[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23446-23450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2669, COLLEGE COST REDUCTION ACT OF 
                                  2007

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2008, with a Senate amendment thereto, 
disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by 
the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Hoekstra moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2669 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 
     801 of the Senate amendment, relating to the sense of the 
     Senate on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how I wish we had followed a more 
open and inclusive process up to this point. My friends on the other 
side of the aisle pledged during the campaign that the 110th Congress 
would be the most fair, open and honest in history. Yet it is my 
understanding that the Democrats are close to finalizing an agreement 
on a conference report before conferees have even been named and with 
little input from House Republicans. There is nothing fair, open or 
honest about that.
  The Senate Budget Committee chairman predicted months ago that the 
budget reconciliation process was in danger of being abused as a 
``stalking horse'' for new spending, and looking back he could not have 
been more on target. The House bill in fact included one of the most 
significant increases in higher education entitlement spending we have 
ever witnessed, establishing nine new entitlement programs. And bear in 
mind most of that new spending isn't even targeted toward low-income 
students who need it the most, but rather at institutions, 
philanthropic organizations, and graduates.
  That is a remarkable change from the historic function of Federal 
student aid programs. For more than four decades, these programs have 
existed for a single purpose, to give our neediest students a chance at 
obtaining a college degree and pursuing the American Dream. The House 
bill turns its back on that tradition.
  House Republicans support strengthening our Nation's student aid 
programs, but we do not support targeting scarce Federal student aid 
resources at wealthy philanthropic organizations, universities with 
million- or billion-dollar endowments and college graduates, and we 
certainly do not support doing so at the expense of the market- based 
FFEL program, which has been a success by any measure.
  There is a way, Mr. Speaker, that we can avoid making this critical 
mistake. Slightly reducing the cuts to lender subsidies and redirecting 
funding to provide additional support for Pell Grants, rather than 
creating costly new entitlement programs, are two steps that could be 
taken in an effort to achieve bipartisan support for this bill.
  I believe the final step is to include language that would allow for 
a careful analysis of possible auction scenarios to determine if an 
auction is really in the best interests of students and taxpayers 
before requiring its implementation. In fact, I have heard from many 
Members, including 14 Democrats, who expressed concern about the 
automatic implementation of an auction and encourage that we approach 
any auction proposal with caution.
  If the conference report achieves these four goals, I believe we can 
achieve strong bipartisan support for this bill. Doing anything less 
could endanger our support and trigger a Presidential veto threat, just 
as the House bill did in July. So as we prepare to formalize a 
conference report, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
to bear this in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe another part of the Senate's reconciliation 
bill also deserves the attention of this Chamber and inclusion in our 
conference report, specifically, the provision that would block the 
importation of terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay into American 
communities.
  We are a Nation at war and Guantanamo provides the highest level of 
security to ensure our enemies do not endanger American lives. Some 
Democrats have suggested that the site be closed and terrorists be sent 
into American communities such as Edwards Air Force Base in my 
district,

[[Page 23447]]

Fort Knox, Kentucky, Quantico, Virginia, and others. But make no 
mistake: transferring terrorist detainees to these communities will 
create an opportunity for our enemies to escape, recruit and 
disseminate their terrorist skills, and it would make these domestic 
facilities prime targets for any attack that al Qaeda is able to mount 
within our borders.
  Congress simply should not allow this to occur, and I thank the 
Senate for including this important language in its reconciliation 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same by voting ``yes'' on 
this motion to instruct.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of proceeding with the 
conference negotiations on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and 
Access Act of 2007. In appointing conferees today, I am proud to say 
that we will be taking the first step in making college more affordable 
and accessible for students.
  Overall, this is an opportunity for the conference to look at both 
bills, consider concerns and put forth the best possible compromise; 
and that is our goal. During this process, not only have we looked 
carefully at what will work for students and families, but we have done 
our best to listen to and address the concerns brought to our 
attention. In an attempt at bipartisanship, we have met with the 
administration, as well as the staff from the other side of the aisle, 
in such discussions and with the administration, and we believe at the 
end of the day the conference will include provisions that have broad 
bipartisan support while maintaining some of our key priorities. These 
include the following:
  Significant investment in Pell Grants. We heard the concern voiced on 
this floor by Members on the other side of the aisle, and we believe it 
is important to include a significant investment beyond the House bill 
in this conference. Understanding that increasing Pell Grants is also 
an issue included in President Bush's budget, we believe this goal can 
and should be met.
  Cutting interest rates in half will remain a key priority for helping 
the middle class as well as ensuring debt relief for students and 
delivery of such needed financial support for Historical Black Colleges 
and Universities and Hispanic serving institutions and other minority 
serving institutions.
  I hope that we can continue the dialogue and work together on final 
passage in the conference. I am very proud to be here today to offer 
this motion to officially proceed in the conference with the Senate on 
legislation that will allow the Congress to do more to help Americans 
pay for the cost of college than any effort since the GI Bill at no 
cost to the taxpayers.
  The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 will get us closer 
to the goal of ensuring access to higher education for all qualified 
students.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate rejected transferring al Qaeda terrorists 
from Guantanamo to facilities in the United States by a vote of 94-3. 
Senator McConnell stated at that time, ``It is better for the safety 
and security of the American people that terrorists at Guantanamo Bay 
are not moved to American communities. It is the sense of the Senate 
that detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including senior members 
of al Qaeda, should not be transferred stateside into facilities in 
American communities and American neighborhoods.''
  Many senior members of al Qaeda are secured at Guantanamo Bay, 
including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded the September 11 
terrorist attacks that killed approximately 3,000 Americans; Majid 
Khan, who developed plans to poison water supplies inside the United 
States; Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri, who orchestrated the attacks on the USS 
Cole which killed 17 United States sailors. This is just a sampling of 
the people that are in Guantanamo Bay.
  Are Americans better protected by bringing these terrorists to our 
homeland, or by keeping captured members of al Qaeda and other 
terrorist organizations 528 miles and an ocean away from the homeland? 
Terrorists held at Guantanamo are treated in accordance with United 
States and international law and are held at the highest level of 
security, ensuring that they are not a threat to the United States 
citizens.
  Gitmo alternatives include the use of up to 17 military detention 
facilities. Less secure facilities allow for the recruitment and 
radicalization of new members within the detention population as well 
as enhanced escape opportunities. Domestic detention facilities may 
become prime targets for terrorist attacks on United States soil and 
they will create uncertainties about detainees' ``constitutional 
rights.''

                              {time}  1815

  Standards at Guantanamo are equal to or better than similar 
institutions in the United States. They are relatively new facilities. 
They have culturally appropriate meals. They have Korans and respectful 
silence during Islam's five daily prayers. The detainees receive 
medical care and at least 2 hours of daily outdoor recreation. An 
inspection official from the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
in Europe in March 2006 called it a model prison.
  Bottom line, the Guantanamo Bay facility is a clean, safe and humane 
facility for the terrorists housed there, as well as a facility that 
affords security and protection for American citizens. We should accept 
the Senate language in their bill and make it clear that these 
prisoners should stay at Guantanamo Bay and that they should not be 
transferred to facilities in the homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding and I thank him for his leadership on this very important 
piece of legislation.
  It is imperative that we go to conference on this bill and that we 
pass the College Cost Reduction Act. It provides us with an 
unprecedented opportunity to help students afford college and to do so 
at no new cost to the taxpayer. Let me emphasize that point: At no new 
cost to the taxpayer.
  We just heard this bill described, I believe, as containing 
unprecedented new spending, and I think it is important to point out 
that it is not new spending, it is redirected spending. With this bill, 
the Congress is making a choice that we think it is important to take 
Federal resources, scarce Federal resources, and devote them to 
assisting needy students in meeting the cost of attending college, and 
it is more important to do that than it is to see to it that the 
student loan providers maintain what are already very healthy profit 
margins. I think that is a choice that the American people would 
support us in making, and it is certainly a reasonable choice.
  If you were to look at today's front page article in the New York 
Times, an article that talks about how colleges are not raising tuition 
but they are raising fees, it underscores one of the central realities 
of higher education today, and that is, as public support for higher 
education is reduced, the burden falls on students and their families 
to make up the difference. We now have an opportunity to assist 
students and families with making up that difference.
  This bill significantly increases the Pell Grant maximum, something, 
by the way, that the President has spoken quite favorably of doing. He 
has been promising an increase in the Pell Grant maximum since the 
campaign of 2000. It was not until the Congress acted with the 
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007 that that increase became a 
reality for the first time. And now with this bill, we will 
dramatically increase the Pell Grant maximum to offset increases in 
tuition, increases in fees, and declining public support for education 
in other areas.
  It also cuts student loan interest rates, which is very important. It 
is a

[[Page 23448]]

point that continues to be missed by our friends on the other side. 
Access and affordability isn't just about the cost of attendance when 
the student is undertaking the cost; it is about looking at their 
future obligations. What this bill does is it enables students to make 
clear decisions about what they can afford and what they can't afford 
and have an expectation of what their future obligations are that is 
much more reasonable.
  This is an investment. This is the kind of investment that we need to 
keep this Nation strong, to keep this Nation safe, to keep this Nation 
competitive. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank again 
the chairman for his leadership.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan for 
his leadership on this important issue of Gitmo.
  I rise today in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees on 
H.R. 2669. When the other body considered this legislation, the 
Republican leader inserted language to prohibit dangerous terrorists 
being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from being transferred to 
American soil. I believe it is crucial this language remain in the 
bill.
  The findings of the sense of the Senate quoted threats of Osama bin 
Laden. Item 8, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, said in his 
1998 fatwa against the United States that: ``The ruling to kill the 
Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an important 
individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which 
it is possible to do it.''
  Item 9 in the same fatwa, Osama bin Laden said: ``We, with God's 
help, call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be 
rewarded to comply with God's order to kill Americans and plunder their 
money wherever and whenever they can find it.''
  These terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay are treated in 
accordance with U.S. and international laws. I have visited the 
facility two times, and both times I was impressed by the high level of 
security and the professional management of the detainees.
  Importing dangerous foreign terrorists, like 9/11 mastermind Khalid 
Sheikh Mohammed, into American communities would be dangerous and 
irresponsible. Terrorists would have the opportunity to recruit and 
teach their skills. Additionally, I am very concerned that they could 
potentially escape and harm Americans here at home again.
  Since April, American forces have captured two terrorists with strong 
al Qaeda ties: al-Hadi al-Iraqi, one of al Qaeda's highest ranking and 
most experienced senior operatives, and Haroon al-Afghani, who has 
admitted to being a courier for the al Qaeda senior leadership. Both 
men are currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. Inviting these criminals 
into American communities would be reckless. Any domestic detention 
facility would be a prime target for a terrorist attack that al Qaeda 
could mount within the borders of the United States.
  As the former chairman of the Lexington County Law Enforcement 
Advisory Council of Sheriff Jimmy Metts and as a former member of the 
South Carolina State Senate Corrections and Penology Committee, I am 
very familiar with corrections facilities. The Guantanamo detention 
facilities are world class as to humane lodging and security of the 
inmates and for the personnel who serve as guards or medical support.
  As America continues to fight the global war on terrorism, I am 
confident that Guantanamo Bay remains the safest place to detain 
captured terrorists who pose a serious threat to American families. 
These terrorists have disclosed terrorist cells which have been stopped 
from attacking Americans and our allies worldwide.
  I urge my colleagues to rise with me in strong support of this motion 
that would ensure Americans are kept safe from known terrorists.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Let me first speak to the motion to instruct. I have no problems with 
the motion to instruct. I don't quite know why it is on this bill, but 
the Senate chose to put this language into the legislation. The motion 
to instruct would ask the conferees to maintain that language in this 
legislation so those who are currently at Guantanamo Bay who are among 
some very dangerous people in the world not be brought to this country 
in the event that Guantanamo Bay should be closed.
  As we know, that is a matter of active debate here in the United 
States and certainly around the world and within the Congress of the 
United States of exactly how we extricate ourselves from the situation 
we have at Guantanamo Bay.
  Early on after 9/11, the use of Guantanamo Bay became a rallying 
point against the abuse of human rights. Earlier practices there 
violated the protection of human rights. As the gentleman from Michigan 
has pointed out, much has changed there, but all is not well there yet, 
and there have been calls to close that facility. In the event they 
would be successful, as I understand this language, this would prevent 
the prisoners from being transferred to facilities in the United 
States, and I concur in that language.
  If I might return back to the legislation at hand or the motion at 
hand, which is to go to conference with the Senate and work out the 
differences in this legislation, and there are significant differences 
between the House and the Senate legislation, the staffs of the 
committee have been meeting on those differences, and we would hope to 
be able to report back to the House and to the Senate in the near 
future.
  It is important that we do that. We stand here at the beginning of 
yet another school year, another college year, if you will, and we see 
that families are struggling harder than ever to meet the cost of 
college. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) who has been so 
active in this field pointed out this fact to the House. We must do 
what we can to address and help families meet this cost.
  This legislation does it in a number of ways, both by providing 
increased grants to the lowest income families of students who seek to 
attend college who are fully qualified to go to college, but too often 
economic barriers keep them from doing so.
  This legislation makes a substantial increase in the Pell Grants, 
some $500 over the coming years in that grant. It was the goal of this 
President to do that. Previous Congresses never did that, and we do 
that in this legislation, and that is going to be a great benefit to 
those students and to their families who are struggling with the cost 
of college.
  We also make a reduction in the interest rates. We cut the interest 
rates in half on money borrowed from the subsidized loan program which 
includes those very same Pell Grant recipients. I think 25 or 30 
percent of them go on to borrow money from this program, and also 
middle income families who are feeling the financial strain of having 
one kid or two or three kids in college at the same time.
  We estimate that the savings over the life of that loan will be above 
$4,000, almost $4,500 for those individuals. That is a very substantial 
savings, and it is what we know that the young people calculate what is 
going to be the cost of college, and that includes the interest rates 
that they are going to have to pay back. As we know, there is 
forbearance against the payment of interest rates while the students 
are in college, but upon graduation, they start paying that money back, 
and that interest rate is a significant cost for those students.
  We also try to make sure that those individuals who have chosen to go 
into public service can understand that there will be some relief for 
their efforts through a loan forgiveness program for policemen, 
firemen, teachers, teachers of special ed, prosecutors, public 
defenders, all of whom enter professions that don't have the highest 
economic rewards at the outset, but we want them to go into those 
professions as services to our communities. And we

[[Page 23449]]

want to make sure that they do so so we can continue to hold civil 
society together in this country and receive the benefits of their work 
and they will not be so burdened by the loans that they will choose to 
go elsewhere and leave society without the use of their talents, as I 
say, in health care, law enforcement, education, and so many other 
fields that are important to this.
  And following on the passage of the COMPETES Act, we provide for 
highly qualified teachers in every classroom. In the TEACH Act, we 
recognize the importance of highly skilled math and science teachers, 
and we identify those people who are performing in an exemplary fashion 
in college and offer them tuition assistance if they go into teaching 
math and science and go into those schools in high need. That would 
provide $4,000 in up-front tuition assistance for those individuals.
  We also make landmark investments of $500 million in Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal 
colleges, and Alaska/Hawaiian Native colleges. We have a problem of 
fully qualified minority students going to some of these colleges and 
really not being able to stay for a host of reasons. We have had 
discussions with the heads of State college systems and university 
systems and others about this problem, and the fact of the matter is we 
have to do more to support those students so they can successfully 
negotiate the college education that they seek to pursue.
  So this legislation is comprehensive. It is important. We did it by 
taking away the excessive subsidies to the student lending agencies, 
subsidies that were identified as excessive a number of years ago in 
the President's budget and by the OMB, and we recycled those successive 
savings to the benefit of the students and their families who once 
again are going into great financial stress to make sure that their 
children will have an opportunity at a college education that we 
recognize is so important in terms of their future ability to fully 
participate in the American economy, the American society, and to 
provide for their families.

                              {time}  1830

  As we pointed out, this legislation is the largest commitment of 
Federal resources since the GI Bill of 1944. We think it's important. 
We would hope to have an affirmative vote to go to conference on the 
motion to instruct, and then we could proceed with the conference in 
the coming days.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague. I thank you for 
the support on this motion to instruct, and with that, I would also 
then like to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, allow me rhetorically, if I can, 
just to concentrate on one issue, the one at hand, which is the 
significant proposal, the motion to instruct made by the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Education 
Committee, I strongly support this extremely important motion that has 
been given to us today.
  On the day in July when my State celebrates the arrival of the 
pioneers into Salt Lake Valley, in a remote Pakistani town, the 
Pakistani police were closing in on one house that had been given as an 
intelligence tip that the top Taliban leader was inside. According to 
the Washington Post, this Taliban leader, Abdullah Mehsud, if I have 
pronounced that properly, was a short, round man in his early thirties, 
who had been an active Taliban commander in Pakistan for many years.
  Amazingly, though, this same man had been among the first military 
detainees at Guantanamo and had been released in 2004. Upon his 
release, what did he do? Go back to Pakistan, once again working with 
the Taliban, helping al Qaeda infiltrators coming into the rugged 
mountains area of Pakistan.
  But on this fateful day back in July, with the Pakistani police 
closing in, this top Taliban leader, who only the year before had been 
leading terrorist activities against mosques, had kidnapped a couple of 
Chinese engineers, and who knows what else, pulled the pin on a hand 
grenade and blew himself up rather than resubmit to the authorities.
  It's memorable and reminds one of the extravagances that took place 
in March of 2004 in Madrid when the subway bombings killed 200, injured 
2,000 people. This al Qaeda-inspired terrorist activity and the leaders 
of that were tracked down by Spanish authorities; and as they 
surrounded the apartment where they were, the terrorists, the al Qaeda 
terrorists, had preplanned their own self-martyrdom by having wired 
their own apartment. So as the police closed in upon them, they pushed 
the button, not only blowing themselves up but also almost imploding 
the entire building, which would have killed hundreds of other innocent 
victims.
  Now, the reason, Mr. Speaker, that I present these two anecdotal 
stories is simply this: these people are not nice people. They're 
murderers of the worst sort. They're ideologically driven to kill. They 
would stop at nothing to try and kill as many men, women and children, 
if possible, in their goals of maximizing the amount of pain and 
destruction, especially those relating to us. They do not belong on 
American soil, nor do they belong to be released back to their own 
countries, where they can reorganize again, in this war, not just again 
on terror, but also the war against civilization and basic humanity.
  The motion to instruct asks this conference to accept the language 
passed in a similar bill in the Senate on an overwhelming 94-3 vote 
that rejects transferring a terrorist detained in Guantanamo to the 
United States soil. Our penal system, as we envision it, is one of 
rehabilitation. Obviously, these people have not been rehabilitated; 
and as we discuss what we will do as our options, as we discuss any 
kind of closure that may take place in Guantanamo, we should obviously 
say which options are not acceptable.
  Moving any of these prisoners to the United States is simply not 
acceptable. Returning them to their homes is simply not acceptable. 
Destroying the intelligence value we have at Guantanamo is simply not 
acceptable.
  This sense of the Congress resolution simply is one of those things 
that this body, the people's body, the House of Representatives, should 
overwhelmingly support. I cannot imagine anyone honestly believing it 
is a good idea to close Guantanamo and bring these individuals into our 
neighborhoods and into our backyards, nor to release them back to their 
country of origin where they'd be free to reorganize themselves.
  As Mr. McConnell said on the floor today, this is not a motion simply 
for the status quo. Flexibility of what our choices will be would still 
be allowed, but it does clearly say that the one option that is not 
acceptable would be a closing of Guantanamo Bay with the only option 
being of removing these people and bringing them back into our 
neighborhoods, back into our homes and back on American soil.
  For that, I appreciate what the gentleman from Michigan has done in 
bringing this once again to our attention so that we can join the 
Senate in making sure that this is very clear of what is not our policy 
option.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I will 
be the last speaker, and I will close as soon as my colleague yields 
back.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman has no further 
speakers, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  I just want to point out for a number of Members who have asked about 
what's the relationship of this reconciliation to the loan scandals 
that the Nation was witness to earlier this year, this legislation does 
not contain the language of the Sunshine Act that we passed 
overwhelmingly in May of this year. That will be contained in the 
Higher Education Act that the House and Senate plan to do soon. It's in 
the Senate bill, and we have passed the Sunshine Act.
  As Members will recall, this was legislation that falls on the heels 
of public

[[Page 23450]]

reports of colleges and lenders and their relationships between 
colleges and lenders and special relationships that were developed in 
some cases for the exchange of gifts, financial favors, holidays, 
special treatment to people working for the colleges that were steering 
people to a particular lender for their loans. Whether or not that was 
in the best interest of the student or not really didn't come into 
play.
  These practices have gone on for a considerable period of time. In 
some cases, they've been brought to the attention of the Department of 
Education by the Inspector General. They were not properly dealt with, 
and the Attorney General of the State of New York, Mr. Cuomo, brought 
them to the Nation's attention with his investigation of some of the 
large lending institutions and these practices and entered into a 
number of consent agreements with those individuals.
  We had hearings on this matter and the failure of oversight by both 
the Congress and the Department, and we passed the Sunshine Act in 
reaction to those hearings that we had, again, and was passed on a 
strong bipartisan vote.
  We think these two things are connected. The terms are now removing 
the excessive subsidies that were used in many instances to grease 
these relationships for the benefit of the lenders and not for the 
benefit of the students and of their families who are borrowing the 
money to pay for their college education.
  So I just wanted to bring the Members up to snuff on that matter.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I shall 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate rejected transferring al Qaeda terrorists 
from Gitmo to our homeland. That was a wise decision. That is a 
decision that my colleagues here in the House should support tonight.
  Gitmo is a facility that is working. It's working in many different 
ways. It's keeping terrorists, these terrorists, away from the 
homeland. It's providing us with an opportunity to get the information 
that may be necessary and may be helpful in keeping America safe. When 
the Senate acted, they acted overwhelmingly, 94-3, to say make sure 
that these individuals do not come to the United States.
  It provides us with the alternatives and the flexibility that, as we 
move forward in defeating radical jihadists, that we will have the 
strategies in place to keep us safe, to get the information that we 
need, provide us with the background to implement the correct 
strategies.
  We are safer keeping these terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 528 
miles away from the homeland. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this motion to instruct conferees. It is a good motion. It's a good 
decision, a good direction that was put forward by the Members of the 
other body; and I hope that we stand with them tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________