After years of neglect, federal higher education funding is finally getting the respect it deserves—at least if President Bush can be convinced to give his stamp of approval. A new appropriations bill has emerged from a Congressional conference committee that promises to expand the flagship Pell Grant program for low-income undergraduates, increasing the maximum grant by $125 to $4,925. That figure was already raised by $260 in the 2007 budget and by $490 in the College Costs Reduction and Access Act passed earlier this year, meaning that if the bill passes the maximum Pell Grant would have risen almost 25 percent since the 110th Congress took office in January.

This increase is only one of a litany of laudable accomplishments of the new appropriations agreement. The bill also raises the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH) to $30 billion form its previous level of $28.9 billion, increases spending on TRIO and Gear Up programs for low-income students, and blocks proposed cuts in campus-based aid. Unfortunately, Bush has threatened to veto the proposed legislation, claiming it is fiscally irresponsible.

Unlike the President, we find many reasons to support the bill. Federal funding for higher education has been lackluster for years, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum Pell Grant was stagnant from 2002 until the beginning of 2007. This bill presents an opportunity to build on previous increases in order to create a more robust program that better reflects the costs faced by low-income students at state universities.

Higher education is one of the most crucial areas for government support in the modern economy in which advanced degrees have become virtual prerequisites for social advancement. If the American dream is to remain attainable for all, then college must be available to everyone, regardless of background.

In addition, with unskilled labor increasingly outsourced overseas, an educated workforce is an integral part of America’s competitiveness in the global economy. Subsidies for higher education will likely pay for themselves many times over in economic growth.

The increased NIH budget is equally essential. Under the Bush Administration, research spending has been unduly neglected. The proposed $1.1 billion budget increase presents a much-needed shot in the arm for the government-subsidized research and development, which accounts for a sizeable portion of biomedical research funding in the United States. If America is to remain at the forefront of science and medicine, continued support is needed. The bill also contains the beneficial stipulation that NIH research be made free and available online, a move that irks book publishers but provides increased access for people and institutions discouraged by prohibitively high scientific journal costs.

Bush’s denunciation of the bill as irresponsible and his threatened veto are misguided considering the many important benefits the new legislation provides. If the President is truly concerned about fiscal irresponsibility, perhaps he should instead look to two staples of his platform: tax cuts for the wealthy and ballooning defense spending. Accessible education and healthcare research are simply too essential to sacrifice.