College Cost Reduction Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for giving me time to speak on this.

I rise in support of the McKeon substitute amendment, and I'm opposed to the underlying bill as it's written. Historically, our Federal Government has limited entitlement spending to programs like Medicare and Social Security, and we're still trying to work out or trying to figure out how to make those programs solvent and sustainable.

The underlying bill creates nine new entitlement programs. And knowing that entitlement programs never die, we need to admit to the taxpayers that if this passes they will be expected to kick in another 15 to $30 billion to cover the cost of these new entitlement programs starting in 2013.

It also starts the precedent of creating entitlement programs for institutions and organizations. This act does little to reduce college costs and shortchanges those students who need help the most to pay for college. The bill spends less than one-third of the total savings on investing in low income students struggling to achieve their dreams of a college education.

Rather than addressing the needs of our Nation's low income students, this bill spends billions of dollars on providing additional subsidies to institutions of higher education.

I urge my colleagues to instead support the McKeon amendment, which would increase Pell Grants for our neediest students.

The amendment, in addition, makes two significant improvements to the Pell Grant program. It provides funds for year-round Pell Grants to help those students who wish to pursue their education, not only in the fall and spring, but in summer as well.

For too long, the student aid programs have only addressed the needs of traditional dependent students who attend fall and spring semester and then go home for summer. It's time that we do more to meet the needs of working adults and nontraditional students who need greater flexibility in pursuing their educational goals.

The amendment reduces interest rates for parents and graduate students in the Pell program who now pay 8.5 percent instead of 7.9 percent, which is paid by their peers in the direct loan program. There's simply no reason at all to charge parents and students different interest rates, and this problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I'm disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not see the need to help these parents and students who are being unfairly penalized under current law.

Furthermore, this amendment also helps our military, as was mentioned earlier, by providing extended deferment options for our returning soldiers who may need extra time to get settled before repaying any outstanding student loans. This provision was included in the committee mark, and for that I'm grateful, and I think it's certainly a provision I support.

And finally, the McKeon amendment addresses a concern that Mr. McKeon has been voicing for the last three or four years, and that concern has to do with rising costs of college. I'm happy to see that this amendment includes the text of Mr. McKeon's bill, H.R. 472, which brings much needed transparency to the college cost issue.

As we all know, rising college costs are a major concern of parents across the country who find it more and more difficult to pay their tuition bills; yet no one can or will explain why costs continue to increase at rates far exceeding the rate of inflation. It's time to arm parents and students with information that can be used to make these wise choices in selecting an institution of higher learning.

And for these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the McKeon amendment as a substitute to this bill, and urge passage of this very important amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source