The first order of legislative business on Tuesday morning in the Senate was consideration of S. 2258, The Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2007. Authorizing committee Chairman Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) asked for unanimous consent to approve the bill and got it. By mid-afternoon, the House passed S. 2258 under a suspension of rules procedure that allows for expedited floor consideration. President Bush then signed the bill into law on Wednesday.
The House passed its original version, H.R. 3927, on Oct. 23.
The original House-passed bill, H.R. 3927, extended Higher Education Act (HEA) program authority for six months expiring on April 30, 2008. It was also a "clean" bill. A clean bill means it only had the six-month extension and did not have any other amendments changing the HEA or any other law.
The Senate version differs from the original House-passed bill in two respects. First, S.2258 extends HEA program authority for five months expiring on March 31, 2008. Second, it was not a clean bill. The Senate version had a number of technical amendments to the HEA. Those amendments corrected a drafting error in the recently passed Reconciliation bill, H.R. 2669, The College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA) of 2007.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 changed lender Special Allowance Payment (SAP) subsidies. For-profit lenders would receive a 55 basis point SAP reduction and non-for-profit lenders would receive a 40 basis point SAP reduction. The drafting error in the CCRAA would have denied more than one non-profit lender the higher SAP. But, the technical correction contained in S. 2258 corrects the error. No doubt other technical amendments will be needed to correct drafting errors in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007.
A copy of the legislation follows as part of Senate floor debate. Following that is the House debate on the HEA extension. All material below is copied from Tuesday's Congressional Record.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 2258, introduced earlier today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2258) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, to amend the definition of an eligible not-for-profit holder, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2258) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 2258
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2007".
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.
Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking "October 31, 2007" and inserting "March 31, 2008".
SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) or by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (Public Law 110-84) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.
SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE NOT-FOR-PROFIT HOLDER.
Section 435(p) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1085(p)) is amended --
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the following:
"(D) acting as a trustee on behalf of a State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), regardless of whether such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is an eligible lender under subsection (d)."; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking subclause (II) and inserting the following:
"(II) is acting as a trustee on behalf of a State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), regardless of whether such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is an eligible lender under subsection (d), and such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity, on the date of enactment of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, was the sole beneficial owner of a loan eligible for any special allowance payment under section 438.";
(B) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting "of" after "waive the requirements";
(C) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
"(B) NO FOR-PROFIT OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL.--
"(i) IN GENERAL.--No State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in paragraph (1)(A), (B), or (C) shall be an eligible not-for-profit holder under this Act if such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is owned or controlled, in whole or in part, by a for-profit entity.
"(ii) TRUSTEES.--A trustee described in paragraph (1)(D) shall not be an eligible not-for-profit holder under this Act with respect to a State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), regardless of whether such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is an eligible lender under subsection (d), if such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is owned or controlled, in whole or in part, by a for-profit entity.";
(D) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
"(C) SOLE OWNERSHIP OF LOANS AND INCOME.--No State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, trustee, or other entity described in paragraph (1)(A), (B), (C), or (D) shall be an eligible not-for-profit holder under this Act with respect to any loan, or income from any loan, unless--
"(i) such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is the sole beneficial owner of such loan and the income from such loan; or
"(ii) such trustee holds the loan on behalf of a State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), regardless of whether such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is an eligible lender under subsection (d), and such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is the sole beneficial owner of such loan and the income from such loan.";
(E) in subparagraph (D), by striking "an entity described in described in paragraph (1)(A), (B), or (C)" and inserting "a State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), regardless of whether such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is an eligible lender under subsection (d),"; and
(F) by amending subparagraph (E) to read as follows:
"(E) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--For purposes of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this paragraph, a State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), regardless of whether such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is an eligible lender under subsection (d), shall not--
"(i) be deemed to be owned or controlled, in whole or in part, by a for-profit entity; or
"(ii) lose its status as the sole owner of a beneficial interest in a loan and the income from a loan,
by such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity, or by the trustee described in paragraph (1)(D), granting a security interest in, or otherwise pledging as collateral, such loan, or the income from such loan, to secure a debt obligation for which such State, political subdivision, authority, agency, instrumentality, or other entity is the issuer of the debt obligation.".
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2258) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, to amend the definition of an eligible not-for-profit holder, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows: (Editor's Note: See above for Senate bill language; no need to repeat it again)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to S. 2258 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2258, a bill to extend programs under the Higher Education Extension Act of 1965.
In addition to extending the current programs under the Higher Education Act for 5 months until March 31, 2009, the bill also makes a necessary technical correction to the College Cost Reduction and Access Act with respect to nonprofit lenders. This language will ensure the designation of a nonprofit lender will go to those that Congress intended.
During this Congress we have made significant commitments to our Nation's students and families by putting resources in the hands of those most in need. H.R. 2669, as passed and signed by the President, does more to help Americans pay for college than any effort since the GI Bill at no new cost to taxpayers.
Specifically, the legislation provided a landmark investment of $20 million in additional funding for Pell Grants, reductions in the interest rate on student loans, and the creation of programs to help students manage debt, as well as encourage individuals to pursue public service.
Providing this critical funding is a large part of our efforts to increase access on affordability to higher education. The next step is to work on policies that further support access and affordability, such as campus-based aid, TRIO, GEAR-UP, teacher education and the other programs that make up the Higher Education Act.
Additionally, we realize that millions of Americans are deeply worried about whether they can afford to send their kids to college or how they will be able to pay the bills while also paying off substantial student loan debt. Looking at how the Federal Government can assist in addressing the rising cost of college will also be a key part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
I look forward to working with Chairman Miller and the other members of the committee to complete work on the Higher Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the House began this exercise last week granting a temporary extension of programs under the Higher Education Act. We did the same thing in July of this year and in June, and we did it a half dozen times before that. For the most part, these extensions have been clean, simply maintaining current law. Unfortunately, they are now becoming more complicated.
Earlier this year, Congress passed a package of student aid reforms cloaked in the guise of a budget reconciliation bill. Instead of moving through regular order, the new majority took a shortcut. That shortcut has cost us dearly. Budget reconciliation bills have strict limitations designed to prevent them from being abused as a tool to enact policy, rather than budgetary reform.
Judging by this year's bill, those rules are not strict enough. Nonetheless, the budget reconciliation process chosen by the majority prevented us from including fundamental reforms to the bulk of the Higher Education Act.
A few weeks ago, committee Republicans introduced H.R. 3746, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2007.
This bill is an updated version of the reauthorization bill that passed the House last Congress. H.R. 3746 would strengthen the Pell Grant program, empower parents and students through "sunshine" and transparency and college costs and accreditation, improve college access programs and much more. Unfortunately, the House has yet to act on comprehensive reforms.
The budget bill enacted earlier this year was a missed opportunity of epic proportions. But worse than that, it was a classic example of how a secretive rushed legislative process can produce harmful unintended consequences.
In rushing to the floor with the reconciliation bill, Democrats made mistakes. Several provisions included in the reconciliation bill need to be fixed so that everyone is treated fairly under the law and the law can be implemented as Congress intended. Additionally, the Department of Education has already reached out to Congress to discuss one of the new grant programs, which they see as near to impossible to implement as written.
Had Congress had time to contemplate the impact of the provisions in the new programs, we may have been able to avoid all the confusion that now must be corrected. Today, in addition to extending these programs, we are being forced to fix mistakes made by the flawed budget reconciliation bill. Some of these mistakes can be corrected because the Department of Education has yet to act on them, despite the October 1 implementation date. Other legislative errors have already been implemented by the Department of Education, rendering a correction costly, if not impossible.
Already our hands are tied, and we are unable to fairly and fully correct the problems created through reconciliation. Rather than repeat this rushed process again, I hope that we will move forward with the Higher Education Act reauthorization in a bipartisan and thoughtful manner.
I look forward to working with Chairmen Miller and Hinojosa and Ranking Member Keller, and all of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee, in completing our work in the coming months.
In the meantime, however, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2258.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
