John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1350.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years that I have had the pleasure of chairing the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I think we have come an awful long way in terms of transforming the Federal role in education and trying to help all of our kids in our country get a chance at a good education. And I think we have been fortunate to be able to do almost all of this in a broad bipartisan way. The bill before us today is the result of a lot of commitment and hard work on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle. And while we have heard an awful lot of talk about IDEA and how we are transforming it, I think there is one important point that continues to be lost on many people. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we created a new paradigm for how we are going to judge the education of our special-needs students. By disaggregating data in four subgroups in each school, including those with special needs, what we have done is we have asked schools to focus on results for our special education students as opposed to being burdened with a lot of paperwork, dotting I's, crossing T's and worrying about lawsuits. Now schools are judged on the results that they produce for these children. There was some resistance to this, of course, because we still have people in America who think that students with special needs cannot learn. But that is nonsense, and I think all of us understand that have worked on this that these children can learn, and should learn, and society and our country owe them an opportunity to learn. So schools now are having to produce results. And as a result the Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act itself had to be more integrated with No Child Left Behind, which we have done in this conference report; and we needed to take the shackles off of our local school administrators and teachers so that they could focus on producing results as opposed to dotting more I's and crossing more T's and having the burdens of paperwork and lawsuits coming at them. So I am proud of the bill that we have before us. It is not exactly what I would do, certainly not exactly what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) would want. But that brings me to my last point. The Congress, over the last few years, the last several sessions, let us call it 5 years, 6 years, 8 years, has been gripped in an awful lot of partisan strife. And what we have shown on No Child Left Behind, what we have shown on the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization we had earlier this year, the Vote Rehabilitation Act, and again today on IDEA reauthorization is that we can in fact work together. I really do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat. He referred to us last night in the Committee on Rules as the political odd couple, and we are. I would describe myself as a mainstream conservative Republican, the gentleman from California I would describe as a liberal Democrat. Neither one of us is shy about our opinions. But there is an issue here that I think can help not only the progress in our own committee but the progress in this House, and that is to learn to trust one another. The gentleman from California and I began this process, this journey, 4 years ago by developing a trust with each other. And while we may disagree on many issues every day, he and I both know that we can trust each other and trust our word. I went to the gentleman from California and I went to Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg back in September. And as highly partisan as things were leading up to the election, I looked them in this eye and said we can do this. We can do this if we trust each other, all work together, and there is a small opening that we may actually be able to finish this bill this year. The reason we are here today is because we did in fact trust one another. We worked together. And I think once again we have produced an example of what can occur in this House each and every day if we are willing to put our partisan differences aside once in a while and think about why we are here and the trust and responsibilities that the American people have given us in order to do their work and not ours. I thank all my colleagues.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), one of our conferees working this bill out between the House and Senate and someone who has worked on this since he came to Congress.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform and the author of the bill that we have before us who has done a great job.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee, a conferee, and one who feels passionately about this issue.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the Ohio delegation and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, my good friend. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee, the coach.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve special education for the 6\1/2\ million American students participating under the Individuals with Disability Education Act. Today we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform of my committee was the author of this bill that we passed in the House in April of 2003. I think he deserves great credit for his leadership throughout this process. He wrote a good bill and worked to ensure that these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner. The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and with the bill that we passed in the House again in April of 2003. We set out with one fundamental goal in mind, and that was to improve the educational results for students with disabilities. And I believe that we have accomplished that goal with the bill that we have before us today. We included important provisions to give parents more choices and greater control when it comes to their child's education. We increased the focus on academic results and more closely aligned special education with the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time we ensured that States would include children with disabilities in their accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, and I mean all children, including those with disabilities, deserve a high- quality education. The bill before us today will build on No Child Left Behind. We are making sure the rules under IDEA helps special education teachers, parents, and students get the most out of that system instead of making it harder for them. To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the classroom and in many cases driving teachers out of the profession altogether. We also restore common sense to school discipline to keep schools safe for all students and hold students accountable for their actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction unless the disciplinary problem is the direct result of a child's disability. We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No Child Left Behind we said that every child shall learn from a highly qualified teacher and children in special ed are no exception. We added flexibility, though, for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified definition when it comes to special ed teachers, but we did not do anything to slow down the progress States are making in reaching that goal. We are going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in special education, and we are going to hold attorneys liable for frivolous lawsuits. That is important because we need to restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage cooperation to do what is best for students and to get there we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits. Our bill also puts the Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original goal of funding up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with special needs. And as we get closer to that goal, we are also going to give local communities more control over how they spend their own local dollars. And we are keeping special education funded through the discretionary appropriations process. I just want to take a moment to thank a number of people. As I mentioned before, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his hard work. But we would not be here without the help of several other people. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), while we had disagreements on the House-passed bill, we came together at this late hour of this session to do what our job is to do, and that is to reauthorize this law and to do it in such a way to bring a bipartisan product to the floor of the House today. But it would not have been possible without the help of the other body, and I have to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee Judd Gregg for his willingness to work with us and the ranking member of that committee, Senator Ted Kennedy. We had a small window of opportunity, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I sat down with Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy and looked them in the eye and said we are going to be fair, we are going to do this right, and if we work together, we can in fact produce a strong bill, which we have. And we would not be here without the help of all of those people involved. I also want to thank some of my staff and others who have worked on this. David Cleary, without whose help we would not be here at all, period. He did a great job in guiding this process. Melanie Looney on my staff, and also I want to thank Sally Lovejoy, who heads up our education section; Krisann Pearce, who I referred to as the adult the other day. I should probably refer to her as the calming, steady influence over some of my more hyperactive staff. And I want to thank Brad Thomas, who joined us just a couple of months ago and got thrown in into this process at the end. From the gentleman from Delaware's (Mr. Castle) office, Sarah Rittling and from the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) office I want to thank Alex Nock for his great work as well. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform education in America, and I think it is going to make a real difference in the lives of millions of American students who are participating in special education. And as most of my colleagues know, I have gotten rather passionate about this. I am beginning to sound more like the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) than the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) himself. But I do believe that all kids deserve a chance at a good education regardless of their color, regardless of where they grew up, or regardless if they may have a disability. And I think the bill that we have today does in fact move us in a direction to help more kids, especially special ed kids, to get a chance at good education. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve special education for the six and a half million American students participating under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Today, we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal. Representative Castle was the author of the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003, and he deserves great credit for his leadership throughout the process. He wrote a good bill, and he worked to ensure these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner. The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and with the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003. We set out with one fundamental goal in mind: to improve educational results for students with disabilities. I believe this bill will accomplish that goal. We included important provisions to give parents more choices and greater control when it comes to their children's education. We increased the focus on academic results, and more closely aligned special education with the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time, we ensured States would include children with disabilities in their accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, including children with disabilities, deserve a high quality education. The bill before us today will build on NCLB. We're making sure the rules under IDEA help special education teachers and parents get the most out of that system, instead of making it harder for them. To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the classroom. We also restored common sense to school discipline to keep schools safe for all students, and hold students accountable for their actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction, unless the discipline problem is the direct result of a child's disability. We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No Child Left Behind, we said every child should learn from a highly qualified teacher. Children in special education are no exception. We added flexibility for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified definition, but we didn't do anything to slow down the progress States are making to reach that goal. We're going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in special education, and we're going to hold attorneys liable for frivolous lawsuits. That's important, because we need to restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage cooperation to do what is best for students. To get there, we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits. I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith. Our bill also puts the Federal government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original funding goal of up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. As we get closer to that goal, we're also going to give local communities more control over how they spend their own, local dollars. And we're keeping special education funded through the discretionary appropriations process. I'd like to take a moment to thank members of the staff who have been so instrumental in producing this great bill. With my staff, I'd like to thank David Cleary and Melanie Looney, who did a remarkable job crafting this bill and negotiating the final conference report. I'd also like to thank Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, and Brad Thomas. From Representative Castle's office I'd like to thank Sarah Rittling, and from Representative Miller's office I'd like to thank Alex Nock. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform education in America. It will make a real difference in the lives of millions of American students participating in special education. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment to America's students, parents, and schools. We said that every child in America deserves a high quality education, and no child should be left behind. I think that commitment was particularly important to students with disabilities. For too many years, these students have been allowed to fall between the cracks. Many States excluded them from accountability systems, wrongly assuming these children can't learn. They can learn, and they should. They deserve the same high quality education as the rest of this Nation's students. They deserve the same high quality teachers, and the same focus on their academic results. H.R. 1350 fulfills that vision. It says that special education is important. It makes clear that we must focus on breaking down bureaucracy and building up results. This is an important bill for students participating in special education, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding. This concurrent resolution allows the Enrolling Clerk to make a technical correction to the conference report on H.R. 1350.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House on H.R. 1350 be permitted until midnight to file a conference report on H.R. 1350.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act is the right thing to do at the right time. As I said, this closes the loophole for lenders billing the 9.5 percent floor on special allowance by prohibiting this billing on loans from bonds that have been refunded, refinanced, extended, matured, retired, or defeased, on or after October 1, 2004 and before January 1, 2006. Also prohibited is the billing of 9.5 percent floor special allowance by the holder for all loans sold or otherwise pledged, refinanced or transferred to another holder as defined in the Higher Education Act (HEA) on or after October 1, 2004 and before January 1, 2006. While it does allow for limited billing on recycled loans, that billing is permitted only on loans financed by pre-1993 tax-exempt bonds, or within such tax-exempt refunded bonds done prior to October 1, 2004, and only for the duration of these bonds. These prospective changes take a major step in closing the window to these subsidies for loan providers. This bill redirects the savings realized from this change to one of this country's greatest resources--highly qualified teachers. This bill also allows Congress to continue its work on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to ensure any permanent changes made to this issue are done so with open debate and clear consideration of the students we want to assist in reaching their higher education goals.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which continues to open the door of educational opportunity for the students in our nation's capital. This measure fully funds the DC School Choice Incentive Act which is fundamentally about providing new options and new hope for students and families trapped in a school system that is struggling to survive. Since the DC School Choice Incentive Program was enacted in January 2004, the Department of Education conducted a grant competition for the administration of the program and has awarded the Washington Scholarship Fund (WSF) the opportunity to run the groundbreaking new endeavor. And WSF is off to a strong start. More than 2,680 students applied for scholarships for the 2004-2005 school year, and over 1,840 of those students met the eligibility requirements and completed their applications. In the middle of June, a lottery was held and scholarships were awarded to 1,360 students. Of the eligible public school students, only 194 public school students did not receive scholarships because of the limitation on available space in grades 6- 12. Currently there are 53 District of Columbia private, religious and independent schools participating in the program in the 2004-2005 school year. I am pleased that many of the scholarship students have chosen to attend schools in the Center City Consortium--a group of 13 inner city DC Catholic elementary schools within the Archdiocese of Washington located in the most financially challenged neighborhoods in the District. These schools work to ensure that Catholic education continues to be available to all city families, and have enthusiastically begun to educate over 500 scholarship students. The WSF is continuing its efforts aggressively to make sure families are aware of the scholarships available for the coming school year. With more time to prepare for this fall, the program expects more schools to participate in 2005-2006, more seats to be available, and more parents to apply. The strength of this program is that it will not only benefit individual students and their families, but the entire education system in the District of Columbia. Everyone agrees that the public school system will remain the primary source of education for a majority of these students. We cannot, and will not, support a proposal that would harm these schools. My colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, has provided tremendous leadership in ensuring that the bill before us continues to provide new money and new options that offers the neediest students opportunities they never had before, and more importantly, provides both increased competition and an infusion of funding that will help revitalize an entire system and help it to better serve each and every student. The bill continues to appropriate substantial new funding--and let's be clear, this is still new money; we're not draining a single dollar from the public school system in the District. The funding is the full appropriation for the DC school improvement program--giving $13 million for public school improvements, $13 million for charter schools and $14 million for opportunity scholarships to promote academic achievement and school choice. This measure allows us the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of students and families in the District of Columbia. I'm proud of the measure before us and grateful for the work of Chairman Frelinghuysen in ensuring the full appropriation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of students and families and the entire educational system in the District of Columbia.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at what happens during political silly season here in the Nation's Capital. Here we are on the eve of an election and we are going to have a virtual unanimous vote on this bill. Even though my colleagues on the other side have criticized it so much, for a bill that sounds as bad as they have criticized it, I am wondering why they are going to vote for it. But I want to say, Welcome. Welcome. They are taking credit for stumbling across this billion-dollar excess subsidies when we have been working on this for about a year to try to shut this down in a reasonable and responsible way. And while I know that people want to go all the way and shut it down and be really tough, what about those nonprofit student aid organizations around the country who have these loans, who use those excess profits to help low-income students and mostly minority students all over the country? Let us stop the nonsense. Let us get on to do the people's work. By passage of this bill today, we will end this practice for the most part for the next year, use those savings to help expand the need for high quality teachers in title I schools in math, science and special ed, and help more students get a better chance at an education.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my colleagues that we are less than 4 weeks from a Presidential election and an election for all of us who serve here in the House. We all know what happens when we get to the eve of election. We all find religion. Now, the President called for the elimination of this 9.5 percent subsidy back in February. I have been working on this for a year. It was in the gentleman from California's (Mr. McKeon) and my bill that we introduced back in May, and my colleagues on the other side want to criticize us for not acting sooner. Yet, the substitute, or their own higher education reauthorization, never even addressed this very subject. Now, I would say to my colleagues it takes two to tango, and they all know how things get done around here. We need to work together. The criticism about this bill not going far enough, I think, is well understood by Members on both sides of the aisle. While, in fact, it may shut down some subsidies that go to for-profit lenders, the problem we have is those lenders in the nonprofit sector who use that money to aid students and needy students will be burned in the process, and I think we take a great risk in going down that path today. That is why the bill that we have before us shuts these things down, these 9.5 percent loans, for the next year and allows us, in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, to make sure that when we shut these 9.5 percent loans down permanently, we do so in a way that we do not hurt the nonprofit community that helped many low-income and needy students around the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to pass a bill that will protect taxpayers, support school teachers and help poor schools ensure every student has the opportunity to learn from a qualified teacher. I want to particularly thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the vital roles they have played for bringing this bill to the floor. For more than 10 years, a complex Federal policy known as the 9.5 percent ``special allowance'' has resulted in excess taxpayer subsidies for some student loan providers. This policy was adopted under the Clinton administration, and while some would call it a loophole, the loan providers were told by the Clinton administration that it was perfectly legal and legitimate. The excess taxpayer subsidies being paid under this policy have in recent years begun to balloon, and if we fail to act, billions of dollars in excess taxpayer subsidies will be paid to student loan providers legally. Now, this may be technically legal but I think it is unfair to taxpayers and unfair to students, and it is unfair to the schools, people who should be the beneficiaries of this funding. When you boil it down, it is just plain bad policy. Eight months ago President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to shut down these excess taxpayer subsidies. The Bush administration noted that ending the excess subsidies without legislation was likely to take at least 2 years. Because of the precedents established under the previous administration, it would take the administration 2 years to end the policy without legislation. Two years is too long to wait. So the President asked Congress to pass legislation this year that would allow the 9.5 percent subsidies to be stopped now. The legislation before us should be a no-brainer. It is called the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act because that is exactly what it will do. The bill will protect taxpayers by shutting down the excess subsidies to lenders, as the President has asked, and it will use the money to help teachers and poor schools across the country. Rural and urban schools are confronting a shortage of qualified teachers in key subjects. This shortage is very serious and particularly hurts schools in our poorest communities. According to the most recent data available from the National Center for Education Statistics, 67 percent of our public middle and high schools have vacancies in special education, 70 percent had vacancies in mathematics, 61 percent had vacancies in biological or life sciences. And according to the Committee For Economic Development, almost a third of high school math classes are taught by teachers who did not major or even minor in mathematics. For biology it is 45 percent, and in life sciences the percentage rises to 60 percent. President Bush has repeatedly asked Congress to create new incentives for good teachers to teach in our poorest schools. The President has asked that we increase the amount of loan forgiveness that is available to qualified teachers in these key subjects who agree to teach for at least 5 years in our poorest schools. The President wants us to increase loan relief for the teachers from the current maximum of $5,000 to a new maximum of $17,500, more than triple the amount that is currently available. The President asked us to do this after the No Child Left Behind Act became law. And he asked for it again last week in Springfield, Ohio, where I was with him at an education event. Under this bill we will shut down the excess subsidies for now and use the money to provide loan relief for highly qualified teachers in high-needs schools, helping our schools deal with the teacher shortage. The House last year overwhelmingly passed legislation written by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) that called for similar teacher loan relief. Shutting off these excess subsidies now via this bill will also pave the way for us to devote billions of dollars over the next several years to college access programs for low- and middle- income students. This was the original intent of the bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I back in May. And that bill, the College Access and Opportunity Act, would permanently shut down the excess subsidies as part of a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We continue to believe a long-term, multiyear reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is the proper vehicle for ensuring that the 9.5 percent subsidies stay shut down, because it would ensure that billions of dollars are used to expand college access for low- and middle-income students. Let us make no mistake about this. We are closing the loophole, and once it is closed, it is not coming back. The only question today is whether Democrats and Republicans can agree on how the money should be used within the Higher Education Act. We could not find an agreement on the big question of the reauthorizing the bill this year, and unfortunately, this looks like that debate will continue into next year. But in the meantime this bill gives us the chance to close down the subsidies now and use the money for something we can all agree is a worthy cause. Now, there are some who say this bill does not go far enough. They contend it should shut down subsidies retroactively. Let me say, here is the problem with that. Shutting the 9.5 percent subsidies down retroactively will not just affect the big kids on the block, those in the student loan business who do it for a profit. It will affect smaller, nonprofit student aid providers all across America, nonprofit organizations that were told years ago by the Federal Government that this practice is 100 percent legal and legitimate. And as we will see as this debate goes on, we are talking about nonprofit student aid organizations from all over the country, whether it be the big student aid organization in California, where 85 percent of their effort is aimed at minority children, and Texas, Arizona, all across the country. Over the past few days Congress has heard an earful from nonprofit student aid providers warning that retroactive cuts would hurt students and families that need help paying for college. We have heard from Chela in California and we have heard from a provider in South Texas. Half of their loans go to Hispanic students, all needy students. We have heard from nonprofit providers in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Oklahoma. ``Cuts in these subsidies, especially retroactive cuts, would immediately cause a negative impact to Iowa students,'' warned a nonprofit organization in Iowa. Now, we need to shut down the subsidies, but we need to make sure that we are not shutting down nonprofit student aid organizations in the process. And if we go any further than what we propose in this bill, I think we are going to hurt the very families and students that we are actually trying to help. So I would urge my colleagues to support the measure on the floor today. It is the right thing to do for our taxpayers, teachers and American students. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5186.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5186) to reduce certain special allowance payments and provide additional teacher loan forgiveness on Federal student loans, as amended.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle. We have been locked in a really difficult situation trying to come to an agreement on the reauthorization of this bill. But it is not just here. I think we could have overcome our differences, but clearly there was no action in the other body, and we have no choice but to extend the Higher Education Act, which the underlying bill here today does. This is important to millions of low- and middle-income American students who depend on Pell grants and student loans to achieve their dream of a college education. I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.