Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965.

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 741 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.

H. Res. 741 provides a structured rule of 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and makes in order 15 separate amendments to that legislation.

I would like to point out that this bill has been significantly discussed in committee markups. Seventy-nine amendments were discussed; half as many, as well, were discussed in the subcommittee markup. Nonetheless, 117 amendments were also filed with the Rules Committee, many of them by members of the committee, some retreads, but some allegedly were rewritten after the committee markup took place.

Because so many amendments have been introduced and many of them are those first impression-type amendments, the Rules Committee will be issuing a separate, second rule at a later date that will allow for consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 609.

Providing for two separate rules in this manner will allow the Rules Committee some additional time it needs to adequately review the large number of amendments that were submitted, guard against potential duplicative amendments, violation of House rules, ensure germaneness and also eliminate those that would violate budgetary rules.

I hope that in this process we will ensure an orderly debate on the key issues of this particular bill with the proposed two structured rules coming to us.

This two-step process will also allow many of the sponsors of those amendments some additional time to perhaps redraft their language, with closer consultation with the Parliamentarian and the relevant committees of jurisdiction.

The Rules Committee did work hard to listen to the Member testimony and consider the amendments that were proposed. What is filed in this particular rule are 15 amendments, seven of which are Democrat or bipartisan amendments which provide for a wide range of debate on many key aspects of the higher education program and policy. I think it is indeed a fair rule.

In 1965, the original Higher Education Act was proposed in order to provide assistance to a high number of students to fulfill a dream of a college education. Since that time, this bill and reauthorizations of this bill have been used for some other purposes.

One of the things that is positive about the bill before us is an effort to refocus on the primary purpose and the primary goal of this bill as it was originally applied, and that is public assistance to more students, period.

It is an effort on the part of the committee to try and make sure that people have this opportunity to go to college. As such, they reauthorize programs like TRIO and its associate programs like Upward Bound and GEAR UP to take kids who, by virtue of their socioeconomic status or perhaps their cultural background, are given an opportunity to advance to a college degree maybe for the first time to fulfill that particular dream.

I realize that my brothers and I are the first ones in my family to have actually graduated from college, and to allow that for many of these kids who will sometimes be the first of their families to have that experience in college and to graduate from college is significant.

The committee reauthorized the student Perkins loan grants, which also

recognizes the need of a different strain of students to be able to make it through college with the different niche that they provide. It has recognized the role of proprietary schools without automatic recognition but understanding the niche that it plays now as well as in the future.

Most significantly, it reauthorizes the Pell Grants. It does so in a way that expands the cap, simplifies the rules, changes the eligibility so a greater number of individuals will be eligible and participate in this particular program. It adds new emphasis on the highest-achieving first- and second-year students, which in the past have had the greatest need but maybe have not had the proportional advantage of this particular program. It accelerates the opportunity for course work to be done in a way that helps the students to actually get through their college careers. In essence, it is one of those programs that does well.

I hope as we proceed on the discussion of this rule as well as the underlying bill that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this particular bill, which is to provide assistance for more students. And I also hope that we do not lose sight that we are dealing with the bill at hand, not other extraneous issues.

The original act, the original act never intended that the Federal Government pay for all of college education but rather was an assistance, a helping hand to those wishing to go to school and allowing those students themselves to earn their own way in the higher education world.

I feel I have a personal stake in this particular concept. I have five kids, four of whom have been in college, unfortunately, at the same time. Since 1998, I have had the wonderful opportunity of funding multiple students in college simultaneously. And if my third kid goes to graduate school, I will have a chance of adding the fifth kid in college at the same time in both law schools, undergraduate work, as well as perhaps graduate work, and I did it all on a schoolteacher's salary.

Both I and my credit cards understand the significance of this particular piece of legislation, and I am also convinced that it is a remarkably good balance by reauthorizing existing programs while at the same time increasing accountability for Federal dollars spent, increasing consumer choices, creating incentives for institutions to control tuition costs, and actually increasing the overall number of low- and middle-income students who will be receiving that particular assistance.

We will probably hear, as the discussion unfolds, both in this rule and the next rule, of many programs trying to institute social engineering projects into this particular bill; perhaps to expand the role in the Federal Government at the State and local education prerogatives; perhaps those amendments to micromanage institutions; perhaps those that will change the authorization levels in an unrealistic fashion. It will be an interesting debate. But what I hope we do not lose track of, again, is that this bill makes progress in helping kids receive a college education, and progress is always paid at some particular price.

It also does not diminish the other role besides assistance in the cost of education and college, which is tuition increases. By providing specific incentives to schools to hold the line on tuition increases, by simplifying the process and by studying this issue and reporting back, it does make a significant stand in this particular area without forgetting that the Federal Government is a partner in this situation. The institutions of higher learning belong to the States and the private and religious organizations. We are simply exercising a partnership with them.

I have to commend the former chairman of the Education Workforce Services Committee, our current majority leader, Mr. Boehner, for his efforts in trying to work across the aisle to come up with a good bill. I also congratulate the new chairman, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work in seeing this bill through to this point. I also congratulate many Members of the minority. Many of their ideas and provisions are incorporated in the base bill, 609, that we have before us.

Forty-eight hours ago, this was a good bipartisan bill, and I am under the assumption that, when we finish our work and go home Saturday, we will also recognize that we have passed a good bipartisan bill.

In conclusion, I ask the Members to support this first rule and vote in favor of this resolution. We will have as a body two chances at the plate in this particular bill. And as Satchel Page used to say: ``Pitch strikes. Home plate don't move.''

This is a good bill, and it ain't going to move either. With that, I hope we continue to make progress in moving this important piece of legislation forward at an orderly pace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction dealing with higher education issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts and his discussion of the budget issues we will be debating next week. It is a good primer for that particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, to speak about this bill at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the former subcommittee chairman who dealt with this issue, and now the chairman of the full committee who has brought this bill to us and done a remarkable job in getting us to this position so far.

Mr. Speaker, in our discussion of the rule today, we have heard many things. We have heard discussions of budget issues, which will be addressed when we do the appropriations bill later on. We have heard discussion of rules that were not made into this particular rules order even though we clearly said there will be another rule coming up later to address those other issues, others of those 117 amendments that were made,

many of which were made by members of the committee who had full opportunity to debate and discuss, as they have talked about the 79 amendments in the committee, in a committee process that since the pre- War of 1812 days, when Henry Clay established the committee process to make a full and open hearing of these issues in committee before it came to the floor.

Nonetheless, there will still be two rules. This rule takes 15 of those amendments, opening up the opportunity for those later on to come.

We have also heard rhetoric about a bill that was passed last year. I find it important to remember that even when the Constitution was being debated, the anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, made their case and lost, and then moved on and worked together with the Federalists, who passed the Constitution, to work together for a better country. That is the opportunity we have, to try to emulate that right now. It is time now to work together on this bill, on what this bill does.

You have already heard from the subcommittee chairman that it does no harm to those already in the system. You have heard from the chairman of the full committee how its goal is to increase the number of kids who can have access to these opportunities to enhance and reach their dream of a college education. That is the purpose. That is the goal. That is where we should maintain our focus. This rule provides for the first step in reaching that goal, and we will have another opportunity with a second rule later.

It is a good and fair rule, and I urge adoption of it because it deals with a bill that moves us forward, a bill where we should unite to move forward because it helps kids in America.

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.

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.