Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

For deficit reduction.

Deficit reduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me remark again, as I said earlier, the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance issued a report saying that 48 percent of our low-income high school students are not able to enter a 4-year university, and 22 percent of them cannot even get into a community college. I think we are in total agreement that we want to do what we can to help them get into school, and the numbers are not much different for the middle-income students.

The one thing that we are not really talking about too much is the cost of the education. I am concerned that the young people are graduating from college with a mortgage and no home. This debate we are hearing is all about the interest rate on that mortgage, on that loan, but what we should really be addressing is the cost of higher education.

I would like to just mention a few things that are driving that cost of education, some examples of some extravagant spending on college campuses, that if we had held hearings, we could have talked about a little bit. We have done this over the past when I was a chairman. We did have some hearings about this, but let me get some of these in the Record.

Cornell is investing $259 million in what it calls student life and residential facilities alone.

Ohio State University is spending $140 million to build what its peers enviously refer to as the Taj Mahal, a 657,000-square foot complex featuring kayaks and canoes, indoor batting cages and ropes courses, massages and a climbing wall big enough for 50 students to scale simultaneously.

The University of Cincinnati is spending $250 million on a Main Street of sorts, with everything from outdoor cafes to what is called a mall-style student center.

The University of Houston spent $53 million on a wellness center, including hot tubs, waterfalls and pool slides. The school has a 5- story climbing wall, while boulders and palm trees frame the leisure pools outside.

The University of Vermont plans to spend $70 million on a new student center, a colossal complex with a pub, a ballroom, theater, an artificial pond for wintertime skating and views of the mountains and Lake Champlain.

Now, we are not going to be able probably to talk about extravagant spending by the schools because we are not talking about the cost of college. We are talking about the cost of student loans that, because of this extravagant spending, students are having to take out to go to college.

Makes me want to go back to school. Some of these things sound pretty enticing. Some are pretty nice.

But what about the kids that are trying to get an education? They don't really, some of them, have time to use these hot tubs, anyway. They are working to put their way through school. Why don't we focus some of that stuff on the cost of an education rather than on just trying to save a few students who have already graduated, who are already on the ladder to receiving the American Dream.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I yield 1 minute so we could talk about that.

I introduced a bill that really would have addressed some of these issues. In fact, in the last Congress we passed a bill out of this body. It stalled on the other side of the Capitol, but we passed a bill out of this body that would have addressed some of those issues, and we did it in a bipartisan way. I appreciate those who voted for it on that side of the aisle.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, once again, we just heard that 5 years from now somebody that takes out a loan will save $4,400. Five years from now, there will be no savings based on current interest rates which are 6.8 percent because that is what the rate will go back to. There will be a 6-month window; if somebody takes a loan out at that point, that particular loan they will repay at 3.4 percent. The rest of the time it goes back.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Had this debate been held in the Education and Labor Committee, I believe the bill we are slated to vote on in a few minutes would have been substantially better.

What could we have done in committee to improve upon this badly flawed legislation?

For starters, we would have been able to change the fact that college students won't even feel the slightest impact from this plan until they begin repaying their loans when they aren't even students anymore. In other words, we would have made clear that this proposal does nothing to expand college access. And, as a result, we could have done better.

Had we done our work through regular order, rather than providing 5 years of gradually increasing benefits to college graduates, we could have crafted a reform measure that continues our commitment to real student aid, a reform measure, while ensuring a sharper focus on institutional accountability. And, as a result, we could have done better.

And, had this bill gone through committee we also would have been able to work to ensure this proposal included language that improves college affordability. We would have discussed the fact that we are spending some $90 billion this year on Federal student aid, triple what it was just a decade ago, and we also would have reminded one another that even in spite of this dramatic increase in aid, tuition continues to skyrocket. And, as a result, we could have done better.

In committee, Madam Speaker, we also would have more quickly exposed those who were playing fast and loose with the facts. For example, when some on the other side of the aisle say that a typical borrower would save about $4,400 over the life of his or her loan because of H.R. 5, we would have made clear that this simply is not possible. We would have explained to our committee colleagues that for a borrower to receive the complete $4,400 in savings, the 3.4 percent rate must stay in effect for years at a time rather than the 6-month window, and they must consolidate their loans and stretch out repayment over 15 years.

In reality, Madam Speaker, for a college freshman who receives a loan at 3.4 percent in the fall of 2011, the only semester during which such loan rate will be available, he or she would save a whopping $6.42 a month in repayment. That is right, $6.42, thanks to the bait and switch tactic disguised as a sunset in this flawed legislation.

Consider this: If we were to put the same savings into Pell Grants, for example, that H.R. 5 earmarks for these gradually reduced interest rates for college graduates, we could increase Pell by about $500.

I only wish we were afforded that opportunity. However, we weren't, and the legislation before us is little more than a reflection of the broken process by which it was cobbled together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to Mr. Etheridge from North Carolina for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for his inquiry, and I would say to the gentleman that I appreciate you sharing your concerns with me. Nonprofit lenders, certainly, our guaranty agents all play a necessary role in the Federal student loan program. Our goal is to ensure in the end that our policy benefits all students, and I pledge to work with you to ensure that we meet this goal and maximize the benefits of the most number of students.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the staff of the majority side of the committee, Gabby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Lisette Partelow, Stephanie Moore, Brian Kennedy from my staff for their great efforts in helping to prepare this legislation for the 100 hours, legislation that will have a dramatic and important impact on the cost of student loans for students borrowing from the subsidized loan program.

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, we come to the end of this debate on the question of whether or not we ought to make an effort to reduce the cost of college for millions of college students who will be taking out loans in the future to try to pay for that cost of college, and I think the resounding answer of this Congress in a few minutes will be: Yes, we should. Because we understand from discussions with our families, with our neighbors, with people in our communities that families are struggling with their children to try and figure out how they can afford them the opportunity that has become so terribly important in the economic future of these young people, and that is a college education. No longer today can you get by with a high school education. In fact, for most jobs now and most jobs certainly in the future we know that employers are telling us that at a minimum 2 years of college education is required. So this bill is about the opportunity to provide those students the means by which they go to college.

I have listened to all of this discussion on the other side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is they simply don't understand the bill. When a person is deciding whether or not they are going to pay the tuition this year, some of these students are eligible for a Pell Grant, they will get their $4,100; they still won't be able to meet the cost of the college, and they will borrow money. And under this legislation, after July, they will start to get a reduced interest rate, and next year they will get a further reduction in the rate and it will continue on. Unless the Republicans are going to repeal this legislation, maybe you are going to repeal it and take away this benefit for the students, it will continue on, as the gentleman knows. Just as we have a sunset in the Higher Education Act, a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we continue to reauthorize them time and time again because that is the commitment of this Congress, and I don't think the gentleman is suggesting that.

So what we have today is the opportunity for this Congress in the first 100 hours, in the first 100 hours of legislative business to reduce the student loans for those people on a subsidized loan from 6.8 percent down to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years and then thereafter. That is a magnificent opportunity.

When it is fully implemented this legislation will provide $4,400 in interest rate relief. $4,400 is a very substantial relief to low income and middle income families when they look at the life cycle cost of what it is going to cost to acquire 4 years of education to get that basic B.A. degree. When they look at that, they will see that this legislation will substantially reduce their costs.

But as Speaker Pelosi made very clear about this 100 hours, this is only the beginning. This is a down payment on our efforts to reduce the cost of college.

Yes, we want to follow along with Mr. McKeon's suggestions and his work in talking to the universities about whether or not they are doing all they can to keep the cost of college down and to make it affordable. We want to increase the Pell Grant, and we will be doing that in this committee and in the Appropriations Committee. And we hope to be able to enlarge the tax deduction for parents who are paying for the tuition and the cost of college beyond that.

So, yes, in this 100 hours, this is what we can do. This is what is affordable. Yes, my colleagues talk about all that they wanted to do. They paid for none of it. They sent the bill to these very same college students in terms of deficit, in terms of debt, in terms of interest on the debt, trillions of dollars of debt. This they may think is too small now, but the fact of the matter is, it is very important to these families that it is paid for so we don't continue to add to the debt because we have said we were also going to be fiscally responsible and have pay-as-you-go.

Finally, there has been a lot of discussion today about who doesn't like this bill. Maybe some of the lenders don't like this bill, some of the pundits don't like this bill. Maybe some of the people who work with the lenders don't like this bill. The people who like this bill and the people who matter are the students. And that is why U.S. PIRG and the U.S. Student Association and so many students support this legislation, because they know what this means to them with the passage of this bill, that their interest rates will be lower. They know this will lower the cost of college.

That is what we said we would do. That is what we are going to do. That is what the 100 hours have been about. That is what is going to happen with the passage of this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Help these students and help families with the cost of college.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems Push Rate Cut for Student Loans

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

House Democrats said Friday that they plan quick action to

lower interest rates for student loans.

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

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

college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first

touted on the campaign trail last year.

The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based

loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized

student loans--a distinction not made in the campaign

literature Democrats handed out before winning control of

Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to

reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with

their kids' college costs.

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

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

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

the Congressional Budget Office.

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

offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and

reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students

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

An estimated 5.5 million students receive subsidized loans.

Republicans pushed a budget bill through Congress last

session that cut $12 billion from student loan programs.

Democrats and student groups argued the money should have

been preserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee. I believe in higher Pell grants, lower interest rates, and a leveling off of college tuition. I come to this belief through my own life experiences. I grew up in relatively humble circumstances. My mom was a single parent who raised three kids on the modest salary of a secretary. If it wasn't for Pell grants and student loans, I wouldn't have been able to go to college and, ultimately, law school. I believe every child, rich or poor, deserves the chance to go to college.

Let us turn to student loans and how that impacts that. When I graduated from college in 1986, the student loan interest rate I had on my loans was 9.5 percent. In 2002, during my first term here in Congress, we decided to do something about that and we joined together, Republicans, Democrats, and student groups, and approved legislation in January of 2002 fixing the student loan interest rate at 6.8 percent. On January 24 of 2002, Chairman George Miller supported the 6.8 percent rate. He voted for the 6.8 percent rate, and he said on this floor that we should be commended for passing the 6.8 percent rate.

Last year, in March of 2006, when we were passing the higher education bill on the House floor, Chairman Miller said that he wanted to now cut the interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. It had a big price tag of $18 billion. He didn't offer any ways to pay for it.

Today, he comes before us with another proposal to cut the rate from 6.8 percent, down to 3.4 percent, phased in over a 5-year period, so you hit the 3.4 percent in the final year only. This price tag is smaller, at $6 billion. And to their credit, the Democrats have come forward with a way to pay for it, and that is mainly by taking money out of the student lenders' pockets.

The question before us is one of access. What is the best way to expand college access? Should we help college students on the front end afford to go to school by increasing their Pell grants, or do we help college graduates on the back end by phasing down their loan interest rates?

I think a better approach would have been to take some of this $6 billion in savings and invest it in the Pell grant program. This is a program we Republicans have been pretty serious about during my 6 years in Congress, and I would like to show you a chart reflecting that.

This is the 20-year history of the Pell grant program. As you can see, in yellow, this is the 10 years the Democrats were in control of Congress. The red represents when the Republicans took control of Congress. You see a steep increase. If they had adopted the proposal we set forth, these charts would be literally off the charts in terms of such a dramatic increase in Pell grants.

Now, someone said earlier, well, we haven't done enough to increase Pell grant funding during our time in the majority over the past 6 years. Let us take a look at that claim. Overall, Pell grant funding from 2000 to today has gone up 71 percent, from $7.6 billion to $13 billion a year. And we have increased by 36 percent the number of children eligible for Pell grants from 3.9 million to 5.3 million. We have a pretty good record on Pell grants, one to be proud of.

If they had taken the $6 billion and invested it in the Pell grant program, what a dramatic difference it would make when you consider the Pell grant program along with the Pell-eligible programs of competitiveness grants and SMART grants.

This is the difference: First-year students would get up to $5,300 a year; second-year students would get up to $5,850; third-year students would get $8,050; and fourth-year students, up to $8,050. We made this proposal, went before the Rules Committee, and it was a

closed rule. They didn't want to hear anything about it.

We also had some ideas about the skyrocketing cost of tuition. It has gone up 35 percent in the past 5 years at public colleges. We had some pretty good ideas to help, mainly Chairman McKeon, now Ranking Member McKeon's, bill. He went before the Rules Committee. Closed rule. Didn't want to hear about it.

Now, what did Chairman Miller and others say about this problem with not investing enough in Pell grants and the skyrocketing costs of tuition? We will come back to those issues. We will deal with that a later day.

Now, here is the problem. Whatever we do on a later day with Pell grants will be $6 billion less than it could have been because this $6 billion is gone. It is gone, based on this approach here.

In summary, by ignoring our ideas about increasing Pell grants and addressing the rising tuition costs, the Democrats have managed to hit a single for themselves when they could have hit a home run for America's college students.

Education should not be a partisan issue. No one party has all the answers. Today, I will show a little bit of good faith and vote ``yes'' on this bill. Tomorrow, I hope the Democrats will show a little bit of good faith by listening to what people like me have to say about Pell grants and the skyrocketing costs of tuition.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. I am back. Like gum under a bus seat, you can't get rid of me here. Let me just address a couple of issues to clarify some things.

First, you keep hearing about a $12 billion raid on student aid. We didn't take a single penny away from a single student. Not one Pell Grant went down, not one student paid a higher interest rate on their student loans. What we did was take money away from lender subsidies.

Now, when we took $12 billion away from lender subsidies, it is called a raid on student aid. When the Democrats today took $6 billion away from lender subsidies, it is called the College Student Relief Act.

Now, they say, ``well, we poured that money back into helping students with lower interest rates, $6 billion of it.'' We poured $9 billion back into helping college students. $4.5 billion went to Pell- eligible students in something called Academic Competitiveness Grants and SMART Grants, giving high achieving Pell Grant students the opportunity to get an extra $4,050 their final 2 years. We also lowered the amount of origination fees students would pay for loans and increased their loan limits.

So we poured $9 billion back, 33 percent more than they did. So don't be fooled by the funny little names characterizing things, because it is not a lot of straight talk.

The second thing you hear is ``would have, could have, should have.'' They had been in power for 6 years. Why didn't they do more to increase Pell Grants? Pell Grants in 2000 were $7.6 billion. This past year, they were $13 billion. That is a 71 percent increase. We did increase it. In addition, we paid down the shortfall of $4.3 billion.

Second, if you look over here, in 2000, the maximum award was $3,300. In the final year, it was $4,050. This is an increase, not as much as many of us would like, but it is an increase.

Finally, the reason this $4,050 did not go up to $5,100, as President Bush and I and others had hoped, is because we had a dramatic increase in the amount of students who were eligible for Pell Grants from 3.9 million to 5.3 million. So the pie got a lot bigger, and rather than cut their grants, we still continued to fund them and had an extra 36 percent enrollment of people who got Pell Grants.

Now, what should we have done more? The Higher Education Act, we had language that I put in there that increased the Pell Grant authorization to $6,000. We made Pell Grants year round. I sent letters to the appropriators asking them to fund that

amount. We had the funding up 71 percent. We have SMART grants and academic competitive grants. What more could we have done?

At some point, we have to realize as the authorizing committee, we are kind of dependent on what appropriators are going to spend. We have a pretty good record on the Pell Grant issue, one we can be proud of.

To see it visually a little easier, you can see the yellow marks the 10 years when Democrats were last in control of Congress. The red is when the Republicans took over. You can see a dramatic spike in Pell Grants. And what is interesting, in the final 2 years when Democrats were in control, 1993 and 1994, they actually cut Pell Grants.

So we have got a good record to be proud of, and that is one of the reasons we wanted some of this money to go to Pell Grants today so it would help people to actually go to college rather than just helping people on the back end.

With that, I am not here to make fun of the proposal the Democrats have come forward with. I am going to vote for it. The thing I am most impressed with is, this time they have offered a way to pay for it. That is something they did not do last year. They should be commended in doing that.

I just hope that, moving forward, they will work together with us in a bipartisan manner to address this skyrocketing increase in tuition costs and to help increase Pell Grants so that every child in this country, rich or poor, will have the opportunity to go to college.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve the time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 65 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am, as many in this Chamber are, a proud parent and almost embarrassingly proud grandparent. All parents and grandparents are different, of course, but I believe almost all of us share one thing in common, and that is a hope that our children and our grandchildren will have a chance to do a little better, to go a little further, to have a little easier time than their parents and grandparents. That aspiration has a name in this country; it is called the American Dream. And the American people understand that education is the key to making that dream a reality.

Today, we consider legislation to combat a very real threat to that dream. The unfortunate reality is that skyrocketing college costs are putting a college education out of reach for many middle class families. Tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation since 2001. At private universities, tuition has increased by 17 percent after inflation. It is worth repeating because it is truly shocking: these figures are after inflation.

Indeed, according to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent almost 4\1/2\ million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million from attending any college at all. Those statistics are very sobering, and the sound they make is that of the door of opportunity being closed on many young people.

That is why I am very pleased that our congressional leadership has made cutting interest rates on student loans one of its top priorities for the first 100 hours of this Congress.

The legislation being considered today will cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent.

As a result, we will help around 5.5 million more students afford college.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are demanding quick action on this legislation, and with good reason. With Sacramento State University in my district and the University of California at Davis nearby, they are all too aware of the impact rising tuition costs are having on students and their families.

A recent study demonstrated that this legislation would, on average, save the average student borrower in California starting school this year almost $2,500 over the life of the loan. For students beginning college in the year 2011, the legislation will save almost $5,000. We will need to do more to make college affordable, but my constituents in Sacramento who are struggling to afford college will welcome this very important first step.

Mr. Speaker, helping all qualified students attend college is essential for our economy, for our competitiveness and for our future; but not only that, it is essential for ensuring that the American Dream remains a reality for our young people. That is why there is a remarkable consensus supporting this proposal across our country.

Newsweek reports that 88 percent of the country supports this legislation, including wide majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. We are not talking about the Democratic dream or the Republican dream, but the American Dream.

Further, this legislation meets our pay-as-you-go requirements and, therefore, will not add to our budget deficit. Fully five of six of the offsets have been approved previously by the Bush administration or Republican congressional leaders. That, again, is a remarkable consensus. It is now time to act.

All too often the American people look at Congress and they hear a lot of argument and see a lot of activity, but wonder though what Congress is doing to improve their lives. If we act on this legislation quickly, however, students will start to see a difference as soon as July 1. So let us surprise our skeptics, take action, and pass this legislation now on a bipartisan basis.

It has been gratifying to be a Member of Congress for the first few weeks of this Congress, which by wide bipartisan majorities has increased the minimum wage, approved potentially life-saving research and enacted genuinely bipartisan recommendations to improve our Nation's security.

Our first 100 hours has been a good time for the middle class and for Americans who favor progress over partisanship. This legislation is another such opportunity. Americans of every political stripe understand that if we allow college education to become too expensive for hardworking and qualified middle class students, we will have lost something very special in this country, we will have lost a part of the American Dream. Let's show them today that we understand that as well, and that we are doing something about it.

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

We are dealing today with our agenda of 100 hours. As my colleague from Texas understands, the American people have spoken, and we intend to make progress quickly; that is why we are doing this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that during last year's debate on budget reconciliation, the contrast in approaches could not be sharper. In that bill, in a time of war, the Republican leadership passed an enormous tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. Most of it was paid for by running up a deficit for our grandchildren to pay, but a small slice of it was paid for by cutting $12 billion in Federal student loan support. I think it is clear that the American people rejected that kind of short-sightedness this past November.

Today, Democrats are cutting student loan rates in half, without adding one cent to the deficit. That is common sense for students, and a responsible policy for this country's working class.

Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the new Member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a new Member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to you that we are doing this because the American people have spoken. They spoke in November. They want us to make progress; and that every single reform in the Democrats' 100-hours agenda has passed with broad bipartisan support thus far. And today, we are cutting student loan rates in half in the same manner they garnered broad bipartisan support last week.

I think that all Members realize that the American people want results. House Democrats plan on delivering for them, and we continue to work with

those on the other side of the aisle to do that. You have not heard the last of us from this side at all. This is only the beginning. This is a step forward.

Now, at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has been on the Rules Committee for 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Spratt).

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

First, I wish to thank all the Members who participated in this discussion on the importance of increasing opportunity and affordability for all of our Nation's young minds. We are all in agreement on the importance of education and the central role it played in expanding the next generation's horizons.

Mr. Speaker, as I described in my opening remarks, the resolution before the House allows for a vote on a Democratic proposal to cut subsidized student loan rates in half over the next 5 years. It will reduce the cost of college to some 5 million students by an average of $4,400. This is good, responsible progress for America's middle class, for our working families looking out to provide the next generation with a brighter future. Today's vote on the issue can make it a reality.

Last week, as part of Speaker Pelosi's 100-hour agenda, Democrats acted swiftly to help average Americans. We voted to increase the minimum wage, expand Federal stem cell research, negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors, and implement 9/11 Commission recommendations.

All of these issues passed by wide bipartisan margins and enjoyed significant bipartisan support.

I expect that today's bill will be no different, so let's get to it.

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