[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.

                          ____________________