[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21334-21338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               NATURAL DISASTER STUDENT AID FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3863) to provide the Secretary of Education with waiver 
authority for the reallocation rules in the Campus-Based Aid programs, 
and to extend the deadline by which funds have to be reallocated to 
institutions of higher education due to a natural disaster, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3863

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Natural 
     Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act''.
       (b) References.--References in this Act to ``the Act'' are 
     references to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. ALLOCATION AND USE OF CAMPUS-BASED HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Waiver of Matching Requirements.--Notwithstanding 
     sections 413C(a)(2), 443(b)(5), and 463(a)(2) of the Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1070b-2(a)(2); 42 U.S.C. 2753(b)(5); 20 U.S.C. 
     1087cc(a)(2)), with respect to funds made available for 
     academic years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006--
       (1) in the case of an institution of higher education 
     located in an area affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster, the 
     Secretary shall waive the requirement that a participating 
     institution of higher education provide a non-Federal share 
     or a capital contribution, as the case may be, to match 
     Federal funds provided to the institution for the programs 
     authorized pursuant to subpart 3 of part A, part C, and part 
     E of title IV of the Act; and
       (2) in the case of an institution of higher education that 
     has accepted for enrollment any affected students, the 
     Secretary may waive that matching requirement after 
     considering the institution's student population and existing 
     resources, using consistent and objective criteria.
       (b) Waiver of Reallocation Rules.--
       (1) Authority to reallocate.--Notwithstanding sections 
     413D(d), 442(d), and 462(i) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1070b-3(d); 
     42 U.S.C. 2752(d); 20 U.S.C. 1087bb(i)), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) reallocate any funds returned under any of those 
     sections that were allocated to institutions of higher 
     education for award year 2004-2005 to an institution of 
     higher education that is eligible under paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection; and
       (B) waive the allocation reduction for award year 2006-2007 
     for an institution returning more than 10 percent of its 
     allocation under any of those sections.
       (2) Eligible institutions for reallocation.--An institution 
     of higher education may receive a reallocation of excess 
     allocations under this subsection if the institution--
       (A) participates in the program for which excess 
     allocations are being reallocated; and
       (B)(i) is located in an area affected by a Gulf hurricane 
     disaster; or
       (ii) has accepted for enrollment any affected students in 
     academic year 2005-2006.
       (3) Basis of reallocation.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the manner in which excess allocations shall be reallocated 
     to institutions under paragraph (1), and shall give 
     additional consideration to the needs of institutions located 
     in an area affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster.
       (4) Additional waiver authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, in order to carry out this subsection, the 
     Secretary may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory 
     provision relating to the reallocation of excess allocations 
     under subpart 3 of part A, part C, or part E of title IV of 
     the Act in order to ensure that assistance is received by 
     affected institutions for affected students.
       (c) Availability of Funds Date Extension.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law--
       (1) any funds available to the Secretary under sections 
     413A, 441, and 461 of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1070b; 42 U.S.C. 
     2751; 20 U.S.C. 1087aa) for which the period of availability 
     would otherwise expire on September 30, 2005, shall be 
     available for obligation by the Secretary until September 30, 
     2006 for the purposes of the programs authorized pursuant to 
     subpart 3 of part A, part C, and part E of title IV of the 
     Act, respectively; and
       (2) the Secretary may recall any funds allocated to an 
     institution of higher education for award year 2004-2005 
     under section 413D, 442, or 462 of the Act that, if not 
     returned to the Secretary as excess allocations pursuant to 
     any of those sections, would otherwise lapse on September 30, 
     2005, and reallocate those funds in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(1).

     SEC. 3. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       Section 2 of this Act is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress).

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective one 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (2) Affected student.--The term ``affected student'' means 
     an individual who has applied for or received student 
     financial assistance under title IV of the Act, and who--
       (A) was enrolled or accepted for enrollment, as of August 
     29, 2005, at an institution of higher education in an area 
     affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster;
       (B) was a dependent student enrolled or accepted for 
     enrollment at an institution of higher education that is not 
     in an area affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster, but whose 
     parents resided or were employed, as of August 29, 2005, in 
     an area affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster; or
       (C) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of 
     a Gulf hurricane disaster, as determined by the Secretary 
     using consistent and objective criteria.
       (3) Gulf hurricane disaster.--The term ``Gulf hurricane 
     disaster'' means a major disaster that the President declared 
     to exist, in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170), and that was caused by Hurricane Katrina or 
     Hurricane Rita.
       (4) Area affected by a gulf hurricane disaster.--The term 
     ``area affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster'' means a county 
     or parish, in an affected State, that has been designated by 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster 
     assistance for individuals and households as a result of 
     Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
       (5) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'' means the 
     State of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas.
       (6) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1002).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).


                             General Leave

  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. 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. 3863.

[[Page 21335]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of H.R. 3863.
  In my home State of Louisiana, several institutions of higher 
education have been impacted by both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 
literally dozens across the entire State.
  The bill we are discussing today addresses an approaching deadline 
for the Department of Education that requires the Department to 
redistribute campus-based aid funds.
  Currently, campus-based aid funds include the Federal Work Study 
program, Perkins loans, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity 
Grants.
  Currently, schools that have additional campus-based aid funds are 
required to return those funds to the Department. Under current law, 
after September 30, the Department is required to redistribute the 
funds to schools all over the country.
  This bill we are discussing today would extend the September 30 
deadline to allow the Department to recapture unspent funds and 
reallocate them to the institutions that have taken in students from 
Louisiana, from Mississippi, from Alabama, and from Texas.
  In addition, the bill would allow the Department to give additional 
campus-based aid funds to colleges in the affected States when they got 
up and running again.
  Waiving the Federal matching requirements will assist the financially 
strapped institutions since the affected schools do not have matching 
funds that are currently required to receive this funding.
  The authority granted to the Secretary in this bill is important to 
ensure that the affected institutions in the gulf coast region do not 
experience additional financial strain and provides assistance to get 
them back on their feet.
  As the former president of the University of Louisiana system, a 
system that comprises universities and colleges that have been impacted 
directly by the storm, I truly understand the need to be flexible and 
responsive and to help the neediest students in the affected 
institutions in their time of need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3863 is, in fact, a good bill, and I want to 
congratulate my colleague for filing this bill and working on it.
  Obviously, as he stated, the bill directs the Secretary of Education 
to waive an institution's match requirement and to redistribute 
millions of dollars in unused campus-based aid funds such as work study 
and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants to students and 
colleges that are impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  The bill in the first instance states that the Secretary shall waive 
those match requirements if, in fact, an institution is located in the 
gulf area that is affected by the hurricanes, and it may waive them for 
institutions that accept for enrollment any affected students after 
considering an institution's student population, existing resources, 
and applying objective and consistent criteria. That makes great sense.
  Under current law already, colleges that participate in the campus-
based aid programs have to return any unused aid to the Secretary of 
Education at the end of the year. Then the Secretary can reallocate 
those funds to colleges that have an additional need or return the 
money to the Treasury.
  This bill gives the Secretary the instruction and the latitude to 
take that money and redistribute it where it is most needed at this 
particular time after the devastation of the storms. The Department of 
Education estimates that this change could result in an additional $36 
million of student aid to help affected students and colleges this 
year.
  I support this commonsense step and believe that it will provide 
immediate relief to the affected colleges and students.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill could result in an 
additional $36 million in aid this year for students and colleges 
impacted by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. It is a commonsense 
bill, and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3863; but we cannot 
stop here.
  Congress must do more to make college affordable for all students, 
including victims of the hurricanes.
  Unfortunately, the House probably will vote next month on H.R. 609, a 
Republican bill that would increase the cost to students of Federal aid 
by billions of dollars.
  Ironically, one of the provisions of the Republican H.R. 609 
legislation would change the formula for distributing campus-based aid 
while not increasing the amount of that aid.
  Earlier this summer, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) offered an amendment in 
committee that would have ensured that changes in the formula were not 
tied to full increases but to real increases in aid; but the amendment 
was defeated by the Republicans in our committee.
  H.R. 609 simply would rob Peter to pay Paul, rather than address the 
real problem, which is the Republican refusal to significantly increase 
Pell grants and other grant aid to make colleges more affordable for 
low- and middle-income families.
  Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support what Congress is doing today 
because it will help college students in the gulf region, but I 
encourage everyone to keep an eye on what Congress does next month 
because that will change what we do to help college students 
nationwide.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, assuming that my colleague has no other 
speakers, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  I just want to, Mr. Speaker, highlight the point that the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey) finished with in her remarks.
  If this bill is enacted, that she was talking about, H.R. 609, which, 
in fact, redistributes the campus-based aid formula, these very States 
that we are trying to help today, this afternoon, would be harmed. If 
it was enacted and those funds were redistributed without adding 
additional funds to protect schools that now receive assistance under 
that provision, Louisiana would lose almost $1.2 million in work study 
funds under the plan. Alabama would lose $1.3 million. Mississippi 
would lose nearly $2.5 million in work study. So almost $4.5 million in 
all the three campus-based aid programs.
  This clearly does not make sense. Rearranging the deck chairs on a 
sinking ship is not going to save that ship from going down.
  In higher education, we have a tremendous obligation now to have more 
children take advantage of college and graduate. It used to be a high 
school education was enough to catapult a son or daughter into the 
middle class. We all know today that that is not enough any longer, 
that we really need to encourage 2 to 4 years beyond high school; and 
in doing that, campus-based aid plays a very significant and important 
role.
  Redistributing the funds in such a way that you are taking them away 
from some campuses and then putting them on other campuses is, in fact, 
as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) said, taking from 
Peter to pay Paul.
  The fact of the matter is we ought to increase the funding so that no 
student loses current assistance and new students who should be getting 
it do indeed receive the assistance that they need.
  A reallocation of campus-based funds must include a significant boost 
in that funding in order to continue our efforts here so we give more 
children

[[Page 21336]]

the responsibility and the opportunity to complete a college degree.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I had offered that 
amendment in committee. It failed on a tie vote, 24 to 24. We got 
significant bipartisan support. In fact, a number of schools would be 
impacted. More than 80 Members of Congress have signed a letter to the 
committee asking them to take that offending provision that would 
redistribute the funds without adding additional money, to take that 
out of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record at this point a list of each 
of the States and how much money they would lose on campus-based aid if 
that redistributed formula under H.R. 609 passed without adding more 
funds in.

                ESTIMATED CHANGE IN CAMPUS-BASED AID FUNDING--BASE GUARANTEE ELIMINATION PROPOSAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  SEOG change in   FWS change in  Perkins change
                                    allocation      allocation     in allocation   Total change      % Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................        $319,328     -$1,366,249        $193,908       -$853,013            -2.9
Alaska..........................        -357,194        -292,672               0       -649,866            -39.1
Arizona.........................         184,692         191,795         495,118         871,605             3.5
Arkansas........................        -109,651        -847,811        -223,204      -1,180,666            -8.8
California......................       5,346,622       6,981,497       1,367,670      13,695,789             7.0
Colorado........................         354,210         -35,688        -224,410          94,112             0.4
Connecticut.....................          68,743         744,203          -2,244         810,702             3.8
Delaware........................         184,837         170,007          -4,868         349,976            10.5
District of Columbia............          17,425       1,884,291         240,916       2,142,632            11.3
Florida.........................       1,894,571       2,956,506       1,975,050       6,826,127             9.1
Georgia.........................       1,172,369        -896,299         414,028         690,098             1.7
Hawaii..........................        -109,763        -161,240         -16,180        -287,183            -7.4
Idaho...........................         -68,365         276,785        -146,554          61,866             1.2
Illinois........................       1,582,535       1,975,747        -703,749       2,854,533             3.0
Indiana.........................         875,175       1,201,143        -164,648       1,911,670             5.0
Iowa............................         268,598           1,088        -391,244        -121,558            -0.5
Kansas..........................        -609,378        -821,312        -693,636      -2,124,326           -14.6
Kentucky........................         803,328      -1,518,496         -11,330        -726,498            -3.2
Louisiana.......................         915,018      -1,193,153          99,218        -178,917            -0.7
Maine...........................      -3,346,280      -3,425,036        -460,794      -7,232,110           -46.5
Maryland........................        -262,256         272,230          43,102          53,076             0.2
Massachusetts...................      -4,398,750      -4,886,369         -96,665      -9,381,784           -11.7
Michigan........................      -1,798,914         752,152      -1,213,575      -2,260,337            -4.0
Minnesota.......................      -2,377,299      -1,248,027        -452,806      -4,078,132           -11.1
Mississippi.....................      -1,282,404      -2,487,498        -700,467      -4,470,369           -20.0
Missouri........................         923,933         945,748         -63,658       1,806,023             5.0
Montana.........................         241,460        -378,709        -177,076        -314,325            -5.2
Nebraska........................          52,045        -138,681        -268,659        -355,295            -3.1
Nevada..........................         195,286         295,456          66,199         556,941            13.2
New Hampshire...................        -769,185      -1,502,087        -156,759      -2,428,031           -18.7
New Jersey......................         501,889         450,066         106,108       1,058,063             2.8
New Mexico......................        -586,005      -2,183,573        -204,870      -2,974,448           -26.2
New York........................       7,189,176       7,766,963       3,204,027      18,160,166             9.7
North Carolina..................      -1,820,724      -1,384,785         -88,970      -3,294,479            -8.0
North Dakota....................        -965,544        -577,921       2,866,841       1,323,376            19.9
Ohio............................         775,727          46,677         620,384       1,442,788             2.0
Oklahoma........................          36,553        -619,493        -456,089      -1,039,029            -5.3
Oregon..........................      -1,738,961        -889,047        -185,769      -2,813,777           -11.2
Pennsylvania....................       2,514,303       4,595,845       1,265,707       8,375,855             7.5
Puerto Rico.....................       1,650,308         432,023         442,540       2,524,871             7.1
Rhode Island....................          21,779        -533,551          36,572        -475,200            -2.8
South Carolina..................         100,627        -789,970          97,811        -591,532            -2.5
South Dakota....................        -635,011      -1,360,964        -234,921      -2,230,896           -27.7
Tennessee.......................           5,768        -452,951          -6,719        -453,902            -1.4
Texas...........................         647,894       1,103,488      -1,236,695         514,687             0.5
Utah............................        -422,039         214,156        -477,662        -685,545            -6.4
Vermont.........................      -2,382,485      -1,778,571        -264,202      -4,425,258           -37.7
Virginia........................         854,144        -174,968          12,640         691,816             2.0
Washington......................        -844,292         771,689        -229,162        -301,765            -1.0
West Virginia...................         -76,805        -302,606        -127,184        -506,595            -4.1
Wisconsin.......................      -4,769,861      -1,419,305      -1,192,894      -7,382,060           -19.3
Wyoming.........................          16,325         112,844         -80,097          49,072            1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Total 29 states would lose funding under this proposal.
Source: American Council on Education, Center for Policy Analysis.

  My colleagues will see that 29 States lose money overall, and in 
fact, every State loses some aid through some of its campuses in one of 
those three programs.
  I just say again, we have an agreement on this particular bill today. 
It makes sense to do what we are doing to help those affected in the 
areas that were hurt by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina; but it makes 
little sense to go through that effort to do that and at the same time, 
in a week or two or from now, pass a bill that is going to rob them of 
money of campus-based aid and leave them set back even further.
  We can have it both ways. We can help them now through the 
legislation that is currently on the floor, and we can do a better job 
with H.R. 609 when it comes to the floor by adding in resources so that 
existing student aid does not go down on campuses that are using it and 
projected aid for those campuses that need additional funds, those 
needs can be met, and all students and more students will have the 
opportunity to have a college education so that they, too, can go into 
the middle class and help make this country strong and its economy 
strong as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am certainly sympathetic to what the gentleman and my colleague 
have both referred to in terms of the provision in H.R. 609. Indeed, I 
was one of the Republicans that actually voted for his amendment.
  However, my understanding from the majority on the committee, the 
rationale for the current language in H.R. 609, is that right now 
campuses are keeping the financial aid they receive regardless of the 
number of needy students they have enrolled on campus. The intent 
behind H.R. 609 is, over a number of years, phase this out and allow 
the funds to actually follow the needy students to whatever campuses 
they may be on.
  Regardless of the merits of both sides of this issue, certainly today 
we are here to talk about a provision that will help those institutions 
impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I want to, first of all, thank 
my colleagues both in the majority and across the aisle for their 
support for today's legislation.
  Certainly, nobody thinks today's legislation will solve all the 
problems facing institutions of higher education in Louisiana, in 
Texas, and Mississippi and Alabama; but today, with consideration of 
this legislation, I do think we are taking an important step forward.
  I also want to thank the Members across the aisle and the members of 
my committee and the chairman in particular for not only moving so 
quickly

[[Page 21337]]

on this legislation but for, lastly, moving so quickly on another piece 
of legislation that helps students directly, waiving some of the 
requirements that they repay their Pell grants and their other 
financial assistance if their studies were interrupted by Hurricane 
Katrina.

                              {time}  1430

  I certainly think with the steps we are taking today, we are 
providing quick, flexible relief, both to students in great need, but 
also their institutions of higher education.
  I have literally spent hours visiting with the leaders of these 
various institutions, campus presidents, with students visiting some of 
the impacted campuses, and there are questions in their minds regarding 
how they are to continue their studies, how are they going to continue 
their payrolls, how are they going to get their facilities back in 
preparation for welcoming students back to continuing their studies and 
their research as the rebuilding process continues.
  Again, as a former president of a university system, I know how 
important these institutions are to the vitality, the economic growth, 
and the well-being of the region and the families that have been so 
devastated by these hurricanes. So I certainly thank my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan support for this 
legislation, and I want to thank the chairman and the House for moving 
so quickly.
  Again, this is not a comprehensive solution, but it is, again, a very 
important first step forward.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to protect 
financial aid opportunities for students and schools affected by the 
recent hurricanes in the gulf coast region.
  I would like to thank my friend from Louisiana, Representative Bobby 
Jindal, for his ongoing efforts to provide higher education assistance 
to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I would also like to 
thank Representatives Miller, Kildee, and Hinojosa for working with us 
in a bipartisan manner to provide critical higher education relief.
  The Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act protects financial aid 
opportunities for students and schools affected by the recent 
hurricanes by providing needed flexibility for the campus based aid 
programs.
  The three campus based aid programs--Supplemental Educational 
Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Federal Work Study, and the Perkins Loan 
program--provide valuable financial assistance to low- and middle-
income students.
  The funds are allocated to colleges and universities, which then 
combine Federal funds with their own dollars and award financial aid to 
their students. Because the campus based aid programs are awarded to 
institutions and require institutional matching funds, colleges and 
universities impacted by the hurricanes are facing additional 
challenges in maintaining these programs.
  The Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act allows the Secretary of 
Education to waive the institutional matching requirements for 
institutions affected by the gulf coast hurricanes and for institutions 
whose financial aid budgets have been stretched more than anticipated 
as they open their doors to affected students.
  This flexibility will ensure colleges and universities are still able 
to participate in the campus based aid programs as they work to rebuild 
their campuses and serve their students.
  The bill also extends the deadline for the Department of Education to 
reallocate excess funds for these programs to provide ample time to 
assess the needs of all participating institutions.
  Moreover, the bill allows these excess funds to be targeted to the 
institutions located in the affected regions or to the institutions 
that have accepted displaced students.
  The campus based aid programs have always been aimed at meeting the 
needs of disadvantaged students. For the students and schools impacted 
by the gulf coast hurricanes, the time of need is now. This bill will 
provide much needed flexibility to ensure these funds are available to 
the students and schools that need them the most.
  Once again, I would like to thank the sponsor of this bill, 
Representative Jindal, and members on both sides of the aisle for 
working quickly on this bill to protect financial aid opportunities for 
students and schools impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

         Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
           Representatives,
                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2005.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Nussle: I am writing concerning H.R. 3863, 
     the ``Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act,'' which is 
     scheduled for floor consideration today. Section 3 of the 
     bill designates that any provision of Section 2 affecting 
     receipts, budget authority, or outlays in the bill will be 
     for emergency purposes pursuant to the budget resolution of 
     this year (H. Con. Res. 95). Thus, the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce shares the jurisdiction with the Committee 
     on the Budget on this provision.
       I recognize the Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional 
     interest in Section 3 of the bill, but ask that you allow 
     H.R. 3863 to go forward. I agree that by allowing the bill to 
     be considered, the Committee on the Budget does not 
     relinquish any jurisdiction over H.R. 3863 or similar 
     legislation. I would also support your request to be 
     represented on a conference on H.R. 3863, if one should 
     become necessary.
       Finally, I will include my letter and your response in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the 
     measure.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                          Committee on the Budget,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2005.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boehner: In recognition of the desire to 
     expedite floor consideration of H.R. 3863, the Natural 
     Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act, the Committee on the 
     Budget agrees to waive its right to consider this 
     legislation. H.R. 3863, as introduced on September 22, 2005, 
     contains subject matter that falls within the legislative 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to rule 
     X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Section 3 of 
     the bill, relating to the designation of provisions of the 
     bill as emergency requirements pursuant to section 402 of H. 
     Con. Res. 95, is of jurisdictional and substantive interest 
     to this Committee.
       The Committee on the Budget appreciates the Education and 
     Workforce Committee's recognition of our jurisdictional 
     interest in section 3. The Budget Committee also appreciates 
     your offer to support any request we might make to be 
     represented on the conference for H.R. 3863. Finally, the 
     Committee on the Budget recognizes that the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce retains sole jurisdiction over 
     all provisions of H.R. 3863 other than section 3.
       Thank you for including our letters in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jim Nussle,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act.
  Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita have caused destruction of 
monumental proportions. First and foremost, our priority should remain 
delivering food, water and other aid to those most in need. During this 
time of national crisis we should tap every available resource of the 
Federal Government to make sure that we are providing relief in every 
corner of the devastated Gulf Coast region. This relief extends to the 
colleges and universities that work so hard to provide our young people 
with the skills they need to succeed.
  This important legislation would allow the Secretary of Education to 
grant waivers to colleges and universities affected by these disasters 
that participate in Federal Campus-Based Aid programs such as SEOG and 
Federal Work-Study. This would waive the requirement that participating 
institutions of higher education provide matching Federal funds 
provided to the institution for these programs.
  I am pleased to see the speed at which legislation is being 
considered to help students in the affected regions and applaud the 
spirit of bipartisanship in addressing these important issues. I 
commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for introducing this 
legislation, and I thank the leadership for calling this legislation to 
the floor so quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill in a difficult hour. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). The question 
is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) 
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3863, 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.

[[Page 21338]]



                          ____________________