Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a well-intentioned bill that I wish we had the chance to make better. Nonetheless, without the opportunity for amendments, I hope we can use these next 3 hours to analyze what H.R. 5 does and what it doesn't do. Normally this is a task best reserved for regular order when you go through the committee process and have a chance to have hearings and have a chance to hear experts on the subject. We are forgoing that today because we are in this 100 hours of nondemocratic rule, and that is a result of the election. You won the majority, you use that majority the way you see fit; but I think that is unfortunate for America today. Since we have bypassed that process, I would like to spend some time doing so right here today. First, let me underscore once again the fact that this bill has never been considered in committee. It includes some changes impacting the student loan industry that have never been tried before and, worse yet, they have never even been discussed in any meaningful way. Is that bad policy? Well, maybe so. But is it irresponsible policy-making? Most definitely it is. Next, I caution my colleagues not to characterize what is before us today as a student aid bill. Ironically, the College Student Relief Act wouldn't impact a single college student. The way the loan program works, a student that wishes to borrow, and it is unfortunate, I think, that we are even having to have that kind of discussion today; I wish we were focusing on trying to keep the cost of education down so students didn't need to borrow a penny, but that is not going to be the debate. The way it works, a student borrows the first year, the second year, the third and fourth years if they so desire; and then after they graduate from school and have a 6-month respite period, they begin to repay that loan. So this bill today addresses an interest rate that a college graduate will pay back in the repayment period 6 months after they graduate from school when they are definitely no longer students. I also caution my colleagues not to buy into the talking point that H.R. 5 would save a typical borrower about $4,400 over the life of their loan because it just simply isn't true. Now what the Democrats talked about during the campaign of reducing all student debt by half may have met these requirements, but not what is actually on the floor here today. The fact is that a borrower cannot save nearly this much because under H.R. 5, the bill we are discussing here today, the interest rate phases down from the current 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over a series of 5 years. The borrower, for them to receive the complete $4,400 in savings, the 3.4 percent interest rate must remain in effect the whole time and it only is actually in effect the last 6 months, and they must consolidate their debt at that time and stretch the repayment out over the whole 15 years. However, Democratic leaders have crafted the legislation to ensure that the 3.4 percent rate stays in effect only from July 1, 2011, through January 1, 2012, 6 months. On January 2, 2012, the interest rate returns back to the current 6.8 percent making the $4,400 in savings impossible to achieve. In reality, a college freshman in the fall of 2011, when the rate is at 3.4 percent, would end up saving $6.42 a month. That's right, $6.42 once he or she begins repaying their student loan. More broadly, H.R. 5 falls woefully short in dealing with what I consider the twin priorities for addressing the college cost crisis. That is, expanding access, which should be the Federal role in higher education, and enhancing affordability. Those are two very important items. First, on access, as I said, by definition this legislation cannot expand college access because at its core it is not a student aid bill. Would it reduce payments for a limited number of college graduates who would see their interest rate gradually drop over the next 5 years? Yes. Would it bring a low- or middle-income student any closer to the dream of attending college? Unfortunately not. Compare this to the record $90 billion we are investing this year, $90 billion Federal investment this year, in student aid programs. That is an amount that has tripled over the last decade. We have heard today in part of the rule debate about how over the last 12 years we have done nothing. We have tripled the amount of funding available for those who are going to higher education, under the Republican majority in Congress, I might add, and it is difficult to understand why our friends on the other side of the aisle act as if they have a monopoly on the college access debate. On impacting college affordability, Madam Speaker, once again, this legislation falls short, and I truly did not believe this would have to be the case. Consider this: On a 4-year public college education the tuition has risen 35 percent over the past 5 years. However, during the past decade, Federal aid for students has increased 300 percent. Now, I ask my colleagues, if funding alone was the solution to the college cost crisis, wouldn't we have realized it by now? Of course we would have. And that is why institutional accountability is so important. It is at the very heart of the college cost crisis. Yesterday, I introduced legislation, the College Affordability and Transparency Act, to help parents and students hold institutions more accountable for their role in the college cost crisis. I also submitted it, or tried to submit it, as an amendment to the Rules Committee, because I believed it was a vehicle through which we could have drastically improved the underlying legislation. Unfortunately, however, the closed process has placed the issue of affordability on the back burner, and these proactive commonsense reforms will have to wait for another day. That is right, giving parents and students more information, in an easy-to-use format, about college costs and outcomes? That will have to wait for another day. Establishing a system of simply and unmistakably comparing the cost increases of one institution against another? That will have to wait for another day. And asking colleges that increase their costs the most and most often to identify ways to bring tuition under control on behalf of parents and students? Well, that too will have to wait for another day. What is most disappointing is that many of these same reforms were passed by the House last year and Members on both sides of the aisle have backed exactly this type of approach. But to see them move forward from here, we will just have to wait for another day. In countless ways, Madam Speaker, we can do better than H.R. 5. I just wish we had that opportunity. Because although the bill before us, as well-intentioned as it is, is just not what it seems. It is not a student aid bill, it doesn't expand student access, and it doesn't enhance affordability of a college education. In the weeks and months to come, I hope we can work in a bipartisan way toward all of these things, and I look forward to working with Chairman Miller, Chairman Kildee, and Members on the other side of the aisle to ensure that this happens. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with higher education, the Pell Grant expert.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really want those who are watching this debate to understand how much I understand the importance of a higher education, how important it is and how necessary for someone to really achieve the American Dream; they need to get as much education as they can. What we are looking at with this bill, though, really what it does is, if you look at it from July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008, it cuts the fixed rate of student interest loans from to 6.8 to 6.1. A year later, it cuts it to 5.44; a year later to 4.76; a year later to 4.08. And then ultimately, 5 years from now, January 1, 2011, it cuts for 6 months the rate to 3.4, which is what they are saying is, it cuts the interest rate in half. Well, it does for 6 months of the 5 years that this bill covers. I think what we need to really look at is the College Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance has done a study, and they show that 48 percent of low-income students cannot even get into college, into a 4-year institution. Twenty-two percent cannot even get into a community college because they cannot afford the upfront money. What I am saying is what we should be looking at, even though we are putting in $90 billion this year, three times more than just 10 years ago, it is still not enough to provide all of the things we would like to do for all of the students that need the opportunity to go to college. So, if you have to look at just what resources you do have, what we are saying is, why do we not put those resources to those students that are trying to get into college, rather than give a bonus to those that are graduating and are now going to repay a loan; and that is what this bill does. Those who have been fortunate enough to graduate are going to receive about $1 million more income in their lifetime than those who do not get to go to college. We are saying in the time of limited resources, why do we not try to help those who are trying to get on that economic ladder to realize the American Dream rather than give a bonus to those who have graduated. Even if you listen to the full debate, we are not even telling them the full facts. We are saying we are cutting your interest in half. For 6 months, we are cutting it in half. The other time, it is a phased-in cut over 5 years, and then it goes back up to the rate of 6.8 percent. When I was chairman of the subcommittee when we did the last reauthorization in 1998, we came up with an interest rate that was the lowest in the history of the student loan business, and we did that in a bipartisan way, and it was good for students. Now interest rates have changed, and in a bipartisan way last year, we set the rate at 6.8 percent, which is what it is now, which is a pretty good interest rate. Would I like it to be lower? You bet. But I really think that we need to focus on helping those students, especially the lower- and middle-class that are just trying to get into school, that it will be 5 years. First they have to get into school, have enough money to pay their tuition and fees and make it through the 5 years to graduate, and then they start reaping some of the benefits of this as they repay their student loans. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. McKEON. At this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the comments of my good friend, Chairman Miller. He mentioned that Republicans keep coming to the floor and saying this won't help students. Let me get away from Republicans and just read a few comments of people from the press. The first is in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The quote is: ``The question is, What are you achieving by cutting the interest rate? asked Jamie P. Merisotis, President of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a Washington-based research group.'' Not Republican. He stated, ``You are not encouraging any more students to go to college because you are cutting the interest rate on loans that students have already taken out.'' Another one, Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst at the College Board and an economics professor at Skidmore College, said the interest-rate proposals ``costs a ton of money and is not a well-targeted policy.'' That was in Chronicle of Higher Education. In Congress Daily: ``The much-touted Democratic measure to slash in half student loan interest rates over 5 years has been drafted to offer only temporary relief with the lowest rate of 3.4 percent effective for only the last 6 months of 2011.'' Now since we didn't have the opportunity to debate this bill in committee or explore it to any great extent, I can only guess that the bill was crafted so that the 3.4 percent interest rate is only in effect for half of that last academic year because the Democrats know the interest rate cut is unsustainable in that it would cost $22 billion if it ran for 10 years. Another thing that was mentioned is that this will cut all student loans by half. I am hopeful that those students that are now in college that will benefit from this at some point out in the future when they become graduates will check to see if they are in a subsidized loan because they are the ones that will be covered. They should also check when they graduate to see what interest rate they will pay because again this just takes effect year by year. It doesn't reach the ultimate half until 5\1/2\ years from now. And also, those who are not on subsidized loans, don't get too excited about this because your loan interest will not be cut. Another thing that the chairman mentioned was that there was an article, a Wall Street analyst referring to this felt that it was okay, that this wouldn't hurt and you could still buy mutual funds and everybody would get along just fine. I read the same article, and I think he was referring to Sallie Mae, the giant, the largest lender, and he said he felt they would be okay, especially based on the promise that the hit was going to be for $60 billion, and when the bill was finally written last Friday it was $6 billion. He was comparing what they will have to live with versus what the original promise was of the $60 billion cut which would have cut all student loans in half instead of reducing year by year a little amount until we get to only the subsidized loans and only for 6 months that they enjoy that cut before it goes back up to the 6.8 percent. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond a little to the gentleman. He talked about the $12 billion in cuts. Yes, we cut $12 billion out of the lenders, and we put $9 billion of it back into students. Not graduates, students. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. For deficit reduction.

Mr. McKEON. Deficit reduction.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, since the Republican majority's record on student aid has been one of the things we have focused on today, as well as the Democratic leadership's rhetoric over the past few years, I believe it might be useful to take a few minutes to be perfectly clear about where Members on this side of the aisle stand when it comes to expanding college access. Now, I was really interested in the gentlewoman from Nevada's discussion about her family, because that is the beautiful thing about this country, that you do have the opportunity to go to college. My dad, during the Depression, didn't have the opportunity and my mother didn't have the opportunity. I was the only one of five sons that was able to graduate from college. It took me 30 years. I graduated with my oldest daughter. We have six children. Four of them have graduated from college and two are still working on it. We have 28 grandchildren. So I have a big interest in the opportunities of education, and I am hopeful that all of my grandchildren will be able to get an education. Before Republicans gained control of the House in 1995, there had been no serious congressional effort to address the issue of rising college costs or even discuss it. We have seen the charts. We have seen how from the time Pell Grants were instituted, all the time that the Democrats were in charge, they got the Pell Grants up to $2,000. In the 12 years that we had the majority, we more than doubled that and put much more money into Pell Grant relief and to other student aid projects. Similarly, there has been very little discussion on whether our colleges or universities were producing graduates who were ready for the job market. In fact, the entire American competitiveness discussion we are having these days was not on the minds of those inside the Beltway at that time. But over the course of the past decade, we have made it a priority, often working in a bipartisan fashion. We gathered facts, talked within the higher education community, and worked to craft legislation that represented a fresh approach to policy. In fact, as I said earlier, we have been talking about student loan interests. And when we did the reauthorization in 1998, in a bipartisan way, we came up with the lowest interest rate in history, which has afforded many, many more students the opportunity to go to school. But what we came up with was something that was not necessarily revolutionary, but at the same time, it was vitally important. It was a two-pronged approach. First, we made an unprecedented commitment to student aid, and today our efforts are paying off. Some $90 billion in Federal resources currently fund student aid programs, from loans and grants to work-study programs and education tax benefits. That is nearly triple what it was just a decade ago. And within that $90 billion is a record $13 billion for Pell Grants, a two- thirds increase over the past decade. That is a record we should be proud of. On top of that, we have also eliminated a troubling shortfall in the Pell program, placing it on a sound financial foundation for years to come. Beyond that, just last year alone we enacted legislation to increase loan limits to give students access to more financial aid; reduce loan fees so students can keep more of what they borrow, and this is students I am talking about, money they can put in their pockets; established $4.5 billion in new grant aid for low-income students studying math, science, and critical foreign languages, as well as high-achieving Pell eligible high school students; and we permanently expanded loan relief for highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers who commit to teaching in high-need K-12 schools for 5 years. These are things that really help us in K-12 and in higher education. To pay for these new student loan benefits, which again included $4.5 billion in new grant aid for our Pell students, we reduced the subsidies paid to student loan lenders by more than $20 billion, as the chairman previously stated. We need to be thoughtful about increased cuts to the private sector so that we don't leave students with the poorly run direct loan program as their only option. In short, Madam Speaker, our commitment to student aid has never been stronger. Anyone who says otherwise simply is not being candid. The second and equally important part of our two-pronged approach to expand college access gets to the heart of the college cost crisis itself, the actual cost of a college education. This is what we really should be talking a lot more about instead of trying to get a little, small reduction in the interest rate. We should be trying to cut the total cost. In short, we are aiming to bring greater accountability to an unchecked system so that consumers of a higher education have more information than ever before about the cost of a college education. As a result, we have dramatically shifted the college cost debate. A decade ago, the interest of students and colleges were seen as identical, and the conventional wisdom was that colleges knew what was best for students. A decade ago, the higher education establishment made clear that simply adding more Federal student aid was the solution to the problem of rising costs and that there was no point in questioning why costs rose. Today, while we maintain an unprecedented commitment to student aid, we have also identified students, parents, taxpayers, community organizations, and employers as legitimate stakeholders in the outcomes produced by our higher education system. We are asking hard questions of colleges, such as why costs are so high, how successful the college is in helping students graduate on time, which helps keep costs down, and whether the college will give them the skills needed to compete successfully in the workplace. Admittedly, we have gotten some blow-back. Some of these colleges don't want to answer these questions. They want us to just leave them alone, send more money. But you know what? We were and are right to demand such accountability, and we will continue to do so. I wish we were able, as part of this debate, but the closed process under which we are operating won't allow that possibility. Still, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we do so in the weeks and months to come. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that we have remaining.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with much of what the majority leader just said. I think we do have to expand access. We have to give opportunities to students. My real concern is at the end of this debate, I am hoping that students understand that the 6.8 percent interest right now, tomorrow, doesn't go to 3.4; even if the Senate were to act on this and pass this bill exactly, that it would be almost 5 years, and then it only is cut in half for a 6-month period. So that if you look at how much they really would save over the period of a repayment, the way it works is when they graduate, 6 months later, they have to, or they have the opportunity to consolidate their loans and they can take all the loans because they get one their first year, one the second year, third year, and if they go through in 4 years they probably up end up with four loans. They consolidate those loans and they will take the interest rates, well, anyway, they are 6.8 now, and then they go to 6.1 and then they work their way down to 3.4. They will take how much they borrowed each year. They consolidate those loans. They average those out, and they will probably get a reduction of about like 4\1/2\ percent. And if they borrow the maximum during that period of time, they will end up with a savings of a little over $2,000, not $4,400, as some are saying. I think it is really important to really have the true facts out there so that we don't give people this idea that tomorrow my interest rate is cut in half. And also, that only pertains to the 50 percent of students that are borrowing on the subsidized basis. I know the promise during the campaign was, we are going to cut student loans across the board in half for all students. But when you tested that out you found out it cost about $60 billion, and to comply with the PAYGO they had to come back with this reduced offer. Again, it will help people that have graduated from college, but those people are already well on their way to realizing the American Dream. If we could just take this same amount of money, the savings and try to help those who are trying to get into college, that is probably the major difference in our debate, is how we help people get an opportunity, not those who are now graduating and are benefiting from the college graduation and also benefiting from this reduced student loan rate. Madam Speaker, I am happy now to yield to my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) 4 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, maybe if I reserve for a while, you can catch up with us a little bit.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my good friend from Texas, whom I have worked with in the 1998 reauthorization when we helped the Hispanics, adding the title that helped the Hispanic community. He was one of the strong leaders that really helped his people and community. We worked together then. We worked together last year in bringing the bill to the floor that unfortunately died in the Senate, but it would have reauthorized the Higher Education Act. I want to congratulate him. I understand he is going to be the chairman of the subcommittee in this Congress, and I am looking forward to working with him. But I just want to say one thing to straighten the record out, we took $20 billion in the Deficit Reduction Act last year from the student lenders. We put $9 billion of it back into student services to help them; the balance we used in the deficit reduction which resulted in the $71 billion decrease, the deficit right now, versus last year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to the words that we just heard. If a student in 5 years takes out a loan, they will not save $4,000, because this ends at the end of 5 years and the 3.4 percent is only good for that 6 months, the last 6 months of the bill. Then the loan goes back up to 6.8 percent. So at the end of 5 years, the student will be paying the same as they are now. We just have to keep the facts correct. The rhetoric is good, but we should try to keep the facts correct. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield 6 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me remark again, as I said earlier, the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance issued a report saying that 48 percent of our low-income high school students are not able to enter a 4-year university, and 22 percent of them cannot even get into a community college. I think we are in total agreement that we want to do what we can to help them get into school, and the numbers are not much different for the middle-income students. The one thing that we are not really talking about too much is the cost of the education. I am concerned that the young people are graduating from college with a mortgage and no home. This debate we are hearing is all about the interest rate on that mortgage, on that loan, but what we should really be addressing is the cost of higher education. I would like to just mention a few things that are driving that cost of education, some examples of some extravagant spending on college campuses, that if we had held hearings, we could have talked about a little bit. We have done this over the past when I was a chairman. We did have some hearings about this, but let me get some of these in the Record. Cornell is investing $259 million in what it calls student life and residential facilities alone. Ohio State University is spending $140 million to build what its peers enviously refer to as the Taj Mahal, a 657,000-square foot complex featuring kayaks and canoes, indoor batting cages and ropes courses, massages and a climbing wall big enough for 50 students to scale simultaneously. The University of Cincinnati is spending $250 million on a Main Street of sorts, with everything from outdoor cafes to what is called a mall-style student center. The University of Houston spent $53 million on a wellness center, including hot tubs, waterfalls and pool slides. The school has a 5- story climbing wall, while boulders and palm trees frame the leisure pools outside. The University of Vermont plans to spend $70 million on a new student center, a colossal complex with a pub, a ballroom, theater, an artificial pond for wintertime skating and views of the mountains and Lake Champlain. Now, we are not going to be able probably to talk about extravagant spending by the schools because we are not talking about the cost of college. We are talking about the cost of student loans that, because of this extravagant spending, students are having to take out to go to college. Makes me want to go back to school. Some of these things sound pretty enticing. Some are pretty nice. But what about the kids that are trying to get an education? They don't really, some of them, have time to use these hot tubs, anyway. They are working to put their way through school. Why don't we focus some of that stuff on the cost of an education rather than on just trying to save a few students who have already graduated, who are already on the ladder to receiving the American Dream. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute so we could talk about that.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and, more to the point, I rise in strong opposition to the decidedly unfair closed and heavy handed process that preceded our time on the floor today. Over the past several years, few would argue with the assertion that the Education and the Workforce Committee was among the fairest committees when it came to member input from both the Republicans and Democrats alike. Likewise, it was home to some of the most robust debate in the House. From No Child Left Behind and the pension reform to the reauthorizations of the Older Americans Act and the Higher Education Act, our panel held extensive hearings and markups prior to the floor consideration of all major pieces of legislation within our jurisdiction. For that, our committee and the House were better off. I have little doubt that this will, in large part, I hope, continue over the next 2 years. But in the early days of this Congress, I can't help but be concerned about the way the new majority has turned its back on regular order. As we consider legislation with such far reaching consequences, for example, the bill before us today impacts education and labor's largest entitlement program, but not a single hearing or markup was held on it prior to its arrival here on the floor. We didn't actually see this bill until last Friday afternoon. And not a single bipartisan conversation took place as the legislation was written and rewritten time after time by the majority leadership. The last time we were on the floor considering a major higher education bill, the process we followed to get here was decidedly different. Before we sent the College Access and Opportunity Act to the floor last spring, countless hearings and markups were held in the Education and Workforce Committee where Members debated, amended and voted on the legislation. In fact, through subcommittee and full committee processes we addressed over 100 amendments from both sides of the aisle. We even considered a 40-page manager's amendment that we worked for weeks on with both sides of the aisle. But today we have nothing of the sort, and for that and for the closed rule thrust upon us today, I am deeply disappointed. Now the other side has said, well, it was understood during the campaign that we would bring up six items, we would eliminate the democratic process, we would just bring them to the floor, shove them through, and everybody understood that process. In fact, if I were watching this debate, I would think that right now, I would, when I get my paycheck this week, I would have a higher paycheck if I were working under the minimum wage. That has already been taken care of. And I think that probably some students are thinking that next week their loan payment is going to go down. This process is maybe being rushed on this side, but before a bill becomes law it has to go through the other body and it has to be worked out, the differences, and then it has to go to the President, and the President does not support this bill that is on the floor here today. Mr. Speaker, to understand the importance of a robust committee process, we need to look no further than another piece of Education and Labor Committee legislation considered by the House just last week. In it, the Federal minimum wage was increased for all 50 United States and all of our territories, all except one, that is. We are now told that, as a matter of fact, our committee soon will consider legislation to correct this apparent oversight that happened last week. Still, I can't help but think that this extra step may not have been necessary had regular order been followed in the first place. Suffice to say I hope we don't find ourselves in the same situation after we act today. However, I can't help but be concerned by the fact that the underlying legislation would provide convicted felons unfettered access to the same or, in some cases, lower student loan interest rates as their law abiding counterparts, something we didn't get a chance to look at. The heavy handed process carried out prior to today also has taken away our ability to improve this legislation, improvements that I believe could have been bipartisan in nature. H.R. 5 is a well-intentioned bill, but I also believe it to be badly misdirected and ripe for improvement. Sadly, those many improvements, including an affordability amendment that I offered at the Rules Committee yesterday, even after I had been told that we had no chance to offer amendments and that it would be a closed rule, will never see the light of day. We are stuck with a flawed bill, one that we could have made much better with little effort at all. As we continue our debate today, and, more importantly, as we consider more comprehensive higher education measures in the months to come, I look forward to having a seat at the table, the same seat I provided my friends on the other side of the aisle a year ago when I was chairman. In the meantime, I reiterate my opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.