Part-time Student Assistance Act

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, legislation that provides for cutting the interest rates on subsidized student loans from 6.8 to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years; that calls for the biggest increase in the Pell Grant in the history of the program, $1,000 new dollars over the next 5 years; that provides for an income- contingent payment plan where people will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income on student loans; and if they go to public service, that loan can be forgiven for 10 years; and provides major support for the minority-serving institutions of this country. This is all done within the PAYGO rules because of the $20 billion in excessive subsidies that were being paid to lenders in this field, and so we comply with the Budget Act.

I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.

Yesterday, we held a rally to highlight the benefits of this legislation for out nation's students and families. It is clear from listening to the students at the rally that one of the greatest challenges facing them today is the rising cost of college and high student loan debt.

With students returning to campuses, I can think of no better back to school gift than passing a bill that represents the greatest effort to help students and families pay for college since the GI Bill was passed more than fifty years ago. This is no ordinary gift. This is real money we are providing for students and families which translates into real relief.

As we have mentioned since the beginning of this process, these historic investments in education are being done in a fiscally responsible way. This conference report will fully comply with new House rules that require all federal spending to meet tough pay-as-you- go budget rules.

Additionally, the conference report will set aside $750 million in budget deficit reduction, demonstrating that with smart policy, we can be fiscally responsible and be responsive to the concerns of the American people. This conference agreement significantly increases the Pell Grant scholarship over the next five years to a maximum of $5,400. This investment--almost double the investment in the House bill, and the largest increase in the scholarship's history--will greatly restore the purchasing power of the scholarship for students with the most financial need, meet the President's 2008 budget request, and also address concerns raised by Mr. McKeon during House consideration of this measure.

This agreement also: Cuts interest rates in half for need-based student loans from 6.8% to 3.4% over 4 years. When fully phased in it will save the typical student $4,400 over the life of the loan. This measure was overwhelmingly supported by this body in January; makes new investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and other minority serving schools--to ensure that students will not only enter college, but remain and graduate; makes debt more manageable for students through an Income Based Repayment program; provides loan forgiveness and loan repayment options for those providing a public service; and ensures that we place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom through the creation of TEACH grants.

As mentioned before, this bill is fully paid for with cuts to lender subsidies.

It builds on proposals we passed in H.R. 5 and on proposals outlined by the President in his 2008 budget.

We believe the reasonable offsets in the final package meet our goal to ensure the continued participation by the lenders in the FFEL program as anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office. While a challenge, we believe this final package balances our commitment to minimizing the burden placed on lenders with our commitment to helping students.

As you can see, this conference agreement is a remarkable step forward in our efforts to help every qualified student go to college. This is a foundation we will continue to build on. As I mentioned at the conference meeting, I am committed to continuing these efforts when the House considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this year.

Given that we have addressed many of the concerns raised by the Administration, I received confirmation yesterday from Secretary Spellings that the President is expected to sign the final bill.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will follow the lead of the White House and the Senate--who overwhelmingly passed this legislation not too long ago--and vote in favor of this carefully crafted compromise.

Rather than stand between our nation's students and their ability to access much needed financial relief, I urge all members to vote in favor of the conference report on the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.

Today this body is voting to do what is right for students, our economy, and our nation's future. Together we are putting the American Dream back within reach of every family in this country.

Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who has worked very hard on this legislation. Thank you for that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is the subcommittee Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee and who has just been so instrumental in the success of this legislation.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I'm under very strict guidelines here from the leadership.

I'm not going to use my time, but I'm under very strict confines here with my leadership. I've asked members of my committee not to speak, so I can't be yielding time when I didn't give it to the members of my committee. I'm sorry. I don't want to be put in that position.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, Ruben Hinojosa, and all of the members of the conference committee for their valuable contributions to this legislation.

I would also like to thank Chairman Spratt, who spoke earlier, for providing the reconciliation process, and all of the work that their staff did to make sure that we complied with the reconciliation process and we complied with the PAYGO rules so that there would be no new costs to this legislation to provide these benefits to students and to their families. And I want to thank his staff, Tom Kahn and Sarah Abernathy and Lisa Venus.

I would also like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their help and their staffs' work with us to have a successful conference and a conference report on this act.

And I'd like to thank the Education and Labor Committee staff, Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Stephanie Moore, Denise Forte, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Rachel Racusen, Lisette Partelow, Lamont Ivey, Sarah Dyson, Ricardo Martinez and Moira Lenehan of Representative Hinojosa's staff.

This work could not have happened without the long hours put in by a very diligent, committed legislative counsel, and I want to thank Steve Cope and Molly Lothamer.

Given that we must balance our numbers, we appreciate the significance of work provided by the staff at the Congressional Budget Office, including Paul Cullinan, Debb Kalcevic and Justin Humphrey.

The Congressional Research Service has been particularly supportive of our efforts, in particular, Adam Stoll, Charmaine Mercer, David Smole, Becky Skinner and Jeff Kuenzi.

I want to thank all of these individuals, and certainly I want to thank the students who, for so many years have tried to get the Congress to respond to their needs and to the needs of their families if they have to borrow money to go to school, to go to school and to achieve a higher education, to achieve the education that that provides.

I certainly want to thank USPIRG and the United States Student Association and many others who worked so hard over these past years.

We remember just a year ago, just a year ago we were here in the reconciliation process when $11.9 billion was taken out of this very same account, but rather than to use it for the benefit of the students, that $11.9 billion went to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country.

We took $11.39 billion out of this same account and we gave that to the Pell Grant students, to the most needy students in this country who need it the most. That's the difference that an election makes. That's the difference that a year makes. That's the difference that a lot of hard work by the students across this country and their families have made as they've asked Members of Congress to address this issue.

This legislation, just earlier today, passed in the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 79-12.

It has now been stated that the President of the United States supports this legislation and will sign this legislation.

I would hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would understand the importance of this legislation, the value of this legislation to our students and to their families as we know so many of them struggle to put together the means by which they can pay for the college education of the students. One of the very great moments in a parent's life is when a student gets accepted into college, the students announce they want to go to college, and then you immediately start to think about how we are going to pay for this.

This legislation will make it a lot easier for a lot of parents and a lot of students who desperately need this help.

I ask all of my colleagues to support the conference report and let's join this bipartisan coalition and help America's families and students. I thank everybody for their cooperation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this conference report which is the product of both a flawed policy and a flawed process.

The conference report was made available to Republicans for the first time less than 24 hours before it reached the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, that was just the latest in a series of disappointments we have endured throughout the process. But perhaps my greatest disappointment is the sinking reality that this conference agreement could have done more to help low-income students gain access to college. Instead, I fear we have squandered a tremendous opportunity.

College Cost Reduction, the name of this act, really is not a part of this bill. It is a huge spending bill. There is one element of this conference report worthy of praise, and I would like to begin there.

This conference agreement will invest approximately $11 billion in Pell Grants, which I believe are the single most effective tool to help open the doors of higher education to low-income students.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the senior Republican of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness, deserves great credit for the Pell Grant increases that have been provided over the last several years. Mr. Keller is a champion for the Pell Grant program, having founded the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus to advocate for this critical program. The recipient of a Pell Grant himself, Mr. Keller has shined a spotlight on the importance of targeting the Federal investment in higher education to serve low-income students.

If I had been in the room when this agreement was reached, I would have preferred to invest even more in Pell Grants. In fact, I advocated a straightforward approach to reform that would have saved billions of dollars by making the student loan program more efficient and plowed those resources directly into Pell Grants. It is an approach that I continue to believe would have received strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Instead, the Democrats opted to jeopardize the stability of the Federal Financial Education Loan program by imposing excessive cuts, created an unnecessary complex and cumbersome auction scheme that will deny parents a choice of loan providers, imposed an impossible timeline for implementation that sets students up for confusion and program participants up for failure, and created massive new entitlement programs.

I harbor serious concerns about this conference report when it is simply taken at face value. Unfortunately, I fear that when we consider the long-term ramifications, these concerns grow much more serious.

First, the conference report creates new entitlement programs, but only provides short-term funding. Every single person in this room knows that once created, an entitlement will not die. That means in 5 years we will be forced to make additional cuts to fund these new entitlements.

Second, the conference report includes the misguided plan to temporarily reduce interest rates. What once was a campaign promise has become a trap that will ensnare either students or taxpayers, and possibly both. The plan would temporarily phase down interest rates over the next 4 years, and just as soon as the rate gets down to half the level it is today, as Democrats promised during the campaign, it will jump back to its current level. The choice then becomes whether we break the promise to students and allow the rates to rise or break the promise to taxpayers that this legislation is paid for and stick them with an additional 20 to $30 billion to pay for those cuts over the next 5 years.

The third consequence of this proposal, which I believe the majority has not considered, is the undue burden that will be caused by its hasty implementation. The conference report presumes that complex technological and service changes will be implemented in a matter of weeks. It seems almost inevitable that this unrealistic timeline will create chaos within these programs for students, program participants and the Department of Education.

And, finally, let me be perfectly clear. I have absolutely no confidence in the Department of Education's ability to implement the changes outlined in this conference report, particularly with the timeline it sets. It gives me no pleasure to point out this obvious fact, particularly in a Republican administration, but it's true, and sadly, we will all be watching this failure play out in the weeks, months and years ahead.

There's another issue that bears mentioning, and it's what this conference report unfortunately does not do. Despite its lofty name, this legislation does nothing at all to reduce the cost of college. It didn't have to be this way. In fact, the bill that passed the House contained provisions that I championed to make college cost increases more transparent to students and parents. These commonsense reforms were stripped away, leaving consumers with nothing.

The majority will tell you these college cost provisions were removed because they did not meet the stringent rules applied to a budget reconciliation package. That may well be true. If so, I consider it further proof that by abusing the reconciliation process we missed key opportunities to help students.

While this conference agreement is unmistakably a product of the Democratic Congress, I cannot help but express my disappointment in the administration for their role in this process. The fiscal year 2008 budget request proposed excessive cuts to the student loan programs, cuts that I believe may ultimately destabilize the largest source of Federal financial assistance. And when the bill left this House, the administration promised to veto the bill if some of these egregious measures were left in the bill. They are still there, and I now understand the President will sign the bill.

This conference agreement makes a significant investment in the Pell Grant Program. For that, I'm appreciative. I only wish it had done more. I wish that we could have seized upon the opportunity, worked together in a bipartisan fashion, and produced a conference report that lived up to its name.

Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the conference report we are considering and the process that was used to get here, and so I must oppose final passage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the committee, Mr. Souder.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, former chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a member of the committee, Mr. Bishop.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee ranking member on the higher education portion of the Education Committee.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Is there any way we could prevail upon the chairman to give us 1 or 2 of his 23\1/2\ minutes?

Just 2 minutes? Could we ask unanimous consent that we each get 2 extra minutes? I would love to hear you for 25.

Madam Speaker, I'm happy now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Madam Speaker, we've, I think, heard some very good things about this bill. I've been on this committee now for 15 years since I

came to Congress. I've had great concerns about people that are not able to go to college. We've seen statistics that show that 48 percent of young people from lower-income families are not able to attend college because of the cost of college. I have introduced legislation. I've done what I could to try to reduce the cost of college.

This bill is called the Cost Reduction Act. It does nothing to reduce the cost of college. It gives money to schools, which we haven't done in the past. We've given the money to individual students and let them pick the school that they've gone to. It does increase the money to Pell Grants, and I appreciate that.

During the time that I was Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee and the time that we've been in the majority, we've doubled the money going into Pell Grants, and we have a million and a half students, now, more that are receiving Pell Grants than before. And that's good.

But the thing about this bill that really bothers me, I guess, is the promise it holds out to students that they're never going to receive. It reminds me of a TV contest, game contest that I've seen in the past that showed three curtains or three doors, and you tried to pick the door that had the great prize. And my concern is that these students are going to start school with the idea that their interest is going to be cheaper 4 years, 5 years from now when they graduate, and they're going to find that it's not. There's a promise there that when they open that door they're going to find a huge tax burden. They're going to find huge loan burdens.

And what we should be working on in a cost reduction bill is something that actually addresses what we can do to lower the cost of a college education, not the loan interest. What we should really be trying to do is address the core problem, the cost. College cost has been going up four times faster than people's ability to pay for the last 20 years. We should be addressing that problem. We should oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference Report for H.R. 2669, the Education and Labor College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill. This important legislation does far more than ease the burden of student loans for college graduates--it will make the American dream possible for low- and middle-income students, helping families pay for college. I would like to thank Chairman Miller for introducing the legislation, as well as his steadfast commitment to this important issue. May I also thank Speaker Pelosi for her visionary leadership in leading America in a new direction. I am proud to be part of a Democratic majority that delivers on its promises to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in 21st century America, a college education is a critical investment toward individual success, as well as toward the strength of our nation. Higher education is associated with better health, greater wealth, and more vibrant civic participation, as well as national economic competitiveness in today's global environment. As the need for a college degree has grown, however, so has the cost of obtaining that education. The result is rising student debt. Students graduating often leave school with far more than knowledge and a degree; many face years of having their financial lives dictated by the burden of debt. Their choices of careers and jobs may be severely constrained by the necessity of repaying these loans.

This bill strengthens the middle class by making college more affordable: 6.8 million students who take out need-based federal student loans each year will see the interest rates on their loans halved over the next four years, saving the typical borrower (with $13,800 in need-based loan debt) $4,400 over the life of the loan, once fully implemented. With the recent sub-prime lending crisis and subsequent economic turmoil, the United States economy lost over 4,000 non-farm jobs in the month of August. More and more middle class students will be in need of assistance to turn their college dreams into a reality. This legislation makes student loan payments more manageable for borrowers by guaranteeing that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments. It also allows borrowers in economic hardship to have their loans forgiven after 25 years.

This Conference Report contains many important provisions that make significant strides toward making the dream of higher education a reality for more Americans than ever. It provides an increase in college aid by roughly $20 billion over the next five years, with no additional burden on American taxpayers. By cutting excessive federal subsidies to lenders, this legislation pays for itself.

This Conference Report contains a specific commitment to minority- serving institutions. It authorizes $510 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and the newly designated Predominantly Black Institutions. These funds will work to ensure that students will not only enter college, but remain and graduate. About 2.3 million students attend minority-serving institutions, including \1/3\ of all minority students who attend college.

This new investment is particularly critical for African-American students and their families. African-American students currently comprise about 12 percent of all undergraduate students. Many institutions have helped black students bridge ethnic-related economic barriers, making college education possible for underprivileged minorities. Among Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), which give African American students an opportunity to have an educational experience in a community in which they are a part of the majority, costs are also rising. This resolution would support many of these honorable institutions in their righteous deeds in educatIng our underprivileged students of color.

In addition, this bill encourages and rewards public service. Students who pursue careers as public school teachers will receive upfront tuition assistance of $4,000 per year, to a maximum of $16,000, providing aid to at least 21,500 undergraduate and graduate students. This is particularly important, given that 23 percent of public college and 38 percent of private college graduates have student loan debt that is unmanageable on the starting salary of a teacher. By providing the guarantee of assistance, this bill is an important step toward ensuring that there is a highly qualified teacher in each of America's classrooms.

Similarly, public servants will receive complete loan forgiveness after ten years of service. This will assist our driven young people who want to serve their country in the military, law enforcement, or as first responders, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, and early childhood educators. It ensures that dedicated Americans will not be precluded from serving their country because of a preponderance of debt.

Mr. Speaker, I also support the Conference Report for H.R. 2669 because it will increase the maximum Pell Grant award by $1090 over the next five years to $5,400. It will also increase eligibility by raising the income threshold, allowing more students from more families to automatically qualify for grants. The Federal Pell Grant Program prides itself on providing need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. These grants are particularly important for students of color, with 45 percent of African American and Hispanic students at four-year colleges depending on Pell grants, compared to 23 percent of all students. Approximately 4.5 million students currently depend on Pell Grants and ``over 70 percent of Pell Grant funds go to students from families with incomes of $20,000 a year or less.'' Increasing the maximum Pell Grant Award will expand racial and ethnic diversity in higher education institutions, benefiting not only the institutions, cultural background but it will also be a great learning experience for students to learn diverse cultural backgrounds different from their own.

In addition, the Conferene Report for H.R. 2669 cuts the interest rates on subsidized student loans in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over five years. Once fully implemented, this cut would save the typical borrower--with about $13,800 in need-based loan debt-- $4,400 over the life of the loan. By cutting interest rates on federal loans, Congress can

save college graduates thousands of dollars over the life of their loans. Mr. Speaker, recent graduates, especially those of minority status with low to moderate incomes, must spend the vast majority of their salaries on necessities such as rent, health care, and food. For borrowers struggling to cover basic costs, student loan repayment can create a significant and measurable impact on their lives.

Crushing student debt also has societal consequences, according to a report by two highly respected economists, Drs. Saul Schwarz and Sandy Baum. The prospect of burdensome debt likely deters skilled and dedicated college graduates from entering and staying in important careers such as educating our nation's children and helping the country's most vulnerable populations.

To solve this problem and ensure that higher education remains within reach for all Americans, we need to increase need-based grant aid; make loan repayment fair and affordable; protect borrowers from usurious lending practices; and provide incentives for state governments and colleges to control tuition costs. H.R. 2669 is an important step in a new and right direction for America.

Last November, House Democrats promised a New Direction for America. This bill, the single largest investment to higher education, comes at no additional cost to American taxpayers, but brings extraordinary benefits for our nation. I am proud to be part of a Democratic majority that delivers on its promises to the American people.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of adoption of the Conference Report for H.R. 2669, the Education and Labor College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2107 fulfills my commitment to my constituents to continue the effort to create a Chief Financial Officer for the Territory. This is the third time that this legislation has been on the floor of the House. However, the other body failed to act on it in the previous two Congresses.

When I first introduced the idea of a CFO for the Virgin Islands in 2005, I did so in response to the concerns, complaints and distrust of government voiced by my constituents and as a measure to prevent the territory, which was experiencing a serious financial crisis, from falling into the abyss of fiscal insolvency. I believed then, as I do now, that having such an office in our government, free of political pressures and with the statutory responsibility and authority to certify revenue projections and prevent deficit spending, could assist our government to establish sound financial practices which would put the Islands on the path to improved financial management going forward. Because of our long history of poor financial management and practices, an office such as this would also help to immediately restore the confidence of the Federal Government and others in our ability to be fiscally transparent and accountable.

As I have said on this floor and in many other settings, in drafting H.R. 2017, I looked at the example and record of what having such a position has meant to the financial management and fiscal health of the District of Columbia.

After having decades of fiscal mismanagement and protracted deficits, the District today enjoys annual balanced budgets and surpluses under the stewardship of a Chief Financial Officer; an office that was voluntarily retained by the city after the mandated office went away with the end of their Financial Control Board. Both the general public and elected leadership of the District recognize the benefits of having an impartial arbiter, free from the pressures of politics, managing their finances--something I strongly believe my community can benefit from as well.

When I first introduced this bill the territory's long-term debt totaled $1 billion. Fiscal crises have been narrowly averted through repeated borrowing. Such borrowing and debt creation has led to the $3 billion debt reported by Governor De Jongh in April of this year--a practice he has already stated he will not continue.

There are those, Madam Speaker, who will ask why I am doing this at this time, particularly because the islands just seven months ago, inaugurated a new governor whose background is in financial management and who has been a good friend and political ally. I want to be perfectly clear that I have every confidence in Governor John de Jongh and his administration and believe that they will do a first rate job of managing the territory's finances. He has already begun to do so.

I am re-introducing this bill because my constituents continue to see it as a necessary measure, and because, like the CFO in Washington, DC, it can assist our governor in his stated goal of paying our obligations and bringing the territory's finances into balance. It would also be a way to provide apolitical and indisputable information on the financial state of our government, as well as bridge any divisions between the administration and the legislature in the interests of expediting a positive and sustainable agenda for the people of the Virgin Islands.

As also happens up here, there is often disagreement between the governor (and his financial team) and the legislature as to the precise fiscal condition of the territory and the true revenue projections for the coming fiscal year. A CFO, in my view, would take the uncertainty out of this equation and allow our legislature and governor to work better together because they would both get their numbers from the same independent source. Additionally, the departments of government, semi- autonomous agencies and labor unions would be better able to plan, and the people of the Virgin Islands in general would have information on how the millions of Federal dollars coming to the Virgin Islands are being spent.

The bill as being passed today contains certain changes. I have revised it with respect to providing a financial management system because such a system is already in the process of being implemented. In recognition of and in deference to the upcoming constitution to be drafted by the people of the Virgin Islands, the bill before us calls for the term of the Chief Financial Officer to expire at the implementation of a ratified Virgin Islands Constitution or in five years, whichever comes first.

All four previous Constitutional documents have contained a provision similar to what is proposed in this legislation, and it is my hope that our Fifth Constitutional Convention will present a document for the ratification of the people of the Virgin Islands that will make this legislation unnecessary. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia, Nick Rahall, without whose support this bill would not be on the floor today. I also want to thank my friend Ranking Member Don Young for his support as well.

Madam Speaker, it has been said that ``heavy is the burden that one who is called to lead bears''. Pursuing enactment of this bill has not been an easy burden to bear but an important one; which I am proud to bear. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 2107.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2107 fulfills my commitment to my constituents to continue the effort to create a Chief Financial Officer for the Territory. This is the third time that this legislation has been on the floor of the House. However, the other body failed to act on it in the previous two Congresses.

When I first introduced the idea of a CFO for the Virgin Islands in 2005, I did so in response to the concerns, complaints and distrust of government voiced by my constituents and as a measure to prevent the territory, which was experiencing a serious financial crisis, from falling into the abyss of fiscal insolvency. I believed then, as I do now, that having such an office in our government, free of political pressures and with the statutory responsibility and authority to certify revenue projections and prevent deficit spending, could assist our government to establish sound financial practices which would put the Islands on the path to improved financial management going forward. Because of our long history of poor financial management and practices, an office such as this would also help to immediately restore the confidence of the Federal Government and others in our ability to be fiscally transparent and accountable.

As I have said on this floor and in many other settings, in drafting H.R. 2017 I looked at the example and record of what having such a position has meant to the financial management and fiscal health of the District of Columbia.

After having decades of fiscal mismanagement and protracted deficits, the District today enjoys annual balanced budgets and surpluses under the stewardship of a Chief Financial Officer; an office that was voluntarily retained by the city after the mandated office went away with the end of their Financial Control Board. Both the general public and elected

leadership of the District recognize the benefits of having an impartial arbiter, free from the pressures of politics, managing their finances--something I strongly believe my community can benefit from as well.

When I first introduced this bill the territory's long-term debt totaled $1 billion. Fiscal crises have been narrowly averted through repeated borrowing. Such borrowing and debt creation has led to the $3 billion debt reported by Governor De Jongh in April of this year--a practice he has already stated he will not continue.

There are those, Mr. Speaker, who will ask why I am doing this at this time, particularly because the islands just 7 months ago, inaugurated a new governor whose background is in financial management and who has been a good friend and political ally. I want to be perfectly clear that I have every confidence in Governor John de Jongh and his administration and believe that they will do a first rate job of managing the territory's finances. He has already begun to do so.

I am re-introducing this bill because my constituents continue to see it as a necessary measure, and because, like the CFO in Washington, DC, it can assist our governor in his stated goal of paying our obligations and bringing the territory's finances into balance. It would also be a way to provide apolitical and indisputable information on the financial state of our government, as well as bridge any divisions between the administration and the legislature in the interests of expediting a positive and sustainable agenda for the people of the Virgin Islands.

As also happens up here, there is often disagreement between the Governor (and his financial team) and the Legislature as to the precise fiscal condition of the territory and the true revenue projections for the coming fiscal year. A CFO, in my view, would take the uncertainty out of this equation and allow our legislature and governor to work better together because they would both get their numbers from the same independent source. Additionally, the departments of government, semi- autonomous agencies and labor unions would be better able to plan, and the people of the Virgin Islands in general would have information on how the millions of federal dollars coming to the Virgin Islands are being spent.

The bill as being passed today contains certain changes. I have revised it with respect to providing a financial management system because such a system is already in the process of being implemented.

In recognition of and in deference to the upcoming constitution to be drafted by the people of the Virgin Islands, the bill before us calls for the term of the Chief Financial Officer to expire at the implementation of a ratified Virgin Islands Constitution or in 5 years, whichever comes first.

All four previous Constitutional documents have contained a provision similar to what is proposed in this legislation, and it is my hope that our Fifth Constitutional Convention will present a document for the ratification of the people of the Virgin Islands that will make this legislation unnecessary.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia, Nick Rahall, without whose support this bill would not be on the floor today. I also want to thank my friend Ranking Member Don Young for his support as well.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that ``heavy is the burden that one who is called to lead bears''. Pursuing enactment of this bill has not been an easy burden to bear but is an important one, which I am proud to bear. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 2107.