[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4446-4477]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 742 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 609.

                              {time}  1209


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 
1965, with Mr. Chocola (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, March 29, 2006, amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-
399 by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) had been disposed of and 
proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 741 had been completed.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 742, no further general debate shall be 
in order.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 742, no further amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 109-401. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered 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.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by 
     Mrs. Biggert:
       Page 230, after line 10, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (d) Homeless Youth.--Section 480(d) is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) has been verified as both a homeless child or youth 
     and an unaccompanied youth, as such terms are defined in 
     section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11434a), during the school year in which the 
     application for financial assistance is submitted, by--
       ``(A) a local educational agency liaison for homeless 
     children and youths, as designated under section 
     722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii));
       ``(B) a director of a homeless shelter, transitional 
     shelter, or independent living program; or
       ``(C) a financial aid administrator;''.


[[Page 4447]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment that 
would make the dream of a college education more accessible to youth 
who are homeless and on their own.
  While many young people experience homelessness as part of a family, 
so many youth in homeless situations are on their own. These children 
are unaccompanied for reasons that are extremely diverse and usually 
heartbreaking. In many cases they have run away to escape physical or 
sexual abuse. Others have been abandoned by their parents.
  Due to their severe poverty, these homeless students are extremely 
unlikely to be able to access post-secondary education without Federal 
student aid. But in order to determine student eligibility for aid, the 
FAFSA requires them to provide financial information and a signature 
from their parent or guardian.
  While these requirements are logical for most applicants, they create 
insurmountable barriers for unaccompanied homeless youth. So the very 
children who are most in need of financial assistance are the least 
likely to receive it.
  My amendment removes these barriers by allowing unaccompanied 
homeless youth to be considered independent students. To ensure that 
there is no fraud or abuse, the living situation of the student must be 
verified by one of the following individuals: a McKinney-Vento Act 
school district liaison, a shelter director, or a financial aid 
administrator.
  This independent student status will ensure that unaccompanied 
homeless youth are not required to provide their parental income 
information and parental signature, information they simply do not have 
and cannot get. The amendment thus opens the doors of higher education 
to some of our Nation's most vulnerable youth.
  I should add, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment was scored by the CBO 
as having no budgetary impact.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, a good 
member of her committee, for her work. I think this makes the bill 
better, and I hope all of our Members can support this amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do 
not intend to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I, too, want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, 
and I would ask everybody to support it. I thank her for all the work 
she does on behalf of homeless youth. We appreciate it, and I am sure 
they do too.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is certainly thoughtful, 
realistic and sensitive, and I urge everyone to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Thank you all. I would like to thank in particular Chairman 
McKeon and the ranking member, Mr. Miller of California, for their 
support for homeless education. Whether we are talking about the No 
Child Left Behind Act or this legislation today, the Education and 
Workforce Committee members and staff have worked in a bipartisan way 
to address problems related to the education of homeless children, and 
I believe that we have made significant progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by 
     Mr. Gohmert:
       Page 31, beginning on line 20, strike subsection (f) and 
     insert the following:
       (f) Outcomes and Actions.--
       (1) Response from institution.--Effective on June 30, 2010, 
     an institution that has a college affordability index that 
     exceeds 2.0 for any 3-year interval ending on or after that 
     date shall provide a report to the Secretary, in such a form, 
     at such time, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require. Such report shall include--
       (A) a description of the factors contributing to the 
     increase in the institution's costs and in the tuition and 
     fees charged to students; and
       (B) if determinations of tuition and fee increases are not 
     within the exclusive control of the institution, a 
     description of the agency or instrumentality of State 
     government or other entity that participates in such 
     determinations and the authority exercised by such agency, 
     instrumentality, or entity.
       (2) Quality-efficiency task forces.--
       (A) Required.--Each institution subject to paragraph (1) 
     that has a college affordability index that is in the highest 
     5 percent of such indexes of all institutions subject to 
     paragraph (1) shall establish a quality-efficiency task force 
     to review the operations of such institution.
       (B) Membership.--Such task force shall include 
     administrators and business and civic leaders and may include 
     faculty, students, trustees, parents of students, and alumni 
     of such institution.
       (C) Functions.--Such task force shall analyze institutional 
     operating costs in comparison with such costs at other 
     institutions within the class of institutions. Such analysis 
     should identify areas where, in comparison with other 
     institutions in such class, the institution operates more 
     expensively to produce a similar result. Any identified areas 
     should then be targeted for in-depth analysis for cost 
     reduction opportunities.
       (D) Report.--The results of the analysis by a quality-
     efficiency task force under this paragraph shall be included 
     in the report to the Secretary under paragraph (1).
       (3) Consequences for 2-year continuation of failure.--If 
     the Secretary determines that the institution has failed to 
     reduce the college affordability index below 2.0 for such 2 
     academic years, the Secretary shall place the institution on 
     an affordability alert status and shall make the information 
     regarding the institution's failure available in accordance 
     with subsection (d).
       (4) Information to state agencies.--Any institution that 
     reports under paragraph (1)(A) that an agency or 
     instrumentality of State government or other entity 
     participates in the determinations of tuition and fee 
     increases shall, prior to submitting any information to the 
     Secretary under this subsection, submit such information to, 
     and request the comments and input of, such agency, 
     instrumentality, or entity. With respect to any such 
     institution, the Secretary shall provide a copy of any 
     communication by the Secretary with that institution to such 
     agency, instrumentality, or entity.
       (5) Exemptions.--
       (A) Relative price exemption.--The Secretary shall, for any 
     3-year interval for which college affordability indexes are 
     computed under paragraph (1), determine and publish the 
     dollar amount that, for each class of institution described 
     in paragraph (6) represents the maximum tuition and fees 
     charged for a full-time undergraduate student in the least 
     costly quartile of institutions within each such class during 
     the last year of such 3-year interval. An institution that 
     has a college affordability index computed under paragraph 
     (1) that exceeds 2.0 for any such 3-year interval, but that, 
     on average during such 3-year interval, charges less than 
     such maximum tuition and fees shall not be subject to the 
     actions required by paragraph (3), unless such institution, 
     for a subsequent 3-year interval, charges more than such 
     maximum tuition and fees.
       (B) Dollar increase exemption.--An institution that has a 
     college affordability index computed under paragraph (1) that 
     exceeds 2.0 for any 3-year interval, but that exceeds such 
     2.0 by a dollar amount that is less than $500, shall not be 
     subject to the actions required by paragraph (3), unless such 
     institution has a college affordability index for a 
     subsequent 3-year interval that exceeds 2.0 by more than such 
     dollar amount.
       (6) Classes of institutions.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the classes of institutions shall be those 
     sectors used by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
     System, based on whether the institution is public, nonprofit 
     private, or for-profit private, and

[[Page 4448]]

     whether the institution has a 4-year, 2-year, or less than 2-
     year program of instruction.
       (7) Data rejection.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as allowing the Secretary to reject the data 
     submitted by an individual institution of higher education.
       Page 37, after line 2, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate the succeeding subsections accordingly):
       ``(g) Information to the Public.--Upon receipt of an 
     institution's report required under subsection (f), the 
     Secretary shall make the information in the report available 
     to the public in accordance with subsection (d) on the COOL 
     website under subsection (b).
       Page 262, beginning on line 19, strike paragraph (1) and 
     redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment seeks to cut down on Federal meddling with our 
colleges and universities. As Republicans, we have made a promise to 
the American people that we stand for less government, not more. Our 
preeminent system of higher education is the last thing that needs 
extensive Federal oversight. We have seen what happened to K-12 as the 
Federal Government started meddling too much 30 years ago in it, and we 
are only now starting to recover from Federal meddling 30 years ago.
  I do support the overall bill, and I would like to thank Chairman 
McKeon for working with me on the amendment. He and his staff have been 
wonderful to work with, and I thank them for being so gracious.
  But this amendment would strike certain reporting requirements for 
colleges and universities within section 131(f). Cutting down on some 
red tape will allow these schools to focus on educating their students 
first.
  This amendment also strikes section 495(a)(1) that would allow States 
to apply to the Secretary of Education to become recognized 
accreditors. It just looked like that created more Federal bureaucracy, 
more State bureaucracy, and we have the best university system in the 
world. It is too expensive. It has gotten expensive so fast, and with 
two kids in college, I certainly am very sensitive to that.
  So I applaud the chairman's efforts in his bill to assist in bringing 
those down, but I have concerns about some of these other provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Dent), my friend.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I, too, applaud Representative Gohmert for 
this amendment. This amendment does recognize that the American system 
of higher education is truly the envy of the world, and just as 
importantly, it recognizes the role our independent colleges and 
universities play in that overall system.
  Specifically, this amendment addresses the primary concerns of so 
many of the private and independent colleges about what they have seen 
as a genuine threat to their independence and their ability to fulfill 
their diverse missions.
  I, like many others in this chamber, have spoken with a number of the 
presidents in my district and understand how deeply they feel about 
undertaking their responsibilities to their students without excessive 
and inappropriate Federal or State interference.
  And for this reason, I offer my support for the Gohmert amendment 
which removes Federal intervention mechanisms while pushing schools to 
voluntarily rein in costs, and that is all included in this 
legislation. It also further eliminates the authority for States to 
become accreditors.
  The other good thing about this amendment is disclosures are still in 
the bill, but the price controls essentially are out.
  In terms of States as accreditors, the concern would be that any 
State higher education bureaucracy that wants to control the State's 
private and independent colleges can simply require State 
accreditation, giving the State control over its curriculum and 
mission. Although the intent of the provision is to offer more options 
to the institutions, the opposite may well occur. There is no way to 
anticipate all the ways in which a State might seek to control private 
institutions using its accreditation powers as leverage.
  For all those reasons, I strongly support Mr. Gohmert's amendment and 
thank Chairman McKeon for his willingness to work with us on this 
matter.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for those kind comments. At 
this time, I would like to thank the chairman for reaching out to me, 
and I also want to thank all of the institutions of higher learning in 
the districts. We have heard from so many of them. They have been so 
helpful, and I just appreciate that that is what makes for better 
government.
  I do applaud the chairman's efforts to stem the tide of vast 
increases over the last 30 years in the cost of education, and this 
amendment and the provisions that it deals with, I think it does create 
a bill that will be a significant help to America in higher education.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) my chairman.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank Mr. Gohmert from Texas for the great work that he has 
done on improving this bill.
  It is very important that this amendment passes and Mr. Souder's 
amendment later today. I have a letter here from NAICU, the National 
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, who have been 
vigorously opposing the bill, and because of your amendment and Mr. 
Souder's amendment, they have written us today that they are 
withdrawing their opposition to the bill on the House floor and I 
appreciate that, and I appreciate all the work that Mr. Gohmert has 
done on this bill.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition, although I do not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). Without objection, the gentleman 
is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
offering this amendment. It is a step in the right direction on some of 
the provisions that I expressed concern over yesterday, and I have no 
objection to its adoption, urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


         Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by 
     Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island:
       Page 189, line 13, redesignate subparagraph (I) as 
     subparagraph (J), and before such subparagraph insert the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) Child or adolescent mental health professionals.--An 
     individual who is employed as child or adolescent mental 
     health professional and is currently providing a majority of 
     their clinical services to children or adolescents.
       Page 194, after line 14, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(8) Child or adolescent mental health professional.--The 
     term `child or adolescent mental health professional' means 
     an

[[Page 4449]]

     individual who is employed as a psychiatrist, psychologist, 
     school psychologist, psychiatric nurse, social worker, school 
     social worker, marriage and family therapist, school 
     counselor, or professional counselor and holds an advanced 
     degree in one of the above areas with specialized training in 
     child or adolescent mental health.
       ``(9) Specialized training in child or adolescent mental 
     health.--The term `specialized training in child or 
     adolescent mental health' means training that
       ``(A) is part of or occurs after completion of an 
     accredited graduate program in the United States for training 
     mental health service professionals;
       ``(B) consists of at least 500 hours of training or 
     clinical experience in treating children or adolescents; and
       ``(C) is comprehensive, coordinated, developmentally 
     appropriate, and of high quality to address the unique ethnic 
     and cultural diversity of the United States population.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to 
myself.
  Mr. Chairman, Marley Prunty-Lara is here today in the gallery. She is 
an articulate young woman living with bipolar disorder, and she is a 
suicide attempt survivor.
  She is in town because she was here to testify yesterday about her 
struggle with bipolar disorder, being forced to drop out of school and 
ultimately attempting to take her own life.
  Marley's family attempted to find a psychiatrist in South Dakota to 
treat her, but they were told that they would have to wait over 4 
months to get an initial appointment. Because her mother's insurance 
would not cover residential treatment and they were so desperate to 
find care, they took out a second mortgage on their house, and they 
drove over 350 miles to another State to get Marley the life-saving 
care that she needed.
  Mr. Chairman, Marley's story is all too common. There are just not 
enough trained professionals to treat the mental health needs of our 
children. Surgeon General Carmona has said so. The President's New 
Freedom Commission has said so.
  For the past three Congresses, my good friend from Florida Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen and I have introduced legislation aimed at alleviating the 
shortage of child and adolescent mental health providers in this 
country.
  While this amendment does not cover everything included in the 
previous three bills, it is a start.
  Within the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, there is a 
section that provides student loan forgiveness for service in areas of 
national need. Mr. Speaker, this is an area of national need.
  For many families in this Nation, as Marley can readily attest, there 
is no higher need than the need for urgent mental health care for our 
children.
  Our amendment would simply add child and adolescent mental health 
professionals to the list of high need professionals eligible for loan 
forgiveness.
  Millions of American families need hope. Millions of them need help. 
The number of suicides are twice the rate of homicides in this country; 
36,000 people take their lives every year successfully. Every day in 
this country, 1,385 people attempt suicide. It is the third leading 
cause of death for young people.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that needs addressing, and we need the 
number of providers out there to make sure it gets the attention it 
deserves.
  This year alone, 1,400 college students will successfully take their 
lives. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we have adequate 
personnel to make sure that the services are delivered, and the 
services will never be delivered unless there are enough people to 
deliver them.
  That is why this legislation is in order. That is why I would ask my 
colleagues to support it, and I thank you for the time in consideration 
of this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for offering this amendment. He and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen address some very, 
very important problems of making sure we have adequate providers 
within the community for people with mental illness, and I would hope 
that everybody would support this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
point out to the gentleman from California, there may be questions, 
what is this going to cost? The question is, what is it going to cost 
us not to do this?
  Let me give you some statistics. Two-thirds of those in juvenile 
detention facilities are being held there simply because they cannot 
get a mental health appointment because there is no one to provide an 
assessment of them, two-thirds. Any of my colleagues that are 
interested, I encourage them to go out to Oak Hill here in the District 
of Columbia and see for yourself 11- and 12-year-olds behind bars 
because their parents cannot handle their mental illness. They have no 
other choice but to call the police and get their children held in 
detention because there is nothing else for them to do.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
further yield, they could go to their own districts. This is common 
across the country. Young people are being held in locked detention 
because of the simple fact that we cannot get a diagnosis. We cannot 
put together a treatment plan because they are on a waiting list for 
the services. They do not get services. In many cases, those services 
have been ordered, but they do not get them. They get a waiting list, 
and you are right, then we pay this exorbitant cost to keep them in 
there, but more importantly, denying them the treatment that they need.
  So, increasing the number of providers so that we can address these 
concerns and these problems that young people have is just absolutely 
important.
  The idea of making these providers eligible for loan forgiveness is a 
service to our community, and I am sure that the House will support 
this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and 
I thank Marley for her courage and her witness here today.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that it is not in 
order to refer to the presence of persons in the gallery.
  Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition; 
although I do not intend to oppose the bill.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for their efforts on this amendment, 
and again, I think it strengthens the bill, and I thank them for this 
and encourage support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote 
to demonstrate this House's support for mental health services in this 
country.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by 
     Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of part B of title IX of the Amendment add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ___. RACIAL AND ETHNIC PREFERENCES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids 
     discrimination on the basis of race,

[[Page 4450]]

     color, or national origin by Federally-funded institutions, 
     which includes nearly all colleges and universities.
       (2) The United States Supreme Court has recently set out 
     limitations on such considerations of race, color, and 
     national origin.
       (3) In order to ensure that these limitations are followed, 
     schools must make public their use of race, color, and 
     national origin, for admissions decisions so that Federal and 
     State enforcement agencies and interested persons can monitor 
     the schools.
       (4) Citizens and taxpayers have a right to know whether 
     Federally-funded institutions of higher education are 
     treating student applications differently depending on the 
     student's race, color, or national origin, and, if so, the 
     way in which these factors are weighted and the consequences 
     to students and prospective students of these decisions.
       (b) Reports on Admissions Process Required.--
       (1) Report required.--Every academic year, each institution 
     of higher education that receives funds from the Federal 
     Government shall provide to the Office for Civil Rights of 
     the Department of Education a report regarding its students 
     admissions process, and the report shall be made publicly 
     available.
       (2) Disclosure of consideration of race, color, or national 
     origin.--
       (A) Disclosure.--The report required by this section shall 
     begin with a statement of whether race, color, or national 
     origin is given any weight in the student admissions process.
       (B) Departmental disclosures.--If different departments 
     within the institution have separate admission processes and 
     any of those departments give any weight to race, color, and 
     national origin, then the report shall provide the 
     information required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph 
     and paragraph (3) for each department separately.
       (3) Additional disclosures.--If the disclosure required by 
     paragraph (2) states that race, color, or national origin is 
     given weight in the student admission process, then the 
     report under this section shall also provide the following 
     information:
       (A) The racial, color, and national origin groups for which 
     membership is considered a plus factor or a minus factor and, 
     in addition, how membership in a group is determined for 
     individual students.
       (B) A description of how group membership is considered, 
     including the weight given to such consideration and whether 
     targets, goals, or quotas are used.
       (C) A statement of why group membership is given weight, 
     including the determination of the desired level claimed and, 
     with respect to the diversity rationale, its relationship to 
     the particular institution's educational mission.
       (D) A description of the consideration that has been given 
     to racially neutral alternatives as a means for achieving the 
     same goals for which group membership is considered.
       (E) A description of how frequently the need to give weight 
     to group membership is reassessed and how that reassessment 
     is conducted.
       (F) A statement of the factors other than race, color, or 
     national origin that are collected in the admissions process. 
     Where those factors include grades or class rank in high 
     school, scores on standardized tests (including the ACT and 
     SAT), legacy status, sex, State residency, economic status, 
     or other quantifiable criteria, then all raw admissions data 
     for applicants regarding these factors, along with each 
     individual applicant's race, color, and national origin and 
     the admissions decision made by the school regarding that 
     applicant, shall accompany the report in computer-readable 
     form, with the name of the individual student redacted but 
     with appropriate links, so that it is possible for the Office 
     for Civil Rights or other interested persons to determine 
     through statistical analysis the weight being given to race, 
     color, and national origin, relative to other factors.
       (G) An analysis, and also the underlying data needed to 
     perform an analysis, of whether there is a correlation--
       (i) between membership in a group favored on account of 
     race, color, or national origin and the likelihood of 
     enrollment in a remediation program, relative to membership 
     in other groups;
       (ii) between such membership and graduation rates, relative 
     to membership in other groups; and
       (iii) between such membership and the likelihood of 
     defaulting on education loans, relative to membership in 
     other groups.
       (4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to allow or permit preference or discrimination on 
     the basis of race, color, or national origin.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  While the Supreme Court has ruled that using racial and ethnic 
preferences in higher education admission policies are sometimes 
permissible under present law, it has also established limits for such 
policies. For example, Court decisions have asserted that admissions 
policies using racial preferences must be narrowly tailored to further 
a compelling interest and that these policies cannot involve the use of 
quotas.
  The Court's also ruled that schools using racial preferences in 
admissions must consider race neutral alternatives and to limit it in 
time, for example, Justice O'Connor's remarks to revisit the decision 
in Michigan cases in perhaps 25 years.
  My amendment would require all institutions of higher education who 
receive Federal funding to fully disclose details regarding their 
admissions policies. This information would be reported annually to the 
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.
  It has several reasons why we should pass this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, and the first one is to ensure lawful admission policies are 
complied with by our institutes of higher learning who are receiving 
the Federal funds and that there are informed choices out there for the 
students as they apply to the various students, and as there are 
students who are beneficiaries of affirmative action programs, they 
need to have some sense of the performance expectations of those who 
have gone before them and benefited from affirmative action programs.
  So what my amendment does is requires each institute of higher 
learning who uses Federal funds to report their policy. If they do not 
use preferences, they simply write a letter that says we do not use 
preferences. If they do use preferences, then they need to list a 
number of things, such as, are the preferences weighted? Did they use 
target goals or quotas? What was the purpose of their policies? And 
could they evaluate a racially neutral policy effectiveness as to 
opposed to one that is not racially neutral, a list of factors other 
than race, color or national origin that they might use such as test 
scores, sex, legacy status, residency, et cetera, Mr. Chairman?

                              {time}  1230

  And, in conclusion, an analysis of their respective progress of 
appointments under these programs?
  So this gets the information back to Congress so we can better 
evaluate, and it also helps the institutions of higher learning comply 
with the Supreme Court decision. So I urge support for this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
House, I oppose this amendment and I hope most of the Members of the 
House will also oppose this amendment. The issues that are called into 
question in this amendment, the use of, the gentleman said preferences, 
but of any data, any factors in deciding the makeup of a university 
student body has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
  The fact of the matter is that quotas are unlawful, but universities 
have a right to a diverse student population, and they are allowed to 
use a diverse range of factors in compiling that university. I believe 
that the King amendment goes beyond that decision, and the amendment 
also does not provide for the protection of student privacy. In fact, 
it does just the opposite of that.
  The fact of the matter is this information is already available to 
those parties who are interested. They can get it through the Freedom 
of Information Act or the universities, obviously. At least in our 
State, they are continuously discussing operating and changing and 
reviewing their admissions policy because they are in constant 
determination of trying to provide diverse opportunities to a diverse 
population of qualified students.
  I would hope that we would reject this amendment. It is interesting 
that we just had an amendment we adopted to reduce paperwork, and now 
we are going to put on a whole new set of requirements of annual 
reports and different kinds of data and how it has to

[[Page 4451]]

be collected and weighed and all the rest of it, with no showing that 
it has been improperly done or anything wrong has happened. We are just 
going to load down the universities.
  Mr. McKeon has an effort where he is trying to reduce the cost of 
higher education by making sure universities are not engaged in those 
practices that are not necessary and that drive up the cost. And this 
comes along, outside of the Supreme Court decisions, outside the 
current practices of universities and suggests that somehow they should 
just continue to develop this information with no showing or grievance.
  If a person has a grievance or showing, or people are interested from 
an academic point of view, from a social policy point of view, or from 
any point of view, the fact of the matter is that the information is 
currently available. I would hope that we would reject this amendment 
when it comes to a vote in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Kildee.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I really think this would lead to a violation of 
privacy and have a chilling effect upon that which the Supreme Court 
has permitted in the case against Bollinger from the University of 
Michigan where I attended.
  It was a very narrow decision of the Supreme Court. I and my two sons 
attended the University of Michigan; and we, as members of the 
majority, benefited from a very sensitive, sensitivity to minorities. 
We benefited from that because we had a larger universe in which to 
study. So we gained from the fact that we were broadened out by the 
fact that there was a certain sensitivity towards minorities, very 
narrowly construed now by the Supreme Court.
  So I think it is a win-win situation. We should leave it alone. The 
Supreme Court has made its decision. It is very clear that colleges are 
following this, and I think to have all this reporting serves no useful 
purpose and would also, I think, lead to a violation of privacy and 
would, because of the reporting, even have a chilling effect upon the 
use of this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  It seems to be the core of the rebuttal argument we heard here is 
that this is a violation of student privacy and that we would be 
somehow looking into records that are confidential. I would direct the 
gentlemen who made those statements to page 4 of my amendment, lines 18 
and 19, where it says with the name of the individual student redacted 
but with appropriate links so it is possible for the Office of Civil 
Rights to determine the overall statistical data, but not have any 
individual student data. It is specifically redacted in my bill.
  I think it is appropriate and necessary for this Congress to review 
where our money is being spent and to see what kind of results we are 
getting from all of our institutions, and also to ensure that they are 
complying with the Supreme Court decision.
  I have laid this out as three points that are important: lawful, 
conforming with the Supreme Court decisions that are on the two 
Michigan cases; and informed choices for students so that they can 
evaluate when they go to an institution.
  This information is not available, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how any 
student would ever have access. And looking at how difficult it was to 
get some empirical data just out of Michigan on the way to the Supreme 
Court, there is no way a high school junior or senior could ever have 
enough access to make an informed decision without these kinds of 
reports.
  Then, of course, if a student is going to be the beneficiary of an 
affirmative action program, wouldn't they want to know what kind of 
results there were for those who have gone before them? Do they have a 
prospect of graduating? Do they have a prospect of a job afterwards? 
What is the future for them, or should they maybe take a path that is 
not quite so difficult? All of this is reasonable and it is logical.
  And the paperwork, if a university is not using an affirmative action 
preference program, they simply send a letter that says we don't do 
that. But if they do use the information, if they do use it as criteria 
for admissions, then they simply file a report. Any institution should 
know this information as a matter of their professionalism. Sharing it 
with Congress is not a burden.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just say it is 
an interesting academic study, and I am sure some of the information 
would be of interest to people, but why don't you just have the 
Department of Education periodically sort of select some universities 
and test it, rather than putting the burden on every university, 
whether large or small, rich or poor, private or public that has to 
submit this information on an annual basis where in fact there may not 
have been any complaints or there is support for that policy, if it has 
been publicly reviewed or however they handle it.
  The suggestion here that every university would have to go through 
this process is just kind of a mindless Federal Government approach to 
imposing these burdens on people without consideration of the cost, the 
need, the results, or any of the rest of it. I thought we were getting 
away from that policy. Talk about one-size-fits-all; here is one-size-
fits-all. And when they say, well, we don't do that, who is going to 
check that that is really true? Yet you start this whole process.
  And I would say, by the way, that the names aren't redacted. The 
Social Security numbers are not redacted.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would point out, again, this information is information that any 
institution of higher learning should be interested in compiling to 
determine the effectiveness of their policy. We help them along with 
this process and ask to share in that process with them.
  Additionally, Justice O'Connor's decision said perhaps we should 
revisit this in 25 years. If we can compile this data for 25 years, 
perhaps the Supreme Court can make an informed decision on affirmative 
action preference admission programs within our institutions of higher 
learning, and I urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has repeatedly 
recognized that the primary academic freedom enjoyed by a university is 
the freedom to choose whom to admit. Most recently, this principle was 
reaffirmed in the 2003 decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. 
Bollinger. The Supreme Court has also recognized that, in exercising 
this academic freedom, universities may constitutionally consider race 
and ethnicity, among other factors, to promote the educational benefits 
of a diverse student body. At the same time, universities must 
regularly review their admissions policies to ensure that they consider 
individual admissions factors only as needed to promote their 
institutional mission.
  The King amendment tramples academic freedom and chills universities' 
willingness to consider diversity factors even in the narrowly tailored 
manner that the Supreme Court has upheld. It creates a burdensome 
reporting requirement that acts as a disincentive for universities to 
exercise their academic freedom as permitted by the Court. Furthermore, 
over reliance on admissions criteria such as standardized tests, which 
have been found to be culturally biased, may also get caught up in the 
King amendment.
  The King amendment also jeopardizes the privacy and confidentiality 
of individual student applicants. Educational institutions are 
prohibited by law from disclosing personally identifiable information 
from students' education records without consent. In fact, even release 
of information for educational research purposes is permitted only if 
the information is released in such a way that student identities are 
not traceable, The King amendment would, in contradiction of this law, 
require release of raw admissions data for applicants in a manner that 
would not ensure applicant confidentiality.

[[Page 4452]]

  The King amendment incorrectly assumes that there is a weight given 
to each admissions factor by universities. However, as the Supreme 
Court explained in Gratz and Grutter, admissions factors must be 
considered in an individualized holistic manner and therefore weight 
will necessarily vary from one application to the next.
  Finally, the King amendment is opposed by the National Association 
for College Admission Counseling, the American Federation of Teachers, 
the National Education Association and the American Council on 
Education.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should not trample on the rights of 
universities to exercise academic freedom. Nor should we pass an 
amendment that would violate student privacy rights. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by Mr. King of Iowa. In my state of Michigan, we are currently 
fighting a deceptive ballot initiative that would undermine the 
progress which has been made to attain educational equality. Like that 
ballot measure, I believe that the King amendment is yet another 
deceptive attack on affirmative action.
  While the amendment looks like a mere reporting requirement, its true 
purpose is to chill the willingness of universities to consider 
diversity factors--including not only race and ethnicity, but also 
gender--even in the narrowly tailored manner that was upheld by the 
Supreme Court in the University of Michigan cases.
  In Gratz and Grutter, the Court explicitly found that universities 
may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, 
to promote the educational benefits of a diverse student body. However, 
even with this ruling by the Court, the chilling factor on legally 
permissible policies and programs is very real. This month, the New 
York Times reported that hundreds of universities had modified or given 
up programs created to promote educational opportunity for minorities 
in the face of pressure from Washington and further litigation. As one 
Dean commented in the story, the question was how far these programs 
could be stretched by these pressures before gains were put at risk.
  The chilling effect on university policy is made even worse by the 
fact that the amendment completely misapprehends the role that 
diversity factors play in the admission process. The proposed amendment 
would require universities annually to report the weight given to each 
factor--including race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, grades, 
high school class rank, standardized test scores, and so forth--
considered in the admissions process.
  As the Supreme Court explained in Grutter and Gratz, however, 
admissions factor must be considered in an individualized, holistic 
manner and the weight given to each factor will necessarily vary across 
applications. Consequently, a factor that was important (or even 
perhaps decisive) with respect to one application may have little 
weight with respect to another application.
  As a result, it is impossible for a university to state definitively 
and universally the weight given to race or to any particular 
admissions factor. In fact, to do so would violate the Court's rulings, 
which expressly require flexibility in any governmental consideration 
of race or ethnicity.
  Moreover, the proposed amendment contemplates only quantifiable 
admissions factors, and neglects the role of essays, personal 
statements, counsel recommendations, and other qualitative factors in 
the admissions process.
  When amendments like this come forward, I believe that we should 
reflect on the path to equality. It was only 40 years ago that the 
Federal Government had to send troops into Little Rock to permit 
African-American children to attend Central High School. The Supreme 
Court took this into account in reaching its Grutter and Gratz 
conclusions and made its rulings. It's now time for Washington to step 
back and let our universities focus on education, instead of litigation 
and regulation.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by 
     Mr. Larsen of Washington:
       At the end of section 601 add the following new subsection:
       (k) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that due to the diplomatic, economic, and military importance 
     of China and the Middle East, international exchange and 
     foreign language education programs under the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 should focus on the learning of Chinese 
     and Arabic language and culture.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Larsen), as the designee of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I rise today to offer the Kirk-Larsen amendment to 
articulate our Nation's need to promote Chinese and Arabic cultural 
exchange and language education. I want to thank my fellow co-chair of 
the U.S.-China Working Group, Mr. Kirk of Illinois, on his work in 
drafting this important amendment.
  Today's global landscape is increasingly interconnected. China and 
the Middle East play critical roles towards international peace and 
security. Our ability to effectively engage China and the Arab world 
rests on shared economic and political interests and mutual 
understanding.
  From 1998 to 2002, foreign language enrollment in United States 
colleges and universities increased by 20 percent for Chinese and 92.3 
percent for Arabic. By comparison, the learning of more traditional 
languages, such as French and German, grew by under 3 percent.
  Our schools and universities are already leading the movement towards 
Chinese and Arabic language. Congress must build on this infrastructure 
and support the education of future diplomats, business professionals, 
and teachers who are proficient in Arabic and Chinese. We must answer 
the call for an increased American competitiveness and national 
security, and in today's world we cannot answer that call just in 
English.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, which is 
merely a sense of Congress amendment to promote language education in 
Arabic and Chinese.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't 
plan to oppose the amendment. I just want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington and Mr. Kirk from Illinois for their work on this project.
  I had the opportunity to lead a congressional delegation to China 
last year, and I think it is very important that we stress the 
importance of learning other languages so that we can communicate and 
do a better job of competing around the world, and so I encourage 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my partner, co-chair of the U.S.-
China Working Group, on this amendment.
  I had the honor of serving on the Paul Simon Exchange Commission for 
the United States to look at his vision of having a million Americans 
study abroad. That is a very important goal, very worthwhile because of 
America's position in the world.
  But, quite frankly, I think there are two language groups vital to 
the future security, to the economy, and to the diplomacy of the United 
States, and that is Arabic and Chinese. This amendment highlights that 
priority for the United States, for our future.

[[Page 4453]]

  Obviously, we know with the global war on terror the importance of 
the command of the Arabic language. But we also see China rising and 
projected by the IMF on 19th Street here in Washington, D.C. to be the 
second largest economy on Earth. And it makes sense for the United 
States to place its highest diplomatic priority on relations with the 
number two economy of the 21st century, which is China.
  Currently, we have reports that there are over 200 million people in 
China who are or have studied English, but in the United States the 
total number of Americans who are studying or have studied Chinese 
number just 28,000. We need to redress that balance to make sure that 
we have a full engagement with China, with her rising economy, with her 
very important diplomacy with regard to North Korea, Iran, et cetera, 
and obviously with military developments there.
  So I thank the chairman for his support, and I commend my co-chair of 
the U.S.-China Working Group, because I think in the necessary funding 
of exchanges we should place a priority on these two language groups.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the 
chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their help and 
support on this.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues Representatives Kirk and Larsen. They are to 
be commended for drawing attention to the importance of student 
exchange and language education programs, particularly related to 
Chinese and Arabic. In the 21st century world, China and the Middle 
East are critically important.
  I share their support for language and culture education programs to 
help equip today's young people for the global marketplace. I was 
pleased to be able to help bring Japanese and Chinese language programs 
to the Fairfax County Public School system in northern Virginia. During 
the early 1980s Japan was the primary United States competitor. In an 
effort to understand how to help United States businesses remain 
competitive in an expanding global economy, especially with Japan, I 
wrote to the top 500 U.S. companies asking for their feedback.
  The overwhelming response was that U.S. businesses were having 
difficulty finding qualified people who spoke Japanese and understood 
that culture. It became clear that the younger generation of Americans 
who would be the business leaders of tomorrow needed the training to 
compete with Japan. To help enlarge the pool of fluent Japanese 
speakers and broaden understanding of the Japanese culture, I worked 
with the U.S. Department of Education to establish language immersion 
programs in northern Virginia in 1988.
  As a result, Floris, Fox Mill and Great Falls Elementary schools, all 
in the Fairfax County Public School system, began offering Japanese 
immersion programs. In these programs, students spend half the school 
day in their subjects learning to converse in Japanese and the other 
half in English. I insert for the Record excerpts from my congressional 
newsletters from 1988 announcing the launch of the Japanese language 
immersion program.
  Today, the United States' main global competitor is no longer Japan. 
China has assumed that position. As we did in the 1980s with Japanese 
language immersion, we need to replicate today with the Chinese 
language. The Chinese program will expand and build upon the success of 
the Japanese immersion program, which helped America counter the 
serious competition it faced from Japan. In addition to having the 
opportunity to improve academic performance, students also will have 
the chance to learn a language that will equip them to compete in the 
global economy. With one-quarter of the world's population living in 
China, it is imperative that America's rising business leaders learn 
the Chinese language and culture.
  Studies have shown that students who participate in language 
immersion programs do well academically. This amendment highlights a 
critical area in preparing our young people--as Tom Friedman so aptly 
put it in his best-selling book ``The World is Flat''--to develop 
language skills to help our country meet the challenge being posed by 
China and India.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kirk/Larsen 
amendment and thank the gentlemen for their good work on highlighting 
this important issue.

             Foreign Language Study Key to Competitiveness

       Our national trade deficit has caused deserved concern. We 
     must not only make sure that American companies are on a 
     level playing field with their foreign competitors, but also 
     provide that American companies are equipped to compete in 
     the international marketplace. The key to this is the 
     education and training of our young people.
       We must educate our young people in the languages and 
     cultures of other nations, so that in the future American 
     businesses are able to market products abroad and negotiate 
     with foreign counterparts.
       I have been pleased to work with our local school systems 
     to expand the foreign language courses offered. The language 
     of Japan, which has the largest trade surplus with the United 
     States of any of our trading partners, is now offered at many 
     of our area high schools. In addition, if a recently 
     submitted grant application to the Department of Education is 
     approved, Japanese, Spanish, and French may soon be taught to 
     kindergarten students in some local schools.
       These youngsters who are able to study the languages and 
     cultures of other peoples of the world will be the business 
     leaders of tomorrow, negotiating and devising strategies to 
     sell American products all over the world.
                                  ____


               Education Grant Focuses on Future Leaders

       The U.S, Department of Education recently awarded a 
     $175,000 grant to George Mason University to begin a foreign 
     language immersion program in Fairfax and Arlington counties 
     public elementary schools.
       I was pleased to have worked with local school and GMU 
     officials in support of this program which would be one of 
     the first of its kind in the country to focus on kindergarten 
     students for intensive training in Japanese, Spanish and 
     French.
       Under the program, six kindergarten teachers and six first 
     grade teachers would be trained in language instruction and 
     assigned to selected classes in participating schools.
       Students participating in the program would spend up to one 
     half of each school day being taught the target language.
       I sought funding for this program because of my concern 
     about U.S. competitiveness abroad and the need to prepare our 
     future business leaders on how to deal with an increasingly 
     international marketplace.
       I have corresponded with leaders in the U.S. business 
     community including the chief executive officers of many of 
     the top U.S. companies doing business in Japan and business 
     school deans. Most agree that American students must be 
     exposed to the language and culture of other countries from 
     the earliest possible age in order to remain competitive in 
     the international marketplace.
       In addition, training in foreign languages helps students 
     to improve their verbal and intellectual capacities and 
     encourages interest in other cultures.
       While Fairfax and Arlington counties schools have expressed 
     interest in implementing this innovative effort, a firm 
     commitment has not been made as yet. I am hopeful, however, 
     that the local schools will take advantage of this 
     opportunity to assist our area's young people.

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-401 offered by 
     Mr. Souder:
       Page 267, beginning on line 14, strike paragraph (8) and 
     insert the following:
       ``(8) confirms as a part of its review for accreditation or 
     reaccreditation that the institution has transfer policies 
     that are publicly disclosed and specifically state whether 
     the institution denies a transfer of credit based solely on 
     the accreditation of the institution at which the credit was 
     earned;

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Today I am offering an amendment with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Bishop) that will ensure students have greater access to 
information about a university's transfer-of-credit policies without 
placing new burdensome mandates on the institutions themselves.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the Education and Workforce 
Committee, Chairman McKeon, for working

[[Page 4454]]

with me and Mr. Bishop over the last day on a compromise that I believe 
accomplishes our shared goal of greater transparency with regard to an 
institution's transfer of credit policies. If a student plans on 
transferring from a community college to a 4-year institution or from a 
proprietary school to a community college, they should know before they 
apply which of their credits will transfer.
  The Souder-Bishop amendment will strengthen language in the 
underlying bill to ensure that all institutions of higher education 
publicly disclosed whether or not they deny credits based on the 
accreditation of the institution where the credits were earned.
  We do not mandate the kind of policy a school must have; we just 
require greater transparency.
  On principle, I believe it is not the role of the Federal Government 
to dictate what kind of transfer or credit policy an institution must 
have. In the interest of academic integrity, every college and 
university should be able to ensure that every graduate receiving a 
diploma from their institution has completed all of the required 
courses for a particular program at the level of rigor expected by that 
university.
  If a university decides that the best way it can ensure an 
appropriate level of academic rigor is to only accept credits from 
certain kinds of institutions, it should be that school's prerogative 
to do so. The alternative for many schools would be costly and time-
intensive, requiring admissions counselors and professors to evaluate 
each of a transfer student's credits based on the quality of the 
sending institution, its professors, curricula, textbooks, materials, 
et cetera.
  I want to make it clear that this amendment is meant in no way to 
diminish the value of any particular kind of institution. All 
institutions have their appropriate place in the higher education 
community. I am supportive of all types of institutions and want to 
encourage their growth because it will mean more individuals will be 
empowered to be productive workers in our growing economy. They are a 
critical part of my district in particular because of its 
manufacturing, engineering and business background, and without the 
proprietary schools and community college specialized courses, we could 
not function. But it is my hope that as an alternative to Federal 
mandates, more colleges and universities will work out voluntary 
articulation agreements between schools to ensure a more seamless 
transition between institutions.
  This can be done quite effectively within a State or region where 
institutions can come together to agree upon which credits from one 
school are the equivalent of courses at another school.
  In my own home district in Northeast Indiana, Indiana University, 
Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) and Ivy Tech Community College have 
worked out an agreement for students to be able to transfer credits 
from a specified list of over 150 courses. Several years ago, this was 
not possible. Now it is, and many more institutions in Indiana are 
following suit. I hope this kind of voluntary agreement multiply across 
the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Souder-Bishop amendment. This bipartisan amendment is the culmination 
of several months of debate and compromise among Members on both sides 
of the aisle, the Education and the Workforce Committee, and the 
college community.
  I want to thank Mr. Souder for offering this important amendment with 
me, and I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon for his work on this 
issue.
  Our amendment would simply require that, as part of its review for 
accreditation, colleges must publicly disclose their transfer of credit 
policies and specifically state whether the institution denies transfer 
of credit based solely on the accreditation of the sending institution. 
This language is, in our view, much improved from the original form and 
intent, and I proudly support it.
  The original language in H.R. 609 included a provision that would 
have imposed a new transfer of credit mandate on colleges that would 
have created costly new bureaucratic headaches for students and 
institutions. In our view, we should not be dictating how colleges 
evaluate the coursework of transferring students as the earlier 
language would have required. Transfer credit decisions are academic 
decisions, not administrative decisions, and in principle, Congress 
should not be interfering in the academic decisions made on college 
campuses. Colleges and universities are fully capable of developing and 
implementing fair and appropriate transfer-of-credit policies on their 
own; and most important, it is in the best interest of students to have 
these judgments made by those most qualified to make them, and that 
would be the faculty and staff of the institution they attend.
  The amendment we are offering today strikes the correct balance 
between academic autonomy and transparency for students. I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote for the Souder-Bishop amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Souder-Bishop 
amendment, and I want to associate myself with their comments just 
made.
  This amendment by Mr. Souder would revise the transfer-of-credit 
provisions in this bill. The transfer-of-credit provisions in this bill 
have been made less onerous since the reauthorization bill was first 
introduced. The Federal Government as a matter of policy should not be 
involved in decisions about the awarding of credit which is an 
institution's essential product.
  The Souder-Bishop amendment really takes an important step towards 
alleviating these concerns, relying instead on additional disclosures 
to help students better understand an institution's transfer policies.
  Once again, I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment. In fact, the amendment is critical to 
final passage of the bill.
  I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Bishop, both good members of the 
committee, for their efforts in working together to strengthen the bill 
through this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 Offered by Mr. George 
                          Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 printed in 
     House Report 109-401 offered by Mr. George Miller of 
     California:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reverse the Raid on Student 
     Aid Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES; EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (b) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       Title II (20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                    ``PART C--CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

     ``SEC. 231. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
       ``(1) to help recruit and prepare teachers, including 
     minority teachers, to meet the national demand for a highly 
     qualified teacher in every classroom; and
       ``(2) to increase opportunities for Americans of all 
     educational, ethnic, class, and geographic backgrounds to 
     become highly qualified teachers.

[[Page 4455]]

       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this part:
       ``(1) Eligible institution.--The term `eligible 
     institution' means--
       ``(A) an institution of higher education that has a teacher 
     preparation program that meets the requirements of section 
     203(b)(2) and that is--
       ``(i) a part B institution (as defined in section 322);
       ``(ii) a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined in 
     section 502);
       ``(iii) a Tribal College or University (as defined in 
     section 316);
       ``(iv) an Alaska Native-serving institution (as defined in 
     section 317(b)); or
       ``(v) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution (as defined in 
     section 317(b));
       ``(B) a consortium of institutions described in 
     subparagraph (A); or
       ``(C) an institution described in subparagraph (A), or a 
     consortium described in subparagraph (B), in partnership with 
     any other institution of higher education, but only if the 
     center of excellence established under section 232 is located 
     at an institution described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Highly qualified.--The term `highly qualified' when 
     used with respect to an individual means that the individual 
     is highly qualified as determined under section 9101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801) or section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).
       ``(3) Scientifically based reading research.--The term 
     `scientifically based reading research' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6368).
       ``(4) Scientifically based research.--The term 
     `scientifically based research' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

     ``SEC. 232. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From the amounts appropriated to 
     carry out this part, the Secretary is authorized to award 
     competitive grants to eligible institutions to establish 
     centers of excellence.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Grants provided by the Secretary under 
     this part shall be used to ensure that current and future 
     teachers are highly qualified, by carrying out one or more of 
     the following activities:
       ``(1) Implementing reforms within teacher preparation 
     programs to ensure that such programs are preparing teachers 
     who are highly qualified, are able to understand 
     scientifically based research, and are able to use advanced 
     technology effectively in the classroom, including use for 
     instructional techniques to improve student academic 
     achievement, by--
       ``(A) retraining faculty; and
       ``(B) designing (or redesigning) teacher preparation 
     programs that--
       ``(i) prepare teachers to close student achievement gaps, 
     are based on rigorous academic content, scientifically based 
     research (including scientifically based reading research), 
     and challenging State student academic content standards; and
       ``(ii) promote strong teaching skills.
       ``(2) Providing sustained and high-quality preservice 
     clinical experience, including the mentoring of prospective 
     teachers by exemplary teachers, substantially increasing 
     interaction between faculty at institutions of higher 
     education and new and experienced teachers, principals, and 
     other administrators at elementary schools or secondary 
     schools, and providing support, including preparation time, 
     for such interaction.
       ``(3) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote 
     retention of highly qualified teachers and principals, 
     including minority teachers and principals, including 
     programs that provide--
       ``(A) teacher or principal mentoring from exemplary 
     teachers or principals; or
       ``(B) induction and support for teachers and principals 
     during their first 3 years of employment as teachers or 
     principals, respectively.
       ``(4) Awarding scholarships based on financial need to help 
     students pay the costs of tuition, room, board, and other 
     expenses of completing a teacher preparation program.
       ``(5) Disseminating information on effective practices for 
     teacher preparation and successful teacher certification and 
     licensure assessment preparation strategies.
       ``(6) Activities authorized under sections 202, 203, and 
     204.
       ``(c) Application.--Any eligible institution desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such a time, in such a manner, and accompanied 
     by such information the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Minimum Grant Amount.--The minimum amount of each 
     grant under this part shall be $500,000.
       ``(e) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--An eligible 
     institution that receives a grant under this part may not use 
     more than 2 percent of the grant funds for purposes of 
     administering the grant.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this part.

     ``SEC. 233. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 4. TITLE III GRANTS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBALLY 
                   CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Eligible Institutions.--Subsection (b) of section 316 
     (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Eligible institutions.--For purposes of this section, 
     Tribal Colleges and Universities are the following:
       ``(A) any of the following institutions that qualify for 
     funding under the Tribally Controlled College or University 
     Assistance Act of 1978 or is listed in Equity in Educational 
     Land Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note): Bay Mills 
     Community College; Blackfeet Community College; Cankdeska 
     Cikana Community College; Chief Dull Knife College; College 
     of Menominee Nation; Crownpoint Institute of Technology; Dine 
     College; D-Q University; Fond du Lac Tribal and Community 
     College; Fort Belknap College; Fort Berthold Community 
     College; Fort Peck Community College; Haskell Indian Nations 
     University; Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     Culture and Arts Development; Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa 
     Community College; Leech Lake Tribal College; Little Big Horn 
     College; Little Priest Tribal College; Nebraska Indian 
     Community College; Northwest Indian College; Oglala Lakota 
     College; Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College; Salish Kootenai 
     College; Si Tanka University--Eagle Butte Campus; Sinte 
     Gleska University; Sisseton Wahpeton Community College; 
     Sitting Bull College; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 
     Institute; Stone Child College; Tohono O'Odham Community 
     College; Turtle Mountain Community College; United Tribes 
     Technical College; and White Earth Tribal and Community 
     College; and
       ``(B) any other institution that meets the definition of 
     tribally controlled college or university in section 2 of the 
     Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 
     1978, and meets all other requirements of this section.
       ``(2) Indian.--The term `Indian' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 2 of the Tribally Controlled College or 
     University Assistance Act of 1978.''.
       (b) Distance Learning.--Subsection (c)(2) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) construction, maintenance, renovation, and 
     improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other 
     instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of 
     telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the 
     acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the 
     institution on which to construct such facilities;'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``, or advanced degrees in tribal 
     governance or tribal public policy'';
       (3) in subparagraph (D), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``, in tribal governance, or tribal 
     public policy'';
       (4) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K);
       (5) by redesignating subparagraph (L) as subparagraph (M); 
     and
       (6) by inserting after subparagraph (K) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(L) developing or improving facilities for Internet use 
     or other distance learning academic instruction capabilities; 
     and''.
       (c) Application and Allotment.--Subsection (d) of such 
     section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Application and Allotment.--
       ``(1) Institutional eligibility.--To be eligible to receive 
     assistance under this section, a Tribal College or University 
     shall be an eligible institution under section 312(b).
       ``(2) Application.--Any Tribal College or University 
     desiring to receive assistance under this section shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, and in 
     such manner, as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(3) Minimum grant.--The amount allotted to each 
     institution under this section shall not be less than 
     $500,000.
       ``(4) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Concurrent funding.--For the purposes of this part, 
     no Tribal College or University that is eligible for and 
     receives funds under this section shall concurrently receive 
     funds under other provisions of this part or part B.
       ``(B) Exemption.--Section 313(d) shall not apply to 
     institutions that are eligible to receive funds under this 
     section.''.
       (d) Construction Grants.--After subsection (d) of section 
     316 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(d)), as amended by subsection (c) of 
     this section, add the following new subsections:
       ``(e) Construction Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the amount appropriated to carry out 
     this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve 
     30 percent of such amount for the purpose of awarding 1-year 
     grants of not less than $1,000,000 to address construction, 
     maintenance, and renovation needs at eligible institutions.
       ``(2) Preference.--In providing grants under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall give preference to eligible institutions 
     that have not yet received an award under this section.

[[Page 4456]]

       ``(f) Allotment of Remaining Funds.--The Secretary shall 
     distribute any funds appropriated to carry out this section 
     for any fiscal year that remain available after the Secretary 
     has awarded grants under subsection (e), to each eligible 
     institution as follows:
       ``(1) 60 percent of the remaining appropriated funds shall 
     be distributed among the eligible Tribal Colleges and 
     Universities on a pro rata basis, based on the respective 
     Indian student counts (as defined in section 2(a) of the 
     Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 
     1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801(a)) of the Tribal Colleges and 
     Universities; and
       ``(2) the remaining 40 percent shall be distributed in 
     equal shares to the eligible Tribal Colleges and 
     Universities. ''.

     SEC. 5. PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Predominantly Black Institutions.--Part A of title III 
     is amended by inserting after section 317 (20 U.S.C. 1059d) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 318. PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS.

       ``(a) Findings and Purpose.--
       ``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(A) although Black Americans have made significant 
     progress in closing the `gap' between black and white 
     enrollment in higher education--
       ``(i) Black Americans continue to trail whites in the 
     percentage of the college-age cohort who enroll and graduate 
     from college;
       ``(ii) the college participation rate of whites was 46 
     percent from 2000-2002, while that for blacks was only 39 
     percent; and
       ``(iii) the gap between white and black baccalaureate 
     degree attainment rates also remains high, continuing to 
     exceed 10 percent;
       ``(B) a growing number of Black American students are 
     participating in higher education and are enrolled at a 
     growing number of urban and rural Predominantly Black 
     Institutions that have included in their mission the 
     provision of academic training and education for both 
     traditional and non-traditional minority students;
       ``(C) the overwhelming majority of students attending 
     Predominantly Black Institutions come from low- and middle-
     income families and qualify for participation in the Federal 
     student assistance programs or other need-based Federal 
     programs; and recent data from the National Postsecondary 
     Student Aid Study indicate that 47 percent of Pell grant 
     recipients were black compared to only 21 percent of whites;
       ``(D) many of these students are also `first generation' 
     college students who lack the appropriate academic 
     preparation for success in college and whose parents lack the 
     ordinary knowledge and information regarding financing a 
     college education;
       ``(E) there is a particular national need to aid 
     institutions of higher education that have become 
     Predominantly Black Institutions by virtue of the fact that 
     they have expanded opportunities for Black American and other 
     minority students;
       ``(F) Predominantly Black Institutions fulfill a unique 
     mission and represent a vital component of the American 
     higher education landscape, far beyond that which was 
     initially envisioned;
       ``(G) Predominantly Black Institutions serve the cultural 
     and social advancement of low-income, Black American and 
     other minority students and are a significant access point 
     for these students to higher education and the opportunities 
     offered by American society;
       ``(H) the concentration of these students in a limited 
     number of two-year and four-year Predominantly Black 
     Institutions and their desire to secure a degree to prepare 
     them for a successful career places special burdens on those 
     institutions who attract, retain, and graduate these 
     students; and
       ``(I) financial assistance to establish or strengthen the 
     physical plants, financial management, academic resources, 
     and endowments of the Predominantly Black Institutions are 
     appropriate methods to enhance these institutions and 
     facilitate a decrease in reliance on governmental financial 
     support and to encourage reliance on endowments and private 
     sources.
       ``(2) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist 
     Predominantly Black Institutions in expanding educational 
     opportunity through a program of Federal assistance.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Predominantly black institution.--The term 
     `Predominantly Black Institution' means an institution of 
     higher education--
       ``(A) that is an eligible institution (as defined in 
     paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection) with a minimum of 1,000 
     undergraduate students;
       ``(B) at which at least 50 percent of the undergraduate 
     students enrolled at the institution are low-income 
     individuals or first-generation college students (as that 
     term is defined in section 402A(g)); and
       ``(C) at which at least 50 percent of the undergraduate 
     students are enrolled in an educational program leading to a 
     bachelor's or associate's degree that the institution is 
     licensed to award by the State in which it is located.
       ``(2) Low-income individual.--The term `low-income 
     individual' has the meaning given such term in section 
     402A(g).
       ``(3) Means-tested federal benefit program.--The term 
     `means-tested Federal benefit program' means a program of the 
     Federal Government, other than a program under title IV, in 
     which eligibility for the programs' benefits, or the amount 
     of such benefits, or both, are determined on the basis of 
     income or resources of the individual or family seeking the 
     benefit.
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(5) Other definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     terms defined by section 312 have the meanings provided by 
     that section, except as follows:
       ``(A) Eligible institution.--
       ``(i) The term `eligible institution' means an institution 
     of higher education that--

       ``(I) has an enrollment of needy undergraduate students as 
     required and defined by subparagraph (B);
       ``(II) except as provided in section 392(b), the average 
     educational and general expenditure of which are low, per 
     full-time equivalent undergraduate student in comparison with 
     the average educational and general expenditure per full-time 
     equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer 
     similar instruction;
       ``(III) has an enrollment of undergraduate students that is 
     at least 40 percent Black American students;
       ``(IV) is legally authorized to provide, and provides 
     within the State, an educational program for which the 
     institution awards a bachelors degree, or in the case of a 
     junior or community college, an associate's degree; and
       ``(V) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting 
     agency or association determined by the Secretary to be a 
     reliable authority as to the quality of training offered, or 
     is, according to such an agency or association, making 
     reasonable progress toward accreditation.

       ``(ii) For purposes of the determination of whether an 
     institution is an eligible institution under this 
     subparagraph, the factor described under clause (i)(I) shall 
     be given twice the weight of the factor described under 
     clause (i)(III).
       ``(B) Enrollment of needy students.--The term `enrollment 
     of needy students' means the enrollment at an eligible 
     institution with respect to which at least 50 percent of the 
     undergraduate students enrolled in an academic program 
     leading to a degree--
       ``(i) in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     for which the determination is made, were Pell Grant 
     recipients in such year;
       ``(ii) come from families that receive benefits under a 
     means-tested Federal benefits program (as defined in 
     subsection (b)(3));
       ``(iii) attended a public or nonprofit private secondary 
     school which is in the school district of a local educational 
     agency which was eligible for assistance pursuant to title I 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in any 
     year during which the student attended that secondary school, 
     and which for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year 
     was determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and 
     after consultation with the State educational agency of the 
     State in which the school is located) to be a school in which 
     the enrollment of children counted under section 1113(a)(5) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 exceeds 
     30 percent of the total enrollment of that school; or
       ``(iv) are `first-generation college students' as that term 
     is defined in section 402A(g), and a majority of such first-
     generation college students are low-income individuals.
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) Types of activities authorized.--Grants awarded 
     pursuant to subsection (d) shall be used by Predominantly 
     Black Institutions--
       ``(A) to assist the institution to plan, develop, 
     undertake, and implement programs to enhance the 
     institution's capacity to serve more low- and middle-income 
     Black American students;
       ``(B) to expand higher education opportunities for title IV 
     eligible students by encouraging college preparation and 
     student persistence in secondary and postsecondary education; 
     and
       ``(C) to strengthen the institution's financial ability to 
     serve the academic needs of the students described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--Grants made to an institution 
     under subsection (d) shall be used for one or more of the 
     following activities:
       ``(A) The activities described in section 311(a)(1) through 
     (11).
       ``(B) Academic instruction in disciplines in which Black 
     Americans are underrepresented.
       ``(C) Establishing or enhancing a program of teacher 
     education designed to qualify students to teach in a public 
     elementary or secondary school in the State that shall 
     include, as part of such program, preparation for teacher 
     certification.
       ``(D) Establishing community outreach programs which will 
     encourage elementary and secondary students to develop the 
     academic skills and the interest to pursue postsecondary 
     education.
       ``(E) Other activities proposed in the application 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (e) that--
       ``(i) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this 
     section; and

[[Page 4457]]

       ``(ii) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review 
     and acceptance of such application.
       ``(3) Endowment fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--A Predominantly Black Institution may 
     use not more than 20 percent of the grant funds provided 
     under this section to establish or increase an endowment fund 
     at the institution.
       ``(B) Matching requirement.--In order to be eligible to use 
     grant funds in accordance with subparagraph (A), the 
     Predominantly Black Institution shall provide matching funds 
     from non-Federal sources, in an amount equal to or greater 
     than the Federal funds used in accordance with subparagraph 
     (A), for the establishment or increase of the endowment fund.
       ``(C) Comparability.--The provisions of part C regarding 
     the establishment or increase of an endowment fund, that the 
     Secretary determines are not inconsistent with this 
     subsection, shall apply to funds used under subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Limitation.--Not more than 50 percent of the 
     allotment of any Predominantly Black Institution may be 
     available for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a 
     classroom, library, laboratory, or other instructional 
     facility.
       ``(d) Allotments to Predominantly Black Institutions.--
       ``(1) Allotment: pell grant basis.--From the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section for any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall allot to each Predominantly Black 
     Institution a sum which bears the same ratio to one-half that 
     amount as the number of Pell Grant recipients in attendance 
     at such institution at the end of the academic year preceding 
     the beginning of that fiscal year bears to the total number 
     of Pell Grant recipients at all institutions eligible under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Allotment: graduates basis.--From the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section for any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall allot to each Predominantly Black 
     Institution a sum which bears the same ratio to one-fourth 
     that amount as the number of graduates for such school year 
     at such institution bears to the total number of graduates 
     for such school year at all intuitions eligible under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Allotment: graduates seeking a higher degree basis.--
     From the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for 
     any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each 
     Predominantly Black Institution a sum which bears the same 
     ratio to one-fourth of that amount as the percentage of 
     graduates per institution who are admitted to and in 
     attendance at, within 2 years of graduation with an 
     associates degree or a baccalaureate degree, either a 
     baccalaureate degree-granting institution or a graduate or 
     professional school in a degree program in disciplines in 
     which Black American students are underrepresented, bears to 
     the percentage of such graduates per institution for all 
     eligible institutions.
       ``(4) Minimum allotment.--(A) Notwithstanding paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3), the amount allotted to each Predominantly 
     Black Institution under this section shall not be less than 
     $250,000.
       ``(B) If the amount appropriated pursuant to section 399 
     for any fiscal year is not sufficient to pay the minimum 
     allotment, the amount of such minimum allotment shall be 
     ratably reduced. If additional sums become available for such 
     fiscal year, such reduced allocation shall be increased on 
     the same basis as it was reduced until the amount allotted 
     equals the minimum allotment required by subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Reallotment.--The amount of a Predominantly Black 
     Institution's allotment under paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) 
     for any fiscal year, which the Secretary determines will not 
     be required for such institution for the period such 
     allotment is available, shall be available for reallotment to 
     other Predominantly Black Institutions in proportion to the 
     original allotment to such other institutions under this 
     section for such fiscal year. The Secretary shall reallot 
     such amounts from time to time, on such date and during such 
     period as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(e) Applications.--No Predominantly Black Institution 
     shall be entitled to its allotment of Federal funds for any 
     grant under subsection (d) for any period unless the 
     institution submits an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(f) Application Review Process.--Section 393 shall not 
     apply to applications under this section.
       ``(g) Prohibition.--No Predominantly Black Institution that 
     applies for and receives a grant under this section may apply 
     for or receive funds under any other program under this part 
     or part B of this title.
       ``(h) Duration and Carryover.--Any funds paid to a 
     Predominantly Black Institution under this section and not 
     expended or used for the purposes for which the funds were 
     paid within 10 years following the date of the grant awarded 
     to such institution under this section shall be repaid to the 
     Treasury of the United States.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399(a)(1) (20 
     U.S.C. 1068h(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 318, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

     SEC. 6. GRANTS TO PART B INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Use of Funds.--
       (1) Facilities and equipment.--
       (A) Undergraduate institutions.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     323(a) (20 U.S.C. 1062(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and 
     improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other 
     instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of 
     telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the 
     acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the 
     institution on which to construct such facilities.''.
       (B) Graduate and professional schools.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 326(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) construction, maintenance, renovation, and 
     improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other 
     instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of 
     telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the 
     acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the 
     institution on which to construct such facilities;''.
       (2) Outreach and collaboration.--Paragraph (11) of section 
     323(a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(11) Establishing community outreach programs and 
     collaborative partnerships between part B institutions and 
     local elementary or secondary schools. Such partnerships may 
     include mentoring, tutoring, or other instructional 
     opportunities that will boost student academic achievement 
     and assist elementary and secondary school students in 
     developing the academic skills and the interest to pursue 
     postsecondary education.''.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--Section 323 (20 U.S.C. 1062) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--An institution may not use more than 2 
     percent of the grant funds provided under this part to secure 
     technical assistance services.
       ``(2) Technical assistance services.--Technical assistance 
     services may include assistance with enrollment management, 
     financial management, and strategic planning.
       ``(3) Report.--The institution shall report to the 
     Secretary on an annual basis, in such form as the Secretary 
     requires, on the use of funds under this subsection.''.
       (c) Distance Learning.--Section 323(a)(2) (20 U.S.C. 
     1062(a)(2)) (as amended by subsection (a)(1)(A)) is further 
     amended by inserting ``development or improvement of 
     facilities for Internet use or other distance learning 
     academic instruction capabilities and'' after ``including''.
       (d) Minimum Grants.--Section 324(d)(1) (20 U.S.C. 
     1063(d)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, except that, if the amount 
     appropriated to carry out this part for any fiscal year 
     exceeds the amount required to provide to each institution an 
     amount equal to the total amount received by such institution 
     under subsections (a), (b), and (c) for the preceding fiscal 
     year, then the amount of such excess appropriation shall 
     first be applied to increase the minimum allotment under this 
     subsection to $750,000''.
       (e) Eligible Graduate or Professional Schools.--
       (1) General authority.--Section 326(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 
     1063b(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``subsection (e) that'';
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, (B) is accredited by a nationally recognized 
     accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary 
     to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training 
     offered, and (C) according to such an agency or association, 
     is in good standing''.
       (2) Eligible institutions.--Section 326(e)(1) (20 U.S.C. 
     1063b(e)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (Q);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (R) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(S) Alabama State University qualified graduate program;
       ``(T) Prairie View A & M University qualified graduate 
     program;
       ``(U) Coppin State University qualified graduate program; 
     and
       ``(V) Delaware State University qualified graduate 
     program.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 326(e)(3) (20 U.S.C. 
     1063b(e)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2005''; and
       (B) by striking ``(Q) and (R)'' and inserting ``(S), (T), 
     (U), and (V)''.
       (f) Professional or Graduate Institutions.--Section 326(f) 
     (20 U.S.C. 1063b(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--

[[Page 4458]]

       (A) by striking ``$26,600,000'' and inserting 
     ``$54,500,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``(P)'' and inserting ``(R)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``$26,600,000, but not in excess of 
     $28,600,000'' and inserting ``$54,500,000, but not in excess 
     of $58,500,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``subparagraphs (Q) and (R)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (S), (T), (U), and (V)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``$28,600,000'' and inserting 
     ``$58,500,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``(R)'' and inserting ``(V)''.
       (g) Hold Harmless.--Section 326(g) (20 U.S.C. 1063b(g)) is 
     amended by striking ``1998'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2005''.

     SEC. 7. PELL GRANTS.

       (a) Tuition Sensitivity.--Section 401(b) is further 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively.
       (b) Multiple Grants.--Paragraph (5) of section 401(b) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) Year-round pell grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, for students 
     enrolled full time in a baccalaureate or associate's degree 
     program of study at an eligible institution, award such 
     students two Pell grants during a single award year to permit 
     such students to accelerate progress toward their degree 
     objectives by enrolling in academic programs for 12 months 
     rather than 9 months.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall limit the awarding 
     of additional Pell grants under this paragraph in a single 
     award year to students attending--
       ``(i) baccalaureate degree granting institutions that have 
     a graduation rate as reported by the Integrated Postsecondary 
     Education Data System for the 4 preceding academic years of 
     at least 30 percent; or
       ``(ii) two-year institutions that have a graduation rate as 
     reported by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
     Systems, in at least one of the last 3 years for which data 
     is available, that is above the average for the applicable 
     year for the institution's type and control.
       ``(C) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
     evaluation of the program under this paragraph and submit to 
     the Congress an evaluation report no later than October 1, 
     2011.
       ``(D) Regulations required.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations implementing this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 8. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

       (a) FFEL Interest Rates.--Section 427A(l)(1) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077a(l)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4 
     percent''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that for any loan made pursuant to 
     section 428H for which the first disbursement is made on or 
     after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 
     6.8 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan''.
       (b) Direct Loans.--Section 455(b)(7)(A) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford 
     Loans'';
       (2) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4 
     percent''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and for any Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan 
     made for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
     July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 6.8 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective for loans made on or after July 1, 2006 
     and before July 1, 2007.

     SEC. 9. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR SERVICE IN AREAS OF NATIONAL 
                   NEED.

       Section 428K (20 U.S.C. 1078-11) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 428K. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR SERVICE IN AREAS OF 
                   NATIONAL NEED.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to encourage highly trained individuals to enter and 
     continue in service in areas of national need; and
       ``(2) to reduce the burden of student debt for Americans 
     who dedicate their careers to service in areas of national 
     need.
       ``(b) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     a program of assuming the obligation to repay, pursuant to 
     paragraphs (2) of subsection (c) and subsection (d), a 
     qualified loan amount for a loan made, insured, or guaranteed 
     under this part or part D (other than loans made under 
     section 428B and 428C and comparable loans made under part 
     D), for any new borrower after the date of enactment of the 
     Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act of 2006, who--
       ``(A) has been employed full-time for at least 5 
     consecutive complete school, academic, or calendar years, as 
     appropriate, in an area of national need described in 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(B) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower 
     seeks forgiveness.
       ``(2) Award basis.--Loan repayment under this section shall 
     be on a first-come, first-served basis pursuant to the 
     designation under subsection (c) and subject to the 
     availability of appropriations.
       ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
     such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(c) Areas of National Need.--
       ``(1) Statutory categories.--For purposes of this section, 
     an individual shall be treated as employed in an area of 
     national need if the individual is employed full time and is 
     any of the following:
       ``(A) Early childhood educators.--An individual who is 
     employed as an early childhood educator in an eligible 
     preschool program or child care facility in a low-income 
     community, and who is involved directly in the care, 
     development and education of infants, toddlers, or young 
     children through age five.
       ``(B) Nurses.--An individual who is employed--
       ``(i) as a nurse in a clinical setting; or
       ``(ii) as a member of the nursing faculty at an accredited 
     school of nursing (as those terms are defined in section 801 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296)).
       ``(C) Foreign language specialists.--An individual who has 
     obtained a baccalaureate degree in a critical foreign 
     language and is employed--
       ``(i) in an elementary or secondary school as a teacher of 
     a critical foreign language; or
       ``(ii) in an agency of the United States Government in a 
     position that regularly requires the use of such critical 
     foreign language.
       ``(D) Librarians.--An individual who is employed full-time 
     as a libarian in--
       ``(i) a public library that serves a geographic area within 
     which the public schools have a combined average of 30 
     percent or more of their total student enrollments composed 
     of children counted under section 1113(a)(5) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; or
       ``(ii) an elementary or secondary school which is in the 
     school district of a local educational agency which is 
     eligible in such year for assistance pursuant to title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and which 
     for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year has been 
     determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and 
     after consultation with the State educational agency of the 
     State in which the school is located) to be a school in which 
     the enrollment of children counted under section 1113(a)(5) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 exceeds 
     30 percent of the total enrollment of that school.
       ``(E) Highly qualified teachers: bilingual education and 
     low-income communities.--An individual who--
       ``(i) is highly qualified as such term is defined in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965; and
       ``(ii)(I) is employed as a full-time teacher of bilingual 
     education; or
       ``(II) is employed as a teacher for service in a public or 
     nonprofit private elementary or secondary school which is in 
     the school district of a local educational agency which is 
     eligible in such year for assistance pursuant to title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and which 
     for the purpose of this paragraph and for that year has been 
     determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations and 
     after consultation with the State educational agency of the 
     State in which the school is located) to be a school in which 
     the enrollment of children counted under section 1113(a)(5) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 exceeds 
     40 percent of the total enrollment of that school.
       ``(F) First responders in low-income communities.--An 
     individual who--
       ``(i) is employed as a firefighter, police officer, or 
     emergency medical technician; and
       ``(ii) serves as such in a low-income community.
       ``(G) Child welfare workers.--An individual who--
       ``(i) has obtained a degree in social work or a related 
     field with a focus on serving children and families; and
       ``(ii) is employed in public or private child welfare 
     services.
       ``(H) Speech-language pathologists.--An individual who is a 
     speech-language pathologist, who is employed in an eligible 
     preschool program or an elementary or secondary school, and 
     who has, at a minimum, a graduate degree in speech-language 
     pathology, or communication sciences and disorders.
       ``(I) Additional areas of national need.--An individual who 
     is employed in an area designated by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) and has completed a baccalaureate or advanced 
     degree related to such area.
       ``(2) Designation of areas of national need.--After 
     consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and community-
     based agencies and organizations, the Secretary shall 
     designate areas of national need. In making such 
     designations, the Secretary shall take into account the 
     extent to which--
       ``(A) the national interest in the area is compelling;
       ``(B) the area suffers from a critical lack of qualified 
     personnel; and

[[Page 4459]]

       ``(C) other Federal programs support the area concerned.
       ``(d) Qualified Loan Amount.--The Secretary shall repay not 
     more than $5,000 in the aggregate of the loan obligation on a 
     loan made under section 428 or 428H that is outstanding after 
     the completion of the fifth consecutive school, academic, or 
     calendar year, as appropriate, described in subsection 
     (b)(1).
       ``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize the refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan made under section 428 or 428H.
       ``(f) Ineligibility of National Service Award Recipients.--
     No student borrower may, for the same service, receive a 
     benefit under both this section and subtitle D of title I of 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12601 et seq.).
       ``(g) Ineligibility for Double Benefits.--No borrower may 
     receive a reduction of loan obligations under both this 
     section and section 428J or 460.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section
       ``(1) Child care facility.--The term `child care facility' 
     means a facility, including a home, that--
       ``(A) provides for the education and care of children from 
     birth through age 5; and
       ``(B) meets any applicable State or local government 
     licensing, certification, approval, or registration 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Critical foreign language.--The term `critical 
     foreign language' includes the languages of Arabic, Korean, 
     Japanese, Chinese, Pashto, Persian-Farsi, Serbian-Croatian, 
     Russian, Portuguese, and any other language identified by the 
     Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Defense 
     Language Institute, the Foreign Service Institute, and the 
     National Security Education Program, as a critical foreign 
     language need.
       ``(3) Early childhood educator.--The term `early childhood 
     educator' means an early childhood educator employed in an 
     eligible preschool program who has completed a baccalaureate 
     or advanced degree in early childhood development, early 
     childhood education, or in a field related to early childhood 
     education.
       ``(4) Eligible preschool program.--The term `eligible 
     preschool program' means a program that provides for the 
     care, development, and education of infants, toddlers, or 
     young children through age 5, meets any applicable State or 
     local government licensing, certification, approval, and 
     registration requirements, and is operated by--
       ``(A) a public or private school that may be supported, 
     sponsored, supervised, or administered by a local educational 
     agency;
       ``(B) a Head Start agency serving as a grantee designated 
     under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
       ``(C) a nonprofit or community based organization; or
       ``(D) a child care program, including a home.
       ``(5) Low-income community.--In this subsection, the term 
     `low-income community' means a community in which 70 percent 
     of households earn less than 85 percent of the State median 
     household income.
       ``(6) Nurse.--The term `nurse' means a nurse who meets all 
     of the following:
       ``(A) The nurse graduated from--
       ``(i) an accredited school of nursing (as those terms are 
     defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 296));
       ``(ii) a nursing center; or
       ``(iii) an academic health center that provides nurse 
     training.
       ``(B) The nurse holds a valid and unrestricted license to 
     practice nursing in the State in which the nurse practices in 
     a clinical setting.
       ``(C) The nurse holds one or more of the following:
       ``(i) A graduate degree in nursing, or an equivalent 
     degree.
       ``(ii) A nursing degree from a collegiate school of nursing 
     (as defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 296)).
       ``(iii) A nursing degree from an associate degree school of 
     nursing (as defined in section 801 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296)).
       ``(iv) A nursing degree from a diploma school of nursing 
     (as defined in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 296)).
       ``(7) Speech-language pathologist.--The term `speech-
     language pathologist' means a speech-language pathologist who 
     meets all of the following:
       ``(A) the speech-language pathologist has received, at a 
     minimum, a graduate degree in speech-language pathology or 
     communication sciences and disorders from an institution of 
     higher education accredited by an agency or association 
     recognized by the Secretary pursuant to section 496(a) of 
     this Act; and
       ``(B) the speech-language pathologist meets or exceeds the 
     qualifications as defined in section 1861(ll) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x).
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2007 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

     SEC. 10. ADDITIONAL CONSOLIDATION LOAN CHANGES.

       (a) Additional Amendments.--Section 428C(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 
     1078-3(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking everything after ``under this section'' the 
     first place it appears in subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking ``(i) which'' and all that follows through 
     ``and (ii)'' in subparagraph (C);
       (3) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (4) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (5) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) that the lender of the consolidation loan shall, upon 
     application for such loan, provide the borrower with a clear 
     and conspicuous notice of at least the following information:
       ``(i) the effects of consolidation on total interest to be 
     paid, fees to be paid, and length of repayment;
       ``(ii) the effects of consolidation on a borrower's 
     underlying loan benefits, including loan forgiveness, 
     cancellation, deferment, and reduced interest rates on those 
     underlying loans;
       ``(iii) the ability of the borrower to prepay the loan, pay 
     on a shorter schedule, and to change repayment plans;
       ``(iv) that borrower benefit programs may vary among 
     different loan holders, and a description of how the borrower 
     benefits may vary among different loan holders;
       ``(v) the tax benefits for which borrowers may be eligible;
       ``(vi) the consequences of default; and
       ``(vii) that by making the application the applicant is not 
     obligated to agree to take the consolidation loan; and''.
       (b) Effective Date for Single Holder Amendment.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall apply with respect 
     to any loan made under section 428C of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3) for which the application is 
     received by an eligible lender on or after July 1, 2006.

     SEC. 11. SIGNIFICANTLY SIMPLIFYING THE STUDENT AID 
                   APPLICATION PROCESS.

       (a) Improvements to Paper and Electronic Forms.--
       (1) Common financial aid form development and processing.--
     Section 483(a) (20 U.S.C. 1090(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (5);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), (6), and (7), as 
     paragraphs (9), (10), (11), and (12), respectively;
       (C) by inserting before paragraph (9), as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (B), the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     representatives of agencies and organizations involved in 
     student financial assistance, shall produce, distribute, and 
     process free of charge common financial reporting forms as 
     described in this subsection to be used for application and 
     reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a 
     student for financial assistance under parts A through E 
     (other than subpart 4 of part A). These forms shall be made 
     available to applicants in both paper and electronic formats 
     and shall be referred to as the `Free Application for Federal 
     Student Aid' or the `FAFSA'.
       ``(2) Early estimates.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall permit applicants to 
     complete such forms as described in this subsection in the 4 
     years prior to enrollment in order to obtain a non-binding 
     estimate of the family contribution, as defined in section 
     473. The estimate shall clearly and conspicuously indicate 
     that it is only an estimate of family contribution, and may 
     not reflect the actual family contribution of the applicant 
     that shall be used to determine the grant, loan, or work 
     assistance that the applicant may receive under this title 
     when enrolled in a program of postsecondary education. Such 
     applicants shall be permitted to update information submitted 
     on forms described in this subsection using the process 
     required under paragraph (5)(A).
       ``(B) Evaluation.--Two years after the early estimates are 
     implemented under this paragraph and from data gathered from 
     the early estimates, the Secretary shall evaluate the 
     differences between initial, non-binding early estimates and 
     the final financial aid award made available under this 
     title.
       ``(C) Report.--The Secretary shall provide a report to the 
     authorizing committees on the results of the evaluation.
       ``(3) Paper format.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall produce, distribute, 
     and process common forms in paper format to meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall develop a 
     common paper form for applicants who do not meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) EZ fafsa.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and use a 
     simplified paper application form, to be known as the `EZ 
     FAFSA', to be used for applicants meeting the requirements of 
     section 479(c).
       ``(ii) Reduced data requirements.--The form under this 
     subparagraph shall permit an applicant to submit, for 
     financial assistance purposes, only the data elements 
     required to make a determination of whether the applicant 
     meets the requirements under section 479(c).
       ``(iii) State data.--The Secretary shall include on the 
     form under this subparagraph

[[Page 4460]]

     such data items as may be necessary to award State financial 
     assistance, as provided under paragraph (6), except that the 
     Secretary shall not include a State's data if that State does 
     not permit its applicants for State assistance to use the 
     form under this subparagraph.
       ``(iv) Free availability and processing.--The provisions of 
     paragraph (7) shall apply to the form under this 
     subparagraph, and the data collected by means of the form 
     under this subparagraph shall be available to institutions of 
     higher education, guaranty agencies, and States in accordance 
     with paragraph (9).
       ``(v) Testing.--The Secretary shall conduct appropriate 
     field testing on the form under this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Promoting the use of electronic fafsa.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall make an effort to 
     encourage applicants to utilize the electronic forms 
     described in paragraph (4).
       ``(ii) Maintenance of the fafsa in a printable electronic 
     file.--The Secretary shall maintain a version of the paper 
     forms described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) in a printable 
     electronic file that is easily portable. The printable 
     electronic file will be made easily accessible and 
     downloadable to students on the same website used to provide 
     students with the electronic application forms described in 
     paragraph (4) of this subsection. The Secretary shall enable 
     students to submit a form created under this subparagraph 
     that is downloaded and printed from an electronic file format 
     in order to meet the filing requirements of this section and 
     in order to receive aid from programs under this title.
       ``(iii) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary shall report 
     annually to Congress on the impact of the digital divide on 
     students completing applications for title IV aid described 
     under this paragraph and paragraph (4). The Secretary will 
     also report on the steps taken to eliminate the digital 
     divide and phase out the paper form described in subparagraph 
     (A) of this paragraph. The Secretary's report will 
     specifically address the impact of the digital divide on the 
     following student populations: dependent students, 
     independent students without dependents, and independent 
     students with dependents other than a spouse.
       ``(4) Electronic format.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall produce, distribute, 
     and process common forms in electronic format to meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall develop 
     common electronic forms for applicants who do not meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
       ``(B) State data.--The Secretary shall include on the 
     common electronic forms space for information that needs to 
     be submitted from the applicant to be eligible for State 
     financial assistance, as provided under paragraph (6), except 
     the Secretary shall not require applicants to complete data 
     required by any State other than the applicant's State of 
     residence.
       ``(C) Simplified applications: fafsa on the web.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and use a 
     simplified electronic application form to be used by 
     applicants meeting the requirements under subsection (c) of 
     section 479 and an additional, separate simplified electronic 
     application form to be used by applicants meeting the 
     requirements under subsection (b) of section 479.
       ``(ii) Reduced data requirements.--The simplified 
     electronic application forms shall permit an applicant to 
     submit for financial assistance purposes, only the data 
     elements required to make a determination of whether the 
     applicant meets the requirements under subsection (b) or (c) 
     of section 479.
       ``(iii) State data.--The Secretary shall include on the 
     simplified electronic application forms such data items as 
     may be necessary to award state financial assistance, as 
     provided under paragraph (6), except that the Secretary shall 
     not require applicants to complete data required by any State 
     other than the applicant's State of residence.
       ``(iv) Availability and processing.--The data collected by 
     means of the simplified electronic application forms shall be 
     available to institutions of higher education, guaranty 
     agencies, and States in accordance with paragraph (9).
       ``(v) Testing.--The Secretary shall conduct appropriate 
     field testing on the forms developed under this subparagraph.
       ``(D) Use of forms.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to prohibit the use of the forms developed by the 
     Secretary pursuant to this paragraph by an eligible 
     institution, eligible lender, guaranty agency, State grant 
     agency, private computer software provider, a consortium 
     thereof, or such other entities as the Secretary may 
     designate.
       ``(E) Privacy.--The Secretary shall ensure that data 
     collection under this paragraph complies with section 552a of 
     title 5, United States Code, and that any entity using the 
     electronic version of the forms developed by the Secretary 
     pursuant to this paragraph shall maintain reasonable and 
     appropriate administrative, technical, and physical 
     safeguards to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the 
     information, and to protect against security threats, or 
     unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information provided 
     on the electronic version of the forms. Data collected by 
     such electronic version of the forms shall be used only for 
     the application, award, and administration of aid awarded 
     under this title, State aid, or aid awarded by eligible 
     institutions or such entities as the Secretary may designate. 
     No data collected by such electronic version of the forms 
     shall be used for making final aid awards under this title 
     until such data have been processed by the Secretary or a 
     contractor or designee of the Secretary, except as may be 
     permitted under this title.
       ``(F) Signature.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Secretary may permit an electronic form under 
     this paragraph to be submitted without a signature, if a 
     signature is subsequently submitted by the applicant.
       ``(5) Streamlining.--
       ``(A) Streamlined reapplication process.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop streamlined 
     reapplication forms and processes, including both paper and 
     electronic reapplication processes, consistent with the 
     requirements of this subsection, for an applicant who applies 
     for financial assistance under this title--

       ``(I) in the academic year succeeding the year in which 
     such applicant first applied for financial assistance under 
     this title; or
       ``(II) in any succeeding academic years.

       ``(ii) Mechanisms for reapplication.--The Secretary shall 
     develop appropriate mechanisms to support reapplication.
       ``(iii) Identification of updated data.--The Secretary 
     shall determine, in cooperation with States, institutions of 
     higher education, agencies, and organizations involved in 
     student financial assistance, the data elements that can be 
     updated from the previous academic year's application.
       ``(iv) Reduced data authorized.--Nothing in this title 
     shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary 
     to reduce the number of data elements required of 
     reapplicants.
       ``(v) Zero family contribution.--Applicants determined to 
     have a zero family contribution pursuant to section 479(c) 
     shall not be required to provide any financial data in a 
     reapplication form, except that which is necessary to 
     determine eligibility under such section.
       ``(B) Reduction of data elements.--
       ``(i) Reduction encouraged.--Of the number of data elements 
     on the FAFSA on the date of enactment of the Reverse the Raid 
     on Student Aid Act of 2006 (including questions on the FAFSA 
     for the purposes described in paragraph (6)), the Secretary, 
     in cooperation with representatives of agencies and 
     organizations involved in student financial assistance, shall 
     continue to reduce the number of such data elements following 
     the date of enactment. Reductions of data elements under 
     paragraph (3)(B), (4)(C), or (5)(A)(iv) shall not be counted 
     towards the reduction referred to in this paragraph unless 
     those data elements are reduced for all applicants.
       ``(ii) Report.--The Secretary shall annually report to the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate on the progress made 
     of reducing data elements.
       ``(6) State requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall include on the forms 
     developed under this subsection, such State-specific data 
     items as the Secretary determines are necessary to meet State 
     requirements for State need-based financial aid under section 
     415C, except as provided in paragraphs (3)(B)(iii) and 
     (4)(C)(iii) of this subsection. Such items shall be selected 
     in consultation with State agencies in order to assist in the 
     awarding of State financial assistance in accordance with the 
     terms of this subsection, except as provided in paragraphs 
     (3)(B)(iii) and (4)(C)(iii) of this subsection. The number of 
     such data items shall not be less than the number included on 
     the form on October 7, 1998, unless a State notifies the 
     Secretary that the State no longer requires those data items 
     for the distribution of State need-based financial aid.
       ``(B) Annual review.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual 
     review process to determine which forms and data items the 
     States require to award State need-based financial aid and 
     other application requirements that the States may impose.
       ``(C) State use of simplified forms.--The Secretary shall 
     encourage States to take such steps as necessary to encourage 
     the use of simplified application forms, including those 
     described in paragraphs (3)(B) and (4)(C), to meet the 
     requirements under subsection (b) or (c) of section 479.
       ``(D) Federal register notice.--The Secretary shall publish 
     on an annual basis a notice in the Federal Register requiring 
     State agencies to inform the Secretary--
       ``(i) if the State agency is unable to permit applicants to 
     utilize the simplified application forms described in 
     paragraphs (3)(B) and (4)(C); and
       ``(ii) of the State-specific data that the State agency 
     requires for delivery of State need-based financial aid.
       ``(E) State notification to the secretary.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each State agency shall notify the 
     Secretary--

       ``(I) whether the State permits an applicant to file a form 
     described in paragraph

[[Page 4461]]

     (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(C) of this subsection for purposes of 
     determining eligibility for State need-based financial aid; 
     and
       ``(II) the State-specific data that the State agency 
     requires for delivery of State need-based financial aid.

       ``(ii) Acceptance of forms.--In the event that a State does 
     not permit an applicant to file a form described in paragraph 
     (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(C) of this subsection for purposes of 
     determining eligibility for State need-based financial aid--

       ``(I) the State shall notify the Secretary if the State is 
     not permitted to do so because of either State law or because 
     of agency policy; and
       ``(II) the notification under subclause (I) shall include 
     an estimate of the program cost to permit applicants to 
     complete simplified application forms under paragraphs (3)(B) 
     and paragraph (4)(C) of this subsection.

       ``(iii) Lack of notification by the state.--If a State does 
     not notify the Secretary pursuant to clause (i), the 
     Secretary shall--

       ``(I) permit residents of that State to complete simplified 
     application forms under paragraphs (3)(B) and paragraph 
     (4)(C) of this subsection; and
       ``(II) not require any resident of that State to complete 
     any data previously required by that State under this 
     section.

       ``(7) Charges to students and parents for use of forms 
     prohibited.--
       ``(A) Fees prohibited.--The FAFSA, in whatever form 
     (including the EZ-FAFSA, paper, electronic, simplified, or 
     reapplication), shall be produced, distributed, and processed 
     by the Secretary and no parent or student shall be charged a 
     fee for the collection, processing, or delivery of financial 
     aid through the use of the FAFSA. The need and eligibility of 
     a student for financial assistance under parts A through E of 
     this title (other than under subpart 4 of part A) may only be 
     determined by using the FAFSA developed by the Secretary 
     pursuant to this subsection. No student may receive 
     assistance under parts A through E of this title (other than 
     under subpart 4 of part A), except by use of the FAFSA 
     developed by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection. No 
     data collected on a form for which a fee is charged shall be 
     used to complete the FAFSA.
       ``(B) Notice.--Any entity that provides to students or 
     parents, or charges students or parents for, any value-added 
     services with respect to or in connection with the FAFSA, 
     such as completion of the FAFSA, submission of the FAFSA, or 
     tracking of the FAFSA for a student, shall provide to 
     students and parents clear and conspicuous notice that--
       ``(i) the FAFSA is a free Federal student aid application;
       ``(ii) the FAFSA can be completed without professional 
     assistance; and
       ``(iii) includes the current Internet address for the FAFSA 
     on the Department's web site.
       ``(8) Application processing cycle.--The Secretary shall 
     enable students to submit a form created under this 
     subsection in order to meet the filing requirements of this 
     section and in order to receive aid from programs under this 
     title and shall initiate the processing of applications under 
     this subsection as early as practicable prior to January 1 of 
     the student's planned year of enrollment.''.
       (2) Master calendar.--Section 482(a)(1)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1089) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) by March 1: proposed modifications, updates, and 
     notices pursuant to sections 478, 479(c)(2)(C), and 483(a)(6) 
     published in the Federal Register;''.
       (b) Increasing Access to Technology.--Section 483 (20 
     U.S.C. 1090) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Addressing the Digital Divide.--The Secretary shall 
     utilize savings accrued by moving more applicants to the 
     electronic forms described in subsection (a)(4) to improve 
     access to the electronic forms described in subsection (a)(4) 
     for applicants meeting the requirements of section 479(c).''.
       (c) Expanding the Definition of an Independent Student.--
     Section 480(d) (20 U.S.C.1087vv(d)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court, 
     or was in foster care or a ward of the court until the 
     individual reached the age of 18;''.

     SEC. 12. DISCRETION OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ADMINISTRATORS.

       Section 479A(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087tt(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Authority To Make Adjustments.--
       ``(1) Adjustments for special circumstances.--'';
       (2) by inserting before ``Special circumstances may'' the 
     following:
       ``(2) Special circumstances defined.--'';
       (3) by inserting ``a student's status as a ward of the 
     court at any time prior to attaining 18 years of age, a 
     student's status as an individual who was adopted at or after 
     age 13, a student's status as a homeless or unaccompanied 
     youth (as defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act),'' after ``487,'';
       (4) by inserting before ``Adequate documentation'' the 
     following:
       ``(3) Documentation and use of supplementary information.--
     ''; and
       (5) by inserting before ``No student'' the following:
       ``(4) Fees for supplementary information prohibited.--''.

     SEC. 13. POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC 
                   AMERICANS.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Title V is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part B as part C;
       (2) by redesignating sections 511 through 518 as sections 
     521 through 528, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after section 505 (20 U.S.C. 1101d) the 
     following new part:

   ``PART B--PROMOTING POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC 
                               AMERICANS

     ``SEC. 511. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are--
       ``(1) to expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities 
     for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic 
     students; and
       ``(2) to expand the postbaccalaureate academic offerings 
     and enhance the program quality in the institutions that are 
     educating the majority of Hispanic college students and 
     helping large numbers of Hispanic and low-income students 
     complete postsecondary degrees.

     ``SEC. 512. PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of 
     funds appropriated to carry out this part, the Secretary 
     shall award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving 
     institutions determined by the Secretary to be making 
     substantive contributions to graduate educational 
     opportunities for Hispanic students.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--For the purposes of this part, an 
     `eligible institution' means an institution of higher 
     education that--
       ``(1) is an eligible institution under section 502(a)(2); 
     and
       ``(2) offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or degree 
     granting program.

     ``SEC. 513. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       ``Grants awarded under this part shall be used for one or 
     more of the following activities:
       ``(1) Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or 
     laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including 
     instructional and research purposes.
       ``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and 
     improvement of classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other 
     instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of 
     telecommunications technology equipment or services.
       ``(3) Purchase of library books, periodicals, technical and 
     other scientific journals, microfilm, microfiche, and other 
     educational materials, including telecommunications program 
     materials.
       ``(4) Support for needy postbaccalaureate students 
     including outreach, academic support services, mentoring, 
     scholarships, fellowships, and other financial assistance to 
     permit the enrollment of such students in postbaccalaureate 
     certificate and degree granting programs.
       ``(5) Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, 
     faculty research, curriculum development, and academic 
     instruction.
       ``(6) Creating or improving facilities for Internet or 
     other distance learning academic instruction capabilities, 
     including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology 
     equipment or services.
       ``(7) Collaboration with other institutions of higher 
     education to expand postbaccalaureate certificate and degree 
     offerings.
       ``(8) Other activities proposed in the application 
     submitted pursuant to section 514 that--
       ``(A) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this part; 
     and
       ``(B) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review 
     and acceptance of such application.

     ``SEC. 514. APPLICATION AND DURATION.

       ``(a) Application.--Any eligible institution may apply for 
     a grant under this part by submitting an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as determined by 
     the Secretary. Such application shall demonstrate how the 
     grant funds will be used to improve postbaccalaureate 
     education opportunities in programs and professions in which 
     Hispanic Americans are underrepresented.
       ``(b) Duration.--Grants under this part shall be awarded 
     for a period not to exceed 5 years.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award more than 
     one grant under this part in any fiscal year to any Hispanic-
     serving institution.''.
       (b) Cooperative Arrangements.--Section 524(a) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) (20 U.S.C. 1103c(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and section 513'' after ``section 
     503''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 528 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this 
     section) (20 U.S.C. 1103g) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authorizations.--
       ``(1) Part a.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part A and part C of this title $96,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(2) Part b.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part B of this title $59,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 and such sums

[[Page 4462]]

     as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

     SEC. 14. CANCELLATION OF STUDENT LOAN INDEBTEDNESS FOR 
                   SURVIVORS OF VICTIMS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, 
                   ATTACKS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Eligible public servant.--The term ``eligible public 
     sesrvant'' means an individual who, as determined in 
     accordance with regulations of the Secretary--
       (A) served as a police officer, firefighter, other safety 
     or rescue personnel, or as a member of the Armed Forces; and
       (B) died (or dies) or became (or becomes) permanently and 
     totally disabled due to injuries suffered in the terrorist 
     attack on September 11, 2001.
       (2) Eligible victim.--The term ``eligible victim'' means an 
     individual who, as determined in accordance with regulations 
     of the Secretary, died (or dies) or became (or becomes) 
     permanently and totally disabled due to injuries suffered in 
     the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.
       (3) Eligible parent.--The term ``eligible parent'' means 
     the parent of an eligible victim if--
       (A) the parent owes a Federal student loan that is a 
     consolidation loan that was used to repay a PLUS loan 
     incurred on behalf of such eligible victim; or
       (B) the parent owes a Federal student loan that is a PLUS 
     loan incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (5) Federal student loan.--The term ``Federal student 
     loan'' means any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part 
     B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       (b) Relief From Indebtedness.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     discharge or cancellation of--
       (A) the Federal student loan indebtedness of the spouse of 
     an eligible public servant, as determined in accordance with 
     regulations of the Secretary, including any consolidation 
     loan that was used jointly by the eligible public servant and 
     his or her spouse to repay the Federal student loans of the 
     spouse and the eligible public servant;
       (B) the portion incurred on behalf of the eligible victim 
     (other than an eligible public servant), of a Federal student 
     loan that is a consolidation loan that was used jointly by 
     the eligible victim and his or her spouse, as determined in 
     accordance with regulations of the Secretary, to repay the 
     Federal student loans of the eligible victim and his or her 
     spouse;
       (C) the portion of the consolidation loan indebtedness of 
     an eligible parent that was incurred on behalf of an eligible 
     victim; and
       (D) the PLUS loan indebtedness of an eligible parent that 
     was incurred on behalf of an eligible victim.
       (2) Method of discharge or cancellation.--A loan required 
     to be discharged or canceled under paragraph (1) shall be 
     discharged or canceled by the method used under section 
     437(a), 455(a)(1), or 464(c)(1)(F) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087(a), 1087e(a)(1), 
     1087dd(c)(1)(F)), whichever is applicable to such loan.
       (c) Facilitation of Claims.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) establish procedures for the filing of applications for 
     discharge or cancellation under this section by regulations 
     that shall be prescribed and published within 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and without regard to the 
     requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code; 
     and
       (2) take such actions as may be necessary to publicize the 
     availability of discharge or cancellation of Federal student 
     loan indebtedness under this section.
       (d) Availability of Funds for Payments.--Funds available 
     for the purposes of making payments to lenders in accordance 
     with section 437(a) for the discharge of indebtedness of 
     deceased or disabled individuals shall be available for 
     making payments under section 437(a) to lenders of loans as 
     required by this section.
       (e) Applicable to Outstanding Debt.--The provisions of this 
     section shall be applied to discharge or cancel only Federal 
     student loans (including consolidation loans) on which 
     amounts were owed on September 11, 2001. Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to authorize any refunding of any 
     repayment of a loan.

     SEC. 15. GENERAL EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Extension of Duration.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     this Act, the authorization of appropriations for, and the 
     duration of, each program authorized under the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall be 
     extended through July 1, 2012.
       (b) Performance of Required and Authorized Functions.--If 
     the Secretary of Education, a State, an institution of higher 
     education, a guaranty agency, a lender, or another person or 
     entity--
       (1) is required, in or for fiscal year 2004, to carry out 
     certain acts or make certain determinations or payments under 
     a program under the Higher Education Act of 1965, such acts, 
     determinations, or payments shall be required to be carried 
     out, made, or continued during the period of the extension 
     under this section; or
       (2) is permitted or authorized, in or for fiscal year 2004, 
     to carry out certain acts or make certain determinations or 
     payments under a program under the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, such acts, determinations, or payments are permitted or 
     authorized to be carried out, made, or continued during the 
     period of the extension under this section.
       (c) Extension at Current Levels.--Unless the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for a program described in 
     subsection (a) is otherwise amended by another section of 
     this Act, the amount authorized to be appropriated for such a 
     program during the period of extension under this section 
     shall be the amount authorized to be appropriated for such 
     program for fiscal year 2004, or the amount appropriated for 
     such program for such fiscal year, whichever is greater. 
     Except as provided in any amendment to the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 enacted during fiscal year 2005 or 2006, the 
     amount of any payment required or authorized under subsection 
     (b) in or for the period of the extension under this section 
     shall be determined in the same manner as the amount of the 
     corresponding payment required or authorized in or for fiscal 
     year 2004.
       (d) Advisory Committees and Other Entities Continued.--Any 
     advisory committee, interagency organization, or other entity 
     that was, during fiscal year 2004, authorized or required to 
     perform any function under the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or in relation to programs under 
     that Act, shall continue to exist and is authorized or 
     required, respectively, to perform such function for the 
     period of the extension under this section.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  The Democratic substitute has been made in order to address some 
critical shortcomings in the underlying bill. My cosponsors, Mr. 
Kildee, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Grijalva, 
join me in offering this substitute.
  First and foremost, this substitute will make a downpayment on the 
first year's effort to reduce college costs to those students most in 
need by cutting the interest rate, the new fixed rate interest rate, in 
half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in July of this year. This will be 
the first effort to reverse the most egregious action that this 
Republican-led Congress did to America's families and to the students 
and children who are trying to pursue a college education when they 
took $12.5 billion out of the student aid accounts, took it and whisked 
it away to tax cuts for the oil companies, tax cuts for the wealthiest 
people in this country, and raised the cost of education to America's 
families and students at a time when the cost of education is 
outstripping the ability of those families to pay for it.
  This amendment would also establish a new predominantly black-serving 
institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-
income black students, including students in rural areas who attend 2-
year colleges. It creates a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution 
program and significantly simplifies the student aid application 
process by creating a simplified and short application, repeals the 
anti-consumer single lender rule so that borrowers can choose with 
which lender they want to consolidate their loans, and does a number of 
other things in the underlying bill.
  But the critical point here is to reverse the rate on student aid, to 
reverse the largest cuts in the history of the program. Why do we say 
that is necessary? Because here is the situation. This is the trend 
line on the percentage of the college education that a maximum Pell 
Grant will cover. In 2000, it was about 41 percent. Now what we see is 
it is drifting down to 30 percent, and it is headed down to 27 percent 
because of that.
  In this legislation, the Republicans will tell you that they have 
authorized an additional $200 on the Pell Grant. That will barely have 
any effect on this graph. But more importantly, last night, their 
Budget Committee did not report out a budget that has that money in it. 
So it is interesting rhetoric, but it does not have any money for these 
same low-income students that are losing their ability to cover the 
cost of an education.

[[Page 4463]]

  It used to be, this year and last year, if this student worked full 
time during the summer, if this student worked part time during school, 
they could cover this gap. That is no longer true. This year, they are 
not going to be able to cover it with the jobs that most students have 
during the school year, and that gap is getting worse and it is 
widening.
  That is why it is essential that we vote for the substitute amendment 
to make a downpayment on reversing the new costs that are imposed on 
these families and these students who are struggling to purchase an 
education. That raid on student aid last year was the most expensive 
raid to families in the history of this program.
  They can talk all they want about the additional money going to Pell 
Grant, it is an entitlement program, but the fact of the matter is the 
money that students are getting is covering a lower percentage of the 
cost that they encounter when they go to school.
  This is a fundamental determination. Pick your side, folks. You can 
be on the side of tax cuts for the oil companies, or you can decide you 
are going to help families and students that are struggling to get what 
is now absolutely essential to their future participation in America's 
economy.
  As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was 
not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to 
know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, 
those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college 
education is going to have to become as common as a high school 
education.
  But if families can cannot meet this gap, if they cannot provide that 
money, if the government will not help, you are talking about millions 
of students who are not going to be able to participate. That is not 
good for those students, it is not good for those families, it is not 
good for the economy, and it is not good for America.
  This is a chance to reverse that action. This is a chance to make a 
downpayment on reducing the cost, increasing the affordability. All of 
the studies tell us that the increasing costs are outrunning the 
ability of families and students to pay for that education.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an interesting debate we have had to this point. This is a 
bill we have been working on now for 3 years. Up until 2 days ago, it 
was totally a bipartisan effort. As you can see in their substitute, 
they include many of the things that we have in the underlying bill. We 
have a basic difference of opinion that the gentleman has pointed out.
  I look at it a little differently than he does. I feel it is not 
totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of 
higher education. When I introduced a bill a few years ago to try to 
keep the cost of higher education down, because it has been going up 
for the last 20 years at four times the ability of people to pay, I 
said it is important that the Federal Government, the State government, 
the schools, the lending institutions, the parents, the students all 
come together to solve this problem, and I still feel that way. I feel 
it is important for all of us to come together to solve this problem, 
not simply the Federal Government to pick up whatever the difference 
is. As schools continue to increase their fees and tuition, the Federal 
Government should not have the responsibility of picking up all of the 
difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher 
Education to let him further go into some of the differences and some 
of the things that we have done in the past and some of the things that 
we do in the underlying bill for the importance of higher education for 
our students of this country.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people are entitled 
to some straight talk when it comes to higher education funding. This 
bill strengthens Pell Grants. It expands Perkins student loans and 
increases access to college for millions of students.
  Now Mr. Miller has a substitute that he would like us to vote for, 
but it has three critical flaws. The first flaw is the name itself, 
``Reverse the Raid on Student Aid.'' Don't believe the hype. Not one 
student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not 
one.
  The heart of our bill is Pell Grants, the heart of all financial aid 
on the Federal level.
  Now let's look at the history of Pell Grant funding over the 20 
years, and see if Republicans are in fact making, quote, ``a raid on 
student aid.'' The yellow here shows the time period of 10 years when 
Democrats were in control of Congress, and the red shows when 
Republicans were in control of Congress. You see a dramatic increase in 
the maximum Pell Grant award. Does this look like a raid on student aid 
to you? You have got to be kidding me.
  In fact, what is really instructive is, if you look at the last 3 
years when the Democrats were in control, they had a Democrat House and 
a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, and they actually cut Pell Grant 
funding 3 years in a row. It went from $2,400 down to $2,300.
  The second critical flaw with the Miller substitute is this amendment 
does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our 
legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum 
award. So this substitute legislation, Reverse the Raid on Student Aid, 
provides less for Pell Grants.

                              {time}  1300

  Instead of $6,000, $5,800--how could that possibly be that we have a 
Democrat substitute that actually calls for less awards of Pell Grants? 
Well, don't call it a comeback. We have been here for years. It 
happened before. Their last 3 years in power cut Pell Grants. Here we 
have another attempt to do the same thing.
  It has a third flaw. It says that we are going to have a 3.4 percent 
interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has 
no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us. 
Well, if it is just a gimmick to have a lower rate without any way to 
pay for it, why make it 3.4 percent? Why not 2 percent? Why not 1 
percent? Why not interest-free loans? It is crazy. The truth of the 
matter is in 2002 Republicans and Democrats and student groups all got 
together and decided in a bipartisan manner what would be a fair fixed 
interest rate. They decided on 6.8 percent. They voted in favor of this 
in 2002, the Democrats who offer this motion. In fact, in December of 
this last year when we supposedly cut all this money, it was going to 
be the interest rates were going to remain at 6.8 percent. That is the 
existing law. And, in fact, in July they would go to 6.8 percent. How 
much is the interest rate in our bill? 6.8 percent. No increase 
whatsoever. And so now they are opposing something that they all 
thought was a good idea.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue that we have a pretty darn good bill 
that we can be proud of, a bill that increases Pell Grants, a bill that 
expands Perkins loans, a bill that is going to make it possible for 
young people all across America to go to college. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the Miller substitute and vote ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, I would like to be 
down here on the floor to say that H.R. 609 is a genuine bipartisan 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. That is really not the 
case. Two months after the $12 billion heist on student aid, we are 
considering another bill that is a missed opportunity. I am proud to 
join Ranking Member Miller, along with Representatives Bobby Scott, 
Danny Davis, and Raul Grijalva in offering a higher education bill that 
is in touch with the needs of everyday Americans.
  Instead of missing another opportunity to expand college access, this 
substitute seizes this opportunity to

[[Page 4464]]

make college more affordable by slashing interest rates in half for the 
next year. This is a down payment on reversing the raid on student aid. 
Additionally, it will expand college participation rates for minority 
students by establishing a graduate Hispanic-serving institution 
program and a predominantly black institution program and by providing 
additional assistance for tribal colleges.
  Instead of supporting the Missed College Opportunity Act, I ask my 
colleagues to seize this opportunity to act in the interest of students 
and families. America's students and families deserve better. Vote 
``no'' on H.R. 609. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the 
gentleman from California for yielding.
  You know, I have listened to this debate for the last several days, 
and even several weeks. And how you can take $12 billion out of the pot 
and then tell us that you are going to expand and increase student aid, 
I just can't reconcile that. I just don't know how to reconcile that 
kind of language.
  But I do stand in strong support of the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-
Grijalva substitute because it cuts interest rates in half for the 
borrowers, for the students, those who need the money the most. It 
would make college affordable for large numbers of individuals who 
otherwise will never see the light of day. But it also would establish 
programs for individuals who are missing out already.
  There is nothing more important than the opportunity to achieve some 
form of higher education, and, Mr. Chairman, I just had hoped that I 
was going to be able to vote for a bill that expanded opportunities. 
Unfortunately, this bill will not expand opportunities. Therefore, I 
will have to vote against it and urge that we vote in favor of the 
Miller substitute.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of interesting things 
about this substitute. One is that, as we just heard from Subcommittee 
Chairman Keller, it is apparently a guideline of the House that when 
the Democrats do cuts, and they are real cuts in education, it is not a 
cut. But when the Republicans actually increase, it is somehow a cut. 
And apparently the reason is because they are pro-education and we are 
anti-education. So if we increase the money, it is still a cut. But if 
when they were in power they cut the money, it is not a cut. And it 
becomes very confusing to the American people because they thought the 
way you measure a cut is if the spending goes down like it did under 
Democrat control. And they thought the way you measure an increase is 
when the spending goes up, not just based on a claim that you are more 
pro-education or anti-education.
  Another interesting thing here is that when the Republicans float out 
things for 1 year, as 1-year proposals, we hear it is a gimmick, it is 
a gimmick, they are merely trying to posture for the election. But when 
the Democrats roll out a 1-year rollback, apparently that is not 
posturing for an election. That is real serious policy trying to 
benefit the students of America because there is a terrible raid on the 
student loan system. But a 1-year moratorium from the other side 
couldn't possibly be a gimmick because Democrats don't do gimmicks. 
Only Republicans do gimmicks. Democrats don't do cuts in education 
because only Republicans do cuts in education.
  Now, fundamentally, we have had a lot of misinformation and 
struggling about this student loan question. At least we aren't hearing 
about the failed policies of direct lending. We are now arguing how you 
do this in the domestic market because, in fact, the private sector 
market showed you could more efficiently do student loans and you could 
manage student loans better and have fewer bad debts and get the rates 
down for students. And that is why we are not arguing direct lending 
today; we are arguing, in fact, a process of what happened in the 
budgetary accounting of when we went to a fixed rate versus a variable 
rate. In fact, the rate for student loans is higher right now than it 
is in the bill, 6.8. But because of the variable rate that was left in 
the previous bill, it was scored differently.
  Now, in fact, the government has to pick up the difference. If the 
rate goes higher, we fix the students at 6.8. Now, if there is a 
criticism to be made of the Republicans, it is that the alleged savings 
may not be real if the interest rates go up. But there is no cut to 
student loans to students. It is cheaper for students, and we have 
guaranteed now a fixed rate so they don't have this bubble that hits. 
And just because there is a lot of confusion, because of the accounting 
of how you do student lending doesn't mean that you can come to the 
House floor and demagogue like we have cut student loans, that we have 
taken the money out.
  Furthermore, there is no offset to this. To the degree that we are 
going to give them a 1-year gimmick loan, how are we going to pay for 
it?
  My friend and colleague who I have known for many years and I know he 
is very passionately in favor of education, the only thing he mentioned 
as an offset are tax cuts for the rich, which apparently we have 
different definitions of rich, but apparently this means, as we have 
battled on this House floor, increasing the taxes again on families who 
have the child credit, because that is what we are trying to extend and 
which is being blocked. And you can't give a 1-year bonus to a family 
by subsidizing at the Federal level the student loan and then take it 
back by taking away their child credit. What does that do? That is more 
than the loan. And it is not 1 year; it is for multiple years.
  Furthermore, they favor taking away the dividend and capital gains 
credits. Well, how do people get jobs? So if you don't grow jobs in 
Indiana and the rest of the country and then you say good luck getting 
a student loan, to work where? If we don't keep the economy growing, if 
we tax the economy to fund a temporary 1-year gimmick in the student 
loan and kill the economy, why do we need to go to college?
  Now, we all know that, as Mr. Miller said, everybody is going to need 
a college degree if you are going to compete in the world economy; and 
a graduate degree is going to be like the old days of the college 
degree. And we have to tackle this spending question. Every time we 
reduce student loans, tuition goes up. And quite frankly, in Indiana 
and elsewhere, we have increased money dramatically in Washington. 
Where are the States?
  Individuals have a responsibility too. It isn't just the Federal 
Government that has to meet this challenge in funding it; but the 
States need to, endowments need to, and the private sector needs to. We 
have a share of that. We are guaranteeing most of these loans. We have 
increased the Pell Grants. We have increased the pool. We have made a 
stable interest rate now. We have lowered the cost of education and 
increased the Federal funding. And I urge a strong ``no'' to this 
Democrat substitute amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic 
substitute. I was proud to put my name on that substitute because I 
believe that it does more for students than the underlying bill in 
front of us today, and because, quite frankly, I want our children and 
our grandchildren to be able to afford to go to college.
  H.R. 609, coupled with the $12 billion Congress cut from student aid 
and the President's zero funding of key student loan programs, is 
setting us back, not forward. I remember when the Federal Government 
actually helped students go to college, when a Pell Grant covered 
almost all of tuition expenses in a public university. Today, a maximum 
Pell Grant barely covers a third.
  I oppose 609 because it includes many provisions that hurt students 
in the long run and omits many others that would have helped them.

[[Page 4465]]

  If the Rules Committee would have allowed the amendment to prevent 
the Department of Education from carrying out the $664 million recall 
of the Federal Perkins loan fund, a recall mandated by the President's 
2007 budget, that is potentially 463,000 lower-class and middle-class 
students and their families who will lose out on a key part of 
financial aid. We did nothing about that.
  Another example is the single definition of an institution of higher 
learning I think poses a dangerous threat. It opens the door to 
potential future abuse of Federal aid by for-profit institutions. We 
should be protecting our students from fraud, not welcoming it through 
the door.
  H.R. 609 falls short again on funding Pell Grants. A $200 increase 
through the year 2013 barely covers the real costs, and the President 
has frozen the maximum grant at 4,050 for 4 consecutive years.
  I think the substitute does provide for the real value of Federal aid 
in helping students realize their dream and helping their families 
realize the dreams of their kids going to college.
  But I think what the substitute says, above all, is that we can and 
we must do better. In December, the House Republicans voted to cut $12 
billion from the Federal student aid program. Democrats came out in 
force and not one of us voted in favor of that bill. I ask my 
colleagues to join me again in opposing H.R. 609 because it is not 
enough, and support the Democratic alternative and then vote ``no'' on 
the final passage of the Missed College Opportunity Act.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 
committee, we have come to the end of this debate, and we must address 
a fundamental distinction between these bills.

                              {time}  1315

  One of these bills recognizes the affordability gap, if you will, 
between the cost of a college education and the struggles of American 
families and students to purchase that education. I appreciate all the 
discussion by the previous speakers as to how they have authorized an 
increase in the cap and they have done all this. The fact of the matter 
is, there is no money for that authorization. The President promised 
that he was going to raise it to $5,100, no money has been forthcoming. 
In fact, if you look over the last 5 years, there is $16 billion in 
additional spending for education that is over and above what the 
Republicans have reported out of the appropriations cycle over those 
last 5 years. So this promise of additional money some time in the 
future if you vote for this authorization is brought to you by the very 
same people who, over the last 5 years, have been cutting education 
over and over and over. And that is why you see this gap, this gap 
between the cost of an education and the ability of a family to pay for 
it and what a full-time Pell grant means to these students, that we are 
down now to about 30 percent of the real cost of that education.
  What does that mean? That means that these students are struggling 
and in many instances fully qualified students are not able to take 
advantage of going to college. That is just unacceptable in this 
country.
  They said that they did not do more of this because they did not 
think it was totally the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
pay for an education. Well, let me explain to them, students are deeper 
in debt. Families are deeper in debt. They are borrowing more money 
than ever. You have raised the limits on how much they can borrow 
because they have to borrow. More students are working more hours to 
try to make up for the money that they cannot borrow, the money that 
they do not get in grants. And what we are suggesting is for the 
students and the families in the most need, in the most need, that we 
roll back the increased cost that you are going to saddle them with in 
July and go to a 3.4 percent interest rate rather than a 6.8 percent 
interest rate.
  There is no way to suggest that somehow this would make it totally 
the responsibility of the Federal Government. That is laughable around 
every kitchen table in America. As families are sitting down with their 
young people and trying to put their aid packages together, the loans, 
the grants, the borrowing, the family contribution, the work of their 
students, to see whether or not they can acquire a 2-year or 4-year 
education, they would laugh in your face if you said, well, this is all 
the responsibility of the Federal Government. No. The Federal 
Government made a decision after World War II that we thought that 
people should not be turned away from college because they cannot 
afford it. And that is the people that we are trying to help, and that 
is the people, those most in need, that we are trying to help with this 
substitute, with Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Scott, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kildee, and 
myself, because those are the people who tragically and unfortunately 
and unnecessarily are making a decision.
  The other charge was that the only thing I could suggest where you 
could pay for this was tax cuts to the wealthy. I will give you another 
one. How about the tax cuts to the oil companies that you did in the 
energy bill? Maybe you can take those oil companies that have world 
record-breaking profits and maybe you could ask them to give back some 
of the tax cuts you gave to them last month or the month before and use 
that to help pay for the education of those families and children most 
in need.
  So this legislation just shows two real differences between the 
parties: The party that continues to cut education almost $16 billion 
more than what Congress finally reported out because the Democrats took 
them dragging and screaming, and the party that is going to decide that 
we are going to help these families. And we are either going to roll 
back that raid on student aid with this down payment or you are going 
to neglect the needs of these families and students. And I hope that 
people will vote for the substitute and against the bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate. I hope those who 
have followed it have followed it closely. I think if you have listened 
to most of what the other side has talked about, they are complaining 
about what we did a couple of months ago in the Deficit Reduction Act 
to try to bring some controls to the budget. There have not been many 
challenges to the bill, and you can see the substitute that they are 
putting in now, most of what they have in the substitute we have in our 
bill.
  The new graduate Hispanic-serving institutions program, very 
important. Year-round Pell Grants. These are things we have in the 
bill.
  As you can see this chart shows how public 4-year institutions' and 
private 4-year institutions' costs, tuition and fees, have been going 
up in the last 10 years. If we carried it back further, you can see it 
is even worse. For over 20 years, the cost of college university higher 
education has gone up at four times people's ability to pay. We are 
very concerned about that. That is why it is important that we do the 
things that we are doing in this bill to bring more affordability, more 
accessibility, more accountability to higher education.
  In the bill, we strengthen Pell Grants. We provide students and 
parents with more information, and we shine a spotlight on excessive 
tuition rates. And we enhance American competitiveness. All very 
important things that we are dealing with at the current time.
  One of the other things they have in their substitute is they lower 
student loan interest rates. Now, interest rates are really an 
interesting thing. I remember back about 30 years ago when Mr. Carter 
was President, interest rates got up to 19, 20, 21 percent, and that 
just seemed to be the norm. It looked like it was going to go on 
forever. When we passed the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 
in 1998, we lowered interest rates, and we have been living with lower 
interest rates for students even though their

[[Page 4466]]

loans have gone up from $8,000 average to $18,000 average. They are 
still paying about the same amount of interest in repayment. That was 
due to the work that Mr. Kildee, myself and the Congress did in 1998. 
That was a good thing for students. Now they are talking about how bad 
the interest rate of 6.8 percent is. The Fed increased the interest 
rate this last week. Interest rates are going up. Who knows what they 
are going to be like in the future?
  Let me read what Mr. Miller said when we worked together in 2002 to 
set the interest rate: ``Over the last several months, PIRG has worked 
closely with other student advocates and the lending community to 
develop a compromise that will deliver low-cost loans to student 
borrowers and maintain the stability of the guaranteed student loan 
program. We're confident that S. 1762 does this, and we applaud the 
passage of the provision.''
  What that did was set interest rates at 6.8 percent.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That was a 6.8 cap with a variable 
rate underneath.
  Mr. McKEON. You were not alone, Mr. Miller. The Student Association 
said: ``The advocates say they arrived at the proposed 6.8 percent by 
determining the average rate that borrowers would pay over the next 10 
years, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, if the formula 
change were to take effect. `Financially we believe that this would be 
a very good deal for students,' said Corye Barbour, legislative 
director for the United States Student Association. `We also think this 
would add much needed simplicity to the student loan program,''' 6.8 
percent, what this law that we are asking you to support puts into 
effect.
  We really need to come together, the Federal Government, State 
government, schools, lenders, parents, students, to solve this problem. 
The bill that we have before us today, H.R. 609, goes a long way to 
making that happen. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the 
substitute; vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Republican 
leadership brought their higher education bill to the floor. Their 
claim was that it would strengthen and improve the nation's higher 
education system by expanding college access for low- and middle-income 
students. But in reality it fails to provide urgently needed assistance 
for millions of low- and middle-class families that are trying to 
figure out how to pay for their children to go to college.
  This past December House Republicans voted to cut the student loan 
programs by $12 billion and these cuts included many significant 
changes to the Higher Education Act, none of which expand access to 
college or make college more affordable for students and their 
families. The bill put forward by the majority does nothing to make up 
for these draconian cuts.
  Today Mr. Chairman, we offer our substitute in an attempt to make 
students whole again. Our substitute offers real financial assistance 
to needy families. It cuts interest rates in half for borrowers in most 
need by lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and 
their families. It lowers the cost of student loan interest rates for 
middle and low-income families. Specifically, we offer a 3.4 percent 
fixed interest rate to students who take out subsidized loans between 
July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.
  Our Substitute also helps boost college participation rates for 
minority students. It establishes a graduate Hispanic Serving 
Institution program. It establishes a Predominantly Black Institution 
program that would boost college opportunities for low-income and 
first-generation Black college students. Our substitute also increases 
the tribal college minimum grant and stabilizes tribal college 
construction by ensuring that funds for used for construction under HEA 
are guaranteed.
  Mr. Chairman, the cost of tuition should not stand between a 
qualified student and a college education. Congress should not miss an 
opportunity to help American families pay for college. Our bill offers 
families a real solution to the problem of rising tuition costs. We 
make good on our promise to put a college education within the reach of 
American students and families. I urge my colleagues to support this 
substitute.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the College Access 
and Opportunity Act of 2005, H.R. 609, and in support of the Democratic 
Substitute.
  Helping millions of Americans reach the fullness of their potential 
is the 40 year legacy of the Higher Education Act that we are called to 
honor in the reauthorization bill before us today. Unfortunately, H.R. 
609 falls short of fully embracing this legacy, for it fails to ensure 
that those who wish to better themselves through a postsecondary 
education are able to realize that goal unrestrained by the shackles of 
financial disadvantage.
  Make no mistake, in today's global economy characterized by 
competition and transformation, a postsecondary education has never 
been so vital to so many. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recognized 
this when it concluded that a postsecondary education will be necessary 
for 42 percent of the jobs created in this decade.
  The U.S. Census Bureau acknowledged this fact when it reported that 
those with a bachelor's degree earn on average $1 million more over 
their lifetime than those with only a high school diploma. The fruits 
of a postsecondary education also frequently include improved access to 
high-quality healthcare, housing, childcare, and a host of other social 
benefits that typify the fulfillment of the American dream.
  With limited Federal resources, dramatic tuition increases, and our 
nation's continuing shift to a knowledge-based economy, the need to 
ensure that the programs authorized under the Higher Education Act are 
effective and efficient has never been greater.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us would be more aptly named the 
``Missed College Opportunities Bill.'' To begin, H.R. 609 represents a 
wasted opportunity to deal with the $12 billion that was eviscerated in 
student aid programs under the recently passed reconciliation bill.
  At a time when we should be using the reauthorization of the HEA to 
right the wrongs of reconciliation by redirecting those funds to expand 
and strengthen grants and low-interest loans, H.R. 609 simply does too 
little, too well.
  More specifically, I am deeply troubled that H.R. 609 does not 
include a mandatory increase in the Pell Grant, the cornerstone program 
of federal financial aid.
  The maximum Pell Grant award for the last three years has been frozen 
at $4,050 and its purchasing power has withered away to cover just 30 
percent of the average cost of attendance at a four-year public 
college.
  Yet H.R. 609 authorizes only a paltry increase of $200 in the Pell 
Grant. Moreover, the bill does not comprehensively lessen the college 
loan burden at a time when the average college graduate now owes 
$17,500.
  The bill also continues to encourage the waste of billions of tax 
payer funds by not encouraging the utilization of the Direct Loan 
program, which a large body of evidence has shown to be the more cost 
effective Federal loan program.
  Surprisingly, just months after the President acknowledged in his 
State of the Union address that we need to expand our commitment in the 
fields of math, science, and engineering to maintain our economic 
preeminence, H.R. 609 fails to address this National crisis in any 
comprehensive manner.
  The Democratic Substitute would correct these inadequacies, cutting 
in half interest rates on loans for low- and middle-income students 
most in need of help--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent--starting in July 
2006. The Substitute also establishes a Predominantly Black Institution 
program; a graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; and, provides 
additional assistance for tribal colleges.
  On balance, there are some features in the base bill that I support. 
I am encouraged by: (1) the inclusion of Coppin State University as a 
qualified graduate program, in my district; (2) the authorization of 
year-round Pell Grants; (3) the creation of new loan forgiveness 
provisions in areas of national need; and (4) the change in the needs 
analysis that permits early estimates to help students and families 
anticipate financial aid eligibility. But these changes are not enough 
to overcome the bill's shortcomings.
  Mr. Chairman, the measure of our commitment to postsecondary 
education is found not in the quality of our towering words, but by the 
quality of our actions that help needy students and families afford a 
first-rate higher education that is relevant in the 21th Century.
  By providing students in our Nation with such an education, we help 
save our children from the clutches of poverty, crime, drugs, and 
hopelessness, and we help safeguard our Nation's prosperity for 
generations yet unborn.
  If the Democratic substitute to H.R. 609 is not adopted, I encourage 
my colleagues to vote against H.R. 609 on final passage.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Democratic alternative

[[Page 4467]]

to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act that would help 
more students and families pay for higher education.
  With millions of American families struggling to pay for college, it 
is critical that Congress act to make college more affordable. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 609 does little to increase the access and 
affordability of higher education and actually cuts $8.7 billion from 
student aid programs. This bill would, among other things, freeze the 
authorized level of maximum Pell Grant scholarships $200 above the 
current level through 2013. With the cost of tuition rising more than 6 
percent every year, a flat-lined $200 increase provides no relief for 
the 37,500 students in my home state of Connecticut that receive Pell 
Grants.
  According to the College Board, the typical student who borrows to 
finance a bachelor's degree at a public college or university graduates 
with $15,500 of debt and at private nonprofit institutions graduates 
with $19,400 debt. To assist students and families struggling with this 
debt, Congress passed legislation in 2002 that lowered the interest 
rate cap on student loans to 6.8 percent starting in July of 2006. 
However, the bill on the floor today would raise the interest rate cap 
to 8.25 percent. As a result, the typical student borrower, with 
$17,500 in debt, would be forced to pay as much as $2,600 more in 
interest on those loans.
  In contrast, the Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in 
half for students with subsidized loans--from 6.8 percent to 3.4 
percent--which means $2.5 billion in interest rate relief for middle 
and low income families. The Democratic substitute would also create a 
pilot program for year round Pell Grants, simplify the student loan 
application process, and provide loan forgiveness for nurses, highly-
qualified teachers in bi-lingual and low-income communities, 
librarians, first responders and other public servants.
  As a nation, we must invest in higher education if we are going to 
boost America's economic competitiveness and continued prosperity. 
Hardworking families and students deserve better. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in rejecting the underlying bill and supporting the 
Democratic alternative that would truly make college more accessible 
and affordable to more Americans.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McKeon

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 109-401.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I have a pro forma amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy 
with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you on the great job you have done 
with this bill and let you know how heartily I support it.
  There is a national program that you are aware of, Project GRAD, 
which has proven highly effective in increasing the number of low-
income students who graduate from high school and enroll in college by 
reaching out to students beginning in kindergarten and staying with 
them through college. Project GRAD has four sites in my home State and 
several theater schools.
  Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the committee that this bill 
will allow funding for this type of program?
  Mr. McKEON. Yes. H.R. 609 incorporates a new use of funds under the 
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education for integrated 
education reform services in order to improve college access and 
opportunity. Under this allowable use, Project GRAD will be able to 
compete for Federal funding.
  I recently had the opportunity, at your urging, to visit a Project 
GRAD program in my home State of California, and they are doing a 
wonderful job and generating very impressive results. I am grateful to 
you and Mr. Tiberi and Mrs. McCarthy for your diligent efforts in this.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the chairman so very much for his 
willingness to include this language in the bill and for his efforts to 
support this valuable program.
  I would like now to yield to the gentlewoman from New York, who has 
been a tireless advocate for Project GRAD and a leader on this issue.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I too would like to thank the chairman for his comments and support. 
We are fortunate to have a Project GRAD program in my district on Long 
Island. It is making a critical difference in the lives of many of the 
students. I appreciate all the help. I hope we can eventually get 
funding for these programs.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I 
also would like to acknowledge the hard work of Congressman Tiberi on 
this issue as well and thank him for his efforts and, once again, thank 
the chairman.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I too want to congratulate you for the 
hard work that you have put into this legislation and thank you for 
that.
  I know that you agree that peer to peer piracy is a serious challenge 
on college and university campuses. This activity is not only theft but 
also exposes college and university information technology 
infrastructures to security risks from spyware. There is bipartisan 
agreement that these institutions should have effective policies and 
punishments in place to deter this illegal activity, and I am asking if 
you would commit to working with me to combat peer to peer piracy on 
college and university campuses.
  Mr. McKEON. I certainly understand and share the gentleman's belief 
that illegal downloading of copyrighted material on college campuses is 
a serious matter. I strongly believe that policymakers, institutions of 
higher education, and those in the recording and motion picture 
industries have to make a renewed commitment to address the important 
issue of piracy on college campuses. You have my commitment to work 
with you on this issue.
  I now yield to the gentleman from California for his comments.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding. I congratulate him on 
his new position.
  The gentleman from Virginia, the gentleman from Maryland, the 
gentlewoman from California, myself, and a number of other Members of 
the House are driven by our concerns related to the lack of information 
available from the university community about their antipiracy efforts. 
A Judiciary subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Smith of Texas, has issued a 
request to the Government Accountability Office to gather data on 
whether schools have adopted strong acceptable use policies, 
enforcement mechanisms, in addition to whether they are taking action 
on DMCA notices, and monitoring local agency networks where much of 
this piracy is taking place. This information is important so that the 
extent of the problem can be assessed.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his work on this 
issue. I am aware that there has been resistance to efforts to gather 
this information. I hope it is clear to the university community that 
Congress will continue to monitor such efforts.
  I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. I thank the chairman for your willingness to address the 
issue, and I also want to congratulate you.

[[Page 4468]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, do I have 5 minutes?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the chairman for the purpose of these colloquies.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. BONO. What perfect timing, Mr. Chairman. I can thank you again 
and congratulate you again on your position and also thank the ranking 
member for his generosity.
  I want to join my colleagues to remind everybody that in college, 
plagiarism can be an expellable offense. Colleges play a key role in 
teaching us that stealing someone else's work by plagiarism is just not 
acceptable.
  Just imagine the positive contributions colleges and universities 
could lend our economy and way of life if they took the lead in 
teaching students the value of intellectual property.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will work with me and my 
colleagues to create such a new environment, including possibly holding 
a hearing before the House Education and the Workforce Committee. I 
look forward to doing so with you and with your leadership.
  I yield to you for your comments.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership 
on this issue and share her concerns. We will work on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman. The 
gentlewoman from California and I have cochaired a caucus on 
copyrights. We have worked very closely with Mr. Goodlatte, and my good 
friend, Mr. Berman.
  I do want to acknowledge that the education community and the 
entertainment community have been working cooperatively, Mr. Chairman, 
for more than 2 years to develop ways to reduce illegal file sharing 
and develop legal alternatives.
  Some universities are true leaders, in fact, in combating piracy on 
campus. But we have no data, Mr. Chairman, that ensures that all 
institutions are aggressive in their efforts to educate students on 
piracy and in deterring this activity. I thank the gentleman for 
agreeing to work with us on this critically important issue, and I 
yield back to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his 
work on this issue. As this bill moves through the process, I will work 
with the gentlewoman, with my good friend from the State of California 
(Mr. Berman), my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my friend 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); you can see this is a coast-to-coast issue; 
and others to ensure that we have additional compliance from the higher 
education community on the illegal downloading of copyrighted material, 
including working on report language during the conference committee to 
ensure that colleges and universities take seriously their obligation 
to aggressively tackle this problem.
  Schools should have policies in place accompanied by strong 
punishments to notify students that unauthorized downloading and 
sharing is illegal. I thank the gentleman for his strong leadership on 
this issue and for bringing attention to this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. And the gentleman from California has?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for entering into these colloquies, especially the colloquy on the 
question of intellectual properties and the protection of intellectual 
properties.
  Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I would simply say that I 
think with the substitute that we will be voting on here in a few 
minutes and the other votes, and finally the vote on final passage, 
that we will have a clear choice in this House.
  I would hope that Members of the House would join a very broad array 
of education organizations across the country, from the American 
Federation of State and Municipal Employees, to the American Federation 
of Teachers, the American Medical Students Association, the Council of 
Christian Colleges and Universities, Lutheran Educational Conference, 
Minnesota's Private Colleges, the National Association of College 
Admission Counselors, the National Association of Independent Colleges 
and Universities, the National Education Association, the Service 
Employees Union, State Public Interest Research Group, St. Mary's 
College in California, my father's alma mater, as a matter of fact, the 
United States Students Association, the University of Michigan Women's 
College Coalition, to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and joining the 
organizations like NAICU that say that they will not support this 
legislation, but like myself and others, they want to continue to work 
with the chairman as this legislation moves forward into a conference 
committee, hopefully soon with the Senate.
  But I think the correct vote here at this time for America's families 
who are struggling to pay for the cost of college, for the students who 
are struggling to pay for the cost of college, and for the contribution 
that these students, should they successfully complete their college 
education, the contribution that they will make to our society and to 
our economy, it is most important that we take this step provided in 
the substitute to make a down payment on reversing that raid on student 
aid and making a down payment on the future of these students, their 
families, our communities and this country.
  There is no other way to do it, because with the current aid that we 
are providing, and the increases in the costs that will come on line on 
July 1, because of the actions this Congress took just a couple of 
months ago, I know they want to divorce these two bills, but they are 
both parts of the Higher Education Act in this Congress.
  Because of the actions they took, these families, unless you vote for 
the substitute, they will be saddled with higher interest costs. Those 
families are being put on notice now as they are seeking out the loans 
necessary to pay for that education.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we should send them some good news as they 
gather around that kitchen table to try to determine whether or not 
they will be able to take the opportunity available to them in this 
country for a college education, an opportunity that should never, ever 
be foreclosed, simply because somebody cannot afford to take advantage 
of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the substitute, and 
to vote no on the bill on final passage, and as I say, to join a very 
wide array of educational organizations, private, public, small, large, 
all across this country that have very serious problems with this 
legislation. Let's not turn it into the missed opportunity that we 
believe it is.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a good debate. I want my colleagues to 
understand we urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. We urge an ``aye'' 
vote on final passage.
  Before I conclude I would like to thank all who helped to make this 
bill possible. I do want to thank Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member 
Kildee, Subcommittee Chairman Keller and all of those who have worked 
on this bill.
  I want to thank Ellen Bammon for the good work she did, and the 
members of the staff on the other side of the aisle. I want to thank 
Amy Raaf on our committee, who has been working night and day to get us 
to this point.
  I want to thank Krisann Pearce, who will be departing from the 
committee,

[[Page 4469]]

who has done yeoman's work. I mentioned yesterday Sally Lovejoy, who 
has been with the committee for 25 years, who is leaving.
  I want to thank Heath Weems from my personal staff; Bob Cochran, my 
chief of staff, who have all done great work on this.
  I want to thank Kathleen Smith and Alison Griffin, who have been 
working on this project for years and have since left the committee.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 609, the 
Higher Education Reauthorization Bill. Today the House of 
Representatives wasted an opportunity to help millions of American 
students achieve a higher education and a more secure future. Just 2 
months after Republicans cut student aid by $12 billion in the budget 
reconciliation bill to, the largest cut in history, they are again 
making higher education less affordable by placing the burden of 
financing tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of students and their 
families.
  It is ironic that this bill is entitled the College Access and 
Opportunity Act, because in reality it restricts access and denies 
opportunity. This bill breaks a promise to lower interest rates to 6.8 
percent for student borrowers. The bill could reduce the number of 
doctors by making it overly cost prohibitive for students to study 
medicine by further restricting their ability to consolidate debt or to 
receive a lower rate. Additionally, the bill freezes the maximum Pell 
grant award and the Federal Work Study Program for the next 6 years; so 
much for access and opportunity.
  I voted against H.R. 609 because there is a better option--the 
Democratic substitute. The substitute would have re-directed Federal 
dollars recently cut from student aid to low interest loans or grants 
to help students. But that better option was voted down by the 
Republican majority. The substitute would have cut interest rates for 
students with subsidized loans in half, providing $2.5 billion in 
interest relief for America's middle and low income families. The 
substitute would also have established a new Black Serving Institution 
Program and a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution Program to 
boost college participation rates of low-income, black, and Hispanic 
students and to encourage minority students on campus. Sadly, 
Republicans rejected the amendment.
  Congress has a responsibility to help hardworking young men and women 
realize their potential through educational opportunities so that they 
can achieve the American dream. At a time when college costs are rising 
faster than inflation, we should not be restricting student financial 
aid, we should be encouraging young men and women to continue their 
education, so that they can compete in the 21st century global 
marketplace.
  I am saddened that this Congress passed up the opportunity to create 
real access and real opportunity for the men and women of my district 
in western New York, but I want them to know that I will keep fighting 
on their behalf.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 609.
  I ask you, when will the raid on student aid stop?
  H.R. 609 continues to deepen the wound already inflicted by the 
Republican tax reconciliation bill that cut $12 billion in student 
loans, an continues the damage in President's proposed budget.
  Mr. Chairman, today's students are taking out more loans, working 
longer hours, and graduating with record amounts of debt, yet this bill 
does nothing to increase the Pell grant.
  The goal should be to make college affordable and accessible for all. 
Yet again, with this bill the Republican leadership's rhetoric is out 
of step with its actions. Attempts to make this misguided bill better 
have been stifled.
  Mr. Chairman, for example, I offered an amendment with the purpose of 
helping those who help our students.
  Unfortunately, my amendment hasn't been made in order.
  My amendment would include those who work as school counselors, 
school social workers, and school psychologists in the student loan 
forgiveness program.
  Currently, the U.S. national average student-to-counselor ratio is 
488: 1. In contrast, the maximum recommended student-to-counselor ratio 
is 250: 1. Sadly, some schools don't even have one full-time counselor.
  Mr. Chairman, my home State of California ranks last in student-to-
counselor ratios, at the astounding rate of 945 students for every 1 
counselor.
  School counselors provide valuable skills and coping strategies for 
dealing with issues as diverse as home issues, career counseling, 
college placement and academic issues, conflict resolution, and drug 
and alcohol issues.
  Congress intended loan forgiveness to encourage education 
professionals to serve in needy areas of the country.
  Counselors do a great deal to help improve students' readiness to 
learn, their quality of life at school, and their consequent 
educational achievement.
  Mr. Chairman, let's make sure we are making our future the priority, 
and stop this on-going raid on student aid.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the Republican higher 
education bill, the College Access and Opportunity Act, H.R. 609, 
represents a missed opportunity to make college more affordable, boost 
America's economic competitiveness, and invest in America's future.
  At its core, the Higher Education Act, HEA, historically has sought 
to improve access to a college education for our Nation's most needy 
students. The current reauthorization bill does little to fulfill this 
premise and has the potential to greatly detract from that important 
goal. The goal of Congress and this bill should be to expand higher 
education opportunities, not restrict them.
  Despite Republican leadership's claims, H.R. 609, the ``Missed 
College Opportunities Act,'' does little to help the students it claims 
to help. Just a month after cutting student aid by $12 billion, 
Republicans continue to be out of touch with the needs of American 
students and families.
  H.R. 609 fails to provide a real increase in student aid.
  H.R. 609 fails to lower college loan interest rates.
  H.R. 609 freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell Grant 
scholarship--at just $200 above current levels--through 2013 and it 
does not include any mandatory increase in Pell.
  The Democratic substitute, which was not adopted, would have cut 
interest rates in half for the borrowers, from a fixed rate of 6.8 
percent to a low fixed rate of 3.4 percent. As a result the costs of 
college would be lowered by $2.4 billion for low- and middle-income 
students.
  In addition to making college more affordable, the Democratic 
legislation would have boosted college opportunities for minority 
students by:
  Establishing a new Predominantly Black Serving Institutions program 
to increase college participation rates of low-income black students;
  Creating a new Graduate Hispanic Serving Institutions program; and
  Creating a pilot program for year round Pell grants.
  Traditionally, higher education legislation has enjoyed widespread 
bipartisan participation and support but today I will vote against this 
higher education bill. American students and families are struggling to 
pay for college. Congress should pass legislation to control tuition 
costs and increase student aid and not miss this opportunity to help 
American families.
  I strongly support the Democratic substitute. I will vote against the 
underlying bill, H.R. 609, because it does not make college more 
affordable for American students and families.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, America's economic prosperity, security, and 
health are more dependent than ever on students' access to higher 
education opportunities. Unfortunately, the rising importance of 
college for individuals and our society has corresponded with 
skyrocketing tuition costs, causing students to take on massive amounts 
of loan debt--$17,000 on average; to work long hours that interfere 
with academic success; or to forgo college altogether.
  H.R. 609 contains some positive provisions. I am pleased that the 
bill includes year round Pell grants for all colleges, including 
community colleges at least on a provisional basis. I am pleased that 
the bill includes up to $5,000 of student loan forgiveness if you are 
an elementary or secondary school teacher of a critical foreign 
language or a government employee who a critical foreign languages. The 
bill also authorizes Mathematics and Science Honors Scholarships to 
students pursuing a baccalaureate, masters, or doctoral degree, or a 
combination thereof, in physical, life, or computer sciences, 
mathematics, and engineering. The bill also creates Mathematics and 
Science Education Coordinating Councils, composed of education, 
business, and community leaders, which will implement State-based 
reform agendas that improve mathematics and science education; and 
support services that lead to better teacher recruitment and training, 
increased student academic achievement, and reduced need for 
remediation at all levels.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 609 comes on the heels of the budget 
reconciliation bill, which cut $12.76 billion in Federal student 
financial aid by increasing interest rates, charging students

[[Page 4470]]

more fees on their loans, and reducing subsidies to lenders. This was 
the largest cut in the history of Federal student financial assistance. 
The result will be nearly $8 billion in new charges that will raise the 
cost of college loans for millions of American students and families 
who borrow to pay for college. For the typical student borrower, 
already saddled with $17,000 in debt, these new fees and higher 
interest charges could cost up to $5,800. New Jersey students and 
families were hit hard--over 125,000 college students in New Jersey 
will be affected. H.R. 609 fails to reverse this raid on student aid.
  Congress' recent policies with regard to student aid have abrogated 
the responsibility that the Federal Government accepted with the Higher 
Education Act. Supporting students and families who take out college 
loans is an investment in the American economy and our society at 
large. Congress should lower interest rates and provide additional 
benefits for student borrowers to encourage responsible repayment and 
support this educational borrowing. Instead, H.R. 609 fails to make 
loans more affordable. Rather than increasing opportunity, H.R. 609 
freezes the authorized level of the maximum Pell grant scholarship--at 
just $200 above current levels--through 2013 well below the historic 
value of Pell grants.
  H.R. 609 should be doing more to provide access to college. Pell 
grants should be doubled, not frozen at a level that will mean a 
reduction in value over time. Perkins loans should be increased, and 
work study should be increased. As currently written, H.R. 609 will not 
help us maintain our competitive edge in the global community.
  Together we can do better.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of 
the single holder rule, and in support of Americans pursuing secondary 
education.
  As the law currently stands, student loan borrowers attempting to 
refinance and consolidate their loans face unfair restrictions from the 
so-called ``single holder rule.'' This rule limits the search of these 
students to their current lender for a Consolidation Loan, if the 
current lender is the holder of all of the Federal Family Education 
Loans (FFEL) they wish to consolidate.
  Mr. Chairman, with tuition prices on the rise, it should be the role 
of the Federal Government to help those Americans pursuing higher 
education, not impede them. Competition amongst the lender industry for 
these Consolidation loans would help lower interest rates for these 
loans, lowering the cost of secondary education for countless 
Americans. At a time when the dream of higher education has become 
farther out of reach for many families, it would be irresponsible for 
this Congress to stand in the way of the elimination of these 
restrictive provisions.
  Furthermore, we have learned a great deal in recent months of 
increased competition from overseas in the areas of math and science. 
In order for our Nation to remain a leader in innovation, and maintain 
our status in the international economy, we must make educating the 
next generation of Americans a priority. The single holder rule serves 
only as a barrier to this critical education.
  I do not stand alone in my support of the elimination of the single 
holder rule. Rather, I am lending my voice to a bipartisan chorus. The 
Conference Report on the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act urged the 
authorizing committees to repeal the single holder rule to ``ensure 
borrowers have the best options available to them in order to manage 
their student loan obligations.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that both the House and Senate 
versions of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to pass out 
of conference would finally repeal the single holder rule. This rule 
does nothing more than pander to the student loan industry special 
interests at the expense of America's students. While I will not be 
lending my support to H.R. 609 today for other reasons, I applaud the 
efforts of both Republicans and Democrats to eliminate this harmful 
rule.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we stand here today with a historic 
opportunity to improve higher education in this country. The average 
tuition and fees for four-year public colleges have risen over 40 
percent since 2001. The average student now leaves school with $17,500 
in debt. Above anything else, it is absolutely essentially that any 
legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act help make a college 
education more affordable, so that we can expand this great opportunity 
to more young people across the country. I know this issue is immensely 
important to many of my constituents in Michigan.
  Unfortunately, the misnamed ``College Access and Opportunity Act of 
2005'' does absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of a college 
education. When Pell Grants were first enacted to help low-income 
families, it covered 72 percent of the average cost of a four-year 
public college, today it pays for only 30 percent. This bill would 
increase the maximum amount a Pell Grant could cover by a pathetic $200 
while the President's proposed budget continues to flat fund this vital 
program.
  It is now just two months after this Republican Congress voted to cut 
Federal student aid by $12 billion--the largest cut in the history of 
the program. Most of the cuts in mandatory spending in that bill were 
generated by cutting back on excessive lender fees on student loans. 
Yet instead of investing this additional revenue into scholarships and 
reductions in student loan fees, Republicans chose to put this money 
towards tax cuts for the super wealthy.
  At a time when we are faced with fierce global competition from 
countries like India and China, it is absolutely essential that we 
invest in higher education. Last year China graduated more English-
speaking engineers than we graduated here the United States. I wonder 
how it is that the majority would have us believe that an investment in 
tax cuts for the very rich would help us to remain an economic 
superpower.
  A report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on 
Higher Education and Economic Growth spelled out how Michigan's 
economic future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the 
completion of degrees of higher education. Two-thirds of the jobs 
created in the next decade will require post-secondary education and 
training. I wonder how it is that the majority believes that cutting 
student loans will make it easier for the thousands affected by the 
manufacturing jobs crisis in Michigan.
  Republicans here in Congress would have us believe that $12 billion 
in cuts to the student loan program and reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act are unrelated. I say they couldn't be more out of touch.
  Democrats have offered an alternative. This substitute would begin to 
reverse the damaging cuts made to student aid by cutting interest rates 
on loans for low and middle income students in half starting in July of 
2006. This would lower the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students 
and their families. This measure is a down payment on the future of our 
Nation's students who are, after all, the key to the success of our 
Nation in the days that come. I will vote against this harmful 
legislation today, and in favor of the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609). This Republican 
bill represents a significant missed opportunity to rollback the raid 
on student aid and make higher education more affordable and accessible 
for America's students.
  When it comes to helping families pay for college, Republicans never 
miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But when their campaign 
contributors say jump, Republicans always ask how high.
  In December, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while 
Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Representative 
Boehner assured nervous private lenders--who in 2003-2004 contributed 
more than $250,000 to his campaign--that they would gain rather than 
lose under the Deficit Reduction Act. ``Relax. Stay calm,'' Boehner 
told the Consumer Bankers Association. ``At the end of the day, I 
believe you'll be at least satisfied, or even perhaps happy. Know that 
I have all of you in my two trusted hands.''
  Instead of reducing lender subsidies as was originally proposed, 
Congressional Republicans subsequently raised interest rates on parent 
borrowers and required student borrowers to continue paying excessive, 
above-market interest rates. In total, Republicans cut $12 billion from 
student loan programs--the largest cut in our nation's history.
  Today, Representative Boehner is back to his old tricks, protecting 
the bottom lines of private lenders rather than the pocketbooks of 
hard-working students. H.R. 609 does nothing to restore the much-needed 
student loan subsidies cut under the Deficit Reduction Act. Rather, 
this legislation keeps student loan interest rates for low- and middle-
income Americans at an unnecessarily high 6.8 percent, guaranteeing 
private lenders a profit and students mountains of debt after 
graduation.
  Further, H.R. 609 continues to underfund the Pell Grant program, even 
as the program's purchasing power declines on annual basis. The bill 
freezes through 2013 the authorized maximum for a Pell Grant 
scholarship--at just $200 above current levels. Even as the cost of 
education rises, the purchasing power of Pell Grant loans declines.
  It is past time that we had a higher education bill that makes 
college more affordable,

[[Page 4471]]

boosts America's economic competitiveness, and invests in America's 
continued prosperity. This legislation does none of the above. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 609 so we can bring 
forth a bill that actually does what's needed for higher education.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the global economy 
demands a highly trained, educated workforce, Congress is making it 
more difficult for our students to succeed. The Higher Education 
Reauthorization Act represents a missed opportunity at a critical time 
for improving education.
  All across America, communities are struggling to deal with education 
funding for preschools through high schools. Many of these communities 
are recovering from difficult economic times and have financially 
stressed the local education systems. Many states have responded to 
budget crunches by reducing their support for postsecondary education 
at a time when we need to be desperately training students for their 
own as well as the country's future. It is expected by 2020, the U.S. 
will experience a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated 
workers. We are providing less support as a percentage of overall 
educational costs than ever before.
  In part, it is because of a tragic decision of the Republican 
majority to sacrifice education for $70 billion in tax benefits for 
America's wealthiest individuals. This has made the funding problem 
even worse than it needs to be. There are opportunities to simplify 
financial aide forms, to increase access to higher education and to 
improve higher education, but instead that focus is lost. Had a truly 
bipartisan approach been taken by Congress a much better bill would 
have been possible.
  Tuition and fees have already climbed by 46 percent at four-year 
public colleges since 2001, nearly six times faster than Pell Grant 
Scholarships. Students are taking on record high loan debt and working 
longer hours in order to attend college. There are over 90,000 
Oregonians borrowing money to attend college. While costs are going up 
and burdens on families are greater, there is less federal support.
  Many of the higher education professionals that I have worked with 
suggests they would rather have another extension of the current law 
than this reauthorization, quite an indictment and a signal of what we 
should be doing. I am hopeful that as this bill works its way through 
the legislative process that logic and the needs of students, families 
and our society for a well educated citizenry will prevail. Although, I 
am pleased the bill includes the bipartisan Blumenauer-Ehlers-Wu 
amendment to convene a summit of higher education experts working in 
the area of sustainable operations and programs, we can make this bill 
better and until that happens I cannot support it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
legislation on the floor, H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity 
Act of 2005. Many of my colleagues have renamed this bill ``the Missed 
College Opportunities Act'' for good reason.
  Two months ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for 
a budget reconciliation bill that slashed funding for student aid 
programs by $12.7 billion--the single largest cut to the Federal 
student aid program in its 40-year history. This ``raid on student 
aid'' could not have come at a worse time for American families, as the 
cost of a college education today continues to rise while more and more 
working families fall into poverty. At a time when our government 
should be increasing access to higher education, this bill is taking 
away this opportunity for many young students.
  The ultimate goal behind the Higher Education Act has always been to 
improve access to college education for those in greatest need. Today's 
students are increasingly taking on higher loan debts, working longer 
hours or, in some cases, forgoing college altogether. Increasing access 
to higher education is critical to the development of a highly skilled 
workforce, which will ensure that America remains competitive in the 
global marketplace. Today's economy demands that workers are better 
educated and this bill does little to make college more affordable. As 
it is now, the average student owes $17,500 when he or she graduates.
  Not only is this legislation troublesome for our students, it is also 
troublesome for our colleges and universities. The bill in its current 
form includes provisions that undermine the autonomy of colleges and 
universities by creating intrusive new reporting requirements. In 
particular H.R. 609 imposes price controls on colleges through the new 
``College Affordability Index'' which would compare tuition increases 
to the Consumer Price Index without taking into consideration what 
individual institutions have done to offset tuition increases. Cost 
increases can be attributed to a combination of different factors, all 
of which vary between different institutions, making the College 
Affordability Index a poor measure of the affordability of an 
individual college or university.
  Furthermore, a proposed amendment to this legislation would create an 
unnecessary burden on our universities' admission policies by requiring 
institutions that receive any Federal funding, including grants and 
scholarships, to submit to the Department of Education an annual report 
stating whether race, color, or national origin is considered in the 
student admissions process.
  This amendment is unnecessary and redundant because universities 
already publicly disclose their admission policies, as required by the 
Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The 
amendment will only burden university staff members with unnecessary 
and extensive paperwork. Additionally, the amendment jeopardizes 
individual applicants' privacy and confidentiality in violation of the 
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA, which generally 
prohibits educational institutions from disclosing personally 
identifiable information from students' education records without 
consent.
  The proposed amendment, by contrast, would require universities to 
submit to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, 
OCR--and from OCR to the public--``all raw admissions data for 
applicants'' on each quantifiable factor considered in admissions 
except for the name of the applicant. Publication of raw data in this 
form--without any corresponding safeguards on use of the raw data--will 
almost certainly permit OCR and others to ascertain the identities of 
individual applicants. In so doing, it will be possible to determine 
individual applicants' test scores, high school grades, and so forth--
all in violation of FERPA.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree that more should be done so that all 
deserving students have the opportunity to receive a higher education, 
which is why I support the Miller-Kildee-Scott-Davis-Grijalva 
alternative. The Democratic alternative would cut interest rates in 
half for the borrowers in most need--lowering the cost of college by 
$2.4 billion for students and their families. It would also create a 
pilot program for year round Pell grants to allow students to 
accelerate their degree. We must never let a student's economic 
situation hinder his or her ability to obtain access to a college or 
postgraduate degree.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in reversing the 
Republican raid on student aid by opposing H.R. 609 and supporting the 
Democratic alternative.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, anyone in need of proof that Federal control 
follows Federal funding need only examine H.R. 609, the College Access 
and Opportunity Act. H.R. 609 imposes several new mandates on colleges, 
and extends numerous mandates imposed on that previous Congress imposed 
on colleges. H.R. 609 proves the prophetic soundness of people who 
warned that Federal higher education programs would lead to Federal 
control of higher education.
  Opponents of increasing Federal control over higher education should 
be especially concerned about H.R. 609's ``Academic Bill of Rights.'' 
This provision takes a step toward complete Federal control of college 
curriculum, grading, and teaching practices. While this provision is 
worded as a ``sense of Congress,'' the clear intent of the ``bill of 
rights'' is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring 
professors' lectures and lesson plans meet with Federal approval.
  The Academic Bill of Rights is a response to concerns that federally 
funded institutions of higher learning are refusing to allow students 
to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from 
those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of 
``political correctness'' on college campuses is largely a direct 
result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. 
Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from 
market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their 
``politically correct'' views regardless of whether this type of 
instruction benefits their students--who are, after all, the 
professors' customers. Now, in a perfect illustration of how 
politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the 
market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes 
to use the problem of ``political correctness'' to justify more Federal 
control over college classrooms.
  Instead of fostering open dialog and wide-ranging intellectual 
inquiry, the main effect of the Academic Bill of Rights will be to 
further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many 
administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious 
and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with 
the Federal Government. Those who doubt this should remember that many

[[Page 4472]]

TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 60s and 
70s in order to avoid running afoul of the Federal ``fairness 
doctrine.''
  I am convinced that some promoters of the Academic Bill of Rights 
would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill 
silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the 
organizations promoting the Academic Bill of Rights and you will also 
find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of 
American foreign policy.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 609 expands Federal control over higher education; 
in particular through an Academic Bill of Rights which could further 
stifle debate and inquiry on America's college campuses. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
609, the Republican higher education bill.
  I am reluctant to oppose H.R. 609 because it contains my amendment to 
add Fayetteville State University, in my congressional district, to the 
list of eligible schools under title III B for Historically Black 
Graduate Institutions. Fayetteville State University holds the 
distinction of being one the Nation's most racially diverse educational 
institutions. Receiving funding under title III would enable the 
university both to enhance its existing graduate programs and to 
develop additional graduate programs in disciplines in which African-
Americans are underrepresented in the Nation.
  I am grateful to the committee chairman for adding the Etheridge 
amendment to H.R. 609 to include this outstanding institution of higher 
learning among its expanded lists of participants in title III B to 
enhance its historic mission of expanding opportunity in America. 
Unfortunately, the underlying bill is fundamentally flawed. H.R. 609 
represents a major missed opportunity to make college more affordable 
and accessible, to boost America's economic competitiveness, and to 
invest in America's continued prosperity. Just 2 months after 
Republicans in Congress voted to raid $12 billion from Federal student 
aid, this bill does very little to help American students and families 
to pay for college.
  H.R. 609 fails to reverse the Republican raid on student aid. H.R. 
609 fails to make college loans more affordable. H.R. 609 freezes the 
authorized level of the maximum Pell grant scholarship through 2013 and 
it does not contain any mandatory increase in Pell. I support the 
Miller substitute to H.R. 609 that would cut interest rates for 
borrowers in most need and lower the cost of college by $2.4 billion 
for students and their families. In addition to making college more 
affordable, the Miller substitute would boost college participation for 
minority students by establishing a predominantly black institution 
program and establishing a graduate Hispanic serving institution 
program.
  I hope as this legislation moves forward, the shortcomings can be 
corrected, and I can support the conference report on this important 
bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 609, 
the College Access and Opportunity Act, I want to highlight the teacher 
recruitment and retention provisions that have been included in this 
legislation.
  In order to keep pace with anticipated teacher retirements and the 
growing student population, local school districts will need to hire an 
estimated 2.5 million teachers over the next 10 years. And not just any 
warm body will do. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, every teacher 
must be ``highly-qualified'' by the current 2005-2006 school year, a 
goal I suspect has not yet been achieved. In order to meet these 
challenges, we must embark on an unprecedented teacher recruitment and 
retention effort.
  Fortunately, we already have evidence of what works. In 1986, the 
North Carolina General Assembly established the Teaching Fellows 
program, which currently produces 500 highly qualified and enthusiastic 
new teachers each year. I believe it offers a model for national 
emulation, and that is why I reintroduced the Teaching Fellows Act as 
H.R. 1801 early in the current Congress.
  In the 108th Congress, I was pleased that the bipartisan committee 
leadership worked with me and former Congressman Cass Ballenger to 
enhance the teacher recruitment provisions of the Ready to Teach Act in 
accordance with the Teaching Fellows Act--H.R. 1805, 108th Congress. 
Much as we envisioned in the Teaching Fellows Act, the Ready to Teach 
Act would authorize State scholarship programs to attract the best 
students to the teaching profession, and provide support and mentoring 
programs that will help teachers make a long-term commitment to the 
field.
  Those provisions have again been included in the comprehensive higher 
education legislation we are considering today. I want to commend 
Representatives McKeon and Kildee and other committee members for their 
willingness to work with me on this particularly important component of 
the bill.
  With provisions added from the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 609 would 
establish scholarships for those coming out of high school or in their 
sophomore year of college, when students would perhaps be better 
prepared to make a mature choice about committing to a teaching career.
  In addition, through partnerships with community colleges, H.R. 609 
would offer fellowships to students, particularly those being trained 
as teaching assistants, to go on and obtain a bachelor's degree and 
full teaching certification. Students attending community colleges are 
often deeply rooted in their local communities, including rural and 
inner-city areas where the need for well qualified teachers is the 
greatest. So identifying and training a cadre of ``homegrown'' teachers 
is a promising strategy for meeting our most pressing teacher 
recruitment challenges.
  These programs do not merely throw money at individual students but 
seek, through rich extracurricular programs, to promote esprit de corps 
and collaborative learning, to strengthen professional identity, and to 
provide a support system as students first enter the classroom as 
teachers. Students would participate in various community and school-
based internships and experiences that go well beyond normal teacher 
preparation. These enrichment programs could feature a variety of 
components ranging from school system orientations and educational 
seminars to Outward Bound programs and international travel.
  In exchange, scholarship recipients would be required to teach in a 
public school for a minimum of 1 year plus a period of time equivalent 
to the length of their scholarship. The idea of reciprocal obligation 
and community service are essential to the success of these programs.
  Although I am pleased with these teacher recruitment and retention 
components of the bill, H.R. 609 is, in my view, lacking in serious 
ways. First, it seeks to make college affordable by squeezing colleges 
and universities. The bill's College Affordability Index would insert 
the Federal Government into the decision processes of institutions of 
higher education regarding tuition-setting, essentially establishing 
price controls. Secondly, it seeks to make college accessible by 
squeezing students and families. The bill would provide a very modest 
increase of $200 in the maximum Pell grant through 2013.
  I am also concerned about the bill's provision to create a Title VI 
International Higher Education Advisory Board that would have an 
inappropriate and unnecessary role in curriculum decisions at colleges 
and universities.
  We desperately need to enact a long-term reauthorization of higher 
education programs, and I hope we can make improvements to this bill in 
conference and achieve that goal prior to adjournment. I look forward 
to working with Members from both sides of the aisle to encourage our 
best and brightest students to enter and remain in the field of 
teaching.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I believe 
my Republican colleagues are sending a mixed message by offering this 
legislation.
  This bill increases the authorization for the maximum Pell grant to 
$6,000, reauthorizes funding for Hispanic-serving institutions and 
historically Black colleges and universities.
  From the looks of this authorization bill, you would think the 
majority leadership in this Congress cared about getting low- and 
middle-income students through college.
  However, this authorization bill does not fund these programs. Just 2 
months ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to cut 
student aid by $12 billion by passing the budget reconciliation bill.
  I don't understand why my Republican colleagues care more about 
giving tax breaks to the wealthy than helping low- and middle-income 
families send their children to college.
  The budget reconciliation bill raised interest rates on parent 
student loans, raised loan consolidation fees, and required that 
student and parent borrowers pay a 1 percent insurance fee on college 
loans.
  We need to do something to help people get through college, not 
charge them a 1 percent insurance fee and make their education even 
more expensive than it is now.
  Since 2001, college tuition in this country has increased 40 percent. 
Students are graduating with over $17,000 of debt. And what has 
Congress done?
  We've consistently flat-funded Pell and raised the maximum Pell award 
by small amounts that don't keep up with rising tuition rates, 
including this increase.
  When Pell first started, it covered over 70 percent of the average 
cost of a 4-year education. Now, it pays for 30 percent of the cost of 
a college education.

[[Page 4473]]

  While I appreciate the effort of the bill sponsors to increase the 
Pell maximum grant, it is still not enough to truly help low-income 
families send their children to college.
  I hope in the future appropriators will enable us to show a true 
commitment to higher education by bringing us an appropriations bill 
that reflects the priorities outlined in H.R. 609.
  Working families need more than the numbers offered in this bill, 
they need to see real dollars put into these programs.
  My Republican colleagues have not adequately funded the very programs 
they are on the floor supporting today.
  I hope that in the future, we fund the programs that are so important 
to us today.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, only 2 months after Congress cut $12 
billion in student loan assistance, this Republican majority wants the 
American people to understand how much they appreciate the vital 
connection between higher education and solving the most pressing 
problems of our communities and the country.
  But let me be clear--they don't. If this majority understood the 
extent to which access to a quality education is inseparable from our 
economic prosperity, national security, and civic health, they would 
not be failing to make college loans more affordable with this bill. If 
this misguided majority believed that a quality college degree were the 
cornerstone of the American dream, opening the door to job opportunity 
and professional fulfillment, they would not be freezing the authorized 
level of the maximum Pell Grant at just $200 above current levels 
through 2013. As if the cost of college will only rise by $200 in the 
next 7 years--over the next two decades, the cost of a public 
university is expected to rise to $50,000 for a public university and 
more than a quarter million dollars for a private school.
  When this historic law was first passed in 1965, President Johnson 
promised that, ``a high school senior anywhere in this great land of 
ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 states 
and not be turned away because his family is poor.'' This legislation 
turns its back on that commitment, Mr. Chairman.
  And so, the American people should see this legislation for what it 
is--not only a missed opportunity but also an assault on America's 
middle-class and a grave threat to our global competitiveness. Indeed, 
one recent international test involving mathematical understanding 
found that American students finished in 27th place among the nations 
participating. This as low-wage employers are creating the bulk of our 
new jobs--in one recent period, Wal-Mart and McDonald's created 44 
percent of all new jobs.
  If the Republican majority in this Congress was serious about 
strengthening our higher education system, this legislation would have 
adopted some of the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm--one of the central 
recommendations of which was to make American universities the most 
attractive setting in which to study and get a degree.
  In contrast to this legislation, the Democratic substitute would cut 
interest rates in half for the borrowers most in need--effectively 
lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their 
families. Our substitute would offer the 3.4 percent fixed interest 
rate to students who take out subsidized loans this year. And it would 
incentivize service in the fields of nursing, for three teachers in 
bilingual and low-income communities, librarians, and first responders.
  Mr. Chairman, the critical role colleges and universities played in 
the last century's economy will pale in comparison to the role they 
will play in this century's. And this legislation should recognize 
that--not turn back the clock on access and affordability.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher, mother, and 
grandmother, I rise in opposition to H.R. 609, the so-called College 
Access and Opportunity Act. H.R. 609 represents a major missed 
opportunity to make college more affordable and accessible, to boost 
America's economic competitiveness, and to invest in America's future.

  The Republican majority is bringing this bill to the floor just 2 
months after they passed the Budget Reconciliation Act, which slashed 
federal student aid programs by $12 billion. H.R. 609 does nothing to 
reverse this raid on student aid, nor does it do anything to make 
college loans more affordable. In fact, this bill freezes the 
authorized level of the maximum Pell grant scholarship. If this bill is 
passed, Pell grants would be frozen at just $200 above the current 
level until 2013. This would mean less money to help students go to 
school.

  With millions of American families struggling to pay for college, it 
is critical that Congress act to make college more affordable. I would 
like to share with my colleagues part of a letter that a constituent 
from Des Plaines, Illinois, recently wrote to me:

       My son who is out of college for 2 years, makes about 
     $30,000. His major was public relations, but could not get a 
     job in that field since he had no experience. So he finally 
     got a job in sales. Since he went to school in Iowa, we 
     consolidated his loans with an Iowa firm. His loans were over 
     $100,000. His monthly payment was about $500 [in addition] he 
     has the federal loans [amounting to] over $100. As of Feb. 
     6th he will pay over $700 a month for his private loan plus 
     his federal loans which will bring him over $850 a month. 
     This is for the next 20 years . . . I would like for someone 
     to tell me how does the government expect kids to be able to 
     make a life for themselves when the interest rates keep going 
     up on school loans? Why can't students have a lower fixed 
     rate?
       I also understand that when kids get out of college you are 
     figuring that you will be making enough money to pay their 
     loans. But what about the kids that aren't engineers, 
     doctors, or lawyers? What about those average kids who go to 
     college because they know in order to get a job these days 
     you need that degree but do not make large salaries and 
     barely make enough money to live. My kids are used to hard 
     work, for example, working two jobs. I guess I figured that 
     once you have that degree, it would be a little easier to get 
     a job. Obviously, that is not the case.

  This is just one of thousands of such stories. The members of the 
majority must be hearing them too. However, H.R. 609 contains little 
assistance for the millions of low- and middle-income families who 
continue to struggle to pay for college. Instead the majority chose to 
make tax breaks for the wealthy a priority over helping the next 
generation of Americans go to college.

  That is why I encourage all of my colleagues to support the 
Democratic alternative. The Democratic alternative would cut in half 
the student loan interest rate for borrowers who are most in need. The 
substitute also establishes a new Predominantly Black Serving 
Institution program, a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution 
program and Minority Teaching Centers for Excellence to increase the 
number of highly qualified teachers, including minority teachers. The 
substitute provides for year-round Pell grants. It establishes a 
minimum grant of $500,000 for tribal colleges. It repeals the single 
lender rule, which requires student borrowers to consolidate their 
loans with their existing lender. Under the substitute, the borrower 
could choose which lender he or she wishes to use to consolidate loans.

  At a time when the United States needs to invest in innovation and 
education in order to compete in the 21st century, H.R. 609 leads us in 
the wrong direction. It will force many students to forgo college 
altogether. For many students, financial barriers are the principal 
factor that determines whether they will successfully complete college 
or not. American students need and deserve more affordable college 
opportunities, not additional barriers to achievement and opportunity. 
I literally shake my head in wonder at these counterproductive cuts. We 
should be increasing opportunities for Americans to further their 
education. The Republican majority has instead given us a shameful sham 
of a bill.

  I urge all of my colleagues to adopt the Democratic alternative and 
to oppose H.R. 609, the ``Republican Missed College Opportunities'' 
bill.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 609, 
the College Access and Opportunity Act. While this bill to reauthorize 
the Higher Education Act is by no means perfect, the bill represents an 
expanded opportunity and a chance to succeed for the hundreds of 
thousands of minority students who dream of obtaining a college degree. 
That is why I plan to vote for the bill today.
  College degrees open many doors to the future. Students that obtain 
bachelor degrees have on average higher earning potentials, more 
competitive jobs, and higher standards of living. But many minority 
students are unable to obtain a college degree because they lack the 
necessary resources to do so, and as a result the doors to opportunity 
often remain closed. Data from 2000 shows that only 13 percent of 
Hispanics and 15 percent of Blacks in California earned a bachelor's 
degree, compared to 31 percent for Caucasians.
  Despite its flaws, H.R. 609 contains key provisions that will help 
Hispanics and other minorities succeed academically from the day they 
enter Kindergarten to the day they receive their college diploma and 
beyond.
  The bill supports minorities in elementary and secondary education by 
recruiting minorities to the teaching profession and focusing on the 
needs of Limited English Proficient students.

[[Page 4474]]

  In addition, the bill creates new ``Centers for Excellence'' programs 
that will prepare teachers, including minority teachers, to become 
``Highly Qualified'' in K-12 classrooms.
  Beyond high school, the bill reauthorizes the High School Equivalency 
Program (HEP) that assists low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers 
to obtain a high school diploma or certificate, and it reauthorizes the 
College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) that provides tutoring and 
counseling to migrant students in their first year of college.
  The bill also supports Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) by 
establishing a new HSI grant for graduate degrees and by eliminating 
the two-year wait between grant applications.
  In closing let me highlight some of my concerns, which I hope will be 
addressed as the bill moves through the process to passage. In 
particular, I am concerned that the bill does not invest in critical 
student aid programs on a high enough level. The most telling example 
is that of Pell Grants, which help many disadvantaged children to go to 
college. This bill would set maximum Pell Grants at the abysmally low 
amount of $6,000. I was especially disappointed that Democrats were not 
allowed to offer an amendment to authorize higher funding levels for 
Pell Grants and other student aid and support programs.
  Nevertheless, this bill does provide a much needed single definition 
of higher education and reauthorizes successful programs such as GEAR 
UP, TRIO, grants for alcohol and drug abuse prevention, and the Perkins 
Loan. These efforts to strengthen existing programs and provide 
benefits for Hispanic and other minority students who dream of a 
college education led me to vote for H.R. 609 today.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. George Miller of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
``ayes'' prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418, 
noes 2, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 77]

                               AYES--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Edwards
       
     Musgrave
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Beauprez
     Clay
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Franks (AZ)
     Gilchrest
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Ruppersberger
     Watson

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, DeLAY, MANZULLO, MARCHANT, DAVIS of 
Illinois, CHANDLER and ANDREWS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 77, I unintentionally 
voted ``no''. I would like the Record to show that it was my intention 
to vote ``aye'' on rollcall No. 77.


         Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 4475]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 380, 
noes 38, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               AYES--380

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--38

     Akin
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Carter
     Culberson
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHenry
     Miller (MI)
     Neugebauer
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Stearns
     Wamp

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cantor
     Clay
     Conyers
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gilchrest
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Ruppersberger
     Watson

                              {time}  1410

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 83, 
noes 337, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                                AYES--83

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiahrt
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--337

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)

[[Page 4476]]


     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clay
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gilchrest
     Gohmert
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Ruppersberger
     Watson

                              {time}  1419

  Mr. MORAN of Kansas and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RADANOVICH and Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 79 I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 7 Offered by Mr. George 
                          Miller of California

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 220, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 80]

                               AYES--200

     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
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     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)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     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
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     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
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     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
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     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
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clay
     Cole (OK)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gilchrest
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Ruppersberger
     Watson

                              {time}  1427

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

[[Page 4477]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 80, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________