First Responders Interoperable Communications Act of 2005

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

While the Supreme Court has ruled that using racial and ethnic preferences in higher education admission policies are sometimes permissible under present law, it has also established limits for such policies. For example, Court decisions have asserted that admissions policies using racial preferences must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest and that these policies cannot involve the use of quotas.

The Court's also ruled that schools using racial preferences in admissions must consider race neutral alternatives and to limit it in time, for example, Justice O'Connor's remarks to revisit the decision in Michigan cases in perhaps 25 years.

My amendment would require all institutions of higher education who receive Federal funding to fully disclose details regarding their admissions policies. This information would be reported annually to the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.

It has several reasons why we should pass this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and the first one is to ensure lawful admission policies are complied with by our institutes of higher learning who are receiving the Federal funds and that there are informed choices out there for the students as they apply to the various students, and as there are students who are beneficiaries of affirmative action programs, they need to have some sense of the performance expectations of those who have gone before them and benefited from affirmative action programs.

So what my amendment does is requires each institute of higher learning who uses Federal funds to report their policy. If they do not use preferences, they simply write a letter that says we do not use preferences. If they do use preferences, then they need to list a number of things, such as, are the preferences weighted? Did they use target goals or quotas? What was the purpose of their policies? And could they evaluate a racially neutral policy effectiveness as to opposed to one that is not racially neutral, a list of factors other than race, color or national origin that they might use such as test scores, sex, legacy status, residency, et cetera, Mr. Chairman?

And, in conclusion, an analysis of their respective progress of appointments under these programs?

So this gets the information back to Congress so we can better evaluate, and it also helps the institutions of higher learning comply with the Supreme Court decision. So I urge support for this.

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

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to be the core of the rebuttal argument we heard here is that this is a violation of student privacy and that we would be somehow looking into records that are confidential. I would direct the gentlemen who made those statements to page 4 of my amendment, lines 18 and 19, where it says with the name of the individual student redacted but with appropriate links so it is possible for the Office of Civil Rights to determine the overall statistical data, but not have any individual student data. It is specifically redacted in my bill.

I think it is appropriate and necessary for this Congress to review where our money is being spent and to see what kind of results we are getting from all of our institutions, and also to ensure that they are complying with the Supreme Court decision.

I have laid this out as three points that are important: lawful, conforming with the Supreme Court decisions that are on the two Michigan cases; and informed choices for students so that they can evaluate when they go to an institution.

This information is not available, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how any student would ever have access. And looking at how difficult it was to get some empirical data just out of Michigan on the way to the Supreme Court,

there is no way a high school junior or senior could ever have enough access to make an informed decision without these kinds of reports.

Then, of course, if a student is going to be the beneficiary of an affirmative action program, wouldn't they want to know what kind of results there were for those who have gone before them? Do they have a prospect of graduating? Do they have a prospect of a job afterwards? What is the future for them, or should they maybe take a path that is not quite so difficult? All of this is reasonable and it is logical.

And the paperwork, if a university is not using an affirmative action preference program, they simply send a letter that says we don't do that. But if they do use the information, if they do use it as criteria for admissions, then they simply file a report. Any institution should know this information as a matter of their professionalism. Sharing it with Congress is not a burden.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would point out, again, this information is information that any institution of higher learning should be interested in compiling to determine the effectiveness of their policy. We help them along with this process and ask to share in that process with them.

Additionally, Justice O'Connor's decision said perhaps we should revisit this in 25 years. If we can compile this data for 25 years, perhaps the Supreme Court can make an informed decision on affirmative action preference admission programs within our institutions of higher learning, and I urge support for my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, I want to highlight the teacher recruitment and retention provisions that have been included in this legislation.

In order to keep pace with anticipated teacher retirements and the growing student population, local school districts will need to hire an estimated 2.5 million teachers over the next 10 years. And not just any warm body will do. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, every teacher must be ``highly-qualified'' by the current 2005-2006 school year, a goal I suspect has not yet been achieved. In order to meet these challenges, we must embark on an unprecedented teacher recruitment and retention effort.

Fortunately, we already have evidence of what works. In 1986, the North Carolina General Assembly established the Teaching Fellows program, which currently produces 500 highly qualified and enthusiastic new teachers each year. I believe it offers a model for national emulation, and that is why I reintroduced the Teaching Fellows Act as H.R. 1801 early in the current Congress.

In the 108th Congress, I was pleased that the bipartisan committee leadership worked with me and former Congressman Cass Ballenger to enhance the teacher recruitment provisions of the Ready to Teach Act in accordance with the Teaching Fellows Act--H.R. 1805, 108th Congress. Much as we envisioned in the Teaching Fellows Act, the Ready to Teach Act would authorize State scholarship programs to attract the best students to the teaching profession, and provide support and mentoring programs that will help teachers make a long-term commitment to the field.

Those provisions have again been included in the comprehensive higher education legislation we are considering today. I want to commend Representatives McKeon and Kildee and other committee members for their willingness to work with me on this particularly important component of the bill.

With provisions added from the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 609 would establish scholarships for those coming out of high school or in their sophomore year of college, when students would perhaps be better prepared to make a mature choice about committing to a teaching career.

In addition, through partnerships with community colleges, H.R. 609 would offer fellowships to students, particularly those being trained as teaching assistants, to go on and obtain a bachelor's degree and full teaching certification. Students attending community colleges are often deeply rooted in their local communities, including rural and inner-city areas where the need for well qualified teachers is the greatest. So identifying and training a cadre of ``homegrown'' teachers is a promising strategy for meeting our most pressing teacher recruitment challenges.

These programs do not merely throw money at individual students but seek, through rich extracurricular programs, to promote esprit de corps and collaborative learning, to strengthen professional identity, and to provide a support system as students first enter the classroom as teachers. Students would participate in various community and school- based internships and experiences that go well beyond normal teacher preparation. These enrichment programs could feature a variety of components ranging from school system orientations and educational seminars to Outward Bound programs and international travel.

In exchange, scholarship recipients would be required to teach in a public school for a minimum of 1 year plus a period of time equivalent to the length of their scholarship. The idea of reciprocal obligation and community service are essential to the success of these programs.

Although I am pleased with these teacher recruitment and retention components of the bill, H.R. 609 is, in my view, lacking in serious ways. First, it seeks to make college affordable by squeezing colleges and universities. The bill's College Affordability Index would insert the Federal Government into the decision processes of institutions of higher education regarding tuition-setting, essentially establishing price controls. Secondly, it seeks to make college accessible by squeezing students and families. The bill would provide a very modest increase of $200 in the maximum Pell grant through 2013.

I am also concerned about the bill's provision to create a Title VI International Higher Education Advisory Board that would have an inappropriate and unnecessary role in curriculum decisions at colleges and universities.

We desperately need to enact a long-term reauthorization of higher education programs, and I hope we can make improvements to this bill in conference and achieve that goal prior to adjournment. I look forward to working with Members from both sides of the aisle to encourage our best and brightest students to enter and remain in the field of teaching.