College Cost Reduction Act of 2007

Floor Speech

COLLEGE COST REDUCTION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this cleverly entitled College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. Under the guise of saving money and paying down the deficit, Democratic leaders are using the budget reconciliation process as a vehicle to create a host of expensive new Federal bureaucracies rather than making tough decisions to restrain entitlement spending and balance the Federal budget.

Mandatory spending programs consume the largest portion of the Federal budget, and their share will only increase as Social Security and Medicare costs explode in coming years. Unfortunately, this action comes as no surprise. After reclaiming the majority under the claims of fiscal accountability, House Democrats have already voted to approve a massive $400 billion tax increase on working families and small businesses, and may I add, that amounts to over $3,000 on average tax increase for these students who we are attempting to help.

Now we are considering a piece of legislation that will create nine new entitlement programs resulting in $18 billion in new spending. The explosion in new, unchecked entitlement spending is another unfortunate step backwards for the American taxpayer. I agree that Congress must remain committed to ensuring affordable access to post-secondary education. But instead of focusing the bulk of need on increasing access to higher education for low-income students, the bill increases aid to colleges and universities at the expense of students who receive Pell Grants. H.R. 2669 only targets $4.9 billion towards Pell Grants, increasing the maximum award by only $100 per year for 5 years. Pell Grants have proven to be effective in helping low-income students attain higher education. This bill will not prioritize Pell Grants.

I do wish to take a moment to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to remove section 201 of his bill in his manager's amendment. I was happy to work with our State's Governor to make this change. This action withheld funds from the Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership, known as the LEAP, if a State reduced the average amount of funding it has provided over the last 5 years. This so-called maintenance of effort provision is a bold and unprecedented overreach of Federal authority designed to dictate State budgets.

This is particularly true because the Federal Government provides little direct assistance to States or higher education institutions. Low-income and financially needy students should not have to struggle because of a State's budgetary shortfalls. My home State of Michigan continues to suffer from a struggling economy and difficult choices must be made on how to most appropriately fund the State. However, needy students should not have critical financial aid yanked away because the State cannot afford the same financial commitment it has made to the LEAP program in more prosperous years.

I was also prepared to offer an amendment to the House Rules Committee concerning the Upward Bound program. I appreciate that the chairman's manager's amendment removes a section that earmarked $30 million for prior Upward Bound grantees who submitted low-scoring applications, bypassing 107 new applicants who submitted competitive proposals.

But despite these small improvements, the College Cost Reduction Act contains dozens of poison pills that mark another step towards unchecked spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the so-called College Cost Reduction Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source