To increase the amount appropriated for the college access partnership grant program.

COLLEGE COST REDUCTION ACT OF 2007

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
measure.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant
to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2008.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, before the Senate now
is the reconciliation provisions dealing with higher education. There
are 20 hours that will be available, 10 hours on either side; am I
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak and
also the Senator from West Virginia. After they have finished, I will
proceed to make an opening statement.
How much time would the Senator like?
Mr. SPECTER. I would like 15 minutes, Mr. President. I understand
Senator Byrd has a short statement, so I will defer to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.

The Homeland Security Appropriations

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Presdient, I rise today to express my surprise that
there is actually an objection to taking up the fiscal year 2008
Homeland Security Appropriations bill today. The bill, which was
reported by the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 29-0, provides
$37.6 billion to help secure the homeland. That includes funds to
secure our borders, funds to hire 3,000 more border patrol agents, and
funds to provide 4,000 more detention beds. It includes funds for the
men and women of the Coast Guard to guard our ports and seaways. It
includes funds to protect 2 million citizens who travel by air every
day, including money to inspect air cargo on passenger aircraft. There
are funds to implement the SAFE Port Act. We include funds to equip and
train our police, fire, and emergency medical personnel to deal with
any disaster.
Incredibly, the President has threatened to veto the Homeland
Security Appropriations bill because it exceeds his request. Today, we
have heard an objection to even debating the bill from a Member on the
President's side of the aisle.
Just last week, the Secretary of Homeland Security publicly said that
it was his ``gut feeling'' that the United States faces an increased
threat of attack this summer. Shouldn't that wake us up to the need to
pass this bill?

[[Page S9438]]

On the heels of the Secretary's warnings, yesterday, the
administration released its latest National Intelligence Estimate
concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. I will quote from
the report:

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and
evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main
threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,
especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to
attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist
groups to adapt and improve their capabilities . . . . [W]e
judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put
operatives here. As a result, we judge that the United States
currently is in a heightened threat environment. . . . We
assess that al-Qa'ida's Homeland plotting is likely to
continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and
infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass
casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant
economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population.

Those are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our
Government. Is anybody listening? Hear me. Is anybody listening? Let me
say this again to see if anybody is listening. Pay attention. I will
quote again from the report. This is the latest national intelligence
estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Man, you
better listen to that. You better listen. Hear me out there. I will
quote again from the report.

We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and
evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years.

You better pay attention.

The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and
cells, especially al-Qaida, driven by their undiminished
intent to attack the homeland--

Our homeland. Your homeland. My homeland.

and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and
improve their capabilities. We judge that al-Qaida will
intensify its efforts to put operatives here. Here.

Not somewhere else, here.

As a result, we judge that the United States currently is
in a heightened threat environment. We assess that al-Qaida's
homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent
political, economic, and infrastructure targets, with the
goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic
destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear
among the population.

Those are the words, not by Robert C. Byrd, these are the words
written by the best intelligence analysts in our Government. Is anybody
listening? Is anybody listening? I say to my friend from Pennsylvania,
bless his heart, he is one of the greatest Senators of all time, is
anybody listening? You can bet the American public is listening.
My hope, the people out there looking at this floor, they are
listening. The people out there on the highways and the byways, the
mountains, the valleys, those warnings should compel our Government,
both in the executive and legislative branches, to get our priorities
straight.
It is the safety of the American people that matters here. Let me say
that again. It is the safety of the American people, that is all 300
million of them, it is the safety of the American people that matters
here, not some political ping-pong between the President and the
Congress. Our mission must be to prevent terrorist attacks against this
country.
In light of the concerns raised by his own administration about the
threat of another terrorist attack, I call on the President, I call on
the President to pull back on his veto threat. Pull back. I plead with
all the Senators to allow this body to do the people's business and to
proceed to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The peoples'
safety is at stake. Delay is foolish.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
my letter to the President, dated today, on this matter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, July 18, 2007.
Hon. George W. Bush,
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President:

``We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and
evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main
threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,
especially al-Qa'ida, driven by their undiminished intent to
attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist
groups to adapt and improve their capabilities. . . . [W]e
judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put
operatives here. As a result, we judge that the United States
currently is in a heightened threat environment.''

Those are the words contained in the declassified National
Intelligence Estimate, released yesterday. Those are the
words written by the best intelligence analysts in our
government. Those are the words that should force our
government--both in the Executive and Legislative branches--
to reevaluate the priority that we are giving to funding to
stop terrorist attacks against this country.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations has approved
legislation investing $37.6 billion in the nation's highest-
priority security projects. These dollars would be put to use
immediately, toughening border security with new agents,
better technology, and stricter immigration enforcement to
close gaps that terrorists could exploit (as did the 9/11
hijackers). These dollars would help to shut down the
dangerous gaps in security at U.S. seaports. The legislation
would make serious investments in security at the nation's
airports, deploying new canine teams and screening technology
at airports nationwide to detect explosives and radiation in
cargo loaded onto passenger aircraft. The funds would provide
critical support for police officers, firefighters, and
emergency medical teams--the first line of response to any
attack.
Unfortunately, you have threatened to veto the homeland
security funding legislation. In light of the new analysis
from our intelligence experts and the warnings that they and
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff have voiced, I urge you
to reconsider this veto threat.
With the concerns outlined by your Administration's top
experts, and with the glaring gaps that continue to exist in
our homeland security protections, we must come together in
the best interests of the American people. It is their lives
and their futures in danger. Posturing will not protect the
people from attack. Smart investments in their security will.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Byrd.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The senior Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to conclude
the statements I had made earlier today after being interrupted by the
Senator from Nevada, that I might say accurately, rudely interrupted.
I was speaking in the context of reserving a right to object to a
unanimous consent request, and the technical rules provide that
speeches may not be made but only an objection lodged. But it has been
the common practice in this body to allow a Senator who reserves the
right to object to make a statement as to why the objection is being
lodged.
This is in reply to the Senator asking unanimous consent and who has
spoken at some length to give the reasons why an objection is being
lodged. When the majority leader cut me off, then made reference to
what the people of Pennsylvania want, the last time I looked, Senator
Casey and Senator Specter represented the people of Pennsylvania, not
Senator Harry Reid.
When he talks about my State, then he talks about me, and he raises
an intonation that I did not know what my constituents want. I at least
ought to have an opportunity to reply because I think I know more about
Pennsylvania than Senator Reid does.
But to be cut off in that context was rude, to say the minimum. There
are rules and there are customs, there are accepted practices. It is
the custom of this body, when a Senator reserves a right to object and
seeks to make a statement, to let him make the statement. That is the
custom and that is the accepted practice. When the majority leader
talks about the rules, we saw on the immigration bill how one Senator
can tie this place up in knots, can bring the Senate to a screeching
halt by utilizing the rules: asking for the full text of amendments be
read, asking that the previous day's business be read. The rules would
permit any Senator to stop the Senate in its tracks from doing any
business.
So there is something more than the rules. There is the custom and
there is the accepted practice that if the Senate does not run on
comity, on courtesy, on basic decency, the Senate cannot run at all.
Now, I had made the comment about reserving the right to object
because I strenuously object to what has transpired in this body in the
past 24 hours. We had a meaningless, insulting, all-night session for
absolutely no purpose. It was an indignity to the Senators who were
kept here all night to vote on a procedure that had no purpose
whatsoever. The Senate luxuriates in its

[[Page S9439]]

reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. But last night's
performance made us the laughingstock of the world. There was no way
that anything meaningful would happen as a result of a vote on the
Levin-Reed amendment. There is no doubt that there are not 67 votes
present to override a veto. There is little doubt that there are not 60
votes present to bring the issue to a vote.
So what were we doing on an all-night session? The majority leader
stated the purpose was to show the American people he would not back
down. Well, I think he showed the American people how ineffective he
is. The time when the majority leader and the Democratic leadership in
the Congress could have asserted itself was on the supplemental
appropriations bill. That was the bill which the President needed to
continue funding the war in Iraq. We were out of money. It took $100
billion, approximately, to move forward. That was the point where, as
the majority leader said, he wanted a majority of 51-vote majority to
express the will of the Congress, it could have been done.
The Democratic leadership in the Congress backed down. I thought they
did so appropriately in a contest with the President because the safety
of the troops was involved. But that was the time to take a stand if
the majority leader wanted to have a vote of 51.
When he takes down the Department of Defense authorization bill, it
is not his bill alone, it is not just the Levin-Reed amendment, there
are a lot of other provisions in that bill.
Senator Leahy and I had an important amendment on habeas corpus which
is relevant to the operation of the Department of Defense and
Guantanamo, and the detention of many men who have been denied rights
established in 1215 under the Magna Carta, and this body unadvisedly,
erroneously legislated to take away that habeas right.
I continue to think it would be corrected in the courts, but that is
another matter too lengthy to go into now. But Senator Leahy and I had
that amendment pending. Senator Kerry and I and others have an
amendment pending on signing statements, where the President has
disregarded the legislation passed by the Congress to cherry-pick and
add limitations in so-called signing statements.
There was also an amendment which this Senator had proposed to bring
up for a vote on rendition. So there was a great deal more to be done
on this bill than Iraq alone.
But with respect to Iraq, there were other amendments which ought to
be considered, and which should have been considered, without the
majority leader taking the bill down. We could have debated the Levin-
Reed amendment in a few hours and we could have debated the Warner-
Lugar amendment in a few hours and we could have debated the Salazar-
Alexander amendment in a few hours and we could have done it during the
daytime yesterday, instead of having quorum calls consume the time of
the Senate when nothing is done here, until the majority leader decides
to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless,
insulting session.
But there are important matters to be debated on what Senator Warner
and Senator Lugar have proposed. They have suggested, and they filed an
amendment, directing the President to prepare a plan by October 16, a
plan which would contemplate withdrawal starting December 31. But it
did not tell the President he had to do it, and there is a serious
constitutional question with the President's authority as Commander in
Chief. Certainly, Congress cannot micromanage the war. The question
about putting limitations on Presidential authority is a tough issue,
but it would be well to have the President plan for a contingency.
We know the planning has been insufficient, no planning as to what
would happen after Saddam Hussein fell. So when Senator Warner and
Senator Lugar wanted to put that forward, we should have debated it.
When it calls for consideration of withdrawal on December 31, we should
have debated it. When they call in that amendment for another
resolution defining the scope of the President's authority on the war,
we should have debated it.
Senator Salazar and Senator Alexander had an amendment which would
incorporate the findings of the Iraq Study Group. I was seriously
considering, still am considering, cosponsoring those amendments. I
think had we known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass
destruction, we would not have gone into Iraq. But once in Iraq, we do
not want to leave it in an unstable situation and in turmoil. We have
had very forceful statements from very prominent Republican supporters
of the President that if there is not real progress, significant
progress by September, the funding will not be continued. I have said
that if we do not have the metaphor of ``a light at the end of a
tunnel'' by September, that funding is in serious question. But those
are not matters which we are going to decide in July; those are matters
which we will decide in September.
After we have the report by General Petraeus and after we have the
President's report, we will make a judgment as to what we will do in
September. That was the import of the appropriations bill which we
passed 2 months ago, funding through September 30. The issue of funding
for the next fiscal year is one which this Congress will have to decide
when the issue is ripe. I am uncertain as to what my vote will be. But
I do believe that if there is not a light at the end of the tunnel,
that it is a very questionable matter to proceed indefinitely because
of the failure of the Iraqis to live up to their commitments to end
sectarian violence, to deal with the legislative proposals in their
Parliament on oil revenues and many other matters.
But I hope we will see a reevaluation of what is going to be done in
the Senate.
This body is very different than it was when I was elected in 1980,
very different from what it was when Senator Byrd was elected in 1958
and Senator Biden was elected in 1972. With Senator Byrd and Senator
Biden, there is real comity, and so with Senator Leahy and myself on
Judiciary and Senator Harkin and myself on the appropriations
subcommittee. But that is the exception, regrettably, rather than the
rule around here. When a Senator seeks to speak, he ought to be
accorded some basic courtesy and comity on what is custom and what is
practice.
I had a short talk with Senator Lott after the majority leader
interrupted me, and Senator Lott said the majority leader did the same
thing to him a couple of days ago. When Senator Lott was majority
leader, he didn't have that practice. Senator Lott said the majority
leader wanted to publicly apologize. Senator Lott said: Not necessary.
Public apologies don't mean much.
It doesn't mean much to make this speech to an empty Chamber,
frankly. The time I should have been heard was when Senators were on
the floor, when Senators were considering what the majority leader had
done in taking down the bill. That is when it was right.
As I sat here waiting for time to speak and consulting with the
managers of the bill to get their consent, the majority leader came
over and said: I will see to it that you get recognized first. I said:
No, thanks, I will get myself recognized. There is a time when no one
else is around and on a jump ball a Senator can get recognized.
Those practices, I think, are not only rude but dictatorial--
dictatorial to flout the custom and the practice of this body and to go
back to technical rules. If those technical rules are applied, and any
one of us can do it, this body will cease to function.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I consulted
with Senator Kennedy. I ask that my time be counted under
reconciliation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized.

Iraq

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I share the frustration of my friend from
Pennsylvania. I remember when my colleague, Senator Byrd, whom I still
call the leader, was leader when I got here after Senator Mansfield.
How things have changed in many ways.
One of the things that has changed is what we saw take place today.
Here the single most critical issue facing the United States of America
today--the

[[Page S9440]]

carnage that is taking place in Iraq, the fact that our blood and
treasure is being spilled with no apparent end in sight--and the notion
that we would have to resort to a filibuster to stop a vote when a
clear majority of Senators who believe there is an urgent need to
change course in Iraq is not only dismaying but the consequence of it,
I believe, is to kick the can down the road another 2 to 3 months and,
in the meantime, many Americans are going to be injured and killed,
which I believe can be avoided.
Ever since the Democrats took back the Congress, we have been working
to build pressure on the administration and, quite frankly, a number of
our Republican colleagues to change course in Iraq because I don't
believe there are a dozen Republican Senators who agree with the
President's present position. I don't believe there are a dozen
Republican Senators who believe the results are going to be
fundamentally different on September 5 than they are today, although I
respect the fact that they concluded they want to wait to give the
President every opportunity to demonstrate his plan can work.
Here is the problem, with all due respect. The problem is we are
faced with two false choices in the Congress. One is put forward by the
administration and sustained by a minority of votes that says we should
continue to do what we are doing and essentially hand off the problem
to the next President. I don't know anybody who believes that through
escalating this conflict, adding American forces, there is any
reasonable prospect that would bring about the only thing that will end
this war, and that is a political settlement among the Iraqis.
Then there are a number of Democrats who have a view, out of
frustration, that we must begin to get out of there, get out and hope
for the best. Their premise is: Look, there isn't any reasonable
prospect of us being able to do this militarily, and the hope is that
somehow if we get out, the Iraqis, the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shias
will have a bit of an epiphany, as we Catholics say, that they will get
together and say: Oh, my goodness, America is leaving and we better get
together and settle our differences or things are going to completely
implode.
The fundamental flaw in all of that thinking, in my humble opinion--I
know I am like a broken record, I have been saying it for over 3 years
and I laid out a concrete plan over a year ago--the fundamental flaw is
there is no possibility in the lifetime of any Member of this Senate
for there to be a coherent central government in Baghdad that has the
ability to gain the faith and trust of the people of Iraq and the
ability to govern that country. It will not happen. Mark my words.
There is no possibility of that happening. Never, to my research, have
I ever found there has been a situation where there has been a self-
sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, a self-sustaining civil war,
which is exactly what we have now in Iraq, that it has ever ended in
any other than one of four ways: a major power goes in and occupies the
country for a generation or more, not an option available for us, nor
is it in our DNA to do that. We are not the British Empire; we are not
the Ottoman Empire; we are not the Persian Empire; nor do we want to
be.

The second option is: Install a dictator. Wouldn't that be the
ultimate irony for the United States of America to install a dictator?
The third option: Pick a side. Wage in on one side of the sectarian
violence, wipe out the other side. That is not a good option. A, it
would be immoral; B, it would take a couple years and; C, it would
ignite a Sunni-Shia revolution from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas.
There is a fourth way it can end, and that is establish a federal
system within the country separating the parties, giving them control
of the fabric of their daily lives, their own security forces in their
own neighborhoods, their own laws relating to religion, education,
marriage, divorce, property, jobs, a federal system.
Coincidentally, that is exactly what the Iraqi Constitution calls for
in article I. It says: We are a decentralized federal system.
Absent a political settlement, there is no way--I will make the
prediction I shouldn't make because I have been around here long enough
to know that everything you say on this floor you are reminded of if
you turn out to be wrong. If you are right, you are never reminded of
it. If you turn out to be wrong, you are reminded of it whether it is 6
months, 12 months or 12 years later.
I honestly believe, absent a radical change in course resulting in a
federal system existing in Iraq, the only option the next President of
the United States is going to have is going to be a reenactment of the
scene in Saigon, with helicopters lifting people off the roofs of the
embassy in the green zone. That is how it is going to end, in disaster.
Not only do I not want my son who is a captain in the U.S. National
Guard going to Iraq, I don't want my grandson going or my
granddaughter. How we leave Iraq, what shape we leave it in, what
prospect for a political settlement exists will determine whether my
grandson goes back 15 years from now.
All we did today was take what was originally called the Biden-Hagel,
et cetera, resolution that we introduced in January, then the Biden-
Levin resolution, then the Levin-Reed-Biden, et al, now the Levin-Reed
amendment. They all do the same thing. There is not a dime's worth of
difference.
What they all said was this: Mr. President, the first thing you do
when you are in a hole is stop digging; stop digging us deeper into
this disaster. Cease and desist from placing our troops in the midst of
a civil war. We are in the midst of a civil war. The ``success'' we are
having in Anbar Province, what is it doing? It is making the Shia
conclude we are arming and engaging with the Sunnis and the former
Baathists, making it harder for us to get the Shia to agree to action
on the oil law, which would be the thing to get the Sunnis to buy into
a united Iraq.
We are in the midst of a civil war, and the whole thesis of the idea
we came forward with as early as January and we voted on again today is
to say: Get out of that civil war. Use American forces for only three
express purposes: One, train the Iraqi Army; two, deny al-Qaida
occupation of large swaths of territory, particularly in Anbar
Province; and three, protect our diplomats there.
I say to my colleagues in the Senate, last week we heard President
Bush give a progress report on Iraq. It reminded me of a guy who jumps
off a 100-story building and as he passes the 50th floor, somebody
yells out: How's it going? And he yells back: So far so good. That is
the summary of the President's report, except it is not even going well
so far and the outcome is absolutely certain: continued disaster.
Also, last week, Bob Woodward revealed that back in November, CIA
Director Michael Hayden made the very point I have been making for 2
years in a private meeting with the Iraqi Study Group. He said:

The inability of the central Government to govern is
irreversible.

There is ``no milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing
around.'' The CIA then went on to say:

We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a
government . . . that cannot function.

What more do we need? I ask my colleagues, what more do you need? Our
own intelligence community has been saying since last November that the
inability of the central government to govern is irreversible--
irreversible.

Nothing has happened since General Hayden made his remarks to change
that assessment. The time now is to stop digging that hole, redeploy
our forces, save American lives, and begin to push a political
settlement.
I conclude by saying that yesterday's release of the unclassified key
judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on ``The Terrorist
Threat to the U.S. Homeland'' highlights the urgency of changing our
course in Iraq. The so-called NIE is a devastating indictment of the
administration's failure to accomplish its most important mission--
destroying al-Qaida and the threat it poses.
It confirms what was reported last week, that the al-Qaida we failed
to finish off in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because we went into Iraq,
has ``regenerated,'' and it remains intent on attacking us at home.
That should put to rest once and for all this administration's false
refrain that we are fighting over there so we don't have to fight

[[Page S9441]]

them over here. That is rubbish. Our own intelligence, the NIE--that is
all the intelligence agencies in the U.S. Government--have come to a
consensus position.
It spotlights the danger posed by al-Qaida in Iraq, a group
independent but now affiliated with al-Qaida of bin Laden. Al-Qaida in
Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. I will say it again. Al-Qaida in
Iraq is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It did not exist in Iraq prior to
our invasion. But the failed policies, failure to deal with an
administrative policy, a political solution, what it does now is to
help al-Qaida energize extremists around the world, raise money for new
recruits, and become stronger. All the more reason we must act now to
refocus our energy and resources on al-Qaida and start to get our
troops out of Iraq's civil war, while limiting the mission of those who
remain to denying al-Qaida in Iraq a safe haven.
Finally, I say to my colleagues, regardless of one's view on the war
and how to end it, there is one commitment each and every one of us
should make. That commitment is so long as there is a single--a
single--American troop in Iraq--a single American troop in Iraq--that
we should do all that is needed to give them the best possible
protection this country can provide, and the way to start with that is
to replace the humvees with these mine-resistant vehicles that in our
last supplemental I was able to convince our colleagues to add 1.7
billion more dollars to build them. These vehicles have a V-shaped hull
and they can reduce casualties from roadside bombs up to 80 percent.
Right now, 70 percent of all the casualties taking place in Iraq is
because of roadside bombs.
I will offer an amendment to the Defense bill when we get to it to
make clear, with absolutely no ambiguity, that Congress will provide
every single dollar needed and every authority necessary to build these
vehicles as quickly as possible because our kids are dying, and it can
radically reduce the number of casualties.
I conclude by saying our Republican colleagues say--all of whom I
respect, but the one I particularly respect is Senator Lugar--that they
expect the President to voluntarily change course.
I have absolutely no faith, none whatsoever, in this President to
voluntarily do what should be done. The only way it is going to happen
is when our Republican friends stop voting with the President and start
voting to end this war by supporting our troops.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about
what has gone on in the Chamber in the last 24 hours and of name
calling. I am proud to have worked extra hard the last 24 hours. It
seems to me the symbolism of working extra hard and losing some sleep
is an important symbolism.
Yes, yes, we all know we didn't have the votes to overturn the
stubborn denial of this President as to the failure of his policy, but
we showed the American people we are willing to work harder and try
harder and stand up to the face of power for the right strategy to
secure our Nation from terrorists and to support our military.
I am following to this microphone decades of experience in the
Senate. I sat this morning and listened--and this afternoon--to Senator
Byrd, Senator Specter, and Senator Biden. I was reflecting on the years
of experience they represent in the Senate. I don't have those years of
experience. I have mere months. But I am confused with the insistence
of 60 votes on anything of substance we are facing in the Senate. I am
confused at attempts to block ethics reform; to block taking Federal
tax dollars away from big oil. I am confused at the effort to block
reimportation of prescription drugs and to block negotiation for lower
drug prices in Medicare Part D. I am confused about delays and stalling
tactics to embrace the 9/11 recommendations on homeland security.

The majority should rule, and I am hopeful what we did over the last
24 hours will have an impact on the way we work together to move
forward on the problems that face America.
I also wish to briefly say that over the last 24 hours I have felt
history, as I have reflected on other all-night filibusters throughout
the history of this great body. I pinch myself when I open my drawer
and I see the name of Harry Truman. When I sit at my desk and glance
down and I see his name scrawled in the drawer of my desk on the Senate
floor, it is amazing to me that I have the opportunity to sit in his
Senate seat and to advocate for accountability in this war effort.
Senator Webb and I had worked on an amendment we were going to offer
to the Defense authorization bill that I think Senator Truman would be
proud of, because he got in his vehicle and drove miles and miles
across this country during World War II, in a Democratic
administration--as a Democratic freshman Senator under a Democratic
President in a time of war--and he said we have to do better about how
we are spending taxpayer money. We cannot allow war profiteers to
tarnish the image of the men and women who are fighting for us in World
War II. That was his view, and so the Truman Committee was born. Out of
that committee, billions of dollars were saved, and America felt better
about our ability to clean up our act, to oversee the efforts of our
military in a way that is fiscally responsible and honors the service
of our military.
Senator Webb and I, along with the other seven freshmen Democrats in
the Senate, have fashioned a new, independent commission on war
contracting, and we will now introduce this amendment as a stand-alone
bill. I implore my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to
not play partisan games with this effort. This is an independent
commission, fashioned in many ways not only after the Truman Committee
but after the 9/11 Commission. It will look at war contracting in a
thorough way.
Let us be honest. We are not going to turn back from contracting in a
time of war. We will continue to contract. People need to understand
now that we have more contractors on the ground in Iraq than we have
military, with 180,000 contractors. I have had the opportunity over the
last 6 months to see firsthand how we have failed in the stewardship of
public money, with billions of dollars wasted, billions of dollars in
unfair profits to private companies because we have not written the
contracts well, we have not overseen the contracts, and we have not
held them accountable.
This commission will allow us to take a thorough look at war
contracting, and it will also expand the authority of the Special
Inspector General on Gulf Reconstruction so we can look at not only
reconstruction contracts but those support contracts for our troops. It
is important we get this done because we can't go back, but we must go
forward and make sure that in the spirit of Harry Truman, we never
allow war profiteering to affect our ability to stand strong, as the
strongest and most powerful Nation on the planet.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 2327

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2327.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the
amendment be suspended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
amendments.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation now before the Senate
was passed out of our committee 17 to 3. It has strong bipartisan
support. At the outset of this extremely important education measure, I
wish to say I am enormously appreciative and grateful to my colleague
and friend, the Senator from Wyoming, for his leadership and enormously
grateful to all the members of our committee for their participation
and involvement, and the staff of our committee has done an
extraordinary job.
The work started on this legislation many, many, many months ago. We
understood the need for this legislation,

[[Page S9442]]

as we understood the need to work on the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. The reauthorization legislation is not in this
particular package, although I am strongly in support of it, as my
colleague, Senator Enzi, is. We understand that, under the procedural
rules, if we were to add that legislation onto this particular
provision, there would be serious issues and questions whether the
reconciliation provisions would continue to lie, and that might put the
totality of our education legislation effort in some jeopardy. But I
wish to, at the outset of this debate, give assurances to all our
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that Senator Enzi and I
are one in terms of the desire for the Senate to pass the
reauthorization legislation.

Somewhat later in this discussion, I will go through in some detail
the provisions of that reauthorization legislation. We wish to focus on
what I think is the heart and soul of the higher education debate and
that is, for the first time since the GI bill, we are providing very
significant assistance to needy students in this country; and,
secondly, we are providing assistance to the middle class in relieving
them of a good deal of the pressure they have in paying off student
loans in the future.
So this is where we are, as far as the higher education bill. We are
going to continue to work with Senator Enzi and the other members of
the committee to try to find a satisfactory follow-on procedure for the
reauthorization of the higher education bill. It has a number, as I
mentioned, of very important provisions, and we will try to make a
recommendation to the full Senate either later today or tomorrow but
certainly before we conclude this legislation.
Education, I think as all of us understand, is the key to the hopes
and dreams of American families and to the young people of this
country. It has been that way since the founding of the Republic. I
come from the State--which I am proud to represent, Massachusetts--that
had in its constitution in 1780--John Adams was the author of the
Massachusetts Constitution, the first constitution of all of the
original States--it spelled out in very careful detail the
responsibility of the public to support education. At this time, they
were talking about the general education of the citizenry. Each and
every other State that wrote its constitution took literally from those
particular provisions of the Massachusetts references to education.
Every single State constitution has different provisions, but all of
them include important provisions for education.
Americans understand this is the key to our future. It is the key to,
first of all, our ability to have our democratic institutions function
and work well, to guarantee the rights and the liberties of the
Constitution of the United States. Secondly, it is key to our economy
so that we are going to be strong economically in the United States,
with an economy that is going to provide the opportunity for progress
for all the people of this country. Thirdly, it is essential, in terms
of our national security, to make sure we have an informed citizenry
who is able to move ahead and take advantage of the extraordinary
technology that is available in terms of our military, so we make sure
that we have the best trained, the best equipped, and the latest in
technology guaranteed to those men and women who are going to fight for
the United States.
So education is the key. It is the key to all the important progress
this Nation is going to make in the future. We take a good deal of
pride in the fact that we are going to provide help and relief to
millions and millions of Americans who have been increasingly pressured
by the extraordinary explosion of the cost of tuition for the young
people of this country.
As we look back again at history, to the development of the public
school system, we note that Horace Mann, the great educator, believed
in the public school system. We look at the efforts that were made
during the American Civil War, the Morrill Act. Even in the height of
the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, establishing the
land grant colleges, which made such a difference to States all across
this Nation.
We remember the extraordinary steps that President Roosevelt took in
the GI bill after World War II. We had some 15, 16 million Americans
who were under arms at the end of World War II in 1940, with an average
age of 26 years old--26 years old in 1940--with 1 year of high school
education. So many of these individuals went off to war and served for
3, 4, 5 years in the military and then came back. President Roosevelt
saw the importance of developing the GI bill, and that made such a
difference. Many believe it was the piece--the piece--of legislation
that made possible the development of the middle class in this country.
If you take what the United States spent in the 6 years after the GI
bill was enacted, it would come to approximately a third of the Federal
budget in 1951. That is the kind of priority Americans put on education
at that time, and that has been a priority that has been certainly
missing for a long period of time. It does seem to me we are restating
and reaffirming a strong commitment to higher education in this
legislation.
Another important event in terms of increasing the support for higher
education came in the late 1950s--1957, to be specific. At the time of
the launch of the Sputnik, there were concerns the Soviet Union was
getting ahead, and so we had the National Defense Education Act, which
provided assistance in the areas of math and science. For many of those
leading our research agencies and independent agencies in the Federal
Government, it made such a difference for those graduates in that
National Defense Education Act.
Then in 1960, we had a national debate in this country, at that time
between my brother, then-Senator Kennedy and Vice President Nixon,
about higher education. Where were we going? This was the issue that
was put forward to the American people. What are we going to say to the
young people of this country if they wish to gain admission to any
school or college in this country--any school or college--on the basis
of their ability, their willingness to work hard? We in the Federal
Government were going to provide enough assistance to those individuals
so they would be able to gain entrance to that school or college. It
could be grants, it could be loans, it could be work-study programs, it
could be the requirement that they are going to have to work in the
summer, gain some contribution from their family, but nonetheless it
was going to be a range of different opportunities that were going to
be put together to permit those individuals who came from needy
families, who had ability and dedication and commitment, to gain
entrance to schools and colleges anyplace in this country. We were
going to make that a commitment. In 1960, that was a principal issue
during the course of the campaign, and we saw the passage of the Higher
Education Act in the early 1960s.

A great debate at that time was whether we were going to provide
assistance to the student or assistance to the university, and the
decision was made it would be to the student. That is basically the
origin of the Pell grant. Since that time, we have seen a number of
different opportunities for individuals to move ahead and gain
assistance.
What we have seen is the challenge that is out there today. I am
going to take a few minutes to point out the challenges that exist
today for so many of those who are going on to college. If we look back
at 1986-87, you see the average tuition fees, room and board, for a 4-
year private college, which was $9,800. Now, it is $30,000. If we are
talking about the average tuition for four-year public colleges, it
increased $4,000 to $12,000 in that same period, virtually a 300-
percent increase in the last 20 years. This has put an enormous stress
on students.
Each year, nearly half of all college-ready students, from families
with incomes under $50,000, can't go to a 4-year college because of
cost. Let me repeat that again: Nearly half of all college-ready
students in families with incomes under $50,000 can't go to a 4-year
college because of the cost. Each year, we have some 400,000 talented,
college-qualified students, who cannot go on to higher education
because they can't afford to do so.
We know what happens in colleges and universities now, with students
taking longer and longer to complete their degrees. They have to work
harder and longer, both in the summertime or taking semesters off, so
they can

[[Page S9443]]

gain greater resources to be able to complete their school and earn
their degree.
Look at this. Going back to 1985-86 and what the costs were at that
time, and now look what the assistance, the maximum Pell grant, is as a
share of tuition fees and room and board from 1985-86 to 2005-06, and
you see it has gone from 55 percent for a public 4-year institution
down to 33 percent; 24 percent in 1985-86 to 14 percent for a private
4-year institution. What this is basically saying is the neediest
students, those with ability, those with skills, are finding out the
assistance they need has been gradually withdrawn; that the kind of
assistance for them has been significantly reduced, which has put more
and more pressure on the middle class and working families.
Because of these increasing costs and stagnant grant aid, more
students now have to take out loans to finance their education. If you
look at 1993, less than half of all graduates had to take out loans.
But in 2004, nearly two-thirds had to take out loans to finance their
education. This is extraordinary. In 1993, not all that long ago--not
all that long ago, over half of students did not have to take out loans
in order to go to school. Now, two-thirds have to do so.
What has been the result? This is the result. The young people who
are graduating from the universities in our country are now
increasingly heavier and heavier in debt. In 1993, $9,250; in 2004, 10
years later, $19,000. This is the average debt. This doesn't even begin
to include what it costs to go to graduate school or medical school.
Then you are going into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Young
people who would like to go into general practice, into higher degrees
of specialties, they are going to have to pay off a large debt. So it
has all kinds of implications for a graduate's career choices and life
choices.
Anyone who goes to a school or a university or a college and who
stays around during the course of a lunchtime, you will find out that
students are talking not about their books or classes or their
teachers, they are talking about their debt. They are talking about
their debt. This has been the dramatic shift and the change. As a
result of this, we see this is having an effect upon the quality of
life for the young people in this country.
What have we tried to do and what have we done with this legislation?
We know what the challenge is. We will have an opportunity to get into
greater detail on that during the course of the debate. But what have
we attempted to do, and what have we done in this legislation? What
does this legislation provide?
First of all, it provides a historic increase in need-based grant
aid, $17 billion increase in need-based grant aid. That is the largest
increase since the GI bill.
What else does it do? Better payment options that cap a borrower's
monthly payment at 15 percent of their monthly discretionary income.
What does that mean? For any family in America, when their child
graduates he or she will never pay more than 15 percent of their
monthly income as they go on through their life. We know now that many
individuals pay a good deal more than that, and it presents an
extraordinary burden on them. We are saying to these young people and
their families: You will never pay more than 15 percent of your monthly
income.
We are providing loan forgiveness for borrowers who work in public
service jobs. What we are saying is any young person who works in a
public service job--you work as a teacher, you work as a childcare
provider, you work as a special education teacher or assistant working
with students with disabilities, if you work with the fire department,
if you work with the police department--you will repay your debt at 15
percent of your salary for a period of 10 years, and then your debt is
forgiven--released--forgiven, effectively. It makes a major difference
in terms of young people's career choices, where they might go. I will
come back to this because this point is enormously important.
We provide protection for working students by not penalizing their
earnings. We've found that as students earn slightly more while
attending college, suddenly their eligibility for financial assistance
is changed and they fall further in debt to pay for their education. We
have addressed that issue and addressed the longer loan deferment
periods for borrowers in economic hardship. And we provide that benefit
at no cost to the taxpayer by reforming the student loan industry so it
works for students, not banks. This provision does not cost the
taxpayers; it saves the taxpayers because we are taking the money from
the banks and providing it for the students themselves. We will come
back to demonstrate that the banks are going to do just fine later in
this discussion.
I want to show what we do in terms of the Pell Grant Program. Over
five million young Americans participate in the Pell Grant Program. As
you see in this chart, it has been effectively stuck at $4,000 or close
to that in 2002, 2004, 2006, all during this recent period of time.
Then, when our party, the Democrats, took over, we were able to bump
that up to $4,310. And then under this proposal it will increase to
$5,400 in 2011. We are trying to grow the program. It is costly but
worth it. It makes a life-and-death difference to young people who need
this program.
Let me return to a point I was making a minute ago. If an individual
worked in the public sector, this bill provides loan forgiveness.
Graduates who work for 10 years in emergency management, public
education, public health in a social service agency, public services
for individuals with disabilities and the elderly, public service legal
services programs, including prosecution or public defense, public
school library sciences and other school-based service providers and
teaching full-time at a tribal college or university--we are trying to
say to young people graduating from college, yes, you will have debt,
but we are saying you will never have to pay more than 15 percent of
your monthly income, and if you go into this occupation long term it is
effectively forgiven.
How does it work? Let's take a starting teacher in Massachusetts. We
have a book that is available for our colleagues that does the same
kind of run-through for all 50 States. Say the annual salary is
$35,000, they have a loan debt of $18,000, monthly payments today of
$209, monthly payments under IBR would be $148, and monthly loan
payment relief of $61. The student loan payment relief under the
income-based repayment plan is $732 a year, and the amount forgiven
under the new Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program will be $10,000
of their debt if they are a public school teacher in Massachusetts.
That is just one example. You can make that applicable in any of the
other areas. Those are the principal provisions that are included in
this legislation.
This is an important piece of legislation. It will make an important
and significant difference to affordability of and accessibility to
college, to needy children, to the students in this country. We welcome
the very strong support we have had from the student associations and
all the student groups. It will make a major difference for working
families in terms of providing some additional kinds of relief.
We have done this in a bipartisan way. We think this will make a
major difference, and I am enormously grateful to my friend and
colleague from Wyoming for all of his help. I will come back later.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that quorum calls during the
consideration of the bill be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need. I want
to begin by thanking the chairman of the committee for the
consideration he has given to all of the amendments that went into the
bill, and also further work from the time that we passed it out of
committee to resolve any misunderstandings or any questions. It has
been a tremendously cooperative effort and one that I think will lead
to a very good bill when we finish with reconciliation.
That is not all we need to do for higher education, and I will be
emphasizing that throughout the speech, but I am very much appreciative
of the leadership and the bipartisanship that has been shown by the
chairman and members of the other side of the aisle

[[Page S9444]]

who serve on the committee. Both sides of the aisle are interested in
making sure that we can make a college education as affordable as
possible with as much help from the Federal Government as is possible.
Of course, I would note that every time we make a little adjustment
at the Federal level, the colleges go ahead and make just as big an
adjustment in their tuition, which is one of the ways we get to some of
the figures that are on that chart. But I do want to speak on this very
important bill which is the substitute to H.R. 2669.
For millions of Americans, access to affordable college education is
the key to their success in the 21st century. We now have a global
economy, and to participate in that global economy a person has to have
more than a high school diploma. Without some additional education
following high school, these Americans will not have the qualifications
for over 90 percent of the new jobs that will be created in the next 10
years.
I want to repeat that. Without additional education following high
school, these young Americans will not have the qualifications for over
90 percent of the new jobs being created over just the next 10 years.
This bill, as did the reconciliation bill we considered in the 109th
Congress, aimed at reducing the subsidies to lenders and providing
greater benefits to students. In the 109th Congress, approximately $20
billion in changes were made to the Federal Family Education Loan, the
FFEL Program, by reducing subsidies to lenders and providing $13
billion in benefits to students. The bill before us reduces subsidies
to lenders by another $18.5 billion and provides $17.6 billion to
student benefits. The result is that within the span of 3 years we will
have made close to $40 billion in changes to the Federal student loan
programs.

Getting to this point has not been accomplished without difficulty.
Again, I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, for
his commitment to make the process as bipartisan as possible.
This is the second time in as many Congresses we have been on the
brink of systemic reform of Federal higher education programs. I do not
want to squander yet another opportunity to make these programs more
efficient, as well as more effective. We are only seeing, at most, half
the picture by debating this bill separately from the larger higher
education reauthorization package.
We have a chart back here that shows that any way you slice it,
higher education is left undone if all we do is the reconciliation
bill. What is left out?
FAFSA simplification: That is the form that students have to fill out
in order to get Federal loans. It has been an extremely complicated
form. We have made that considerably simpler.
Sunshine/loan disclosure, the year-round Pell grants so that students
don't just have to go to school through two semesters, but have access
to summer semesters. This is important to students who are in
vocational programs, and allows them to get into the workforce more
quickly after high school.
Support for nontraditional students: We had some requirements before
that discriminated against the nontraditional students, the ones who
are not just graduating from high school.
Graduate and international education, financial literacy and better
borrower information and better privacy protections are all in the big
yellow circle of reauthorization. It also provides improvements for the
American competitiveness grants and the SMART grants. Those deal with
encouraging kids to go into science, math, engineering, technology, and
foreign languages. There is additional money that is available if they
do that; some for their freshman and sophomore years in college, much
more for math and science in the junior and senior years. The
reauthorization bill includes a College cost ``watch list'' and many
more provisions.
A big piece of the pie is this other part we still need to do. Our
challenge is not only to improve access to higher education but to
ensure that the quality of our system of higher education is not
compromised. We need to consider both pieces of legislation because
America's students must have all the tools they need to complete higher
education and to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge for the
21st century. We want them to be competitive.
The American system of higher education is renowned throughout the
world. I can highly attest to that after having gone to India, seen how
their educational system works and how it is becoming very competitive
with the United States, and seeing what we need to do to ``stay
ahead.''
Of course, they like to send their graduate students to the United
States for an education because they learn creativity and flexibility.
In most of the other countries around the world they learn the basics,
can do excellent calculations and have a vast amount of knowledge. But
what our colleges specialize in is teaching kids to think, to come up
with new ideas. That is what has kept America ahead.
Our more than 6,000 colleges and universities enroll over 14 million
students and provide access to all types of academic and technical
skill-building programs.
In Wyoming we only have a handful of the total of these 6,000
colleges and 14 million students. In fact, we only have one 4-year
university, and we have seven community colleges. Our grand total of 10
accredited institutions of higher education in the State is the
smallest of any State but Alaska.
But I do have to digress just a little bit, after we talked about how
much students had in loans, and mention that students are worried about
tuition, they should take a look at the University of Wyoming. The out-
of-State tuition is less than most in-state tuition in other States.
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the Western Governors
University. This last weekend I got to attend their graduation and it
is a unique university. It is largely for nontraditional students, and
its program is done completely online. There are no classrooms to go
to. The average age of their students is about 38. That was the average
age of the graduates this last weekend. Their tuition is $5,600 per
year--not per semester. You can take as many courses as you can pack
into that year included in that amount.
At Western Governors you are assigned a mentor who is a part of the
teaching staff. As soon as you get there, that person watches,
counsels, and even follows you 1 year after you are out. So there are
some bargains out there even for people who feel tied down where they
may be now.
One of the persons who spoke at graduation was a woman who has seven
kids and, because of Katrina had to move four times during her last
year of education. She wanted people to know that if she can complete a
degree with seven kids and that many moves, that anybody can get a
degree in higher education. I will have more to say about the Western
Governors University and their low tuition and their opportunity to
complete their programs from anywhere in the world. We have a lot of
military folks who are participating in that in different places in the
world.
But the American success story of higher education is at risk of
losing the qualities that made it great, which are competition,
innovation, and access for all. That is a real key in the United
States. I mentioned visiting India, where only 7 percent of their kids
get to go on to higher education. That does create a very high level of
competition to get in and probably produces more science, technology,
engineering, math and medical people than we have. But our principle,
our emphasis is on having innovation and access for all.
In this bill we are doing deficit reduction. Deficit reduction is a
tool that should be taken seriously. While I am pleased that we have
saved about $1 billion toward deficit reduction in this process, we
have made some changes to the Higher Education Act that may prove to be
problematic in the long run. This bill is not the perfect solution. Not
everyone is satisfied with where we have ended up, but I do believe
that with the traditional need-based grant aid we are making available
to low-income students, we are moving in the right direction.
I recognize it is essential to find ways to ensure that students have
access to the financial assistance they need to attend and complete
college. The cost of college has risen dramatically. We saw the figures
earlier. At

[[Page S9445]]

the same time, the need for a college education has never been greater.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the investment our students
and families make in time and money is a good one and that they are
confident that there will be the financial aid to assist continued
access to college education.
We believe students benefit from competition in the student loan
programs, both within the FFEL program and between the FFEL and Direct
Loan Programs. It is important to support both programs to ensure that
the needs of all students are well served.
I think many of us agree that if there is excess in the system we
should eliminate it. The key question is how much excess there is and
how to eliminate it. There are no perfect answers to those questions.
This bill is one answer. Do we all agree? No. But we need to provide
students and parents assurance that they are receiving sound, honest
advice about their student loans in order to make informed decisions
about their futures.
This bill continues to recognize the unique role that our not-for-
profit lenders have in providing information to students and their
families. They conduct outreach to make college possible and assist in
debt management and default prevention.
Not-for-profits focus on communities and serve students locally. I am
pleased we are able to continue to acknowledge the important
contribution these entities make. We have reached a good balance in the
reconciliation bill, reducing the subsidy to for-profit lenders by 50
basis points, reducing the subsidy to nonprofit lenders by 35 basis
points, and reinvesting those savings in need-based grant aid to
students.
Providing additional need-based grant aid is a critical component of
increasing access and affordability. I am pleased this bill does this
by providing additional grant funds to Pell-eligible students over and
above the increased maximum Pell grant award that is included in the
reauthorization bill. I wish to emphasize again, that this is in the
reauthorization bill, so we cannot just do a part of this puzzle.
By increasing the income protection allowance, we have increased the
ability of working students to receive Pell grants, which is critically
important as the student population in our colleges becomes more
nontraditional.
In addition, I think there needs to be in the future some way that we
build in an incentive for students to do better in high school, in
particular wiping out that wasted senior year. The incentive of Pell
grants can be effective in moving students to college with higher
levels of achievement.
Higher education is the on-ramp to success in the global economy. It
is our responsibility to make sure everyone can access that on-ramp and
reach their goals. The choice of whether to pursue a postsecondary
education is no longer an option. College or some kind of nationally
recognized skill certification is needed. We need to make sure
individuals have all the tools to understand their choices and shape
their future.
Let me again remind you, we do not have the whole pie before us
today. We are only talking about the little red sliver there. That
slice of the pie. We have to do the whole thing. We will be leaving
behind students if we do not consider the entire scope of the Higher
Education Act, rather than the narrowly focused slice contained in this
bill, and those programs that reach students and help them to persist
in attaining a college degree.
By not considering the entirety of the Higher Education Act, we are
forsaking quality in the Federal student loan programs by only cutting
their bottom line. We will not provide the disclosure and information
students and their families need to make informed financial decisions
that will have a significant future impact.
Finally, reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, the big part of the
pie, is critical to the success of what is the reconciliation bill, as
it contains the programs that serve as the foundation for student aid.
I supported reporting both bills out of committee. I did so with the
expectation that they would be considered together as a whole by the
Senate.
I hope the Senate Democratic leadership will provide us with the
opportunity to have an open and full debate on all aspects of the
Higher Education Act immediately following reconciliation. Both pieces
are essential. There is no reason we cannot debate them and finish them
now. I know there is huge bipartisan desire to get both of them done.
Since the other one is the bigger part of the pie, probably even more
interest in getting the other one done. But they have to go together.
One does not work without the other.
I will continue to work with Chairman Kennedy and my colleagues on my
side of the aisle to address this concern. I hope people will show up
with amendments, if they have amendments, so we can get them debated.
There is a 20-hour limit on debate. There is no limit on the vote-arama
that can happen at the end. But it is not very satisfying to have a
vote-arama with no discussion and just a quick vote on the proposals
that are out there.
So I hope people will bring their proposals down. I hope there is a
limited number of them so we can condense the amount of time we debate
the reconciliation and get to the bigger part of the pie slice and get
it wrapped up this week too.
Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership and bipartisanship in
getting us here and his willingness to work all the parts of the pie so
we can provide the quality of education and the access our students
deserve.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak, first, in favor of the
legislation Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have brought to the Senate
floor and also to speak in opposition to an amendment I understand is
going to be offered to this bill at some point in the proceedings.
But let me begin by congratulating Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi
for their good work. This is a very major step forward in providing the
resources young people in this country, not just young people but all
Americans, need in order to pursue postsecondary education.
It is a very major step forward. I am proud to be a supporter of this
legislation and proud to be part of the committee that Senator Kennedy
and Senator Enzi chair and are the ranking member of.
We all know the costs of going to college have skyrocketed in recent
years. We have seen a 35-percent jump in tuition, adjusted average
tuition and fees, for instate students at public colleges and
universities since the 2001-2002 school year.
This 35-percent increase represents the largest increase in any 5-
year period since the Government has been keeping track of these
figures. This year alone, the cost of going to college is 6.3 percent
higher than it was last year, averaging $12,796, including room and
board in our schools.
At the same time, we are seeing increased competition among colleges
and universities for the highest scoring students. These students
command high tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit
scholarships. As a result, there is a smaller proportion of financial
aid budgets available for low-income students at colleges with rising
tuitions.
Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise the
amount of Pell grant scholarships for needy students. Congress finally
did increase Pell grants this year for the first time in many years.
Ten years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered more than 50 percent of
the cost of tuition and fees and room and board at a public 4-year
college.
Last year, the maximum Pell grant covered only 35 percent of those
costs. I have a chart I wish to show to make that point. This chart is
entitled, ``The Gap Between Grant Aid and Cost of Attendance to
Increase.''
You can see the cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is the
red column, for each of those years starting with the 2001-2002 school
year and ending with the 2006-2007 school year.
So the red column is the cost of attendance, and the white column is
the maximum Pell grant. You can see it has been virtually stagnant
during this same period. As the chart demonstrates, the gap between
grant aid that is available to low-income students and what it costs to
go to college has increased very substantially since 2001.

[[Page S9446]]

In the 2006-2007 school year, that is the school year that we just
completed, the average student came up short by almost $9,000. I submit
it is a disgrace for us nationally each year to allow hundreds of
thousands of students who are prepared to attend 4-year colleges to
fail to do so because of the inability to deal with the financial
barriers they face. More and more students increasingly rely on loans
to finance their education. We have seen a significant increase in the
amount of student debt in this country.
Let me show another chart. ``Students Are Borrowing More,'' is the
title of this chart. And then the subtitle is: ``From 1993 to 2004, the
average amount of total student loan debt for 4-year college graduates
has more than doubled.''
In 1993, you can see the figure in this column, $9,250, that is the
average student debt at the end of a 4-year college. In 2004, the
average debt for a student who finishes a 4-year college and graduates
is over $19,000. This chart demonstrates, I think very clearly, we have
students graduating with too much student loan debt.
In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of
college with more than $16,000 of debt. The good news is the underlying
bill, that is, the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, will actually
increase student aid by about $17.3 billion over the next 5 years.
Most importantly, this very significant increase does not add to our
national debt. It is paid for by cutting excessive Federal subsidies to
lenders who are participating in the student loan program.
I have one more chart I wish to use to make a point. This chart is
called, ``The Senate Proposal Increases Grant Aid for Students.'' This
chart demonstrates the bill substantially increases Pell grants to
$5,100 this next year and to $5,400 by 2011.
Under the proposal, the maximum Pell grant would increase by $790
next year alone. In addition, the bill will simplify the financial aid
process for low-income students by increasing the income level at which
a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant. Also,
it will protect working students, increasing the amount of student
income that is sheltered from the financial aid process.
This new student aid package could mean as much as $177 million in
new grant aid for students in my State of New Mexico alone over the
next 5 years. This increase would mean almost $41 million for students
attending the University of New Mexico during this next 5-year period;
almost $44 million for students attending New Mexico State University;
$15 million for students attending Eastern New Mexico University; more
than $6 million for students attending Western New Mexico University;
and more than $5 million for students attending New Mexico Highlands
University.
The bill also would cap Federal student loan payments at 15 percent
of a borrower's discretionary income. This would bring needed relief to
students who do have excessive debt. In addition, the bill advances a
critical policy objective, that is, to incentivize students to pursue
careers in public service.
The bill would forgive the debt of borrowers who work in public
service careers, careers such as nursing and teaching and law
enforcement, for a 10-year period. So the package is vital to the
students in my State of New Mexico, to their families, and to our
economy.
Unfortunately, the amendment that I understand is going to be
proposed to this bill is an amendment that Senators Nelson of Nebraska
and Burr of North Carolina will offer. This amendment would strip $3
billion from the student aid package and put these critical Federal
dollars into the wallet of the large for-profit lenders.
Let me state for the record I strongly support the Federal Family
Education Loan Program. This is also known as the FFEL Program.

Most Senators understand this program is essential to helping so many
students and their families gain access to college. Frankly, you don't
know how many of New Mexico's students would be able to gain access to
college without this program.
The underlying bill, however, recognizes, as did the President in his
fiscal year 2008 budget, that FFEL lenders are very heavily subsidized
by the American taxpayer. Currently, these lenders are guaranteed a
specified interest rate by law regardless of what the student borrower
pays.
This rate is 2.34 percent higher than commercial paper. The President
proposed to reduce the subsidy by one-half of a percent, by 50 basis
points. Similarly, the underlying bill reduces the subsidy by half of a
percent for most of these lenders.
The main discrepancy, however, is the underlying bill recognizes the
critical role many of our State and private nonprofit lenders play in
administering the FFEL Program, and it imposes a smaller reduction on
them. I believe this is a fair and an equitable approach.
In my State, we have such a program. New Mexico Student Loans is a
private, nonprofit corporation. It was created by the New Mexico State
Legislature in 1981, to provide loans and educational programs and
systems to New Mexico students and families, ensuring the broadest
possible access to higher education for citizens of our State.
Nonprofit lenders, such as New Mexico Student Loans, are limited by
law in how they can use their revenues. If they earn more than the
funds have cost them, they either have to use that revenue to reduce
the cost of loans to students or send that funding back to the U.S.
Treasury. The savings realized by nonprofits are returned to the
students through zero-fee loans, through reduced interest rates,
through principal forgiveness, for ontime payments, and specialized
reduced interest rates and loan forgiveness programs for teachers and
nurses and doctors.
In New Mexico alone, $8.6 million was returned to the borrowers
through borrower benefits and loan forgiveness in 2006. For-profit
lenders, on the other hand, returned these earnings not to the
students, not to the borrowers but instead to their own shareholders.
For example, New Mexico Student Loans charges 0 percent interest for
teachers if they stay and teach in New Mexico; it charges 0 percent
interest for nurses and doctors who practice in our State.
These programs are necessary to fill critical workforce shortages in
my State. Unfortunately, the Nelson-Burr amendment would eliminate the
distinction between the nonprofit lenders and the for-profit lenders,
many of them very large organizations such as Sallie Mae, Nelnet, Bank
of America, Wachovia, and JPMorgan Chase.
It would eliminate that distinction between the nonprofits and the
for-profits by lowering the subsidy cut for the for-profit lenders to
the same rate we are providing for nonprofits.
The proponents of the amendments argue this amendment is about
increasing student choice and protecting the student loan program. I
respectfully disagree with that argument. To the contrary, the
amendment would do nothing to increase student choice; rather it would
provide a significantly greater competitive advantage to big banks and
lenders, thereby forcing smaller lenders out of business.
Unfortunately, this amendment which is anticipated will be offered,
the Nelson-Burr amendment, would literally strip $3 billion from the
funds available for low-income students and significantly hinder the
ability of many nonprofit lenders to provide critical student services
and benefits.
I am afraid the amendment is nothing more than an attempt to protect
the huge profits of large lenders and further enrich their shareholders
at the expense of low-income students and the American taxpayers. I
urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment if it is offered, as I
understand it will be.
To conclude, I commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their
leadership in developing this legislation and bringing it to the
Senate. I hope very much we can move ahead with it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes off the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think all of us understand that both
for the sake of our country and for the millions of young people in our
country, we need fundamental changes in

[[Page S9447]]

the way we do higher education in America.
If we are going to be effectively competitive in a global economy, we
need the best educated, the best trained workforce in the world. We
need to capitalize on the intellectual potential of all of our people.
It is a loss to our Nation and to the individual if there are people in
our country who do not get the education they need to do what they are
potentially able to do as American citizens.
I do not have to tell you or the people of our country that in
America today, we have some very serious problems in terms of higher
education. In my State of Vermont and all across this country, the cost
of higher education is soaring, and what that means is that in order to
send young people to college, family members to college, people are
going deeply in debt, coming out of college, depending on their income,
$20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 in debt, which has an immediate
impact on the career choice that many young people are making.
If one comes out of college $50,000 in debt, if one comes out of
graduate school $100,000 in debt, what they are going to do is get a
job which makes them a lot of money to pay off that debt rather than go
into the profession that they might otherwise have wanted to go into.
That is bad for the individual, and that is bad for our country.
Let me be very clear in congratulating Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi,
and other people on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee on which I sit. My assistant, Dr. Huck Gutman, worked very
hard in crafting a significant improvement in what we have seen in
recent years in terms of higher education, most notably very
significant expansion and improvement in the Pell Grant Program.
We are making progress in beginning to deal with the very serious
problems of higher education and how Americans can afford higher
education. But also let me be very clear, and I don't know how many
other Members of the Senate will agree with me, while we are making
real progress, we have a very long way to go.
When I talk with young people in the State of Vermont about higher
education, I ask them how many young people their age who are going to
college in Germany or in Europe or even in Canada incur the kind of
debts they have and will incur when they get out of school.
Many young people in America are surprised to learn that in Germany,
in other European countries, college education is virtually free. It is
funded by the government. Frankly, I think that is a good idea. We
should look at education in general, and higher education, as an
investment in America with an understanding that if many young people
are not able to get the education they need, our country loses in terms
of its productivity; that it is a waste unimaginable, both for the
individual and for our society.
If, as currently is the case, for the first time in modern American
history, hundreds of thousands of low-income young Americans are
saying: No, I don't want to go to college, I don't want to come out
$50,000 in debt, think of what we are losing as a nation, not to
mention the economic lost opportunities for those individuals.
Let me be very clear. Before we give hundreds and hundreds of
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent, before
we invest in weapons systems that are obsolete, it makes a lot more
sense to me that we tell every family in America that a college
education and graduate school are going to be there for them if they
are prepared to work hard and if they have the ability, they will not
be denied that opportunity because their family does not have a lot of
money.
Let me also say I have serious concerns that at a time when we
desperately need more physicians to bolster our health care system,
when we need more nurses, when we need more dentists, it is absurd that
people in the medical profession and in other professions are coming
out deeply in debt, which also impacts their career choices.
We need, for example, primary health care physicians in Vermont. All
over rural America, physicians are choosing other specialities because
they can make more money.
To my mind, what we have to say in America, if we are serious about
health care, if we are serious about law enforcement, if we are serious
about making sure that low-income people have the public defenders they
need, that Legal Aid has the lawyers they need, we have to do
everything we can to say that anybody in this country who has the
ability, is prepared to work hard, should be able to get a higher
education regardless of their income and not have to come out of school
deeply in debt. As a nation, we should look at that as an investment in
the same way we look at many other types of investments.
This bill is a good step forward, but in my view, over the years as
we fight to change national priorities, one of those priorities should
be that every young person, the kids in the fourth and fifth grade know
if they do their work seriously, they will be able to get a higher
education; they will be able to make it to the middle class regardless
of the economic situations of their families.
The cost of college in the last 20 years has tripled, but Federal
financial aid has not kept up. Yes, we have given tax breaks to
billionaires, but, no, we have not increased Pell grants and other
sources of financial aid. I am very happy the legislation we are
debating today will make college more affordable by raising the maximum
Pell grant to $5,100 next year and increasing to $5,400 by 2011. That
is a significant change and a significant step forward in funding
higher education.
In Vermont, what we have seen is that between the 2000 and 2001 and
2005 and 2006 school years, the cost of attendance, including tuition,
fees, and room and board, at 4-year public colleges in Vermont
increased by 29 percent, from $12,836 to $16,571. Certainly, these Pell
grants will mean a lot to the families in the State of Vermont.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the situation is even worse for those
people who go to graduate school. Just an example: Students who attend
the very fine Vermont Law School in South Royalton, VT, graduate, if
one can believe this, on average $100,000 in debt. If they pay this
debt off over 30 years, it will mean they will be paying $900 a month
toward their debt for 30 years. If anyone doesn't think that impacts
career choices, it certainly does.

This bill has a number of very important provisions. Most
importantly, it increases Pell grants and it says we have to make it
easier for families in our country to afford college.
It also provides a very important provision regarding loan
forgiveness. This is something I believe in very strongly. We have
worked very hard on this provision with Senator Kennedy and others.
What this is about is that in this legislation, there are loan
forgiveness provisions for those people who go into public service. We
all know if you want to make a whole lot of money, you go to some large
company and make a lot of money. You may be one of the lucky ones
making millions and millions of dollars a year. What happens if you
want to go into law enforcement? What happens if you want to be a
teacher who works with disabled kids? What happens if you want to be a
Head Start teacher or do the extraordinarily important work of early
childhood education, which is some of the most important work being
done in America because it enormously influences what kind of an adult
a young person will become. What happens if you want to do that?
In my State of Vermont, you can work in childcare and make $9 an
hour, often without benefits. If you are coming out of school $50,000
in debt, you are not going to gravitate toward a job in which you make
$9 an hour or $10 an hour because after you pay off your student loan,
you are not going to have a whole lot to live on because of the low
salaries and low wages those jobs involve.
What this legislation does, very appropriately--it is a good start;
we have to go further--it says to the young people of this country that
public service is an important calling. We want you to go out and work
to be teachers, to be in law enforcement, to work in legal aid, to work
as a public defender, to work in environmental protection, to work in a
variety of areas that are extraordinarily important for our country and
for our society.
Many of those jobs do not pay a whole lot of money. That is the
reality. But we want you to be involved in

[[Page S9448]]

those jobs, to work in those jobs, and that means we are going to
encourage you to do that by forgiving your debt if you do that. That is
one way to help you get involved in those professions.
Some of the professions that would be eligible for this loan
forgiveness are a full-time job in public emergency management,
government, public safety, public law enforcement, public health,
public education, public early childhood education, public childcare,
social work in a public child or family service agency, public services
for individuals with disabilities, public services for the elderly,
public interest legal services, including prosecution or public
defense, public library sciences, public school library sciences, or
other public-school-based services. That is extraordinarily important.
What we have also done in this legislation is we have increased the
eligibility level for people to get Pell grants. That is important
because with the limited amount of money that was previously available,
I suppose appropriately enough most of that money went to those
families that were most in need, and that meant a large number of
families in the middle class or lower middle class were not eligible
for Pell grants. But we have expanded and raised the eligibility level
so that many more families will be eligible.
Mr. President, as I conclude, this legislation is a significant step
forward. I congratulate Senator Kennedy for his leadership, Senator
Enzi, and all of the people on our committee who have worked on this
important issue. But let's not in passing this legislation rest on our
laurels. This is a good start, but we have a long way to go.
My hope is that in the coming years, we will pass legislation which
will have the impact of saying to every young person in America: If you
are in the sixth grade or seventh grade, and if your family does not
have a lot of money, if you study hard, if you do well in school, you
will be able to get all of the education you need so that you can make
it to the middle class, so that you can exercise all of your
intellectual potential, and you can get out of college or get out of
graduate school without being deeply in debt.
Education is not a ``cost.'' Education is an investment. If we are
going to turn this country around and have the kind of health care
system that provides health care to every man, woman, and child as a
right, we need doctors to go into rural America. We need tens and tens
of thousands more nurses. We need dentists. We need all kinds of people
in health care, in law enforcement, in environmental protection working
with our youngest children.
We have to say to any American: We want you to do as well as you can
to get all of the education you can. We are proud of what you are
doing. We see that as an investment in moving this country forward.
Again, I congratulate the leadership of the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee which I am on. I think we have taken a good step
forward. I certainly hope this legislation passes, and I hope we
continue to make substantial progress in the years to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I
use be charged to the bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have a number of our colleagues that
have called and indicated that they want to address these issues, and
we welcome their statements and comments. I want to just mention, as I
will during the course of the afternoon, some of the different
provisions of the legislation.
I know earlier in the day my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi,
outlined some of the provisions in what we call the reauthorization
legislation. I am in strong favor of reauthorizing the Higher Education
Act. We are debating now the issue of loans and financing these
programs, which is extremely important and urgent for students, and
that is why this bill is on this fast track. This bill provides very
important assistance to the neediest students and middle-income
families, and we want that to go into effect as rapidly as possible.
But we are also strongly committed to the other provisions of the
reauthorization legislation that deal with the broader issues on
education.
I am hopeful during the course of the time that we are considering
this current legislation that we will be able to work out a process and
proceed to moving ahead with the reauthorization. The reauthorization,
as has probably been mentioned by my colleague from Wyoming, curtails
sweetheart deals between lenders and colleges which so many American
families have been reading about and hearing about in recent years. It
is an extraordinary scandal where too many of these lenders--and this
has been true in my own State of Massachusetts as well as other parts
of the country--have been involved in sweetheart agreements and
kickbacks, which, obviously, are completely unethical, unacceptable,
and, in some instances, criminal. But we provide provisions to curtail
those kinds of abuses in the reauthorization legislation. We also
simplify what we call FAFSA--the Free Application for Federal Student
Assistance--to make applying for Federal aid easier.
I have here, Mr. President, the current FAFSA form, and any
preliminary view can see that this is enormously extensive, and
extremely difficult, in many instances, to understand and to fill out.
I am enormously grateful, and all of us should be, to our colleague and
friend, Senator Enzi, who by training and profession was an accountant,
and he was willing to take on the task of simplifying this application
to ensure that there was going to be adequate protection in terms of
the public interest and in terms of taxpayer interest, but also made it
understandable and readable. So the reauthorization bill would create
an EZ FAFSA, for the lowest-income students to use immediately, and
would phase out the paper application for all students over a number of
years.
I will show you what has happened and give some of the background. In
2003-2004, about 1.5 million students who were likely eligible for the
Pell grant did not fill out this form. They had such difficulty in
going through it, and too often in the high schools they attended they
didn't have the kind of professional assistance to help those young
people to take advantage of federal student aid. Twenty-eight percent
of the lowest income independent students didn't fill out the FAFSA in
2003-2004, and nearly all would have been eligible for the Pell grant.
So the HELP Committee package shortens the FAFSA for the lowest
income students, and for all students within the next few years. And
the HELP Committee package increases the income level at which students
are automatically eligible for the Pell grant as well.
It might not sound like a very important provision, but this is an
instance where this application is enough to seriously discourage many
young people, particularly those in middle-income and low-income
families, from moving ahead; and, as a result, an important loss to our
country.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Washington is here, a member of
our committee who has been a champion on education--she has been a
school board member, a teacher in her own right, and has been a real
leader on all of our educational issues, and was enormously valuable
and helpful in the development of this legislation--and I am glad to
yield such time as she may use on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank our floor managers, Senator
Kennedy and Senator Enzi, for yielding me time at this point to talk
about the extremely important legislation that we have before us today.
In these days of global competition, a college education is the
gateway to a successful career, to a growing economy, and to a stronger
future for our entire country. Today, we have in the Senate an
opportunity to help more students attend college and to afford a
college education. I am pleased to be here today to speak on the Higher
Education Access Act.

[[Page S9449]]

Mr. President, when I was growing up, my family didn't have a lot.
The only way I was able to attend college was through Pell grants and
student loans. In fact, because of Pell grants and student loans, all
seven kids in my family were able to go to college and to get an
education and to graduate. Today, those seven kids, because of Pell
grants and student loans, have become a school teacher, a lawyer, a
firefighter, a homemaker, a computer programmer, a sports writer, and a
U.S. Senator.
In my book, Mr. President, that was a pretty good investment by our
country. I want to make sure now that students today have the same
opportunities I had growing up. It is important for them as
individuals, and it is critical for our country's future.
In recent years, the deck has become increasingly stacked against our
students. College has become more expensive while some of our large
lenders have taken advantage of students. Those students who are able
to attend college are often graduated and saddled with debt and unable
to have the resources to even buy a car or even think about purchasing
a home. Other graduates can't pursue public service jobs in areas where
our country really needs their help because they can't afford to pay
back their loans on a public service salary.
The bill that is before the Senate this afternoon will begin to turn
the tide back in favor of our students. It will put our students first
and make college more affordable. It will help our recent graduates,
and it will encourage public service.
I also worked on this bill to ensure that military servicemembers get
more time to defer their student loan payments while they are on active
duty, and I was pleased to provide more help for homeless and foster
students who often face unique problems when they try to navigate the
college process.
Before I turn to some of the details in the bill, I want to take a
moment to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in moving these
proposals forward and making sure this bill finally does right by those
who count the most, our students.
First, this bill raises the maximum Pell grant by 25 percent over 4
years to $5,400 per student. That is going to make a real difference
for students in my home State of Washington. In my State of Washington,
in 1986, the maximum Pell grant covered 53 percent of the cost of a
public 4-year college. Today, it only covers 33 percent of those costs.
So those students have gone from having 53 percent of their costs
covered down to 33 percent. By raising the maximum Pell grant, this
bill is going to help students in Washington State and across the
country do what we all want them to do, and that is to go to college.
In Washington State, this bill is going to make another $39.6 million
available in need-based grants next year alone, and over 5 years the
bill will provide an additional $340.6 million for low-income students.
This bill will also ensure that college graduates are not trapped by
high loan payments after college. It will guarantee that borrowers will
not have to pay more than 15 percent of their monthly income in student
loan payments. That will help bring immediate relief to our students
whom we see burdened with these excessive loans.
Another problem with the high student loan debt is that it limits the
career choice of many of our college graduates. Many of them can't
afford to take a job in public service and pay back their loans at the
same time. This bill will help encourage public service by providing
loan forgiveness for graduates who pursue careers in these areas.
As I worked on this bill with my colleagues, I thought it was very
important to help out military servicemembers who have student loans. I
have worked very hard to allow those who are serving in combat or
national emergencies to defer their student loan payments during their
deployments and as they transition out of service. Today, under current
law, it limits how long servicemembers can defer their payments to only
3 years.
As many of us know, our military members have been on active duty
today much longer than that. This bill makes a critical step forward in
lifting that 3-year limit and will help make more of our servicemembers
eligible. Those who are serving our country have enough to worry about.
Financial challenges and worrying about paying back their student loans
should not be something they have to worry about as they serve overseas
and transition back here to home.
I was also pleased to help improve college access for our homeless
and foster students. Those students who are homeless or come from
foster homes face tremendous barriers in their education, especially
those who do not have a parent or guardian who are able to help guide
them through the process. In this bill, I worked to help simplify the
student aid application process and made homeless and foster students
eligible for higher levels of assistance.
Before I conclude, I do wish to say there is one amendment that may
come on this bill about which I am very concerned, and that is because
it would tear through this bill and undermine all the progress we have
worked so hard to make for our students. That is an amendment that
allows higher subsidies for some lenders, including lenders who acted
so irresponsibly in the recent student loan scandals. That amendment is
going to take money away from our students and take money away from the
Pell grants in this bill.
With this bill, we are trying to help more students afford college.
The amendment would take money away from our students and away from
Pell grants and I do not see any reason why we should change this bill
and help fewer students and put that money back into the pockets of
lenders. As we move through this bill, I hope we will reject efforts
that hurt students so we can pass this strong and effective student aid
legislation.
To me, it is simple. If we want our economy to grow, if we want our
people to succeed, if we want our country to be strong, we have to help
more students today get a college education. This bill that is before
the Senate will do that. I urge all our colleagues to support this bill
in the strongest measure as it has been brought forward to us by
Senator Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I wish to underline three very important provisions the
Senator from Washington took a particular interest in, beyond the other
provisions on the legislation. She mentioned these in her excellent
comments, but I think it is worthwhile to take a moment to emphasize
them. I refer to those provisions dealing with homeless and foster
children as well as those in the military. Under the provisions the
Senator from Washington championed, homeless children and foster
children, too often left behind, have enormous challenges. But we
know--we have all heard these extraordinary stories of the incredible
drive that so many of these young people have, even while facing
extraordinary challenges. Under the provisions on which she worked
tirelessly, the bill will establish these children as independent
students--obviously, they have to have the academic qualifications to
be able to gain entry into the schools, private or public
institutions--but they will be considered what we call independent
students. This means they will be able to get some very small but
important additional help and assistance that may be a lifeline to
assist them and facilitate their admittance into schools and colleges;
am I correct? I'm so pleased the Senator mentioned these two provisions
because they are small items in a large piece of legislation, but I
think they are extremely important.
My colleague from Washington also mentioned the provisions dealing
with those individuals who are in the military, to permit them to have
a respite from repayment while they are on active duty service, serving
our country. It seems they have challenges enough. They obviously will
meet their responsibilities when they are no longer on active duty. But
it seems to me the help that is being provided for those in the service
is critical, and so, if the Senator will comment again on the
difference these provisions can make to servicemembers, and those
provisions to homeless children and foster children, I think it will be
useful for our colleagues to know about.

[[Page S9450]]

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question. I actually became
interested in the issue of homeless children, foster children many
years ago when I served in our State legislature and found out, quite
by accident, that students in our State were being denied access to
public schools simply because they didn't have an address. I never
thought about it before. Everybody goes and their mom registers them
for school and they write their address down and they register and
start school with a big smile on their face. In my home State many
years ago, not if you were a homeless student. So I passed legislation
in our State legislature to make sure that students who did not have an
address would be allowed access to any school to which they applied.
I followed that throughout my career and met amazing young people who
have tremendous capabilities who, through circumstances that had
nothing to do with them, were either homeless or were foster children.
A young man I worked with a few years ago had been in over 80 foster
homes from the time he was young until he was 18. Once they turn 18,
these foster students all of a sudden become independent, and they do
not have a parent to take them off to college on that first day that is
so important or to send them a check once in a while to help them with
their books or even to help them navigate through the paperwork that is
required when you try to apply for financial aid.
With the help of Senator Kennedy and others on our committee, we put
provisions in this bill, only a few sentences but very significant,
helping to simplify the student aid application process for our
homeless students and to help both the homeless and foster students be
eligible for higher levels of assistance because they do not have
anyone to rely on at home once they head off to college.
This is an important investment that will pay off in many ways, I
believe, in the future, and give some hope to some young people who
truly, in our country today, deserve it.
On the other issue the Senator from Massachusetts talked about, I,
similar to many Senators, go home and talk to young men and women who
are either going off to war in Iraq or Afghanistan or around the globe
or who have returned recently. I tell you, one of the things they
constantly struggle with is the issue of paying back their student
loans. Similar to many young people today, they have gone to college
maybe for a year or two, maybe graduated with a very high student loan
they are required to pay back. But they are deployed over to Iraq,
trying to manage the paperwork of that or pay for it on a military
salary. It is impossible.
Along with our colleagues on the committee--I see Senator Clinton on
the floor today too--we put in a provision to make sure that when our
men and women are serving overseas, they not have to worry about paying
back student loans. I think that is the least of what we should be
doing for those men and women we have asked to serve this country.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for working with us on these
two provisions and tell all our colleagues, we have an obligation in
this country to the next generation. If you talk to anyone who is
struggling through school today or through college or is a graduate,
they will tell you the No. 1 worry they have on their mind is paying
back that student loan.
We want them to be able to go out and get a job and give back to our
economy, purchase a home, be able to invest in themselves and their
future. Yet they are worrying about paying back student loans. This is
a significant step forward, making sure the next generation has what
this generation had and generations have had before them, and that is
focusing on hope and opportunity and not on debt and long-term concerns
about being able to pay that back.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and appreciate his work on
this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield? I see the Senator from New
York here. The result of the good Senator's life story, talking about
the members of her family--the history of the GI bill is that for every
dollar the Federal Government actually invested, $7 was returned. We
are reminded again, this is not legislation that is going to cost the
taxpayer a nickel and it is going to increase opportunity and hope,
particularly for homeless children and foster children, because it will
make them eligible for additional help and assistance which will
effectively enhance their opportunity to go to college, and help reduce
their debt after they get out of school. It is opening up opportunity.
I again commend the Senator from Washington. She has been a leader on
the issue of veterans and, as all of us remember so clearly in the wake
of the Walter Reed scandal, her very clear and powerful voice, both
before that and afterward, as a voice for those families and the
service men and women. This is a practical and important provision in
this reconciliation bill that will make a big difference to our service
men and women and to their families. I thank her very much for all of
her good work.
I see the Senator from New York. I thank her for her extraordinary
contribution in the development of this legislation. Senator Clinton
has been a leader, in terms of understanding some of the ethical
challenges that existed in the loan program and helping fashion some of
the most important provisions in this legislation that are going to
ensure that the resources which are out there, that are meant to go to
students, go to students. I thank her for her extraordinary work in
that area. Also, Senator Clinton has been a leader in developing
provisions to support and assist nontraditional students, part-time
students, and single mothers. They will have access to the assistance
they need to complete their education.
We have included in here, at her strong suggestion, the year-round
provisions for the Pell Grant Program. We are making it available all
year round because of the changing educational system and process. I
thank her also for her work on the provisions that are enormously
important to so many students and families--that is, helping
individuals who work in order to try to offset some of their education
costs. They get caught in this trap where they have higher income and
therefore less help and assistance. This legislation increases the
amount of income that is sheltered from the financial aid process in
order to protect working students, and to reward their hard work.
The good Senator was enormously creative and imaginative helping us
deal with that situation. The young people of the country will be very
grateful and appreciative for her strong leadership and good work.
I yield to her such time on the bill as she might use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to come to the floor and
talk about this extremely important legislation. I thank our leader, a
great advocate on behalf of education, the chairman of the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Kennedy.
This bill represents a tremendous victory for students, for their
families, for higher education, for the future of the American economy,
for millions of families who still struggle to pay for college and for
millions of young people who will not only carry from their education a
degree, but, on average, more student debt than any graduates who came
before them.
Most of all, this bill is a victory for that young boy or girl who is
thriving in school, who might one day wish to attend college and
fulfill his or her God-given potential but worries that such a wish is
beyond his or her reach; that it is too expensive to realize.
I commend the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for
the great work that has been done bringing this bill to the floor. I
was thrilled with many of the provisions, some of which I have worked
on ever since I came to the Senate, particularly focusing on
nontraditional students who more and more are becoming the norm--older
students, married students, single-parent students--who often have
found there were barriers to their accessing whatever help was
available from the Federal Government programs to continue their
education.
I am also personally thrilled at what we have done for homeless and
foster youth. This has been a passion of mine, going back to my years
as a law student, when I first started representing

[[Page S9451]]

abused and neglected children, children who ended up in the foster care
system, all the way through my time in the White House, where we were
instrumental in working with the Congress in passing landmark
legislation to make adoption easier, to try to make the foster care
system more responsive to the needs of the child and to accelerate
decisions being made as to whether a child would ever realistically be
able to return to his or her biological family; to my years in the
Senate, where we have continued to try to help students who are in the
foster care system as they age out.

As Senator Murray pointed out, when you turn 18 or graduate from high
school, whichever comes first, still in many States in our country, you
are no longer eligible for the foster care system. What that has meant
is that a social worker usually shows up at the foster home with a big
black garbage bag and tells the young man or woman to put his or her
belongings into that bag because they are no longer able to live in a
foster home with State support. Many young people whom I have been
privileged to know, some of whom have interned for me, worked for me in
my office here or in my office in the White House, they were the lucky
ones. They had the right combination of personal resilience and ability
combined with mentoring and some breaks along the way that enabled them
to complete high school and often go to college at great cost.
Many of them had nowhere to go during summer vacations or
Thanksgiving or Christmas or any other break in the academic schedule.
Some of them hid themselves in the dorm. Some of them stayed in bus
stations or airports. Some of them prevailed upon a friendly professor
or fellow student to take them in.
By recognizing the special needs of these special students, we do a
very important piece of legislative business that has a big heart in
it. I thank my colleagues who worked with me and others to make this
happen.
When we think about the importance of college, it is hard to grasp
the fact that most young people in our country will not go to college
and graduate. The college-going rate has been pretty stagnant now for
about 20 or 30 years. As the cost of higher education has gone up, it
has become even more difficult for young people to work their way
through, to afford the increases in tuition and room and board. But the
investment in college still remains a very good one.
Each additional year of education after high school increases an
individual's income by 5 percent to 15 percent. A college degree will
enable an individual to earn close to $1 million more in the course of
a life's work than those who have only a high school diploma.
It is no coincidence that the rise of the American middle class
coincided with the explosion of college attendance. It unlocks economic
potential, and it gives students access to the American dream--to a
career and a life that they, then, can build.
But as I say, unfortunately in the past 25 years, the cost of college
has risen faster than inflation. College costs have tripled over the
past 20 years and, as the costs spiral upward, so has the size of the
loans and the loan payments that are necessary. Students who borrow,
take out loans averaging $15,500 while attending public colleges and
universities and almost $20,000 while attending private schools, twice
what they would have borrowed 10 years ago.
At New York University in Manhattan, 60 percent of students graduate
owing an average of $27,639. At Idaho State University, 69 percent of
students graduate owing an average of $29,467. At the University of
Miami in Florida, whose president served with such distinction in this
town as the Secretary of Health and Human Services for 8 years, 58
percent of the students graduate owing an average of $31,723.
This debt limits students' options and damages their financial
futures. It is a chain around their ankles as they end their education
and go out into the world of work.
With this reconciliation bill, we are cutting that chain. This bill
will provide $17.3 billion in student aid, the largest increase in
student aid in more than a decade.
It will provide this aid without raising Federal taxes one dime.
First, the higher education reconciliation bill increases the
purchasing power of the Pell grants which help the lowest income
students offset the cost of college. It is no secret to anyone in this
Chamber that the purchasing power of the Pell grants has declined
dramatically, from nearly 60 percent of the cost of a public school 20
years ago, to only 36 percent today.
This legislation provides the largest Pell grant increases in more
than a decade, increasing maximum Pell grants to $5,100 immediately,
and to $5,400 by 2011.
Now, take my State, for example. This initial boost will provide over
$200 million in increased grant aid to New York students for the 2007-
2008 school year alone, and $1.7 billion by 2013. The legislation also
raises the income cutoff for Pell grants from $20,000 to $30,000,
making many more students from many more families eligible to receive
Pell grants.
Second, I am very pleased that the Higher Education Reconciliation
Act tackles an issue addressed in legislation I sponsored in the last
Congress called the Student Borrowers Bill of Rights. It provides
protection for student borrowers while they repay their loans. It does
so by capping monthly loan payments at 15 percent of the borrower's
discretionary income and provides several important protections to
members of the Armed Forces and public service employees during
repayment.
This is critical to helping students manage their debt, essentially
in the first few years after they graduate. Third, I am pleased the
reconciliation bill also creates a new loan forgiveness plan through
the direct loan program for public service employees. I hear from many
students in New York and around the country who would love to be
teachers or police officers or firefighters or nurses or social workers
or public defenders, but sadly they are so saddled with debt, that such
careers in the public arena seem like an impossibility for them. That
is the wrong policy.
We want to encourage more young people to go into public service. Our
policies should respect that choice, not denigrate it. Under the loan
forgiveness program, the remaining loan balance on a loan is forgiven
for a borrower who has been employed in a public sector job and making
payments on the loan for 10 years. These jobs are essential to the
communities they serve.
I believe this program will encourage public service and provide an
incentive for borrowers to pursue low-paying, perhaps, but vital
professions to our country. When I was getting ready to go to college
many years ago, my father, who was a small businessman, a very small
business, said he had saved enough money for me to go to college, and
he said, I will pay tuition, room and board, but if I wanted to buy a
book, I had to earn the money. That was fine because I worked ever
since I was 13 in the summer and during vacations. So I worked my way
through college with my family's help. And when I graduated I decided I
wanted to go to law school. I told my father that. He said: That is not
part of the bargain. If you want to go to law school, you have to pay
for it yourself.
So I got a little scholarship, and I continued to work year-round,
and I borrowed money directly from the Federal Government, the National
Defense Education Act, something which many of us in this Chamber took
advantage of when we were pursuing our education.
The interest rate was very low. The repayment schedule was something
I could handle. I did not have to worry about anyone raising the rate
on me or changing the terms. I worked first for the Children's Defense
Fund as a young lawyer, and then in public service here in Washington,
working for the Congress, and then teaching law at the University of
Arkansas and running a legal aid clinic.
During all of those years when I was doing public service and
academic work, I could handle what my repayment obligations were. I
want that available for young people today. I think it is so important,
especially as we look at what is happening in Government service and
other public service professions, to see how there is an

[[Page S9452]]

aging going on that is going to eventually result in the loss of a lot
of very experienced people.
You know, I spent Monday at Binghamton University in New York where
we have the only Ph.D. program in rural nursing. I met at the nursing
faculty with some of the nursing students. It is a wonderful program.
But, you know, the average age of a nurse in America is over 45. The
average age of a nursing faculty member is 54. We have many people who
want to go to nursing school, and we do not have places for them, even
though they are qualified. We have a lot of others who worry about how
they can pay for their education.
You could replicate that across every single profession that really
falls into the service profession, the caring professions, where we are
seeing shortages of people because there is a disconnect between the
salary they are paid and the debt they have to incur in order to get
the credentials to be able to perform the public service.
So I believe in the long run this increase in student aid will pay
for itself. Not only do college graduates earn more and are therefore
able to pay back the society, but they are less likely to draw on
public resources, and they are much more likely to make a contribution.
This bill has had great bipartisan support. I am very proud to have
worked on it and to see the positive changes that it includes. Clearly,
this is something that I hope we will be able to pass by acclimation. I
hope that after the difficulties and the debate and the disagreement of
the last week over the very difficult issue of Iraq, I hope we will
come together around a fundamental American value; namely, education.
We have the best higher education system in the world. It is a system
filled with second chances for people who decide at the age of 18 or 80
they want to pursue an education in a community college or a technical
college or a 4-year college or a university. This is one of the really
important aspects of American society, and it is instrumental to the
further development of our economy and the hopes of a return to shared
prosperity for our people.
I urge all of our colleagues to come together to support this higher
education reconciliation bill, to make higher education more
affordable. It is good social policy. It is good economic policy. It is
certainly good budgetary policy. It makes a big difference to millions
and millions of hard-working young people and their families.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
proceed as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iraq

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, like all of the others, I was here
throughout the night. I was happy to do that because I strongly
supported the Levin-Reed amendment. But I had hoped that the filibuster
would be ended on this vital piece of legislation.
I was 1 of 23 Senators who voted against going to war in Iraq. The
distinguished Presiding Officer, my Senate partner from Vermont, voted
a similar way in the other body.
Mr. President, the President's Iraq strategy has been a disaster. It
was born of deception, fueled by incompetence, and pursued through
arrogance and stubbornness.
This strategy has not made us safer. It has undermined the
international credibility that took generations of Americans' sacrifice
to build; it has squandered billions of hard-earned tax dollars that
would have been better used in directly countering terrorists; it has
skewed our priorities here at home; it has weakened our military
readiness; and it has created an open sore in an already volatile
Middle East.
It is time to extricate our troops from Iraq's civil war and let the
Iraqis and their regional neighbors forge their own political
settlement.
As many predicted, the security situation in Iraq has not appreciably
improved despite the President's surge strategy.
The ongoing violence comes from a deadly brew of suicide bombings,
intra-ethnic conflict, and out-of-control militias--all unleashed by
the President's poorly planned invasion and occupation of the country.
Our troops can provide some semblance of security in limited areas
for limited periods of time. But this fleeting security largely just
shifts the focal points of violence, and it comes at the horrific price
of the lives and limbs of still more of our soldiers and marines killed
and maimed every day in roadside bomb attacks and ambushes.
The issue is not whether our troops can gain control of a few city
blocks but whether there is any way that we can stop Iraq's civil war.
I challenge anyone to say how we can do that, when the Iraqis do not
yet have the political will to do it themselves.
The Iraqi Army is fraught with ethnic divisions and few Iraqi units
are capable of fighting successfully on their own.
As others have pointed out, it often appears the Shiite-dominated
Iraqi Army is simply out to settle scores with the Sunnis who ruled
Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The unfortunate truth is that the Iraqi Army
cannot bring security now, and it is unlikely to be able to in the
coming years without overwhelming, side-by-side support and sacrifice
of American soldiers.
That leaves political reconciliation, and we all know where that
stands. The Iraqis are no closer to an oil revenue-sharing agreement,
no closer to an acceptable political arrangement, and no closer to a
functioning government that serves all Iraqis. Our presence has become
an excuse for inaction. Why should Shiites sacrifice when they have
American forces to die for them?
Why should the Kurds be more conciliatory when they think we will
protect them forever? Why should the Sunnis reconcile among themselves
when they can fight Americans together?
Rory Stewart, an insightful author and observer of the Middle East,
recently commented that our presence in Iraq--is to use his phrase--
``infantilizing Iraqi politics,'' making the Iraqis completely
incapable of finding their own way.
As our troops are withdrawing, we should make a concerted diplomatic
push, bringing together representatives of Iraq's Government and Iraq's
neighbors.
They would have little choice but to recognize that without the U.S.
military's constant presence, they have to make some kind of
accommodation among themselves.
That is what the Levin-Reed and the Feingold-Reid-Leahy amendments
would accomplish.
Based closely on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, both
amendments would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq to
commence within 120 days.
By springtime of next year, only a small number of troops necessary
for limited counter terrorism, force protection, and training purposes
would remain in the country.
These amendments would effectively end the U.S. military presence in
Iraq as we know it.
The White House wants to wait to until September, when General
Petraeus will report on progress from the surge. Yet it is folly to
wait when we already know what the answer will be.
We are going to hear words like: The situation is still challenging,
but we are making progress. We are going to get a report like the
glossy one released last week, which said the Iraqis are making
progress in some areas, as if that is enough reason to continue further
still down the wrong road.
We can already see the way the review is predetermined in statements
of General Petraeus's deputies.
General Odierno told reporters a couple of months ago that the
current surge level of U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq through next
year. Major General Lynch, the commander of the southern portion of
Baghdad, echoed that view only yesterday.
We in Congress have a constitutional responsibility to act now.

[[Page S9453]]

If we put off developing a consensus plan for the redeployment of
U.S. forces, more of our troops will be needlessly killed and wounded.
More innocent Iraqis will lose their lives. And, as today's public
summaries of the National Intelligence Assessment on al-Qaida
underscore, the war in Iraq has made our country less safe. It is an
indictment of the ruinous policies and strategies this administration
has pursued in Iraq, year after year.
We must end this treadmill trudge to nowhere. We must show the Iraqis
that only they can save their country. It is time to shift focus back
to Afghanistan and to rebuild our military and our defenses at home. It
is time to restore our reputation as a nation united in combating
terrorism but unwilling any longer to sacrifice our sons, our daughters
or our values for a flawed policy that cannot succeed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is there a speaking order at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska may
have an amendment to offer, and when she does, I will be happy to yield
the floor to the Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry.
Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Alaska planning to offer an amendment?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator seek the floor at this time? Without
yielding the floor, I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understood it would be necessary
before I offer such an amendment that there be a unanimous consent
request propounded. I look to the floor managers at this time.
Mr. GREGG. I will speak, and if the Senator from Alaska wishes to
offer her amendment and that has been worked out, I will yield the
floor to the Senator from Alaska. I am not offering an amendment at
this time. Whenever she wishes to proceed, tap me on the shoulder.
Mr. President, I wish to address an issue which may be perceived as a
bit arcane and is outside the policy within the debate that is
occurring here, which is actually quite critical to the fiscal
discipline of our Government and especially the Congress.
This bill comes forward as a reconciliation bill. This is an arcane
term which arises out of the Budget Act. The Budget Act creates the
ability for the Budget Committee, when it is creating a budget, to give
instructions to various committees within the Congress to meet goals
set forth by the Budget Committee. These instructions are called
reconciliation instructions.
The purpose of reconciliation is to control entitlement spending
primarily and to control the rate of growth of the Government, in fact,
as a purpose.
It was structured because although part of the budget can discipline
discretionary spending through what is known as caps, it is virtually
impossible to discipline the rate of growth of Government on the
entitlement account side through spending caps because entitlements are
programs which people have a right to and a spending cap has no impact
on it.
So if we are going to affect the rate of growth of spending on the
entitlement side, programs which people by law have a right to receive
and is a Federal benefit--that is programs such as veterans' benefits,
education benefits under the Pell grant, in some instances, Medicare,
Medicaid. Those are all entitlement programs. If you are going to
control those entitlements, you actually have to change the law.
So the Budget Committee--and it is probably the primary power vested
in the Budget Committee--passes a budget to direct various committees
in the Congress that have jurisdiction over various entitlement
programs to control the rate of those programs and, thus, the rate of
growth of the Federal Government.
That was always the concept of the Budget Act--control the rate of
growth of the Federal Government, especially in the entitlement
accounts through reconciliation.
But what has happened is a total adulteration of that purpose. In a
rather effective sleight of hand, the Budget Committee, with the full
knowledge of the Budget Committee on the majority side and with the
full knowledge of the majority side, gave a savings instruction to the
HELP Committee to save $750 million over 5 years, which is a lot of
money, but under the Federal budgeting process actually is still an
asterisk.
Why would the Budget Committee ask the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee to save $750 million over 5 years, when it asked no
other committee in the Congress to save money in the entitlement
accounts? None. No other committee was asked to discipline fiscal
spending around here on entitlement accounts.
Well, because it was a ruse, a pure unadulterated ruse. The HELP
Committee, under the able and wily leadership of the Senator from
Massachusetts, whom I greatly admire as one of the finer legislators in
this body, had identified a pool of money which they knew they could
grab, specifically subsidies which are paid by the Federal Government
to lenders and which are unquestionably excessive--there is no debate
about that.
That pool of money had been identified by the wily chairman of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He knew that if he
could get his hands on that money, he could then spend it. But he also
knew he couldn't get his hands on that money without a reconciliation
instruction from the Budget Committee.

So what happened was we had this small, in the context of Federal
spending around here, budget savings instruction of $750 million given
to the HELP Committee by the Budget Committee, with reconciliation
appended to it as a protection. What reconciliation protection means is
the bill comes to the floor, it has to be completed in 20 hours, and it
only takes 51 votes to pass it. That is a huge protection in the
Senate--protection from the filibuster rule, protection from the
standard operating practice of the Senate with a lot of amendments
occurring which could take up to weeks. It is an immense power to give
to a bill to identify it as a reconciliation bill for the purposes of
passage. So that bill, that power of reconciliation was attached to a
$750 million instruction for savings.
Then the HELP Committee passed out that bill, the reconciliation
bill. I believe it is a $19.7 billion bill--$19.75 billion, something
like that. What happened to the other $19 billion in savings? It is
being spent.
This chart reflects it fairly well. The new spending, under expansion
of programs under reconciliation, under this bill, will be $19 billion.
The actual savings under the bill will be making a farce of the concept
of controlling the size of the Federal Government and Federal spending
through the reconciliation process, inverting the process, to be quite
honest, at a rate of 1 to 20.
Ironically, when the budget left the Senate, it had an amendment in
it which said--because I offered the amendment, so I am familiar with
it and it was passed, which was even more surprising--which said that
no reconciliation bill could spend more than 20 percent, which I
thought was still too much, of the amount saved.
Had that amendment survived the conference process, this bill could
not have come to the floor because this bill spends $20 for every $1 it
saves. Under that amendment, not the reverse but a significantly
different approach would have had to have been taken. It would have had
to save $5 for every $1 it spent.
This is a totally new practice. This is a historical use of
reconciliation. We can see that deficit reduction over the years
through reconciliation has occurred rather dramatically. But in this
bill, in this budget, there was no deficit reduction through
reconciliation.
More importantly--and this is the real essence of the problem--the
spending under the Federal budget, the alleged reductions had no impact
on spending. Spending continues to go up dramatically because actually
the mechanisms that are supposed to be

[[Page S9454]]

used to reduce the size of spending or the rate of growth of spending--
we never actually reduce spending around here--reduce the rate of
growth of spending and the rate of growth of a Federal program is a
mechanism that is now being used to dramatically expand the rate of
growth of spending of the Federal Government.
So the Budget Act, which has been under significant pressure to begin
with, and basically in 3 of the last 5 years we haven't even been able
to pass a budget, has now essentially been emasculated as a concept of
disciplining spending and is now being used as a mechanism to expand
the size of the Federal Government and destroy the fundamental purpose
of reconciliation.
Why is this a problem? Whether we like to admit to it, we have some
huge issues coming at us in the area of entitlement spending in this
country. We have on the books $65 trillion--that is trillion with a T--
of unfunded liability in the three major mandatory or entitlement
accounts--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The only way, I suspect, that we are going to be able to manage some
sort of disciplining of those programs so they are affordable for our
children, so we don't pass on to our children a Government that
basically overwhelms their capacity to pay for it, is through using the
reconciliation process. But that process has been, for all intents and
purposes, run over. A new concept has been developed.
Reconciliation will no longer be used to control the rate of growth
of the Federal Government. It will be used as a stalking horse for
expanding the rate of growth of the Federal Government. The great
irony, of course, is it did not have to happen this way. The equities
are on the side of the Senator from Massachusetts relative to the need
to reduce the subsidy to lenders and, in fact, I proposed an idea which
would have probably seen a much bigger reduction in lender subsidies,
which would be an outright auction so we could actually find what is
the market value of what should be paid for these accounts.
Even the administration wanted to take a fair percentage of those
funds that would be saved from lenders and move them into Pell grants.
My druthers, of course, but I am not in the majority and I suspect I
wouldn't win this fight, would be to take a big chunk of the money and
put it into Pell grants and a big chunk of money and put it into
deficit reduction so we start to pay down some of the problems we are
presenting our children. But under any scenario, the protection of
reconciliation was not necessary to accomplish this funding. In fact,
it would have been good had reconciliation not been used because then
we would have tied to this bill the underlying policy of the Higher
Education Act, which should be passing the Senate at the same time this
funding mechanism is passing this Senate.

But, no, the choice was to go this cut-by-half proposal, which in the
process has fundamentally harmed our capacity as Congress to discipline
ourselves and is using a vehicle meant to control the rate of growth of
Government to expand the rate of growth of the Government.
I probably am the only person in this body frustrated by this
situation because I may be the last person in this body who believes we
should use reconciliation for fiscal discipline. But I thought the
point should be made as former chairman of the Budget Committee that we
have now, for all intents and purposes, as a body, abandoned any
attempt--not any attempt but the one vehicle that gave us credibility
on the one issue of doing something about the most significant issue we
confront as a nation after the question of how we fight Islamic
fundamentalists who wish to do us harm with weapons of mass
destruction. After that issue, which pervades all other issues, the
most significant issue is the fact that we are about to pass on to our
children a government that under no circumstances can they afford
because the cost of entitlement accounts is going to exceed their
capacity to pay for those accounts by huge numbers.
In fact, we had a study last week from CBO that said in order to pay
for the pending entitlement responsibilities of the baby boom
generation--Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security--tax rates in this
country will have to go to 92 percent--92 percent--of income.
Obviously, that is not a doable event. The one mechanism we had around
here to force action effectively has now been emasculated by the
process which we are participating in on the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to offer an
amendment. As I understand, there needs to be a unanimous consent
request prior to my doing so; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding time remaining for debate on the Kennedy substitute
amendment, an amendment be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.

Amendment No. 2329 to Amendment No. 2327

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 2329 to amendment 2327.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the amount appropriated for the college access
partnership grant program)

On page 55, line 23, strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert
``$113,000,000''.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are talking today about the Higher
Education Access Act. When we talk about higher education and the
importance of higher education in this country, it is all about access.
We can have incredible universities, we can have wonderful schools
within our State systems, but if the students do not have access to
them due to financial constraints or whatever the limitations may be,
we have not truly provided for access, we have not truly provided for
our young people to better themselves to the fullest extent possible.
There are many significant provisions contained within the Higher
Education Access Act. I am pleased to have been able to participate in
the good work of the chairman and the ranking member in moving this
through the HELP Committee.
There is one provision contained within higher education that
establishes a provision called the College Access Partnership Grant
Program, again, speaking to how we truly provide for access to our
colleges.
The budget instructions directed the HELP Committee to save some $750
million for deficit reduction. This is what the Senator from New
Hampshire was referring to a moment ago. The Higher Education Access
Act saves $930 million. This amendment, the amendment that I am
proposing this afternoon, would redirect $176 million from deficit
reduction to making sure that more American students, more of our young
people, are able to access and to succeed in college.

Think about how many initiatives we have on this Senate floor to
provide for a better America, a better country, to make us more
competitive in the world market. How do we do it? We have been focusing
on our young people and providing them with the opportunities. We have
been focusing on aspects of education, whether it is through an
emphasis on accountability, such as we have seen in the No Child Left
Behind, or the more recent focus we have made in focusing on science
and engineering so that our young people are truly competitors in that
world market today. We need to be serious about investing in our
children's education and truly in their future.
What this amendment would do is expand the borrower benefits that are
offered to low-income students, the very students we know are not
graduating with college degrees. Our statistics don't lie to us. We
know those in the lower income category are not going into college in
the first place, so many of them, and then many who do are not

[[Page S9455]]

successful in completion. Of the 75 percent of high school seniors who
continue their studies, only 50 percent of them receive a degree 5
years after enrolling in postsecondary education, and only 25 percent
of them receive a bachelor's degree or higher. So we are not seeing
completion. But for the lower income families, 21 percent who enroll in
college complete a bachelor's degree as compared to 62 percent of
higher income students who enroll.
So what is the problem? What are we doing wrong? What are we not
doing enough of, need to do more of, and how can we truly provide this
college education that for generation after generation has been what
families seek for their children--go on to college, go on and make
yourself a better contributor to American society.
In my State of Alaska--unfortunately, I am not quite sure what our
statistics are now--when I was serving in the legislature we were
seeing only about 30 percent of our high school graduates going on to
college--only about 30 percent going on to college. Why are they not
going? Part of it is due to finances.
As we all know, the cost of a college education is going through the
roof. My husband and I are saving for our two boys, and with one of
them approaching his junior year in high school right now, it is a
reality check for us as a family as to how we are going to make college
a reality for our children. I know across this country families
struggle with that.
So there is so much, again, in the Higher Education Access Act that
does promote and does allow for benefits to the students. The funding
we are talking about in my amendment would expand the borrower benefits
currently offered in States such as mine to low-income and to Pell-
eligible students in all the States. This is a college access
partnership program. And what it would do is give the States the
ability to help more of their low-income students attend and to succeed
in college. We don't want them to just get the help to get there and
then give it up after a year because the finances are hitting them or
they do not know where else to turn.
What does this college access partnership grant actually do? What we
are attempting to do is provide for that outreach, provide for the
education not only to the students but to the families so that they
know what is available, they know what the financing options are to
them, and they are helped with the financial literacy and with debt
management. I don't know how many of you have had to go through a
college application recently, but it can be a daunting task. And if you
are perhaps from a family who hasn't had an opportunity to do this
before, it may be so daunting that you are precluded from doing it.
Financial literacy: We all know that sometimes the language that is
contained in the application, just in understanding what it is that you
need to do to fill out the application, can be mind numbing. So it
provides the information.
The outreach activities: We need to make sure we are reaching out to
those students who may be at risk of not enrolling or, again, in not
completing their postsecondary education. They need to know what their
options are. So we need to go to them, and we need to help them. We
have a program in Alaska called the Alaska Advantage Higher Education
Financial Aid Program. We try to go out and let the students know what
is available and try to help them ahead of time.
This program would also provide for assistance in completion of the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA application. I
understand that we are talking about an eight-page application. We have
eliminated some of, I guess, the complications, if you will, with that
application through the HEA legislation itself, but let's not let the
application be a barrier. Let's figure out ways to help the students
from the very beginning; professional development for guidance
counselors at middle schools and secondary schools, and financial
administrators and college admissions counselors at institutions of
higher education, to improve their ability to assist the students and
the parents. I know from my personal situation that when you have a
good guidance counselor who can help you along the way, you are one of
the lucky ones. If you are one that is just kind of given the packet
and told to go at it, kid, you may or may not feel that you have that
support. We want to be able to provide for the support, that
professional development to assist the students.
The program would also provide assistance in applying to institutions
of higher education, applying for the Federal student financial
assistance and other State, local, and private student financial
assistance and scholarships. There is so much that is available out
there, if you know where to look. And sometimes you just are not quite
sure which rocks you need to turn over in order to provide for your
finances for college. So this would, again, lay out the options and
assist you with that.
It would also provide activities that increase the student's ability
to successfully complete the course work required for a postsecondary
degree, including activities such as tutoring and mentoring. We need to
recognize that access to college is not just about getting in the door.
It is gaining the benefits that are afforded you through the college
program, through that university program, through the programs that are
going to benefit you. So our job is not done just with the successful
application. If individuals need that assistance in working through
some of the bureaucracy, let's try to help.

Finally, it provides for activities to improve secondary school
students' preparedness for postsecondary entrance examinations. These
are all things, in different areas, where we can make a difference with
students in letting them know what is out there and what is available
to them.
Mr. President, as we look to ways that we can truly help with access
to higher education, we know we need to help students with the
financial end of it, but we also need to provide some assistance with
the navigation, and this College Access Partnership Program does just
that. Through this amendment, we are providing for additional funding
to be included into that program to make it meaningful to all of the 50
States so that they can truly provide that help and assistance.
I would certainly urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I wanted to just thank the Senator for her leadership in
this College Access Partnership Program, and I commend her amendment.
As she knows, and Senator Enzi understands, we tried to make an
estimate in terms of the cost of the total legislation, and we ended up
with an excess of $176 million over the 5-year period. And the
amendment of the Senator from Alaska will take that money, those
resources, and make it available to the States. They will be able to
use it with nonprofit organizations to help children have access to
college. I commend her for that.
We have tried, as she knows, in this legislation, to deal with some
of the financial aspects that have discouraged particularly students
who come from working families--middle-income, low-income families--
from going on to college. The Senator mentioned the FAFSA application,
which currently is a voluminous document, and through the solid good
judgment of our friend from Wyoming, who has worked on that and has
simplified it in a very important and significant way, so that now the
application will not be so great an impediment.
Too often these young people do not have the knowledge, the
encouragement, or the awareness of college opportunities, and the
Senator's good amendment will make this funding available nationwide--
nationwide--so that programs that reach out to children will be
available to help them be able to go on to college.
She has spoken eloquently about the challenges that her State faces
as a rural State, and we have tried to work with her and will continue
to work with her to meet that responsibility. In other areas, we can
see, in my own State of Massachusetts, how these resources can help
support the nonprofit organizations, such as the Educational Resource
Institute, which supports and works with the GEAR-UP programs and the
TRIO programs which have been enormously successful in our State.
So this is something that I know the Senator has cared very deeply
about,

[[Page S9456]]

she has spoken about it in our committee, and we had indicated we
wanted to work with her. I can't think of how these resources--and they
are not insignificant--but how these resources could be spent more
effectively or better. So I thank the Senator, and I hope we will have
a chance to address this and vote on this amendment, and I would
certainly hope we get a very strong vote.
I thank her for her work, and I think the people in Alaska and in
many other States will benefit from this in a very important and
significant way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself time. I also want to
congratulate the Senator from Alaska. This amendment continues to
recognize the unique role that many of our not-for-profit lenders have
in providing information and services to students and to their
families. They conduct outreach to make college possible and assist in
debt management and default prevention. The not-for-profits focus on
communities, and they serve students locally, and I am pleased the
Senator from Alaska was able to continue to acknowledge the important
contribution that those entities make.
I do appreciate the emphasis she placed on how formidable it is to do
one of the FAFSA applications. Just as Senator Kennedy, I also have one
of the applications, which we have now reduced to one page on two
sides, as opposed to this on two sides. So it would not be quite as
formidable, if we are able to pass this bill, as it has been in the
past. So I appreciate the emphasis on that and congratulate the Senator
from Alaska.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to myself under Senator
Kennedy's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Higher
Education Access Act of 2007, and I want to commend Senator Kennedy and
Senator Enzi for their great leadership on this measure.
This very important legislation, which I helped craft as a member of
the Senate Education Committee, makes a substantial Federal investment
in need-based grant aid for low-income students and helps middle-class
students and families pay down and manage their loan debt. It will be a
significant contribution to the overall welfare of American families,
and it will be the critical key, I believe, to opportunity in America.
Opportunity in America is a strong and direct function of education.
Indeed, education is the engine that moves people forward. This
legislation renews our commitment to ensuring that all Americans with
the drive and talent to go to college are provided the financial means
to do so. We understand how critical that is. A college education has
now become increasingly necessary. In the generation of my parents,
very few people went to college. It was seen as a special distinction,
something that was, in some cases, unique. There was a society and an
economy then that could accommodate people who graduated from high
school who could then go on, with great dedication, diligence, and the
skills they learned, to provide for their families and provide for
their retirement.
Today, that has all changed. College is a necessity not only for the
Nation in terms of expanding our intellectual capital but for families
in order to make their way, in order to provide for a decent living, in
order to provide for their children and to provide for their
retirement.

College graduates, on average, earn 62 percent more than high school
graduates. So college education pays off in the bottom line of American
families. And, indeed, over a lifetime, the difference in wages between
those with a high school diploma versus those with a bachelor's or
higher degree exceeds one million dollars.
What we are seeing now in this society is troubling to me because we
all understand the importance of an education. One of the key hallmarks
in America is opportunity. We pride ourselves, going all the way back
to Horatio Alger, as being a place where anyone with a little pluck and
a little education can go a long way.
It turns out that recent research is showing that this opportunity is
decreasing. Prior to the 1990s, the correlation between a parents'
income and their children's income was approximately 20 percent, which
is good because it means if you come from modest circumstances you have
an 80-percent chance you will rise above your parents' income to the
next level of economic well-being in this country. Now that was before
the 1990s. In the 1990s, the number rose to 40 percent. So the
difference between your parents' income and your income was getting
closer and closer. You weren't rising as far above your parents. Today,
economists estimate that 60 percent of a son's income is determined by
the level of the income of his father.
So we are no longer a place in which you can far exceed your parents'
income with a little pluck and a little education. The way we rectify
that is to give more people the chance to obtain a higher education. As
I have demonstrated with these statistics, that is the key to economic
progress in this country. But it is also the key to social progress and
maintaining the fabric of America.
As an individual moves through school, we hope they are not just
learning about technical skills and applying that to the economy, but
that they are also learning to be a good citizen and learning the
values of America, values we hope will one day inspire the whole world
in a very positive way.
To reverse this troubling trend, a trend in which opportunity is not
as readily available in our society, we have to invest in education. I
have the particular privilege of being the successor to Senator
Claiborne Pell. He recognized in the 1960s that education was the key.
We have named, and rightfully so, the Pell grant after Claiborne Pell.
He understood profoundly that if you let Americans with drive and
talent go on to college, and provide them with the financial resources
to do so, they will do great things, and they will compel this country
to do great things.
I would say that a lot of the great breakthroughs which have been
translated into today's robust economy stem from the fact that 30 years
ago, beginning with my generation, young men and women with drive and
talent had a chance to go on to college. There are so many people today
who are captains of industry, there are so many people today who have
invented new products, who have deployed these products into the
commercial realm, and they have done so because they went to college
and beyond. In another generation they might have had the talent but
would have ended up doing something much less educationally advanced
because they didn't have a college education. That is a huge insight
and a huge contribution to this country.
This legislation builds on Senator Pell's legacy and takes
significant steps toward making college more affordable and ensuring
that students with talent go forth and get a college degree. I am
particularly pleased that under this legislation Rhode Island students
will be eligible for an additional $10 million in need-based grant aid
next year, and over $86 million in the next 5 years. That is a
tremendous input of additional federal financial resources.
The effect of this bill's investment in need-based grant aid is to
increase the maximum grant for Pell-eligible students from $4,310 to
$5,100 next year and to $5,400 by the year 2011. That increases the
average grant in Rhode Island from $430 in 2008 to $2,870.

I am also pleased, as has been discussed by my colleagues, that this
legislation includes provisions from my Financial Aid Form
Simplification and Access Act, or FAFSA Act, to significantly increase
the number of students automatically eligible for the maximum Pell
grant and to reduce the penalty faced by students when they work in
order to pay for college.
Specifically, the increase in the Auto-Zero Expected Family
Contribution ensures that all students from families with incomes of
$30,000 or less will receive a maximum Pell grant. Currently, only
families making $20,000 or less automatically qualify for such grants.
This provision not only increases the number of low-income students
eligible for need-based aid, but also simplifies the financial aid
process by providing such students with early

[[Page S9457]]

information and assurances of financial aid for college.
Additionally, the income protection allowance protects students who
have to work during college so they can earn more without having it
count against their financial aid. This legislation doubles the income
protection allowance for dependent students from $3,000 to $6,000 over
4 years, and increases the income protection allowance for independent
students, including adult learners, veterans, and those students in
foster care, by 50 percent over 4 years.
We should reward work, not penalize it. We should recognize that, in
today's economy, the price of going to school and of getting to school
is going up and up. Many students have to work. As such, these
increases will help students and families better afford a college
education by stemming the perverse income protection limits that punish
students and parents who must work one, two, or more jobs to pay for
college.
I am also pleased that the legislation includes provisions to stem
the increasing numbers of middle-class families falling further and
further into debt to finance a college education. In Rhode Island, 61
percent of students graduating from 4-year institutions in the 2004-
2005 school year graduated with debt at an average of over $20,000 per
student. The Higher Education Access Act will help students manage
their debt by capping student loan payments at 15 percent of a
borrower's discretionary income and forgiving all debt on such loans
after 25 years.
So as young people emerge from college with this debt, their payments
will be capped, and at some point their loans will be discharged. I
think that gives real incentives and real help to people coming out of
school, middle-class students who had to borrow money to go to school,
and now they can go ahead and discharge those payments over many years
at a rate they can afford.
It will also provide loan forgiveness for borrowers who continue in
public service careers for 10 years. This is an important aspect. There
are so many talented people who want to go into teaching or health care
professions, but with all this debt they literally cannot afford to.
This legislation gives them an opportunity not only to do what they
want to do but to serve their community without being penalized because
they have to borrow to get through their college education.
It also helps our military members and families by expanding loan
deferments for Active-Duty military service. Certainly there is no
group of persons today who deserve that kind of consideration more than
our military members and their families.
I hope we build on this legislation by promptly taking up the long
overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which passed the
Education Committee unanimously last month and includes provisions I
authored to simplify the financial aid process and forms; improve the
Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership--or LEAP--Program and forge
greater state investments in need based grant aid; strengthen college
teacher preparation programs; and provide loan forgiveness for
librarians.
This is significant legislation. It is important for families in
Rhode Island and across the Nation. Let me again commend Senator
Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their excellent work on this bill. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation
becomes law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL). Who yields time?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes from the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. I rise today in support of the Higher Education Access
Act. This legislation will give millions of students an opportunity to
attend college. As Senator Reed said, it is helping those students with
talent get the opportunity to go to college that, in another
generation, prior to the last three decades or so, they simply may not
have had. In too many cases, if you look at what has happened to
students of working class families, they are not getting those
opportunities now that they got a generation ago.
We all know what has happened to the cost of college in the last few
years. It has doubled since 1980, rising faster than inflation for 20
consecutive years. College tuition has risen faster than the price of
any other consumer item, including health care. In my home State of
Ohio, between 1981 and 2007, in a quarter of a century, tuition and
fees have increased 231 percent at public universities and 94 percent
in 2-year institutions. We know that is because government on the State
level is simply not funding, in very many States, public higher
education the way they had in the past. Family incomes cannot keep up.
The median household income in Ohio increased just 3 percent between
2000 and 2006, whereas tuition during that same period went up 53
percent in 4-year public institutions and 28 percent at 4-year
private institutions.

Think about that. Income went up 3 percent for those families, all
families--including, obviously, families with students of college age--
yet while income went up 3 percent the cost of education went up either
by a quarter or a half, depending on what kind of school to which those
parents sent their children.
Even after financial aid is taken into account, 42 percent of median
family income in my State of Ohio is needed to pay for a year of
college in a 4-year public college. A 2006 report by the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education gave Ohio an F in college
affordability. Our students, our families, our economy are feeling the
impact.
Think again about what that means to a middle-class family. To so
many working families, college tuition has gone up 25, 50 percent over
a several-year period, while income has gone up only 2 or 3 or 4
percent for most of the students.
My wife was the first in her family to go to college. She grew up in
Ashtabula, OH. She went to Kent State University. It was difficult for
her family, but in those days her dad held a union job. Her mother went
to work about the time she went to school. Her mother was a home care
worker. She didn't make very much money, but she had a decent union
job. She had a lower paying job, but with grants and aid and all of
that, she was able to go to a State university, as were her three
younger siblings, two daughters and a son. So all four of them, the
first four in their family to go to college, were able to do that. That
was in the 1970s and 1980s. This is a different era where,
unfortunately, because of decisions made in the State government and,
frankly, because of a stinginess from the Federal Government, it has
made it that much harder for students to go to school.
More and more students are going out of State to attend college. Ohio
students are. The ones who stay find they can't afford it. This is
unacceptable. If we are asking our students to be competitive, we must
make the investment in them.
For students lucky enough to make it to college, they are rewarded
not only with a degree, we hope, but also saddled with crippling debt.
Sixty-six percent of students in Toledo and Dayton and Steubenville and
Youngstown, Galion and Gallipolis, 66 percent of students graduating
from 4-year institutions in the 2004-2005 school year graduated with
debt. Two-thirds of all students graduated with debt. Those students
owed an average of $19,259. That affects their future. It affects the
job they choose. It affects their ability to marry and have children
and what they are able to face with the financial challenges and the
debt that they bear from the moment they graduate.
Even worse, the purchasing power of the Pell grant--Senator Reid
talked about that--the main source of grant income assisting lower
income students--has dropped dramatically. Students and parents are
finding it harder and harder to figure out a way to finance their
education.
Look back at this whole picture. Tuition has gone up 25 percent to 50
percent, depending on whether you go to a private or public college,
over the last few years. Wages have gone up 3 or 4 percent. Students
who are able to go to college at all and face that get the grants and
loans that can get them through their 2- or 4-year institution and end
up with a debt--two-thirds of these students end up with a debt on the
average of $20,000. Think of what

[[Page S9458]]

that does. All this at a time when privately subsidized student lenders
such as Sallie Mae are reporting record profits and raking in millions
of dollars off the backs of the students.
The Presiding Officer and I and several Members of the freshman class
today had a news conference decrying what has happened with the
privatization of parts of the military, what has happened with private
contractors, the kind of fraud they have committed, how it doesn't save
taxpayer dollars, how it doesn't make for a stronger military, how it
doesn't mean a more efficient government. What we are seeing, with the
leadership of Senator Webb and Senator McCaskill, is the graft and
fraud and inefficiency they are exposing in the Pentagon budget and in
the private contracting in the Pentagon. We also see that same kind of
privatization and the impact it has on Medicare, with the drug
companies and the insurance companies rewarded at taxpayer expense. We
see it, obviously, in Social Security, where some in this institution
want to privatize Social Security. We see it in public education. We
are having a big battle this week on No Child Left Behind, in the same
committee Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi jointly run, the Health,
Education, Labor, Pension Committee. We will see that there, with some
of the private education efforts on for-profit schools. We have seen it
especially in the student loan program where this kind of privatization
means fewer dollars are available to go directly to students. Taxpayer
dollars are wasted. It is less efficient. It leads in many cases to
fraud and graft. It also leads, frankly, to political contributions for
those politicians who support these privatization efforts.
You can look at Halliburton, you can look at many of these
companies--the drug industry which was rewarded on the Medicare bill
with literally $200 billion more because of that bill over a 10-year
period than they would have had otherwise. Look at the Medicare bill
and private insurance companies, how they were ``enticed'' is the word
we use around here; another more direct word might be ``bribed''--but
they were enticed to enter the Prescription Drug Program by Government
subsidies. Again, the money makes for less efficiency, more waste, more
money lining the pockets of individual contributors, whether it is
Medicare in a prescription drug benefit or students in a student loan
benefit and ultimately more costs for already overburdened taxpayers.
That is why this legislation is so important. It will finally start
to trim back as well as stop this privatization of our Government, stop
these companies from basically taking money that is public dollars and
putting it into their pockets without providing the service they should
provide directly to the beneficiaries we have designated.
This legislation will finally start to trim back those bloated
subsidies to private lenders and focus those scarce dollars where they
are needed most, to our students. It will begin to hold colleges
accountable for rising costs and assure that students and parents have
the information they need to make informed decisions about what college
to attend. It will raise the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year,
increasing to $5,400 by 2011. The average grant in Ohio will increase
$430 next year to $2,850.16.
This Pell grant was stuck, in spite of the President's promises in
2000 in his first Presidential campaign--the Pell grant had been stuck
at that level for 5 years. Senator Kennedy's leadership, Senator Reid's
leadership early in this session, increased the Pell grant in the
continuing resolution back in January. We are increasing it again over
the next 3 years.
This bill will help nontraditional and community college students by
making them eligible for Pell grants. It will help protect students by
reforming a broken student loan system, a far too privatized student
loan system that now provides too much in the way of subsidies to
private lenders. It will make sure student interests are the motivating
factors behind college decisions to recommend lenders. This bill
promotes innovative teacher preparation programs so our students are
better prepared for college.
This bill doesn't do everything we need. We need to work to keep
interest rates down in the totally privatized student loan system, the
most rapidly growing part of the student loan system, because prices
have gone up so dramatically the Federal programs have not been able to
keep up. More students have to turn to totally private loans, and those
totally private loans have seen interest rates go as high as 18
percent.
Senator Kennedy is interested in that legislation. We have introduced
separate legislation to do that. That is something we hope to pursue
down the line. But this legislation begins to stop the privatization of
student loans. This legislation we are voting on, the legislation
Senator Kennedy brought to the floor, will begin to arrest the
privatization of this system, where too many people outside of the
student and the Government have benefited from the privatization of
this system. It is time that taxpayer dollars go directly to students
to create the opportunities so they can go to college so they can be
productive citizens.
That is what we did 30 years ago, in this institution, before many of
us were here. Senator Kennedy was there. The leadership he showed 30
years ago in making this system work to give opportunity to middle-
class kids, to working-class kids, to poor kids--this bill moves in
that direction.
All students, regardless of their family, regardless of their
privilege, regardless of who their parents are, should be able to
afford college.
We still have so much to do. This legislation is a good step in the
right direction.
I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWN. I would love to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend from Ohio for an
excellent statement. He has reminded us when we first, in the early
1960s, had the national debate on whether there should be a Federal
responsibility to help students to go on to schools and colleges. We
had taken the step with the GI bill. We had taken some steps after
Sputnik. But the real, major step had been the GI bill after World War
II. We made that judgment in the 1960s.
At the time, we were trying to find out how we were going to get the
lending institutions involved. There was a real question about what
kind of incentive they had to give to the lending institutions to get
them involved, to make sure that the program was going to work.
That is the issue we have been trying to address in this legislation.
We have taken some $18 billion out of the lenders and returned it to
the students. I think we will hear, probably later in this debate, that
might be too much. We will come back and demonstrate that, even the
Sallie Maes and the others are indicating even with this cut that they
are expecting the profits in the years 2012 and 2013 to be in excess of
$2 billion.
As the Senator points out, we know even with these Government
programs there is still a ways to go. We are making a downpayment, but
I want to give assurances to the Senator from Ohio because he has been
so concerned, this is a continuing, ongoing commitment certainly on my
part.
The part I want to particularly mention is that we have seen this
real explosion in terms of the borrowing in the private sector at these
extraordinary rates. We are attempting, with the Banking Committee, to
try to work that out, so that is going to be consistent with what we
are trying to do, and that is to make sure that, for middle-income
families and working families, they are going to get the lowest
possible costs.
I commend the Senator. I happen to believe we ought to do that
through an auction system. I stated that, expressed it. The Senator
from New Hampshire has. We have a very modest provision--up to 20
percent of the funding in this will be subject to the auction process.
We are doing a trial program with this. I think it will be very
successful. But I think he would agree that we auction off bombs for
the Federal Government every day--week, evidently. We auction off oil
and gas leases. We auction off all kinds of different things.
I would think in the long run, to make it available to the greatest
numbers of students at the lowest possible costs, we ought to do it in
the old-fashioned way of competition. We are not there yet, but I would
be interested, if he is interested, in continuing to work

[[Page S9459]]

on this whole area as we move along. This is a reauthorization that we
plan to get, but I think there is a lot we can do in these next few
years to continue to work on this.
Mr. BROWN. I thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership. It is clear
to me, as it obviously is to him, that we made tremendous progress in
this legislation, with putting dollars that have gone into the excess
profits of a relatively small number of companies--putting those
dollars either back in taxpayers' pockets or giving it directly to
students through this loan program. There is more work to do, and I
appreciate his interest in doing that.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see my friend and colleague from New
Jersey on his feet. I will yield him time.
I ask unanimous consent that during today's session, when the Senate
considers the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski and an amendment
offered by Senator Kennedy; that they be debated concurrently for as
much time as they might consume; that no amendments be in order on
either amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that on
Thursday, July 19, the Senate resume consideration of these amendments
at 12 noon and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation
to each amendment under this agreement; that the Murkowski amendment be
the first vote in the sequence; that all debate time prior to the votes
be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that when the
Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Thursday, there be 10 hours
of debate remaining equally divided and controlled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withheld.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator from
New Jersey should use on the bill.
I wished to thank the Senator from New Jersey. We had been meeting
earlier in the afternoon with a Hispanic task force. Their priorities
were the areas of education, early education, No Child Left Behind,
access in terms of higher education.
Senator Menendez and Senator Salazar were leaders with that group. I
am always moved by the Senator from New Jersey's own story, about the
importance of these Pell grants and the importance of loans, his own
life experience as well as those of his friends.
I hope he will at least share some of that with us this afternoon. It
is an inspiring story. If there is any reason for the efforts we are
making this afternoon, the Senator from New Jersey is an excellent
example.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me thank my distinguished colleague and the
chairman of the committee from Massachusetts for his kind words. Above
all, I wish to commend him for his incredible leadership, for standing
up for the Nation's students, and for putting forth a bill that will
make a tremendous difference for students across the Nation who are
struggling to afford college.
I know in an era in which we lament the lack of bipartisanship, I
also wish to commend the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator
Enzi. I was privileged to be sitting in the chair when he was talking
about this bill. I appreciate very much the same spirit he brings to
this legislation, the leadership he has also shown working with Senator
Kennedy to make the legislation that has come to the floor that I think
should receive the very broad support of the Senate.
Certainly, I wish to rise in strong support of the Higher Education
Access Act, which takes some critical steps to making higher education
more accessible and more affordable for our Nation's young people. In a
world that has been transformed by technology, in which the boundaries
of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital,
for the creation of a product and the delivery of a service, so that an
engineer's report that is created in India and transmitted back to the
United States for a fraction of the cost or a radiologist's report may
have been done in Pakistan and read by your doctor in your local
hospital or if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently
did, you end up with a call center in South Africa.
Well, in the pursuit of human capital, we are globally challenged. So
for America to continue to be the global economic leader, it needs to
be at the apex of the curve of intellect. That means the most highly
educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever known. Of course,
to achieve that, there must be both access and affordability for this
next generation of Americans to be able to be the scientists, the
engineers, the mathematicians who can fuel our competitiveness in the
world.
This bill, in my mind, in addition to providing educational
opportunities, is about meeting the Nation's challenge in this global
competitive marketplace we are in.
The bill begins to right the imbalance that has plagued student
financial aid. For far too long, students struggling to afford college
have seen their grants shrink, their loan rates go up, their debt
explode--their debt explode.
This bill turns that trend around, by increasing grant aid for the
neediest students and making a $17 billion investment in student aid,
the largest since the passage of the GI bill.
We all know that education is the key--the key--that unlocks social
mobility and economic empowerment and opportunity in this country. I
know that, as Senator Kennedy suggested, from my own personal
experience. I have said before, that as someone who is the first in his
family to go to college, the reality is, but for the power of the
Federal Government's financial assistance, without Pell grants, one of
the programs we are talking about today, I certainly would not have
been able to afford college or go to law school, nor would I have had
access to opportunities that my college education afforded me, and I
certainly would not be here today as the junior Senator from New
Jersey, without that educational foundation and opportunity.
I am not alone. Millions of young people across this Nation have
dreams of earning a college degree, of having access to that key that
unlocks their own economic empowerment of fulfilling their God-given
potential.
Some dream of building a successful career or going on to graduate
education or, as in my case, to be first in their family to graduate
from college. The power of those dreams is why our students and their
families are making sacrifices to meet the high cost of college, why
they are scraping together what they can to finance education that will
let them fulfill their dreams.
That reality is becoming harder and harder in terms of achieving that
goal. Every year, nearly half of all college students, college-ready
students, and families with incomes under $50,000 cannot go to a 4-year
college, not because they do not have the ability, not because they did
not gain admission but because the cost is too much of a barrier.
Despite current aid, grants and money that students earn working,
many students face a growing gap between the aid they receive and the
cost of college. As a matter of fact, lowest income students at a 4-
year college face almost a $6,000 gap in unmet needs.
I worked when I was going through college. I understand those
challenges. You are getting financial aid, you are working, and still
you have an unmet gap. That means debt. That means debt. The lowest
income students at 4-year colleges face roughly $5,800 in unmet needs
after a standard financial aid package, after their loans, and after
the amount their families contribute. The fact is that for the neediest
students, current aid is simply not enough. The fact is students have
been squeezed on two ends, one by declining Federal aid that has sent
students the message they are on their own; and, two, by having to rely
increasingly on student loans, which in essence, is debt.

We are supposed to provide a needed boost to students but instead
have left them with deals that are not in their best interests. I am
proud of this bill because it will put money where it is needed most,
Pell grants and other critical financial assistance that benefits our
Nation's students with the most need.
Instead of another empty promise to increase Pell grants--we have
heard

[[Page S9460]]

plenty of those--this bill will increase the maximum Pell grant to
$5,100 next year, and beyond that, climbing to $5,400. There simply is
no excuse for the fact that Pell grants have not increased by even $1
over the last 5 years.
Tell any family that is trying to have their child fulfill their
dream. We have seen tuition rates go up. We are seeing costs again go
up. But we have seen the Pell rate stagnant. That means, in terms of
buying power, that has even meant far less.
With this bill, we are ending the neglect of our Nation's neediest
students. We also will expand who is automatically eligible for a Pell
grant. Currently, a student is eligible for Pell grants if their family
makes $20,000 per year. This bill increases the annual income limit to
$30,000, so more students can be eligible to benefit from Pell grants.
That is the reality of having so many of our families be able to at
least get some assistance in this respect. This bill works to protect
students working hard to stay in college by doubling the amount a
student can earn but remain eligible for aid from $3,000 to $6,000.
This bill ensures a student will not lose their financial aid from
simply working to make extra money.
Let me tell you, when I went to college back in New Jersey at St.
Peters College, for the first month I did not have the money to get to
St. Peters College, which was in a neighboring community from where I
lived but a good several miles away.
For that first month, until I entered the work study program and
started to earn money for transportation, I walked. Now, I was a lot
leaner as a result of it, a lot thinner as a result of it. But the
bottom line is that as a result of working, I was able to get the
transportation funds I needed.
But when we, in fact, say to a student: We want to reward work and we
want them also to have the sense that when they work there is a
benefit, not a punishment, in fact, that has worked to the contrary. So
Senator Kennedy and the committee have done something that is
exceptional. As someone who had to work in order to get to school, this
actually incentivizes the opportunity to do so but does not penalize
them.
This bill also helps students who are struggling to pay back their
Federal loans by capping the amount they will pay at 15 percent of
their income. This helps ensure they are not paying back more than they
can afford. One of our challenges is that our students graduate under a
mountain of debt. Then, as they try to fulfill their hopes and dreams,
they are squeezed even more in terms of the repayment process. This is
a critical step toward ensuring that loan repayments are affordable and
not overly burdensome for some recent graduates.
I also am extremely pleased this bill builds on a proposal I have
supported for a long time from my days in the House of Representatives,
expanding loan forgiveness for those who are working in jobs that serve
the public.
By providing some of the our most needed public servants, our
teachers, police officers, early educators, social workers, school
librarians the chance to have their loans forgiven after they have been
working hard to pay off those loans, we are sending a powerful message.
We have a whole new generation of teachers we are going to need in
this country. We have an explosion, a bubble that is about to burst of
those who are, in fact, going to be in the retirement age and will be
retiring.
As I said earlier, in this global challenge, education is the key to
being the continuing global leader in competitiveness; having the most
highly educated generation of Americans ever. That means having the
firm foundation to ultimately be able to achieve higher education. That
means having a cadre of educators who are among the most highly skilled
and educated professionals we have ever had.
This incentivizes people to head in that direction. We are sending a
powerful message. We are saying: If you are willing to serve the
public, we will give back. If you make sacrifices in your daily job, we
appreciate that sacrifice, and we want to lessen the financial burden.
We will help ensure that today's students do not shy away from a career
in public service simply because they think they cannot afford it.
I am proud of the direction this legislation takes. This bill is
sensible. It is reasonable. It is fair. It makes our priorities clear.
Instead of subsidizing lenders, we should be putting every last dollar
possible into the pockets of students.
In addition, we are providing $17 billion in new aid to students
without charging taxpayers a dime. In this bill, we are actually also
putting nearly $1 billion toward deficit reduction. As a member of the
Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased to see this bill recognizes the
responsibilities we have, not just to our students but to future
generations who do not deserve to be saddled with the Nation's rising
debt.
I look forward to, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee,
working with our chairman, Senator Dodd, to deal with these issues in
this bill. In my mind, this is integral to making higher education more
accessible, more affordable for this next generation. It is a step
forward to ensuring the student loan system works for students and
their families; that is who it is supposed to work for, for students
and their families.
It is a key to preserving the integrity of our Nation's higher
education system. It is a key to having a continuing ability to be the
global economic leader. It is the key to fulfilling the American dream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I use on
the bill.
I wish to thank the Senator from New Jersey for his excellent
presentation, particularly for his pointing out a number of features of
this legislation, one of which is that we increase the opportunity for
young people who are going to school and college who are out there
working, we permit them to be able to earn some more without losing
their need-based help and assistance in terms of education. That is an
extremely important one.
As the Senator was pointing out, we are in a situation where a number
of those individuals would go out and work and work hard and be able to
get additional income and then risk their need-based assistance.
Secondly, the expansion for the eligibility for the Pell grants,
which is enormously important. We have been attempting to do that for a
number of years. That will open up the opportunity to more than 4
million children who are in Pell grant eligibility now. That is going
to open up additional opportunity. This is incredibly important. I
thank the Senator.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during today's session,
when the Senate considers the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski
and an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, they be debated
concurrently for as much time as they might consume; that no amendments
be in order on either amendment prior to a vote in relation to the
amendment; that on Thursday, July 19, the Senate resume consideration
of these amendments at 12 noon and there be 2 minutes of debate prior
to a vote in relation to each amendment under this agreement; that the
Murkowski amendment be the first vote in the sequence; that all debate
time prior to the votes be equally divided and controlled in the usual
form; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on
Thursday, there be 10 hours of debate remaining, equally divided and
controlled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, leadership has instructed me to say
there will be no further rollcall votes in light of the agreement.

Amendment No. 2330 to Amendment No. 2327

Madam President, I call up my amendment that I believe is at the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2330 to amendment No. 2327.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9461]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the amounts appropriated for Promise Grants for
fiscal years 2014 through 2017)

Strike subparagraph (G) of section 401B(e)(1) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as added by section 102(a) of the
Higher Education Access Act of 2007, and insert the
following:
``(G) $3,650,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
``(H) $3,850,000,000 for fiscal year 2015;
``(I) $4,175,000,000 for fiscal year 2016; and
``(J) $4,180,000,000 for fiscal year 2017.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have done a lot in this bill. We
provide $14 billion in additional grants to students, $3 billion in
debt relief, for a total of $17 billion in college aid to students.
This will open wider the doors of college for America's neediest
families and provide benefits for all students.
We have raised the maximum grant for Pell-eligible students to $5,100
next year and $5,400 in 2011. But we need not stop there. We should
allocate all available funds to continue adding to the need-based aid
beyond the increases we make in the next 5 years, and this amendment
will allow us to do that.
It allocates billions of additional dollars to extend the maximum
need-based grants between 2014 and 2017, continuing our promise to help
millions of needy students to pay for college. This is, I believe, a
very welcome reversal from the last 5 years, when the administration
basically broke its promise to increase the Pell grant year after year.
Now that policy has changed and shifted. We know what the stakes are
when students are not able to afford college. Each year, over 400,000
talented, qualified students do not attend a 4-year college. Twenty
years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered 55 percent of a 4-year
college and today it only covers a third.
This amendment will continue what I consider the march of progress in
terms of the outyears. We are addressing the first 5 years in the bill,
but obviously these programs will last beyond that. We have
demonstrated that this bill saves billions of dollars, and those
resources will be devoted toward helping students, and that is
enormously worthwhile.
Madam President, I yield time off the bill. The Senator from New
Jersey was talking about the importance of the Pell program and the
student loan program and how important this is in terms of our
competitiveness. It is worthwhile to point out that as I mentioned,
spending under the GI bill, over a 6-year period, represented a third
of the total Federal budget for 1951. That gives us some dimension of
the priority this country places on education. The GI Bill was
responsible, more than any other action, for helping create the great
middle class of our country which has been such a pillar of strength
for our democracy, for our economic strength, and for our military
strength as well.
The GI bill, during that period of time, produced 67,000 doctors,
91,000 scientists, 238,000 teachers, and 450,000 engineers. It also
funded the education of three Presidents, three Supreme Court Justices,
and a dozen Senators who served in this very Chamber. Pretty good
investment for this Nation, and it is the kind of investment we ought
to continue for the young people of this country.
I wish to review one of the very important aspects of this
legislation. I again commend our colleagues. This was a bipartisan
effort. I wish to indicate again one of the very compelling aspects of
this legislation is not only the historic increase in the need-based
grant aid, but it is the loan forgiveness for borrowers in public
service jobs.
I will give a few examples. What do we mean by loan forgiveness? We
indicated the types of jobs that would be eligible for this program. I
will put that chart up in a minute. But certainly a public school
teacher is a good example. This is the average salary for a starting
teacher in my State--$35,000. The average loan debt is $18,000. This is
about the national average. Monthly payments today would be $209 and
the loan payment relief under this bill would be some $61 each month.
The yearly student loan payment relief under the new income-based
repayment plan, the annual relief they would receive would be $732.
That is not insignificant. If they remain a teacher for 10 years, they
save $10,000 of their $18,000 debt, effectively the remainder of their
debt is forgiven; $10,000 forgiven. Not insignificant.
Let me point out what jobs are included in this public service loan
forgiveness program. Obviously, emergency management, public safety,
public law enforcement, public education, early childhood education,
childcare, public health and social work in public service agencies,
public services for individuals with disabilities and the elderly,
public interest legal services, public defenders, school librarians,
school-based service providers, teaching full time at a tribal college
or university. All of those--and that is not exclusive, it is
inclusive.
Let me show what this would be in another State. This is a social
worker in North Carolina with one child with an annual salary of
$37,000; loan debt, $16,000. They would save some $500 a year in what
they would be obligated to pay, and if they did this for 10 years,
$7,300 would be forgiven. That gives us an idea of what happens with a
teacher and what would happen with a social worker.
Let's look at how this bill will help a public school teacher in Iowa
whose annual salary is $27,000. They would save a yearly payment of
some $1,300. After 10 years, they would have $16,000 forgiven. This
gives us a pretty good idea of what this program does. In this case,
that is almost half their total debt forgiven, and they have seen a
reduction in both their monthly and annual payments. This makes a big
difference--a few hundred dollars here and a few hundred dollars
there--it makes an enormous difference.
Now this past year, tuition and fees increased just 4 percent at
four-year public colleges in Massachusetts--up just a couple hundred
dollars. We have UMass Boston in our public university system, and
about 60 percent of the students there are first-generation
individuals. It is an extraordinary place and getting better and
stronger. Needless to say, tuition has gone up a good deal there and at
colleges across the nation in recent years. This can be devastating to
low-income students, and especially to first-generation college
students. In the UMass system, tuition and fees increased nearly 40
percent from 1996 to 2006. We know that a few hundred dollars makes a
key difference. It makes an extraordinary difference for these young
people, when they are making a judgment whether to go to school and
whether they are willing to take on the indebtedness. The idea that
they know when they get out of school they will be able to go into
these public service types of jobs and will be able to get relief is
extraordinary.

One of the incredible phenomenons taking place at universities and
colleges today is volunteerism. The number who are volunteering at
schools and colleges all over our country is enormously impressive.
This is incredibly encouraging.
There is a great willingness and desire to be a part of trying to
meet some of the Nation's challenges. So many of those opportunities
involve some aspects of involvement in public employment. This
legislation gives young people a real opportunity, even if they come
from homes with limited resources, that they can attend a fine college,
and then they can go on to one of these public service jobs and make a
real difference in their community, in part because they get assistance
in this legislation in terms of debt relief. That is what is included
in this legislation.
There is a very significant expansion of the Pell grant, a very
important innovative and I think creative concept in loan forgiveness
for those who are going to give something back to the country because
of what the country has done for them. It provides important relief for
their families in interest payments, the expansion, in terms of young
people who are working, to permit them to earn a little more without
losing their need-based assistance and the recognition that we ought to
expand that opportunity for families with children.
Thirty thousand dollars, that sounds like a lot, but we are looking
at those individuals and families who are earning that amount. That is
a pretty hard-working family, needless to say, and they have children
who want to be a part of the whole American dream and contribute to
this country. They understand the importance of their continued
education.

[[Page S9462]]

This gives a pretty good idea about where we are on some of these
programs. It is important we understand these programs.
For those who are interested, we are still trying to work out a
consent agreement so we can consider the authorization as well. Senator
Enzi and I have been communicating through the course of the day with
our leadership and other members. We certainly hope that by tomorrow we
have some recommendations. Both of us understand the importance of
doing this. It has been mentioned over the course of the day the
extraordinarily important ethical issues with the student loan
industry, as well as other significant provisions, included in that
reauthorization legislation. The ethical issues is an important aspect
of the bill, and we should address that aspect and our reauthorization
does that.
The simplification of the application for federal aid is a key aspect
in terms of accessibility to college. That is a key element.
There are some other provisions that have been added by members of
the committee that have been described. This is a very important
reauthorization.
There is strong bipartisan support for the legislation. It is
important we pass it. We urge our colleagues to work with us to see
that this is done at the earliest possible time.
My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, I know is on his way
over here. We have had a good number of our colleagues who have spoken
on this legislation. Many on our committee have spoken. We are very
grateful to all of the members of the committee, as I mentioned
earlier, for their involvement and assistance.
Senator Reed worked very closely with Senator Enzi on what we call EZ
FAFSA, the application for student aid, and that is enormously
important. He has spoken today. Many on our committee members have
talked about this legislation, and we are grateful for all of their
efforts.
We have solid legislation. We are not looking for additional
amendments. But if that is the desire of our Members, we hope they will
communicate that to us as quickly as possible.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I again thank the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for his diligent work on this bill and for
his outstanding explanation of what is in the bill and ways it can
positively affect kids across the Nation.
Our goal with this bill and the Higher Education Act that we hope to
have follow immediately is to make sure there is affordable access for
everybody who wants to go to college. Even affordable access for those
who have other educational goals following high school, who have some
other occupations they want to pursue that requires specialized
schools, this bill will help in all of those aspects.
For those who may think some of these goals are unachievable, I wish
to share briefly an experience I had last weekend because I was
fortunate to have an opportunity to be a part of the Western Governors
University commencement. It was a very memorable day and brought back
memories of my own graduation and other graduation ceremonies I have
been a part of over the years. This one will stick in my mind for a
long time to come because what makes the Western Governors University
such a unique institution of higher learning can be reflected in the
eyes of those who were graduated.
The Western Governors University is a school without boundaries. It
is a nonprofit school. It was founded and supported by 19 State
governments. This is the only time the Governors of several States have
joined together to create a university.
It is also supported by more than 20 leading U.S. corporations and
foundations. This may be important. It is self-sufficient. Of course,
it is only self-sufficient because of some of the provisions we are
providing so kids have the opportunity to attend. I keep referring to
``kids.'' But with this one, I should not be referring to ``kids''
because the average age of their students is 38.
I mention this to encourage everybody that if they want some other
job opportunities, there are possibilities. This is one of the
possibilities for a person to get some additional education and be
covered by what we have in this bill.
Western Governors University offers a competency-based, regionally
accredited college program that is open to just about everybody. That
means a student who proves his or her knowledge in a certain subject
area does not have to put in seat time to relearn something they
already know. Their knowledge of a subject is measured through a series
of assessments when they start, and that allows the university to
individualize each course and tailor each degree to meet the needs of
that particular student.
The courses are all online. There are no classrooms. It can be taken
at the student's own convenience and speed. That is why I am mentioning
this university. Everybody does not have access, particularly in the
rural areas of this country, to a university. But online, they have
access to this and other institutions.
Tuition is $5,600 a year, and Federal education aid and private
scholarships are available. There are 20 corporations that provide
quite a few scholarships in addition to that Federal education aid.
That makes a degree from Western Governors University one of the most
reasonable college educations you can get, especially when you studying
while holding down a job. In that situation, your room and board is
probably your home.
When a student is accepted by the university, they are assigned an
instructor, a mentor, a counselor who will work with them and help them
make their way through the studies. That individual stays with them the
whole time they are in the university and keeps in touch for a year
beyond their graduation to help with placement and problems they may
experience.
The course is designed so that those who have other obligations in
their life--children, a job or other responsibilities that make a
traditional education impossible--can still get their undergraduate or
master's degree while keeping true to their day-to-day obligations and
responsibilities. A lot of people have to hold down a job in order to
feed their family, yet would like to be able to improve their
situation. This college makes that possible.
When their studies are completed, their tests have been taken and the
degrees have been earned, the whole university comes together to honor
the graduating class. That is the ceremony I was a part of and a day I
will not forget. The university student body is quite diverse. The
campus stretches through all 50 States on the Internet. In addition,
the fact that the university serves Active-Duty military personnel
overseas stretches this university without boundaries all around the
world.
The students I visited with on graduation day came from cities,
suburbs, and rural areas. The average age is 40, but they range from
the twenties to the sixties. The university makes it clear that you are
never too old to pursue a degree or return to college to get additional
education to get a better job or begin a new career.
In November 2000, Western Governors University graduated its first
student. It is a new university. Since then, the university has grown
and attracted more and more students to its programs. Now, a few years
after the first graduate earned a degree, WGU graduates more than 400
students each year in a growing number of degree programs.
The school keeps in touch with its graduates to check on how the
degrees they have earned have helped to improve their lives. They also
have a very active alumni association that helps former students to
continue to achieve and set new goals in their careers and pick up
additional courses.
At each graduation ceremony I have attended, I have always found that
what makes each school unique is its student body. Western Governors
University was no exception to the rule. I was greatly interested in
the remarks that were offered by four students who spoke at the
graduation representing their class.

[[Page S9463]]

I mention these again to emphasize there is a way in the United
States to get higher education no matter what your circumstances.
One of them wanted to be a teacher. It was a dream the university
made possible because their flexibility made her course schedule fit
into her life schedule. She already had a son and a job, and she spoke
about her work with the teaching program. She had to do student
teaching, just like everybody does, and one day she told one of the
students in her class how smart he was. He beamed and said, ``You know,
I wasn't smart until you came.'' That is what sold her on a teaching
career. She could see in his eyes he had come to believe in himself
because someone else believed in him. She spoke of the importance of
using your gifts and talents to encourage others to be the best they
can be.
When it comes down to it, that is the sum of what an education is all
about, learning to reach out to others so we use all our gifts and
talents to make this a better world. Under this bill, there is the
capability, if you are dedicating yourself in these areas, to take
advantage of some special benefits that are available.
Another graduate spoke with pride at how hard he worked to earn his
degree and how every moment had been worth it. He too had a family. He
mentioned the logic of an online university having a football team and
suggested that would truly be fantasy football. For him, one of the
most important parts of the experience had been the mentors who worked
with him, supported him, and shared his joy when he earned his degree.
He was certain his degree would open doors for him and change his life.
He was looking forward to getting involved in the alumni program so
everyone in his class, and others, could keep in touch and follow each
other's successes.
At traditional universities, that is an even more important part of
college life, keeping in touch and following each other's successes.
Another speaker told of the difficulties we all face, and said,
``Don't ever tell me you don't have time in your life or that it is too
tough.'' Her philosophy reminded me of a favorite motto of my own
family--TGAPA which stands for Trust in God and Push Ahead because that
is exactly what she has done. Despite the problems she has had to face,
which was the loss of two of her children and a husband who was facing
several health problems, she forged ahead, worked at her own pace, and
earned her degree.
Another speaker who had a message to share was Ngozika Ughanze from
Texas--originally from Nigeria--who was one of 10 children. Her father
was very concerned about his children and the importance of their
schooling so he sent all 10 to school to learn English. It started her
on the road to higher education that she has continued to follow all
her life. In her words, ``The more I learn, the more I want to learn.''
She left Nigeria with her husband in 1997 because they wanted to get
their own piece of the cake. She said, ``I believe if you work hard,
then you are able to live here.''
The problem for her, as it was and is for so many, was finding the
time to get it done. The only way she could make any progress was to
cut things out of her schedule. That meant giving up some of her
favorite things, such as television and shopping. It wasn't going to be
easy to pursue a college education because of her obligations to her
family--she has seven children--but she made it happen. She made it
happen despite having to relocate four times because of Hurricane
Katrina. She made it happen despite missing some deadlines, which meant
she had to work harder to catch up, again because of Hurricane Katrina
and Hurricane Rita, which also got involved in it. She made it happen
because she refused to accept any other outcome.
She used her family time to study with her children. She enjoyed
getting them involved almost as much as her children loved being a part
of their mommy's project. As she received her degree, three of her own
children are attending college and one day will receive their own
degrees.
There were nearly 90 graduates in the hall, representing 29 States,
but the ones watching online and getting their diploma online represent
42 States and 2 countries and ranged from 22 to 63 in age. A remarkable
group of men and women. Although I have only noted the dreams of a few,
each of them had their own story to tell about their degree, how they
earned it, what they planned to do with it, and how they hoped to use
what they learned to make the world a better place.
I was very pleased to be a part of that ceremony that honored such a
spirited group for having laid the groundwork for a great life. They
are all to be congratulated for earning their degrees and for making
another of their life's dreams come true. That is what we want for the
people of the United States, regardless of age. It doesn't matter
whether you are 22 or 18 or 63 or 94. I got to see a diploma given to a
man this spring who was 94 and who was pleased to finally get his
degree. That is possible in America, and this bill helps to make that
dream a reality in conjunction with the hard work of the students.
It isn't easy, and it is even more difficult if you are in situations
where you have a family, you have a job, and you have to maintain those
to maintain your family. So we are doing what is possible to make that
burden as easy as possible, and we hope we will have a lot of support.
We would encourage people who have amendments to get those down here so
we can complete this in a timely manner so we can do the other 80
percent of higher education that also needs to be done and that we have
been hoping to get done since last year.

So our work is cut out for us, but from these examples, you can see
the people out there are worth working for. We owe it to them. We have
the chance to do this, so let us do it now.
I yield the floor.

____________________