Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5, College Student Relief Act of 2007
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, COLLEGE STUDENT RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - January 17, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/