Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 531, I call up the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which was reported by the Committee on Education and Labor pursuant to the reconciliation instructions of the budget resolution. The committee was tasked to decrease the deficit by $750 million without reducing the assistance that makes college more affordable to students.

In keeping with that policy, this bill will significantly reduce the costs that place college out of reach for far too many students today. This bill represents the largest effort to help students and families pay for college since 1944, when the Congress passed the GI Bill, which helped millions of veterans go to college, the first generation to do so under that legislation.

For years, college costs are rising rapidly and are far outstripping families' ability to pay for them. Students are graduating with more debt than ever before and are working harder to pay back the loans which they borrowed to pay for their college education.

Several hundred thousand students a year now decide to forego a college education, even though they are completely qualified, fully prepared to go to college, because they don't know how they'll pay for it or how they'll manage the debt that they will inherit when they graduate.

Recognizing this need, H.R. 2669 demonstrates our commitment to growing and strengthening America's middle class by making college more affordable and accessible for all qualified students. It also recognizes our commitment to those who are less fortunate, for low- income families, to make sure that we increase the Pell Grants that are available to the students, and also low-cost loans to those same students who need to borrow beyond the Pell Grant.

The College Cost Reduction Act, which passed the Committee on Education and Labor with bipartisan support, boosts the college financial aid by roughly $18 billion over the next 5 years. And this bill does so in a fiscally responsible way. We are committed to the pay-as-you-go budget rules, and we honor that commitment with this legislation.

H.R. 2669 recognizes that we have an obligation to make sure that students have the maximum opportunity to take advantage of a college education and that they need access to that education, they need preparation for that education, they need success while they're there, and they need completion of their education. To do that we've made sure that, regardless of their background, that they will be prepared for college, they will have access to higher education, they will graduate to achieve their goals, and they will not be so burdened with unmanageable debt that that becomes a failure.

The bill does that by, for low-income students, increasing the Pell Grant $500 over the next 4 years. This is a very significant increase in the Pell Grant. As many know, the President promised many years ago that he would have it up to $5,100, and the fact of the matter is it was at $4,050. They failed to increase the Pell Grants.

It cuts in half the interest rates for subsidized loans for hardworking families that are going to borrow money, students that are borrowing money. We will cut their interest rates in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. This will save the average student graduating with about $13,000 in debt, $4,400 over the life of that loan. We guarantee that those students who borrow this money, when they begin their time in the work world, they will not have to commit more, if they decide not to, to commit more than 15 percent of their income to pay back the loans so that they can enter those professions that may not have great starting wages, but over time in that career, they will build up income.

We also provide, in keeping with the mandate, to try to provide highly qualified teachers in every classroom for students who are excelling in college and want to teach, if they make a commitment to teach in difficult public schools, we will provide $4,000 a year in tuition assistance while they're in school, not after they graduate, while they're in school, to a maximum of $16,000.

For those students who go to college and they get their degrees and they want to enter professions and serve the public, they want to be first responders, they want to be nurses, they want to be firefighters and public defenders and prosecutors and special education teachers and early childhood teachers, we offer them a $5,000 forgiveness of their loans if they stay in that field for 5 years. We know that in each one of these areas there is a crisis in attracting people to those fields. Many in Congress, hundreds of Members of Congress, have co-authored legislation to provide loan forgiveness for some of these professions. This bill, in fact, funds that loan forgiveness for those individuals.

We also increase the loan limits so that students will have greater access to more money to pay for the increasing cost of college and not have to go to the private market, where they will be able to continue to take advantage of the subsidies provided in the Federal loan program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

We also make a landmark investment in minority-serving institutions to make sure that those institutions that serve a disproportionate number of minority students are able to provide the services, to make sure that those students who are fully qualified to go to college, who are prepared to go to college, in fact, stay in college, so we don't have a continuation of the situation we had today where, all too often, because services aren't provided in college to help those students stay in college, those students end up out of college, no diploma and a lot of debt. And we want to make sure that that, in fact, doesn't happen.

So today this legislation provides a great deal of promise and a great deal of assistance and a great deal of resources to those students and their families who are sitting down figuring out how they're going to pay for this college education that is so incredibly valuable today if you're going to fully participate in the American economic system, if you're going to participate in our democratic society.

This is a very, very important piece of legislation. This is legislation that is designed to help these students be able to pay for that education.

We do something else in this legislation. We set up a partnership where we go to the private sector, to wealthy individuals, to corporations, to foundations, and we tell them for every dollar that they'll put up to pay for essentially a Pell-eligible student to complete their education without going into debt, we will match them 50 cent on the dollar.

We are told by those individuals who have actively been participating in raising money for these students that this should allow them to raise hundreds of millions of dollars additionally because of that match; to have that public/private partnership pursuing one of the great goals of this great democratic society, which is to make sure that a student from any part of American society who's prepared to go to college can, in fact, go to college.

So we not only have the government helping them out, we also have private citizens, corporations, philanthropic organizations, and in some cases even local governments if they decide this is good for their economy, and we will provide a match to help them do that.

This is a comprehensive bill. It recognizes the complex needs of families and students to gain access to college, to pay for college, and to succeed in their employment afterwards; and I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

I yield myself 15 seconds to say, it's most interesting to sit here and be lectured by people who, when they controlled every department of government, every branch of government, they took a $5 trillion surplus that they inherited from the Clinton administration and immediately turned it into a $3 trillion debt that this Nation now is carrying around as it tries to compete in the world. To be lectured by mindless spenders like that is really a treat on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds

to say that I find it unbelievable that Republicans would decide that families that are making every sacrifice to borrow money, and students that are making every sacrifice to borrow and pay back money, that somehow they are called welfare recipients. These are hardworking American families who are struggling to educate their children, and I want to disassociate myself from that kind of characterization of these families or these students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention, and we look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue.

As he has pointed out to this committee and many Members of Congress, we in fact have a workforce crisis, and that is what we have tried to address in the loan forgiveness program in those professions that are not necessarily the highest paying in our society but are essential to the well-being of our society. We will work with the gentleman as this bill proceeds through the legislative process on this matter.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island and look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue in this conference and also on the Higher Education Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the committee who had a major amendment in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the members of the committee for their work on this legislation on both sides of the aisle. I certainly want to thank the staff as we finish general debate.

Mr. Speaker, we said when we gained the majority in this Congress that we wanted to take America in a new direction. This legislation, in fact, does that.

For 6.8 million students who take out need-based loans, this legislation will allow for cutting the interest rate in half over the next 5 years for those students. That will save them almost $4,400 on the average debt that they graduate with. For almost 5.5 million students who rely on a Pell Grant for the basic cost of their education, this means that over the next 4 years that grant will increase by some $500, definitely a new direction.

Because what we saw in the past was the Republicans made it more expensive to pay for your student loans. They provided little or no contribution to the Pell Grant over the last 4 or 5 years. That is a new direction.

What does it mean to America? It means that we are investing in the students and the talent of the future. It means that these are the young people that will take their talents and provide the next generation of discovery, the next generation of innovation, the next generation of jobs in America, the next generation of economic activity here at home. That's the investment that was made by our grandparents back in 1944, in that generation, the first generation to go to college in such great numbers with the GI Bill, and that's the investment that we have the courage and the vision to make in this generation of young people for the future of this country.

That's what this legislation is about. It's about making sure that the doors of a higher education that every employer tells us is now necessary to come to the American workplace if you want a career and you want a decent wage and you want to be able to provide for your family. The doors to those higher education institutions, be they community colleges, State colleges, universities or elite universities, however you want to characterize them, that those doors will not be closed to people who are talented and ready and qualified to go to college.

This legislation provides the means to ensure their access to help them pay for it and to help them make sure that they don't have to make choices against their best interest because of

that debt and later in life that they can choose to go into the professions that serve us as a society. This is a dramatic departure, a dramatic departure from the status quo, a dramatic departure.

What the Republicans did, when they had a chance, they had $20 billion. They decided they would help pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. That's what they did with a big chunk of the money that they took from these excess subsidies, the subsidies that we are taking a way from the banks.

The entitlement program that the banks have today as we stand here will be changed. Yes, it will become an entitlement program for America's families, America's students, those most at need in this country. That's what this Congress ought to be doing. That's what this society wants us to do, and we're going to do it today when we pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am the only remaining speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire how much time I have.

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

Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, I think this has been a very good debate because this has been a debate about which direction this country should go in and I believe will go in and the direction that the American people want this country to go in.

Parents all over this Nation hear every day from business leaders, from educational leaders, from the media, they hear that for America to be competitive, we have got to have a smarter workforce, a better skilled workforce, a better equipped workforce so that we can continue America's leadership in the world in the economics of the world and in the national security of this country. The key to that workforce, the key to that competitiveness, again, the very people who are hiring those individuals say that you must have a college education. What used to be good enough, which was graduation from high school, is no longer good enough today. You have to have advanced learning. It may be in a professional school. It may be in a trade school. It may be in a community college. It may be in a 4-year college. You may get some of it now and some of it later. But the fact of the matter is, you need those skills.

But what has happened over this time is that college education has increased as rapidly as anything else in society, in fact, more rapidly than many other indicators in our economy, over 35 to 40 percent over the last 5 years above inflation. What has that meant? That meant that families who thought they could afford that education now find that they have to squeeze harder. That meant that people who thought they weren't going to have to borrow money are now going to have to borrow money. That meant that people who thought they were going to be able to go to college are now deciding that they can no longer go to college. They are going to postpone it or maybe not go at all.

That's not good for America. That's not good for America's economy. That's not good for America's democratic institutions. And it's not good for our society. We need those young people to go to college.

What this legislation does today is it says to those individuals who are fully qualified to go to college, we will not deny you access to the college of your choice, to the education of your choice, to the career of your choice, and to the curriculum of your choice because you can't afford to pay for it. We're going to help you. We're not going to give you everything you need. Your family is still going to have to sacrifice, you're still going to have to pay back loans, but we're going to give you greater access to the ability to do that.

We're going to take this country in a new direction. We're going to take this country in a direction where we place a priority, a focus and a vision for education in America today because we know we must.

We're told again by the leaders of all of the new technologies, the new companies, the people who are investing in the future that we were the beneficiaries of when John Kennedy said that he wanted to send a person to the Moon and bring them back safely. It was more than a Moon shot. John Kennedy captured our imagination; he captured world leadership with that decision. And over the next decade, we did exactly as he directed.

But you know what else they did? They give 28,000 high-performing college students a grant to go to graduate school so they didn't have to borrow money, they didn't have to walk around with a tin cup, they didn't have to put themselves into debt, so they could use their best skills and talents to create the space program. You know what they created after they created the space program? They created Intel, they created Microsoft, they created Hewlett Packard. They created the infrastructure of this Nation. Now, did we whine and moan because they got a grant and the taxpayers used their money? They created millions of jobs in this country over the next four decades. That's what this is about.

Those are the investments that my grandparents made in my education before they ever met me. Those are the investments that my parents made in my education after they met me. They still thought it was worth something. And those are the investments that have made this country the greatest and strongest Nation in the world, have made us an economic leader, and have given us the ability to lead the world. Do we want to turn our back on it now? If you accept this substitute, you're turning our back on that idea.

The Republicans say, well, we're just going to take a little less money, but we're going to put it all in the Pell Grant. The Republicans, after flatlining Pell Grant all of these years when they had the opportunity to do something, did nothing. Now they want to love this bill to death by putting all the money in the Pell Grant.

This is what this legislation will do for Pell recipients; it will take them up to $5,200 in a Pell Grant. That may or may not pay for their education for that year, but it's a big leap forward.

But we also recognize something else, that this isn't the only constituency struggling to pay for education in this country. No, there are millions of students who will take out a subsidized student loan. And for those students, and their parents who will help them pay it back if they're that fortunate, for those students they will be paying for it by themselves, we're saying we will cut the interest rate in half when you graduate and you start to repay your loan. You borrow the money today, you pay your tuition, and when it comes time to pay your loan, your interest rate is half of what it is today.

Because we know that those middle-income families in this country are struggling as hard as anybody. They have the same vision, the same hope and the same aspiration for their children. So that's why we're doing this, because it's the best investment we can make in this country in that talent of our children, in the brilliance and the excitement and the vision of those children. That's what this legislation is about. But that's not what this substitute legislation is about. You cannot walk away from them.

I find it interesting that just 4 months ago, 5 months ago, 124 Republicans voted to cut those interest rates for middle-income families and their children, and now they're going to vote against it today. So they voted for it then, and now they're going to vote against it today. What was going on? Did they believe it then, or they don't believe it now? Which is it? But the fact of the matter is, this is about whether or not those families that struggle, they may be single parents, they may be two in their family, they may be families that find themselves with one, two or three kids in college at the same time. This government should help them because those children will return that gift of this Nation back to this Nation time and time again over the life of their earnings, over their careers. They will give back to this Nation because we made that investment as my parents and grandparents made in us.

If you vote for this substitute, you get rid of the interest rate cuts for those middle-income families. And also, for these very same Pell recipients, over half of these students will have to borrow money because a Pell Grant isn't enough. So they participate also in that interest rate cut.

You fail to participate in the loan forgiveness for the teacher, for the firefighter, for the policeman, for the special education teacher, for first responders. For those people in critical occupations that give so much to this society, but they're not the highest paying jobs, we're telling them if you stay on the job 5 years, we will give you $5,000 in loan forgiveness. For a student that graduates with an average debt of around $13,000, $14,000, that's a significant amount of loan forgiveness. What do we get? We get an educated firefighter, an educated policeman, a school teacher. We get these people.

For high-performing college students who are willing to go into teaching and go into math, science and engineering, and then go to the most difficult schools to teach, we're saying we will give you $4,000 a year in tuition assistance while you're in school, not later,

up to $16,000; again, an investment, because we now know that a highly qualified teacher can dramatically change the educational outcomes and the future for the children in ways that we can only dream about. That's an important investment, because that investment in that teacher will be invested in all of those students that come across his or her line of vision in those classes.

That's why this legislation is about a vision for America. That's why this legislation goes in a different direction. We stop today when we flatline aid to education in this country. We want to invest in young people. We want their families to be able to invest with us. And that's the importance of this legislation.

And, clearly, the commitment that we make to minority-serving institutions so that those students who are fully qualified to go to school go to school, receive the kind of help to keep them in school so they don't end up dropping out with a debt on the loans that they took. We want that success. It's a problem that's recognized across the country; we address it.

We raise the cap on the amount of money that families can borrow. It's not great news to hear we let you borrow more, but it's a lot cheaper than if you have to borrow it in the private loan market. It's 3.8 percent here, and it's 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 percent in the private market. That means a lot to families. That means a lot to students. That's what this legislation is about.

I would ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this substitute, to vote for the passage of the final bill. Let's take America to a new future. Let's take America to new heights. Let's take America to new greatness on the next generation of discoverers, of innovators, and of economic creators.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit says this will not allow a public officeholder or a lobbyist to get loan forgiveness. This has never been raised, and if you don't want them to get it, write me a letter and we will take care of it.

But what this does is this says that you must report this back promptly, so this kills this bill. This kills this bill. The greatest contribution to helping families pay for education since the GI bill, they want to kill it. Cutting interest rates in half for middle-income families, they want to kill it. You could have written the motion another way. You deliberately wrote it this way so you could kill this bill.

What is it you don't like about this bill? You don't like the fact that while you were in power, after years of flatlining the Pell Grant, we finally have given the biggest increase in decades for the poorest kids in the country. You don't like that, so you want to kill the bill. You don't like the fact that we are going to take 5 million middle- class kids and extend to them a loan with an interest rate that is cut in half while their families are struggling to get them through college. They are making sacrifices every year. You are going to do this. You are going to kill this bill? Are you proud of this amendment that you are going to try to kill this bill? Say it louder, that you are proud.

What about loan forgiveness? This amendment supposedly is about loan forgiveness, but in the process, they kill loan forgiveness to firefighters and policemen and nurses and teachers of special education and people who hold our society together and make it work, they kill that. What is it they don't like about having a society that can help its children? What is it they don't like about partnering up with families who want to help pay their kids' education, that borrow money, that are told every day they have to save more for this education, and here we are giving them loan forgiveness. We are giving them loan forgiveness because they have chosen to go into a career that doesn't pay very well. We are giving them an interest rate cut that will save them $4,000. That loan forgiveness will save them $5,000.

We are raising the amount of money that they can borrow, no great gift to their parents, money that they can borrow, but they don't have to go to the private market and pay 15 percent. They can pay 3.8 percent.

That's what this legislation is about. What is it you don't understand about the American people's vision? Mr. Speaker, what is it they don't understand about the American people's vision for this country? What is it you don't understand that America wants to go in a new direction? What is it you don't understand about this vision of the future where we have faith in our children, where they have the confidence of their parents; they have the vision that their kids can succeed, that they can be the next generation of discoverers, of innovators, of those who create economic opportunities and hire other people or get hired?

That's the vision America wants, and it needs help to pay for that education, and this is what this legislation does. That's what this legislation does.

Yes, we help those minority-serving institutions. I guess you don't like that either.

And yes, we thought we would partner up with some of the richest people in the world who said that if you partner up, we think we can raise hundreds of millions of dollars for poor children. So we said, you raise $1, we'll match it with 50 cents. They're now telling us they think they can raise hundreds of millions of dollars of private money. Sounds kind of Republican to me, but what the hell, I don't know.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

We've even got a multiplier in this bill. We tell high-achieving college students who are studying math, science and engineering, if you will commit to going in and teaching in the most difficult schools in this Nation, you will bring those talents to those kids, we'll give you $4,000 tuition relief while you're in school, not later. We know that that is a multiplier because we know the kids that are exposed to highly qualified and effective teachers can learn things that we can't believe of, and that's what gives back to this society.

At the end of the day, maybe Speaker Pelosi said it best: The dollars we invest in this legislation, the dollars we invest in these young people, that we invest in their families, in their futures, in their competencies, comes back to us every year from the same group of people as they graduate. They return the gifts. They return this gift of the Nation.

We're trying to do for this next generation, what my grandparents did for me, what my parents did for me. And those investments that they made in the college systems of this country, in the GI bill in this country, what did they do? They took America to the premier position in the world in economic leadership, in national security, in foreign affairs, took us to the first place in the world and has been there for 50 years based upon that investment.

America knows now that they need a new investment, and that's what this legislation is about. It's about a new investment for the next generation, the next generation of talent and competency and fearless and beautiful young people, beautiful young people who want their future to be as rewarding as all of ours have been. I ask you to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Kills the legislation today.

The Chair responded to the parliamentary inquiry that it is not forthwith, that it precludes action on the bill today. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2669, the cleverly titled College Cost Reduction Act. And what I would like to encourage my colleagues to do, in listening to this debate, is try to find what in this bill actually will cut or lower the cost of a college education.

There will be a lot of talk about cutting subsidies to lenders. There will be a lot of talk about lowering student interest rates, which actually then is paid to graduates of college, but what are we doing to hold down the cost of a college education? The cost of higher education has been going up more than four times the rate of inflation for the last 20 years, and we have not done anything to lower those costs.

This bill allegedly has been crafted to balance fiscal responsibility with significant new aid for college students and their families. In fact, the majority touts the bill as the most substantial package of new benefits since the GI bill. But under the microscope, it is clear that these claims fall completely flat.

In reality, this legislation is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for new entitlement spending at the long-term expense for American taxpayers. Even though we are considering this bill under the expedited procedure of budget reconciliation, which, as my colleagues know, is intended for real deficit reduction, this bill simply and shamelessly exploits the process. It cuts roughly $18.58 billion over 5 years in payments to student loan providers but simultaneously spends more than $17 billion during that same period on multiple programs, including nine new entitlement programs. So while they are talking about cutting mandatory spending, they are actually creating nine new entitlement programs, an apparent net savings of less than 9 percent.

These new entitlements include grants to Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian and other minority-serving institutions, grants to institutions with low tuition, grants to institutions to create new teacher preparation programs, grants to philanthropic organizations, a new mandatory Perkins loan program, cooperative education grants, and on and on and on. These sound like wonderful things, and I think what we are really seeing is that Democrats are Democrats. Give them an opportunity to spend money, they can't help themselves.

History has proven that once Washington, DC creates a new entitlement program, it never ever dies. In other words, taxpayers will foot the bill for this onslaught of new entitlement spending for years to come. These same students that will be given some savings through some of these special entitlement programs eventually are going to have to pay for them in higher taxes that they will provide later. During that time, it will certainly dwarf the token ``savings'' found in H.R. 2669.

It should be noted, too that much of this new entitlement spending is aimed at colleges, universities and philanthropic organizations, which we have never done before. The Federal Government has been sending Federal money to the students directly. Now they are sending it to organizations rather than to the students. This represents a historic departure from the intent of Federal student aid programs. As long as the Higher Education Act has existed, student aid entitlement dollars have been targeted towards students themselves. It is lost on me how sending these funds to institutions rather than to the students attending them helps more Americans pay for college. I doubt that we will see any reduction in tuition rates when they get this new money. But that is just what H.R. 2669 aims to do.

What is more, Mr. Speaker, other proposals included in this bill, such as the interest rate cut for certain college graduates included in the ill-fated Six for '06 legislation passed earlier this year, will have even more explosive long-term costs that could amount to tens of billions more in Federal Government spending. Who will be paying for it? You guessed it. The American taxpayers. And don't forget the cut to interest rates would not aid a single college student. Only graduates. Rather, the benefit would be aimed squarely at those who by definition no longer attend college. While the intent of this new spending is admirable, it is equally misdirected.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has threatened a veto of this disingenuous legislation and for good reason. With billions in new programs, most of which are directed toward institutions and graduates rather than students, those who really need the help to get into college and stay in college to get on the ladder to achieve the American Dream, this bill marks the first step towards an explosion in new, unchecked entitlement spending and another unfortunate step toward further hyperinflation in college costs.

Indeed, the measure before us overreaches by creating new entitlement spending for every conceivable constituency in higher education. It overreaches by failing to focus on the historical Federal roll in higher education supported by Democrats and Republicans alike: helping low-income students. And it overreaches by extracting too much out of the Federal Financial Aid Program, which has been a success by all measures.

I cannot support it, and I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Ryan).

I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, chairman of the RSC (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a very interesting debate.

At the beginning of the debate, I asked our colleagues to please listen carefully for anything they might hear that would lower tuition rates, that would lower the cost of a college education. I have listened very carefully, and I haven't heard anything.

I have heard a lot of talk about investment, I have heard a lot of talk about new spending, and a lot of these things sound wonderful. It reminds me kind of when I would take my children to sit on Santa Claus's knee. He would ask them what they want. They would tell him all the wonderful things, and many times I wished I could have been Santa Claus and just give them all that they wanted. Sometimes it comes back to reality and the parents have to make some tough decisions based on our budget.

I think people that are listening to this debate realize that there is no free lunch. With all of the new programs, nine new entitlement programs, somebody is going to have to pay for those.

I just entreat those who are watching to not create nine new entitlements, to place the interests of colleges, universities, graduates, philanthropic organizations above the needs of low-income students. Let's not put this price on our children and our grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, if bridging the gap between low-income students and their dream of a college education is a primary goal of this House, then this substitute should be adapted with ease. That's because this amendment nearly doubles the Pell Grant increase provided by the underlying bill.

It makes Pell funding available year around for students seeking to finish their degrees more quickly by taking summer courses, which also makes a savings for them, and it eliminates a role that needlessly punishes students attending low-cost schools by limiting the amount of Pell Grant funds they can receive each year.

First some background. Less than a third of savings in the underlying bill, roughly $6 billion, is directed to the most successful student aid program on the books today, the Pell Grant program.

In fact, more funds under the base bill are directed toward those who are, by definition, no longer even students. This is done by temporarily phasing down interest rates on certain loans being repaid by college graduates.

The remaining third of the bill triggers billions of dollars in new entitlement spending, including nine new areas of entitlement spending all together. In fact, some of this new spending is not even directed towards students, but rather to institutions, like colleges, universities, and philanthropic organizations.

This Pell Grant substitute will tip the balance back toward low- income students struggling to pay for their college education by increasing the maximum Pell Grant far more than the underlying bill. Specifically, it would provide for $9 billion in additional funding for Pell Grants over the next 5 years. Again, that's nearly double what the underlying bill would do.

Here's how we do it. This Pell Grant proposal adopts the same cut to lender insurance rates from 97 to 95 percent as the underlying bill, while having the same goal of reducing administrative fees paid to guaranteed agencies as well.

In addition, this substitute would save the Federal Government about $11 billion through lower special allowance payments.

I believe this structural savings is far more responsible than the underlying bill which, much like the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, fails to take into account the fact that Congress cut some $18 billion from the student loan programs just last year.

With these savings, more than $15 billion in total, this amendment corrects current law to equalize the Pell and direct loan rates for PLUS loans at 7.9 percent. It retains bipartisan language from the underlying bill to permit members of the Armed Forces the ability to defer their loans for up to 13 months upon returning from service.

Most importantly, it invests more than $9 billion in the Pell Grant program. This investment would allow us to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $350 in 2008, compared to the smaller increase in the underlying bill, and by $100 for each year thereafter.

On top of that, this measure would pay down the deficit by $5.74 billion. That's more than three times what the underlying bill would dedicate toward deficit reduction.

Also included in this substitute are key college cost reforms, including the College Affordability and Transparency Act legislation that I introduced earlier this year to arm parents and students with more information about college costs than ever before. The measure also would take important steps to insist that colleges and universities be held more accountable for their role in the college cost crisis.

Mr. Speaker, through my substitute amendment, we would increase Pell, decrease the deficit, more directly address college costs and put in place a handful of other student benefits without creating a single new entitlement program. We would accomplish all of this without creating a new maze of rules and regulations for students, parents and institutions to navigate. And, we would accomplish all of this without shortchanging the low-income students who need the most help to get on the ladder to achieve the American dream. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say how relieved I am that the measure we are considering today does not incorporate the highly controversial STAR Act, which would turn over the entire Federal student loan program to Washington bureaucrats. I appreciate the chairman for not including that.

I continue to strongly support healthy competition between the government-run Direct Loan program and the market-based Pell program, and doing anything to upset that competition would be terrible for students, parents and taxpayers alike. Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not express some concerns about the extent of the Pell cuts in

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, our newest mother in the House of Representatives, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire what our time remaining is.

I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I again think that this has been an interesting debate today. I thank the chairman for giving us the opportunity to offer our substitute. I know he didn't have to do that, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of the differences and to present an alternative.

For years I served as subcommittee chairman on the Higher Education Subcommittee. And during that time, I talked about accessibility, accountability and affordability for higher education. The only opportunity that people have to better their lot in life here in this country is through education. And I have seen studies that show that 40 percent of our young people from lower-income families are not able to go to college. And that is just not acceptable. And I think that with our substitute, where we put an additional almost $10 billion into Pell Grants, I think that is a tremendous opportunity to help the affordability aspect of college.

Again, through this bill, there is nothing done to lower the cost of tuition, to make the higher education experience more affordable. As I said, the cost of a higher education during the last 20 years has gone up four times faster than the rate of inflation. Mrs. McMorris Rogers mentioned earlier, in her State, the cost of tuition has gone up in the last few years 80 percent while the cost of inflation has gone up 20 percent. Again, that is still four times faster. It has gone up faster than the cost of health care. And I think that that is a crisis that in some way we need to come together on. State governments, the Federal Government, students, parents, we all need to come together, come to grips with this issue because to prepare a workforce that is going to carry us through this 21st Century and be competitive throughout the world, we are going to have to do something to make it possible for our young people to get a higher education.

I don't think adding new entitlements is the way to do it. I think increasing Pell Grants is very important. And for that reason, I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment, the substitute amendment. If that passes, then support the bill. If it doesn't pass, I encourage them to vote against the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 531 provides for consideration of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for a single amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative McKeon of California or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, educational opportunity is the backbone of what we are about and everything that makes this Nation great. For this reason, I am very pleased to support the rule and the underlying legislation that will give our students a real opportunity to go to college and give them the vital tools necessary to prepare them to enter the workforce and build a positive future.

The College Cost Reduction Act addresses one of the most important and difficult issues facing our Nation. While access to higher education is more critical than ever for our younger generations, the cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low- and middle-income families. This problem is nothing less than a crisis. How many students have had their dreams shattered because they could not afford their tuition? And how much potential has our Nation lost because of the failure to address this issue?

If students cannot afford to get the education and training necessary for them to make a productive and positive impact in our communities, it hurts us all. Investment in our younger generations not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and our retired workers whom they will help to support. It ensures our national security, continued improvements in health outcomes as well as advances in manufacturing and technology. Improving access to higher education is not only about helping America's middle class and our students and families who are in need. It is about strengthening America.

But instead of helping our students prepare themselves for a better future, recent Congresses and the administration chose to cut funding for student loan programs and have allowed this issue to become the crisis it is today. It is time for priorities to change, and this bill is part of making that happen.

Tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. The typical American student now graduates from college with $17,500 worth of debt. If we do not take action immediately, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade. This Congress has a responsibility to help our students and our working families.

Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed the heartbreak of parents who work hard day in and day out who have to tell their child that they cannot afford to send them to college. I have listened to these struggling parents and heard the ache in their voices. It is a story that is far too common. It is unacceptable and we must take action. And today we do.

H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will provide the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill, and it will put college education back within reach of so many families. H.R. 2669 follows on the College Student Relief Act that passed overwhelmingly, 356-71, in this new Congress earlier this year. That bill cut interest rates in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years. For the average student in the State of Ohio at institutions like the University of Akron and Lorain Community College, this means a savings of roughly $4,320 once the cuts are phased in. It is estimated that our proposal will help roughly 175,000 students just in Ohio alone and 5.5 million nationwide. Our bill increases the maximum Pell grant scholarship by at least $500 over the next 5 years while also expanding eligibility to include and serve more students with financial need. In Ohio, roughly 224,000 students will benefit from these changes to the Pell grant program. And nationwide, over 5.7 million students will benefit and another 600,000 will become eligible for the grants, making the possibility of a college education for them a reality.

Additionally, this legislation recognizes the value of our public servants, and it shows how much we respect what they do. Individuals working jobs that make our world turn, teachers and firefighters, nurses, law enforcement officers, librarians, we provide upfront tuition assistance to qualified undergraduate students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas. And we provide loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, early childhood educators, librarians and others. We are investing not only in the potential of individual students, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in the strength of our communities and our country. And the return on our investment as a Nation and our students and people will, without question, provide an enormous return.

But our failure to invest likewise will have incredibly harmful consequences. Our bill makes clear we understand the importance of this investment.

And, Mr. Speaker, to make a good bill even better, the College Cost Reduction Act will benefit all of these students and families at no new cost to taxpayers. We make these important investments in education through government spending cuts. With this bill, we take the billions of access taxpayer subsidies that have gone into the profit margins of private lenders and invest it in direct support for our students. Overall, H.R. 2669 will save almost $20 billion in taxpayer money and reinvest that money in the needs of our students. This is about where the priorities of our Nation and this Congress lie.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the lack of access to higher education is a crisis for our Nation, and it is a burden that no family in this great country should have to bear. The College Cost Reduction Act puts us in a position to help these families and assist our students who simply want to learn and be prepared to enter the workforce and contribute to society. This bill does more than just pay lip service to the virtue of a college education. Today we act to help families, students and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, a member of the Rules Committee from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a leader in education policy.

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

We have heard here today why we must pass this rule and pass the College Cost Reduction Act, and I wanted to commend and thank Chairman Miller for his tremendous leadership in getting this done.

As I said earlier, educational opportunity is the backbone of our Nation, and our students, our families and our country have waited long enough for this to happen.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who seem intent on further delay, 12 years of Republican rule provided ample opportunity to act on this issue and pass a bill, to act on amendments. The American people cannot wait any longer.

This is an issue that many of us here in Congress hear about when we return to our districts because a lot of families are worrying about how they will pay for their children's education, and today, we are going to work with them. Their government is going to work with them and not against them.

I'd like to share today on the floor a letter that I bet mirrors letters that every one of our Members receives. This is a letter that came to me from a constituent, and I will share part of it.

It says: ``Is anything ever going to be done about the exorbitant cost of a college education in this country? How are the middle class supposed to save for retirement and also pay the exorbitant cost of a college education for our children?

``This country seems to be obsessed with debt, because the colleges and the high schools as well, tell you that you should expect to be in a certain amount of debt upon graduation from college. I guess if you're wealthy, it's not an issue. So the middle class are the ones that are left struggling.

``With such an importance put on having a college education to get a decent paying job in this country, how are our children supposed to be able to afford a home and car upon graduation from college when they will be so far in debt with student loans?

``As for the parents, any raises we receive go toward the continually increasing cost of medical insurance, gasoline, utilities, property taxes, et cetera. I know, in my own case, we seem to be going backwards instead of forward, and we by no means live extravagantly or beyond our means.

``I am looking forward to hearing from you.''

Well, today, this constituent hears from me and hears from this Congress, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule.

For my constituent and her daughter, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 531 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2669) to

provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the

concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill,

modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be

considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be

considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as

amended, are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of

debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the

nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report on the

Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from

California, Mr. McKeon, or his designee, which shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order except those

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered

as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; (3) the further amendment printed in section 3 of

this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Delaware,

Mr. Castle, or his designee, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order except those arising under

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and

shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2669 pursuant to this

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

At the end of part A of title I of the bill add the

following new section:

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) 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, earlier this year, the Democrat majority approved what I consider an irresponsible budget plan that calls for more spending now followed by massive tax increases in the future. Their budget plan only called for one committee, the Education and Labor Committee, to find cost savings, and that turned out, Mr. Speaker, to be a mere $750 million over 5 years.

In comparison, when Republicans were in control, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution called on eight House and Senate committees to find a total of $35 billion in savings over 5 years. As a result, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act, which saved American taxpayers $38 billion.

House Resolution 531 provides for the consideration of the Democrat majority's attempt to rein in spending, the College Cost Reduction Act. However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than an illusion. While the bill does find savings, it immediately spends most of it, $18 billion, to create nine new entitlement programs. These entitlement programs, which grow automatically every year without congressional review, pose the largest threat to our long-term economic health. Essentially, these programs run on auto pilot with no accountability to the taxpayers writing the check.

Entitlement programs currently today make up well over half of the Federal budget and in the next decade will consume nearly two-thirds of our budget. History has proven that once an entitlement program is created, it lives forever, and even improving these programs has proven to be a very difficult task.

Taxpayers will be paying for the new entitlement programs created under this proposal for at least 5 years and likely for many years to come, thus wiping out any savings that may be achieved with this bill in the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I share the goal of increasing access to higher education. Education in general

is very important to the future of our country. But there are many approaches the Democrat majority has chosen to take in this bill that shifts the responsibility for personal decisions made by students to the taxpayers. For instance, this bill guarantees that borrowers, no matter how much they borrow, will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income in loan payments and allows the borrowers to have the balance of their loans disappear, disappear, Mr. Speaker, after 20 years and thus be paid for by the American taxpayer. This bill also requires those same taxpayers to pick up the outstanding student loan tab for public sector employees after just 10 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we should encourage people to enter the public sector, I feel this approach places too heavy a fiscal burden on American taxpayers.

I believe that we must do all that we can do to make education more affordable for those who wish to pursue their education so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. With tuition costs on the rise, students and their families are facing the inevitable question of how to pay for college education. The cost of attaining a college degree has increased over the years, and students are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for college without financial assistance.

So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must take a balanced approach that increases the transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while controlling spending and lowering the deficit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will support the McKeon substitute amendment, which increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $350 next year and $100 thereafter and provides a plan for improved accountability with regard to tuition costs.

If the McKeon amendment is not adopted, I will oppose the College Cost Reduction Act, which increases a maze of Federal regulations and bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate, directs more resources to institutions of higher education rather than students, and creates new entitlement spending at the long-term expense of the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just point out to my friend from Massachusetts that, since Republicans have been in control, that Pell Grants, individually, have nearly doubled in that length of time. I think the students are being well served, and they are responsible. And I think that is a very, very good policy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Minnesota, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), another member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who spent a long career in education and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 19 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Sadly, the Democrats only allowed one single amendment to be considered, as the ranking member pointed out. Even more concerning is that this rule provides that the Miller manager's amendment shall be considered as adopted once this resolution is adopted, if in fact it is adopted.

They have carefully chosen to self-execute this amendment which does

not allow for a separate debate or clarification on the amendment, and the maneuver prohibits Members from voting specifically on the Miller manager's amendment. Members should be aware that the Miller manager's amendment reduces the amount of short-term savings to taxpayers.

In addition, if this rule is adopted, the misdirected College Cost Reduction Act can be fast-tracked through the Senate and therefore protected from filibuster.

So I am asking my colleagues to not only vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, but also to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the amendment offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware and provide the appropriate waivers.

As the ranking member pointed out, the Castle amendment would simply end the entitlements in this bill. I think that is a very important policy statement. Further, the savings from these entitlements would go to increase the Pell Grants by $100 in the next 2 years and $50 through 2018. So by defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote on the merits of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment 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.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to congratulate the chairman. There is nobody in this body who has served longer with more focus on the quality of education, the access to higher education, and whether we're dealing with primary, secondary or higher education, more concern than George Miller of California, and I congratulate him on the service that he has given.

I also want to congratulate the ranking member, who himself has been an outspoken advocate of education quality in America.

Let me say, before I start my remarks, that I'm always interested to hear the comments of the ranking member of the Budget Committee and of the leader of the Republican Study Committee. I'm interested to hear their remarks because of course they have both said nine new entitlements. I was here with both of them for 3 hours one night, from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the morning, and we enacted the largest entitlement that has been enacted since the 1960s, and we were told that was going to cost $395 billion by the administration. The administration did not tell us the truth, and they knew they were not telling us the truth. And the person who knew the truth was prohibited by the administration from giving us the truth on pain of being removed, a civil servant, not an administration appointee. He knew the cost of that program, as he projected it, was $524 billion, or $125 billion more than we were told on this floor. But it was told $395 billion additional entitlement.

Now the interesting thing is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hensarling both voted for that program. That program has a larger unfunded liability as of this day than Social Security. So I think the lecture on fiscal responsibility is, frankly, not well taken.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

The gentleman, of course, is not on this floor lamenting

the creation of entitlements as is my friend from Texas, so I suggest your question is inappropriate because your concern is about entitlements. But you voted for an entitlement that was the largest entitlement passed on the floor of this House in four decades, about as long as I think the gentleman has been alive. I wish that I could say the same; unfortunately, I've been alive a lot longer than that. So I think the question begs the question, my friend.

But let me say about this landmark legislation, the College Cost Reduction of 2007 is yet another example of how this Democratic Congress is committed to moving our Nation in a new and better direction and working on behalf of the American people.

In short, this legislation will provide the single largest investment in college financial aid, and about $18 billion over the next 5 years. Now, that is about one-fifteenth of the mistake that was made in the entitlement that you supported, my friend. And it's the largest since the GI Bill was funded in 1944. The GI Bill was an entitlement. And very frankly, the Greatest Generation was worth investing in. And that investment has paid off 100 fold in the economy that this Greatest Generation built in America, and it will do so in this case as well. And it does so at no new cost to the American taxpayer by cutting excess subsidies paid by the Federal Government to lenders in the student loans industry. The administration suggested $16 billion. We're a little above that. So there is not a disagreement as to whether or not there is an overpayment here; it's a question of where you're going to put your money. In fact, it includes a $750 million, not a lot of money in the scheme of billions of dollars and trillions of dollars, reduction in the deficit.

A few months ago Bill Gates, the chairman and cofounder of the Microsoft Corporation and one of our Nation's great innovators, wrote in the Washington Post, ``If we, the United States, are to remain competitive, we need a workforce that consists of the world's brightest minds.'' That's what this bill seeks to enhance. Mr. Gates added, ``Education has always been the gateway to a better life in this country.''

Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only recognizes that education is a key to personal development, fulfillment and success, but also, and critically, a crucial factor in our national competitiveness, our continued prosperity, and yes, I suggest to all of my colleagues, our national security.

Simply stated, this legislation will make a college education more affordable for millions of students and their families. The fact is, college tuition today is exploding. Tuition at 4-year public colleges has grown by 35 percent in the last 5 years. Let me say in my State of Maryland, tuition cost has gone up 43 percent in the last 4 years. America cannot afford to shut people out of the access to college education if we're going to be successful in world markets in a flat world, as Tom Friedman refers to it. Too many students graduate with tremendous debt, and too many others simply don't go to college because they cannot afford it. To address this situation, this bill will increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarships by at least $500 over the next 5 years. That will not come close to what the Pell Grants initially, when they were adopted, replaced in tuition costs, about 70 percent. We're now down to 30 percent. When combined with other Pell scholarship increases proposed by Congress this year, the maximum Pell Grant will reach $4,900 in 2008, $5,200 in 2011, up from $4,050 in 2006. Notwithstanding, the President in 2000, in his campaign, said he was going to increase the Pell Grant very substantially. It doesn't happen.

The bill also will cut interest in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years, and it will guarantee that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income to loan repayments. In addition, this bill seeks to ensure highly qualified teachers in every classroom, a critical need in our Nation, by providing up-front tuition assistance to qualified students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need areas. That is important for our country's ability to compete and to develop every mind in America. There is not a child to waste in America. We know that.

It encourages and rewards public service by providing loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses and others. And it encourages landmark new investment, $500 million guaranteed over 5 years, for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribally controlled, native or predominantly black institutions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a very significant and important step toward realizing the goal of making college affordable for every qualified student.

I want to congratulate Chairman Miller once more and the staff and all of the members of the committee and Mr. McKeon for the positive role, whatever position one might take for or against, the positive role that the committee has played. It is a historic investment in our people and our Nation. I urge every Member to strongly support this legislation.