Providing for Futher Consideration of H.R. 609, College Access and Opportunitiy Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 609, COLLEGE ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 30, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me this time as we continue into part two.
Today, we are considering a second rule to make in order amendments to the Republican majority's version of the higher education reauthorization. I had hoped we would have had the opportunity to continue a meaningful debate about how to best assist families and students across this Nation trying to pursue the college dream because a college education plays such a critical part in our lives.
As children, we all play at grown-up roles, dreaming of what we may be when we grow up, a teacher, an astronaut, a doctor, a scientist, an underwater adventurer or perhaps even a Member of Congress. Well, an education is what turns those dreams into reality, and with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we could have had an opportunity to play a role in encouraging these children's futures.
But to do that, we need to be looking at a reauthorization that reinforces our Nation's longstanding commitment to providing educational opportunities for all Americans, but alas, at the start of this year, my colleagues across the aisle pushed through the budget reconciliation package that cuts student loan programs by $12 billion, the single largest cut to the Nation's Federal student aid programs ever.
Middle-income families are hard-pressed to keep up with rising tuition costs. Due to record high financial barriers, high school graduates who are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college are unable to do so.
While college tuition has continued to rise far faster than the cost of living, the maximum Pell Grant level has remained virtually constant, thus forcing many qualified students to postpone or cancel their dreams of a college degree or to incur significant debt in the form of loans.
Clearly, this bill has room for improvement. We could be debating a number of thoughtful amendments that would help substantially increase our investment in student loan programs, recruit teachers and develop a high-skilled workforce. However, fewer than one in five amendments was made in order.
Take, for example, the amendment offered by Representative Inslee to recruit Head Start teachers. I remember visiting the Nedra Court and Whispering Pines Head Start program in my district. The 60 students at each site definitely kept those teachers busy. This is a challenging job for which the $20,000 salary really is not much of an incentive.
Yet, last year, the House passed H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act, to reauthorize the Head Start program. Contained in that legislation was an unfunded mandate requiring Head Start teachers to obtain a bachelor's degree.
Representative Inslee offered a straightforward amendment to increase student loan forgiveness programs to $17,500, which is the same level allowed for other targeted forgiveness programs for high-need professions. However, we will not be allowed to debate this amendment because the Republican majority are limiting the democratic process.
And those $12 billion in cuts from the Deficit Reduction Act, Representative Emanuel had an amendment that would restore the $12 billion to student aid programs cut in the Deficit Reduction Act. I think I hear about the negative impacts of these student aid cuts at least every other day, whether I am home in Sacramento or here in Washington, D.C. I find it hard to believe every other Member is not hearing this as well. But that amendment was not made in order.
Nor was the bipartisan Student Aid Reward amendment.
At no additional cost to taxpayers, the STAR amendment would generate more than $12 billion in additional college scholarship aid.
Representatives HOLT and KIND also crafted an exceptional amendment to promote students to study and enter into careers focused on math, science, engineering and technology. At a time of increasing concern about America's competitiveness in the world, these are fields we must promote to develop an engaged workforce.
I recently toured the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics in my district. This center explores how light and lasers can be applied to medical procedures, making for less invasive treatments and better diagnoses of cancer. The center has dozens of math and science graduate students assisting with research alongside the Nation's leading biophotonics experts.
Unfortunately, today we are sending a mixed message to students: We need you to pursue math and sciences, but we will not ensure that you can afford the education to enter these fields.
Today, the economic, social and civic importance of a college education has never been more important. Yet, college enrollment rates in the United States are stagnant. As more and more baby boomers begin to retire, we will be facing a crisis in the employment market if we cannot develop a highly skilled and trained workforce. This must be a national priority, but apparently not for this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to continue debate on a bill that forms the backbone of the opportunities our Nation's students may have at our Nation's colleges and universities. We must get it right which is precisely why this House must reject the rule before us.
As I reminded my colleagues yesterday, the House reauthorized the Higher Education Act in 1992 and in 1998 in a very different way than we have seen in the 109th Congress. Historically, any amendment to the Higher Education Act that was printed in the Congressional Record ahead of time could be offered on the floor.
The broad consideration those rules provided yielded reauthorization measures with broad support in the House. Each of those years, the rules, the bills and the conference reports passed either by voice vote or by overwhelming margins.
So my colleagues will forgive me when I place the historical record on reauthorization next to this year's bill and ask: What happened?
Instead of a bipartisan bill, we see the Higher Education Act torn in two by the majority, solely so some of its provisions could be used to cut more than $12 billion from student aid partially to finance the majority's tax cuts. Instead of careful floor consideration of several different policy approaches, we saw 118 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules but only 23 amendments were made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD a list of all of the amendments to H.R. 609 submitted to the Committee on Rules but not made in order under either of the two rules.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, why doesn't Mr. Inslee deserve a floor vote on his proposal on Head Start teacher loan forgiveness? Why prevent public discussion of Mr. McGovern's and Mr. Wu's proposal that we increase Pell Grant awards? Or the amendment from Mr. Miller and Mr. Petri that would provide $12 billion in student aid without costing the taxpayers a dime?
Clearly, their ideas would have at least made it to the floor for the debate in 1992 and 1998. So have these Members simply shown up to the wrong section of Congress, or does the majority feel that these amendments might be sound policy and pass?
Members on both sides of the aisle decry the lack of bipartisanship in the House every day, but what are we doing to really embrace bipartisanship? We should be able to agree that every Member of this body deserves time to offer his or her suggestions on something as fundamental as our Nation's education policy. Sadly, that is not the case this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the second rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
http://thomas.loc.gov/