Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6599) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1389, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4137, which strengthens and reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. In America, a college degree has always been the ticket to middle class. More and more, our future depends upon our ability to produce well-educated and skilled workers to take the jobs of the 21st century.

Over the past 2 years, this Congress has built a strong record of working in a bipartisan way to make college more affordable and accessible. Last year we enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which provides for the single largest increase in Federal student aid since the GI Bill.

But we also know that there is still work to do to ensure that the doors of college are truly open to all qualified students who want to attend. The last time the Higher Education Act was authorized was 1998. In those 10 years that have passed, our world and our country have changed, and so have the needs of college-going students.

Today's students face a number of challenges on their path to college, from skyrocketing college tuition prices, to needlessly complicated student aid and application processes, to the predatory tactics of student lenders. This conference report will remove these obstacles and reshape our higher education programs in the best interests of students and families.

To address soaring costs, this legislation will increase the transparency and the accountability of the tuition pricing system, shining a bright light on the prices set by colleges and universities. It requires the Department of Education to create new, user friendly Web sites with helpful information on college prices and the factors that are driving these tuition increases. Colleges with the largest increases in tuition will be required to report their reasons for raising those prices.

This bill will also ensure that States hold up their end of the bargain in

funding higher education by establishing for the first time a maintenance-of-effort requirement on the States that receive Federal funds through the student loan program. This means while we are putting in money from the top from the Federal Government, the States will hopefully stop taking that money out of the bottom and leaving families and students who are borrowing loans to go to college no better off than they were before these actions. This is a dramatic change from the patterns of the past.

To better protect students while navigating the often murky world of college loans, this bill restores trust and accountability to the student loan programs by cleaning up the conflicts of interest between the lenders and the colleges. All Federal and private student lenders will be required to provide full and fair disclosure about the terms and conditions of the loans they offer. And to help borrowers' reliance on more expensive private loans, we will help ensure that students and families first exhaust the less expensive Federal loan and aid options before turning to private loans.

It will also help students manage their textbook costs. It provides students and faculties with complete pricing information before each semester so they can shop around for the most affordable deals. For the first time, textbook publishers will be required to offer less expensive versions of each expensive bundled textbook they sell.

This bicameral compromise also simplifies the Federal student aid application process and provides families with early estimates of their expected financial aid packages to help them better plan for their expenses a year ahead of the time.

In addition, H.R. 4137 will make Pell Grant scholarships available year-round for the first time.

It strengthens the TRIO and the GEAR UP college readiness and support programs that are critical to helping so many students stay in school and graduate.

It expands funding for graduate programs at historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and predominantly Black institutions.

It increases college aid and support programs for veterans and military families.

It ensures equal college opportunities and fair learning environments for students with disabilities.

It makes colleges safer for the entire campus community.

It encourages colleges and universities to adopt energy efficient and sustainable practices on their campuses.

I am confident that this legislation will improve the higher education system and make it more affordable, fairer and easier to navigate for students and families. Almost all of these students are borrowing money. Time is money, and time is effort, and we need to make this process more streamlined, fairer to families and fairer to students.

None of this, I want to say, would be possible without the leadership and the passion and the determination of Senator Ted Kennedy, and I would like to thank him for that.

Also, Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski stepped in when Senator Kennedy became ill and did a magnificent job of shepherding this bill and this conference report through the Senate.

I would also like to thank all the members of our committee for their hard work. And I would especially like to recognize Congressmen Buck McKeon, Ruben Hinojosa, and Ric Keller, and their staffs including Amy Raaf Jones, Moira Lenehan, and Ricardo Martinez.

And, finally, I would like to thank my staff for their tireless efforts on this reauthorization, including Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Denise Forte, Stephanie Moore, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Sharon Lewis, Margaret Young, Fred Jones, and Arman Rezaee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the Subcommittee on Higher Education Chair, who has done a magnificent job in shepherding this bill to the floor.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

I would just like to thank the gentlewoman for all of her work on behalf of military families, making sure that they did not pay an additional price for being in the military and lose their eligibility, for her work on that amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who has been so helpful on this legislation, both in teacher education and in community service and the work study programs.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has been so helpful on this legislation with respect to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the TRIO program.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois about section 725.

I concur completely with the gentleman's understanding. The conferees intend that this reauthorization is to strengthen the ability of both the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions to develop masters professionals. For this reason, the conferees intend that any appropriated funds be divided proportionately between the sections 723 and 724.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who, again, was so helpful in the business partnership agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) who's been a champion on campus safety during this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) who did groundbreaking work and made such an effort to make sure the States meet the responsibility for financing public higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and thank him for all of his work on the foreign language partnerships and the creation of the deputy assistant secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and thank him for his work on the business workforce partnerships and on the textbook rental program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and thank him for his work on the Teach to Reach grants and the students success grants for community college students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and I want to thank him for his work on the cohort default rate and on the year-round Pell Grant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and thank her for all her work on the TRIO program. It is so important to get kids to college and to stay in college.

How much time is remaining, might I inquire of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), and I want to thank him for his work on dislocated workers and on the rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and thank him for all of his work on the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and on the modeling and simulation program.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, families across America and students everywhere, it is a pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, who revolutionized and changed and simplified the student loan application form for all of America's families and students from this day forward, Mr. Emanuel.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I want to thank him for his work on the sustainability program and creating a summit on sustainability in colleges and universities.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and thank him for his work on the real-time writers program.

May I inquire of the Speaker as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, and members of the committee, I'm very proud of this legislation. I'm very proud of the members of my committee on both sides of the aisle. This legislation doesn't just belong to this committee at this time or to the majority party just at this time, this legislation has been worked on by many people on both sides of the aisle.

When the Republicans were in the majority and Mr. McKeon was the subcommittee chair, he pushed hard for this legislation. And Mr. Kildee has spent many years on our committee working on behalf of higher education. And Mr. Hinojosa authored legislation, along with Mr. McKeon, that made it through the House in the last session.

Why has that been true? Why is this legislation so broadly supported? Because we all understand the importance of a well-educated American population, and we all understand the urgency of this moment. At no time in our history has America needed a better educated population than it needs today.

And we understand the importance of a college education and what it means to America's families, what it means to young people as they start out in their careers, as they start out their families, and their ability to provide for themselves and go to jobs that are interesting, that work for them, that make sense for them, and yet be able to have the skills so they can continue in the American economic system. This legislation does all of those things.

This legislation helps to make college more affordable. It certainly helps to make it more accessible. And it has done that because of the agreements that we have reached on both sides of the aisle. Mr. McKeon has pushed long and hard for increases in the Pell Grants, long and hard for accountability in this system, and long and hard to make sure that the cost of college, that we have greater transparency, that we understand it better, that parents would be able to decipher, that students would be able to decipher and understand it. This legislation improves this act with respect to all of those provisions of the law.

I tried to recognize the contributions made by each Member on our side of the aisle and the programs that they worked on to increase access to college for so many populations that haven't been given the full opportunity in the past that will be able to take advantage of that opportunity.

And finally, this legislation makes it more affordable for many students. It's in combination with what we did in the reconciliation bill, where we provided $20 billion in new resources for students by cutting the interest rates, by providing forgiveness for loans, by increasing the Pell Grants, and providing real-time tuition assistance for those who want to go into teaching.

This is an important piece of legislation; it's important to the Congress, it's important to our Nation, it's important to families and students who struggle mightily to figure out how they can finance an education.

I think this is a big step in assuring that every qualified student should be able to afford college. They may have to borrow some money, but it's well worth that if they can achieve a college education. And I think it's going to make a major contribution to strengthening the American economy.

This is a moment in time legislation and authorization of the Higher Education Act. But for over 45 years, there has been a fixed star in increasing the opportunity for young people to go to college and increasing the wherewithal for families and students to afford a college education, and that was the Senator from Massachusetts, who, unfortunately, is not able to be with us as we pass this conference report today in the House and in the Senate, but he is with us in great spirit. He called the other day to congratulate us with great enthusiasm. He wasn't convinced we were actually going to get it done, and he said he was quite excited that we did. And he was looking forward to the passage of this legislation.

He has been a moving force for opportunity at all levels of society. But he, first and foremost, has understood the opportunity that education provides. Whether it's early childhood education, preschool education, elementary, secondary education, community colleges, 4-year colleges, graduate schools, Senator Ted Kennedy has been a champion of making sure that those doors are open to everybody in this society. And this legislation, I think, honors that commitment that Senator Kennedy has had for so many years as he has continued to sit on the Education Committee in the United States Senate and pound out this legislation that is so important to America's families, to America's students, and to America's economy.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I thanked them earlier, but I want to thank all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership on this issue, and certainly to all of the staff for their help. And happy birthday to Joe Novotny.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is astonishing to me to what lengths this liberal Congress will go to shut down debate and close the legislative process.

This House, Mr. Speaker, has become far more dictatorial and far less deliberative in the last 19 months than ever before. In this Congress, there have been 59 closed rules, which is more than in any Congress in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, a closed rule means Members are prohibited from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment to the bill that is being considered on the floor. An open rule allows Members to offer amendments to a bill that's being considered on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is simply as simple as that.

But Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one single, solitary open rule this entire year in this body. For this entire Congress, going back to January of last year, there has been only one open rule on bills that were not appropriations bills. These facts present a stark picture of just how closed and restrictive this liberal Congress has become.

Yet the Speaker and Democrat-controlled Rules Committee aren't satisfied with having the worst, most closed record in history. They've decided to go even further to undermine the rules and traditions of the U.S. House of Representatives. With this rule, they've reached an absolute new low. They have chosen to breach the long-standing, bipartisan process of an open rule for the consideration of appropriations bills.

On what has been an open process on the House floor not just for years, not for decades, but dating back to the creation of the Appropriations Committee itself, this process is being closed down by this oppressive, liberal Congress.

This rule provides for consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill for the next fiscal year. It is a bill that has always, Mr. Speaker, had strong bipartisan support. For example, last year it passed by a recorded vote of 409 in favor and only two against. And during that debate last year, there were just 15 amendments that were offered. And the total debate on the House floor was just 5 hours, which is a short time for appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, there is no part of this record that justifies what is being proposed today to decimate this open process. There is simply no excuse for what is being done and proposed by this rule.

I can only conclude that this is a blatant political attempt to stifle debate on the House floor in order to hold onto political power. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the expense of the rules and traditions of the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year begins on October 1; that's just 62 days away. Yet this House hasn't passed one single appropriations bill. At the end of the week, it will probably have passed one. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican House had passed every bill except one by this point of the year.

It is a troubling, disappointing, and dangerous situation when those who control this liberal Congress are punting on their duty to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills while simultaneously undermining the open consideration of these very same appropriations bills, an open process that has been a bipartisan hallmark of this House since the inception of the Appropriations Committee.

And why is this being done, Mr. Speaker? Again, I can only conclude that it is because this liberal Congress refuses to allow open debate and votes on producing more American-made energy. Those who control this Congress have refused to allow a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling, at ANWR in Alaska, and on other Federal lands.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama oppose offshore drilling and in ANWR, but they refuse to let Congress vote on this important issue while gas prices, Mr. Speaker, are at record levels and Americans are hurting.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record three articles, one from the New York Times regarding Speaker Pelosi, one from the McClatchy Washington Bureau regarding Speaker Pelosi's position on offshore drilling, one in the House of nearly 6 weeks ago from The Hill regarding Mr. Obama's opinion on drilling, and one from the Las Vegas Review Journal regarding Majority Leader Reid's position on drilling in the Senate.

As you know, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly insisted that this House won't ever vote, is not going to be permitted to vote, and that she will do everything possible to block a vote on lowering gas prices by producing more American-made energy by drilling for our own Nation's gas and oil. Americans can't afford this head-in-the-sand approach. Congress needs to stand up and vote on the Republicans' ``all of the above'' energy plan that simply says, let's do everything that we can to produce more American-made energy, including pursuing more clean alternatives like wind and solar, more nuclear power, more biodiesel, improving conservation, more investment in new technology research, and of course, immediately more drilling and refining of oil and gas from America's huge underground reserves.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear: we can continue with this ``drill nothing'' approach, or we can decide to act, to change course and to debate and vote on the Republicans ``all of the above'' plan to lower gas prices by producing more energy here in America and finding ways, at the same time, to use less.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our ``all of the above'' approach to lowering gas prices would pass. It would pass, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if it were permitted to have a vote on this House floor. I believe there is a majority that would vote for it in this U.S. House. But such a vote has yet to be allowed and is not being allowed today. And next week, we're going on a 5-week vacation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable.

The House is being shut down in new, bolder ways to block a vote on producing American-made energy. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this rule is proof of it.

The long-standing, bipartisan practice of considering appropriations bills under an open process is being trampled on by this rule. The actions that are being taken to restrict and shut down Members' ability to offer amendments and debate spending bills--which I might add, Mr. Speaker, is the very job that the American people elected us to do--is being undermined by this appropriations process, and it creates a very dangerous and volatile situation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the leaders and the chairmen who've made this decision may well rue the day that they chose to go down this path.

By their actions, bipartisanship is being diminished, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the traditions of this House are being diminished. One cannot trample on the rules and practices of traditions of this House with impunity and then expect no long-term damage to result.

This is a sad and shameful rule. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it and demand this House uphold open rules for consideration of appropriations bills, which is one of the best practices historically of this institution. If we do not correct the closed rule course that is being set by this rule, it will do a great deal of long-term harm to this House that will prove, in my opinion, more difficult to reverse in the future.

[From the New York Times, July 17, 2008]

For Pelosi, a Fight Against Offshore Drilling

(By Carl Hulse)

Washington.--Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative

Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California

front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.

The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and the steady push to

tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had

galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore

drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures

like Ms. Pelosi.

She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries

near her San Francisco district and, after joining the

Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the

ban on coastal drilling through spending restrictions each

year.

``We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on

our coast,'' Ms. Pelosi told a crucial committee in 1996 as

she argued for keeping the ban before a Congress then

controlled by Republicans.

Now, with gasoline prices soaring, those drilling

restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as

calls intensify to pursue

domestic oil more forcefully. Yet despite increasing pressure

from President Bush, a full-bore assault by Congressional

Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file

Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is not budging.

``The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a

gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying

to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore,'' Ms.

Pelosi said in an interview. ``That is not the cause, and I

am not going to let him get away with it.''

Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi,

who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded

drilling from reaching the floor.

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority

leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to

approve drilling in areas now off limits. They argue that the

oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large

expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They

have also urged Mr. Bush to pour some fuel from national

reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to

lower prices.

Trying to demonstrate that Democrats are not opposed to

drilling in acceptable locales, the House is scheduled to

vote on Thursday on a proposal that would deny oil companies

any new leases unless they can show they are diligently

exploring existing holdings. The measure would also require

annual lease sales from lands in Alaska set aside as a

National Petroleum Reserve, and direct the Interior

Department to make sure a pipeline is linked to the reserves.

Democrats, not subtly, are calling the measure the Drill

Responsibly in Leased Lands, or Drill, Act.

In the Senate, Democrats are pushing a measure to curb

speculation in oil markets.

But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican

leader, who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge in Alaska this weekend, said the Democrats'

approach was woefully insufficient. Mr. Boehner said Ms.

Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was

putting Democrats in the crosshairs of voters furious about

gas prices.

``I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other

vulnerable Democrats off a cliff, and they know it,'' said

Mr. Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats

representing more conservative districts.

He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to

thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position that he said

would prevail if the moment arrived. ``Harry Reid and Nancy

Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people

want,'' Mr. Boehner said.

In both the House and Senate, small groups of Democrats

have begun meeting informally with Republicans to try to

reach a bipartisan response to higher oil prices, and opening

up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the

Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the

Arctic refuge and elsewhere.

Backers of the drilling ban have pushed back furiously and

appear to have bolstered some of their colleagues. Senator

Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who has been fighting

offshore drilling since the 1970s, has been cornering fellow

senators to impress upon them the importance of the ban to

Californians, comparing it to a mainstay of farm-state

senators.

``This is our ethanol,'' Mrs. Boxer said of protecting the

coast from oil drilling.

Since taking over as speaker, Ms. Pelosi has asserted

herself on energy policy, which she sees as an overarching

cause that encompasses national security, climate change, the

economy, health care and the environment.

``This captures everything,'' said Ms. Pelosi, who last

year broke a deadlock that had lasted for decades over

increasing automotive fuel economy standards.

In a private meeting last week, according to some in

attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team

that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to

capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she

was having none of it. She attributes today's energy problems

to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a

comprehensive approach, to its ties to the oil industry and

to a mishandling of the economy.

With the drilling restrictions under such scrutiny, backers

of the ban say they are heartened that Ms. Pelosi wields the

power she does.

``It is really important to have a Californian as speaker

on this topic,'' said Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat

who represents Santa Barbara.

Ms. Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror

surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her

personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move

through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she

sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She

said national policy had to move beyond the long dispute over

the ban.

``This is part of the fight we are in,'' she said. ``We

have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will

say, `Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their

car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our

head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent.''

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding.

Let me ask this question: Would a Member be able to come down to the floor when this bill is being taken up and offer a second-degree amendment to an amendment that is being offered by another Member?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of trying to plan the time, could I inquire of my distinguished colleague how many speakers she has left.

I thank her for that information, and am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Chairman, this funding bill sends a clear message to America's veterans, servicemembers, and their families that Congress recognizes and appreciates their service to this country and the sacrifices they have made on its behalf.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated just 6 days ago.

The Disabled American Veterans said this bill ``provides the means to serve and care for sick and disabled veterans, to provide housing facilities for military families, and to fund the activities of several other agencies that affect veterans, a most generous and necessary act.''

The American Legion said this bill effectively addresses every aspect of the VA budget. H.R. 6599 addresses improvement and increased funding for medical care, mental health care, medical research, long-term care, rural health care options, both construction, major and minor, nonrecurring maintenance, and claims adjudication.

Mr. Chairman, the words expressed by these respected veterans organizations, which represent millions of men and women who have honorably served our Nation in uniform, are more important than any words I could express on this floor tonight. I want to salute the members of these organizations and the many other veterans and military family groups for the key role they have played in shaping this bill. Even more importantly, I want to salute our servicemen and -women, our veterans and their families for having defended our Nation in time of war and in time of peace and for ensuring that our Nation never forgets the sacrifices of those who have served past, present and future.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, is about a lot more than just programs and budgets. It's about respect, respect for those who have answered our Nation's call to duty--everyday fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters from every generation, from every race and from every religion. Because of their service and sacrifice, we live in a safer, better world.

This bill is about the moral responsibility of keeping our promises to those who have kept their promises to serve. It's about honoring the unsung heroes and heroines in our Nation's defense and the spouses and children of our servicemen and -women. These great Americans might not ever put on a military uniform, but they serve our Nation every day through their personal sacrifice. When one's loved one has been deployed overseas, there are no makeup days for missed births, birthdays and graduation ceremonies. No price tag could measure the value of missed baseball games, school events and the simple, everyday joys of a family's being together.

This bill is about the young father I met just 2 weeks ago at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He lost both of his legs in combat in Iraq. As he sat there, talking to me with his young son in his lap, I could not help but be overwhelmed by the lifelong sacrifice this father had made to try to make the world a safer place for my two young sons and for all children. This bill is about seeing that that loving father does not have to give up the dreams he has for his child.

The humility of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is our knowing that we could never fully repay the debt of gratitude we owe this soldier and all who have served our Nation in uniform. Yet we know it is the right thing to do to honor these great Americans, not just with our words on Veterans' Day but with our deeds every day--with better health care, housing, education, and daycare. That is what this bill is all about. Let me be specific.

Overall, this bill totals $72.7 billion in discretionary spending. That is $3.4 billion more than the President's request and $8.8 billion more than the last fiscal year in 2008. Especially given our Nation is at war, I believe our troops, our veterans and their families have earned every single dime of this funding. I'm disappointed that the administration has said that its lower budget request is adequate. It is not.

Just today, the DAV, the AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW have said this: ``We concluded the President's budget request for 2009 was about $3 billion short of the actual and equitable needs of veterans. We are shocked to learn the administration is insisting that the VA has been given sufficient funding for next year in its original budget submission.''

The bill provides $47.7 billion in discretionary funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is $2.9 billion more than the President's request and $4.6 billion more than fiscal year 2008.

What does this mean to millions of veterans who need the VA health care system?

First, based on a Bush administration policy adopted in 2003, veterans have been told in some parts of the country that making $28,430 a year makes them too wealthy to qualify for VA health care. I think that policy is wrong and unfair to many veterans who cannot simply afford health insurance with an income level so far below the national average. That is why this bill raises the number priority 8 veterans eligible for VA care by 10 percent.

Second, with $4 a gallon gasoline, we increase the mileage reimbursement rate for veterans driving long distances to VA hospitals and clinics from 28\1/2\ cents to 41\1/2\ cents. Until this Congress acted last year, that rate had been locked in at 11\1/2\ cents since 1979 when gasoline prices were less than $1 a gallon.

Mr. Chairman, this increase in gas mileage reimbursement to our veterans may not seem like a big deal to some, but to many veterans, that is the difference between their being able to afford to drive to a VA hospital to get the care they desperately need or not being able to do so.

Third, for Iraq and Afghan war vets as well as for veterans from all past conflicts, this bill ensures that a minimum of $3.8 billion, $900 million more than last year, will be spent on mental health care services. The mental wounds of war often outlast the physical wounds of combat, and it is past time that we adequately fund mental health research and care so our veterans can rebuild their lives once they return home.

Fourth, to help veterans in rural areas and members of the Guard and Reserves living so far away from VA facilities, we provide $200 million to increase access to local health care providers.

I thank our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for his strong leadership on this important provision, among many others.

Fifth, no soldier, no veteran--not one--should ever again have to live in the demeaning conditions that some saw at Walter Reed's annex 18 last year. They deserve better than that, and that is why we provide $300 million to address the backlog and nonrecurring maintenance at our VA hospitals. In addition, we fund $1.9 billion for much needed construction at VA hospitals and clinics.

Sixth, none of us should rest until there is not one homeless veteran anywhere in our country. That is why we provide in this bill $40 million more in order to help these homeless veterans receive the medical services and job training that they need. We want them to have not only the dignity of a roof over their heads, but we want them to have real hope for rebuilding their shattered lives.

Seventh, the bill provides the Veterans Benefits Administration with enough funding to hire an additional 2,100 claims processors. It's not right. It's simply not right for veterans to have to wait on average nearly 6 months to have their claims processed. For many veterans, including combat wounded veterans, that wait means that they don't get the benefits that they earned through their military service and, for many of them, the benefits they desperately need to pay their monthly bills.

There is much more in this bill for veterans, from better prosthetics for amputees to research for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Two things are not in this bill--the administration's ill-advised proposals to increase prescription drug copays for veterans by 88 percent and the idea to charge a $250 VA health care enrollment fee for our vets. Making drugs less affordable would hurt veterans' health and would require many of them to seek more expensive hospital care. I believe, for one, that our veterans have already paid an enrollment fee for VA health care. They did it when they put on our Nation's uniform.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to keeping our promises to veterans, this bill supports important quality of life and training improvements for our servicemen and -women and their families. It provides $24.8 billion for military construction, family housing and the Base Realignment and Closing program, known as BRAC. This is $400 million above the President's request.

This will mean better housing and improved health care and modernized hospitals for our military families. For single moms and dads at home with their children while their spouses are in harm's way overseas, this bill will provide quality, affordable daycare for their children. For thousands of our single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, it will mean the end of old, outdated barracks and a place they can be proud to call their home. We specifically added $200 million to the administration's budget request so they can begin to replace woefully inadequate training barracks. This will send a clear message that our Nation respects

the decision of 18-, 19- and 20-year-old military recruits, their decision to sign up to serve our country.

Honoring our troops, our veterans and their families is a meaningful way that is not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. In an all-volunteer military force, the best in the world, we simply cannot expect to attract and to retain the best and brightest if we do not provide quality housing, health care and education for military troops and their families and if we do not keep the promises that we have made to our veterans.

The bottom line is this: This bill is about maintaining a strong national defense and military readiness and about respecting with word and deed those who defend us and our freedom.

Mr. Chairman, let me end by thanking those who made this bill possible. I would begin by thanking Speaker Pelosi, who has kept her promise that the new Congress would truly honor our veterans and our servicemen and -women in an historic way. Under her dedicated leadership, we have increased veterans' funding in less than 2 years by more than what Congress did in the previous 12 years, including a new 21st-century GI education bill that passed just a few weeks ago. In my 18 years in Congress, I've served with no Speaker of either party who has done as much for veterans as has Speaker Pelosi. Her legacy will benefit millions of veterans for generations to come.

I want to thank Congressman Dave Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Congressman John Spratt, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. It was their strong personal leadership combined with the work of Speaker Pelosi that made it possible for us to pass last year the largest increase in VA health care benefits in the 77-year history of the VA.

As a Democrat, I'm proud that the budget resolutions passed last year and this year made a commitment to unprecedented increases in veterans' health care and benefits. Those resolutions authorized the funding for our subcommittee's work.

Let me be very clear. The 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill is a bipartisan accomplishment.

I want to pay special tribute to our subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee. Through 19 hearings, his deep and genuine commitment to our troops and to our veterans was evident to every one of us privileged to serve with him. His ideas and input and commitment to always putting the interests of our troops and veterans above partisanship made this bipartisan bill possible. His leadership made this bill a much better bill, and for that I salute him.

Let me also express my gratitude to all of the members of our subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats alike. Each one of them made valuable contributions to this bill. Veterans and our troops are the beneficiaries of their hard work.

A special thanks is owed to Mr. Lewis of California and to Mr. Young of Florida. They didn't just help shape this bill. Their dedicated, lifelong leadership on behalf of all of those who have served in uniform is what public service should be all about.

I thank you, sir.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to a staff that is second to none anywhere in the Congress--to the majority staff led by subcommittee clerk Carol Murphy, Tim Peterson, Mary Arnold, Walter Hearne, and Donna Shahbaz and John Conger on my staff, and the minority staff led by Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson and Kelly Shea, and Amanda Schoch from Mr. Wamp's staff. Also, a special thanks to Mr. Rob Nabors, the clerk of the full Appropriations Committee.

I thank you all for the professionals you are, for the hard work you do and for reminding all of us that, when it comes to supporting our troops and veterans, we can and we must work on a bipartisan basis.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY08.004

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

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

Mr. Chairman, oftentimes in life it's more important what you do with your second chances than what you do the first time around. Neither Chairman Edwards, who spoke so eloquently in a comprehensive way about this bill and his commitment to our veterans, our men and women in harm's way and their families--neither he nor I took advantage in our younger years of serving in the uniform of our Armed Forces. However, fate has it that we would have a second opportunity to serve by serving those who are serving us, past and present, through this bill; making sure that those great American patriots, past and present, have what they need--and are entitled to and deserve because of their commitment to this great Nation.

It is the highest compliment of my professional life to serve as the ranking member of this subcommittee. I want to thank Chairman Lewis-- former Chairman Lewis, now Ranking Member Lewis--for this privilege because without him and his support I wouldn't be here. I want to thank Mr. Wicker, who was the ranking member of this subcommittee last year, and I want to thank whoever helped him become a Senator to open up this subcommittee opportunity for me, and for Chairman Edwards, who, as you just saw on the House floor, is a class act, with a true commitment to the men and women in uniform and a determination to do whatever is necessary to honor their commitment.

And I can report today, as I did at the full committee, that when I go home and people ask me in 2008, in my new position, are we honoring our Nation's veterans and the men and women in uniform serving in an asymmetrical war on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with head trauma and IED injuries and amputations--double, triple, extraordinary injuries--stress from unfair deployments, unsustainable deployments, stress on the family, are we honoring our commitment to them? And I don't think a few years ago, regardless of party, that the answer to that question was yes. We had problems at Walter Reed, we had problems at Fort Stewart, we had problems across the board.

We still have many challenges. The deployment ratios have got to continue to improve. But I can tell you in this bill there is a bipartisan commitment to honor their commitment. And I believe we are making great progress at ensuring our men and women in uniform and their families have what they need and deserve, and when they come home as veterans, that we take adequate care of them--not adequate, but responsible care of them. And I think we're making great progress.

I want to thank the majority for doing something that people in the hinterland wouldn't even understand, but they put the Military Construction bill back in with the Veterans bill where it belongs. When I served on the subcommittee 10 years ago, this was not the case.

But when the Military Construction bill funds quality of life needs and child care centers and polytrauma centers and housing needs, the veterans piece being in with it in the same bill allows the continuum of care to come together so that we can look at the whole picture from today's men and women in harm's way and what their quality of life needs are--which is number one for us--all the way through the end of their life as a veteran with our VA system. It needs to all be together.

That was an amazing success, bringing Military Construction and Veteran's Care back together--my hat's off to the Speaker for doing that, first and foremost, for Chairman Edwards for his leadership, and for Chairman Obey for his commitment.

I do agree that over the 100 hearing hours Chairman Edwards and I had a hands-on with these amazing Americans, we produced a work product, this bill--at roughly $48 billion for the VA and $25 billion for the military construction needs around the world--that is very strong, and an encouragement to all those in harm's way today and those that have been in harm's way in the past.

I will say that the President's budget request for veterans was a record level. Now, the chairman said that it wasn't enough, and I agree with that. And we did increase it by $3 billion, but it was at a record level. So today there is an encouraging bipartisan proliferation to see who can do more for our Nation's veterans. And that's a good thing for our Nation's veterans, that we're in competition to see who can do more for the men and women coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and those that have served in the past.

But I was blown away over the last few months with the quality of the servicemembers and veterans. First, we hear from the chiefs of the respective services, the top enlisted personnel, the commanders from around the world, like the Commander of CENTCOM, who is now General Petraeus, with two wars under his command in Iraq and Afghanistan, we hear from all these leaders about the needs on the ground and what investments they need the Congress to make for them to do their job successfully. And then from the military families, that talk about the stress felt when we had a 15-month in, 1 year out deployment, now it's back to 1-1, it's going to 2-1. We need to get to 3-1 to make it sustainable, meaning 1 year in theater fighting, 3 years back in a noncombat station. This is so important that we work towards these objectives and that we honor this commitment.

Now, on the subcommittee, we've got extraordinary support. Former chairman of the full committee, who will speak in a minute, Bill Young from Florida, sits with us every hearing, hands on, fully engaged. Ander Crenshaw from Jacksonville, Florida, who will also speak, John Carter, from Texas, Kay Granger from Texas on the Republican side. I want to compliment not just Chairman Edwards, but Sam Farr, the vice chairman; who was really engaged, and a man who understands the world; he does an outstanding job.

You mentioned all the staff, I won't repeat their names, but both sides of

the aisle, just outstanding work. Members of the subcommittee--Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bishop--everyone's engaged on your side; and contributed to great bipartisan cooperation. And the quality of these people that are serving in uniform and their families is just extraordinary.

What we heard this year is that the value of the dollar is really hurting us around the world. Our money that we're investing won't buy what it used to buy all over the world, and that's a big problem. And we've known that it was getting worse, but it's really causing a budget pinch for our military construction around the world.

We heard, as we've continued to hear--which has held up the appropriation process--that energy costs are unsustainable. That's a huge burden on this budget. We're trying to help with those needs.

Most importantly, though, we heard about the stress of the deployments from the families, that they're unsustainable, that they put a huge burden on the servicemembers and families. That's why these child care centers and these housing issues are so important and we have prioritized in this bill.

I want to say one word of caution, because whether it's a $3 billion increase in VA or $13 billion increase in VA, the Veterans Administration is a long-standing bureaucracy. It is very large. And I have traveled, I've been to the sites, I've worked with the VA for a number of years, and they're not as efficient as they can be or must be. Money is not the only issue. I'm grateful that we came together to give them more money, but I want to make sure, and so does Chairman Edwards, that each and every year we hold them more accountable, and the subcommittee takes a greater hands-on role at looking for efficiencies. We worked with Ranking Member Buyer this year on the Authorization Committee on ways for the VA to recapture more third- party payments that they're entitled to to help with their bottom line; things like that we must do because the VA has to be more efficient and more accountable because they are a government bureaucracy. So it's not just money, it's oversight. And I believe we share that commitment.

I think Secretary Peake is doing a very good job as the Secretary. Sometimes these positions are political; I don't think he is, I think he's hands on. He understands the VA system from a health care perspective, which is possibly the most important piece of it. I just want to thank everyone. Again, the staff has really produced a great bill.

Member projects in this bill mirror those included in the House Armed Services Committee's bill. The projects all are authorized. We married them up, so there's no Member-advanced initiatives here that don't meet all the tests of authorization. That's important. So that makes this bill special.

It is special, too; we're the only Appropriations bill that's going to move off the House floor before we go home. I wish they all would have. But we're closing on a positive note because this bill is positive for our men and women in uniform. And they're out there facing the threats that are out there. And it's like never before. It's asymmetrical.

I don't know what's next, but I hope and pray we can bring them all home very soon. But as long as they're in harm's way and as long as they're willing to volunteer to serve, Chairman Edwards, you and I are going to work together, in this second chance of ours, to serve those who serve us. And we're going to honor their commitment fully. That's what this bill is about.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, who has a tremendous record with our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from Jacksonville, Florida, an extremely active member of the subcommittee, Ander Crenshaw.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a great patriot, the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose to close briefly by saying that Chairman Obey said something at the full committee that I want to paraphrase and restate in the context that we all know that those who do not learn from history, are destined to repeat it.

One of the lessons of Vietnam is that regardless of how you feel, especially as a policymaker, but even as a citizen, about the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, or any war, it's so important to appreciate fully the men and women who are engaged in that war on our behalf. Regardless of how you feel about the mission, it is so important for our Nation to appreciate and support and fund and resource the needs of our men and women in uniform and our veterans.

I want to say tonight I grew up a Democrat. I am a Republican today. But we should, and are, meeting at the water's edge on this issue of resourcing the men and women in harm's way and supporting the veterans when they come home for the balance of their life.

This is a lesson of history, of modern history. We saw it and we are making that right. So even though many of them do not support what we are doing in Iraq, or maybe even Afghanistan, this bill supports those who are fighting, and their families. And that is important.

In closing, I do want to recognize by name again the extraordinary staff. They call these people the front office staff. Rob Nabors and Jeff Shockey at the highest level. This committee staff is bipartisan. There happens to be a majority staff, Carol Murphy, Donna Shahbaz, Walter Hearne; the minority staff, Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson, and Kelly Shea. Mr. Edwards has John Conger, I have Amanda Schoch. They have done a remarkable job day in day in day out to bring us to this today because this is a great work product. Not all bills that come to this floor are, but this is. And it's right. I urge its passage.

I thank you for the time on the general debate. We have got 37 amendments. The hour is getting late. Let's get on with it.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the passage of the conference report.

I commend full Committee Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Members McKeon and Keller for their leadership on this bill. I extend my deepest thanks to the chairman for his commitment to enhancing minority education and for his steadfast support on multiple issues that were especially important to me and to institutions serving the black community.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the Education and Labor staff, who so skillfully worked to establish the many wonderful programs that will improve higher education for so many.

There are multiple provisions of this bill that will benefit Chicago and other places throughout the country. I am especially pleased that the bill strengthens minority-serving institutions, especially HBCUs and Predominantly Black Institutions, or PBIs. I am very glad that the bill strengthens the TRIO programs that serve first-generation low- income students, and the prohibition on the Department of Education's Absolute Priority within the Upward Bound program.

At this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Miller.

I yield.

I thank the chairman of the committee for his clarification and appreciate his and the conferees commitment to writing the statute to promote unity among the higher education community that serves mostly African American students.

It is an excellent bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support the passage of the conference report for H.R. 4137, which authorizes the Higher

Education Opportunity Act. This bill reauthorizes the higher education act for the first time in 10 years. I commend full-Committee Chairman George Miller and sub-Committee Chairman Ruben Hinojosa for their leadership on this bill. I extend my deepest thanks to the Chairman for his commitment to enhancing minority education and for his steadfast support on multiple issues that were especially important to me and to institutions serving the Black community. I would be remiss if I did not thank the Education and Labor staff who so skillfully advocated to establish so many wonderful programs that will improve higher education opportunities for so many.

There are multiple provisions of this bill that will benefit Chicago and Illinois. To begin, this bill greatly expands access to higher education for low-income and minority students. By increasing Pell grants to $8,000, extending the grants to year-round, and allowing part-time students to qualify for Pell grants, this bill will enable many more of my constituents to attend college.

I am especially pleased that the bill authorizes programs for both undergraduate and masters programs at Predominantly Black Institutions. PBIs represent a growing cadre of four-year and two-year institutions that serve as the access point for a growing number of urban and rural Black students whose family and financial situations limit their ability to gain access to college in many states. Many of these students come from low-income families and are also ``first generation'' college students, whose educational preparation for college and family finances present special challenges to educational success. PBIs are not eligible to receive funding under the HBCU capacity-building funds given that PBIs were not established prior to 1964. The undergraduate PBI program will provide federal support to strengthen the institutional capacity of schools to attract, retain, and graduate their students. Chicago has many PBIs that provide high quality education for many low-income, minority students, including: Chicago State University, Malcolm X College, Harold Washington College, Olive-Harvey College, Kennedy King College, East-West University, Robert Morris College, and South Suburban College. In addition, the new PBI masters program promotes the development of more Black masters- level professionals in the science and health fields by providing specific institutional support. For example, Chicago State University will qualify for valuable aid to strengthen its masters programs in the biological sciences and computer science as well as strengthen its first professional program in pharmaceutical science. Together, these new PBI programs will enhance the access for low-income African American students to higher education.

I also am pleased that the bill strengthens both HBCU undergraduate and graduate education. As a graduate of an HBCU, I am very familiar with the benefits these institutions provide to low-income students. The new masters program for HBCUs in Title VII fills a void in current law. Title III, Part B includes institutional support for undergraduate education at HBCUs, and Section 326 provides institutional support for doctoral and first professional programs at HBCUs. The new Section 723 completes this continuum by supporting HBCUs with masters programs in the fields of science and health as well as clarifies the congressional intent that the existing Section 326 pertains to doctoral and first professional programs.

Further, the bill strengthens the TRIO programs, which are key supports for low-income, first-generation college students to prepare and succeed in higher education. Importantly, the bill institutes an appeals process when applicants have evidence of errors in the handling or scoring of the applications. A number of Chicago institutions unfortunately have had difficulties in the last few years with denial of applications for suspect reasons and due to glitches with the Grants.gov system. Having a procedure in place to allow due process for these applicants is an important element to ensuring a fair application process. Further, the bill prohibits the implementation of the absolute priority that the Department imposed on the Upward Bound program, forcing programs to dramatically alter the nature of the services provided. I am happy that any future evaluations of Upward Bound will exclude the cohorts of students chosen under this well-intentioned but ill-conceived priority.

Chicago also has many for-profit institutions of higher education that serve an important role in educating students. I am glad that the Conference Report provides additional flexibility for these institutions in terms of the 90/10 rule, including flexibility in the types of revenue that count toward the 10 percent, the Departmental response to violations of the rule, and exceeding loan limits as a result of the enactment of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. Further, I support the increased monitoring and reporting requirements of for-profit institutions as a means to provide transparency and safeguards for students.

I am happy that the bill emphasizes the need to support populations that are underrepresented in higher education. One such population about which I am particularly concerned is African American men. The under-representation of minority males, especially African American men, is a matter of public record that is reinforced by high drop-out rates in urban and rural school districts, and lower participation/ enrollment rates of these groups in colleges and universities. The American Council on Education's Minorities in Higher Education Annual Reports have consistently documented these factors for almost two decades. For example, although the enrollment of black men in higher education increased between 2000 to 2001, less than 3 percent of black men received a combination of associate's, bachelor's, or master's degrees. Clearly, ensuring success of students in higher education necessitates examining and promoting the success of minority males. To this end, the Conference Report includes a study of minority male access to and success in higher education that will provide key data to lawmakers so that we can better tailor our policies to promote minority men in higher education. The bill also encourages the involvement of individuals--such as African American men--who are from populations underrepresented in higher education in the TRIO programs, in teacher residency programs, in teacher preparation courses at minority serving institutions, and in loan forgiveness programs. These provisions will help ensure that the higher education community better reflects the diversity of our Nation.

Another population about which I am particularly concerned is individuals in prison. After Congress barred prisoners from receiving Pell grants in 1994, provision of postsecondary correctional education dropped greatly. Multiple empirical studies demonstrate that postsecondary correctional education improves the atmosphere in prisons, increases successful reentry, increases employment after release, and decreases criminal behavior. For example, studies show that such education helps improve communication among staff and inmates, develop positive peer role models, and reduce disciplinary infractions. Further, multiple studies show that postsecondary education saves taxpayers' money. In 2001, government analysts in Maryland calculated that such programs saved state taxpayers more than $24 million annually, more than two times what the state spent on such programs. Given that the average annual cost of incarceration is more than $22,000 per prisoner and that more than half of formerly- incarcerated people return to prison with 3 years, providing higher education within prisons promises to be a cost-effective investment of taxpayer dollars.

Currently, only approximately 5 percent of the total prison population is enrolled in postsecondary education. Current Federal postsecondary correctional grants target youth, resulting in a great need for such programs for adults. The Conference report expands higher education opportunities for older students by extending the qualifying age for such programs to 35 and by allowing up to 7 years to study while in prison. These provisions will allow greater flexibility to states to identify and serve individual inmates who are best able to benefit from postsecondary correctional education. In addition, the bill authorizes a study on the effectiveness of postsecondary correctional education. This study will greatly advance our understanding of what makes programs effective in educating individuals and reducing post release offending.

Further, I am pleased that the bill takes steps to ease the discrimination against low-income students with drug convictions. There are multiple problems with a one-size-fits-all penalty based on financial aid. It inappropriately uses the financial aid application process to apply a mandatory minimum sentence above and beyond what the judicial system has imposed for a restricted group of students. Also, given that the penalty applies only to students receiving Federal aid who must maintain a C average or higher, the current provision unfairly denies aid only to low-income, high-performing students. The Conference report makes it easier for students who lose aid to re-qualify for Federal aid after it is removed. The report also requires an important study of who is denied Federal aid so that lawmakers can better understand whether this policy penalizes particular categories of students compared to others. As the Committee on Education and Labor's Report indicated, the study will examine the demographic background of the students excluded from Federal aid by the drug prohibition as well as the nature of the offenses underlying the exclusion. The variables for study are clearly enumerated in the Committee Report.

In closing, there are many elements of this Conference report that will help many low-income students to access and succeed in higher education. I am proud to serve in the Congress that is making such a considerable investment in our students so that all youth--especially low-income, minority students--have access to quality postsecondary education.