Providing for Consideration of HR 5, College Student Relief Act of 2007
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, COLLEGE STUDENT RELIEF ACT OF 2007
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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.)
Ms. MATSUI. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 65 Offered by Mr. McKeon of California
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce interest rates for student borrowers. All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative McKeon of California or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
SEC. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows:
At the end of section 2 of the bill, add the following new subsection,
(c) INELIGIBILITY OF FELONS FOR INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of this section, an individual shall not be eligible for the reduced interest rates provided under such amendments on any loan if the individual was convicted of a felony that occurred during or after a period of enrollment when the individual was receiving the loan.
(The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress. Only political affiliation has been changed.)
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration ofthe subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer a amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov