[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4288-4295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 609, COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY 
                              ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 741

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, it shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules 
     Committee Print dated March 22, 2006. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. After disposition of the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, the 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  H. Res. 741 provides a structured rule of 1 hour of general debate on 
H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and makes in 
order 15 separate amendments to that legislation.
  I would like to point out that this bill has been significantly 
discussed in committee markups. Seventy-nine amendments were discussed; 
half as many, as well, were discussed in the subcommittee markup. 
Nonetheless, 117 amendments were also filed with the Rules Committee, 
many of them by members of the committee, some retreads, but some 
allegedly were rewritten after the committee markup took place.
  Because so many amendments have been introduced and many of them are 
those first impression-type amendments, the Rules Committee will be 
issuing a separate, second rule at a later date that will allow for 
consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 609.
  Providing for two separate rules in this manner will allow the Rules 
Committee some additional time it needs to adequately review the large 
number of amendments that were submitted, guard against potential 
duplicative amendments, violation of House rules, ensure germaneness 
and also eliminate those that would violate budgetary rules.
  I hope that in this process we will ensure an orderly debate on the 
key issues of this particular bill with the proposed two structured 
rules coming to us.
  This two-step process will also allow many of the sponsors of those 
amendments some additional time to perhaps redraft their language, with 
closer consultation with the Parliamentarian and the relevant 
committees of jurisdiction.
  The Rules Committee did work hard to listen to the Member testimony 
and consider the amendments that were proposed. What is filed in this 
particular rule are 15 amendments, seven of which are Democrat or 
bipartisan amendments which provide for a wide range of debate on many 
key aspects of the higher education program and policy. I think it is 
indeed a fair rule.
  In 1965, the original Higher Education Act was proposed in order to 
provide assistance to a high number of students to fulfill a dream of a 
college education. Since that time, this bill and reauthorizations of 
this bill have been used for some other purposes.
  One of the things that is positive about the bill before us is an 
effort to refocus on the primary purpose and the primary goal of this 
bill as it was originally applied, and that is public assistance to 
more students, period.
  It is an effort on the part of the committee to try and make sure 
that people have this opportunity to go to college. As such, they 
reauthorize programs like TRIO and its associate programs like Upward 
Bound and GEAR UP to take kids who, by virtue of their socioeconomic 
status or perhaps their cultural background, are given an opportunity 
to advance to a college degree maybe for the first time to fulfill that 
particular dream.

                              {time}  1045

  I realize that my brothers and I are the first ones in my family to 
have actually graduated from college, and to allow that for many of 
these kids who will sometimes be the first of their families to have 
that experience in college and to graduate from college is significant.

[[Page 4289]]

  The committee reauthorized the student Perkins loan grants, which 
also recognizes the need of a different strain of students to be able 
to make it through college with the different niche that they provide. 
It has recognized the role of proprietary schools without automatic 
recognition but understanding the niche that it plays now as well as in 
the future.
  Most significantly, it reauthorizes the Pell Grants. It does so in a 
way that expands the cap, simplifies the rules, changes the eligibility 
so a greater number of individuals will be eligible and participate in 
this particular program. It adds new emphasis on the highest-achieving 
first- and second-year students, which in the past have had the 
greatest need but maybe have not had the proportional advantage of this 
particular program. It accelerates the opportunity for course work to 
be done in a way that helps the students to actually get through their 
college careers. In essence, it is one of those programs that does 
well.
  I hope as we proceed on the discussion of this rule as well as the 
underlying bill that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this 
particular bill, which is to provide assistance for more students. And 
I also hope that we do not lose sight that we are dealing with the bill 
at hand, not other extraneous issues.
  The original act, the original act never intended that the Federal 
Government pay for all of college education but rather was an 
assistance, a helping hand to those wishing to go to school and 
allowing those students themselves to earn their own way in the higher 
education world.
  I feel I have a personal stake in this particular concept. I have 
five kids, four of whom have been in college, unfortunately, at the 
same time. Since 1998, I have had the wonderful opportunity of funding 
multiple students in college simultaneously. And if my third kid goes 
to graduate school, I will have a chance of adding the fifth kid in 
college at the same time in both law schools, undergraduate work, as 
well as perhaps graduate work, and I did it all on a schoolteacher's 
salary.
  Both I and my credit cards understand the significance of this 
particular piece of legislation, and I am also convinced that it is a 
remarkably good balance by reauthorizing existing programs while at the 
same time increasing accountability for Federal dollars spent, 
increasing consumer choices, creating incentives for institutions to 
control tuition costs, and actually increasing the overall number of 
low- and middle-income students who will be receiving that particular 
assistance.
  We will probably hear, as the discussion unfolds, both in this rule 
and the next rule, of many programs trying to institute social 
engineering projects into this particular bill; perhaps to expand the 
role in the Federal Government at the State and local education 
prerogatives; perhaps those amendments to micromanage institutions; 
perhaps those that will change the authorization levels in an 
unrealistic fashion. It will be an interesting debate. But what I hope 
we do not lose track of, again, is that this bill makes progress in 
helping kids receive a college education, and progress is always paid 
at some particular price.
  It also does not diminish the other role besides assistance in the 
cost of education and college, which is tuition increases. By providing 
specific incentives to schools to hold the line on tuition increases, 
by simplifying the process and by studying this issue and reporting 
back, it does make a significant stand in this particular area without 
forgetting that the Federal Government is a partner in this situation. 
The institutions of higher learning belong to the States and the 
private and religious organizations. We are simply exercising a 
partnership with them.
  I have to commend the former chairman of the Education Workforce 
Services Committee, our current majority leader, Mr. Boehner, for his 
efforts in trying to work across the aisle to come up with a good bill. 
I also congratulate the new chairman, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work in 
seeing this bill through to this point. I also congratulate many 
Members of the minority. Many of their ideas and provisions are 
incorporated in the base bill, 609, that we have before us.
  Forty-eight hours ago, this was a good bipartisan bill, and I am 
under the assumption that, when we finish our work and go home 
Saturday, we will also recognize that we have passed a good bipartisan 
bill.
  In conclusion, I ask the Members to support this first rule and vote 
in favor of this resolution. We will have as a body two chances at the 
plate in this particular bill. And as Satchel Page used to say: ``Pitch 
strikes. Home plate don't move.''
  This is a good bill, and it ain't going to move either. With that, I 
hope we continue to make progress in moving this important piece of 
legislation forward at an orderly pace.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding 
me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in our country, education has long been viewed as the 
doorway to opportunity. Unfortunately, if we pass this rule and the 
underlying legislation, we will be closing this door for many.
  Over the past year, I have sat down with students at Sacramento State 
University in my hometown of Sacramento. These young people are so 
talented and so filled with the possibility of tomorrow, but they are 
all concerned about the cuts to financial aid and their ability to 
finish college. This legislation will not address their concerns and, 
actually, will probably increase them.
  The inability to afford college was less of an issue for my 
generation. When I was growing up in California, there was never a 
concern that I couldn't go to college. But this is not the case today. 
In all likelihood, my parents would have a very difficult time putting 
together a package that would allow me to go to college because, across 
the Nation, the average tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges have 
risen 40 percent since 2001 when adjusted for inflation. Yet when also 
adjusted for inflation, the maximum Pell Grant last year was worth $800 
less than it was in 1975, and this bill only raises the authorizing 
level by a mere $200 over 6 years.
  The spending cuts this Congress passed earlier this year represented 
the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs 
ever. Sadly, this bill fails to reverse that trend, and it puts college 
even further out of reach for many. For the students at Sac State, UC 
Davis, and across the Nation, this legislation will impact their 
ability to earn a degree as well as their future, and ultimately it 
will impact this Nation's future.
  Today, this country is a world leader by nearly every economic 
indicator, and our standard of living is without equal. But that didn't 
happen by accident. Our predecessors made a decision to make the 
critical investment in education and ensure access to an affordable 
education. While we seem to be increasing the barriers to a college 
education, we should not doubt for a moment that our international 
competitors are making that mistake. China, India, South Korea and 
others are making the investment to produce the intellectual capital 
they will need to boost their economic growth and catch up to the 
United States.
  College financial aid is an investment in America's economic strength 
and its workforce. If the barriers to a college education continue to 
increase, America's preeminence in the world economy will be at risk. 
If we want to ensure we retain our international preeminence, we must 
make the investment in our most important engine of economic growth: 
the American people. They are our Nation's most valuable resource.
  We must make college truly affordable for every student who has the 
ability and the will to work hard, study and continue to make America 
the world's economic leader. But we will not be doing that with this 
legislation. And as we bring this bill to the House floor, we are 
sending a very loud signal that partisanship has a higher priority

[[Page 4290]]

in this Congress than working together to address the needs of the 
Nation.
  In previous Congresses, the higher education reauthorization has come 
to the floor with a rule simply requiring the preprinting of 
amendments, certainly a far more open process than today. Those rules 
passed each time by voice vote. It allowed healthy debate on one of the 
most important bills this Congress considers, because we must get it 
right. But we don't see the same rule in this Congress. Instead, the 
Rules Committee chose to shut out Members' ideas by issuing this first 
restrictive rule late last night, which is likely to be followed by a 
second rule that also shuts Members out of the process.
  Once again, we see the majority limiting the ideas that can be 
debated on the House floor. It will only add to this bill's flawed 
consideration, and ultimately, it will block efforts to correct its 
misguided priorities.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and the underlying 
legislation so we can return to the floor with a higher education bill 
that does make the investment in our young people and our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the 
subcommittee of jurisdiction dealing with higher education issues.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
today in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 609, the College 
Access and Opportunity Act, which will reauthorize the Higher Education 
Act.
  Don't believe the hype from the critics of this legislation. Here is 
some straight talk: not a single student in America will receive less 
financial aid under this bill. Not one. This legislation actually 
expands college access for millions of American students by 
strengthening the Pell Grant program and by reauthorizing the Perkins 
student loan program.
  I will focus my comments this morning on the heart of this 
legislation, which is Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Both of these are 
worthy programs which enjoy broad bipartisan support.
  As someone from humble beginnings, who would not have been able to go 
to college without Pell Grants and student loans, and as chairman of 
the subcommittee with jurisdiction over higher education, I am a strong 
supporter of both Perkins loans and Pell Grants.
  Let me first discuss Perkins loans. This legislation reauthorizes the 
Perkins student loan program, a critical program that offers financial 
assistance to over 10 million low-income students. The Perkins program 
helps our neediest students borrow extra money for college at a fixed, 
low 5 percent interest rate. In this bill, we increase the loan limits 
in the Perkins program from $4,000 up to $5,500 for undergraduates and 
from $6,000 to $8,000 for graduate students, thereby increasing access 
to college.
  I will next discuss Pell Grants. This legislation strengthens the 
Pell Grant program by authorizing a maximum Pell Grant for $6,000, the 
largest amount in the history of our country, and by providing year-
round Pell Grant aid for students attending school throughout the year, 
the first time we have done that in the history of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, programs like Perkins student loans and Pell Grants are 
the passports out of poverty for millions of American students each 
year. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' 
on the College Access and Opportunity Act in order to help millions of 
college students be able to afford to go to college.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, 
my colleague, for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak on this rule and on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, scarcely 2 months ago, the Republican majority voted to 
cut $12 billion from Federal student aid programs. That is what they 
did. And not a single member of the Democratic minority voted for those 
cuts. This raid on student aid represents the single largest cut in the 
history of these critical Federal programs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to force America's college students and 
their families to pay the price for the majority's irresponsible 
management of our Nation's budget. It is wrong to make students and 
families who are already struggling to pay for college foot the bill 
for tax cuts for the super-rich.

                              {time}  1100

  In February, President Bush submitted his budget for fiscal year 
2007, which this House is likely to take up next week and which 
continues to cut America's Federal investment in higher education.
  For the sixth year in a row, President Bush has broken his promise to 
raise the maximum Pell Grant to $5,100. Instead, his budget freezes the 
maximum level at $4,050, well below what is needed for low-income 
students to pay for college. Once again, the President's budget 
eliminates Federal funding for Perkins loans and sharply cuts back 
funding for campus-based grants like the SEOG and work study.
  Financially needy students are further denied opportunities to 
achieve a college education by a budget that eliminates programs that 
directly help them prepare for college, including GEAR UP and Upward 
Bound.
  So here we are today, preparing to bring H.R. 609 to the House floor. 
Does this bill restore the purchasing power of the Pell Grant? No, it 
does not. Instead, it increases the maximum Pell Grant by just a measly 
$200 over 6 years.
  When Pell Grant first began, it covered 84 percent of the cost at a 
4-year public college. Today, because of inadequate funding, the Pell 
Grant covers only 42 percent of the cost, forcing millions of students 
to go deep into debt, work long hours, or forget college altogether. 
Does this bill guarantee that only the minor authorized increase for 
the Pell Grant in H.R. 609 will actually be funded at this level? No, 
it does not. Assuming Republican priorities remain the same, we will 
continue to see budgets and appropriations that fall far short of what 
is needed to make college affordable for all of America's qualified 
students.
  Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the Republican leadership to do 
the right thing. We can strengthen and improve this bill, but only if 
the Rules Committee makes in order amendments like the Miller-Kildee 
alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, as written, misses the mark. We must help 
more of our students get to college and afford to stay there. If we 
fail to truly make this our number one priority, then we fail our 
students, our families, our communities and the Nation, and we inflict 
long-term damage on America's ability to compete, our economy and 
America's future prosperity.
  What a rotten legacy this Republican Congress is leaving future 
generations: enormous Federal debt and the slashing of important vital 
programs to give all Americans the opportunity to pursue higher 
education.
  I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your 
priorities are wrong. Your priorities will do damage to our students 
and will undercut our Nation's ability to remain an economic 
superpower. You have already slashed away at Federal funding for 
elementary and secondary education despite all the new Federal mandates 
that have been imposed on our schools by No Child Left Behind. Now here 
we are shortchanging higher education. When is enough enough?
  Don't tell us you do not have the money. You have money for tax 
breaks for Donald Trump and the super-rich, but you don't have money 
when it comes to helping working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that if education is your 
priority, then you need to vote against this bill, send this bill back 
and force this Republican majority to do what is right. Do not listen 
to the rhetoric about somehow we are improving Pell Grants and we are 
providing more assistance to our younger people. The fact of the matter 
is the purchasing

[[Page 4291]]

power of Pell Grants is at an all-time low. We could do better.
  Without significant changes in this bill, I regret that I cannot 
support H.R. 609. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This 
should be an open rule. If anything should be debated on this House 
floor, it should be education.
  Last night, we had many Members offer amendments, and here we are 
with a restrictive rule. We should spend a week on education. We should 
not be rushing this in a day or two. Let's spend a week. It is that 
important. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote 
against the bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts and his 
discussion of the budget issues we will be debating next week. It is a 
good primer for that particular issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, to 
speak about this bill at hand.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend, the great 
history professor, who understands the importance of education and for 
his stellar service on the Rules Committee and his commitment to 
ensuring that we have a good piece of legislation.
  At the outset, let me say that we obviously have seen Chairman McKeon 
work in a bipartisan way reaching out to my fellow Californian, Mr. 
Miller, from Martinez, California, who has also a passionate commitment 
to dealing with the issue of education.
  I have to say when I sat in the Rules Committee yesterday, listening 
to this debate, I was struck by the fact that my friend, Mr. Miller, 
was regularly nodding his head in agreement with Mr. McKeon when he 
talked about issue after issue that had been addressed by the majority 
on the committee. I hope very much, as we proceed with this process, 
that we are able to once again enjoy the bipartisan support and 
commitment we had on this issue about 36 hours ago.
  I also want to say to my friend from Massachusetts who raised the 
issue of the rule, this is the first of two rules. We have begun with 
this rule, and we will be providing an opportunity for more of our 
colleagues to offer amendments as we move on with this debate, which is 
not going to be a 1-day debate. We understand how important this issue 
is.
  I also want to express my appreciation to Mr. McKeon for addressing 
some of the major concerns that have been brought forward by the 
leaders of private schools, private colleges and universities. One of 
the things that we need to recognize in our society is we have 
pluralism in education. We have spectacular public and private schools 
of learning. I believe, as we look at the education challenge, it is 
important for us to take the steps to ensure the strength of both of 
those. A number of concerns that have been raised by many of my friends 
in the academic world have been effectively addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, it was 6 years ago this month that 15 European heads of 
state met in Lisbon, Portugal, and pledged to make the European Union 
the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world 
by 2010. By their own account, the EU has acknowledged that that goal 
has failed and will not be accomplished.
  The German economist, Andreas Schleicher, published a report 
entitled, ``The Economics of Knowledge: Why Education is Key For 
Europe's Success.'' As the title indicates, Schleicher concludes in a 
knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy, education is the linchpin. 
He also concludes that right now Europe is lagging well behind the 
United States. He ranks the world's top 20 universities and finds that 
the EU is home to only two of those.
  I am happy to say that the United States is home to 17 of them, 
including six in California, and one, the California Institute of 
Technology in Pasadena, of which I am particularly proud.
  Schleicher makes it clear that without a substantial investment in 
education in the high-tech and knowledge-based fields, the European 
Union will not only fail to reach its goal of having the most 
competitive economy by 2010, it will continue to fall further and 
further behind. The report was meant to be a wake-up call for 
Europeans, but I believe it should be a wake-up call for us as 
Americans.
  We lead the global economy in growth, fueled by the power of our 
innovation. We are home to the world's best universities where today's 
students train for tomorrow's workforce, where creative thinkers 
conduct research and develop new technologies. But as a dynamic, fast-
paced, highly competitive economy, we know better than anyone that 
complacency and stagnation are economic death knells. We cannot assume 
that today's competitiveness ensures tomorrow's success.
  If we want to continue to be the global economic leader, we must 
expand our investment in education. We must better prepare students for 
the rigorous work that the high-tech workforce demands. We must better 
equip teachers to provide the educational foundation that our students 
need. And, Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that our institutions of higher 
learning continue to be the hotbeds of research where new ideas are 
tested, new methods are discovered and new technologies are developed.
  I believe that H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, 
which we are going to be considering, helps us to accomplish each of 
those goals. It is a critical component of our agenda to enhance the 
competitiveness of the U.S. economy, and it is necessary to ensure that 
the next generation of American workers does not find itself reading 
reports on our lack of top universities and our inability to compete in 
the global marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and as we go through this 
amendment process, specifically addressing concerns that I raised, that 
we will take on in the manager's amendment, I urge my colleagues to, in 
a bipartisan way, support this very, very important legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is very little I can disagree within what the 
gentleman from California said in his prior statement. But if you 
really want a bipartisan process to move forward in shaping what is 
perhaps the most important piece of legislation that is going to be 
coming out of the Congress this year, the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act, then open up the process, both in committee for those of 
us serving on the committee with regard to the ideas that we want to 
share and improve with this bill, but also on the House floor today and 
tomorrow.
  Last night, we had a Rules process where many of us went forward to 
testify on various amendments that we wanted to offer. Instead, today, 
we get a very restrictive rule with very limited amendments that will 
be considered over the next couple of days. We should have a much 
broader debate in regards to the education bill before us, rather than 
the restrictive rule that is before us today.
  I agree that we need to be innovative and creative as a society, not 
only to grow the economy, but for national security implications. If 
the gentleman wants us to remain innovative and creative as a country, 
then let us do it with this bill. Let us invest in these areas; and 
this is the vehicle by which to do it.
  Today, China is graduating nine times the number of engineers than we 
do. Last year, China graduated more English-speaking engineers. It is 
not as if we do not know this is happening. The studies are coming in. 
The National Academy of Sciences just produced a report ``Rising Above 
the Gathering Storm.'' The Glenn Commission that met years before 
submitted a report called ``Before It is Too Late,'' citing the 
difficulties we will face given the major education investments that 
countries like China and India are

[[Page 4292]]

making in their future, in their students. And yet we have just token 
recognition of that in this important vehicle, the higher education 
bill. We can do a lot better.
  I believe the amendments offered last night were offered in good 
faith in an attempt to craft a more bipartisan bill. The fact that so 
many of us are excluded from offering them, even having a discussion 
about many of these important amendments on the floor, is a disgrace to 
the process.
  My friend from Massachusetts is exactly right. We should be debating 
this bill for a week. We should open it up and allow everyone on the 
committee and off the committee to have some input and say on our most 
important legislation this year. I hope we can go back and address 
that. I encourage a no vote on this Rule.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, traditionally, the higher education bill has been an 
opportunity for this Nation to pause and think about the role of higher 
education over the coming years in American society, in America's 
economy, in America's national security. Every 4 or 5 years we 
reauthorize that act. That is not what happened this time, and that is 
why you have opposition to this bill across the higher education 
community, across America from every sector, because we did not do 
that.
  Instead, the higher education bill was hijacked. It was hijacked by 
those in the Republican Party that wanted to take the savings from the 
student aid accounts and give them to the oil companies and to the 
energy companies for their tax breaks. To continue to pay for the tax 
breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, they hijacked those 
moneys that America's families and students have been paying over the 
years, the excessive fees and excessive rates that they have been 
paying, and rather than reinvest them in America's future, rather than 
reinvest them in the institutions of higher education, in the families 
and students who are attending those institutions who are trying to get 
those advanced degrees to participate, they simply took that money 3 
months ago and walked off with it. And now what we have here are the 
leftovers, the leftovers that state lofty principles and ideals, but 
fund none of them.
  The Budget Committee is slashing education funding. The caps have 
suggested that they want cuts beyond what the President has suggested 
in his budget, and that is the status of higher education in America 
today.
  What does it mean? Members recall Mr. Dreier talked about the EU 
coming to some conclusions. You do not have to go to the EU. Just 
listen to what Americans, who are thinking about the subject, who have 
a great stake in the outcome have been telling this Congress for a 
number of years, and this Congress has turned a deaf ear to those 
individuals under Republican leadership.

                              {time}  1115

  Whether it is the American Academy of Sciences, whether it is the 
Council of Graduate Schools, whether it is the American Electronics 
Association, whether it is Tech Net, whether it is the bioscience 
companies, all of these people have paraded to Washington and said one 
thing: you must reinvest in the R&D and in fellowships and in graduate 
school programs for science, engineering and mathematics. It is not 
being done. It is not being done. We recognized and we have been warned 
of the need to reinvest in the greatest partnership ever created in the 
history of the world, the greatest public-private partnership that was 
the result of President Kennedy's decision to send a person to the Moon 
and to bring them back safely. It was more than a Moon shot. It was an 
investment in the best and the brightest in America. Tens of thousands 
of fellowships were given to individuals. They didn't have to go beg 
for a loan. They didn't have to think about working during the summer 
or on Easter vacation or student break. No, they concentrated on the 
science and the engineering, and America met its goal. And we have been 
living off that legacy now for 30 years.
  But everybody in that field, betting their money, their company's 
money, their venture capitalist money has told us the time has come to 
reinvest. That is not what this bill does. That is not what this bill 
does. This bill just passes on as if nothing has changed in America. 
And yet, members of this committee, Members of this House have traveled 
to the Pacific Rim. They see the new institutions being created in 
India and South Korea and China. They see institutions that are 
attracting some of the best and brightest minds from America to those 
institutions. They see the investment being made by the private sector 
of worldwide companies, American companies, because of that kind of 
investment that is being made there.
  But this bill doesn't address that. This bill is just status quo. 
This bill doesn't create new fellowships. This bill doesn't create new 
opportunities for people to pursue those degrees. This bill simply adds 
to the debt and the cost, because when I say ``this bill,'' understand 
I talk about both bills. You split them for the convenience of what you 
wanted to do with your raid on student aid. But this is the higher ed 
bill. The moneys were skimmed off in the name of the oil companies. The 
moneys were skimmed off in the name of tax cuts to the wealthy, so we 
don't have the ability to make that investment that we have been warned 
about by the leading companies, by the leading people who have been 
thinking about this, by various institutions about the investment that 
America needs to make.
  So we have a bill now that really doesn't do much of anything. It 
pretends that it sort of increases Pell Grants, but as we know, the 
Pell Grant has continued to lose value. Yes, they say, well, we put 
more money in it every year. That is because more students, tragically, 
are eligible for the Pell Grant because they don't have the family 
income. And we now see that the Pell Grant now covers the lowest 
percentage of costs for those students who have Pell Grants going to 
school; it has dropped from 41 percent. It covered 41 percent of those 
costs in 2000. It is now down; it will be down to 25 percent by 2010.
  So the trend line is horrible. The trend line is horrible for those 
students most in need, those families most in need. More and more of 
them are showing up to get the Pell Grant, but they are not getting 
enough money to cover the costs of their college education. The trend 
line is horrible. And the number of students who are pursuing graduate 
degrees in science, math and engineering, it is working against the 
American economy and American security. But this bill doesn't address 
that.
  The Higher Education Act has lost its place in the priorities of this 
Congress and the priorities of this Nation about the future of 
education, and that is a tragedy. That is a tragedy for those students 
who will be saddled with higher costs because of the increase in 
interest rates, with higher fees. Their parents will be saddled with 
higher costs. Those who will choose to take out direct loans to try to 
reduce the cost will find out they are paying fees now.
  And so that is what the Republicans decided. Their idea, when every 
indicator suggests that college costs are getting out of the reach of 
America's families and students and workers, their idea was to increase 
the cost to those families and to their students. It is just 
unacceptable. It was unacceptable 3 months ago, and it is unacceptable 
today. This bill should be returned to committee, and we should 
initiate the debate that this country demands and that this country 
needs in terms of the future of these students, our economy and our 
national security. That is what this higher education bill should be 
about. It should not be about the leftovers after the largest cut in 
student aid accounts in history have already been pulled off 2 months 
ago.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.

[[Page 4293]]

McKeon), the former subcommittee chairman who dealt with this issue, 
and now the chairman of the full committee who has brought this bill to 
us and done a remarkable job in getting us to this position so far.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, 
and I appreciate the work he is doing on this rule.
  Just a little history, Mr. Speaker. You know, we have been working on 
this higher education reauthorization bill now for 3 years, and we have 
been doing it in a bipartisan way. What the other side wants to focus 
on is something that took place a few months ago. And what we did, we 
passed a Deficit Reduction Act to try to help the taxpayers of the 
country against further increasing deficits. And what we did in that 
bill was we lowered loan fees to students. We set higher loan limits 
for students in their first 2 years of college, which is when they have 
the greatest problem in staying in, when we have the greatest dropouts. 
We wanted to help those that are trying to get on the ladder of success 
to achieve the American Dream. We provided grant aid for high-
achieving, low-income students, which is the purpose of the Higher 
Education Act, to help the lower-income students to have greater 
accessibility to a college education. And we simplified the financial 
aid process, again, trying to help those who have the most needs to get 
into the system. We provided taxpayer protections. What we did was we 
reduced the excess subsidies to lenders. There was a loophole that was 
put in the law years ago. We reduced that, eliminated that loophole 
that provided an increased subsidy to lenders. We improved risk 
sharing. We added accountability to administrative funds, and we 
provided protection and prevention against loan default, all against 
the lenders, to help strengthen the program for students.
  As I mentioned, we have been working on this in a bipartisan basis, 
and up until yesterday, that effort was moving forward in committee and 
subcommittee and full committee. We addressed over a hundred amendments 
from the other side of the aisle. And since the passage, months ago, in 
committee, we have continued to work with the other side. We have a 
lengthy manager's amendment. Everything that is in that manager's 
amendment has been approved by the other side. I have pages of 
amendments, things that we have put in the bill to satisfy the other 
side. And we were, as I said, working together, until yesterday when 
they said they had decided, and I can only assume it is for political 
reasons because it didn't come up until then, they decided that they 
were going to go back and talk about something that happened months 
ago, rather than what is in this bill, the good things that we have in 
this bill to make college education more affordable, more accessible, 
more accountable to parents and students in this Nation.
  Our goal is to further the process that was put in place 40 years ago 
when the Higher Education Act was passed, to give all of the people in 
this country the opportunity to move forward, to get a college 
education, to improve themselves so that we can compete on a global 
basis.
  I led a congressional trip last year to China, because we are 
concerned about worldwide competitiveness, and we do things in this 
bill to help make us more competitive and to expand access and 
accessibility for our students. And I feel good about what we have done 
in this work. I feel badly that we have had this, for whatever reason, 
change of tone and attitude on the other side. And I hope that we can 
continue to reach out to the other side, ask them to continue to work 
with us, and that is why we are going to have another rule later today. 
Those who want to work with us, that want to have an amendment in the 
bill that can support the bill to move forward, this is a long process. 
What we are working on today is not the end. It is a further step in 
the process. We will get this bill passed on the floor tomorrow. 
Hopefully, the other body will pass a bill, we will go to conference, 
we will continue to work to improve the process. That is the democratic 
process that we are buying into and instead, all we are hearing is no, 
no, no from the other side. I think it is about time, you know, there 
are lots of issues we can fight on, but education should be bipartisan. 
And you know that we have worked together to make this a bipartisan 
approach, and I feel sad that you have decided to make this partisan, 
but we are not going to let that stop us. We are going to move forward. 
We are going to get the bill passed, because the important thing is to 
reach out and help the students in our country be able to compete as we 
go forward in our progress. It is not going to have a lot of effect on 
me, but it is going to affect my children, my 28 grandchildren that are 
going to be able to, hopefully, get an education and compete on a 
worldwide basis.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the rule and to H.R. 609 in its current form. Prior to coming to 
Congress, for 29 years, I was a college administrator, and I spent 16 
of those years as the chief administrator of the college I served. And 
my views on this bill and on this rule are informed by what I learned 
over the course of that time in dealing with students and faculty and 
parents and staff and all constituencies of the higher education 
community.
  Over a hundred amendments have been offered on this bill, and this 
underscores the importance of this bill and of this issue to this 
Congress and to our future. And I understand that we are going to have 
a second rule, but I am troubled that the Rules Committee thus far 
seems to have excluded a great many amendments that would have taken a 
bill that many of us take issue with and made it better. We are talking 
about getting it through this week. What's the rush? Why do we have to 
take the most important issue to our future and rush through a 
consideration of a bill that is going to have far reaching consequences 
for the next several years? I mean, is this not what the American 
people sent us here to do, to debate the issues of importance to our 
future?
  Some specific issues: There is an amendment with respect to whether 
or not the Federal Government should have a role in evaluating transfer 
credit and forming institutional policies on transfer credit. Is that 
not an issue that this body should debate? Should this body not debate 
whether or not we ought to extend the tuition tax credit that expired 
on December 31, a tax credit, by the way, that primarily benefits the 
middle class? Should we not be debating a reasonable change to the 
needs analysis system, the fundamental system that determines a 
family's ability to pay, which determines their eligibility for aid, 
which, in turn, determines whether or not they will be able to attend 
college? These are just some of the issues that at least thus far the 
rule excludes from consideration. And in so doing, I would say that the 
American people and certainly the students of this country are not 
being well served.
  As Mr. McKeon, our chairman, just said, education is the last issue 
we should be politicizing, but it appears that that is precisely what 
we are doing. Simply put, H.R. 609 fails to achieve its goal. We said 
the goal would be to make college more affordable and to expand access 
for Americans who wish to pursue the dream of a college education. H.R. 
609, in its present form, falls woefully short of that goal. I say let 
us vote down this rule. Let us send the bill back to the Education 
Committee and let us try again.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud that America stands for 
opportunity, regardless of one's background. Our colleges and 
universities provide millions of students with the chance to realize 
their dreams and blaze their own paths. This could not happen without 
the Higher Education Act. But today we see the support coming under 
attack. This bill keeps the Federal Pell Grant stuck in the 1970s.

[[Page 4294]]



                              {time}  1130

  It increases interest rates on loans and forces students to absorb 
new fees. We should be expanding our students' horizon, not restricting 
it. And unless the second rule is open or allows every amendment 
submitted to Rules to be considered on the floor, it is shutting down 
this process.
  Again, I want to point out that the last two times this House 
reauthorized the Higher Education Act, in 1992 and 1998, it did so 
under an amendment process that allowed any amendment that complied 
with House rules to be offered on the floor. We should do the same this 
time.
  I urge all Members to reject this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized to close.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in our discussion of the rule today, 
we have heard many things. We have heard discussions of budget issues, 
which will be addressed when we do the appropriations bill later on. We 
have heard discussion of rules that were not made into this particular 
rules order even though we clearly said there will be another rule 
coming up later to address those other issues, others of those 117 
amendments that were made, many of which were made by members of the 
committee who had full opportunity to debate and discuss, as they have 
talked about the 79 amendments in the committee, in a committee process 
that since the pre-War of 1812 days, when Henry Clay established the 
committee process to make a full and open hearing of these issues in 
committee before it came to the floor.
  Nonetheless, there will still be two rules. This rule takes 15 of 
those amendments, opening up the opportunity for those later on to 
come.
  We have also heard rhetoric about a bill that was passed last year. I 
find it important to remember that even when the Constitution was being 
debated, the anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, made their 
case and lost, and then moved on and worked together with the 
Federalists, who passed the Constitution, to work together for a better 
country. That is the opportunity we have, to try to emulate that right 
now. It is time now to work together on this bill, on what this bill 
does.
  You have already heard from the subcommittee chairman that it does no 
harm to those already in the system. You have heard from the chairman 
of the full committee how its goal is to increase the number of kids 
who can have access to these opportunities to enhance and reach their 
dream of a college education. That is the purpose. That is the goal. 
That is where we should maintain our focus. This rule provides for the 
first step in reaching that goal, and we will have another opportunity 
with a second rule later.
  It is a good and fair rule, and I urge adoption of it because it 
deals with a bill that moves us forward, a bill where we should unite 
to move forward because it helps kids in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 198, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page 4295]]



                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blunt
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Evans
     Istook
     McCollum (MN)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sweeney


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1159

  Messrs. CLEAVER, STARK, RANGEL and GEORGE MILLER of California 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________