Higher Education Extension Act of 2005

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3784) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3784, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, each year millions of Americans, young and old, participate in higher education programs at this Nation's colleges and universities. Higher education has become more important than ever with a changing marketplace and increasing international competition; and that is why the Federal investment in higher education is so important.

For more than 2 years, my colleagues and I have been working to strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so that we can better serve the millions of low- and middle-income students aspiring for a college education. And while we have made great progress this year, the reauthorization process is still not complete.

Today, I stand in support of the Higher Education Extension Act so that we ensure these vital programs continue to serve American students. The measure extends critical programs for a brief time frame, 3 months, to give Congress the additional time it needs to complete this process in the best interests of students and taxpayers.

In February, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act to complete the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That bill, similar to legislation of the same name we offered last year, was the culmination of a comprehensive effort to expand college access by focusing on fairness, accountability, affordability, and quality.

That bill contained a number of reforms that I had hoped would be enacted by today. The College Access and Opportunity Act would have realigned our student aid programs to place first priority back where it belongs, on the millions of low- and middle-income students who have not yet received a higher education.

The bill would have strengthened Pell grants, college access programs, and campus-based student aid. It would have broken down barriers and eliminated outdated regulations that are preventing nontraditional students from achieving their higher education goals.

It would have significantly realigned the multibillion-dollar student loan programs to expand access for current and future students and restore fairness so that all student borrowers would be treated equally. Consumer protection for borrowers would have been strengthened, red tape would have been reduced, and because accountability is the cornerstone of American education reform, colleges and universities would have been held more accountable to students, parents, and taxpayers, the people they serve, through increased sunshine and transparency.

Now I remain committed to a comprehensive reauthorization and hope to complete that process this year. In the meantime, the bill before us is critically important. We cannot allow programs under the Higher Education Act to expire. Too many students depend on this assistance as they strive for a higher education. Yet it is equally important that we remain committed to comprehensive reforms that will build upon these programs in strengthening them in order to expand college access.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the extension of the Higher Education Act. Millions of American students depend on these programs, and we must not let our commitment to higher education lapse. But it is equally important that we remain focused on the ultimate goal of enacting comprehensive reforms that will strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so it can meet the needs of current and future students.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and work with us in the coming weeks and months to complete this comprehensive reform package so we can better serve American students who are pursuing a college education.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support of the bill today to extend the Higher Education Act; but I find myself in a position of having to rise and respond to some of the criticisms of H.R. 609, the reauthorization bill for the Higher Education Act that is in process.

The gentleman is right, we do over the next 5 years save $9 billion in taxpayer funds while at the same time we reduce origination fees for students, we expand loan limits for students, and better equalize the campus-based aid programs around the country.

Now, my colleague and his friends on the other side of the aisle came up with proposals to save money as well. The only difference here is that we decided that net of $9 billion ought to be saved for the taxpayers because, after all, it is their money. My friends on the other side of the aisle decided to spend it. Well meaning, well intentioned, but at some point we in Congress have a responsibility to enact public policy that is fair for all.

Some people do not go to college. As my friend knows, I am the only one of my 11 brothers and sisters to go to college. To the extent we are providing loans, they are being paid for by taxpayers, some of whom do not get a higher education. So what is fair?

I think the underlying bill, providing college loans, providing Pell grants for underserved students, is a very good thing for our country. But how much is enough?

We are going to spend about $75 billion this year in Pell grants and student loans to help low- to middle-income students achieve the dream of a higher education. I think that it is an important part of our responsibility to help improve our society. But at the same time, we also have a responsibility to people who pay taxes, and people who pay taxes watching money flowing out of this institution like water over a dam.

At some point I am not going to stand here and be embarrassed because we help improve access to higher education, we help improve the ability of students to pay for their loan programs, and at the same time save $9 billion over 5 years for the taxpayers. I think it is a pretty good deal for all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from Michigan, and we are friends, I proudly voted for the tax cuts and thank goodness that we passed them. Let us recount what has happened over the past 4\1/2\ years: a weak economy in 2001; followed by the devastating effects of 9/11; a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq; and now Hurricane Katrina.

If we had not enacted those tax cuts in early 2001, what shape would our economy be in today? I want to correct my friend that voting for reductions in marginal tax rates does not mean reductions in revenue to the Federal Government. We have had this debate here in Congress now for 25 years, but reducing marginal tax rates has in fact increased revenues to the Federal Government. And look at the strength of our economy today that would not have been there had we not had those reductions in taxes.

We can, in fact, reduce taxes, grow our economy, and hold the lid on spending and give the American people the best deal in the world: good government, reasonable level of services, and more money in their pocket, that they can decide how to spend in the best interest of themselves and their families and their communities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). As I said before, we are friends and I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks. I believe our committee process here in Congress ought to be an open forum and that Members clearly can agree, but in our committee we do not really

allow members to be disagreeable. I think what it does is foster a committee where members cooperate and get to know each other and work together, and even though we may not agree on everything, every member should have a right to offer his or her ideas about the pending legislation.

Now back to the bill at hand, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for supporting the extension of the Higher Education Act for 3 months, and it is my fervent desire in the next 3 months Congress will reenact this authorization to the benefit of millions of American students.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3784, a temporary 3-month extension of the Higher Education Act. This, in essence, extends temporarily the 1998 reauthorization which was fashioned in a very bipartisan manner by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and myself.

I am pleased that in the face of a national tragedy a simple extension has been offered. I hope the Republican leadership can use this time, however, to reevaluate H.R. 609, their plan to balance the massive deficit on the backs of students already struggling to pay for college. H.R. 609 is part of the reconciliation package.

Madam Speaker, from my days in the seminary, I always believed that reconciliation was a loving thing. H.R. 609, however, is certainly not an act of love. While I am cosponsor of this extension bill, I cannot ignore the impending cuts the Higher Education Act bill will ultimately suffer if the Republican reauthorization bill, H.R. 609, becomes law.

H.R. 609 represents the largest cut in the history of Federal student financial aid. The largest cut in history. That is something that should give all of us pause and concern, and I am sure it does.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 609 in July by a straight party-line vote. H.R. 609 generates nearly $9 billion by eliminating some of the excessive lender subsidies, raising interest rate caps and rates on consolidation loans, charging student borrowers higher fees, and cutting critical student aid delivery funds; yet the $2 million in savings gained by eliminating the excessive lender subsidies alone will not be directed to helping students in any way.

When the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I pushed to do away with this outrageous subsidy to

lenders, it was our hope that the money would be used to aid students and not to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Instead, the Republican-passed budget and higher education reauthorization intends to balance the massive deficit on the backs of students already struggling to pay for college. This raid on student aid misses a golden opportunity to redirect millions to student borrowers and additional grant aid for students.

The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I offered an amendment in committee to recycle millions of dollars in savings to guarantee a $500 increase in the maximum Pell grant, lower the interest rate caps on student loans, and give students a choice between a low fixed or variable rate on consolidation loans without raising costs to students or taxpayers. The Republicans rejected our amendment.

Under H.R. 609, the typical student borrower with $17,500 in debt will be forced to pay an additional $5,800 for his or her current student loans compared to current law. However, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for offering H.R. 3784, the temporary 3-month extension of the Higher Education Act. While I am pleased to offer my support, I hope this extension will allow the Republican leadership time to reconsider their plan to raid student aid. I offer my services to work with them to achieve just that.

In the context of both reconciliation and the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must move forward in a way that helps, not harms, our students. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) to achieve that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We all know there is a direct relationship between revenue and expenses. We try to keep that balance fiscally correct and morally correct.

I happen to have voted against the tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. I voted against them because I could see what was going to happen. Most of those tax cuts, as most people will concede, went to the wealthier people in this country, including Members of Congress. Had we just deducted from those $2 trillion of tax cuts, when you take the whole cost, the cost of the debt, if we just deducted $9 billion from those $2 trillion, we would have money here and we would not have to balance this on the backs of the students. We could have saved it for any other program also, obviously. I am consistent that I voted against those tax cuts. I got a little criticism back home from some people; not many, but some. I saw this coming. I could see for sure that education was going to suffer. Those programs for the neediest in the country were going to suffer. The tax cuts were entirely too large, and those tax cuts have forced us to where we are in the bill put out by the committee, H.R. 609.

I think all of us have to be very cautious when we vote for revenue or revenue cuts. We have to be very cautious when we vote for expenditures. But there is a direct relationship, so I can stand here with a certain purity and say I did not vote to give away the $2 trillion, I voted to retain these funds so we could help students.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

No one questions, and I can never question either the sincerity nor the fairness of the chairman. I have been here 29 years, and I cannot recall a chairman being more fair during all of our deliberations in committee. And we are friends. We disagree on certain, maybe some fundamental things. But the gentleman asked what would have happened had we not enacted those tax cuts. One thing, we would not be seeing deficits as far out as the eye can see. That is not healthy for the economy, so we can debate that. Maybe we should have had some of those tax cuts, maybe not all. But again, because we are friends, we will continue to work together. Because the chairman is fair, he will always give us a chance in committee to offer our ideas and he will listen to them patiently. We respect the chairman for that on this side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to pass H.R. 3784, which would provide for a temporary extension of the Higher Education Act of 1965. As my colleagues are aware, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions approved legislation unanimously that would reauthorize Federal higher education programs for another 6 years. However, as many of these programs will expire on September 30, it is important that we extend the programs authorized by this act until the Congress can successfully complete work on the reauthorization legislation.

I am pleased to have been able to report that legislation with a unanimous vote out of committee. I am hopeful that the Senate will take action on that legislation quickly, either in the context of budget reconciliation or on its own, and that we can continue the commitment of Congress to support the access and affordability of higher education in this country.

I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.