more to help kids than all the other
restructuring we are doing in this particular reconciliation bill.
For those reasons, because it does hurt kids in my State, I have to
oppose the reconciliation bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I choose my
words carefully when I say this, but this bill really, in my opinion,
is a cynical attempt to make a campaign promise good. When I say that,
I mean it's three things: number one, in the guise of budget
reconciliation, the reason this bill is here so quickly to the floor,
through conference so fast, out of the other body is they brought it to
the floor through budget reconciliation.
What is budget reconciliation? It's a way of reducing the deficit,
$752 million of savings for over $20 billion of spending. That's a
cynical attempt to exploit the budget deficit reduction process to
create a brand-new government program and an avalanche of new spending.
Why else is it cynical? It cuts student rates in half for 6 months,
and then it doubles it 6 months later to try and shoehorn this bill
into compliance with the majority's PAYGO. To try and say that they are
paying for this bill, they give students, graduates, not students,
graduates a cut in their interest rates for 6 months in half and then
double it 6 months later.
It also, cynically, creates five new entitlement programs. What are
entitlement programs? Entitlement programs are spending programs that
go on autopilot. It has sunsets in these programs, but the most
permanent thing in Washington is a temporary government program,
especially a temporary entitlement program.
{time} 1200
Take all this together, and assume that Congress, down the road, will
not eliminate these five new entitlement programs once they've been
established. Assume they won't just cut interest rates for graduates
for only 6 months, but for longer, and you've got another 20 to $30
billion of spending out the door.
And lastly, Madam Speaker, this takes from the private sector and
gives to the government. This puts onto the taxpayers' liability these
liabilities. This says, instead of private firms that are out there
processing loans right now that worked really well, my student loans
came from these sources,
[[Page H10265]]
this says, no, we want the taxpayer to bear the burden. We want the
taxpayer to be on the hook for these loans if they default.
Look, we have problems with loans all over. We have this meltdown in
the mortgage markets with sub-prime loans, and we're saying, now, in
Congress, let's put more liability on the taxpayer books? If it ain't
broken, don't fix it. We have a system that works well. We have a
system that helps students.
This bill does nothing to address the high cost of tuition. It
cynically attempts to make it appear as though it makes borrowing a
little less expensive for people after they graduate, and then it
doubles the interest rate 6 months later.
For all of those reasons, Madam Speaker, the abuse of the budget
reconciliation process, the increase of taxpayer liability, and the
creation, irresponsibly, of five new entitlement programs, when three
current entitlement programs right now are bringing us into a mountain
of debt, a mountain, a legacy of debt to our children and
grandchildren, the last thing we ought to do is create five new
entitlement programs.
For all those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee ranking member on
the higher education portion of the Education Committee.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'm going to limit my comments
to the Pell Grant portion of this legislation.
I'm honored to serve as the ranking member on the Higher Education
Subcommittee. I used to be the chairman of this committee before the
change in Congress, but I still have the honor of serving as the
chairman and founder of the Pell Grant Caucus.
Pell Grants are money we give to children from low- and moderate-
income families to help them go to college. I, myself, would not have
been able to go to college if it wasn't for Pell Grants. Pell Grants
are truly the passport out of poverty for many worthy young people.
We believe, in a bipartisan manner, that all children, rich or poor,
deserve the opportunity to go to college through Pell Grants. When this
College Cost Reduction Act was initially presented in the House, I felt
that it spent too much money on new entitlement programs and too little
on Pell Grants. For example, it had an increase of $5.8 billion. I was
honored to serve on the conference committee. I made those comments
during our conference committee. And the conference committee decided
to increase the Pell Grant funding from $5.8 billion to $11.4 billion,
doubling what was in the original House bill.
What does that mean for young people going to college? That means the
maximum award is now going to go from $4,310 to $5,400, phased in over
time.
Whatever one may think of the rest of the provisions, pro or con, I
have to tell you that is an outstanding provision in terms of a Pell
Grant increase.
Now, some of my Republican colleagues may say that we're investing
several billion dollars in Pell Grants and is that a wise use of money.
I can tell you that these Pell Grant increases pay for themselves. The
nonpartisan Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance said
that by investing $13 billion in Pell Grants, it helps yield up to $85
billion in additional tax revenue. The reason is the average college
graduate makes 75 percent more than the average high school graduate.
So it's good for the treasury. It's good for our young people, and it's
good for employment rates in this country.
I want to congratulate and thank Congressman Miller, Congressman
Hinojosa and Congressman McKeon for all their work in substantially
increasing Pell Grants. Those provisions make it much easier for young
people to be able to go to college.
Mr. McKEON. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes remaining. Mr.
Miller has 23\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Is there any way we could prevail upon the chairman to
give us 1 or 2 of his 23\1/2\ minutes?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I'm under very strict guidelines
here from the leadership.
Mr. McKEON. Just 2 minutes? Could we ask unanimous consent that we
each get 2 extra minutes? I would love to hear you for 25.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I'm not going to use my time, but
I'm under very strict confines here with my leadership. I've asked
members of my committee not to speak, so I can't be yielding time when
I didn't give it to the members of my committee. I'm sorry. I don't
want to be put in that position.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I'm happy now to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this bill does absolutely nothing to improve
access to a college education. It's a sham. It's another move toward
socialism and taking away personal responsibility in our country.
I probably have the most experience in this area of anybody in
Congress. I worked my way through college, through an undergraduate and
doctoral programs without any loans whatsoever. It can be done. It is
not necessary for people to borrow $19,000 a year to go to college or
come out with that kind of a debt.
I've served in the field of education. I've been a school board
member, higher education administration. I've directed Upward Bound
special services programs, and I know what it's like to have, to be
operating these programs. We have absolutely no accountability in the
programs that we are passing here, and we need to be doing that.
The American people want significant and strong education, but they
do not want to see us wasting money like we're wasting here. This is
called the College Cost Reduction Act. It does absolutely nothing to
reduce the cost of going to college. But it starts out a long list of
complex new entitlement programs, and my colleagues have spoken very,
very eloquently about that.
We still are going to have college students stuck with college costs
that are going up every week because the Federal Government is
involved. We're doing nothing to help the Federal Work-Study Program,
which has been one of the most successful programs that the Federal
Government has ever gotten into.
I can't support a bill that raises the cost of going to college
instead of lowering the cost of going to college. This is going to make
it even more complicated to do financial aid regulations, even though
we're reducing the size of the form. What we need is a workable Federal
financial aid system that helps students get a high quality education.
But this bill falls far short of that standard by shifting Federal
money to the institutions and to loan relief for college grads.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin said all the
relevant fiscal things that I wanted to say, so I want to say this.
This is more smoke and mirrors. This has been a smoke-and-mirrors
Congress, and this is more smoke and mirrors because it is an illusion
that we're trying to sell to the American people. But they've done a
good job because evidently they have sold this to the administration.
And I want to say, Madam Speaker, I am totally disappointed in the
administration that they have bought this bill of goods. This is
nothing but a sham.
I'm from the State of Georgia where we instituted the HOPE
Scholarship Program, which worked out great for students. But what
ended up happening is the colleges continued to go up on their tuition,
costing the taxpayers more and more money because it was not a
competitive market anymore. That's what we're fixing to get into
colleges and universities all across this country. And taking the
private industry out of this, making them responsible for the loans is
going to put the taxpayers on the hook. It's going to be a great
disaster. And again, I want the administration to know, Madam Speaker,
how disappointed I am.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, we've, I think, heard some very good
things about this bill. I've been on this committee now for 15 years
since I
[[Page H10266]]
came to Congress. I've had great concerns about people that are not
able to go to college. We've seen statistics that show that 48 percent
of young people from lower-income families are not able to attend
college because of the cost of college. I have introduced legislation.
I've done what I could to try to reduce the cost of college.
This bill is called the Cost Reduction Act. It does nothing to reduce
the cost of college. It gives money to schools, which we haven't done
in the past. We've given the money to individual students and let them
pick the school that they've gone to. It does increase the money to
Pell Grants, and I appreciate that.
During the time that I was Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee
and the time that we've been in the majority, we've doubled the money
going into Pell Grants, and we have a million and a half students, now,
more that are receiving Pell Grants than before. And that's good.
But the thing about this bill that really bothers me, I guess, is the
promise it holds out to students that they're never going to receive.
It reminds me of a TV contest, game contest that I've seen in the past
that showed three curtains or three doors, and you tried to pick the
door that had the great prize. And my concern is that these students
are going to start school with the idea that their interest is going to
be cheaper 4 years, 5 years from now when they graduate, and they're
going to find that it's not. There's a promise there that when they
open that door they're going to find a huge tax burden. They're going
to find huge loan burdens.
And what we should be working on in a cost reduction bill is
something that actually addresses what we can do to lower the cost of a
college education, not the loan interest. What we should really be
trying to do is address the core problem, the cost. College cost has
been going up four times faster than people's ability to pay for the
last 20 years. We should be addressing that problem. We should oppose
this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
the chairman of our subcommittee, Ruben Hinojosa, and all of the
members of the conference committee for their valuable contributions to
this legislation.
I would also like to thank Chairman Spratt, who spoke earlier, for
providing the reconciliation process, and all of the work that their
staff did to make sure that we complied with the reconciliation process
and we complied with the PAYGO rules so that there would be no new
costs to this legislation to provide these benefits to students and to
their families. And I want to thank his staff, Tom Kahn and Sarah
Abernathy and Lisa Venus.
I would also like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their
help and their staffs' work with us to have a successful conference and
a conference report on this act.
And I'd like to thank the Education and Labor Committee staff, Mark
Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Stephanie Moore, Denise Forte, Gaby Gomez, Julie
Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Rachel Racusen, Lisette Partelow, Lamont Ivey,
Sarah Dyson, Ricardo Martinez and Moira Lenehan of Representative
Hinojosa's staff.
This work could not have happened without the long hours put in by a
very diligent, committed legislative counsel, and I want to thank Steve
Cope and Molly Lothamer.
Given that we must balance our numbers, we appreciate the
significance of work provided by the staff at the Congressional Budget
Office, including Paul Cullinan, Debb Kalcevic and Justin Humphrey.
The Congressional Research Service has been particularly supportive
of our efforts, in particular, Adam Stoll, Charmaine Mercer, David
Smole, Becky Skinner and Jeff Kuenzi.
I want to thank all of these individuals, and certainly I want to
thank the students who, for so many years have tried to get the
Congress to respond to their needs and to the needs of their families
if they have to borrow money to go to school, to go to school and to
achieve a higher education, to achieve the education that that
provides.
I certainly want to thank USPIRG and the United States Student
Association and many others who worked so hard over these past years.
We remember just a year ago, just a year ago we were here in the
reconciliation process when $11.9 billion was taken out of this very
same account, but rather than to use it for the benefit of the
students, that $11.9 billion went to pay for the tax cuts to the
wealthiest people in this country.
We took $11.39 billion out of this same account and we gave that to
the Pell Grant students, to the most needy students in this country who
need it the most. That's the difference that an election makes. That's
the difference that a year makes. That's the difference that a lot of
hard work by the students across this country and their families have
made as they've asked Members of Congress to address this issue.
This legislation, just earlier today, passed in the Senate by an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 79-12.
{time} 1215
It has now been stated that the President of the United States
supports this legislation and will sign this legislation.
I would hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
would understand the importance of this legislation, the value of this
legislation to our students and to their families as we know so many of
them struggle to put together the means by which they can pay for the
college education of the students. One of the very great moments in a
parent's life is when a student gets accepted into college, the
students announce they want to go to college, and then you immediately
start to think about how we are going to pay for this.
This legislation will make it a lot easier for a lot of parents and a
lot of students who desperately need this help.
I ask all of my colleagues to support the conference report and let's
join this bipartisan coalition and help America's families and
students. I thank everybody for their cooperation.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R.
2669. Since my arrival in Congress, I have worked to support
initiatives that would expand access to higher education for all
students, regardless of disability, background or economic
circumstances. Need-based federal student aid programs have leveled the
playing field for so many students, yet in recent years the purchasing
power offered by a Pell grant has dwindled. Meanwhile, college
education costs have soared, and more and more students struggling to
keep up with loan repayments have found themselves locked into high
interest rates and unable to consolidate their debt. Others have seen
their dreams of higher education go unrealized, due to concerns about
how they could possibly pay for it.
Today, Congress takes a meaningful step to address these issues. The
College Cost Reduction Act, the single largest investment in education
since the GI bill, will cut interest rates in half on subsidized
student loans over the next four years, make student debt more
manageable for those facing economic hardship and increase the
purchasing power of the Pell grant. Additionally, this bill will
encourage and reward public service by offering loan forgiveness and
repayment of our most dedicated military service members, nurses, early
childhood educators and others who take on some of the most needed and
challenging--but not the most lucrative--professions. In the battle to
improve access to affordable education, the passage of the College Cost
Reduction Act is a tremendous victory.
I strongly believe that the passage of this bill into law will make
America stronger. While our Nation certainly faces challenging times of
war and economic hardships, we should take tremendous hope and pride in
the investments that Congress is making in the future by expanding
access to higher education. I am proud to support this legislation and
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2669.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Education and Labor
Committee, I rise today in strong support of the College Cost Reduction
and Access Act--the single largest investment in college financial aid
since the 1944 GI bill.
Working families in Illinois and around the Nation continue to
struggle with the rising costs of college. This historic investment in
higher education will begin to put a college degree back in reach for
millions of average Americans, and do so at no new cost to U.S.
taxpayers.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act would make need-based
student loans more easily accessible and provide for additional
mandatory funding for the Pell grant scholarship by at least $1,090
over the next 5 years,
[[Page H10267]]
benefiting nearly 230,000 students in Illinois, including over 22,000
newly eligible beneficiaries. Illinois students and their families will
receive more than $1.2 billion over 5 years in the form of student
loans and Pell grants as a result of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a provision to cut the interest rate
on subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years--from 6.8
percent to 3.4 percent, benefiting 128,765 student borrowers in
Illinois. Once fully phased in, it would save the average 4-year
college student, who begins school in 2011, $4,510 over the life of his
or her loan.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act pays for itself by reducing
excessive Federal subsidies paid to lenders in the college loan
industry by $20 billion. In the current budget-tight environment, the
Federal Government should not be over-funding lenders while families
struggle to send their kids to college.
Making college more affordable and accessible for working families is
good for our economy, national security, and competitiveness in the
world. I was proud to play a role in crafting this landmark legislation
from the very beginning and I am honored to vote for its passage today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in making college more affordable for
our students and urge the President to sign this bill into law.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the College Cost
Reduction and Access Act of 2007. This important legislation will
provide thousands of Iowa's students and families with the financial
support they need to attend college by increasing the purchasing power
of the Pell grant. Next year the scholarship will increase by $490 and
by 2012 the grant will reach $5,400.
The bill also provides upfront tuition assistance and makes it easier
for students who pursue careers as public school teachers. In Iowa, 36
percent of students who attend pubic 4-year schools graduate with
unmanageable debt levels if they choose to take a teaching job in the
State.
As a college teacher in Iowa I regularly encountered students
struggling to afford their education, and I'm certain that this bill
makes the right investments at a critical time for our students. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill and strongly support its passage.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to the Conference Report on H.R. 2669. As the father of three college
graduates and a college sophomore, I am all too familiar with the
financial burden higher education poses on families and students.
As lawmakers, our number one higher education priority should be to
ensure that college is affordable for any student. Instead of helping
students, the conference agreement would require student borrowers to
pay thousands more for a college education.
The conference agreement does not contain any language to address the
issue of rising college costs. Instead of holding colleges and
universities accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars, the
agreement does the exact opposite and throws additional Federal funds
at institutions while denying new information to consumers.
The most appalling aspect of this agreement is that it achieves
minimal deficit reduction. The conference agreement only produces $750
million for deficit reduction, even though the bill cuts $22.3 billion
from the student loan program. Last year, President Bush signed into
law a Republican reconciliation measure that achieved a full $12
billion in deficit reduction while increasing benefits for students.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this agreement and encourage
President Bush to veto this legislation if it comes to his desk.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2669 the College
Cost Reduction Act. I would like to thank Chairman Miller and his staff
for this bill that will provide New Jersey residents an additional $262
Million in loan and Pell grant aid.
Once signed into law, this legislation will ensure that more Federal
student aid money gets to the students who need it, and in New Jersey,
the need is great. Over 61,000 students in New Jersey take out need-
based loans for 4-year schools each year and incur an average of over
$14,000 in debt. Under the legislation, the maximum value of the Pell
grant scholarship would increase by $1,090 over the next 5 years,
reaching $5,400 by 2012. This increase would fully restore the
purchasing power of the scholarship, which in recent years had been
frozen at $4,050 until Congress boosted its value to $4,310 earlier
this year.
I am pleased that the committee included several initiatives that I
have been working on, including provisions from my bill H.R. 2017, the
Part-time Student Assistance Act. We have raised the income protection
allowance in the College Cost Reduction Act so that working students
can work more without having that count against their student aid.
Further, we were able to eliminate the earned income tax credit from
calculations so that working families do not have to bear this burden.
The bill also provides upfront grant aid for those who are becoming
math, science, and foreign language teachers. The bill would create
grants providing upfront pre-paid tuition assistance of $4,000 per year
with a maximum of $16,000 for elementary or secondary school math and
science teachers and critical foreign language teachers. Our classrooms
have an increasing shortage of teachers for these vital subjects. This
problem is most severe in school districts were students come from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Without qualified teachers in these areas,
we are endangering the competitiveness of our children in the global
economy.
Students who take out loans or receive Pell grants will now find it
easier to finance their education. By investing in foreign language and
math and science education, we'll enhance both our economic and
national security. Part-time students will have an easier time
balancing the need to care for their families and improve their
education. This is public policy at its best--it lifts up Americans
from all walks of life.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an investment in our future. Without
providing access to a college education we will not be able to compete
with nations that have already made the investments in providing a
quality education for their own children. The United States is a
dominant world economy because of our educated workforce. With this
bill we will take a larger step toward maintaining this edge and I ask
my colleagues to support it.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, there are a few provisions in H.R. 2669
that I believe are very important to students and parents across the
country.
I support the increases in Pell Grants and cuts to interest rates on
federally subsidized student loans provided in H.R. 2669. These
provisions are the most effective way we can help low and middle income
students achieve the dream of a college education, and I am pleased
this bill will provide relief for those students.
I am also pleased that the final bill includes a small but very
important provision that is similar to legislation I have introduced,
the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act.
The current Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA,
creates insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth--youth
that are homeless and alone. These children do not receive financial
support from their parents, and many do not have access to parental
financial information or a parental signature required by the FAFSA. As
a result, unaccompanied homeless youth are prevented from accessing the
financial aid they need because they cannot supply the information
required by the FAFSA.
The FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act addresses these barriers by
allowing unaccompanied homeless youth to apply for federal financial
aid without providing parental income information or a parent
signature. This will open the doors of higher education to some of our
nation's most vulnerable youth, and I am pleased that H.R. 2669
includes the FAFSA Fix for Homeless Kids Act.
While I am encouraged that H.R. 2669 includes these provisions, I
still have serious concerns about a number of other provisions in the
bill. Specifically, I oppose the mandatory spending in the bill that is
directed at institutions and philanthropic organizations. It is
unprecedented to provide mandatory spending to these organizations.
Instead of creating new and complicated programs, we should have
provided additional funding to Pell Grants.
I also have concerns about the viability of the Federal Family
Education Loan Program. During the last Congress, the Education and the
Workforce Committee made $20 billion in changes to the Federal Family
Education Loan Program by eliminating and reducing federal subsidies to
lenders. Just two years later--certainly not long enough to evaluate
the impact of those changes--we are back again squeezing student loan
lenders. Does the Democratic leadership expect lenders to continue
offering student loans out of the goodness of their hearts? This
program is essential to the students and families in my district, and I
hope that this legislation is not a back-door attempt to kill the
Federal Family Education Loan Program.
I support H.R. 2669 because of the additional funding provided for
Pell Grants, the decrease in student loan interest rates, and the hope
it will give to unaccompanied homeless youth. However, I have serious
concerns about the mandatory spending created in H.R. 2669 and the
viability of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. I hope that in
the future that we can work in a more inclusive manner to address the
skyrocketing costs of college without adding to the deficit that
students we are trying to help will eventually have to repay.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important
legislation to reduce the costs of college for low-income and middle
class families. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass it.
[[Page H10268]]
As the first member of my family to graduate from college, I know
firsthand that affordable access to higher education is the key to the
American Dream for working families. My life's work has been to improve
educational opportunities for all because education is the key to the
future. Education levels the playing field and empowers every
individual willing to work hard the ability to make the most of his or
her God-given talents. This legislation will make a real difference to
make college more affordable without raising taxes while maintaining
budget discipline.
Specifically, this bill will cut in half the interest rate on
federally subsidized Stafford Loans over the next five years, from 6.8
percent to 3.4 percent. Under this conference report, the average North
Carolina student starting school in 2007 will save $2,200 throughout
the life of the loan, and the average N.C. student starting school in
2001 will save $4,270. This legislation also will raise the maximum
value of the Pell Grant scholarship by $1,090 by 2012.
The bill will help ensure a highly qualified teacher in every
classroom by providing upfront tuition assistance to qualified
undergraduate students who commit to teaching in public schools in
high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas. It will encourage
public service by providing public servants loan forgiveness after ten
years of public service for military servicemembers, first responders,
nurses, educators, and others. Finally, this legislation will make
historic new investments in minority-serving institutions and encourage
state and philanthropic participation in college retention and
financing to increase the number of first generation and low-income
college students.
I want to congratulate Chairman Miller for this accomplishment and
thank him and his great staff, including Gabriella Gomez, Denise Forte
and Mark Zuckerman, for working with me to ensure that the bill does
not unintentionally harm North Carolina's nonprofit lending agency. I
am pleased the President has committed to signing this bill into law,
and I encourage all my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to vote against H.R. 2669, a bill which does not reduce the
cost of a college education, but creates five new entitlement programs
and expands the reach of government programs over non-profit and
commercial lenders.
The measure contains $21.5 billion in new spending over five years
while saving only $752 million for deficit reduction. The bill cuts
$22.3 billion from the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, to
force a shift to the government's direct lending program, increasing
the government's role.
H.R. 2669 spends $7.1 billion on college graduates by gradually
phasing down interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over four
years, before allowing rates to return to the original rate in July
2012 to recover the costs of the new spending.
What we are voting on today does nothing address the problem facing
college bound students--rising college costs. Instead of holding
colleges and universities accountable for how they spend taxpayer
dollars, we are doing the exact opposite. We are helping graduates, not
students, and expanding the Federal government.
Budget gimmicks won't teach our children, and won't make college more
affordable for low- to middle-income families. Until we take a real,
thoughtful look at the reasons behind the skyrocketing cost of a higher
education, we are simply going to continue to pass legislation that
sounds good, but does little.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Conference Report for H.R. 2669, the Education and Labor College Cost
Reduction Act of 2007, the single largest investment in higher
education since the GI Bill. This important legislation does far more
than ease the burden of student loans for college graduates--it will
make the American dream possible for low- and middle-income students,
helping families pay for college. I would like to thank Chairman Miller
for introducing the legislation, as well as his steadfast commitment to
this important issue. May I also thank Speaker Pelosi for her visionary
leadership in leading America in a new direction. I am proud to be part
of a Democratic majority that delivers on its promises to the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, in 21st century America, a college education is a
critical investment toward individual success, as well as toward the
strength of our nation. Higher education is associated with better
health, greater wealth, and more vibrant civic participation, as well
as national economic competitiveness in today's global environment. As
the need for a college degree has grown, however, so has the cost of
obtaining that education. The result is rising student debt. Students
graduating often leave school with far more than knowledge and a
degree; many face years of having their financial lives dictated by the
burden of debt. Their choices of careers and jobs may be severely
constrained by the necessity of repaying these loans.
This bill strengthens the middle class by making college more
affordable: 6.8 million students who take out need-based federal
student loans each year will see the interest rates on their loans
halved over the next four years, saving the typical borrower (with
$13,800 in need-based loan debt) $4,400 over the life of the loan, once
fully implemented. With the recent sub-prime lending crisis and
subsequent economic turmoil, the United States economy lost over 4,000
non-farm jobs in the month of August. More and more middle class
students will be in need of assistance to turn their college dreams
into a reality. This legislation makes student loan payments more
manageable for borrowers by guaranteeing that borrowers will not have
to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income in loan
repayments. It also allows borrowers in economic hardship to have their
loans forgiven after 25 years.
This Conference Report contains many important provisions that make
significant strides toward making the dream of higher education a
reality for more Americans than ever. It provides an increase in
college aid by roughly $20 billion over the next five years, with no
additional burden on American taxpayers. By cutting excessive federal
subsidies to lenders, this legislation pays for itself.
This Conference Report contains a specific commitment to minority-
serving institutions. It authorizes $510 million for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal
Colleges, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and the newly
designated Predominantly Black Institutions. These funds will work to
ensure that students will not only enter college, but remain and
graduate. About 2.3 million students attend minority-serving
institutions, including \1/3\ of all minority students who attend
college.
This new investment is particularly critical for African-American
students and their families. African-American students currently
comprise about 12 percent of all undergraduate students. Many
institutions have helped black students bridge ethnic-related economic
barriers, making college education possible for underprivileged
minorities. Among Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
which give African American students an opportunity to have an
educational experience in a community in which they are a part of the
majority, costs are also rising. This resolution would support many of
these honorable institutions in their righteous deeds in educatIng our
underprivileged students of color.
In addition, this bill encourages and rewards public service.
Students who pursue careers as public school teachers will receive
upfront tuition assistance of $4,000 per year, to a maximum of
$16,000, providing aid to at least 21,500 undergraduate and graduate
students. This is particularly important, given that 23 percent of
public college and 38 percent of private college graduates have student
loan debt that is unmanageable on the starting salary of a teacher. By
providing the guarantee of assistance, this bill is an important step
toward ensuring that there is a highly qualified teacher in each of
America's classrooms.
Similarly, public servants will receive complete loan forgiveness
after ten years of service. This will assist our driven young people
who want to serve their country in the military, law enforcement, or as
first responders, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors,
and early childhood educators. It ensures that dedicated Americans will
not be precluded from serving their country because of a preponderance
of debt.
Mr. Speaker, I also support the Conference Report for H.R. 2669
because it will increase the maximum Pell Grant award by $1090 over the
next five years to $5,400. It will also increase eligibility by raising
the income threshold, allowing more students from more families to
automatically qualify for grants. The Federal Pell Grant Program prides
itself on providing need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and
certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary
education. These grants are particularly important for students of
color, with 45 percent of African American and Hispanic students at
four-year colleges depending on Pell grants, compared to 23 percent of
all students. Approximately 4.5 million students currently depend on
Pell Grants and ``over 70 percent of Pell Grant funds go to students
from families with incomes of $20,000 a year or less.'' Increasing the
maximum Pell Grant Award will expand racial and ethnic diversity in
higher education institutions, benefiting not only the institutions,
cultural background but it will also be a great learning experience for
students to learn diverse cultural backgrounds different from their
own.
In addition, the Conferene Report for H.R. 2669 cuts the interest
rates on subsidized student loans in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4
percent over five years. Once fully implemented, this cut would save
the typical borrower--with about $13,800 in need-based loan debt--
$4,400 over the life of the loan. By cutting interest rates on federal
loans, Congress can
[[Page H10269]]
save college graduates thousands of dollars over the life of their
loans. Mr. Speaker, recent graduates, especially those of minority
status with low to moderate incomes, must spend the vast majority of
their salaries on necessities such as rent, health care, and food. For
borrowers struggling to cover basic costs, student loan repayment can
create a significant and measurable impact on their lives.
Crushing student debt also has societal consequences, according to a
report by two highly respected economists, Drs. Saul Schwarz and Sandy
Baum. The prospect of burdensome debt likely deters skilled and
dedicated college graduates from entering and staying in important
careers such as educating our nation's children and helping the
country's most vulnerable populations.
To solve this problem and ensure that higher education remains within
reach for all Americans, we need to increase need-based grant aid; make
loan repayment fair and affordable; protect borrowers from usurious
lending practices; and provide incentives for state governments and
colleges to control tuition costs. H.R. 2669 is an important step in a
new and right direction for America.
Last November, House Democrats promised a New Direction for America.
This bill, the single largest investment to higher education, comes at
no additional cost to American taxpayers, but brings extraordinary
benefits for our nation. I am proud to be part of a Democratic majority
that delivers on its promises to the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of adoption of the Conference
Report for H.R. 2669, the Education and Labor College Cost Reduction
Act of 2007.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction
and Access Act. I thank Chairman Miller for shepherding this bill
through the House so that it can be signed into law by the Prdent.
This legislation marks the single largest investment in higher
education since the 1944 GI bill and at no new cost to taxpayers. The
investnent is available because this new Congress cut excess subsidies
that the federal government pays to the student loan industry.
As I travel around eastern Connecticut, I hear from so many students
and families about their concerns with the cost of higher education and
the amount of debt they are taking on to finance that education.
Unfortunately, students across the country are graduating with about
$18,000 of debt upon graduation. This debt can have a crippling effect
on young adults as they embark on their career path after graduation.
I often refer to the Connecticut district I represent as the higher
education district. For this reason, I am pleased to be a member of the
Education and Labor Committee and the Higher Education, Lifelong
Learning and Competitiveness subcommittee. My district is home to the
University of Connecticut, Eastern Connecticut State University,
Mitchell College, Connecticut College and Lyme Academy. In addition,
Asnuntuck Community College, Three Rivers Community College and
Quinebaug Valley Community College are located in eastern Connecticut.
Students have access to a myriad of educational opportunities in
eastern Connecticut and this legislation before us today will expand
the Pell Grant program that so many students rely on--the maximum value
of the grant will grow by $1,000 to a maximum value of $5,400 in five
years. The Pell Grant Program is so important that during committee
consideration of H.R. 2669, I offered an amendment to boost funding by
$900 million. I am pleased that the Conference agreement invests in the
Pell Grant program even more. Further, and of paramount importance to
so many families, the interest rate on loans will be cut in half from
6.8 percent to 3.4 percent after four years.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act also provides loan
forgiveness for people after 10 years of public service in areas such
as law enforcement, first responders, fire fighters, nursing and early
childhood education.
This new Congress continues to keep faith with a promise to chart a
new direction for this country. This Congress is showing its mettle by
breaking down barriers to affordable education and boosting middle-
class families.
If we are to maintain our competitive advantage in the world and
ensure that more Americans achieve economic prosperity, we must make
higher education attainable and affordable. I urge my colleagues to
support the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this
conference report. I do so in spite of my past support for increases in
Federal student loan programs and expanded access to college for all
young people regardless of their economic status.
As a young student at the University of Nebraska and Creighton Law
School, I had to rely on student loans and part-time jobs to cover my
tuition, books, and living expenses. And I know that for many families
that is also the only way their children can afford to meet the rising
costs of a college education. That is what I have consistently voted
for, increases in Pell grants and the reduction of interest rates from
6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 722, a bill
to increase the maximum Pell grant award to $4,810 for academic years
2008-2014.
There are three reasons why I have decided to vote against this bill.
First, this Conference Report provides $22.3 billion in cuts to federal
spending, over five years, but then at the same time spends roughly
$21.57 billion in that same period time period which amounts to $752
million in deficit reduction. When H.R. 2669 passed in the House, it
was estimated to cut spending by $20.38 billion, and spend $17.58
billion, leaving a remainder of $2.79 billion in deficit reduction.
Unfortunately, much of the spending in the Conference Report goes
towards five new entitlement programs and graduates of college rather
than current students.
The second reason that I cannot support this legislation is that many
of its provisions will drive private sector lending companies out of
the market place, reducing the choices for student borrowers and
eventually making the U.S. Department of Education the lending option
of last resort. That is probably the intended purpose. A government
agency replacing the free market.
In addition to reducing loan rates, it reduces the level of insurance
that private lenders can use to off-set student loan defaults, and
makes other cuts that will reduce incentives to remain in the student
loan business.
It also eliminates the exceptional performer incentive program for
good lenders who help students restructure their loan agreements if
they are having trouble meeting their loan payments. Also, loan
origination fees for lenders would be increased. All of these punitive
provisions will reduce the number of private sector student loan firms
thus reducing student loan choices for students. I also believe private
capital working with the secondary markets creates more dollars to
offer students than does the U.S. Department of Education.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, even though the conference report contains
savings that pay for the many new entitlement programs created by the
legislation, at the end of 5 years, the American taxpayers will be
asked to pay the entire cost of these new programs. History tells us
that once a Federal entitlement program is created, it will not die. We
cannot afford to create another unchecked Federal entitlement spending
program that will only contribute to the future inflation of college
costs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference report.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to support the
College Cost Reduction and Access Act. I thank Chairman Miller and the
Conferees for their quick work on this Conference Report, and all the
work they have done on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, for years, American students and families have demanded
relief from rising tuition and ballooning debt. The average student
exits college with almost $20,000 in student loan debt, which, because
of accumulating interest, can take years to pay. This debt is burdening
our communities. When a student has tens or even hundreds of thousands
of dollars of debt, it limits choices. Those students might not be able
to take lower salary jobs in the fields where we desperately need
them--as teachers or first responders. When two-thirds of our college
graduates are in debt, it limits our economy. Those graduates have less
money for a down payment on a house, less money to invest, and less
disposable income.
Even worse, some students are deterred from going to college
altogether when costs are too high. We lose some of the best and the
brightest--those who are qualified to learn, who want to learn, who
have worked hard and gotten the grades, but who run into financial
barriers when it comes time to head off to college.
Today, we are bringing some relief. We are going to open the doors to
college and help our young people reach their full potential. We're
going to increase Pell grants to make college more affordable. We're
going to cut the interest rates on loans in half so they're easier to
pay off. We're going to institute income-based loan repayment, so
graduates don't have to choose between paying their rent and paying off
their loans. And we're going to expand loan forgiveness for those who
enter public service, so we have more teachers, first responders and
nurses.
We made a promise to the American people before the last election.
We've been working to fulfill that promise from the first 100 hours of
the new Congress. And today, as our young people head back to school,
the House and Senate are going to see that promise through with largest
increase in student loans since the G.I. bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Conference report to H.R. 2669 the College Cost Reduction and Access
[[Page H10270]]
Act. I would like to thank my colleagues who worked diligently to bring
this legislation before the full Congress, including Chairman Miller,
Chairman Kennedy, and Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act takes savings generated as
a result of the reconciliation process and makes four major investments
in America's students, especially students in African American
communities.
First, the bill will increase the maximum Pell grant scholarship--the
Federal scholarship for low- and moderate-income students--over the
next 5 years to $5,400. This increase in the Pell program is critical.
Since the 2001-2002 school year, tuition at public four-year colleges
has risen 55 percent. Unfortunately, during that same time period, the
maximum Pell grant award increased by less than 8 percent and did not
increase at all over the past 4 years.
Second, H.R. 2669 will cut the interest rate on student loans in half
over the next 4 years. This interest rate reduction will provide
enormous relief to the many students who take out subsidized Federal
loans.
Third, this legislation will make a strong and historic investment in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority serving
institutions. HBCUs represent an important piece of our history and
investments in HBCUs are imperative for both student services and
programs as well as institutional needs and infrastructure
improvements. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act shows this
commitment by improving and increasing funding for much needed student
programming and opportunities. The funding for these colleges and
institutions can be used for a variety of important programs and needs,
including science and lab equipment, library books, and enhancement of
certain disciplines of instruction such as math, computer science,
engineering and health care.
This funding will go a long way toward closing the achievement gap
that exists across our nation and helping those who wish to better
themselves through education achieve their goals. The bill also
provides, for the first time ever, funding for Predominantly Black
Institutions and Asian and Pacific Islander-serving institutions,
thereby recognizing the importance of institutions of higher learning
that serve these communities. In addition, it also provides additional
funding to Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal Colleges and
Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian-
serving institutions. While this funding will cover only a portion of
the unique needs of these historical places of learning, I appreciate
the commitment that members of the House Education and Labor Committee
have expressed to continue to find ways to support these important
institutions.
Finally, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act includes a
provision to aid the Upward Bound program, which is the last hope and
ticket to the future for many low income and first generation college
students. The bill includes an additional $228 million to fund both new
and prior funded Upward Bound programs across the Nation. This funding
will reach several Upward Bound programs at HBCUs. In this grant cycle,
30 percent of Upward Bound programs at HBCUs would have been eliminated
despite an increase in the total number of Upward Bound programs
receiving grants. This provision would also provide funding to other
deserving Upward Bound programs including programs serving Hispanic
students.
I believe the College Cost Reduction and Access Act contains critical
support for our nation's higher education system and I urge my
colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in
support of efforts to make college education more affordable for more
Americans. Indeed, earlier this year I voted in support of H.R. 5, the
College Student Relief Act of 2007. I believed that bill took some
positive steps.
Unfortunately, the bill that is being brought before the House today
for consideration, H.R. 2669, is full of budget gimmicks, creates five
new entitlement programs, spends tens of billions of dollars, and
shifts from the private sector to the taxpayers the potential liability
for billions of dollars should student loans borrowers default.
I am very disappointed that the bill before us, H.R. 2669, falls far
short of its goal. While those who drafted the bill assert that it is a
comprehensive solution to making college more affordable, H.R. 2669
fails to address the core problem of access to U.S. colleges and
universities: sky-rocketing rates of tuition and room and board. In
just the last 7 years, annual inflation has increased on average 2.7
percent. However, higher education costs for students have increased an
average of 4.2 percent--a rate that is 55 percent higher than regular
inflation. This bill takes a pass on addressing that fundamental issue,
and simply makes it easier and more likely that students will borrow
more money and accumulate a larger debt by the time they graduate from
college. H.R. 2669 completely ignores the root problem. The end result
of this bill will be that the average college student graduating from
college 4 years from now will still face a higher college debt than
those graduating this year--even with all of the billions of dollars
included in this bill.
Under H.R. 2669, those attending college in the future will be able
to borrow more money and perhaps pay a lower interest rate for a short
period of time, but with college expenses growing at a rate that far
exceeds the annual inflation rate, students will end college with a
significantly larger debt.
This bill creates five new Federal entitlement programs, costing tens
of billions of dollars. In an attempt to feign compliance with the pay-
as-you-go rules adopted by the current Congress, the Democrats include
a provision that sunsets these new entitlement program. This is a
budget gimmick designed to fool the American people. Does anyone really
think that when these programs expire and students are half way through
their college education, they will simply be allowed to expire? Of
course they won't, and taxpayers will be forced to hand over tens of
billions of additional dollars to continue these programs.
Incidentally, this will come at about the same time when the House-
passed state children's health insurance program, SCHIP, funding dries
up and Congress will be looking for tens of billions of dollars to
extend that program. Creating five new entitlement programs and
spending tens of billions of dollars puts this nation on a path to
financial ruin.
The bottom line is that H.R. 2669 enables students to take on more
debt which will further burden them for many years past graduation. In
2006, the Higher Education Price Index, HEPI, calculation showed that
inflation for colleges and universities jumped to 5 percent. This is 30
percent higher than the consumer price index, CPI--the regular
inflation rate. When colleges and universities know that students have
access to more funds through financial aid, loans, and grants, they
have simply seen this as an opportunity to raise costs for students.
This was the case in the past when college loan limits were
significantly expanded and it will be repeated after this bill is
passed.
The bill takes a pass on encouraging colleges and universities to put
a lid on uncontrolled tuition increases. But it's not surprising given
that this is the same Democrat majority that created a massive $100
million lobbying loophole for public universities. If we truly want to
help our students go into the world with a good education saddled with
less debt, we should hold colleges and universities who take government
aid more accountable and not allow them to continue their excessive
increases in college costs. Colleges and universities have an
obligation to exercise fiscal responsibility rather than simply seeing
these new student loans and grants as an opportunity to shift more of
their fiscally irresponsible costs onto the backs of students and
taxpayers.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kagen). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________