[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13093-13103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          FED UP HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 2002

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4866) to make technical amendments to the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 incorporating the results of the Fed Up Initiative, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4866

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fed Up 
     Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2002''.
       (b) Reference.--Except as otherwise expressly provided in 
     this Act, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

[[Page 13094]]

       (c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Amendments to Title I.--
       (1) Section 101(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``, 
     or students who meet the requirements of section 484(d)(3)''.
       (2)(A) Section 102(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--For the purpose of qualifying as an 
     institution under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall 
     establish criteria by regulation for the approval of 
     institutions outside the United States and for the 
     determination that such institutions are comparable to an 
     institution of higher education as defined in section 101 
     (except that a graduate medical school, or a veterinary 
     school, located outside the United States shall not be 
     required to meet the requirements of section 101(a)(4)). Such 
     criteria shall include a requirement that a student attending 
     such school outside the United States is ineligible for loans 
     made, insured, or guaranteed under part B of title IV 
     unless--
       ``(i) in the case of a graduate medical school located 
     outside the United States--

       ``(I)(aa) at least 60 percent of those enrolled in, and at 
     least 60 percent of the graduates of, the graduate medical 
     school outside the United States were not persons described 
     in section 484(a)(5) in the year preceding the year for which 
     a student is seeking a loan under part B of title IV; and
       ``(bb) at least 60 percent of the individuals who were 
     students or graduates of the graduate medical school outside 
     the United States or Canada (both nationals of the United 
     States and others) taking the examinations administered by 
     the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates 
     received a passing score in the year preceding the year for 
     which a student is seeking a loan under part B of title IV; 
     or
       ``(II) the institution has a clinical training program that 
     was approved by a State as of January 1, 1992; or

       ``(ii) in the case of a veterinary school located outside 
     the United States that does not meet the requirements of 
     section 101(a)(4)--

       ``(I) the institution was certified by the Secretary as 
     eligible to participate in the loan program under part B of 
     title IV before October 1, 1999; and
       ``(II) the institution's students complete their clinical 
     training at an approved veterinary school located in the 
     United States.''.

       (B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     effective on and after October 1, 1998.
       (3) Section 102(a)(3)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 521(4)(C) of the Carl D. 
     Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(3)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Technical Education Act of 1998''.
       (4) Paragraph (7) of section 103 (20 U.S.C. 1003) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) New borrower.--The term `new borrower' when used with 
     respect to any date for any loan under any provision of--
       ``(A) part B or part D of title IV means an individual who 
     on that date has no outstanding balance of principal or 
     interest owing on any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under 
     either such part; and
       ``(B) part E of title IV means an individual who on that 
     date has no outstanding balance of principal or interest 
     owing on any loan made under such part.''.
       (5) Section 131 (20 U.S.C. 1015) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii)--
       (i) by striking ``an undergraduate'' and inserting ``a 
     full-time undergraduate''; and
       (ii) in subclause (I), by striking ``section 
     428(a)(2)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``section 428(a)(2)(C)(ii)'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``the costs for 
     typical'' and inserting ``the prices for, and financial aid 
     provided to, typical'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ``costs'' and 
     inserting ``prices''; and
       (D) in subsection (d)(1) is amended by striking ``3 years'' 
     and inserting ``4 years''.
       (6) Section 141 (20 U.S.C. 1018) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(B)--
       (i) by inserting ``unit'' after ``to reduce the''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and, to the extent practicable, total 
     costs of administering those programs'' after ``those 
     programs'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``Each year'' and 
     inserting ``Each fiscal year'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``secondary markets, 
     guaranty agencies,'' after ``lenders,''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``Chief Financial 
     Officer Act of 1990 and'' and inserting ``Chief Financial 
     Officers Act of 1990,'' and by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and other relevant statutes'';
       (C) in subsection (f)(3)(A), by striking ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (D) in subsection (g)(3), by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``The names and compensation for 
     those individuals shall be included in the annual report 
     under subsection (c)(2).''.
       (b) Amendments to Title II.--Section 207(f)(2) (20 U.S.C. 
     1027(f)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, including by 
     electronic means,'' after ``sent''.
       (c) Amendments to Title III.--
       (1) Section 316(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``give'' and inserting ``given''.
       (2) Section 326(e)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)) is amended, 
     in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting a 
     colon after ``the following''.
       (3) Section 342(5)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1066a(5)(C)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting a comma after ``equipment'' the first 
     place it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``technology,,'' and inserting 
     ``technology,''.
       (4) Section 343(e) (20 U.S.C. 1066b(e)) is amended by 
     inserting after the subsection designation the following: 
     ``Sale of Qualified Bonds.--''.
       (5) Section 351(a) (20 U.S.C. 1067a(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``of 1979''.
       (6) Section 1024 (20 U.S.C. 1135b-3), as transferred by 
     section 301(a)(5) of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-244; 112 Stat. 1636), is repealed.
       (d) Amendments to Part A of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 402A (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(g)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``(g)(4)''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(g)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``(g)(4)''; and
       (B) in subsection (g)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively; and
       (ii) by inserting before paragraph (3), as redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(1) Different campus.--The term `different campus' means 
     an institutional site that--
       ``(A) is geographically apart from the main campus of the 
     institution;
       ``(B) is permanent in nature; and
       ``(C) offers courses in educational programs leading to a 
     degree, certificate, or other recognized educational 
     credential.
       ``(2) Different population.--The term `different 
     population' means a group of individuals, with respect to 
     whom an entity seeks to serve through an application for 
     funding under this chapter, that is--
       ``(A) separate and distinct from any other population that 
     the entity seeks to serve through an application for funding 
     under this chapter; or
       ``(B) while sharing some of the same characteristics as 
     another population that the entity seeks to serve through an 
     application for funding under this chapter, has distinct 
     needs for specialized services.''.
       (2)(A) Section 404A(b) (20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)) is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Duration.--An award made by the Secretary under this 
     chapter to an eligible entity described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (c) shall be for the period of 6 years.''.
       (B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall apply to 
     awards made either before or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) Section 407E (20 U.S.C. 1070a-35) is redesignated as 
     section 406E.
       (4) Section 419C(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1070d-33(b)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     thereof.
       (5) Section 419D(d) (20 U.S.C. 1070d-34(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``Public Law 95-1134'' and inserting ``Public Law 
     95-134''.
       (e) Amendments to Part B of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 428(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1078(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (II) of 
     clause (i); and
       (B) by moving the margin of clause (iii) two ems to the 
     left.
       (2) Section 428(b)(1)(G) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(G)) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``and 100 percent of the unpaid principal amount 
     of exempt claims as defined in subsection (c)(1)(G)''.
       (3) Section 428(c) (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H), 
     and moving such subparagraph 2 em spaces to the left; and
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(G)(i) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
     section, in the case of exempt claims, the Secretary shall 
     apply the provisions of--
       ``(I) the fourth sentence of subparagraph (A) by 
     substituting `100 percent' for `95 percent';
       ``(II) subparagraph (B)(i) by substituting `100 percent' 
     for `85 percent'; and
       ``(III) subparagraph (B)(ii) by substituting `100 percent' 
     for `75 percent'.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i) of this subparagraph, the 
     term `exempt claims' means claims with respect to loans for 
     which it is determined that the borrower (or the student on 
     whose behalf a parent has borrowed), without the lender's or 
     the institution's knowledge at the time the loan was made, 
     provided false or erroneous information or took actions that 
     caused the borrower or the student to be ineligible for all 
     or a portion of the loan or for interest benefits thereon.''.

[[Page 13095]]

       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``in writing''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Documentation of forbearance agreements.--For the 
     purposes of paragraph (3), the terms of forbearance agreed to 
     by the parties shall be documented by confirming the 
     agreement of the borrower by notice from the lender, and by 
     recording the terms in the borrower's file.''.
       (4) Section 428C(a)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(a)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) Loans made under this section shall, to the extent 
     used to discharge loans made under this title, be counted 
     against the applicable limitations on aggregate indebtedness 
     contained in sections 425(a)(2), 428(b)(1)(B), 428H(d), 455, 
     and 464(a)(2)(B).''.
       (5) Section 428H(e) (20 U.S.C. 1078-8(e)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).
       (6) Section 428I(g) (20 U.S.C. 1078-9(g)) is amended by 
     striking ``Code,'' and inserting ``Code''.
       (7) Section 432(m)(1)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1082(m)(1)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period.
       (8) Section 439(d) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(d)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively.
       (f) Amendment to Part D.--Section 457(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 
     1087g(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``431'' and inserting 
     ``437''.
       (g) Amendments to Part E of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 462(g)(1)(E)(i)(I) (20 U.S.C. 
     1087bb(g)(1)(E)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting ``monthly'' 
     after ``consecutive''.
       (2) Section 464(c)(1)(D) (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(c)(1)(D)) is 
     amended by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively.
       (3) Section 464(h)(1)(A) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``, if practicable (as determined in 
     accordance with regulations of the Secretary),'' after ``the 
     loan shall''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, if such loan is considered 
     rehabilitated,'' after ``the Secretary) shall''.
       (4) Section 465(a)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 111(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1113(a)(5)''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``With Disabilities'' 
     and inserting ``with Disabilities''.
       (5) Section 467(b) (20 U.S.C. 1087gg(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``(5)(A), (5)(B)(i), or (6)'' and inserting 
     ``(4)(A), (4)(B), or (5)''.
       (6) Section 469(c) (20 U.S.C. 1087ii(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``sections 602(a)(1) and 672(1)'' and 
     inserting ``sections 602(3) and 632(5)'';
       (B) by striking ``qualified professional provider of early 
     intervention services'' and inserting ``early intervention 
     services''; and
       (C) by striking ``section 672(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     632(4)''.
       (h) Amendments to Part F of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 478(h) (20 U.S.C. 1087rr(h)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``476(b)(4)(B),''; and
       (B) by striking ``meals away from home, apparel and upkeep, 
     transportation, and housekeeping services'' and inserting 
     ``food away from home, apparel, transportation, and household 
     furnishings and operations''.
       (2) Section 479A(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087tt(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Authority To Make Adjustments.--
       ``(1) Adjustments for special circumstances.--'';
       (B) by inserting before ``Special circumstances may'' the 
     following:
       ``(2) Special circumstances defined.--'';
       (C) by inserting ``a student's status as a ward of the 
     court at any time prior to attaining 18 years of age,'' after 
     ``487,''.
       (D) by inserting before ``Adequate documentation'' the 
     following:
       ``(3) Documentation and use of supplementary information.--
     ''; and
       (E) by inserting before ``No student'' the following:
       ``(4) Fees for supplementary information prohibited.--''.
       (i) Amendments to Parts G and H of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 483(d) (20 U.S.C. 1090(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``that is authorized under section 685(d)(2)(C)'' 
     and inserting ``, or other appropriate provider of technical 
     assistance and information on postsecondary educational 
     services, that is supported under section 685''.
       (2) Section 484 (20 U.S.C. 1091) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``certification,,'' 
     and inserting ``certification,'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``section 428A'' and inserting ``section 428H'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end thereof;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (C) in subsection (l)(1)(B)(i), by striking ``section 
     521(4)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act'' and inserting ``section 3(3)(C) of 
     the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
     1998''.
       (3)(A) Section 484B (20 U.S.C. 1091b) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``subpart 4 of part 
     A or'' after ``received under'';
       (ii) in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii), by inserting ``(as 
     determined in accordance with subsection (d))'' after 
     ``student has completed'';
       (iii) in subsection (b)(2), by amending subparagraph (C) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) Grant overpayment requirements.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), a student shall only be required 
     to return grant assistance in the amount (if any) by which--
       ``(i) the amount to be returned by the student (as 
     determined under subparagraphs (A) and (B)), exceeds
       ``(ii) 50 percent of the total grant assistance received by 
     the student under this title for the payment period or period 
     of enrollment.

     A student shall not be required to return amounts of $50 or 
     less.''; and
       (iv) in subsection (d), by striking ``(a)(3)(B)(i)'' and 
     inserting ``(a)(3)(B)''.
       (B) The amendments made by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     effective for academic years beginning on or after July 1, 
     2003, except that, in the case of an institution of higher 
     education that chooses to implement such amendments prior to 
     that date, such amendments shall be effective on the date of 
     such institution's implementation.
       (4) Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``mailings, and'' and inserting ``mailings, or''.
       (5) Section 485B(a) (20 U.S.C. 1092b(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively;
       (B) by redesignating the paragraph (5) (as added by section 
     2008 of Public Law 101-239) as paragraph (6); and
       (C) in paragraph (5) (as added by section 204(3) of the 
     National Community Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
     610))--
       (i) by striking ``(22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.)),'' and 
     inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.),''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end thereof and 
     inserting a semicolon.
       (6) Section 487(a) (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (22), by striking ``refund policy'' and 
     inserting ``policy on the return of title IV funds''; and
       (B) in paragraph (23)--
       (i) by moving subparagraph (C) two em spaces to the left; 
     and
       (ii) by adding after such subparagraph the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) An institution shall be considered in compliance with 
     the requirements of subparagraph (A) for any student to whom 
     the institution electronically transmits a message containing 
     a voter registration form acceptable for use in the State in 
     which the institution is located, or an Internet address 
     where such a form can be downloaded, provided such 
     information is in an electronic message devoted to voter 
     registration.''.
       (7) Section 491(c) (20 U.S.C. 1098(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The appointment of members under subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) of paragraph (1) shall be effective upon publication 
     of the appointment in the Congressional Record.''.
       (8) Section 493A (20 U.S.C. 1098c) is repealed.
       (9) Section 498 (20 U.S.C. 1099c) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``for profit,'' and 
     inserting ``for-profit,'';
       (B) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by inserting ``and'' at the 
     end thereof.
       (j) Amendments to Title V.--Section 504(a) (20 U.S.C. 
     1101c(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the following:
       ``(a) Award Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''
     and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Award Period.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (k) Amendments to Title VII.--
       (1) Section 714(c) (20 U.S.C. 1135c(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 716(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     715(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 714(b)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``section 713(b)(2)''.
       (2) Section 721(c) (20 U.S.C. 1136(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) to assist such students with the development of 
     analytical skills and study methods to enhance their success 
     in entry into and completion of law school; and
       ``(7) to award Thurgood Marshall Fellowships to eligible 
     law school students--
       ``(A) who participated in summer institutes authorized by 
     subsection (d) and who are enrolled in an accredited law 
     school; or

[[Page 13096]]

       ``(B) who are eligible law school students who have 
     successfully completed a comparable summer institute program 
     certified by the Council on Legal Educational Opportunity.''.

     SEC. 3. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 103 (20 U.S.C. 1003), as amended 
     by section 2(a)(4), is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (16) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (17), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) Authorizing committees.--The term `authorizing 
     committees' means the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce of the House of Representatives.''.
       (b) Committees.--
       (1) The following provisions are each amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``authorizing committees'':
       (A) Section 131(a)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1015(a)(3)(B)).
       (B) Section 131(c)(4) (20 U.S.C. 1015(c)(4)).
       (C) Section 206(d) (20 U.S.C. 1026(d)).
       (D) Section 207(c)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1027(c)(1)).
       (E) Section 428(g) (20 U.S.C. 1078(g)).
       (F) Section 428A(a)(4) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(a)(4)).
       (G) Section 428A(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(c)(2)).
       (H) Section 428A(c)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(c)(3)).
       (I) Section 428A(c)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1078-1(c)(5)).
       (J) Section 455(b)(8)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(8)(B)).
       (K) Section 483(c) (20 U.S.C. 1090(c)).
       (L) Section 486(e) (20 U.S.C. 1093(e)).
       (M) Section 486(f)(3)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1093(f)(3)(A)).
       (N) Section 486(f)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1093(f)(3)(B)).
       (O) Section 487A(a)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1094a(a)(5)).
       (P) Section 487A(b)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)(2)).
       (Q) Section 487A(b)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)(3)(B)).
       (R) Section 498B(d)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1099c-2(d)(1)).
       (S) Section 498B(d)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1099c-2(d)(2)).
       (2) The following provisions are each amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources of the Senate'' and inserting ``authorizing 
     committees''.
       (A) Section 141(d)(4)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1018(d)(4)(B)).
       (B) Section 428(n)(4) (20 U.S.C. 1078(n)(4)).
       (C) The last sentence of section 432(n) (20 U.S.C. 
     1082(n)).
       (D) Section 485(f)(5)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(5)(A)).
       (E) Section 485(g)(4)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1092(g)(4)(B)).
       (3) Section 206(a) (20 U.S.C. 1026(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of 
     the Senate, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     of the House of Representatives'' and inserting ``and the 
     authorizing committees''.
       (4) Section 401(f)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1070a(f)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives'' and inserting 
     ``Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives and the authorizing committees''.
       (5) Section 428(c)(9)(K) (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(9)(K)) is 
     amended by striking ``House Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources'' and inserting ``authorizing committees''.
       (6) Section 428I(h) (20 U.S.C. 1078-9(h)) is amended by 
     striking ``Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
     Committee and the House Committee on Education and Labor'' 
     and inserting ``chairpersons of the authorizing committees''.
       (7) Section 432(f)(1)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1082(f)(1)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives or the Committee on 
     Labor and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting 
     ``either of the authorizing committees''.
       (8) Section 439(d)(1)(E)(iii) (20 U.S.C. 1087-
     2(d)(1)(E)(iii)) is amended by striking ``Chairman and the 
     Ranking Member on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources 
     of the Senate and the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``chairpersons and ranking 
     minority members of the authorizing committees''.
       (9) Paragraphs (3) and (8)(C) of section 439(r) (20 U.S.C. 
     1087-2(r)) are each amended by striking ``Chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources of the Senate, the Chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor of the House 
     of Representatives,'' and inserting ``chairpersons and 
     ranking minority members of the authorizing committees''.
       (10) Paragraphs (5)(B) and (10) of section 439(r) (20 
     U.S.C. 1087-2(r)) are each amended by striking ``Chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Labor and 
     Human Resources and to the Chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the House Committee on Education and Labor'' and 
     inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the 
     authorizing committees''.
       (11) Section 439(r)(6)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(r)(6)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``Chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and 
     to the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives'' and 
     inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the 
     authorizing committees''.
       (12) Section 439(s)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(s)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the 
     Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities of the House of Representatives'' 
     and inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of 
     the authorizing committees''.
       (13) Section 439(s)(2)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(s)(2)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
     Economic and Educational Opportunities of the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``chairpersons and ranking 
     minority members of the authorizing committees''.
       (14) Section 482(d) (20 U.S.C. 1089(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House 
     of Representatives'' and inserting ``authorizing 
     committees''.
       (c) Additional Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 425(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 
     1075(a)(2)(A)) are each amended by striking ``428A or 428B'' 
     and inserting ``428B or 428H''.
       (2) Section 428(a)(2)(E) (20 U.S.C. 1078(a)(2)(E)) is 
     amended by striking ``428A or''.
       (3) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 428(b)(1)(B) (20 U.S.C. 
     1078(b)(1)(B)) are each amended by striking ``428A or 428B'' 
     and inserting ``428B or 428H''.
       (4) Section 428(b)(1)(Q) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(Q)) is 
     amended by striking ``sections 428A and 428B'' and inserting 
     ``section 428B or 428H''.
       (5) Section 428(b)(7)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(7)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``428A, 428B,'' and inserting ``428B''.
       (6) Section 428G(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1078-7(c)(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``428A'' and inserting ``428H''.
       (7) The heading for section 433(e) (20 U.S.C. 1083(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``SLS Loans and''.
       (8) Section 433(e) (20 U.S.C. 1083(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``428A, 428B,'' and inserting ``428B''.
       (9) Section 435(a)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (10) Section 435(d)(1)(G) (20 U.S.C. 1085(d)(1)(G)) is 
     amended by striking ``428A(d), 428B(d), 428C,'' and inserting 
     ``428B(d), 428C, 428H,''.
       (11) Section 435(m) (20 U.S.C. 1085(m)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``, 428A,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ``428A'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``428H''.
       (12) Section 438(c)(6) (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(c)(6)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``SLS and plus'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``Plus''; and
       (B) by striking ``428A or''.
       (13) Section 438(c)(7) (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(c)(7)) is amended 
     by striking ``428A or''.
       (14) Nothing in the amendments made by this subsection 
     shall be construed to alter the terms, conditions, and 
     benefits applicable to Federal supplemental loans for 
     students (``SLS loans'') under section 428A as in effect 
     prior to July 1, 1994 (20 U.S.C. 1078-1).
       (d) Higher Education Amendments of 1998.--
       (1) Section 801(d) of the Higher Education Amendments of 
     1998 (20 U.S.C. 1018 note) is amended by striking ``Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources 
     of the Senate,'' and inserting ``authorizing committees''.
       (2) Section 802(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of 
     1998 is amended by striking ``Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting 
     ``authorizing committees''.
       (3) The following provisions of the Higher Education 
     Amendments of 1998 are each amended by striking ``Committee 
     on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the

[[Page 13097]]

     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``authorizing committees''.
       (A) Section 803(b) (20 U.S.C. 1015 note).
       (B) Section 805(b) (20 U.S.C. 1001 note).
       (C) Section 806(c).
       (4) Section 804(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of 
     1998 (20 U.S.C. 1099b note) is amended by striking ``Chairman 
     and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate'' and 
     inserting ``chairpersons and ranking minority members of the 
     authorizing committees''.
       (5) Section 861(b) of the Higher Education Amendments of 
     1998 is amended by striking ``Committees on Ways and Means 
     and on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Finance and on Labor 
     and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the authorizing 
     committees''.

     SEC. 4. NO DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION.

       Sections 482(c) and 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098a) shall not apply to the regulations 
     implementing the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 5. STUDY OF TEACHER PREPARATION.

       Within six months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Comptroller General shall conduct a study of and submit 
     to Congress a report on--
       (1) which States and which institutions of higher education 
     require passage on State teacher licensure exams in order for 
     candidates to be admitted to a teacher preparation program or 
     to declare an education major;
       (2) which States and which institutions of higher education 
     award diplomas, degrees, or other certificates to students in 
     any subject area, but subsequently only consider them to have 
     successfully completed a teacher preparation or other 
     education program if they pass one or more State licensure 
     exams;
       (3) which States and which institutions of higher education 
     award diplomas, degrees, or other certificates to students in 
     education or teaching, but subsequently only consider them to 
     have successfully completed a teacher preparation or 
     education program if they pass one or more State licensure 
     exams;
       (4) the extent to which States and institutions of higher 
     education, through means other than (1), (2), or (3), are, 
     for the purposes of section 207(f)(1)(A) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1027(f)(1)(A)), treating as 
     completing their teacher preparation programs only those 
     students who pass State teacher licensure or certification 
     assessments;
       (5) the extent to which the practices described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (4) may mislead or incompletely inform 
     students and policymakers concerning the quality of such 
     teacher preparation programs; and
       (6) what assistance, if any, the States or institutions 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (4) give to enrolled 
     students and graduates who take but do not pass one or more 
     teacher licensing exams.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 4866.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4866, the Fed Up Higher Education Technical 
Amendments of 2002. The bill provides for technical amendments to the 
Higher Education Act.
  This bill has had bipartisan support throughout its process. The 
development of the bill was done in an open, fully cooperative manner 
with my friends on the other side of the aisle. The foundation of this 
bill has been the FED UP process put forward by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) 
just about a year ago whereby student aid and higher education 
officials across the country had an opportunity to provide proposals on 
how to improve the programs in the Higher Education Act while 
maintaining the integrity of the student loan programs.
  Everyone in the higher education community has enthusiastically 
supported the FED UP process, and this bill is intended to address the 
noncontroversial, budget-neutral changes to the Higher Education Act 
that will assist in reducing red tape.
  It also clears the decks of clerical and technical problems within 
the act that set the stage for the committee to begin the 
reauthorization process next year.
  The Secretary of Education and his staff were also enthusiastic 
partners in this process. He initiated a negotiated rulemaking process 
with the higher education community to address those proposals 
submitted via the FED UP Web site that were purely regulatory in 
nature. In a few short months, the negotiations were completed, and we 
expect the regulations will soon be released in draft form.
  From its earliest stages this has been a collaborative and open 
process with no preconceived agenda, and when this bill was drafted, 
great care was given to ensure no amendments were made to current law 
without full agreement of Members of both sides of the aisle.
  This legislation, while technical, also makes for a number of other 
positive improvements for students and institutions. It helps students 
avoid defaulting on their student loans by removing barriers to 
students seeking forbearance from lenders on their student loan 
payments. It makes clear that home schoolers can receive Federal aid. 
It makes clear that Federal scholarship aid can go to low-income and 
minority students for law school. It improves the flow of information 
to students, protects students' grant aid upon withdrawal from a 
college or university, and I am particularly pleased that this 
legislation eases aid requirements for America's Hispanic-serving 
institutions, allowing them to apply for Federal grants without waiting 
2 years between applications.
  This provision complements President Bush's fiscal year 2003 budget 
which includes $89.1 million for the developing Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions Program, an increase of $3.1 million to expand and enhance 
support for institutions that serve a large percentage of Hispanic 
students.
  I wish we could have gone further to address two specific issues that 
are not in the bill. One is providing an extension of two expiring 
provisions in the Higher Education Act that encourage low default rates 
amongst institutions and provides student loans more quickly to 
students.
  The second is clarifying the provision of denying title IV aid 
eligibility for students convicted of the sale or the possession of a 
controlled substance. The law, as written, has the unintended effect of 
including students who may have had a drug conviction before they were 
enrolled in higher education or receiving financial aid.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for all 
of their assistance in trying to find ways to get these important 
provisions enacted. I also want to thank the Secretary of Education and 
his staff who were great partners in our efforts to find a way to pay 
for these provisions.
  However, our attempts to reach a compromise on budgetary offsets were 
unfortunately unsuccessful, and we are going to continue our efforts to 
address these issues early in the next Congress, but as we begin the 
preparation for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, this 
legislation will also allow us to move forward with updating our laws 
with regard to many clerical and grammatical errors that are contained 
in the current bill. Our time and resources will then be available to 
deal with the more intricate policy issues before us.
  The legislation was created in an effort to do what was right for 
students, institutions and others involved with providing higher 
education. It was developed in a cooperative, bipartisan manner and 
should be passed today on an overwhelmingly yes vote so it can be sent 
to the other body for swift action before the summer district work 
period.
  I would urge my colleagues today to vote yes on H.R. 4866.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 
minutes.

[[Page 13098]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, not so much on 
its merits. It does a number of good things, technical changes to be 
done, but really, this is really about an important part of this 
institution, and that is, to whether or not the minority will be given 
an opportunity to affect and change hopefully bills that come through 
this House or whether or not we will be disenfranchised by the manner 
in which the process is run.
  I say that as one who has had a very good relationship with the 
chairman of my committee where we were able to work on the Leave No 
Child Behind bill, and we have been able to work in the committee on an 
ongoing basis, but in this particular instance, where we had the one 
opportunity that we will have in this Congress, in this committee, to 
address a number of important issues, to meet other Members of the 
committee on the Democratic side of the aisle, we find that we were, in 
fact, closed out.
  Again, it is not about the language of this bill, but it is about the 
opportunity and whether or not we would have been able to offer 
amendments to this legislation that were important to us, and what we 
see is a continuing pattern in the House of Representatives, whether it 
is on the floor of this House, now that has drifted into the committee, 
on whether or not Democrats will be allowed to offer amendments.
  What we see is where we represent 49 percent of the country and the 
districts in which we have been elected, we find out that we are not 
allowed to offer amendments. We are not allowed to offer amendments if 
we can win those amendments. We are not allowed those amendments if it 
means the Republican must take a tough vote, if they disagree with it. 
We are not allowed to offer those amendments if it means the bill might 
take an extra few minutes of consideration, and yet basically the 
Congress has been working on a Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule.
  Why the disenfranchisement of the Democratic Members? I think it is 
simply because they choose not to have us be able to articulate policy 
differences that we have with them. This was true on the welfare bill 
where simply amendments were not allowed. We were allowed a substitute. 
We all know that legislative gimmick. There are enough things in a 
substitute that everybody can justify a no vote or a yes vote but with 
amendments.
  The same was true on pensions. The same was true on the securities 
legislation where we just limited access to the Democrats to offer this 
kind of legislation.
  One would think this was a politburo. One would not think this was 
the people's House where theoretically each and every Member should be 
given an opportunity to voice his or her concern as legislation moves 
through the House of Representatives, through the committees, to offer 
amendments that some of us may like or not like, where we take a vote, 
a person wins or they lose. This is the politics that rules the House. 
That is what people come to expect. Now we are simply prevented from 
raising these issues.
  This is not just about us and the process of the House. In this case, 
this was about whether or not we were going to be able to offer 
amendments to deal with whether or not there would be loan forgiveness 
for teachers that were trying to attract, that we recognize in the 
Leave No Child Behind Act, to try to attract teachers to high poverty 
schools, to try to attract teachers to come in and teach in math and 
sciences, to teach in special education, all of the areas that we know 
we have a shortage.
  Would America's children, would America's parents, would America's 
schools have an opportunity to be able to attract additional teachers 
to those areas where there is the shortage, where there is a difficulty 
with the performance of America's school children on testing in math 
and science where we were ranked in the world? We are foreclosed from 
having that debate and offering that opportunity.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) wanted to offer the 
right to make sure that those who are lost family members in 9/11 would 
have their student loans forgiven where the first responders were 
killed. We were told by the majority leader we would have an 
opportunity to have a vote on that amendment. We were told that last 
year. We are still waiting. This is one of the last vehicles where we 
may have been able to come through and offer such an amendment.
  We wanted to offer an amendment to deal with the questions of 
vocational education and the enforcement of title IX. These are 
amendments that may win and they may lose, but the fact of the matter 
is we were precluded from it. This is a good technical amendments bill. 
This is a good corrections bill, but that should not preclude it.
  The majority says, well, it is getting too heavy; the bill is getting 
too heavy. That is not for them to determine. That is for the body to 
determine. It may not be too heavy to get out of committee, may get too 
heavy to get off the floor, the amendments may lose. That is the 
process the people in this country are supposedly guaranteed, but we 
see more and more that that process is closed down.
  So the end result is the matters of great concern, matters of merit, 
to millions of people across this country will be foreclosed from being 
considered in this Congress.
  The question of whether or not we have loan forgiveness, the loan 
forgiveness is a Republican amendment. The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham) and I are cosponsors of this effort. It was in 
the President's budget. This is not some controversial idea we thought 
up to gig somebody. This is what the President said we should do. This 
is what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the 
committee said we should do, and many people cosponsored that effort to 
do that, but we are precluded from offering it.
  The FETA program was an outgrowth of an idea about what is the 
biggest problems these schools are having. The number one reason, one 
alluded to, was the question of what happens to students who had a 
violation of controlled substance laws prior to their entering a school 
of higher education. We cannot even address that in this bill now. We 
were going to offer the amendment. It was in the bill at one time. It 
was taken out of the bill. We talked to them and we were going to put 
it back in. What happened? The committee meeting was cancelled. Now we 
find ourselves on the floor in the suspension and we are denying 
America's teachers, we are denying America's schools an opportunity to 
try and get additional help to them.
  For that reason, I oppose this bill and I would ask my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I said earlier, the whole FED UP process was really a rather 
innovative idea put together in a bipartisan way to try to get input 
from educators and those involved in higher education around the 
country, and my colleague, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) will get into more of that in detail.
  What we tried to do was to do on a regulatory side what could be 
done, and the Secretary of Education has done a good job in addressing 
many of these comments that we received on that that could be addressed 
in the regulatory process in that venue. What we are trying to do here 
was to find those issues where there was bipartisan support that did 
not cost money.
  My colleagues all know we have to live under the Budget Act. There 
are three issues that we desperately wanted in this bill from our side 
of the aisle, the two extenders and the drug provision that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) just referred to. We 
could not find budgetary offsets. Together those three issues did not 
even cost $10 million a year.
  Some of the proposals outlined by my good friend and colleague from 
California (Mr. George Miller) cost far more than that. We would love 
to address forgiving teachers student loans for those in title I 
schools, $275 million

[[Page 13099]]

in budget authority. How about allowing judges to set aside the ban on 
student aid for drug offenders, I think misconstrued by the Department, 
but again to fix it, $135 million in budget authority. Or how about the 
proposal by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), my good 
friend and colleague, someone whom I have been frankly working to try 
to help, on forgiving student loans for spouses of victims of 9/11, $3 
million.
  We did not put our proposals in the bill that cost money, and the 
proposals that have been outlined by my colleague cost significant 
amounts of money, and the fact is that the offsetting amounts from 
somewhere were never presented.

                              {time}  1415

  What we have before us is a very good bill, and what we should not do 
here is we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The 
gentleman knows we have a very good bill on the floor today. It has 
broad support in the higher-education community, and it deserves the 
broad support of all of our colleagues. So let us not let the perfect 
become the enemy of the good.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, on the question of budget authority, the 
gentleman made a determination that this cost money and there were no 
offsets. The gentleman said there were no offsets, but he would not 
even let us look for offsets for these amendments. We also happen to 
have a number of free amendments. We happen to have a number of free 
amendments we are willing to offer.
  The second thing is, the gentleman wanted to do something that was 
not controversial, where there could be agreement. On that theory, we 
just went through the securities bill in the House that turned out to 
be an embarrassment to everybody because, today, people ran down to the 
floor to add criminal penalties on almost a unanimous vote. So the 
question on that point, the Republicans were determining what is 
controversial. They said if we have criminal penalties against people 
who perpetrate fraud, that would be controversial and they left it out 
of the securities bill. In the Senate today it was 97 to 0, and this 
morning it was 400 to something.
  So, again, my colleagues are setting themselves up as the arbiters of 
what is controversial, what can be considered, and what cannot be 
considered. That is not democracy. That looks like forms of government 
that we fight against around the world. That is not a democracy. In our 
democracy, we take a vote and we win or we lose. We get excited about 
winning, and we lick our wounds when we lose and come back another day. 
But that is not what is happening here. So this is far beyond that.
  People were not raising the budget act when the farm bill passed 
through here. Or, actually, the gentleman was raising the budget act 
when the farm bill came through here, but the leadership was not 
raising the budget act when the farm bill came through here; and they 
are not raising it now in the supplemental. So the notion that somehow 
loan forgiveness for teachers is completely out of consideration, let 
the Members decide that. Let the Members decide if we want to make 
trade-offs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose what is a good bill. I oppose it 
because there is a larger principle at stake here, and that is the 
reasonable right of the minority to have its say in the process of 
writing legislation.
  The House has been here before, Mr. Speaker. Exactly 11 years and 1 
day ago, a Member of this House came to the floor and protested a 
procedure and used these words: ``This rule might aptly be called the 
representative democracy displacement rule since its substitutes the 
judgment of the majority leadership for that of the 435 freely elected 
Members of this House. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that as dictatorial 
governments around the world are allowing democracy to flourish, 
democracy does not flourish in the House of Representatives.''
  That speaker was not a Democrat disenchanted with the present 
majority, it was the present chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who used those words 11 years 
ago. He was talking about a rule where the minority was given a 
substitute of its own version of a bill that would outlaw the use of 
replacement workers in a strike. We have not been given such 
prerogatives.
  When the debt ceiling limitation was brought to this floor, the 
minority was not given the right to offer our own plan. When the 
prescription drug benefit legislation was brought to this floor, the 
minority was not given the right to offer its own plan. With this bill, 
as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) just said, our 
ideas to forgive student loans for those willing to teach in 
disadvantaged schools, to forgive the student loans of heroes who gave 
up their lives on September 11, to make sure that civil rights laws are 
enforced under vocational education programs, our ideas were deemed 
unworthy of being considered by this body.
  Mr. Speaker, this process is unworthy of this body. It is one more 
example of the arrogant imposition of majority will. It is one more 
reason why people should rise up and vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 4866, the FED UP Higher 
Education Technical Amendments Act.
  I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), and the ranking members, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for their 
support and leadership.
  The success of FED UP, which is short for Upping the Effectiveness of 
Our Federal Student Aid Program, and openness of the entire process 
should serve as a model of collaboration and partnership at all levels.
  When we began this process last year, I stated early on that I had 
absolutely no agenda to push; that my only consideration was to promote 
an initiative that benefits students so that we could increase access 
to higher education. To this end, the ranking member, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and I solicited comments from across the 
country, from college officials, administrators, and other personnel 
who operate America's institutions of higher learning in order to 
determine which regulations or statutory provisions could be modified 
or eliminated in order to remove regulatory burdens. We have 800 pages 
of Federal regulations dealing with higher education, and we were 
trying to simplify this process.
  While participating in the process, Richard Atkinson, president of 
the University of California, states ``Our efforts to keep tuition 
reasonable and affordable for students are undermined by the enormous 
compliance costs associated with Federal regulations. While we must 
ensure and document that Federal funds are spent properly, the current 
regulatory morass only increases costs and diverts faculty and staff 
from more productive activities.''
  Peggy Stock, president of Westminster College in Utah, said she could 
not ``remember the last time someone asked us what was wrong and what 
we could do to make it better.''
  In just 3 months, we set up a Web page, and we asked for responses 
from all the schools around the country; and we received over 3,000 
responses as to how the process could be improved. These responses came 
from individuals at every type of secondary institution and from every 
part of the country.
  Once the responses were compiled, the committee worked with the 
Department of Education to assess which regulatory issues could be 
addressed

[[Page 13100]]

immediately and which would need to be considered in the upcoming 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. With Secretary Rod Paige 
pledging to be a true partner throughout the FED UP process, the 
Department of Education addressed proposals that were strictly 
regulatory in nature.
  As part of the third step in the process, we began working on 
legislation to address additional statutory provisions that placed an 
undue burden on colleges, universities, and ultimately our country's 
students. These proposed amendments were slated to be noncontroversial 
and technical in nature. And all of our staff were in there; we were in 
there working together.
  As previously agreed to, and has been discussed repeatedly over and 
over again, all controversial ideas were to be taken offer the table 
and dealt with during reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. In 
fact, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), in asking that one of 
the issues that we are talking about be removed, sent a letter to me, 
and I quote from her letter: ``Our understanding was that this 
technical correction bill would not include any item that was 
controversial or which would be objected to by a significant number of 
Members.''
  This process will begin with the commencement of hearings later this 
fall, when we start on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 
That is when we will address the controversial issues that my 
colleagues are talking about.
  Over the last year, in an effort to produce this noncontroversial and 
budget-neutral bill, Members and staff have met with those from both 
parties, various members of higher-education associations, and the 
Department of Education. The results of these tireless efforts of the 
FED UP Higher Education Technical Amendments Act has support from every 
major college education association in the country and is cosponsored 
by the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and actually 
the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), 
and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and Members from both 
parties.
  The thousands of students, parents, financial aid professionals, and 
college presidents who logged on are a key part of that collaboration. 
They are the experts. They are the individuals who must navigate the 
Federal student aid programs each day. And by logging on to our Web 
site, they gave us practical, more effective alternatives that will 
improve service to our Nation's students and reduce red tape for our 
colleges and universities.
  Federal student aid programs provide a valuable service. Because of 
the efforts of this Congress to provide increased funding for grants, 
loans, and other aid each year, millions of students are able to follow 
their dreams. While these higher-education programs do a tremendous 
service to students by opening doors of opportunity that can only be 
opened by higher education, they are far from perfect. The confusing, 
convoluted, bureaucratic red tape students often face when trying to 
obtain financial aid must be cut.
  Even though this vital piece of legislation includes numerous 
technical changes to the Higher Education Act, most of the changes in 
FED UP will directly improve service to students. The bill will help 
students avoid defaulting on their student loans by removing barriers 
to students seeking forbearance from lenders on student loan payments. 
It will improve the flow of information to students by expanding the 
use of technology on campus. It clarifies parts of the ``return of 
title IV funds'' policy to better protect students' grant aid when he 
or she withdraws from a college or university. It corrects a drafting 
error in current law that mistakenly prevents students attending 
nonprofit foreign veterinary schools from completing their education by 
making them ineligible for the Federal Family Education Loan program.
  Students, parents, and administrators have spoken, and their voice is 
clear: the Federal student aid program must be reformed to make it 
easier to navigate. This should be an example for all parts of Federal 
Government to work on.
  I strongly urge Members to support H.R. 4866, the FED UP Higher 
Education Technical Amendments Act of 2002, to return the Federal 
student aid program to its original purpose of aiding students.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, under normal conditions, I 
certainly would be supporting this bill. I do not think any of us on 
the committee have anything against it. But, again, I will talk about 
the process of how we came upon this.
  When I came here to Congress, certainly I thought we would be working 
together to try to get a good bill out. Now, obviously, I came to 
Congress under very different circumstances. I was just an average 
housewife living in Mineola, but I actually thought the government 
worked under the democratic process.
  I can offer an awful lot of amendments, and they can be voted down; 
but at least I can have my day and be able to talk about a bill. 
However, because my colleagues and I were not given an opportunity to 
debate this bill and approve it, I must voice my opposition to the 
process by which this bill came to the floor.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to this bill that forgives 
student loans of the spouses of the victims of September 11. Due to the 
tragic events of September 11, many spouses who lost a loved one in the 
attack are enduring financial hardships. Charitable organizations have 
provided some form of relief, but the Federal Government must do more.
  We must provide student loan relief to all spouses affected by the 
terrorist attack on September 11. Currently, an individual who died has 
their loan forgiven, but not the spouse, who may have relied on the 
working spouse to pay those loans back. My bill authorizes the 
Secretary of Education to discharge or cancel Federal student loan 
indebtedness to eligible spouses.
  By the way, we worked very hard to keep those costs down. We had the 
CBO score how much this might cost, which was the next step, and it was 
under $500,000. We actually said it would probably cost $300,000.
  This includes the spouse of an individual who served as a policeman, 
fireman, other safety or rescue personnel, or in the Armed Forces who 
died or became permanently disabled in the line of duty due to the 
injuries suffered under the terrorist attack.
  In addition, our bill closes the loophole that does not allow for a 
loan to be forgiven if it has been consolidated. Under my bill, we 
close this loophole and allow spouses to have their student loans 
forgiven whether or not the loan had been consolidated.
  It has been 10 months since this terrible tragedy has taken place. 
Have we really forgotten our pledge to help these victims any way we 
can? Let us stop the politics surrounding this legislation today. We 
must do everything in our power to help ease the financial burden our 
brave men and women may endure while they fight overseas to rid the 
world of terrorism. Relieving the student loan expenses helps 
financially strained spouses provide for their families during this 
difficult time.
  But, again, let us come back to the democratic process. I could have 
brought this amendment up in committee. It could have been voted down. 
I would have accepted that. But at least I would have had a voice 
heard.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill provides a perfect 
example of why it is so much harder to pass legislation than it is to 
defeat it. Here is a piece of legislation coming to the floor of this 
House that was worked on in the spirit of bipartisanship with total 
cooperation between the parties, but because some Members are not 
satisfied that everything that they want is included, they are going to 
vote against it, even though not a single word has been spoken on the 
floor

[[Page 13101]]

against any provision in the bill that is before us.
  It is a good bill and it should pass on its merits, but Members would 
like to add more and do it their way. We cannot do it everybody's way 
and get anything done. It is easier to stop things than to pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a good bill. I would like to 
speak very briefly about a provision in the bill that makes a minor 
change to the statute governing the Federal TRIO programs in a way that 
will end the unfair disadvantages faced by the University of 
Wisconsin's 2-year colleges in applying for student support services 
grants.
  The provision will override a Department of Education regulation that 
was preventing my State's 13 2-year college campuses, known as the UW 
college system, from applying for more than just one student support 
services grant. It is a good concrete example of a burdensome 
regulation that is preventing the proper functioning of a higher 
education program and making thousands of students ineligible for the 
benefits of the TRIO program.
  The regulation in question sets criteria for what constitutes a 
``different population'' served and ``different campus'' in such a way 
that, while almost every other State's 2-year college systems are 
treated as separate campuses for this purpose, those of Wisconsin and 
New Mexico are considered as one campus, even though they are scattered 
all over the State, serving demonstrably different populations, and 
independent of each other in every relevant respect.
  In fact, UW colleges are allowed to apply for separate grants for 
every other TRIO program except the student support services program.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I think Members understand that bills that 
come to the floor under suspension of the rules are intended to be 
noncontroversial, worked out, signed, sealed and ready for delivery.
  The bill that comes to us today is in fact not yet completed. 
Certainly it is not controversial that increased access to college 
education is more important than ever. But this bill needs more than 
just some tinkering or some perfecting attention. There is room for 
substantial improvement.
  We should be dealing with teacher loan forgiveness and addressing the 
shortage of special education teachers and we should be dealing with 
gender equity and vocational education and student loan relief for 
families of victims of September 11. We should be dealing with the 
policy of missing persons at universities and colleges.
  I was prevented from offering an amendment that would have fulfilled 
President Bush's goal of increasing the number of math, science and 
special education teachers in the classroom.
  We have not been able to complete work on this bill. The Committee on 
Education and the Workforce is very capable of bipartisan work. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), both sides of the committee, have worked together 
very well. The Leave No Child Behind bill is a product of that 
bipartisan work. I believe this bill should be sent back to the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, marked up, and returned to 
the House floor in a bipartisan manner so we can increase access to 
colleges and universities for all of our students.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first, I do not want to be appearing to be 
joining the minority whining session. I certainly have a legitimate 
complaint in the bill because mine was actually a technical correction. 
The technical corrections bill is supposed to be mostly grammatical and 
things that were misunderstood. And the things that are being debated 
on the floor right now are supposed to come up under separate 
legislation when we do a higher ed bill.
  To quote the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) when I was trying to 
do what was actually a technical correction, she wrote, ``Our 
understanding was that this technical correction bill would not include 
any item that was controversial or which would be objected to by a 
significant number of Members.''
  What we have been debating here is a higher ed bill or individual 
bills. My technical correction is very simple. The Clinton 
administration, either through deliberate, malicious intent, or 
incompetence, and I believe incompetence, ruled that students who are 
receiving a loan who got convicted of a drug offense applied to people 
20 years back. A 14-year-old who had committed three offenses could not 
get a student loan.
  Our debate was clear. An exchange the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and I had made it clear we were talking about students 
who were convicted while they were getting a college loan. They applied 
and denied thousands of students because of a laughable interpretation 
of the law. We have twice passed this technical correction in the 
House. We tried to put it in this bill, and the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) objected because she said it was a substantive change when 
this was a technical correction.
  To his credit, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
disagreed, and so did the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the 
cosponsor of this bill, and we tried to move it through. Finally it 
looked like we were going to move it through, and then there was a 
budget objection.
  As an absurdity of congressional accounting, when we first passed my 
amendment, we did not get a debit or any balance based on the number of 
students who would lose the loan. But when we tried to follow the House 
law and the law as it was passed, then they said we had to get an 
offset if we let students who were not to be deprived in the first 
place get those loans back. So we also had a budget objection.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a legitimate complaint in this technical 
corrections process, but I am going to vote for this bill because I 
know the higher ed bill is coming next year. We will deal with loan 
forgiveness, with which I agree, and other issues when we actually do a 
higher ed bill. This is to be a technical corrections bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose the provisions that are included 
in the Fed Up Act, I am fed up for bringing it up on a suspensions 
calendar. I am not going to vote against this bill because of what is 
in the bill, I am going to vote against it because of what is not in 
the bill.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I had 
planned to offer an amendment to Fed Up when it was marked up in the 
full committee. However, rather than consider any Democratic 
amendments, the committee mark was cancelled and this bill was never 
considered at the committee level. Had it been, I would have offered an 
amendment to ensure that vocational education programs obey civil 
rights laws.
  Just a few weeks ago, The Washington Post and other newspapers 
reported on a recent survey that revealed pervasive gender segregation 
in vocational and technical education programs all around the country. 
The survey found that women remain clustered in classes which lead to 
traditionally female jobs, such as cosmetology, child care or fashion 
technology. On the other hand, the classes in carpentry, electronics, 
and automotive programs were 85 percent male. So women are trained for 
jobs as hairdressers, earning a median hourly wage of $8.49 an hour, 
while males get work as plumbers who earn an hourly wage of $30 an 
hour. Thirty years after the passage of title IX, the patterns of 
enrollment in technical and vocational education programs look 
shockingly similar to the patterns that existed prior to the passage of 
title IX 30 years ago.

[[Page 13102]]

  I am fed up with this unfair legislative process. I am fed up with 
being denied opportunity to work with my colleagues in crafting 
legislation that comes to the House floor. I urge Members to vote 
against the Fed Up bill, and vote against any bill where half the House 
is muzzled. Until Democrats are given a fair role in House proceedings, 
I suggest that we vote no.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, for those Members who paid attention to 
this debate and are about to vote, they should know the following: 
Every speaker who has risen in opposition of the bill has endorsed 
every provision in the bill, and so they would vote for it except for 
concerns of theirs.
  Every speaker on the bill 2\1/2\ hours ago sat with me in a hearing 
before presidents of historically black colleges and minority and poor 
institutions who talked about the bureaucratic, technical and monetary 
impediments to deserving students getting a college education, 400,000 
this year in America.
  We should subordinate our political interests to the better interests 
of Americans trying to better their lives. If, in fact, there is no 
objection to a provision in the bill, we should vote for the recipients 
and the beneficiaries of student aid and improve their lives, not for 
our parochial or our political interests.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson), except under that theory, why have a democracy? The 
other side of the aisle would make a determination what is good, and 
then that is what is voted for.
  That is not the issue of whether we support the underlying bill or 
provisions of it, it is whether or not under a process that would have 
allowed us to offer amendments, we were not allowed to offer those 
amendments. That is called fairness. That is called fairness.
  It is not a question of whether, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri) said, we got all we wanted, we simply wanted a debate. We might 
have won the votes. Maybe we were wrong. That is the process in this 
House. The other side does not get to unilaterally decide whether we 
have enough. The votes in the House decide whether a bill goes too far. 
We weigh that every day. But that opportunity is being offered to us 
less and less. That is why when we have a bill of decent merit, but the 
suggestion is that is it, folks, take it or leave it, that is not our 
process of government.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the ranking member if 
there was a markup of this bill in the subcommittee where we would have 
had an opportunity to offer our amendments?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there 
was. When we started to offer amendments in the full committee, the 
hearing was cancelled.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, so there was no 
opportunity in the full committee to offer amendments to this bill 
either?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is the problem. The gentleman 
is quite correct. I appreciate his question. Then when we get to the 
floor, we are told we cannot have amendments because it was on 
suspension.
  Mr. Speaker, when is it we get to offer amendments? When is it we get 
to present a differing view, either on the technical underlying bill or 
on amendments that are germane, under the rules of germaneness, the 
rules of the House? Members can be the arbiters of that.
  But I do not think the Members of the Democratic side should go along 
with that. I would hope that Republicans understand that and would not 
support the bill, and we can have this under an open rule. Maybe our 
amendments would be germane. It is not like we have been busy around 
here. All of a sudden we have to close down democracy when it looks 
like we have to take a tight vote, or maybe the minority might prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, a number of our amendments were 
supported by the President's budget, they were supported by Members on 
the Republican side of the aisle. This is simply about trying to 
preserve the notion that this is a people's House.
  The amendment is not for me or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey). It is for the teachers in this country, it is for the young 
kids going to school thinking about whether they go into math and 
science. Do they go to a high poverty area or not. That is who the 
amendments are for, but that is precluded.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members on the Democratic side of the aisle 
to vote against this, and hope our colleagues would join us in trying 
to preserve some semblance of democracy in the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
would never accuse me of being unfair. We have had a very good process 
in our committee over the last 18 months, and I think Members on both 
sides of the aisle have far more respect for each other than we have 
seen for certainly the 12 years I have been on the committee.

                              {time}  1445

  What we went through was a bipartisan, commonsense exercise to ask 
the higher-education community what is it that makes your life more 
miserable that we can address. We went through a commonsense, 
bipartisan effort to put this bill together. The agreement early on was 
if we could not come to an agreement on the issue, it did not go into 
the bill. But there are 30 issues in this bill that have common 
agreement, that we all agreed that this would happen. Then all of a 
sudden along the way the track either got crooked or the train ran off 
the track and there are other issues that wanted a place in this bill, 
issues that unfortunately cost an awful lot of money.
  As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) pointed out, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported everything in 
the bill. As I said before, let us not let the perfect become the enemy 
of the good. We will have ample time to deal with these other issues 
next year when we get into the reauthorization of the higher education 
act, but in the meantime let us do what we can to help more students 
get a better shot at a good college education.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts today to make necessary 
technical changes to the Higher Education Act. On behalf of the 3rd 
Congressional District of Wisconsin, I have a significant interest in a 
particular section of this legislation that will assist the University 
of Wisconsin two-year campuses in my home state.
  Over the past 30 years, Congress has established a series of programs 
to help low-income Americans enter college, graduate, and move on to 
participate more fully in America's economic and social life. These 
programs include financial aid programs that help students overcome 
economic barriers to higher education, as well as TRIO programs which 
help students overcome class, social, and cultural barriers to higher 
education.
  Currently, TRIO regulations allow multiple branch campuses to submit 
separate grant applications so long as the programs are run on campuses 
that are both geographically apart and independent of the main campus 
of the institution. Unfortunately, the Department of Education does not 
recognize the University of Wisconsin system as having ``independent'' 
two-year campuses because the thirteen branch campuses share a single 
chancellor.
  Thus, the University of Wisconsin's two-year college system is only 
eligible for one TRIO grant, which currently provide only $435,000 for 
475 students. This group of students is only 6 percent of those 
eligible for funding under the program.
  Since 1996, when the UW campuses were first denied individual TRIO 
grants, until 2004, when they will next be able to apply for individual 
grants, they will have lost more than 1.4 million dollars in funding. 
This money could have served hundreds of students.
  These institutions of higher education should not be penalized simply 
because of their administrative structure. Therefore, I am

[[Page 13103]]

pleased that language from H.R. 4637, legislation I introduced with 
Congressman Petri, that makes technical changes to the TRIO 
regulations, is included in this bill. The language will redefine what 
constitutes a different campus, allowing the University of Wisconsin's 
two-year schools to compete fairly for TRIO grants, just as other 
schools already do. In the end, these campuses will be able to serve 
more students who need assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy that this language was included in FED-UP. I 
support assisting students in attaining a higher education. This 
legislation will help more people attend college, and as a result be 
more competitive in the workforce.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4866, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________