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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education to request emergency contact information on

enrollment forms.

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

refuse to provide financial information on FAFSA forms, to

receive unsubsidized loans.

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

students to sue IREs for violations of privacy rights.

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

given without regard to university aid, which could then be

given on top.

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

that are disposed of by IHEs be fully scrubbed of all

personal information.

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

distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with

the other general disclosures they are required to provide.

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

institutions that report at least at 75% of their students

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

poverty line.

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

distribute materials on meningitis to new students along with

the other general disclosures they are required to provide.

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

Requires colleges and universities to report whether they are

taking steps to prevent illegal downloading of copyrighted

material on their campus information technology systems.

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

local education officials, as well as private schools and

parents of home schooled students, retain control over

secondary school curriculum for purposes of eligibility under

the new Academic Competitiveness Pell Grants program.

Potential control over this curriculum was improperly given

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

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which created this program.

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

administration of the ability to benefit test.

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

funds from being used to recall Perkins loan funds.

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

Higher Education through 12/31/2011.

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

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

for novice TRIO applicants.'

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

predominantly black institutions into existing higher

education efforts to strengthen the ability of minority-

serving institutions to attract, retain, and graduate low-

income students.

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

individuals in prison in an effort to increase successful

transitions into the community and reduce recidivism.

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

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

reported by Committee to be consistent with recommendations

made by the Department of Education and the National Center

for Education Statistics.

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

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

causing any reductions to a veteran student's eligibility for

federal student financial aid.

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

education agencies seeking to create teacher preparation

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

agreement with a local college or university where the

teaching residents will enroll and complete a Masters Degree

in teaching; teaching residents will spend no less that 10

months in a classroom with an experienced mentor teacher; and

teaching residents must sign a written agreement with the

local education agency agreeing to teach in that district for

a minimum of five years.

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

to reduce the number of questions on the Free Application for

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

years.

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

for the neediest students with automatic qualification for

the maximum aid awards through federal means tested programs

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

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

adjusts the threshold annually according to the Consumer

Price Index. Also eliminates certain nontaxable income data

elements from the FAFSA form.

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

aid programs that the Deficit Reduction Act cut.

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

House of Representatives that, in an effort to raise

awareness about sexual assault, all colleges and universities

should provide a training course to incoming students to

educate them on sexual assault.

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

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

of HEA.

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

Dual Emollment Section as an addendum to the current GEAR UP

program. This section is essentially an additional

programmatic element that would specifically target

resources and services towards the promotion of dual

enrollment among low income students participating in GEAR

UP programs throughout the country. The language was

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

and attaches a separate appropriation for this section,

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

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

dual/concurrent enrollment is defined as the practice by

which high school students may enroll in college courses

while still enrolled in high school. Students receive

college credits but are not required to apply for

admission to the college in order to participate.

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

scholarship amount in which grantees are required by law to

distribute in accordance with the requirements of the program

from the maximum Federal Pell Grant to the minimum Federal

Pell grant awarded.

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

take precedence over current agency regulations which prevent

new funds appropriated under new authorizing legislation to

be used to provide services under old authorizing

legislation. With this amendment, funds will be permitted for

use with current GEAR UP students who have not yet graduated

from high school.

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

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

academically gifted program, but are of traditional high

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

amendment are full time university students who reside on

campus as a requirement of the gifted program. The students

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

high school classroom as a student.

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

who work in schools located on Native American reservations

or in Indian Country who complete five years of service.

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

educators working at high poverty (Title I eligible) and

large free-and-reduced lunch population Border Schools within

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

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

for Americans who dedicate their careers to service in areas

of national need along the border.

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

who work in rural schools located in low-income communities

who complete five years of service.

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

Pell Grant eligibility due to changes in the state tax

tables, and replaces the tax tables with the highest income

protection allowance.

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

institutions of higher education to establish programs that

encourage students to develop foreign language proficiency as

well as science and technological knowledge. Eligible

institutions will develop

programs in which students take courses in science, math and

technology taught in a foreign language. Funds will also

support immersion programs for students to take science and

math courses in a non-English speaking country.

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

systems to complete a Needs Assessment in science,

mathematics, and foreign languages to guide teacher

professional development and classroom improvement. The Needs

Assessment will include as many education stakeholders as

possible, including teachers, administrators, parents, school

boards, businesses, institutions of higher education,

professional associations, and others as determined by the

community. The purpose of the Needs Assessment is to properly

direct funds and energy to necessary and ambitious teacher

professional development and classroom improvement.

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

development for mathematics, science, vocational education,

and technical course teachers inspired by reports like the

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

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

a two week summer institute at an institution of higher

education targeted to improve content knowledge of, grade

level teaching of, and the use of technology in the

disciplines in which they teach. The professional development

continues with meetings to discuss new scientific,

industrial, and academic research and how to incorporate it

into classroom practice. Additionally, an online community is

created to further foster a collaborative learning community

amongst teachers that exceeds the limits of a once a month

gathering.

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

Stimulus Scholarship Program, that will allow the Secretary

of Education to award grants to States to provide

supplementary scholarships to students for study at the

postsecondary level in science, math, engineering, or a

related field.

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

Head Start teachers by increasing the level of discretionary

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

and science teachers). Seeks to address the unfunded mandate

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

percent of Head Start and Early Head Start teachers to obtain

a bachelor's degree in early education by 2011.

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

Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA) to assess

the increasing cost of college textbooks and the effect on

access to higher education, and to recommend strategies for

reducing the costs. Currently, ACSFA operates within the

Department of Education to advise and counsel Congress and

the secretary of education on student financial policy,

focusing only on financial aid. Allows the ACSFA to consider

total costs, including textbooks, that may affect overall

costs and access to postsecondary education.

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

to study and report on methods of encouraging centers of

higher education, and their students, to study topics and

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

Islamic studies and China studies.

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

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

Security Education Trust Fund (NSETF) for the National

Security Education Program, thereby doubling the funding of

this program.

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

make grants to eligible members of the Armed Services to pay

tuition and other authorized fees to an educational

institution in which the service member is enrolled. The

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

basis, funding set aside by the Secretaries of the military

departments.

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

Education to study and report on methods of encouraging

centers of higher education, and their students, to study

topics and regions important to our nation's national

security, such as Islamic studies and China studies.

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

encouraging publishers, professors, and universities to

ensure accessibility of braille textbooks for blind or

vision-impaired students.

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

in higher education with learning disabilities.

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

from $6,000 to $7,350.

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

semester of Pell Grant eligibility to college students who

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

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

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

interrupted by the disaster. Also directs the Secretary of

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

affected students; eligible students may elect to apply the

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

years.

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

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

guaranteed loans to eligible institutions of higher education

for expenses relating to the losses incurred during and after

the gulf coast hurricane disasters including: construction

and rehabilitation, faculty salaries and benefits and to

supplement the institution's operations. The loan should be

repayable over 50 years and the Secretary will determine the

loan amount.

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

discrimination measures to preclude institutions of higher

education from using Federal financial assistance to perform

any study or fulfill any contract that prohibits persons of a

particular color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender

identity, sexual orientation or national origin from

performing that study or executing that contract.

Institutions are not prevented from conducting objective

studies pertaining to discrimination or including the subject

of discrimination' in its curriculum.

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

eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a

result of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. These

children will be eligible for the maximum amount of Pell

grant assistance.

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

standards for Academic Competitiveness Grants by requiring

recipients to also be Pell recipients, as opposed to the

current requirement of Pell eligible. Academic

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

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

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

$1,050. Academic Competitiveness Grant recipients will be

given top priority for SMART Grants.

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

eligibility to children who lost a parent or guardian as a

result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. These children would be

eligible for the maximum amount of Pell grant assistance.

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

eligibility of undergraduates in Section 602(b), Foreign

Language Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, for advanced level

training in foreign language, world area, and other

international studies. It also clarifies that undergraduates

may use the fellowships while studying abroad.

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

higher education with grants to institute creative and

innovative ways of encouraging students to study and enter

into careers focused on math, science, engineering, and

technology.

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

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program

to clarify Congressional intent that a Masters Degree level

institution or program is eligible to be the lead recipient

of a grant under the GAANN program.

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

workers and school psychologists eligible for student loan

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

profession in our elementary and secondary schools.

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

the legislation to allow states to become accreditors of

independent colleges and universities. Regional accrediting

entities now assure that colleges and universities are

meeting standards. Prohibits state intervention into private

and independent colleges and universities.

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

programs to publicly report on the number and type of

teachers they are preparing.

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

schools in Section 102, ``Institutions Outside the United

States''.

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

the number of graduate educated nurse faculty to meet the

future need for qualified nurses.

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

in Federal financial aid programs to disclose information to

students and the Department of Education about the college's

compliance with U.S. regulations that prohibit bonuses to

admissions counselors for their recruitment efforts.

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

related sections. This amendment strikes the Teacher

Incentive Fund provisions and requires the Secretary of

Education to direct any funds appropriated for the Teacher

Incentive Fund to financial assistance to higher education

institutions located in areas affected by Hurricanes Rita and

Katrina.

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

of the community services programs under work-study. The

program can be coordinated between the eligible

institution and the public and private organizations and

entities that will participate in providing mentoring for

children in foster care (such as faith-based

organizations, foster care/adoption agencies, children's

groups, State Departments of Social Services, public

school systems).

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

Education to advocate for and support the addition of foster-

care mentoring programs as part of the independent study

requirements if such independent study requirements are

required for graduation in the following areas of Education,

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

duration of the program would be as outlined by academic

requirements for graduation.

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

owed to educational institutions throughout the accreditation

process. The amendment would: (1) provide express

Congressional definition of minimum due process for

educational institutions; and (2) require key accreditation

decision making to be made in public and after an opportunity

for public comment.

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

competitive innovation investment grant program that will

assist colleges and universities in establishing

precompetitive technology transfer centers.

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

tuition assistance to undergraduates committed to a teaching

career, and seeks to establish teachers infields like math

and science. Establishes grants with which local districts

can provide competitive salaries to their best teachers in

the most high-need areas.

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

Education Act of 1965 to include the University of the

District of Columbia as an eligible institution in Section

326 to receive funding for its qualified graduate programs.

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

the current statutory due process requirements, require cited

institutions to receive notice of the deficiencies and be

provided the opportunity to respond, grant cited institutions

the right to assistance of counsel, and change the final

appeals procedure to provide an alternative dispute

resolution component.

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

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

Student Aid Reward Program.

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

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

to not more than 20 institutions of higher education to

enable those schools to determine the feasibility of

operating a course material rental program on their campuses.

The feasibility studies would determine the effectiveness and

cost of a program which expands the services of bookstores to

provide the option for students to rent course materials in

order to achieve savings for students.

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

to waive academic progress requirements for interruptions of

study caused by active military service.

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

that paragraph 4 of section 513 enables students receiving

financial assistance to receive some sufficient to cover

elevated costs of living that exist in some regions.

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

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

along with other data elements of importance, information

which will be useful to minority student populations. For

example, by including Hispanic Serving Institutions as a

search criterion in the website's college search, students

will be able to target the universities which may provide

scholarships or areas of study of their preference.

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

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

and uniform information determined to be relevant to

prospective students, enrolled students, and families; in

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

the information in the website to be presented in both

English and Spanish.

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

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

website to present a list of scholarships they offer. This

will help students who are eligible for specific scholarships

to identify institutions who offer that specific type of

scholarship.

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

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

section to be in both English and Spanish.

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

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

student aid to receive some instruction in financial literacy

and responsibility to better manage their financial aid.

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

student loan repayment program within the Department of

Education for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at

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

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

public defenders in criminal cases. The repayment under this

program will be limited to $6000 per calendar year and

$40,000 total.

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

to collect hate crimes data using the same crime categories

that the FBI is required to use under the Hate Crime

Statistics Act of 1991.

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

authorized Pell grant award increases every year by a

percentage equal to the percent increase in the cost of

higher education, according to the Price Indexes for Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Type of Product of the Bureau of

Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce.

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

for ``educational organizations'' eligible for teacher

education partnership grants under Title II of the bill.

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

program for FFEL and DL borrowers to all teachers working in

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

after October 1, 1990.

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

to borrowers who go into school administration in low-income

school districts. Applies to any borrower who has been

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

other administrator for five consecutive complete school

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

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

aid funding formula changes from taking place until the

Secretary of Education certifies that sufficient funding has

been appropriated so that no school loses money.

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

make tuition affordable. Provides that any institution of

higher education that keeps its net tuition price increase

below the Higher Education Price Index receives a 25 percent

increase to the Pell Grant award of its Pell Grant recipients

and any institution that guarantees net tuition price

increases below the Higher Education Price Index for five

years receives a 10 percent increase to the Pell Grant award

of its Pell Grant recipients. Institutions that raise net

tuition price by more than the Higher Education Price Index

shall submit a report explaining the causes of such an

increase and detailing a plan for preventing such increases

in the future.

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

National Research Council to conduct a national study to

determine the viability of developing and implementing

standards in environmental, health, and safety areas to

provide for differential regulation of industrial

laboratories and facilities, on the one hand, and research

and teaching laboratories on the other. The National Research

Council shall make specific recommendations for statutory and

regulatory changes that are needed to develop such a

differential approach.

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

agreement demonstration program, monitored by the Department

of Education, to encourage institutions of higher education

to enter into articulation agreements or consortia groups, as

a means to lower tuition prices to students.

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

commitment to affordable college education by ensuring that

they maintain their own level of college financing. Gives

students and families access to accurate information about

the cost of college and steps individual schools are taking

to offer affordable rates of tuition.

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

Committee on Student Financial Assistance to examine the

adequacy of current financial aid programs and the extent to

which every qualified eligible student receives a sufficient

comprehensive financial aid package from all sources,

induding aid from Federal financial aid programs under this

title, state financial aid programs, institutional financial

aid programs, and privately-funded grant aid programs.

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

on college costs and the relationship between state, Federal

and institutional support for higher education and college

costs.

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

eligibility of private, post-secondary institutions as

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

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

total funding from sources other than Title IV.

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

Excellence program funds to states in which a major disaster

has occurred under Section 402 of the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for a period of

two years following the date of Presidential declaration.

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

to refinance their student loans. Upon reconsolidation, the

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

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

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

period of 5 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I, too, want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, and I would ask everybody to support it. I thank her for all the work she does on behalf of homeless youth. We appreciate it, and I am sure they do too.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. He and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen address some very, very important problems of making sure we have adequate providers within the community for people with mental illness, and I would hope that everybody would support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, they could go to their own districts. This is common across the country. Young people are being held in locked detention because of the simple fact that we cannot get a diagnosis. We cannot put together a treatment plan because they are on a waiting list for the services. They do not get services. In many cases, those services have been ordered, but they do not get them. They get a waiting list, and you are right, then we pay this exorbitant cost to keep them in there, but more importantly, denying them the treatment that they need.

So, increasing the number of providers so that we can address these concerns and these problems that young people have is just absolutely important.

The idea of making these providers eligible for loan forgiveness is a service to our community, and I am sure that the House will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I oppose this amendment and I hope most of the Members of the House will also oppose this amendment. The issues that are called into question in this amendment, the use of, the gentleman said preferences, but of any data, any factors in deciding the makeup of a university student body has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

The fact of the matter is that quotas are unlawful, but universities have a right to a diverse student population, and they are allowed to use a diverse range of factors in compiling that university. I believe that the King amendment goes beyond that decision, and the amendment also does not provide for the protection of student privacy. In fact, it does just the opposite of that.

The fact of the matter is this information is already available to those parties who are interested. They can get it through the Freedom of Information Act or the universities, obviously. At least in our State, they are continuously discussing operating and changing and reviewing their admissions policy because they are in constant determination of trying to provide diverse opportunities to a diverse population of qualified students.

I would hope that we would reject this amendment. It is interesting that we just had an amendment we adopted to reduce paperwork, and now we are going to put on a whole new set of requirements of annual reports and different kinds of data and how it has to be collected and weighed and all the rest of it, with no showing that it has been improperly done or anything wrong has happened. We are just going to load down the universities.

Mr. McKeon has an effort where he is trying to reduce the cost of higher education by making sure universities are not engaged in those practices that are not necessary and that drive up the cost. And this comes along, outside of the Supreme Court decisions, outside the current practices of universities and suggests that somehow they should just continue to develop this information with no showing or grievance.

If a person has a grievance or showing, or people are interested from an academic point of view, from a social policy point of view, or from any point of view, the fact of the matter is that the information is currently available. I would hope that we would reject this amendment when it comes to a vote in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Kildee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say it is an interesting academic study, and I am sure some of the information would be of interest to people, but why don't you just have the Department of Education periodically sort of select some universities and test it, rather than putting the burden on every university, whether large or small, rich or poor, private or public that has to submit this information on an annual basis where in fact there may not have been any complaints or there is support for that policy, if it has been publicly reviewed or however they handle it.

The suggestion here that every university would have to go through this process is just kind of a mindless Federal Government approach to imposing these burdens on people without consideration of the cost, the need, the results, or any of the rest of it. I thought we were getting away from that policy. Talk about one-size-fits-all; here is one-size- fits-all. And when they say, well, we don't do that, who is going to check that that is really true? Yet you start this whole process.

And I would say, by the way, that the names aren't redacted. The Social Security numbers are not redacted.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

The Democratic substitute has been made in order to address some critical shortcomings in the underlying bill. My cosponsors, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Grijalva, join me in offering this substitute.

First and foremost, this substitute will make a downpayment on the first year's effort to reduce college costs to those students most in need by cutting the interest rate, the new fixed rate interest rate, in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in July of this year. This will be the first effort to reverse the most egregious action that this Republican-led Congress did to America's families and to the students and children who are trying to pursue a college education when they took $12.5 billion out of the student aid accounts, took it and whisked it away to tax cuts for the oil companies, tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country, and raised the cost of education to America's families and students at a time when the cost of education is outstripping the ability of those families to pay for it.

This amendment would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low- income black students, including students in rural areas who attend 2- year colleges. It creates a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program and significantly simplifies the student aid application process by creating a simplified and short application, repeals the anti-consumer single lender rule so that borrowers can choose with which lender they want to consolidate their loans, and does a number of other things in the underlying bill.

But the critical point here is to reverse the rate on student aid, to reverse the largest cuts in the history of the program. Why do we say that is necessary? Because here is the situation. This is the trend line on the percentage of the college education that a maximum Pell Grant will cover. In 2000, it was about 41 percent. Now what we see is it is drifting down to 30 percent, and it is headed down to 27 percent because of that.

In this legislation, the Republicans will tell you that they have authorized an additional $200 on the Pell Grant. That will barely have any effect on this graph. But more importantly, last night, their Budget Committee did not report out a budget that has that money in it. So it is interesting rhetoric, but it does not have any money for these same low-income students that are losing their ability to cover the cost of an education.

It used to be, this year and last year, if this student worked full time during the summer, if this student worked part time during school, they could cover this gap. That is no longer true. This year, they are not going to be able to cover it with the jobs that most students have during the school year, and that gap is getting worse and it is widening.

That is why it is essential that we vote for the substitute amendment to make a downpayment on reversing the new costs that are imposed on these families and these students who are struggling to purchase an education. That raid on student aid last year was the most expensive raid to families in the history of this program.

They can talk all they want about the additional money going to Pell Grant, it is an entitlement program, but the fact of the matter is the money that students are getting is covering a lower percentage of the cost that they encounter when they go to school.

This is a fundamental determination. Pick your side, folks. You can be on the side of tax cuts for the oil companies, or you can decide you are going to help families and students that are struggling to get what is now absolutely essential to their future participation in America's economy.

As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college education is going to have to become as common as a high school education.

But if families can cannot meet this gap, if they cannot provide that money, if the government will not help, you are talking about millions of students who are not going to be able to participate. That is not good for those students, it is not good for those families, it is not good for the economy, and it is not good for America.

This is a chance to reverse that action. This is a chance to make a downpayment on reducing the cost, increasing the affordability. All of the studies tell us that the increasing costs are outrunning the ability of families and students to pay for that education.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the committee, we have come to the end of this debate, and we must address a fundamental distinction between these bills.

One of these bills recognizes the affordability gap, if you will, between the cost of a college education and the struggles of American families and students to purchase that education. I appreciate all the discussion by the previous speakers as to how they have authorized an increase in the cap and they have done all this. The fact of the matter is, there is no money for that authorization. The President promised that he was going to raise it to $5,100, no money has been forthcoming. In fact, if you look over the last 5 years, there is $16 billion in additional spending for education that is over and above what the Republicans have reported out of the appropriations cycle over those last 5 years. So this promise of additional money some time in the future if you vote for this authorization is brought to you by the very same people who, over the last 5 years, have been cutting education over and over and over. And that is why you see this gap, this gap between the cost of an education and the ability of a family to pay for it and what a full-time Pell grant means to these students, that we are down now to about 30 percent of the real cost of that education.

What does that mean? That means that these students are struggling and in many instances fully qualified students are not able to take advantage of going to college. That is just unacceptable in this country.

They said that they did not do more of this because they did not think it was totally the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay for an education. Well, let me explain to them, students are deeper in debt. Families are deeper in debt. They are borrowing more money than ever. You have raised the limits on how much they can borrow because they have to borrow. More students are working more hours to try to make up for the money that they cannot borrow, the money that they do not get in grants. And what we are suggesting is for the students and the families in the most need, in the most need, that we roll back the increased cost that you are going to saddle them with in July and go to a 3.4 percent interest rate rather than a 6.8 percent interest rate.

There is no way to suggest that somehow this would make it totally the responsibility of the Federal Government. That is laughable around every kitchen table in America. As families are sitting down with their young people and trying to put their aid packages together, the loans, the grants, the borrowing, the family contribution, the work of their students, to see whether or not they can acquire a 2-year or 4-year education, they would laugh in your face if you said, well, this is all the responsibility of the Federal Government. No. The Federal Government made a decision after World War II that we thought that people should not be turned away from college because they cannot afford it.

And that is the people that we are trying to help, and that is the people, those most in need, that we are trying to help with this substitute, with Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Scott, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kildee, and myself, because those are the people who tragically and unfortunately and unnecessarily are making a decision.

The other charge was that the only thing I could suggest where you could pay for this was tax cuts to the wealthy. I will give you another one. How about the tax cuts to the oil companies that you did in the energy bill? Maybe you can take those oil companies that have world record-breaking profits and maybe you could ask them to give back some of the tax cuts you gave to them last month or the month before and use that to help pay for the education of those families and children most in need.

So this legislation just shows two real differences between the parties: The party that continues to cut education almost $16 billion more than what Congress finally reported out because the Democrats took them dragging and screaming, and the party that is going to decide that we are going to help these families. And we are either going to roll back that raid on student aid with this down payment or you are going to neglect the needs of these families and students. And I hope that people will vote for the substitute and against the bill.

That was a 6.8 cap with a variable rate underneath.

Mr. Chairman, do I have 5 minutes?

I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the chairman for the purpose of these colloquies.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for entering into these colloquies, especially the colloquy on the question of intellectual properties and the protection of intellectual properties.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I would simply say that I think with the substitute that we will be voting on here in a few minutes and the other votes, and finally the vote on final passage, that we will have a clear choice in this House.

I would hope that Members of the House would join a very broad array of education organizations across the country, from the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees, to the American Federation of Teachers, the American Medical Students Association, the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Lutheran Educational Conference, Minnesota's Private Colleges, the National Association of College Admission Counselors, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Education Association, the Service Employees Union, State Public Interest Research Group, St. Mary's College in California, my father's alma mater, as a matter of fact, the United States Students Association, the University of Michigan Women's College Coalition, to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and joining the organizations like NAICU that say that they will not support this legislation, but like myself and others, they want to continue to work with the chairman as this legislation moves forward into a conference committee, hopefully soon with the Senate.

But I think the correct vote here at this time for America's families who are struggling to pay for the cost of college, for the students who are struggling to pay for the cost of college, and for the contribution that these students, should they successfully complete their college education, the contribution that they will make to our

society and to our economy, it is most important that we take this step provided in the substitute to make a down payment on reversing that raid on student aid and making a down payment on the future of these students, their families, our communities and this country.

There is no other way to do it, because with the current aid that we are providing, and the increases in the costs that will come on line on July 1, because of the actions this Congress took just a couple of months ago, I know they want to divorce these two bills, but they are both parts of the Higher Education Act in this Congress.

Because of the actions they took, these families, unless you vote for the substitute, they will be saddled with higher interest costs. Those families are being put on notice now as they are seeking out the loans necessary to pay for that education.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should send them some good news as they gather around that kitchen table to try to determine whether or not they will be able to take the opportunity available to them in this country for a college education, an opportunity that should never, ever be foreclosed, simply because somebody cannot afford to take advantage of it.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the substitute, and to vote no on the bill on final passage, and as I say, to join a very wide array of educational organizations, private, public, small, large, all across this country that have very serious problems with this legislation. Let's not turn it into the missed opportunity that we believe it is.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, a good member of her committee, for her work. I think this makes the bill better, and I hope all of our Members can support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank Mr. Gohmert from Texas for the great work that he has done on improving this bill.

It is very important that this amendment passes and Mr. Souder's amendment later today. I have a letter here from NAICU, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, who have been vigorously opposing the bill, and because of your amendment and Mr. Souder's amendment, they have written us today that they are withdrawing their opposition to the bill on the House floor and I appreciate that, and I appreciate all the work that Mr. Gohmert has done on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition; although I do not intend to oppose the bill.

I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for their efforts on this amendment, and again, I think it strengthens the bill, and I thank them for this and encourage support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't plan to oppose the amendment. I just want to thank the gentleman from Washington and Mr. Kirk from Illinois for their work on this project.

I had the opportunity to lead a congressional delegation to China last year, and I think it is very important that we stress the importance of learning other languages so that we can communicate and do a better job of competing around the world, and so I encourage support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment. In fact, the amendment is critical to final passage of the bill.

I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Bishop, both good members of the committee, for their efforts in working together to strengthen the bill through this amendment.

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

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

This is an interesting debate we have had to this point. This is a bill we have been working on now for 3 years. Up until 2 days ago, it was totally a bipartisan effort. As you can see in their substitute, they include many of the things that we have in the underlying bill. We have a basic difference of opinion that the gentleman has pointed out.

I look at it a little differently than he does. I feel it is not totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of higher education. When I introduced a bill a few years ago to try to keep the cost of higher education down, because it has been going up for the last 20 years at four times the ability of people to pay, I said it is important that the Federal Government, the State government, the schools, the lending institutions, the parents, the students all come together to solve this problem, and I still feel that way. I feel it is important for all of us to come together to solve this problem, not simply the Federal Government to pick up whatever the difference is. As schools continue to increase their fees and tuition, the Federal Government should not have the responsibility of picking up all of the difference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education to let him further go into some of the differences and some of the things that we have done in the past and some of the things that we do in the underlying bill for the importance of higher education for our students of this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate. I hope those who have followed it have followed it closely. I think if you have listened to most of what the other side has talked about, they are complaining about what we did a couple of months ago in the Deficit Reduction Act to try to bring some controls to the budget. There have not been many challenges to the bill, and you can see the substitute that they are putting in now, most of what they have in the substitute we have in our bill.

The new graduate Hispanic-serving institutions program, very important. Year-round Pell Grants. These are things we have in the bill.

As you can see this chart shows how public 4-year institutions' and private 4-year institutions' costs, tuition and fees, have been going up in the last 10 years. If we carried it back further, you can see it is even worse. For over 20 years, the cost of college university higher education has gone up at four times people's ability to pay. We are very concerned about that. That is why it is important that we do the things that we are doing in this bill to bring more affordability, more accessibility, more accountability to higher education.

In the bill, we strengthen Pell Grants. We provide students and parents with more information, and we shine a spotlight on excessive tuition rates. And we enhance American competitiveness. All very important things that we are dealing with at the current time.

One of the other things they have in their substitute is they lower student loan interest rates. Now, interest rates are really an interesting thing. I remember back about 30 years ago when Mr. Carter was President, interest rates got up to 19, 20, 21 percent, and that just seemed to be the norm. It looked like it was going to go on forever. When we passed the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1998, we lowered interest rates, and we have been living with lower interest rates for students even though their loans have gone up from $8,000 average to $18,000 average. They are still paying about the same amount of interest in repayment. That was due to the work that Mr. Kildee, myself and the Congress did in 1998. That was a good thing for students. Now they are talking about how bad the interest rate of 6.8 percent is. The Fed increased the interest rate this last week. Interest rates are going up. Who knows what they are going to be like in the future?

Let me read what Mr. Miller said when we worked together in 2002 to set the interest rate: ``Over the last several months, PIRG has worked closely with other student advocates and the lending community to develop a compromise that will deliver low-cost loans to student borrowers and maintain the stability of the guaranteed student loan program. We're confident that S. 1762 does this, and we applaud the passage of the provision.''

What that did was set interest rates at 6.8 percent.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

You were not alone, Mr. Miller. The Student Association said: ``The advocates say they arrived at the proposed 6.8 percent by determining the average rate that borrowers would pay over the next 10 years, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, if the formula change were to take effect. `Financially we believe that this would be a very good deal for students,' said Corye Barbour, legislative director for the United States Student Association. `We also think this would add much needed simplicity to the student loan program,' '' 6.8 percent, what this law that we are asking you to support puts into effect.

We really need to come together, the Federal Government, State government, schools, lenders, parents, students, to solve this problem. The bill that we have before us today, H.R. 609, goes a long way to making that happen. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the substitute; vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have a pro forma amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Yes. H.R. 609 incorporates a new use of funds under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education for integrated education reform services in order to improve college access and opportunity. Under this allowable use, Project GRAD will be able to compete for Federal funding.

I recently had the opportunity, at your urging, to visit a Project GRAD program in my home State of California, and they are doing a wonderful job and generating very impressive results. I am grateful to you and Mr. Tiberi and Mrs. McCarthy for your diligent efforts in this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I certainly understand and share the gentleman's belief that illegal downloading of copyrighted material on college campuses is a serious matter. I strongly believe that policymakers, institutions of higher education, and those in the recording and motion picture industries have to make a renewed commitment to address the important issue of piracy on college campuses. You have my commitment to work with you on this issue.

I now yield to the gentleman from California for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his work on this issue. I am aware that there has been resistance to efforts to gather this information. I hope it is clear to the university community that Congress will continue to monitor such efforts.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and share her concerns. We will work on that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his work on this issue. As this bill moves through the process, I will work with the gentlewoman, with my good friend from the State of California (Mr. Berman), my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); you can see this is a coast-to-coast issue; and others to ensure that we have additional compliance from the higher education community on the illegal downloading of copyrighted material, including working on report language during the conference committee to ensure that colleges and universities take seriously their obligation to aggressively tackle this problem.

Schools should have policies in place accompanied by strong punishments to notify students that unauthorized downloading and sharing is illegal. I thank the gentleman for his strong leadership on this issue and for bringing attention to this issue.

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

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

And the gentleman from California has?

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

Mr. Chairman, we have had a good debate. I want my colleagues to understand we urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. We urge an ``aye'' vote on final passage.

Before I conclude I would like to thank all who helped to make this bill possible. I do want to thank Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member Kildee, Subcommittee Chairman Keller and all of those who have worked on this bill.

I want to thank Ellen Bammon for the good work she did, and the members of the staff on the other side of the aisle. I want to thank Amy Raaf on our committee, who has been working night and day to get us to this point.

I want to thank Krisann Pearce, who will be departing from the committee, who has done yeoman's work. I mentioned yesterday Sally Lovejoy, who has been with the committee for 25 years, who is leaving.

I want to thank Heath Weems from my personal staff; Bob Cochran, my chief of staff, who have all done great work on this.

I want to thank Kathleen Smith and Alison Griffin, who have been working on this project for years and have since left the committee.

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

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Today I am offering an amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) that will ensure students have greater access to information about a university's transfer-of-credit policies without placing new burdensome mandates on the institutions themselves.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, Chairman McKeon, for working with me and Mr. Bishop over the last day on a compromise that I believe accomplishes our shared goal of greater transparency with regard to an institution's transfer of credit policies. If a student plans on transferring from a community college to a 4-year institution or from a proprietary school to a community college, they should know before they apply which of their credits will transfer.

The Souder-Bishop amendment will strengthen language in the underlying bill to ensure that all institutions of higher education publicly disclosed whether or not they deny credits based on the accreditation of the institution where the credits were earned.

We do not mandate the kind of policy a school must have; we just require greater transparency.

On principle, I believe it is not the role of the Federal Government to dictate what kind of transfer or credit policy an institution must have. In the interest of academic integrity, every college and university should be able to ensure that every graduate receiving a diploma from their institution has completed all of the required courses for a particular program at the level of rigor expected by that university.

If a university decides that the best way it can ensure an appropriate level of academic rigor is to only accept credits from certain kinds of institutions, it should be that school's prerogative to do so. The alternative for many schools would be costly and

time-intensive, requiring admissions counselors and professors to evaluate each of a transfer student's credits based on the quality of the sending institution, its professors, curricula, textbooks, materials, et cetera.

I want to make it clear that this amendment is meant in no way to diminish the value of any particular kind of institution. All institutions have their appropriate place in the higher education community. I am supportive of all types of institutions and want to encourage their growth because it will mean more individuals will be empowered to be productive workers in our growing economy. They are a critical part of my district in particular because of its manufacturing, engineering and business background, and without the proprietary schools and community college specialized courses, we could not function. But it is my hope that as an alternative to Federal mandates, more colleges and universities will work out voluntary articulation agreements between schools to ensure a more seamless transition between institutions.

This can be done quite effectively within a State or region where institutions can come together to agree upon which credits from one school are the equivalent of courses at another school.

In my own home district in Northeast Indiana, Indiana University, Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) and Ivy Tech Community College have worked out an agreement for students to be able to transfer credits from a specified list of over 150 courses. Several years ago, this was not possible. Now it is, and many more institutions in Indiana are following suit. I hope this kind of voluntary agreement multiply across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of interesting things about this substitute. One is that, as we just heard from Subcommittee Chairman Keller, it is apparently a guideline of the House that when the Democrats do cuts, and they are real cuts in education, it is not a cut. But when the Republicans actually increase, it is somehow a cut. And apparently the reason is because they are pro-education and we are anti-education. So if we increase the money, it is still a cut. But if when they were in power they cut the money, it is not a cut. And it becomes very confusing to the American people because they thought the way you measure a cut is if the spending goes down like it did under Democrat control. And they thought the way you measure an increase is when the spending goes up, not just based on a claim that you are more pro-education or anti-education.

Another interesting thing here is that when the Republicans float out things for 1 year, as 1-year proposals, we hear it is a gimmick, it is a gimmick, they are merely trying to posture for the election. But when the Democrats roll out a 1-year rollback, apparently that is not posturing for an election. That is real serious policy trying to benefit the students of America because there is a terrible raid on the student loan system. But a 1-year moratorium from the other side couldn't possibly be a gimmick because Democrats don't do gimmicks. Only Republicans do gimmicks. Democrats don't do cuts in education because only Republicans do cuts in education.

Now, fundamentally, we have had a lot of misinformation and struggling about this student loan question. At least we aren't hearing about the failed policies of direct lending. We are now arguing how you do this in the domestic market because, in fact, the private sector market showed you could more efficiently do student loans and you could manage student loans better and have fewer bad debts and get the rates down for students. And that is why we are not arguing direct lending today; we are arguing, in fact, a process of what happened in the budgetary accounting of when we went to a fixed rate versus a variable rate. In fact, the rate for student loans is higher right now than it is in the bill, 6.8. But because of the variable rate that was left

in the previous bill, it was scored differently.

Now, in fact, the government has to pick up the difference. If the rate goes higher, we fix the students at 6.8. Now, if there is a criticism to be made of the Republicans, it is that the alleged savings may not be real if the interest rates go up. But there is no cut to student loans to students. It is cheaper for students, and we have guaranteed now a fixed rate so they don't have this bubble that hits. And just because there is a lot of confusion, because of the accounting of how you do student lending doesn't mean that you can come to the House floor and demagogue like we have cut student loans, that we have taken the money out.

Furthermore, there is no offset to this. To the degree that we are going to give them a 1-year gimmick loan, how are we going to pay for it?

My friend and colleague who I have known for many years and I know he is very passionately in favor of education, the only thing he mentioned as an offset are tax cuts for the rich, which apparently we have different definitions of rich, but apparently this means, as we have battled on this House floor, increasing the taxes again on families who have the child credit, because that is what we are trying to extend and which is being blocked. And you can't give a 1-year bonus to a family by subsidizing at the Federal level the student loan and then take it back by taking away their child credit. What does that do? That is more than the loan. And it is not 1 year; it is for multiple years.

Furthermore, they favor taking away the dividend and capital gains credits. Well, how do people get jobs? So if you don't grow jobs in Indiana and the rest of the country and then you say good luck getting a student loan, to work where? If we don't keep the economy growing, if we tax the economy to fund a temporary 1-year gimmick in the student loan and kill the economy, why do we need to go to college?

Now, we all know that, as Mr. Miller said, everybody is going to need a college degree if you are going to compete in the world economy; and a graduate degree is going to be like the old days of the college degree. And we have to tackle this spending question. Every time we reduce student loans, tuition goes up. And quite frankly, in Indiana and elsewhere, we have increased money dramatically in Washington. Where are the States?

Individuals have a responsibility too. It isn't just the Federal Government that has to meet this challenge in funding it; but the States need to, endowments need to, and the private sector needs to. We have a share of that. We are guaranteeing most of these loans. We have increased the Pell Grants. We have increased the pool. We have made a stable interest rate now. We have lowered the cost of education and increased the Federal funding. And I urge a strong ``no'' to this Democrat substitute amendment.