College Student Relief Act of 2007

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

Madam Speaker, this is a well-intentioned bill that I wish we had the chance to make better. Nonetheless, without the opportunity for amendments, I hope we can use these next 3 hours to analyze what H.R. 5 does and what it doesn't do.

Normally this is a task best reserved for regular order when you go through the committee process and have a chance to have hearings and have a chance to hear experts on the subject. We are forgoing that today because we are in this 100 hours of nondemocratic rule, and that is a result of the election. You won the majority, you use that majority the way you see fit; but I think that is unfortunate for America today.

Since we have bypassed that process, I would like to spend some time doing so right here today. First, let me underscore once again the fact that this bill has never been considered in committee. It includes some changes impacting the student loan industry that have never been tried before and, worse yet, they have never even been discussed in any meaningful way. Is that bad policy? Well, maybe so. But is it irresponsible policy-making? Most definitely it is.

Next, I caution my colleagues not to characterize what is before us today as a student aid bill. Ironically, the College Student Relief Act wouldn't impact a single college student. The way the loan program works, a student that wishes to borrow, and it is unfortunate, I think, that we are even having to have that kind of discussion today; I wish we were focusing on trying to keep the cost of education down so students didn't need to borrow a penny, but that is not going to be the debate.

The way it works, a student borrows the first year, the second year, the third and fourth years if they so desire; and then after they graduate from school and have a 6-month respite period, they begin to repay that loan. So this bill today addresses an interest rate that a college graduate will pay back in the repayment period 6 months after they graduate from school when they are definitely no longer students.

I also caution my colleagues not to buy into the talking point that H.R. 5 would save a typical borrower about $4,400 over the life of their loan because it just simply isn't true.

Now what the Democrats talked about during the campaign of reducing all student debt by half may have met these requirements, but not what is actually on the floor here today. The fact is that a borrower cannot save nearly this much because under H.R. 5, the bill we are discussing here today, the interest rate phases down from the current 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over a series of 5 years. The borrower, for them to receive the complete $4,400 in savings, the 3.4 percent interest rate must remain in effect the whole time and it only is actually in effect the last 6 months, and they must consolidate their debt at that time and stretch the repayment out over the whole 15 years.

However, Democratic leaders have crafted the legislation to ensure that the 3.4 percent rate stays in effect only from July 1, 2011, through January 1, 2012, 6 months. On January 2, 2012, the interest rate returns back to the current 6.8 percent making the $4,400 in savings impossible to achieve.

In reality, a college freshman in the fall of 2011, when the rate is at 3.4 percent, would end up saving $6.42 a month. That's right, $6.42 once he or she begins repaying their student loan.

More broadly, H.R. 5 falls woefully short in dealing with what I consider the twin priorities for addressing the college cost crisis. That is, expanding access, which should be the Federal role in higher education, and enhancing affordability. Those are two very important items.

First, on access, as I said, by definition this legislation cannot expand college access because at its core it is not a student aid bill. Would it reduce payments for a limited number of college graduates who would see their interest rate gradually drop over the next 5 years? Yes.

Would it bring a low- or middle-income student any closer to the dream of attending college? Unfortunately not.

Compare this to the record $90 billion we are investing this year, $90 billion Federal investment this year, in student aid programs. That is an amount that has tripled over the last decade.

We have heard today in part of the rule debate about how over the last 12 years we have done nothing. We have tripled the amount of funding available for those who are going to higher education, under the Republican majority in Congress, I might add, and it is difficult to understand why our friends on the other side of the aisle act as if they have a monopoly on the college access debate.

On impacting college affordability, Madam Speaker, once again, this legislation falls short, and I truly did not believe this would have to be the case.

Consider this: On a 4-year public college education the tuition has risen 35 percent over the past 5 years. However, during the past decade, Federal aid for students has increased 300 percent.

Now, I ask my colleagues, if funding alone was the solution to the college cost crisis, wouldn't we have realized it by now? Of course we would have. And that is why institutional accountability is so important. It is at the very heart of the college cost crisis.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation, the College Affordability and Transparency Act, to help parents and students hold institutions more accountable for their role in the college cost crisis. I also submitted it, or tried to submit it, as an amendment to the Rules Committee, because I believed it was a vehicle through which we could have drastically improved the underlying legislation. Unfortunately, however, the closed process has placed the issue of affordability on the back burner, and these proactive commonsense reforms will have to wait for another day.

That is right, giving parents and students more information, in an easy-to-use format, about college costs and outcomes? That will have to wait for another day.

Establishing a system of simply and unmistakably comparing the cost increases of one institution against another? That will have to wait for another day.

And asking colleges that increase their costs the most and most often to identify ways to bring tuition under control on behalf of parents and students? Well, that too will have to wait for another day.

What is most disappointing is that many of these same reforms were passed by the House last year and Members on both sides of the aisle have backed exactly this type of approach. But to see them move forward from here, we will just have to wait for another day.

In countless ways, Madam Speaker, we can do better than H.R. 5. I just wish we had that opportunity. Because although the bill before us, as well-intentioned as it is, is just not what it seems. It is not a student aid bill, it doesn't expand student access, and it doesn't enhance affordability of a college education.

In the weeks and months to come, I hope we can work in a bipartisan way toward all of these things, and I look forward to working with Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee, and Members on the other side of the aisle to ensure that this happens.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to correct the record a little bit.

Last year, when we did the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we dealt with over 100 amendments, both Democrat and Republican, through the committee process that we have forgone today. And when we did take that money last year in the Deficit Reduction Act, we put over $9 billion back into students.

What we did with that money for students, and these are students in school, we took the 4 percent loan fees that were being charged to many students and cut all loan fees to 1 percent. For the average borrower, that is, for students in school, it gave them a savings of $525.

One of the problems we find is that students in their first and second years tend to drop out of school because they do not have enough money. So we gave them more of a chance to have their loans up front, and we increased those loan limits by $1,000 per year, from $3,500 to $4,500 for first- and second-year students.

And we did some other things: High-achieving, low-income students in the first and second years are able to obtain additional grant aid. High-achieving, low-income students that major in math, science or certain foreign languages are eligible to obtain an additional $4,000 in grant aid for their third and fourth years of college, and on and on. We put $9 billion of that back directly into student and student aid.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to another ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), such time as he may consume.

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

I appreciate my good friend from New Jersey talking about promises. My opponent during the campaign, and I don't know if this was the full Democratic Party, but what he said was they were going to cut student loan rates immediately in half. I know as we got here in Washington and they assumed the majority, we were told that that would cost about $60 billion. So they had to cut back that promise to what they have done now is a phased in approach that cuts the student loan interest rate ultimately at the end of 5 years to 3.4 percent for subsidized loans, which is considerably smaller than their original promise. I just wanted to correct the record with that.

I am happy now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

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

What I would ask of people that are following this debate, if they would take the numbers and then realize that what the bill does, it takes the loan rate, which is 6.8 percent, and reduces it to 6.1 the first year, and then incrementally drops it, and then the last 6 months, this is a 5-year bill, the last 6 months it goes to 3.4 percent.

If you will take those numbers and figure out how much to borrow each year to get to the 14,000 and then pay it off over the 15 years, if they consolidate the loan, pay it off over the whole 15 years, there is no $4,400 of savings. It is more in the neighborhood of a little over $2,000.

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to a new Member of Congress, Mr. Smith from Nebraska, 2 minutes.

If I might inquire of the Speaker, what time is left on each side?

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to my good friend from Utah, a member who is returning to the committee, Mr. Bishop, 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with higher education, the Pell Grant expert.

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

I really want those who are watching this debate to understand how much I

understand the importance of a higher education, how important it is and how necessary for someone to really achieve the American Dream; they need to get as much education as they can.

What we are looking at with this bill, though, really what it does is, if you look at it from July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008, it cuts the fixed rate of student interest loans from to 6.8 to 6.1. A year later, it cuts it to 5.44; a year later to 4.76; a year later to 4.08. And then ultimately, 5 years from now, January 1, 2011, it cuts for 6 months the rate to 3.4, which is what they are saying is, it cuts the interest rate in half. Well, it does for 6 months of the 5 years that this bill covers.

I think what we need to really look at is the College Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance has done a study, and they show that 48 percent of low-income students cannot even get into college, into a 4-year institution. Twenty-two percent cannot even get into a community college because they cannot afford the upfront money.

What I am saying is what we should be looking at, even though we are putting in $90 billion this year, three times more than just 10 years ago, it is still not enough to provide all of the things we would like to do for all of the students that need the opportunity to go to college.

So, if you have to look at just what resources you do have, what we are saying is, why do we not put those resources to those students that are trying to get into college, rather than give a bonus to those that are graduating and are now going to repay a loan; and that is what this bill does.

Those who have been fortunate enough to graduate are going to receive about $1 million more income in their lifetime than those who do not get to go to college. We are saying in the time of limited resources, why do we not try to help those who are trying to get on that economic ladder to realize the American Dream rather than give a bonus to those who have graduated.

Even if you listen to the full debate, we are not even telling them the full facts. We are saying we are cutting your interest in half. For 6 months, we are cutting it in half. The other time, it is a phased-in cut over 5 years, and then it goes back up to the rate of 6.8 percent.

When I was chairman of the subcommittee when we did the last reauthorization in 1998, we came up with an interest rate that was the lowest in the history of the student loan business, and we did that in a bipartisan way, and it was good for students.

Now interest rates have changed, and in a bipartisan way last year, we set the rate at 6.8 percent, which is what it is now, which is a pretty good interest rate. Would I like it to be lower? You bet.

But I really think that we need to focus on helping those students, especially the lower- and middle-class that are just trying to get into school, that it will be 5 years. First they have to get into school, have enough money to pay their tuition and fees and make it through the 5 years to graduate, and then they start reaping some of the benefits of this as they repay their student loans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Price).

At this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the comments of my good friend, Chairman Miller.

He mentioned that Republicans keep coming to the floor and saying this won't help students. Let me get away from Republicans and just read a few comments of people from the press.

The first is in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The quote is: ``The question is, What are you achieving by cutting the interest rate? asked Jamie P. Merisotis, President of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a Washington-based research group.'' Not Republican. He stated, ``You are not encouraging any more students to go to college because you are cutting the interest rate on loans that students have already taken out.''

Another one, Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst at the College Board and an economics professor at Skidmore College, said the interest-rate proposals ``costs a ton of money and is not a well-targeted policy.'' That was in Chronicle of Higher Education.

In Congress Daily: ``The much-touted Democratic measure to slash in half student loan interest rates over 5 years has been drafted to offer only temporary relief with the lowest rate of 3.4 percent effective for only the last 6 months of 2011.''

Now since we didn't have the opportunity to debate this bill in committee or explore it to any great extent, I can only guess that the bill was crafted so that the 3.4 percent interest rate is only in effect for half of that last academic year because the Democrats know the interest rate cut is unsustainable in that it would cost $22 billion if it ran for 10 years.

Another thing that was mentioned is that this will cut all student loans by half. I am hopeful that those students that are now in college that will benefit from this at some point out in the future when they become graduates will check to see if they are in a subsidized loan because they are the ones that will be covered. They should also check when they graduate to see what interest rate they will pay because again this just takes effect year by year. It doesn't reach the ultimate half until 5\1/2\ years from now. And also, those who are not on subsidized loans, don't get too excited about this because your loan interest will not be cut.

Another thing that the chairman mentioned was that there was an article, a Wall Street analyst referring to this felt that it was okay, that this wouldn't hurt and you could still buy mutual funds and everybody would get along just fine. I read the same article, and I think he was referring to Sallie Mae, the giant, the largest lender, and he said he felt they would be okay, especially based on the promise that the hit was going to be for $60 billion, and when the bill was finally written last Friday it was $6 billion. He was comparing what they will have to live with versus what the original promise was of the $60 billion cut which would have cut all student loans in half instead of reducing year by year a little amount until we get to only the subsidized loans and only for 6 months that they enjoy that cut before it goes back up to the 6.8 percent.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond a little to the gentleman.

He talked about the $12 billion in cuts. Yes, we cut $12 billion out of the lenders, and we put $9 billion of it back into students. Not graduates, students.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

For deficit reduction.

Deficit reduction.

Madam Speaker, since the Republican majority's record on student aid has been one of the things we have focused on today, as well as the Democratic leadership's rhetoric over the past few years, I believe it might be useful to take a few minutes to be perfectly clear about where Members on this side of the aisle stand when it comes to expanding college access.

Now, I was really interested in the gentlewoman from Nevada's discussion about her family, because that is the beautiful thing about this country, that you do have the opportunity to go to college. My dad, during the Depression, didn't have the opportunity and my mother didn't have the opportunity. I was the only one of five sons that was able to graduate from college. It took me 30 years. I graduated with my oldest daughter.

We have six children. Four of them have graduated from college and two are still working on it. We have 28 grandchildren. So I have a big interest in the opportunities of education, and I am hopeful that all of my grandchildren will be able to get an education.

Before Republicans gained control of the House in 1995, there had been no serious congressional effort to address the issue of rising college costs or even discuss it. We have seen the charts. We have seen how from the time Pell Grants were instituted, all the time that the Democrats were in charge, they got the Pell Grants up to $2,000. In the 12 years that we had the majority, we more than doubled that and put much more money into Pell Grant relief and to other student aid projects.

Similarly, there has been very little discussion on whether our colleges or universities were producing graduates who were ready for the job market. In fact, the entire American competitiveness discussion we are having these days was not on the minds of those inside the Beltway at that time. But over the course of the past decade, we have made it a priority, often working in a bipartisan fashion. We gathered facts, talked within the higher education community, and worked to craft legislation that represented a fresh approach to policy.

In fact, as I said earlier, we have been talking about student loan interests. And when we did the reauthorization in 1998, in a bipartisan way, we came up with the lowest interest rate in history, which has afforded many, many more students the opportunity to go to school. But what we came up with was something that was not necessarily revolutionary, but at the same time, it was vitally important.

It was a two-pronged approach. First, we made an unprecedented commitment to student aid, and today our efforts are paying off. Some $90 billion in Federal resources currently fund student aid programs, from loans and grants to work-study programs and education tax benefits. That is nearly triple what it was just a decade ago. And within that $90 billion is a record $13 billion for Pell Grants, a two- thirds increase over the past decade. That is a record we should be proud of.

On top of that, we have also eliminated a troubling shortfall in the Pell

program, placing it on a sound financial foundation for years to come. Beyond that, just last year alone we enacted legislation to increase loan limits to give students access to more financial aid; reduce loan fees so students can keep more of what they borrow, and this is students I am talking about, money they can put in their pockets; established $4.5 billion in new grant aid for low-income students studying math, science, and critical foreign languages, as well as high-achieving Pell eligible high school students; and we permanently expanded loan relief for highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers who commit to teaching in high-need K-12 schools for 5 years. These are things that really help us in K-12 and in higher education.

To pay for these new student loan benefits, which again included $4.5 billion in new grant aid for our Pell students, we reduced the subsidies paid to student loan lenders by more than $20 billion, as the chairman previously stated. We need to be thoughtful about increased cuts to the private sector so that we don't leave students with the poorly run direct loan program as their only option.

In short, Madam Speaker, our commitment to student aid has never been stronger. Anyone who says otherwise simply is not being candid.

The second and equally important part of our two-pronged approach to expand college access gets to the heart of the college cost crisis itself, the actual cost of a college education. This is what we really should be talking a lot more about instead of trying to get a little, small reduction in the interest rate. We should be trying to cut the total cost.

In short, we are aiming to bring greater accountability to an unchecked system so that consumers of a higher education have more information than ever before about the cost of a college education. As a result, we have dramatically shifted the college cost debate. A decade ago, the interest of students and colleges were seen as identical, and the conventional wisdom was that colleges knew what was best for students. A decade ago, the higher education establishment made clear that simply adding more Federal student aid was the solution to the problem of rising costs and that there was no point in questioning why costs rose.

Today, while we maintain an unprecedented commitment to student aid, we have also identified students, parents, taxpayers, community organizations, and employers as legitimate stakeholders in the outcomes produced by our higher education system. We are asking hard questions of colleges, such as why costs are so high, how successful the college is in helping students graduate on time, which helps keep costs down, and whether the college will give them the skills needed to compete successfully in the workplace.

Admittedly, we have gotten some blow-back. Some of these colleges don't want to answer these questions. They want us to just leave them alone, send more money. But you know what? We were and are right to demand such accountability, and we will continue to do so.

I wish we were able, as part of this debate, but the closed process under which we are operating won't allow that possibility. Still, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we do so in the weeks and months to come.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that we have remaining.

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

I agree with much of what the majority leader just said. I think we do have to expand access. We have to give opportunities to students.

My real concern is at the end of this debate, I am hoping that students understand that the 6.8 percent interest right now, tomorrow, doesn't go to 3.4; even if the Senate were to act on this and pass this bill exactly, that it would be almost 5 years, and then it only is cut in half for a 6-month period. So that if you look at how much they really would save over the period of a repayment, the way it works is when they graduate, 6 months later, they have to, or they have the opportunity to consolidate their loans and they can take all the loans because they get one their first year, one the second year, third year, and if they go through in 4 years they probably up end up with four loans. They consolidate those loans and they will take the interest rates, well, anyway, they are 6.8 now, and then they go to 6.1 and then they work their way down to 3.4. They will take how much they borrowed each year. They consolidate those loans. They average those out, and they will probably get a reduction of about like 4\1/2\ percent. And if they borrow the maximum during that period of time, they will end up with a savings of a little over $2,000, not $4,400, as some are saying.

I think it is really important to really have the true facts out there so that we don't give people this idea that tomorrow my interest rate is cut in half.

And also, that only pertains to the 50 percent of students that are borrowing on the subsidized basis. I know the promise during the campaign was, we are going to cut student loans across the board in half for all students. But when you tested that out you found out it cost about $60 billion, and to comply with the PAYGO they had to come back with this reduced offer.

Again, it will help people that have graduated from college, but those people are already well on their way to realizing the American Dream. If we could just take this same amount of money, the savings and try to help those who are trying to get into college, that is probably the major difference in our debate, is how we help people get an opportunity, not those who are now graduating and are benefiting from the college graduation and also benefiting from this reduced student loan rate.

Madam Speaker, I am happy now to yield to my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, maybe if I reserve for a while, you can catch up with us a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend from Texas, whom I have worked with in the 1998 reauthorization when we helped the Hispanics, adding the title that helped the Hispanic community. He was one of the strong leaders that really helped his people and community. We worked together then. We worked together last year in bringing the bill to the floor that unfortunately died in the Senate, but it would have reauthorized the Higher Education Act.

I want to congratulate him. I understand he is going to be the chairman of the subcommittee in this Congress, and I am looking forward to working with him.

But I just want to say one thing to straighten the record out, we took $20 billion in the Deficit Reduction Act last year from the student lenders. We put $9 billion of it back into student services to help them; the balance we used in the deficit reduction which resulted in the $71 billion decrease, the deficit right now, versus last year.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to the words that we just heard.

If a student in 5 years takes out a loan, they will not save $4,000, because this ends at the end of 5 years and the 3.4 percent is only good for that 6 months, the last 6 months of the bill. Then the loan goes back up to 6.8 percent. So at the end of 5 years, the student will be paying the same as they are now.

We just have to keep the facts correct. The rhetoric is good, but we should try to keep the facts correct.

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield 6 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, this opportunity for the minority party during this hour is dedicated to the subject of what we are going to be dealing with tomorrow, H.R. 5, and that regards the Medicare Part D prescription drug, allowing or, in fact, requiring the Secretary to negotiate prices. And this is a hugely important issue.

But I want to take just a minute to respond to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that just spent their hour with the Out of Iraq Caucus. In fact, they asked me for permission for an additional 5 minutes because they had some very passionate Members that had not had an opportunity to speak.

I gladly granted them that opportunity. That is what makes this Congress great. That is what makes this country great, the willingness to listen to diverse opinions.

But I want to say, and I want to take just a few minutes before we get into the discussion of Medicare Part D, how diametrically opposed I am to what the Out of Iraq group just had to say during this last hour, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, hour and 5 minutes.

I don't object to their right to have that opinion. I do certainly take exception, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, when folks stand up here, and I am not talking about new Members of this body. In fact, there was one new Member from Illinois, the gentleman from Illinois, who is going to be part of the Out of Iraq Caucus. I am talking about very senior, thoughtful Members. To stand up and suggest that the President lied to the American people, I think, is really not, in fact, even close to being the truth.

The President, I think, is an honest man. And last night, Mr. Speaker, in his presentation to the American people, I thought he did an excellent job of explaining why it is so important for us to try to apply, if not a knock out blow to the insurgence and the terrorism, the sectarian violence that is

going on in and around Baghdad, certainly, to strike a blow that would put them on the ropes, would get us off the ropes and put them on the ropes. And yet, we hear from the majority party wanting to tie the President's hands behind his back and our great military.

I think we have got a wonderful opportunity. Mistakes have been made. Absolutely. There is no question about that. I think the President acknowledged that last night in his 20-minute speech to the Nation. But we have an opportunity.

And this is really, I want my colleagues to think about this. This is not about the President's legacy. This is not about the legacy of Donald Rumsfeld, or General Abizaid or even our new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who we just heard from in a 3-hour hearing at the House Armed Services Committee, or our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, or General Petraeus. This is about 23 million Iraqi people. This is about the citizens of the United States of America. This is about the entire Middle East. In fact, this is about 6 billion people on this planet. And we have to, in my opinion, we have to support the plan. If we don't, even if our colleagues in the Out of Iraq Caucus absolutely abhor this President and would like to see his legacy be one of failure, surely, surely, they are with the American people. And I think they are. I think deep down within their heart, they are.

But I am absolutely convinced that they have not thought about the consequences of, all of a sudden, I mean, almost instantaneously pulling our troops out of Iraq, as they say. And I have heard many of them say that, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues. And the fact that, if that would happen, I think you would, indeed, have another Vietnam. You would, indeed, have a total bedlam and sectarian violence in the country of Iraq. You would have Syria and Iran taking over the Middle East.

And I just wonder how much longer the country of 7 million people in Israel would last. I mean, they have already pledged, Ahmadinejad and others, to drive them into the sea. And what respect, Mr. Speaker, would the world have for the United States of America if we, indeed, cut and run?

I am not suggesting that that is what they are saying. But I think that is a perception that the rest of the world would have. You cannot depend on the United States. And those terrorists would be back after us again.

We haven't had another 9/11 or any kind of a terrorist attack on this soil in 5\1/2\ years. But if we follow the recommendation of the Out of Iraq Caucus in this Congress, that is exactly what will happen. It will be far worse than 3,000 lost lives, of innocent people.

Certainly, the gentleman from Illinois, the new Member, I have great respect for all of the new Members, Mr. Speaker. And he talked about Martin Luther King, a man of peace. We need people, like Martin Luther King, that pray for world peace. I pray for world peace every day, and I know all of my colleagues do.

But we also need fighting men and women. We need a strong military when we get attacked, an unprovoked attack, when those prayers are not working so that we can defend this Nation.

So I am glad to give them an extra 5 minutes so it gives me an opportunity to refute most of what was said here in the last hour.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to the subject of the hour, and that, of course, is what is going to be on this floor tomorrow as part of the new Democratic majority's 100 hours. This will be H.R. 4.

We have had three bills this week. We have had the so-called 9/11, completion of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We had the minimum wage bill and then today of course the stem cell research issue.

And tomorrow what the Democratic majority wants to do is require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices. Government price control; put the government in the medicine cabinet of 42 million seniors and disabled folks who are part of the Medicare program and prescription drug Part D. And they want to do that, just as they have done with these other three bills this week, with absolutely no opportunity, no opportunity for the minority party or even members of the majority, maybe the rank and file, as many of us refer to ourselves, to bring amendments, to have an opportunity to go before the Rules Committee and say, you know, I think we can improve on this bill a little bit. There are certain things I have been thinking about it. I am a doctor. I am a nurse. I am a health care worker, and I think we can make this a little bit better.

But, no. No, no. This new Democratic majority that railed for the last 2 years almost every day that their rights were being trampled upon and their amendments were not made in order, and here we are with four bills this week.

We are not talking, Mr. Speaker, about naming Post Offices here. We are talking about hugely important pieces of legislation, legislation that is controversial. This issue today on stem cell research, and we are talking about the destruction of what I feel, as a strong pro-life physician, is a little human life. And the proof of the pudding of course is the snowflake babies, literally thousands of them. And to suggest that those little embryos are just extra and throwaway, and we don't need them, and why waste them? We didn't get an opportunity to offer a single amendment. And this same thing in regard to this Medicare Part D issue which will be debated on the floor tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, if there is ever an issue of the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it,'' it is this one, because this law that was passed in November of 2003 went into effect January 1 of 2005, the bill, the benefit, the optional benefit of prescription drugs under Medicare has only been in place for 1 year. And the success is unbelievable. I mean, it is far beyond anybody's expectations. It has an 80 percent approval when you poll seniors because they are getting their prescriptions, those who are having to pay for them, are getting them at a much lower price. The average savings is $1,100 a year for those who are paying their monthly premium and their deductible and their copay. And for those who, because of their low-income status, are virtually paying nothing but a dollar or maybe $3 to $5 for a brand name drug, if that is covered by the supplement because of low income, then they are saving at least $2,400 a year.

And so, Mr. Speaker, to try to improve upon something that is working so well, I think, is a grave mistake. And I think, as the expression goes, they are going to gum up the works.

Now, let me tell you how setting price controls works and how poorly it works for that matter. When we were debating this bill in 2003 in the committee on the House side, a Democratic Member, I think it was Representative Strickland, now Governor of Ohio, a very good Member of this body, suggested, had an amendment and said look, let's set the monthly premium at $35. Let's require that the monthly premium be $35, I guess, over concern that it could be higher than that.

Let us set it at $35. The same bill was introduced on the Senate side, and I am not sure which Senator, which Democratic Senator, introduced the bill on the Senate side.

But, again, to set that premium. Well, had we done that, then our seniors today would not be enjoying an average monthly premium of $24 a month, $24 a month, because the market, the competition between the multitude of prescription drug plans that are out there competing for business allowed that to happen as they brought down the price of drugs as they compete with one another.

I will give you another example in regard to the Medicaid program. You know, the States each have their own Medicaid program, and they can cover prescription drugs if they want to. They don't have to. Most do, and they set prices. The State governments do that to try to save money. They set prices.

Well, people who are eligible for both Medicaid, because of their low income, and Medicare, because of their age or disability, now these dual eligibles, the prescription drugs are paid for by the Medicare part D program as the first payer. Well, our community pharmacists are so upset because they were getting a higher price for prescription drugs under the Medicaid program than they are under this new Medicare part

D program which has forced those prices down. Obviously, the neighborhood druggists, the community pharmacists are making less money, and they are upset. I can understand that.

But this just goes to show you once again, when the government sets the price, it is just as likely, if not more likely, that they set the price too high. The bureaucrats are notorious for that. The marketplace would never let that happen because of competition.

This opportunity to talk about this subject tonight is a very, very important issue at an important time. We will talk about it on the floor tomorrow and try to proffer these same arguments against requiring the Secretary of HHS to set prices. It is the first step down the road toward a national health insurance program, a single-payer program, or, if you like, Hillary Care. I don't think the country liked Hillary Care when it was offered back in 1994, and President Clinton paid a price for that, a dear price.

It is just really surprising to me that the Democratic majority would come back with this type of issue.

I think what is driving it is the success of this program is so resounding, and they, my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that resisted this program every step of the way, fought it every step of the way, now I think they kind of want to get on the bandwagon and get a little credit for something.

But I warn them, I warn them, what I frequently hear them and others say, when you are in a ditch, when you are deep in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. I think they are digging themselves a bigger hole. And, politically, that is good for us. That is good for the Republican minority. That will help us regain the majority. But it is not good for the American people. It is not good for our needy seniors, and that is why I am so opposed to it.

I am very happy to have with me tonight a couple of my Republican colleagues, great Members, not just Republican Members that don't have special knowledge on this issue, but I am talking about a couple of our physician Members.

At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a fellow OB/GYN physician.

Dr. Burgess, thank you very much for that most enlightening discussion.

We have two other speakers, and again I mentioned at the outset Dr. Charles Boustany from the great State of Louisiana, a cardiovascular surgeon. And Dr. Boustany, we thank you for being with us tonight, and we want to turn it over to you at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the cardiothoracic surgeon who is doing such a great job now in his second term.

At this point, I want to turn the program over to my colleague from Georgia. Not only do we represent part of the same county, but we are both physician Members, and Dr. Price is an outstanding orthopedic surgeon, an outstanding Member of this Congress. In fact, I was at a very important press conference earlier this afternoon on this issue, and I heard Dr. Price, he may want to say it again; I don't mean to preempt him. But I heard Dr. Price say this looks like a solution in desperate search of a problem. And that kind of goes along with what I said earlier: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if the Democrats find themselves in a hole, they need to stop digging. So with that, I will turn it over to Dr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Price and Dr. Boustany for their very informative contribution to this hour.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that we have remaining and as we move toward wrapping up this hour, I want to just read a couple of quotes to my colleagues from former President Bill Clinton, who remains their rock star and who certainly tried to do some things on health care, unfortunately for him, unsuccessfully. But will listen to what President Clinton said in 1999 on his idea of a Medicare modernization proposal, which, as I say, was not passed: ``Under this proposal Medicare would not set prices for drugs. Prices would be determined through negotiations between the private benefit administrators and the drug manufacturers. Thus, the proposal differs from the Medicaid program in that a rebate would not be required and from the Veterans' Administration program in that no fee schedule for drugs will be developed. Instead, the competitive bidding process would be used to yield the best possible drug prices and coverage, just as it is used by large private employers and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan today.'' That was July 5, 1999.

And the then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, Secretary Shalala, on this same Clinton proposal said: ``Private pharmacy benefit management firms will administer prescription drug coverage for beneficiaries in original fee-for-service Medicare. These firms will bid competitively for regional contracts to provide the service. They, not the government, will continue to negotiate discounted rates with drug manufacturers, and beneficiaries will receive these discounted rates even after they exhaust the Medicare benefit coverage.''

You know, Mr. Speaker, again, I said at the outset of the hour, why are the Democrats doing this? I know that when this bill was first passed, like anything, there was concern. Well, you know, is this going to work? Is it going to be successful? And, of course, they all opposed it. I think there were just maybe a handful of Democrats that ultimately voted for Medicare modernization, the prescription drug act of 2003. And they were asking their constituents and seniors to tear up their AARP card. Some of them symbolically did that from the lectern here in this Chamber. They were just outraged that a senior organization could support a Republican proposal, which, of course, they did. And when it passed and then over the last year of the program, it has been so successful that

they want to get in on it, even though that was such a bad idea, as Bill Clinton and as the Congressional Budget Office have said, in response to Dr. Frist's request back in 2004, that allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices would not save any money. The program is working so well.

Every one of these bills that have been brought up this week under this special rule of no rule, no opportunity to meet in the Rules Committee and no amendments, all these issues, minimum wage and completing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and stem cell expansion, poll really high. Yet this particular issue is just the reverse of the information they have got. It is an 80 percent positive issue for us. So I can only presume that they still want a little skin in the game. They want to get on the bandwagon.

Well, I am going to tell you, what is going to happen is our seniors are going to get skinned because they are about to ruin a good program. A program that is working well, that 80 percent of our seniors are in favor of. It has brought down prices of prescription drugs. It has come in now at $22 a month average monthly premium and this is great satisfaction. And they want to try to improve on that by letting the government negotiate prices. It is going to be a disaster for them. And I hope some of their Members, if they are smart, from these districts that they won from our Members in these elections in November, in these marginal districts, they had better talk to their folks back home before they follow the lead of their leadership and vote for this atrocious piece of legislation.

I railed at the outset, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that the new minority has been given no opportunity for amendments on any of these first four bills that are brought up during their 100 hours, and I do think it is an atrocity. But they may be doing us a favor inadvertently by not allowing us to amend this piece of legislation, which can't be amended. It needs to be killed. We need to kill this sucker dead. And I think every Member on our side of the aisle will vote against it, and the smart ones on their side of the aisle will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 12 years the Republicans, when we were in the majority, always led off every single rule by describing the rule and the actions of the Rules Committee.

I would like to yield to my friend from California to explain this rule again that we are offering today that is progress over partisanship.

So in other words, what the gentlewoman has said is that this five-step process that we are going through right now means that there will be no committee hearings, no expert witness testimony, no information that is available really to the membership of this body, but mostly would be necessary for new Members. And then when someone does come to the Rules Committee we are told before the session even starts there will be no amendments and a closed rule, and yet progress over partisanship is what we are doing here. Interesting day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and this underlying legislation which the Democratic leadership has decided to bring to the House today without the benefit of regular order, committee oversight or the opportunity for any Republican input or amendment, despite repeated promises to respect the rights of the minority and to increase Member participation in this legislative process.

Every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, understands the importance of higher education in the competitive global world environment that our students and workers face in keeping the United States at the vanguard of the global economy.

I am greatly disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen to bring this narrow legislation of questionable effectiveness forward rather than engaging in an honest debate which has taken place for 12 years, as education has always been considered a bipartisan effort.

It is true that the gentlewoman did describe that it will be a bipartisan act that we do today, but this was simply the first step in education and doing the right things for our students. I disagree with that. I think members of the minority have been given the opportunity for 12 years to be a part of the progress that has taken place, offering amendments that would actually make college more affordable for parents and students, as well as the cost effectiveness of the American taxpayer who foot the bill for tens of billions of dollars each year spent on Federal student aid programs.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisanship that I talked about for 12 years was led by Republicans in support of making sure that college was more affordable. Over the past 6 years, spending on Federal student aid has increased by 57 percent, and funding for Pell Grants has risen by nearly 50 percent.

We also think about lower education also where, as a result of Republicans for the last 12 years, education has risen in spending from Washington, DC, 256 percent. Today, some $90 billion a year in Federal resources fund student aid programs from loans and grants to work study programs and educational tax benefits.

This is not a first step that we are taking today, it is another step that was not begun or born out of bipartisanship, but rather out of bumper sticker politics.

What we have talked about is that Republicans have more than tripled what spending was helping students over the last decade. Yes, it was done in a bipartisan way before today. Open committee hearings and feedback make bills better.

Republicans, through our leadership, have also made sure that more than $4 billion for new and high achieving Pell students pursuing degrees in math, science and critical foreign languages was included these last 12 years. We slashed the total loan fees so students can access more of the money that they borrowed for education purposes. We cut $20 billion in Federal subsidies to student loan lenders through the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2006, which provided substantial savings for U.S. taxpayers while ensuring that these tax programs would operate efficiently by not cutting one penny in student loans.

But rather than continue along this path of making college more affordable and increasing the transparency not only in this body, but also as it relates to college costs so that students and their parents can see why higher education costs are rising, today Democrats are imposing, in a closed rule, without feedback, upon the House legislation that would do nothing to expand college access or improve affordability. Instead, their plan will not benefit a single college student, only former students.

Let me say this very plainly, not one additional student will be able to attend college because of this proposal, unlike the bipartisan efforts of the past where we worked to make sure that it impacted more students' ability to go to college. In fact, today's legislation is no more than a flawed answer in search of a problem.

In 2004, the Federal Government spent less than four-tenths of a cent on every dollar in providing these student loans. Since 2001, the program the Democrats today seek to change, Republicans, through a bipartisan effort before today, returned over $12 billion to the U.S. Treasury because the cost of administering the program needed to be changed.

Once again, we find ourselves with a great example of the private sector doing a job better, more efficient, with less risk to the taxpayer, and the government and taxpayers will see the benefit.

This legislation also does not make good on a common Democrat campaign promise in the highly touted ``Six for `06'' program. Many Democrats on the campaign trail made broad promise about cutting interest rates in half immediately for all student loans, both subsidized and unsubsidized, as well as loans made to parents. Instead, in a classic bait-and-switch for voters, the Democrats are really bringing to the floor today legislation that only addresses subsidized loans and phases these savings in over 5 years before they sunset and then disappear.

Additionally, they proposed to pay for this weakened $6 billion plan with many of the same lender cuts passed by Republicans and Democrats in the last Congress, the same subsidy cuts that Democrats opposed because during the election they called a ``Raid on Student Aid'' when in fact it is exactly what they do today.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a comprehensive alternative to the flawed Democrat plan. The College Affordability and Transparency Act would provide students and parents with more and better information about college costs, helping students to become better consumers of higher education. It will add great transparency and accountability by establishing a user friendly college affordability comparison creating quality, efficiency task forces to determine the causes for tuition hikes at the schools with the greatest tuition increases and provide a demonstration project for up to 100 schools, freeing them from the costly regulatory requirements and driving down one of the main reasons that schools raise costs.

Mr. Speaker, today 80 percent of the student loans made are originated by the private sector at an efficient cost and enhanced borrower services, such as reduced charges, financial education tools and reduced student interest obligation, all of which would disappear if

we allow the Federal Government to crowd out the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, this was our idea, and we would have brought this forth if we were allowed to do so in a rule where Members could openly vote for this and have an honest debate through the entire committee system.

I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the former chairman, from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, I saw something, well, I saw several things that I had not seen in the 8 wonderful years I have served on the Rules Committee, but I have been told by those who have longer tooth than I that they had not seen in the 12 years the Republicans were in the majority, where people were greeted to the Rules Committee by the chairman saying, your amendment will not be made in order and it is a closed rule.

The interpretation for the membership of this body was, you need not apply. Please, just don't even come and give your story because we are not open for business. We are closed before we are open.

Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues, Ric Keller, did come up. And despite being told this right up front, in an honest way, by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), he still stuck around for another hour. He still was there to present his thoughts and ideas, even though he knew before the meeting even took place, before a vote ever took place, that he would not have anything made in order, his ideas, which he has been presenting in a bipartisan way for the last few years, would not even see the light of day.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be able to be on the floor today and to discuss this. He is a kind and wonderful gentleman who cares a lot about students and student aid, and so I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, the prior speaker is a prime example of the new Members of this body who are completely clueless about the 12 wonderful years of bipartisanship that have taken place out of this Education and Workforce Committee to make education strong, to give money where it has needed to be, and really, if we want to tell the truth, to take what we inherited 13 years ago from the Democrats from a failed student loan program that didn't even work, that was bankrupt.

So, Mr. Speaker, yet another good reason why I wish we had had regular order, so these new Members of Congress could speak from the facts of the case rather than holding hostage the truth.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire on the time that remains for both sides, please, sir.

Mr. Speaker, if I could at this time, I would like to ask the gentlewoman if she could engage in running down her time, it would bring us to some more parity and allow her speakers that time at this juncture.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon from California.

I thank the Speaker. I also thank the gentleman, a dear friend of mine from South Carolina, for talking about how great this is for the budget. Yet the rule waives points of order that are contained in the budget. Being specific, it is an explanation of the waivers that we found out about.

The bill violates section 302(f) because its direct spending will exceed the Committee on Education and Labor's allocation, but that is good for the budget.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have had an opportunity on this side to talk about why we are disappointed in this closed rule and in the Democrats' failure to provide a comprehensive solution to increasing higher education access for our students that will help keep America competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert in the Record an article printed in The Dallas Morning News, my home newspaper, from January 12, outlining the way today's Democrat proposal fails and falls short of their past promises.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Jan. 12, 2007]

Dems Push Rate Cut for Student Loans

Washington.--Following up on an election-year promise,

House Democrats said Friday that they plan quick action to

lower interest rates for student loans.

Their proposal, scheduled for a vote next week, would cut

interest rates on some student loans in half. However, the

college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first

touted on the campaign trail last year.

The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based

loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized

student loans--a distinction not made in the campaign

literature Democrats handed out before winning control of

Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to

reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with

their kids' college costs.

The rate cut for subsidized student loans--from 6.8 percent

to 3.4 percent--would be phased in over 5 years.

The measure would cost just under $6 billion, according to

the Congressional Budget Office.

To avoid increasing the deficit, the bill's cost would be

offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and

reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students

default. Banks also would have to pay more in fees.

An estimated 5.5 million students receive subsidized loans.

Republicans pushed a budget bill through Congress last

session that cut $12 billion from student loan programs.

Democrats and student groups argued the money should have

been preserved.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the House will have the opportunity to debate this important amendment offered by Republican Ranking Member Buck McKeon so that convicted felons will be considered ineligible to receive the Democrat interest rate reduction.

Mr. Speaker, today this debate has been very succinct and to the point. That is that we believe that for 12 years that Republicans and Democrats have worked very carefully on education issues that will help this country out, through difficult times, through difficult processes, increasing the amount of money that is available, not only for people to attend school, but also reducing the costs that were impediments in the program.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the way it is being pitched today is, well, the Republicans were just headed in a bad direction and had 12 years to do this, when in fact we have been doing this in a bipartisan way for 12 years. Today, we are going to hear it and have it the Democrats' way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 65, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide a great deal of assistance to those students who borrow from the subsidized student loan program. I want to thank the Rules Committee for providing for the passage of the rule for the consideration of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act.

Today, millions of students and their families all across America are struggling to figure out how to pay for college. They are making critical decisions about whether college is in their future, based on what they can afford and how much debt they will be able to reasonably take on.

We know that a college education is as important today as a high school diploma was a generation ago. Yet, since the 2000-2001 academic years, tuition and fees at public colleges and universities have soared by 41 percent, while those at the private universities have increased by 17 percent. This is not a problem that we can ignore.

The College Student Relief Act helps students and their families by cutting interest rates for undergraduate subsidized student loans in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, phased in over 5 years. Once this interest rate is fully phased in, a student with an average loan debt of $13,800 will save approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan.

I am pleased to report that the College Student Relief Act is fully paid for, and complies with the House's new, strict PAYGO rules. Additionally, all changes to both students and lenders only apply to future loans.

This legislation will give much-needed relief to some 5.5 million students who borrow subsidized loans each year. The majority of students helped by College Student Relief Act are low- and middle- income students with family incomes between $26,000 to $68,000. Half of these students are eligible to receive Pell Grants, but many such students find that Pell Grants alone are insufficient. Because of the failure to increase the value of the Pell Grants over

the last decade, the Pell Grant does not cover the cost of education, and so those students who are eligible for Pell Grants because of family income and resources also find out they have to borrow. They borrow from this program, so this program is an additional savings, when we pass this legislation, to those who are eligible for the Pell Grants.

Providing debt relief to our students is the right thing to do. Current studies indicate that more students are borrowing more than ever. The debt level of graduates from public universities has skyrocketed by 58 percent in the past decade. The Pell Grant recipients and students with modest incomes are likely to borrow more often and in greater amount than other students.

This is just the first step in helping students and their families with college education. We plan to increase Pell Grants later in the appropriation process in the amount which has seriously fallen behind the cost of college, and we need to again take a look at making college tax credits and deductions simpler to use and more robust. That is what this Congress is committed to doing in the future when we are done with these six bills in the first 100 hours.

I also believe that colleges and universities should play their part in addressing affordability by becoming more diligent about cutting expenses and more transparent about college costs. We hope to address this in the 110th Congress when we reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

We cannot ignore the fact that students and families are drowning in debt in such a way that many of them have been forced to make difficult choices. Some choose just not to go to school, they stop going to school or they defer going to school, or they choose professions that will be more lucrative, instead of public service professions such as teaching, social work, law enforcement and other such professions because they know the debt that they will have to repay.

The debt issue and the agony families feel when they think about being able to afford college for their children is all too familiar a story to many of us who have been involved in this issue for some time.

I am pleased this bill has earned wide support in the education community among students, with such groups as U.S. PIRG and the United States Students Association, with colleges and universities across the country, including the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities and the American Council on Education, and with labor unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007, so we can tell middle- and low-income families that we want to invest in a college education, we want to help these families find a way to pay for that, and we want to do whatever we can to reduce the burden of debt that these students are taking on today in unprecedented levels, the first generation to be put in that situation.

I think this is a good beginning in the first 100 hours to put this Congress on record not just as hoping to do something for students, but in fact doing something for 5.5 million students who will be eligible for the benefits under this interest rate cut.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the presentation of my colleagues on the other side; their sort of would have, could have, should have.

But the fact of the matter is, last year, when they had the Higher Education Act in front of them, the only thing they did was take $16 billion out of the student aid accounts and give it to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country. They didn't think about the Pell grantees at that time. They talked about them, but they didn't do anything for the Pell grantees. They didn't do anything to lower the student loans here.

They took $16 billion, and we begged them, we went to the Rules Committee and we begged them to let us recycle that money on behalf of the students on loans or Pell Grants or whatever. They said, no, this is going to the richest people in the country. And the fact of the matter is, the Rules Committee was so generous that in the entire higher education bill of last year, we got one amendment. We got one amendment.

So I think the point is that on this day, here in the first 100 hours, we are going to take care of middle-and lower-income students, 5 million of them who need these resources; then we will move on to tax deductions for families. And then we are going to move on and deal with increasing the Pell, something the President promised to do 6 years ago and has never been done.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Madam Speaker, I ask if I might be apprised how much time each side has.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I just say it is an interesting discussion, but people who are betting with real money have a different discussion of this legislation. What they have said, the investment houses that are advising their people whether or not to buy stock in student loan lenders and others, have said that what we have done is absolutely manageable by these lenders. And, in fact, they were quite surprised that the committee had as light a touch on these lenders as we did. And that is interesting, because those are people who are advising mutual funds and others whether or not to buy the various lenders, and theirs was that this is essentially a neutral act and very manageable by those companies.

And so I think we ought to have it not what the political politicians are saying but what people who are betting with their money are saying.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield myself 1 minute.

I find it very interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep coming to the floor and saying this won't help a single student. You know who thinks this will help a single student, and in fact this will help 5 million students, are the students, the students who are getting ready to take out the loans to borrow money to pay the tuition, to pay their college costs. They overwhelmingly support this legislation because it will help them and their families finance their education.

So apparently it won't help Republican Members of Congress, but it will help students and that is why the students support it. That is why we call them ``student loans'' because they go to students and then the students have to pay them back. You say they don't have to pay it back until after they graduate. Yes, but they borrowed the money their freshman year, their sophomore year, their junior year, and their senior year. They got the benefit. They were the students. So the students have decided that this bill is good, and it is really good for them, and it will make college more affordable for them and it will allow more of their colleagues to participate in going to college because the overall cost of that college education will be reduced through this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

So under the gentleman's theory, apparently the Republican repeal of the estate tax is only good for one day because you have a sunset on it.

And when the gentleman says one of the pundits, as opposed to a student who is going to get value for this, one of the pundits says this isn't good because it is on existing loans, no, it is on new loans.

So the pundits don't like it, the Republican Members of Congress don't like it, but the students like this. Hey, a novel idea. Let's do something the students like that they think will help to make college education affordable. There is an idea. Let's vote for that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Moran of Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to correct the record.

You took $20 billion out of the lenders and put some back. And the rest of it you just took off with, and that could have been used.

No, no, no, to pay for your tax cuts, which was driving the deficit.

That was your priority. You are welcome to do it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I thank you so much, Dr. Gingrey. It is a great pleasure to share the floor with you once again and talk about an issue that is so very, very important, not just to seniors but to all Americans. And I appreciate, as has been said, your leadership on this issue. It has been wonderful and greatly appreciated. You are serving extremely well in this area, and I appreciate that.

I also want to point out to the Speaker, as I know he knows, and to other Members of Congress that I think it is instructive to note that the individuals who have come to the floor tonight to talk about this issue are physicians or at least were physicians in their former lives. And I think that is helpful to think about, because the individuals who are charged with caring for the health of this Nation, the physicians all across this Nation understand and appreciate that the consequences of government decisions can oftentimes be huge in their effect on the ability to provide quality care for the patients of this Nation.

So we come down here tonight and talk about an issue that is of just most importance to American people and to all seniors who participate in the Medicare program, and we do so because we have been on the other side, the other end of these decisions. And when decisions are made in Washington that provide for greater control of health care by Washington, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that always, always, by and large, results in a decrease in the quality of care that is able to be provided.

I would also wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an issue that really is part of a bigger question. And the bigger question is, who is it that ought to be making fundamental personal health care decisions? And it appears that we in this body have a philosophical difference about who that ought to be. My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle tend to believe that the decisionmaking authority in those personal health care decisions ought to rest with patients and with physicians, that that is where those decisions ought to be. And I know that my colleagues who are here this evening would concur with that, because we know how difficult it is when somebody else, especially a nonmedical person, is making those kinds of decisions and it most often adversely affects the health care of that patient. So we believe as a matter of principle that patients and physicians ought to be making health care decisions, including which medication to utilize, because patients and physicians are the ones that know best which medication that ought to be utilized.

Our good friends on the other side of the aisle it appears believe as a matter of principle that government ought to be making those decisions, that government bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats who may or may not have any fundamental knowledge about, in this instance, personal health care issues, that government ought to be making those decisions.

So I think it is important for people to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that that really is one of the fundamental principles that we are talking about here: Who ought to be making health care decisions? Should it be patients and physicians, or should it be the government?

My good friend mentioned that this was a solution in search of a problem, as I had said before, and it really is. And so when you have an issue like that, I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to look at why is it that the Democrat majority is even attempting to solve this problem that I would suggest doesn't exist? And I would use as rationale for the fact that there is no problem to solve so many issues that have been brought up here on the floor already and in this debate.

The cost of the benefit to seniors all across this Nation in 2006 are 30 percent lower, 30 percent lower, $13 billion lower in 2006 than were projected. The projected costs over 10 years are down over 21 percent which equals $197 billion. The premiums are down over 40 percent over that that was projected. And in fact, if you think about the last time that the majority party, the now majority party tried to effect this program, one of their proposals was to mandate, was to dictate, was to make certain, was to guarantee that the premium per month for each and every senior would be $35, $35 a month. They wanted to make certain that it would be absolutely that amount and not a penny less. And in fact, what we have seen is that the current premium per month is about $22 or $23.

So if the other side had had its ways 2 years ago, 3 years ago, when this was adopted, seniors all across this Nation would be paying $12 to $13 a month more, more on top of the premium that they are already paying, if the other side had had their way. So I think it is important to think about and to appreciate what they have had in mind all along. Why they want to do that is beyond me, but I would suggest to you that it has something to do with whom they want to be in control of these health care decisions.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, looking at this issue, that it really is a solution in search of a problem. The Medicare beneficiaries all across this Nation, over 80 percent of them are pleased with this program, are happy with the program, believe that it helps them greatly in caring for their health. And that is in a program that has over 90 percent of those who are eligible to participate involved. So 80 percent of those participating are

pleased with it. So you have got to ask, why? What kind of problem are we trying to solve?

It is also important, I think, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, to ask the question, if the program is working so well, why is it working so well? And as has already been mentioned, there is this big kind of proposal that is being put forward now that would say that the government ought to be able to negotiate, that nobody is negotiating drug prices. Well, in fact, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, the plans themselves right now are negotiating and negotiating extremely well. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the kind of savings that we have already seen in just a year's history of the program. Plans are negotiating with both pharmaceutical companies and with pharmacists, and, in fact, that is what is resulting in the decrease in premiums that seniors all across this Nation are seeing. So the system is truly working extremely well in spite of all the naysayers on the other side.

I want to bring up again what happens when the government gets involved, and my good friend has a poster down there about government- negotiated prices on certain drugs and the actual cost. And the numbers are striking. They truly are. And the reason that it is important to look at what happens when the government gets involved with a negotiation is to remember what negotiators have to be able to do. The individual doing the negotiating has to, in this instance, be able to say to the drug company: If you won't meet my price, then I am not going to put your drug on the formulary, on the list of drugs that are available for patients. However, when the government is doing all the negotiating, what will happen is that they will say: If you don't meet my price, you won't be able to have your drug on this formulary, and the consequence of that is that your drug will not be available to seniors or physicians who are trying to make those personal health care decisions. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be fewer drugs available. Fewer drugs available. That is what happens when the government gets involved in the process. So the price may be lower for a period of time. I do not believe that is the case, as we have had good examples and quotes from very learned individuals in the economic system that will tell you that the government cannot dictate a lower price in this instance, but what certainly will happen is that there will be fewer drugs available.

Somebody may say that is just conjecture; that is just somebody dreaming about what might happen. But if we look at a program that the government did affect relatively recently and see what happened, we can see exactly by example what happens when the government gets involved. And the program I would cite is a program called the Vaccine for Children's program, and, Mr. Speaker, folks all across this Nation may remember that there was a very robust vaccine industry in our country not too long ago, in fact, about 12 or 13 years ago, and then the government got a bright idea and said, oh, but the price for those vaccines is a little too high. In some instances they believed it was a lot too high. So instead of working on how to assist individuals who didn't have the resources with which to purchase those vaccines, what the government did was come in and say, all right, you can only charge this amount of money for that vaccine. And what happened was that we saw a huge decrease in the number of companies that now provide vaccines. In fact, it went from about 30 companies that made and did research and development on vaccines, and now in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, we only have three, three, in about 12 years. That is what happens when the government gets involved in a program. Price fixing occurs and a decrease in the quality of health care that is provided occurs, and certainly a decrease in the number of medications available. Everybody across this Nation knows that that is what happened with the vaccine program. Fewer innovations, fewer new vaccines, shortages of vaccines, and less access to vaccines.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close and finally talk about, just to reiterate, the issue of who is making health care decisions. When I go home and I talk to my constituents at home, and I know that is true for Congressman Gingrey and Congressman Boustany and certainly when we see our former patients in the post office or at a restaurant or a church, I know that what they tell me is, please, please don't let the government get more involved in health care. And so I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that where health care decisions are made between the physician and the patient is something that is extremely important to men and women and children all across this Nation. And this issue is one of those issues that will strike a cord among people all across this Nation if the government gets involved and says, no, you may not have that drug, you may not have that medication because the price is too much.

So, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will tell you that if what is on the floor tomorrow is adopted, we will see a lower quality of health care, a decrease in access to health care, and I believe strongly that we will see patients across this Nation harmed. I know that is not what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do. At least I hope that is not what they want to do. But I will tell you that that will be the consequence of this bill if it passes tomorrow.

So I am very hopeful that our friends on the other side of the aisle will recognize the consequences of decisions that they are about to make and will appreciate that, indeed, what they must do, if they truly believe in looking out for the best interest of their constituents and our former patients, is to make certain that health care decisions remain in the hands of physicians and patients.

And with that, I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia once again for his leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to participate in this message tonight.