Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 609, and I want to congratulate Majority Leader Boehner and Chairman McKeon for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

H.R. 609 is critical to improving college access and includes a host of reforms to safeguard the interest of students and parents and the pocketbooks of American taxpayers.

I want to highlight three provisions that I believe will have a significant impact. First, it promotes merit-based pay for teachers. The bill establishes a teacher incentive fund to provide funds to States and local school districts to help pay and help develop pay-for- performance systems. These systems would offer teachers and principals recognition pay for demonstrating progress in raising student achievement and closing the achievement gap.

Another provision is increasing public access to information about colleges and universities. This bill would provide parents and students valuable information currently sent to the U.S. Department of Education about college costs, student/faculty ratios, graduation rates, and average amounts of financial aid being received by students. And furthermore, institutions that increase tuition and fees at more than twice the rate of inflation over a 3-year interval will be publicly identified and asked to provide information to the public about the causes of tuition increases as well as strategies to help hold down tuition in the future.

A third provision would ease college access for members and veterans of our armed services. The legislation ensures the eligibility of all veterans to participate in the TRIO college access programs. The bill also classifies members of the armed services as independent students which could increase access to financial aid.

These reforms build on important education benefits for military personnel enacted in February 2006 under the Deficit Reduction Act. That measure provided that active duty members of the military may receive loan deferment, meaning payments are not required and interest will not accrue when serving our Nation.

As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am very proud to support this legislation and urge my colleagues also to support this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proposing an amendment to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friend.

The amendment that I am proposing would require a GAO study to evaluate and determine the reasons for the decline in the number of medical school graduates entering residency programs lasting more than 5 years.

This amendment complements a study currently in H.R. 609 that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) has already offered. The gentleman from Georgia's proposal looks at student indebtedness. My amendment looks beyond that, and I am interested in identifying other primary reasons that students pick certain medical specialties.

In my experience and conversations with medical students, I found that student loan debt is certainly an important consideration, but other factors that might include length of residency training, locations to obtain training, salary issues, shortages or surpluses in certain medical specialties also play a role.

The concern among many health professionals is that certain specialties or subspecialties will have shortages in health professionals in the coming years. This could create a significant health access crisis that could take years to overcome because of workforce shortage.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this study that I am proposing, along with my colleague from New Jersey, and with Representative Price's study will help provide evidence and alternatives for Congress to consider to ensure that we are taking steps to support education for critically needed health care professionals.

At this time, I also want to thank the Rules Committee and Chairman McKeon for considering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

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

I thank my colleague again for bringing up some very important issues that will relate to access, particularly as we see an aging population who will require these specialty services, and certainly, we are going to have some projected shortages.

I believe this GAO study will play an instrumental role in helping to define why we are looking at some of these shortages over and beyond indebtedness, but also help us clarify what that degree of indebtedness would be.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), again to the bill H.R. 609, and this would add language to section 421, the Loan Forgiveness for Service in Areas of National Need.

Currently, this section makes eligible for student loan forgiveness workers in several important jobs and one health care-related field, nursing. My amendment would make eligible for loan forgiveness those medical residents that are entering a program lasting more than 5 years and are entering a field that is facing a shortfall in filling those residency positions.

This amendment will provide medical students with a reason to consider other medical specialties that require more training. Many medical specialties require 3 or 4 years of training. However, there are certain specialties and subspecialties that require more training after the initial program. For instance, in my case, as a thoracic surgeon, I trained 5 years in general surgery and then another 3 years in thoracic surgery to become a cardiothoracic surgeon.

Current law only provides loan deferment for 3 years. For certain medical specialties, that means while students are in the middle of their residency they are paying back student loans. For many medical students, this is a concern and a reason to not pursue certain medical careers.

In the case of cardiothoracic surgery, there are currently about 20 open slots in these residency programs this year, and as each year goes by, we see fewer and fewer of these positions being filled.

The situation is similar in other specialties, as mentioned earlier with neurosurgery and certain subspecialties of plastic surgery.

These are specialties that provide vital care to seniors, critically ill patients, and other vulnerable populations. If this trend continues, it will lead to a lack of health care access for seniors, critically ill patients and other vulnerable populations. These patients may see a doctor but not necessarily one that has the experience and adequate training to provide the latest and most effective care. My amendment aims to prevent this decline in health care access by providing a small incentive for medical students to enter these professions with a critical need.

Again, I want to thank the Rules Committee and Chairman McKeon for considering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this, and I also want to thank my colleague from New Jersey who has offered his support as well.

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

Again, I thank my friend and colleague for his comments. I just want to add some statistics with regard to cardiothoracic surgery, for the record.

Currently, we have 3,500 practicing cardiothoracic surgeons in the country. Last year, there were a total of 104 applicants for 139 residency positions. This year, as of this past Friday, there were only 76 applicants for these 139 positions. Current survey data indicates that over the next decade we will have a 50 percent reduction in the current cardiovascular surgery workforce as the workforce hits retirement age.

Again, as we hit this aging population, the demographic tidal wave that we are facing, we are not going to have heart surgeons that can back up cardiologists in these hospitals providing life-preserving care.

So, again, I believe this amendment is a very important addition to H.R. 609. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supporting this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to proudly support H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, which reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. Don't believe the hype from the critics of this legislation.

Here is some straight talk. Not one single student in America will receive less financial aid under this bill. Not one.

This legislation expands college access for millions of American students by strengthening the Pell Grant program and reauthorizing the Perkins student loan program. I will focus my comments on the heart of this legislation, which is the Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Both of these worthy programs enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

As one from humble beginnings who would not have been able to go to college without Pell Grants or student loans, and as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over higher education, I am a strong supporter of both Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Now, it is true the President's budget did call for eliminating the Perkins student loan program but we said no. The leaders on the House Education Committee worked in a bipartisan manner and agreed that we would reauthorize this worthy program.

Let me first discuss the Perkins loans. This legislation reauthorized the Perkins loan program, a critical program that offers financial assistance to more than 10 million students. The Perkins program helps our neediest students borrow extra money for college at a fixed low 5 percent interest rate. In this bill we increase the loan limits to help the Perkins loans students so undergrads can get from $4,000 up to $5,500 and graduate students can get from $6,000 now up to $8,000. These Perkins loans are especially important for teachers, nurses, police officers and other public servants who are eligible for Perkins loans forgiveness.

I will next discuss Pell Grants. This legislation strengthens the Pell Grant program by increasing the authorized maximum Pell Grant to $6,000 and by providing year-round Pell Grant aid for students attending school throughout the year.

Both of these improvements enjoy broad bipartisan support. In fact, when we drafted this legislation during the full House Education Committee markup, 100 percent of Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of my amendment to increase the maximum award to $6,000, the largest level in the history of the program.

Let me show you some charts to indicate our strong support for the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants and student loans should be bipartisan. I think in large part they are but some have made comments that Republicans are not doing enough to support Pell Grants. So let me show you a chart that reflects the reality. This shows the last 20 years of the Pell Grant program. The yellow shows the years when the Democrats were in control of the Congress and you see the Pell Grants at this low amount. The red shows when Republicans took control of Congress, and you see that they spiked dramatically.

If you really want to learn what happened historically, look at the year 1992. At that year, Pell Grants were appropriated at $2,400, even though they were authorized at $3,100. So they were not fully funded by the Democrats. The next year, 1993, you had Bill Clinton in office. That is a Democrat President. You had a Democrat Congress and what happened to Pell Grants? They were slashed. They went from $2,400 to $2,300.

They were cut the next year and the next year, 3 years in a row. Finally, they got to $2,340, still less than the $2,400. So the last 3 years in power they were actually cut. Does that mean President Clinton doesn't care about Pell Grants or our House Democrat leaders don't? I don't think so. I think they care a lot about poor people. I think they wished they had more money.

My point is, don't say the Republicans haven't done enough on Pell Grants, because we have got a pretty good record.

I was elected in 2000, and I made a promise to myself and my constituents, we would do all we can to increase the Pell Grant program, and let's see what happened since 2000.

Since 2000, Pell Grant funding has increased 71 percent from $7.6 billion to $13 billion. Since 2000, the Pell Grant maximum award has gone up $3,300 to $4,050, and this year there will be an extra $1,000 for the high-achieving, low-income students; and the number of Pell Grant recipients has gone up 36 percent from 3.9 million to 5.3 million.

Mr. Chairman, Pell Grants and Perkins student loans are the passport out of poverty for so many worthy young people. They are the heart of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Two of the specialties that we are talking about, really, are neurosurgery and thoracic surgery. There certainly is a shortage of neurosurgeons in my area in central Florida, and that is a big deal for someone who is in a car crash, for example, and is taken to a trauma center and needs appropriate and immediate assistance from a neurosurgeon within the first key hour.

Now, why is it that we have fewer neurosurgeons? Is it that it is so expensive? Is it that the specialty is so difficult? Is it that the insurance premiums they pay are too high? I do not have the answers today, but I do know this is a problem worth studying, and so I strongly support Dr. Boustany's amendment and urge my colleagues to also support it.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

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

Simplifying the financial aid process and applying for Pell Grants is such a worthy objective, something we have been working on very closely, and we have made a lot of progress in this underlying legislation to simplify the process.

This amendment makes it an even better bill, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

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

I was proud to offer the Pell Grant Plus section that was included in the underlying legislation which is going to reward those high- achieving, low-income students with a few extra dollars to encourage them to continue their education.

I support this amendment to also allow those folks who are getting a certificate as part of their education because that would include, for example, people studying to be skilled nurses. We have a dramatic nursing shortage throughout the country, and particularly in my home State of Florida.

Again, this is a good amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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