[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20732-20734]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HIGHER EDUCATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3784) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3784

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Higher Education Extension 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

       (a) Extension of Duration.--The authorization of 
     appropriations for, and the duration of, each program 
     authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001 et seq.) shall be extended through December 31, 2005.
       (b) Performance of Required and Authorized Functions.--If 
     the Secretary of Education, a State, an institution of higher 
     education, a guaranty agency, a lender, or another person or 
     entity--
       (1) is required, in or for fiscal year 2004, to carry out 
     certain acts or make certain determinations or payments under 
     a program under the Higher Education Act of 1965, such acts, 
     determinations, or payments shall be required to be carried 
     out, made, or continued during the period of the extension 
     under this section; or
       (2) is permitted or authorized, in or for fiscal year 2004, 
     to carry out certain acts or make certain determinations or 
     payments under a program under the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, such acts, determinations, or payments are permitted or 
     authorized to be carried out, made, or continued during the 
     period of the extension under this section.
       (c) Extension at Current Levels.--The amount authorized to 
     be appropriated for a program described in subsection (a) 
     during the period of extension under this section shall be 
     the amount authorized to be appropriated for such program for 
     fiscal year 2004, or the amount appropriated for such program 
     for such fiscal year, whichever is greater. Except as 
     provided in any amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     enacted during fiscal year 2005 or 2006, the amount of any 
     payment required or authorized under subsection (b) in or for 
     the period of the extension under this section shall be 
     determined in the same manner as the amount of the 
     corresponding payment required or authorized in or for fiscal 
     year 2004.
       (d) Advisory Committees and Other Entities Continued.--Any 
     advisory committee, interagency organization, or other entity 
     that was, during fiscal year 2004, authorized or required to 
     perform any function under the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or in relation to programs under 
     that Act, shall continue to exist and is authorized or 
     required, respectively, to perform such function for the 
     period of the extension under this section.
       (e) Additional Extension not Permitted.--Section 422 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1226a) shall not 
     apply to further extend the authorization of appropriations 
     for any program described in subsection (a) on the basis of 
     the extension of such program under this section.
       (f) Exception.--The programs described in subsection (a) 
     for which the authorization of appropriations, or the 
     duration of which, is extended by this section include 
     provisions applicable to institutions in, and students in or 
     from, the Freely Associated States, except that those 
     provisions shall be applicable with respect to institutions 
     in, and students in or from, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands only to 
     the extent specified in Public Law 108-188.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3784, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, each year millions of Americans, young and old, 
participate in higher education programs at this Nation's colleges and 
universities. Higher education has become more important than ever with 
a changing marketplace and increasing international competition; and 
that is why the Federal investment in higher education is so important.
  For more than 2 years, my colleagues and I have been working to 
strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so that we can better 
serve the millions of low- and middle-income students aspiring for a 
college education. And while we have made great progress this year, the 
reauthorization process is still not complete.
  Today, I stand in support of the Higher Education Extension Act so 
that we ensure these vital programs continue to serve American 
students. The measure extends critical programs for a brief time frame, 
3 months, to give Congress the additional time it needs to complete 
this process in the best interests of students and taxpayers.
  In February, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I 
introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act to complete the 
Higher Education Act reauthorization. That bill, similar to legislation 
of the same name we offered last year, was the culmination of a 
comprehensive effort to expand college access by focusing on fairness, 
accountability, affordability, and quality.
  That bill contained a number of reforms that I had hoped would be 
enacted by today. The College Access and Opportunity Act would have 
realigned our student aid programs to place first priority back where 
it belongs, on the millions of low- and middle-income students who have 
not yet received a higher education.
  The bill would have strengthened Pell grants, college access 
programs, and campus-based student aid. It would have broken down 
barriers and eliminated outdated regulations that are preventing 
nontraditional students from achieving their higher education goals.
  It would have significantly realigned the multibillion-dollar student 
loan programs to expand access for current and future students and 
restore fairness so that all student borrowers would be treated 
equally. Consumer protection for borrowers would have been 
strengthened, red tape would have been reduced, and because 
accountability is the cornerstone of American education reform, 
colleges and universities would have been held more accountable to 
students, parents, and taxpayers, the people they serve, through 
increased sunshine and transparency.

                              {time}  1500

  Now I remain committed to a comprehensive reauthorization and hope to 
complete that process this year. In the

[[Page 20733]]

meantime, the bill before us is critically important. We cannot allow 
programs under the Higher Education Act to expire. Too many students 
depend on this assistance as they strive for a higher education. Yet it 
is equally important that we remain committed to comprehensive reforms 
that will build upon these programs in strengthening them in order to 
expand college access.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support the extension of the Higher 
Education Act. Millions of American students depend on these programs, 
and we must not let our commitment to higher education lapse. But it is 
equally important that we remain focused on the ultimate goal of 
enacting comprehensive reforms that will strengthen and renew the 
Higher Education Act so it can meet the needs of current and future 
students.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and work with us in 
the coming weeks and months to complete this comprehensive reform 
package so we can better serve American students who are pursuing a 
college education.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3784, a temporary 3-month 
extension of the Higher Education Act. This, in essence, extends 
temporarily the 1998 reauthorization which was fashioned in a very 
bipartisan manner by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and 
myself.
  I am pleased that in the face of a national tragedy a simple 
extension has been offered. I hope the Republican leadership can use 
this time, however, to reevaluate H.R. 609, their plan to balance the 
massive deficit on the backs of students already struggling to pay for 
college. H.R. 609 is part of the reconciliation package.
  Madam Speaker, from my days in the seminary, I always believed that 
reconciliation was a loving thing. H.R. 609, however, is certainly not 
an act of love. While I am cosponsor of this extension bill, I cannot 
ignore the impending cuts the Higher Education Act bill will ultimately 
suffer if the Republican reauthorization bill, H.R. 609, becomes law.
  H.R. 609 represents the largest cut in the history of Federal student 
financial aid. The largest cut in history. That is something that 
should give all of us pause and concern, and I am sure it does.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 609 in 
July by a straight party-line vote. H.R. 609 generates nearly $9 
billion by eliminating some of the excessive lender subsidies, raising 
interest rate caps and rates on consolidation loans, charging student 
borrowers higher fees, and cutting critical student aid delivery funds; 
yet the $2 million in savings gained by eliminating the excessive 
lender subsidies alone will not be directed to helping students in any 
way.
  When the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I pushed to do 
away with this outrageous subsidy to lenders, it was our hope that the 
money would be used to aid students and not to finance tax cuts for the 
wealthiest.
  Instead, the Republican-passed budget and higher education 
reauthorization intends to balance the massive deficit on the backs of 
students already struggling to pay for college. This raid on student 
aid misses a golden opportunity to redirect millions to student 
borrowers and additional grant aid for students.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I offered an 
amendment in committee to recycle millions of dollars in savings to 
guarantee a $500 increase in the maximum Pell grant, lower the interest 
rate caps on student loans, and give students a choice between a low 
fixed or variable rate on consolidation loans without raising costs to 
students or taxpayers. The Republicans rejected our amendment.
  Under H.R. 609, the typical student borrower with $17,500 in debt 
will be forced to pay an additional $5,800 for his or her current 
student loans compared to current law. However, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for offering H.R. 3784, the 
temporary 3-month extension of the Higher Education Act. While I am 
pleased to offer my support, I hope this extension will allow the 
Republican leadership time to reconsider their plan to raid student 
aid. I offer my services to work with them to achieve just that.
  In the context of both reconciliation and the reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act, we must move forward in a way that helps, not 
harms, our students. I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) to 
achieve that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support of the bill today 
to extend the Higher Education Act; but I find myself in a position of 
having to rise and respond to some of the criticisms of H.R. 609, the 
reauthorization bill for the Higher Education Act that is in process.
  The gentleman is right, we do over the next 5 years save $9 billion 
in taxpayer funds while at the same time we reduce origination fees for 
students, we expand loan limits for students, and better equalize the 
campus-based aid programs around the country.
  Now, my colleague and his friends on the other side of the aisle came 
up with proposals to save money as well. The only difference here is 
that we decided that net of $9 billion ought to be saved for the 
taxpayers because, after all, it is their money. My friends on the 
other side of the aisle decided to spend it. Well meaning, well 
intentioned, but at some point we in Congress have a responsibility to 
enact public policy that is fair for all.
  Some people do not go to college. As my friend knows, I am the only 
one of my 11 brothers and sisters to go to college. To the extent we 
are providing loans, they are being paid for by taxpayers, some of whom 
do not get a higher education. So what is fair?
  I think the underlying bill, providing college loans, providing Pell 
grants for underserved students, is a very good thing for our country. 
But how much is enough?
  We are going to spend about $75 billion this year in Pell grants and 
student loans to help low- to middle-income students achieve the dream 
of a higher education. I think that it is an important part of our 
responsibility to help improve our society. But at the same time, we 
also have a responsibility to people who pay taxes, and people who pay 
taxes watching money flowing out of this institution like water over a 
dam.
  At some point I am not going to stand here and be embarrassed because 
we help improve access to higher education, we help improve the ability 
of students to pay for their loan programs, and at the same time save 
$9 billion over 5 years for the taxpayers. I think it is a pretty good 
deal for all.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We all know there is a direct relationship between revenue and 
expenses. We try to keep that balance fiscally correct and morally 
correct.
  I happen to have voted against the tax cuts proposed by President 
George W. Bush. I voted against them because I could see what was going 
to happen. Most of those tax cuts, as most people will concede, went to 
the wealthier people in this country, including Members of Congress. 
Had we just deducted from those $2 trillion of tax cuts, when you take 
the whole cost, the cost of the debt, if we just deducted $9 billion 
from those $2 trillion, we would have money here and we would not have 
to balance this on the backs of the students. We could have saved it 
for any other program also, obviously. I am consistent that I voted 
against those tax cuts. I got a little criticism back home from some 
people; not many, but some. I saw this coming. I could see for sure 
that education was going to suffer. Those programs for the neediest in 
the country were going to suffer. The tax cuts were entirely too large, 
and those tax cuts have forced us to where we are in

[[Page 20734]]

the bill put out by the committee, H.R. 609.
  I think all of us have to be very cautious when we vote for revenue 
or revenue cuts. We have to be very cautious when we vote for 
expenditures. But there is a direct relationship, so I can stand here 
with a certain purity and say I did not vote to give away the $2 
trillion, I voted to retain these funds so we could help students.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from Michigan, and we are 
friends, I proudly voted for the tax cuts and thank goodness that we 
passed them. Let us recount what has happened over the past 4\1/2\ 
years: a weak economy in 2001; followed by the devastating effects of 
9/11; a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq; and now Hurricane 
Katrina.
  If we had not enacted those tax cuts in early 2001, what shape would 
our economy be in today? I want to correct my friend that voting for 
reductions in marginal tax rates does not mean reductions in revenue to 
the Federal Government. We have had this debate here in Congress now 
for 25 years, but reducing marginal tax rates has in fact increased 
revenues to the Federal Government. And look at the strength of our 
economy today that would not have been there had we not had those 
reductions in taxes.
  We can, in fact, reduce taxes, grow our economy, and hold the lid on 
spending and give the American people the best deal in the world: good 
government, reasonable level of services, and more money in their 
pocket, that they can decide how to spend in the best interest of 
themselves and their families and their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  No one questions, and I can never question either the sincerity nor 
the fairness of the chairman. I have been here 29 years, and I cannot 
recall a chairman being more fair during all of our deliberations in 
committee. And we are friends. We disagree on certain, maybe some 
fundamental things. But the gentleman asked what would have happened 
had we not enacted those tax cuts. One thing, we would not be seeing 
deficits as far out as the eye can see. That is not healthy for the 
economy, so we can debate that. Maybe we should have had some of those 
tax cuts, maybe not all. But again, because we are friends, we will 
continue to work together. Because the chairman is fair, he will always 
give us a chance in committee to offer our ideas and he will listen to 
them patiently. We respect the chairman for that on this side of the 
aisle.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). As I 
said before, we are friends and I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
remarks. I believe our committee process here in Congress ought to be 
an open forum and that Members clearly can agree, but in our committee 
we do not really allow members to be disagreeable. I think what it does 
is foster a committee where members cooperate and get to know each 
other and work together, and even though we may not agree on 
everything, every member should have a right to offer his or her ideas 
about the pending legislation.
  Now back to the bill at hand, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for supporting the extension of the Higher Education Act 
for 3 months, and it is my fervent desire in the next 3 months Congress 
will reenact this authorization to the benefit of millions of American 
students.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the temporary 3-month extension of the Higher Education Act.
  I would prefer to rise today to express my support for a bill that 
expands access for students to college and fulfills the Federal 
government's promises to make college more affordable for the millions 
of students attending our nation's colleges and universities.
  Unfortunately, that is not the bill before us today. It is my hope, 
however, that the Republican leadership will use this time provided by 
the extension to improve their plan to reauthorize the Higher Education 
Act--H.R. 609.
  The Republican bill that passed out of the House Education and the 
Workforce Committee on a strictly partisan vote balances the massive 
deficit created by enormous tax breaks to America's most fortunate and 
the war in Iraq on the backs of students--who continue to face 
increased tuition costs across the nation. H.R. 609 cuts nearly $9 
billion from the Federal student loan program, with Republican plans to 
cut an additional $2 billion in order to balance their misguided 
budget. This cut is the largest cut to student financial aid in the 
history of Federal student financial aid.
  The Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act should be an 
opportunity to enhance access for our nation's low and moderate income 
students and first generation students to a higher education. Instead 
of finding ways to increase college affordability and fund student 
financial aid during this reauthorization, Republicans have been 
focused on finding ways to open up more Federal dollars for for-profit 
education institutions, while finding ways to usurp college campus 
autonomy. Instead of increasing access, millions of students will see 
the cost of a college education increase significantly because of 
provisions found in H.R. 609.
  In committee, I voted to support the Democratic amendment to 
reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which would have increased access 
and enhance affordability for all students--all without raising taxes. 
The Democratic plan would have increased Pell Grants and would have 
maintained the promise Congress made in 2002 to cap the interest rate 
on student loans at 6.8 percent.
  The tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush and the House 
Republican budget, forces college students to bear the weight of 
irresponsible fiscal policies.
  Today, this temporary extension is necessary, but I will continue to 
work to ensure that students will not be forced to pay for this 
enormous deficit now through financial aid cuts and in the future as 
taxpayers.

                              {time}  1515

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). 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. 3784, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________