Student Aid Reward Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time as we continue into part two.

Today, we are considering a second rule to make in order amendments to the Republican majority's version of the higher education reauthorization. I had hoped we would have had the opportunity to continue a meaningful debate about how to best assist families and students across this Nation trying to pursue the college dream because a college education plays such a critical part in our lives.

As children, we all play at grown-up roles, dreaming of what we may be when we grow up, a teacher, an astronaut, a doctor, a scientist, an underwater adventurer or perhaps even a Member of Congress. Well, an education is what turns those dreams into reality, and with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we could have had an opportunity to play a role in encouraging these children's futures.

But to do that, we need to be looking at a reauthorization that reinforces our Nation's longstanding commitment to providing educational opportunities for all Americans, but alas, at the start of this year, my colleagues across the aisle pushed through the budget reconciliation package that cuts student loan programs by $12 billion, the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs ever.

Middle-income families are hard-pressed to keep up with rising tuition costs. Due to record high financial barriers, high school graduates who are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college are unable to do so.

While college tuition has continued to rise far faster than the cost of living, the maximum Pell Grant level has remained virtually constant, thus forcing many qualified students to postpone or cancel their dreams of a college degree or to incur significant debt in the form of loans.

Clearly, this bill has room for improvement. We could be debating a number of thoughtful amendments that would help substantially increase our investment in student loan programs, recruit teachers and develop a high-skilled workforce. However, fewer than one in five amendments was made in order.

Take, for example, the amendment offered by Representative Inslee to recruit Head Start teachers. I remember visiting the Nedra Court and Whispering Pines Head Start program in my district. The 60 students at each site definitely kept those teachers busy. This is a challenging job for which the $20,000 salary really is not much of an incentive.

Yet, last year, the House passed H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, to reauthorize the Head Start program. Contained in that legislation was an unfunded mandate requiring Head Start teachers to obtain a bachelor's degree.

Representative Inslee offered a straightforward amendment to increase student loan forgiveness programs to $17,500, which is the same level allowed for other targeted forgiveness programs for high-need professions. However, we will not be allowed to debate this amendment because the Republican majority are limiting the democratic process.

And those $12 billion in cuts from the Deficit Reduction Act, Representative Emanuel had an amendment that would restore the $12 billion to student aid programs cut in the Deficit Reduction Act. I think I hear about the negative impacts of these student aid cuts at least every other day, whether I am home in Sacramento or here in Washington, D.C. I find it hard to believe every other Member is not hearing this as well. But that amendment was not made in order.

Nor was the bipartisan Student Aid Reward amendment. At no additional cost to taxpayers, the STAR amendment would generate more than $12 billion in additional college scholarship aid.

Representatives Holt and Kind also crafted an exceptional amendment to promote students to study and enter into careers focused on math, science, engineering and technology. At a time of increasing concern about America's competitiveness in the world, these are fields we must promote to develop an engaged workforce.

I recently toured the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics in my district. This center explores how light and lasers can be applied to medical procedures, making for less invasive treatments and better diagnoses of cancer. The center has dozens of math and science graduate students assisting with research alongside the Nation's leading biophotonics experts.

Unfortunately, today we are sending a mixed message to students: We need you to pursue math and sciences, but we will not ensure that you can afford the education to enter these fields.

Today, the economic, social and civic importance of a college education has never been more important. Yet, college enrollment rates in the United States are stagnant. As more and more baby boomers begin to retire, we will be facing a crisis in the employment market if we cannot develop a highly skilled and trained workforce. This must be a national priority, but apparently not for this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to continue debate on a bill that forms the backbone of the opportunities our Nation's students may have at our Nation's colleges and universities. We must get it right which is precisely why this House must reject the rule before us.

As I reminded my colleagues yesterday, the House reauthorized the Higher Education Act in 1992 and in 1998 in a very different way than we have seen in the 109th Congress. Historically, any amendment to the Higher Education Act that was printed in the Congressional Record ahead of time could be offered on the floor.

The broad consideration those rules provided yielded reauthorization measures with broad support in the House. Each of those years, the rules, the bills and the conference reports passed either by voice vote or by overwhelming margins.

So my colleagues will forgive me when I place the historical record on reauthorization next to this year's bill and ask: What happened?

Instead of a bipartisan bill, we see the Higher Education Act torn in two by the majority, solely so some of its provisions could be used to cut more than $12 billion from student aid partially to finance the majority's tax cuts. Instead of careful floor consideration of several different policy approaches, we saw 118 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules but only 23 amendments were made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of all of the amendments to H.R. 609 submitted to the Committee on Rules but not made in order under either of the two rules.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 97--(Late) Requires institutes of higher

education to request emergency contact information on

enrollment forms.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 98--(Late) Allows students, whose parents

refuse to provide financial information on FAFSA forms, to

receive unsubsidized loans.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 99--(Late) Provides right of action for

students to sue IREs for violations of privacy rights.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 100--(Late) Provides that federal aid be

given without regard to university aid, which could then be

given on top.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 101--(Late) Requires personal computers

that are disposed of by IHEs be fully scrubbed of all

personal information.

Andrews (NJ)/Price (GA)--No. 105--(Late) Requires IHEs to

distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with

the other general disclosures they are required to provide.

Andrews (NJ)--No. 106--(Late) Protects the award levels of

institutions that report at least at 75% of their students

come from families with incomes that are within 150% of the

poverty line.

Andrews (NJ)/Price (GA)--No. 117--(Late) Requires IHEs to

distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with

the other general disclosures they are required to provide.

Berman (CA)/Bono (CA)/Goodlatte (VA)/Hoyer (MD)--No. 61--

Requires colleges and universities to report whether they are

taking steps to prevent illegal downloading of copyrighted

material on their campus information technology systems.

Bishop (UT)--No. 32--(Withdrawn) Ensures that state and

local education officials, as well as private schools and

parents of home schooled students, retain control over

secondary school curriculum for purposes of eligibility under

the new Academic Competitiveness Pell Grants program.

Potential control over this curriculum was improperly given

in-part to the Secretary of Education by the portion of the

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which created this program.

Bishop (NY)--No. 34--Increases oversight on the

administration of the ability to benefit test.

Bishop (NY)--No. 36--Blocks any Department of Education

funds from being used to recall Perkins loan funds.

Bishop (NY)--No. 37--Extends the Tuition Deduction for

Higher Education through 12/31/2011.

Cole (OK)/Payne (NJ)--No. 2--(Withdrawn) Strikes Section

402(c) from the bill to eliminate the 10 percent set aside

for novice TRIO applicants.'

Davis (IL)/Owens (NY)/Pickering (MS)--No. 80--Includes

predominantly black institutions into existing higher

education efforts to strengthen the ability of minority-

serving institutions to attract, retain, and graduate low-

income students.

Davis (IL)--No.81--Re-extends Pell eligibility to

individuals in prison in an effort to increase successful

transitions into the community and reduce recidivism.

Davis (IL)--No.82--(Withdrawn) Revises the study on

minority graduation rates that was included in H.R. 609 as

reported by Committee to be consistent with recommendations

made by the Department of Education and the National Center

for Education Statistics.

Davis (CA)--No. 14--Prevents contributions made by military

service members to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGJB) program from

causing any reductions to a veteran student's eligibility for

federal student financial aid.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 16--Provides grants to states and local

education agencies seeking to create teacher preparation

activities. In order to qualify, agencies must have a written

agreement with a local college or university where the

teaching residents will enroll and complete a Masters Degree

in teaching; teaching residents will spend no less that 10

months in a classroom with an experienced mentor teacher; and

teaching residents must sign a written agreement with the

local education agency agreeing to teach in that district for

a minimum of five years.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 17--Instructs the Secretary of Education

to reduce the number of questions on the Free Application for

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form by 50 percent within 5

years.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 18--Simplifies the application process

for the neediest students with automatic qualification for

the maximum aid awards through federal means tested programs

(such as Free and Reduced Price School lunches). Raises the

automatic zero income threshold to $25,000 (from $20,000) and

adjusts the threshold annually according to the Consumer

Price Index. Also eliminates certain nontaxable income data

elements from the FAFSA form.

Emanuel (IL)--No. 19--Restores the $12 billion to student

aid programs that the Deficit Reduction Act cut.

Engell (NY)--No. 88--(Late) Expresses the sense of the

House of Representatives that, in an effort to raise

awareness about sexual assault, all colleges and universities

should provide a training course to incoming students to

educate them on sexual assault.

Etheridge (NC)--No. 47--Adds Fayetteville State University

to the list of schools eligible for funding under Title III B

of HEA.

Fattah (PA)--No. 107--(Late) Establishes a new and distinct

Dual Emollment Section as an addendum to the current GEAR UP

program. This section is essentially an additional

programmatic element that would specifically target

resources and services towards the promotion of dual

enrollment among low income students participating in GEAR

UP programs throughout the country. The language was

drafted in a manner that adds a new section to GEAR UP,

and attaches a separate appropriation for this section,

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be

necessary for each of the succeeding five years. In short,

dual/concurrent enrollment is defined as the practice by

which high school students may enroll in college courses

while still enrolled in high school. Students receive

college credits but are not required to apply for

admission to the college in order to participate.

Fattah (PA)--No. 108--(Late) Adjusts the minimum

scholarship amount in which grantees are required by law to

distribute in accordance with the requirements of the program

from the maximum Federal Pell Grant to the minimum Federal

Pell grant awarded.

Fattah (PA)--No. 109--(Late) Creates legislative action to

take precedence over current agency regulations which prevent

new funds appropriated under new authorizing legislation to

be used to provide services under old authorizing

legislation. With this amendment, funds will be permitted for

use with current GEAR UP students who have not yet graduated

from high school.

Gingrey (GA)--No. 104--(Withdrawn) Ensures economically

eligible students enrolled in a full-time, university level,

academically gifted program, but are of traditional high

school age, qualify for Pell Grants. Students affected by the

amendment are full time university students who reside on

campus as a requirement of the gifted program. The students

do not attend high school courses, nor will they return to a

high school classroom as a student.

Grijalva (AZ)--No. 58--Offers loan forgiveness for teachers

who work in schools located on Native American reservations

or in Indian Country who complete five years of service.

Grijalva (AZ)--No. 59--Offers loan forgiveness for

educators working at high poverty (Title I eligible) and

large free-and-reduced lunch population Border Schools within

the 100 mile region of the US-Mexico border who complete 5

years of service. Seeks to reduce the burden of student debt

for Americans who dedicate their careers to service in areas

of national need along the border.

Grijalva (AZ)--No. 60--Offers loan forgiveness for teachers

who work in rural schools located in low-income communities

who complete five years of service.

Holt (NJ)/Bishop (NY)--No. 33--Rebates students who lost

Pell Grant eligibility due to changes in the state tax

tables, and replaces the tax tables with the highest income

protection allowance.

Holt (NJ)--No. 50--Authorizes $15 million in grants to

institutions of higher education to establish programs that

encourage students to develop foreign language proficiency as

well as science and technological knowledge. Eligible

institutions will develop

programs in which students take courses in science, math and

technology taught in a foreign language. Funds will also

support immersion programs for students to take science and

math courses in a non-English speaking country.

Holt (NJ)--No. 51--Creates the opportunity for school

systems to complete a Needs Assessment in science,

mathematics, and foreign languages to guide teacher

professional development and classroom improvement. The Needs

Assessment will include as many education stakeholders as

possible, including teachers, administrators, parents, school

boards, businesses, institutions of higher education,

professional associations, and others as determined by the

community. The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to properly

direct funds and energy to necessary and ambitious teacher

professional development and classroom improvement.

Holt (NJ)--No. 52--Creates year-round professional

development for mathematics, science, vocational education,

and technical course teachers inspired by reports like the

NAS' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and the Glenn

Commission's ``Before Its Too Late''. The process begins with

a two week summer institute at an institution of higher

education targeted to improve content knowledge of, grade

level teaching of, and the use of technology in the

disciplines in which they teach. The professional development

continues with meetings to discuss new scientific,

industrial, and academic research and how to incorporate it

into classroom practice. Additionally, an online community is

created to further foster a collaborative learning community

amongst teachers that exceeds the limits of a once a month

gathering.

Hooley (OR)--No. 46--Creates a Technology Education State

Stimulus Scholarship Program, that will allow the Secretary

of Education to award grants to States to provide

supplementary scholarships to students for study at the

postsecondary level in science, math, engineering, or a

related field.

Inslee (WA)--No. 25--Seeks to retain Head Start and Early

Head Start teachers by increasing the level of discretionary

loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 (the level for math

and science teachers). Seeks to address the unfunded mandate

passed in School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123) requiring 50

percent of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers to obtain

a bachelor's degree in early education by 2011.

Inslee (WA)/Wu (OR)--No. 26--Instructs the Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA) to assess

the increasing cost of college textbooks and the effect on

access to higher education, and to recommend strategies for

reducing the costs. Currently, ACSFA operates within the

Department of Education to advise and counsel Congress and

the secretary of education on student financial policy,

focusing only on financial aid. Allows the ACSFA to consider

total costs, including textbooks, that may affect overall

costs and access to postsecondary education.

Israel (NY)--No. 66--Requires the Department of Education

to study and report on methods of encouraging centers of

higher education, and their students, to study topics and

regions important to our nation's national security, such as

Islamic studies and China studies.

Israel (NY)--No. 67--Directs the Secretary of Education to

match, on a 1:1 basis, any funding set aside by National

Security Education Trust Fund (NSETF) for the National

Security Education Program, thereby doubling the funding of

this program.

Israel (NY)--No. 68--Directs the Secretary of Education to

make grants to eligible members of the Armed Services to pay

tuition and other authorized fees to an educational

institution in which the service member is enrolled. The

funds made available for these grants shall match, on a 1:1

basis, funding set aside by the Secretaries of the military

departments.

Israel (NY)--No. 20--(Withdrawn) Requires the Department of

Education to study and report on methods of encouraging

centers of higher education, and their students, to study

topics and regions important to our nation's national

security, such as Islamic studies and China studies.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 73--Expresses the Sense of Congress

encouraging publishers, professors, and universities to

ensure accessibility of braille textbooks for blind or

vision-impaired students.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 74--Commissions a study of students

in higher education with learning disabilities.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--No. 55--Increases the maximum Pell grant

from $6,000 to $7,350.

Jefferson (LA)--No. 38--Seeks to provide an additional

semester of Pell Grant eligibility to college students who

(1) attended school in an ``area affected by the Gulf

hurricane disaster''; (2) were dependents whose parents lived

and were employed in the area; or (3) whose education was

interrupted by the disaster. Also directs the Secretary of

Education to increase the annual loan limits by $3,500 for

affected students; eligible students may elect to apply the

loan increase to either the 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 school

years.

Jefferson (LA)--No. 110--(Late) Establishes a low-cost

relief loan program to make available low-cost, long-term,

guaranteed loans to eligible institutions of higher education

for expenses relating to the losses incurred during and after

the gulf coast hurricane disasters including: construction

and rehabilitation, faculty salaries and benefits and to

supplement the institution's operations. The loan should be

repayable over 50 years and the Secretary will determine the

loan amount.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 64--Expands anti-

discrimination measures to preclude institutions of higher

education from using Federal financial assistance to perform

any study or fulfill any contract that prohibits persons of a

particular color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender

identity, sexual orientation or national origin from

performing that study or executing that contract.

Institutions are not prevented from conducting objective

studies pertaining to discrimination or including the subject

of discrimination' in its curriculum.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 65--Expands Pell grant

eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a

result of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. These

children will be eligible for the maximum amount of Pell

grant assistance.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 62--Changes eligibility

standards for Academic Competitiveness Grants by requiring

recipients to also be Pell recipients, as opposed to the

current requirement of Pell eligible. Academic

Competitiveness Grants are not to exceed that of a student's

Pell grant, with first year awards adjusted from $750 to

$1,000, and second year awards adjusted from $1,300 to

$1,050. Academic Competitiveness Grant recipients will be

given top priority for SMART Grants.

Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX)--No. 63--Expands Pell grant

eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a

result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. These children would be

eligible for the maximum amount of Pell grant assistance.

Kind (WI)/Van Hollen (MD)--No. 30--Reinstates the

eligibility of undergraduates in Section 602(b), Foreign

Language Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, for advanced level

training in foreign language, world area, and other

international studies. It also clarifies that undergraduates

may use the fellowships while studying abroad.

Kind (WI)/Holt (NJ)--No. 31--Provides institutions of

higher education with grants to institute creative and

innovative ways of encouraging students to study and enter

into careers focused on math, science, engineering, and

technology.

Lantos (CA)--No. 24--Makes a technical correction to the

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program

to clarify Congressional intent that a Masters Degree level

institution or program is eligible to be the lead recipient

of a grant under the GAANN program.

Lee (CA)--No. 15--Makes school counselors, school social

workers and school psychologists eligible for student loan

forgiveness program and identifies them as an ``in need''

profession in our elementary and secondary schools.

Lewis (KY)--No. 49--(Withdrawn) Strikes a provision from

the legislation to allow states to become accreditors of

independent colleges and universities. Regional accrediting

entities now assure that colleges and universities are

meeting standards. Prohibits state intervention into private

and independent colleges and universities.

McCarthy (NY)--No. 21--Requires teacher preparation

programs to publicly report on the number and type of

teachers they are preparing.

McCarthy (NY)/Andrews (NJ)--No. 22--Includes nursing

schools in Section 102, ``Institutions Outside the United

States''.

McCarthy (NY)--No. 23--Creates a pilot program to increase

the number of graduate educated nurse faculty to meet the

future need for qualified nurses.

McCollum (MN)--No. 75--Requires colleges that participate

in Federal financial aid programs to disclose information to

students and the Department of Education about the college's

compliance with U.S. regulations that prohibit bonuses to

admissions counselors for their recruitment efforts.

McCollum (MN)--No. 96--(Late) Strikes Section 204 and

related sections. This amendment strikes the Teacher

Incentive Fund provisions and requires the Secretary of

Education to direct any funds appropriated for the Teacher

Incentive Fund to financial assistance to higher education

institutions located in areas affected by Hurricanes Rita and

Katrina.

Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 4--Makes mentoring a component

of the community services programs under work-study. The

program can be coordinated between the eligible

institution and the public and private organizations and

entities that will participate in providing mentoring for

children in foster care (such as faith-based

organizations, foster care/adoption agencies, children's

groups, State Departments of Social Services, public

school systems).

Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 3--Directs the Secretary of

Education to advocate for and support the addition of foster-

care mentoring programs as part of the independent study

requirements if such independent study requirements are

required for graduation in the following areas of Education,

Sociology, and Psychology at 4-year or 2-year intuitions. The

duration of the program would be as outlined by academic

requirements for graduation.

Millender-McDonald (CA)--No. 6--Clarifies the due process

owed to educational institutions throughout the accreditation

process. The amendment would: (1) provide express

Congressional definition of minimum due process for

educational institutions; and (2) require key accreditation

decision making to be made in public and after an opportunity

for public comment.

Miller (NC)/Bishop (NY)--No. 89--(Late) Establishes a pre-

competitive innovation investment grant program that will

assist colleges and universities in establishing

precompetitive technology transfer centers.

Miller (CA)/McCarthy (NY)--No. 91--(Late) Offers up-front

tuition assistance to undergraduates committed to a teaching

career, and seeks to establish teachers infields like math

and science. Establishes grants with which local districts

can provide competitive salaries to their best teachers in

the most high-need areas.

Norton (DC)--No. 93--(Late) Amends title III of the Higher

Education Act of 1965 to include the University of the

District of Columbia as an eligible institution in Section

326 to receive funding for its qualified graduate programs.

Norton (DC)--No. 95--(Late) Amends Section 496 to clarify

the current statutory due process requirements, require cited

institutions to receive notice of the deficiencies and be

provided the opportunity to respond, grant cited institutions

the right to assistance of counsel, and change the final

appeals procedure to provide an alternative dispute

resolution component.

Petri (WI)/Miller (CA)--No. 27--Inserts at the end of part

G of title IV of the bill, the provisions of HR 1425, the

Student Aid Reward Program.

Ryan (OH)--No. 8--Requires the Education Secretary to award

grants of not more than $25,000 each on a competitive basis

to not more than 20 institutions of higher education to

enable those schools to determine the feasibility of

operating a course material rental program on their campuses.

The feasibility studies would determine the effectiveness and

cost of a program which expands the services of bookstores to

provide the option for students to rent course materials in

order to achieve savings for students.

Ryan (OH)--No. 7--Requires institutions of higher education

to waive academic progress requirements for interruptions of

study caused by active military service.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 111--(Late) Adds language so

that paragraph 4 of section 513 enables students receiving

financial assistance to receive some sufficient to cover

elevated costs of living that exist in some regions.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 112--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 131(b)(1) will require the website to provide,

along with other data elements of importance, information

which will be useful to minority student populations. For

example, by including Hispanic Serving Institutions as a

search criterion in the website's college search, students

will be able to target the universities which may provide

scholarships or areas of study of their preference.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 113--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 131(b)(3)(B) reads as follows: ``includes clear

and uniform information determined to be relevant to

prospective students, enrolled students, and families; in

both English and Spanish''. This amendment will require all

the information in the website to be presented in both

English and Spanish.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 114--(Late) Adds a new paragraph

so that the new SECTION 131(c)(2) requires the schools in the

website to present a list of scholarships they offer. This

will help students who are eligible for specific scholarships

to identify institutions who offer that specific type of

scholarship.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 115--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 131(d) will require the information under this

section to be in both English and Spanish.

Sanchez, Loretta (CA)--No. 116--(Late) Adds language so

that SECTION 401A(a)(1) will oblige recipients of federal

student aid to receive some instruction in financial literacy

and responsibility to better manage their financial aid.

Scott (GA)/Drake (VA)/Weiner (NY)--No. 69--Establishes a

student loan repayment program within the Department of

Education for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at

least three years, as public attorneys who are: (1) State or

local criminal prosecutors; or (2) State, Local, or Federal

public defenders in criminal cases. The repayment under this

program will be limited to $6000 per calendar year and

$40,000 total.

Scott (VA)--No. 83--Requires degree granting institutions

to collect hate crimes data using the same crime categories

that the FBI is required to use under the Hate Crime

Statistics Act of 1991.

Strickland (OH)--No. 70--Requires that the maximum

authorized Pell grant award increases every year by a

percentage equal to the percent increase in the cost of

higher education, according to the Price Indexes for Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Type of Product of the Bureau of

Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce.

Strickland (OH)--No. 71--Defines and sets minimum standards

for ``educational organizations'' eligible for teacher

education partnership grants under Title II of the bill.

Strickland (OH)--No. 53--Expands the loan forgiveness

program for FFEL and DL borrowers to all teachers working in

low-income schools who became first-time borrowers on or

after October 1, 1990.

Stupak (MI)--No. 78--Provides Federal student loan relief

to borrowers who go into school administration in low-income

school districts. Applies to any borrower who has been

employed as a full-time school superintendent, principal, or

other administrator for five consecutive complete school

years in a school district in a low-income area.

Tierney (MA)/Kind (WI)--No. 76--Prohibits the campus-based

aid funding formula changes from taking place until the

Secretary of Education certifies that sufficient funding has

been appropriated so that no school loses money.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 40--Provides incentives to

make tuition affordable. Provides that any institution of

higher education that keeps its net tuition price increase

below the Higher Education Price Index receives a 25 percent

increase to the Pell Grant award of its Pell Grant recipients

and any institution that guarantees net tuition price

increases below the Higher Education Price Index for five

years receives a 10 percent increase to the Pell Grant award

of its Pell Grant recipients. Institutions that raise net

tuition price by more than the Higher Education Price Index

shall submit a report explaining the causes of such an

increase and detailing a plan for preventing such increases

in the future.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 41--Commissions the

National Research Council to conduct a national study to

determine the viability of developing and implementing

standards in environmental, health, and safety areas to

provide for differential regulation of industrial

laboratories and facilities, on the one hand, and research

and teaching laboratories on the other. The National Research

Council shall make specific recommendations for statutory and

regulatory changes that are needed to develop such a

differential approach.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 42--Creates an articulation

agreement demonstration program, monitored by the Department

of Education, to encourage institutions of higher education

to enter into articulation agreements or consortia groups, as

a means to lower tuition prices to students.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 43--Renews states'

commitment to affordable college education by ensuring that

they maintain their own level of college financing. Gives

students and families access to accurate information about

the cost of college and steps individual schools are taking

to offer affordable rates of tuition.

Tierney (MA)--No. 44--Commissions a study by the Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance to examine the

adequacy of current financial aid programs and the extent to

which every qualified eligible student receives a sufficient

comprehensive financial aid package from all sources,

induding aid from Federal financial aid programs under this

title, state financial aid programs, institutional financial

aid programs, and privately-funded grant aid programs.

Tierney (MA)/McCollum (MN)--No. 45--Commissions a GAO Study

on college costs and the relationship between state, Federal

and institutional support for higher education and college

costs.

Waters (CA)--No. 118--(LATE) Seeks to condition the

eligibility of private, post-secondary institutions as

``institutions of higher education'' for purpose of funding

under the Act on the obtainment of at least 10 percent of its

total funding from sources other than Title IV.

Waters (CA)--No. 56--Extends eligibility for Centers of

Excellence program funds to states in which a major disaster

has occurred under Section 402 of the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for a period of

two years following the date of Presidential declaration.

Wu (OR)/Simmons (CT)--No. 9--Allows student loan borrowers

to refinance their student loans. Upon reconsolidation, the

borrower would get a variable rate with a cap of 6.8 prcent.

Wu (OR)/McGovern (MA)--No. 10--Increases the Pell Grant

award to $8,000 through the use of mandatory funds over a

period of 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, why doesn't Mr. Inslee deserve a floor vote on his proposal on Head Start teacher loan forgiveness? Why prevent public discussion of Mr. McGovern's and Mr. Wu's proposal that we increase Pell Grant awards? Or the amendment from Mr. Miller and Mr. Petri that would provide $12 billion in student aid without costing the taxpayers a dime?

Clearly, their ideas would have at least made it to the floor for the debate in 1992 and 1998. So have these Members simply shown up to the wrong section of Congress, or does the majority feel that these amendments might be sound policy and pass?

Members on both sides of the aisle decry the lack of bipartisanship in the House every day, but what are we doing to really embrace bipartisanship? We should be able to agree that every Member of this body deserves time to offer his or her suggestions on something as fundamental as our Nation's education policy. Sadly, that is not the case this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the second rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this bill to reform, reauthorize and strengthen programs under the Higher Education Act. I want to thank my former chairman and our current majority leader, Mr. Boehner, for working with me to craft this legislation.

It has been a long process, but the bill that we are bringing to the floor today is a good one, one worthy of healthy debate and bipartisan support. I would like to thank the new chairman of the 21st Century Subcommittee, Representative Ric Keller from Florida, for his work on key elements of this legislation, notably the improvements we make on the Pell Grant program.

I would also like to take a moment to recognize Representatives Kildee and Miller for their continued work on college access issues.

In addition to the strong underlying bill we have before us today, the legislation also incorporates a manager's amendment which is the product of substantial bipartisan negotiations. Through our work together over the past several weeks and months, we have drafted a manager's amendment that addresses many concerns.

Those concerns include some of those of my friends across the aisle. For example, the manager's amendment eliminates an Inspector General's rule as part of the college affordability index provisions.

It clarifies that a State cannot require an institution to be accredited by that same State and also makes clear that schools can continue to choose their own accreditor. It adds a new post-secondary institution to the list of historically black graduate institutions. It increases the minimum grant for tribally controlled colleges and universities. It enhances coordination within the TRIO and GEAR UP programs to better serve foster care students, and it allows the U.S. Department of Education to reserve funds within the high school equivalency program, college assistance, migrant program for technical assistance activities.

Often this type of bipartisan work does not come easily, and I am pleased that we were able to find common ground on issues important to Members on both sides of the aisle. At the outset of this debate today, I am hopeful that the spirit of bipartisanship can carry on. If we disagree, we should not be disagreeable, and above all, our consideration of this important bill should not turn into an election- year fight led by those who may seek to play fast and loose with the facts about what the bill does and does not do.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot lose sight of the fact that each year American taxpayers invest tens of billions of dollars in aid to college students and funding for U.S. institutions of higher education, as you can see on the chart here.

Our Federal commitment to student aid is great, and gets greater with each passing year. More than four decades ago, when the Higher Education Act was enacted, the purpose of this hefty investment was clear, to expand college access to all people.

However, today, faced with an increasingly competitive global economy, in which post-secondary education is more necessary than ever, ensuring that Federal dollars are spent effectively and efficiently is a bottom-line issue for students, parents and taxpayers alike, again, as you can see from this chart.

Mr. Chairman, costs at both private and public colleges are spiraling upward and fast. Indeed, consistent increases in college costs have made it clear that colleges and universities must remain accountable to consumers of higher education. At the same time, students, parents and taxpayers have the right to know that Federal dollars are being invested in ways that respond to a changing marketplace, expanding college access and protecting students' interest. The College Access and Opportunity Act does just that. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the Higher Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the majority leader of the House, former chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Education Reform Subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a former community college president, a university administrator, a former TRIO director, someone with great credibility on this subject, and a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, a report released last week by a leading consulting firm confirmed that the pro-growth policies championed by this Congress and this President are working. In fact, they have been so successful that, this spring, we are poised to see the strongest job market for our Nation's 1.4 million college graduates since the dot-com bubble burst in 2001. The firm also cited a recent survey that showed employers plan to hire 14.5 percent more new college graduates this year than they did a year ago.

There is a great deal of doom and gloom here in Washington. Some taking part in this debate today certainly are no exception. But the fact is our economy is growing, and the college graduates are feeling the effect. That is why this bill before us is so important today. The legislation will empower students with more information and more resources than ever before as they seek to achieve the dream of attending college.

The College Access and Opportunity Act that we have before us today strengthens the Pell Grant program by providing year-round Pell Grant aid for students attending school throughout the year, and removes an incentive for colleges to raise tuition by repealing the Pell Grant tuition sensitivity language.

It gives higher education consumers more information about what they are getting for their money by establishing college consumer profiles.

It shines a spotlight on excessive tuition hikes through the college affordability index, and it strengthens U.S. competitiveness by sharpening our focus on improving math, science and critical foreign language programs.

Mr. Chairman, simply put, this bill is comprehensive. It is fiscally responsible, and it is worthy of our support.

Again, I thank my colleagues on the committee for their work in crafting the College Access and Accountability Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it on final passage.

Mr. Chairman, before I finish, I have spent 14 years almost now on this committee. I would like to recognize a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee staff, Sally Lovejoy. I have just become chairman of this committee and I was really offended when she let me know that she was leaving. I thought it was because of me. But then I heard that she has been offered a great job, to work with the first lady, representing us in Paris. And that is where she did some of her college work. I think it is a wonderful opportunity, and I am happy that she has the opportunity. We are going to miss her, and we appreciate all of the years, 25 years' work that she has put in on this committee. On behalf of our entire committee and the rest of the staff, I want to thank her for all of her great work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to the College Access and Opportunity Act, and I would like to take a few moments to identify and clarify for Members a few points regarding the manager's amendment.

The process that we go through here is, somebody, after many hearings, writes a bill, and then it goes to our committee by direction of the Speaker, and then generally the subcommittee holds a markup giving all members a chance to participate and amend the bill, and then the full committee, and we go through the process again with all members on the committee able to add amendments, change the bill. It goes through a series of debate. And then, after that, between the time it goes to the committee and the time it comes to the floor, we continue working on the process, and the changes that are worked out at that time are added to a final manager's amendment, which we are now presenting on the floor.

And with respect to the College Affordability Index provisions of H.R. 609, which aim to shine a spotlight on hyperinflation and college costs, the manager's amendment, after this process, makes a couple of very important changes. First, it requires institutions whose affordability index ranking falls in the highest 10 percent nationwide to establish a quality, efficient task force charged with comparing the operating costs of its institution with those of others. This is down from the highest 25 percent in the underlying bill, so we have reduced that 25 percent of the colleges that have increased their costs the most over the period of the 8 years that it affects, to be highlighted, and we have cut that from 25 down to 10 percent.

Furthermore, under the manager's amendment, one of the things that we had in the original bill was we could call on the Inspector General to do an audit of the school. We have removed that, and there will be nothing more than the reporting provisions that the schools will have to comply with connected to the College Affordability Index.

On accreditation, the manager's amendment explicitly clarifies that a State cannot require colleges and universities within its borders to be accredited by that State. There has been some misinformation out on that. We have clarified that in the manager's amendment.

Moreover, this amendment provides colleges and universities a clear choice regarding whose accreditation they seek.

It forces no accreditation decisions on any school or any State, period. If the State wants to get into the accrediting business, they have to go through the requirements that are offered for all other accreditors. They have to be approved by the Department of Education, and then the school picks what accrediting body they want to work with.

Finally, the manager's amendment retains current law with respect to campus-based aid programs, as well as the TRIO Federal college access programs. It requires new studies that will allow us to take a deeper look into these programs and determine what steps need to be taken in the future to ensure they are running as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment contains several other changes including many that are the products of negotiations with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say that we appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We think it makes the bill stronger. We thank him for his support and work on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for this amendment. It again makes the bill stronger, and I appreciate their working together in a bipartisan method to make this happen.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I rise to thank the gentlewoman for her amendment.

One of my daughters has home schooled some of her children, and we have many friends who home school their children and do a fantastic job, and I am really happy that they will be able to participate in this scholarship. I think this improves the bill.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. We have worked together on this issue before. I am getting toward the end of my life. I am a lot older than a lot of the people around here. But in my youth, I remember when families that had children with Downs Syndrome used to keep them out of sight. And we have made so much progress. And I have a nephew that has Downs Syndrome, and I see the love that he has brought into their family. He is 12 also. And to think that we have come so far and yet we have an opportunity to go further. And this amendment makes that possible. And I just want to thank the gentleman for his efforts in this, and on behalf of all children with Downs Syndrome to give them the opportunity to go as far as they can, because I think that is something that, again, improves and enhances the bill. And I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition of the bill, not because I do not appreciate the hard work that has gone on in committee and the attempt of the chairman and the ranking member, everyone involved, to try to produce a bipartisan bill, but because the bill before us is really a missed opportunity bill, as my friend from Michigan described it.

This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will come out of the Congress this year because it is a bill that will directly affect who we are going to be as a Nation in this century, whether we will retain our leadership in being the most innovative and creative country in the world or whether we will start sounding the retreat and waving countries like China and India good-bye as they make major investment in their education infrastructure, especially in the fields of math, science, engineering and technology, because they want to be on the cutting edge of scientific and technological discovery.

Last year, I was with the chairman on a 2-week tour of some of the higher education institutions in China. China has graduated nine times the number of engineers we did in this country. They graduated more English-speaking

engineers than we did in our own country. This is one of the keys to how creative we will be and what type of economic growth and job creation we will realize and what type of national security we will have.

This bill also speaks to the anxiety that many American families feel throughout the country, and that is a fear that they are not going to be able to afford to give their child postsecondary educational opportunities because they do not have the financial means to do so.

A recent study shows that close to one-half of the low-income students in this country who are qualified and want to go on to school cannot because of financial reasons; and for a country as wealthy and as powerful as ours to be closing the door of educational opportunity because of finance alone is a recipe for economic disaster.

More can be done. There are good features in this bill, but this bill also appears before us in the shadow of the largest raid on student aid in our Nation's history, over $12 billion worth of cuts in the budget reconciliation bill that just passed weeks before in this Congress. The budget resolution that we are marking up in committee today is requiring an additional $1.3 billion in cuts in the Education and Workforce Committee budget, and we are going to have to try to figure out where those are going to come from.

The bottom line is, if we are going to remain innovative, if we are going to retain our economic strength and grow the economy, we have to make crucial investments in the education field.

I am glad that we were able to put a token scholarship program for students entering the math, science, engineering and technology fields; and I commend the chairman for working with some of us to get that accomplished, but it is just that, a token effort because the studies are coming in and they are hitting us between the eyes. The national academy, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''; the Glenn Commission, years before, titled ``Before It Is Too Late''; other studies that are telling us that we really do need to ramp up this investment in education before it is too late.

This is a missed opportunity, and hopefully, we will have a chance to correct it.

Mr. Chairman, college is an investment that pays off over a lifetime. Median annual earnings for a year-round, full-time worker with a bachelor's degree are about 60 percent higher than earnings for those with a high school diploma. Congress passed the Higher Education Act in 1965 to provide all Americans with greater post-secondary educational opportunities.

This bill is a missed opportunity to make college more affordable, to boost America's economic competitiveness, and to invest in American's continued prosperity. If I supported this bill, I would not be able to look the students in my congressional district in the eye because I would know I had not done all I could to help better their futures. Cost factors already prevent 48 percent of college-qualified high school graduates from attending a four-year institution and 22 percent from attending any college at all. No person in this country should ever be excluded from attending college because they cannot afford it.

During Committee consideration, we offered an alternative that would have saved the typical student more than $6,000 on his or her college loans and provided a $500 boost to the maximum Pell grant--at no additional cost to taxpayers. I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were unwilling to work with us to include this proposal in the final bill.

There are, however, several provisions in the bill that I support. I am pleased to have worked with Chairman McKeon, and Representatives Ehlers and Holt in successfully passing an amendment to the Higher Education Act to provide scholarships and grants for students to study and enter into careers in science, technology, engineering and math, STEM, fields.

America is suffering from a shrinking talent pool of students who are proficient in fields of math, sciences, engineering and technology, and is consequently in danger of losing its unique position of world leadership in innovation and creativity. We must do more to make Americans employable in 21st century jobs by putting greater emphasis on student achievement in these areas and giving our students the tools and skills they need to compete in the today's economy. Our global competitors are doing it--we can't afford to stand idly and watch them pass us by.

In addition, I was pleased to have worked with my good friend, Representative Tierney, in preventing changes to the campus-based aid formula that would have cut $7.56 million in campus-based aid for the University of Wisconsin System. This money is critical for students in Wisconsin and the loss of these funds would have further reduced opportunities for students to attend college.

Another provision included in H.R. 609 that I worked on with my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Petri, will allow our 13 two- year colleges in the University of Wisconsin System to qualify individually for TRIO grants.

Finally, during debate in Committee, my amendment requesting the Department of Education to study the trends of adult learners was accepted. Older people are heading back to the classroom in large numbers, and we must not ignore their individual needs.

In closing, I would like to remind all my colleagues what President Bush said in his State of the Union speech in January. He said ``We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people--and we are going to keep that edge.'' Yet, the President and the Congressional majority have already begun to walk away from that promise by supporting the higher education bill before us today.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, America is number one in the global economy, and we can stay number one if we make aggressive investments in education, innovation, and future generations. At a time when education is at a premium and we need to be growing the economy, we should be making it easier, not harder, for students to attend college.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I want to rise to speak in favor of this amendment and commend my colleagues for coming together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize one of the more urgent needs that we have as a Nation to prepare for the global competition that our children and grandchildren will face in the 21st Century.

I think this is a very responsible amendment in light of recent reports that we have had a chance to decipher and analyze, as members of the education committee, from virtually all sectors of business in this country, the National Academy of Sciences have weighed in on an extensive study about the need for us to ramp up our investment in math, science, engineering, technology.

What this amendment also recognizes is the critical link between foreign language studies and those entering the fields of math and science, which is growing even more critical given the complex, interdependent economic relationship that we have with so many people and so many countries and so many businesses throughout the world.

This is a critical need that this amendment recognizes and speaks to. I want to especially commend my friend from New Jersey for the leadership that he has provided, not only to those of us on the committee but for the entire Congress, given his background and qualifications and expertise to speak on the subject of content knowledge in math, science and engineering.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I think one of his campaign bumper stickers that his volunteers and supporters were fond of handing out was that their Congressman is a rocket scientist. And we have had the pleasure of benefiting from that knowledge on the committee. And he along with Mr. Ehlers have been tireless in their advocacy for us to do more as an institution to ramp up the fields of study of math and science and engineering.

This is, as Mr. Dreier indicated, consistent with one of the calls the President made in the State of the Union address with the American Competitiveness Initiative. That is something that I hope we all can come together in a bipartisan fashion to support and move forward on, not just in a passing authorizing language but also the important appropriation in the funds to back up these programs.

The other issue that Mr. Holt spoke to that I think is very important too is in regards to the adjunct teachers envisioned under this legislation. Teaching is different from private life. You just cannot pluck someone off the street no matter how good and no matter how knowledgeable they are in the realm of business or in the research labs, put them in a classroom and expect them to work miracles with the students. We are hoping as we move forward with this legislation, if it is accepted, that there be pre-in-service training and screening with these adjunct teachers before they enter the classroom, before they start working with these kids at such a crucial developmental age.

We have a long way to go as a Nation in light of the current trends around the globe. Many of us on the Education Committee last year had a chance for a couple of weeks to do a higher education tour of China to see where they are going. China and India are clearly two nations that are going to be very significant and influential in world events in the 21st century. We are already starting to see that influence today.

China is a country that is not content with just being good at copying and mass producing. They want be on the cutting edge of scientific and medical and technological discoveries. We need to recognize that in light of the competition it will pose to our students in the 21st century and be willing to support bipartisan amendments like this in order to makes these steps to advance the cause of critical content knowledge in these critical fields that will hopefully enable us to retain our leadership in being the most innovative and creative nation in the world.

Again, I commend my colleagues for their leadership and vision on this amendment. I hope the rest of our colleagues will support it.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 742 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

House Resolution 742 provides for a structured rule and continued debate on several additional amendments to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005.

This second rule for H.R. 609 allows for the consideration of the Democratic substitute bill offered by the ranking Democratic member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller of California, and allows for 30 minutes of debate on that measure alone so the House will be able to debate and discuss the substitute's vision of whether it is appropriate to support the creation of at least eight new Federal education spending programs which are contained in that language.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday we were discussing this bill. And with apologies for using baseball analogies; but it is spring training season and for a Cubs fan, hope looms always eternal. But to quote the great philosopher and relief pitcher for the Kansas City Royals, Dan Quisenberry: ``I have seen the future. It is just like today, only longer.''

When we are talking today about how we help kids to fulfill their dreams of a college education, I think he is going to prove not only visionary but prophetic. What we talk about today I think will be the future, just longer.

This rule today allows eight important additional amendments to be brought forth, and they will be debated on the floor.

I think it is significant of the 117 amendments that were filed on this bill for the Rules Committee, 15 were made in order yesterday, another eight today. Half of yesterday's and half of today's will be either Democrat or bipartisan amendments.

This does not even begin to count the number of issues which were already worked out between the minority and the Education and Workforce staff and chairman in the base text of the bill over the past several months, or those items for Democratic Members which were included in the manager's amendment which was passed by a voice vote yesterday.

I also want to statistically note that 44 of the amendments that were filed were in violation of our germaneness rule, including mandatory spending on new programs or invoking jurisdiction of other committees, including Judiciary and Ways and Means.

Twenty-five of the amendments were filed past the Rules Committee deadline.

Members are always advised to be sure of the procedure and the time deadlines for submitting amendments, and once again, we said yesterday, having the additional time before part two would give Members a chance to work out with the Parliamentarian's Office the details of their particular amendments.

Eight amendments were withdrawn. Three were duplicative. Four were taken care of in the manager's amendment from yesterday.

The underlying bill, H.R. 609, still strikes a very good balance between reauthorizing important and existing higher education assistance programs, while steering clear of social engineering mandates and massive new spending programs. At the same time, it returns the emphasis to the original intent of the 1965 Higher Education Assistance Act, to give students a hand up in helping them to earn their own higher education.

Once again, the goal of this bill is still simply to help more kids achieve their dream of a college education and not to try and funnel the money that can be used for them into other kinds of projects and programs. This is still a good bill and, more importantly, a fair rule, and it allows the minority to offer its comprehensive vision of the future with regard to these issues in the Miller substitute.

In conclusion, I ask that all Members support and to vote in favor of this rule so that we can complete our work on this important legislation and move closer to ensuring that more individuals and students than ever wanting a college education can indeed receive the help they need to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As we have seen today, Dan Quisenberry was right: The future is much like the past, only longer.

Yesterday the debate on the underlying bill provided ample discussion, and we realize that the underlying bill is one that has the one goal, the most important goal, to expand the number of kids who have the opportunity of fulfilling their college dream, with a special emphasis on new students coming into the system and those who accelerate their study programs in some particular way.

If I can speak for the chairman of the committee, I believe at that point that part of the discussion was done in a very bipartisan manner in the committee.

Mr. Miller, the ranking member, will give a comprehensive alternative program and have 30 minutes of debate, and he can include anything he wishes to include in that. We are offering plenty of debate on this particular bill.

I would like to say something simply about the rule itself and the process of the rule. If we extend the logic of some who are saying everything should be an open rule, realizing we have four times the number that are in the Senate, we move ourselves into a structural system where we start to emulate the Senate process which should strike fear in the hearts of Members just on that concent.

Prior to the War of 1812, we had always had committee work done in the House. It was Speaker Clay who instituted standing committees and formulated a structural policy that the House has used since that time to try to use committees in a different way than our sister body on the other side of this Capitol to try to put a greater emphasis on committees so that Members would become specialists in areas. They would have expertise. In committee, you can have expert testimony in the hearing to assist, and in the committee with expertise in that area, Members could sit down and work through bills before they actually came to the House.

There was for this particular bill 79 amendments discussed in the committee, half as many of those amendments in the subcommittee on this particular bill with endless discussion. It was a thoroughly vetted and discussed bill. I would add, of the 117 amendments that then came to the Committee on Rules for further discussion here on the floor, 68 of those were from members of the committee who already supposedly discussed that. Multiple amendments were either withdrawn, were duplicative, or had jurisdictional problems. And more important, many of those amendments presented in the Rules Committee had been discussed and defeated in the committee of jurisdiction.

As I look at some of the amendments that were proposed: No. 97 was defeated on a rollcall vote; No. 98 was withdrawn in committee; No. 100 defeated on a voice vote; No. 101 was defeated in a rollcall vote; No. 80 was defeated on rollcall vote; No. 27 defeated on a rollcall vote; No. 83 defeated on a voice vote; No. 43 defeated on a rollcall vote; and No. 45 was actually incorporated into the bill. Amendment No. 9 was defeated twice, once in the subcommittee and once in the committee and then, once again, presented on the floor.

What the Rules Committee is trying to do is cull through the process in the committees where this discussion should take place with people who have expertise and people who have developed competence in that particular area, not replicating the entire thing on the floor, which is why if you look at the rules for both yesterday and today, they are both rules which reward bipartisanship for indeed half of the amendments made in order were either Democrat or bipartisan amendments at that particular time.

One of the greatest managers of all time, Casey Stengel, once talking about who I still think is the best second baseman in the history of the Yankees' organization, Bobby Richardson, said he was amazed because the guy doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't stay out late, and he still can't hit .250. That is a wonderful non sequitur. Not staying out late, not drinking, not smoking makes you healthy and perhaps play longer but it has nothing to do with the ability of hitting a curve ball.

Oftentimes when we come here with amendments on the floor, we bypass the concept of the bill with some amendments or processes that I think are non sequitur.

Talking about the various kinds of teachers in various disciplines that we can enhance is good, is worthwhile and wonderful, but this bill is about how kids can have better access to a college education.

Talking about increasing the potential of lender profits is great for the lenders, but this bill is about how you expand the number of kids who can get a college education.

Having an amendment that deals with National Resource Council to have an environmental health and safety study is a wonderful concept and a worthwhile goal, but it is not the purpose and the function of this bill.

I hope as we go through this process we recognize what the Rules Committee tried to do is focus in on what the purpose of this bill is. The purpose of this bill is to try to help more kids get a college education. In that regard, I think this rule moves us in that direction and the underlying bill supports that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman tells an interesting story on Pell Grants, but the problem is the amount of money for Pell Grants has gone up simply because more students are eligible for that. More students are applying for that, but the Pell Grant that they get is worth less now than it was in the year 2000, worth less than it was in 1995.

The fact of the matter is, it is covering only about 30 percent of the cost of the college, and it is getting worse every day.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope this will not come out of his time, but I certainly want to associate myself with your remarks in thanking Sally for all of her work in a most cooperative way, but keeping us on our toes a lot of the time over here. So we thank you and wish her well for all of her service to the committee.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, there is some suggestion that somehow this bill has become a partisan bill. The fact of the matter is that this bill has continued, as we have done so many bills in the Education Committee, started out on a bipartisan basis, and we worked on that basis over the last couple of years. And then in the last session of Congress, the decision was made in the reconciliation bill to split out the student loan portions of this bill and to make the cut, the now famous $12 billion cut, in the student aid accounts.

We continued to work with the majority, and up until yesterday, when I went in and talked to Mr. McKeon and told him I just didn't think we were going to be able to arrive at a conclusion, and he was getting ready to go to Rules Committee, and I said that we are just not going to get to that point where the Members on my side of the aisle, significant players in the education community and on our committee would not support the legislation. We look forward to continuing to work with him as we go into conference. But the fact of the matter is, I think what Members see in this legislation, when we talk about a missed opportunity, when we talk about a failure to respond is you can continue to put up charts that we are spending more money. Yes, the entitlement programs of Pell and the entitlement loan program are spending more because more students are becoming eligible for them, some because of a bad economy, some because they have decided to go to college.

But the fact of the matter is you are spending more money and you are purchasing less. And the gap that the maximum Pell Grant covers now, it used to cover 40 percent of that student's education. If that student worked full-time during the summer, part-time during school, they could close that gap. Starting this year, they can no longer close that gap. They are going to be about $2,000 short. They are going to be about $2,000 short if they work over that period of time. So the Pell Grant is purchasing less and less of the college education. In just a couple of years, a couple of years from now, that gap will dramatically increase even more.

So what the problem is, and what the Republicans haven't yet recognized is, the conversations that are taking place in families right now as students are trying to put together their aid package, that the student loans, the Pell Grant are purchasing less and less of the cost of that education. And this bill fails to address that. This bill fails to address that because they chose, when they made that $20 billion in cuts, the $12 billion net, they chose not to reinvest those savings in the education programs on behalf of these families and their students. Families will continue and students will continue to pay excessive fees and excessive charges. They will not let the lenders keep them, and they shouldn't let the lenders keep them. But they take what they admit are excessive payments by these families, and they give it for the tax cut. They don't say, here, take this money back; return this to the borrower, let them keep the money, let them pay for their child's education. They take it off and give it off to the tax cuts for the oil companies and the tax cuts to the wealthy.

That is what we talk about when we say a missed opportunity. The Republicans just aren't hearing huge numbers of American families who are struggling with the decision on how to pay for their kids' college education. In that cut, they raise the interest rates on those parents from 7.9 percent to 8.5 percent. The parents are going to have to borrow more under this program. They charge them a 1 percent insurance fee. They say, well, it is waivable, all that. The fact of the matter is they are raising costs at a time when it is harder and harder for families in America to put together the package to pay for that education. And as we see now, even if the students work full time in the summer, part time through the school year, they cannot close that gap. That is what we mean. That is

why some of the speakers got up here and said they are worried about the affordability. That is what we mean by the inability to address the needs of families and students who want to pursue a higher education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen the amendment and discussed it with the chairman, and we have no objections to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have read the amendment. We support the amendment. We urge passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, you said several times ``Middle Eastern.'' The fact of the matter is that any money from any source would be reported; is that correct?

We have read the amendment. We don't have a problem with it and we support its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for this amendment. I have had wonderful experience with the Teach for America teachers in my congressional district.

This past week I was up in the Lakota Nation on the reservations of Rosebud and Pine Ridge, and met a number of Teach for America teachers there and the coordinators. And I think in that case, we always talk about them being for 2 years, I think almost 30 percent of the teachers are planning to extend themselves for another year on those reservations, in Indian and public schools on the Indian reservations, and they are doing a magnificent job.

So I would urge the passage of this amendment and thank Mr. Castle, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ford, Mr. Regula and Mr. Van Hollen for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, we support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we support the

amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it is an important addition to this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.