Food Assistance to Improve Reintegration Act of 2009

Madam Chair, I stand here today to express my support for H.R. 3221, The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. With an emphasis on improving access to financial support for higher education, increasing educational opportunities and preparing students for 21st century jobs by providing the resources they need to compete, H.R. 3221 ensures that we will be able to effectively rise up out of the ashes of what has been categorized as the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The national economic crisis has begun to infiltrate every corner of this country, and my home state of Texas is no exception.

In the midst of this very difficult economic climate, there has never been a more important and relevant time for the passage of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which provides access to affordable quality education opportunities. In accordance with President Obama's statement that the best investment in our economic future is an investment in our children's education, this important legislation helps to make college and post secondary education more affordable, and subsequently takes the necessary steps to invest in our country's economic future, all at no new cost to taxpayers.

By making college more affordable, H.R. 3221 will enable more American students to not only matriculate on to higher education, but it will enable them to have the financial capability to graduate. This legislation provides all federal student loan borrowers with upgraded and modernized customer service, by providing them access to a public- private partnership that will serve as a resource for loan support. H.R. 3221 prepares students and graduates for 21st century jobs by providing Americans with the requisite skills and cutting edge resources they need to compete in today's job market.

Early Education

This vital legislation ensures that the next generation of students enters kindergarten with the skills they need to succeed in school, by reforming state standards and practices for birth-to-five early learning programs. This will have an immediate and direct impact on low income children entering kindergarten with the school readiness skills needed to succeed at this critical stage in learning development.

It is important to note that H.R. 3221 creates an Early Learning Challenge Fund, which would award competitive grants to states that implement overall standards-based reform, thereby incentivizing each state to transform their early education standards and practices, to build an effective early childhood workforce, and improve the school readiness outcomes of young children from every demographic and every socio-economic background.

Direct Loan Program

H.R. 3221 provides reliable, affordable high-quality Federal student loans for all families. By strengthening the Pell Grant System, and by converting all new federal student lending funds to the stable, effective and cost-efficient Direct Loan program, the proper lending infrastructure to ensure a solid lending program removed from the fluctuations of the economy will be in place. Beginning in July 2010, new federal student loans will be originated through the Direct Loan program, rather than through lenders who are subsidized by taxpayers in the federally-guaranteed student loan program. One of the major benefits of the Direct Loan program is that unlike lender-based programs, the Direct Loan program is insulated from market swings, will enable students to have access to low-cost federal college loans irrespective of the current state of the economy.

Fiscal Responsibility and Financial Literacy

My concern for the importance of instilling a sense of fiscal responsibility in our youth runs deep. Recent studies have indicated that young people do not even know basic financial topics such as the impact of student loans on one's credit, how to balance a checkbook, and the impact of automobile loans on one's credit. Because of my concern that young people are not sufficiently informed about financial literacy, this year I introduced H.R. 1325, to require financial literacy counseling for borrowers, and for other purposes. H.R. 1325 is relevant in the discussion of financial aid and fiscal responsibility, because approximately two-thirds of students borrow to pay for college according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Moreover, one in ten of student borrowers have loans more than $35,000. This legislation was designed to ensure that our nation's college students will be more prepared when incurring student loan debt and help them to avoid default as student loans severely impact one's credit score.

Currently there is about $60 billion in defaulted student loan debt. Many students do not understand the reality of repaying student debt while taking out these loans. While most Americans have debt of some kind, student loan repayment is especially scary, as one cannot just declare bankruptcy and have their loans discharged. Due to the lack of financial literacy counseling for borrowers, student loan payments are often higher than expected. Recent graduates are unable to afford the monthly payments resulting in them living paycheck to paycheck, acquiring credit card debt and in extreme cases, grads leaving the country in order to avoid repayment and debt collectors.

Students and parents are not currently receiving the proper or any information of the burden that their student loans will have once they graduate. This is possibly a result of the relationship between student loan companies and universities, as some lenders offer universities incentives to steer borrowers their way.

College campuses are one place that young Americans are introduced to credit and the possibility of living beyond their means. With proper loan and credit counseling the burden of debt incurred in college could be greatly reduced. Especially in this time of recession, financial literacy is one of the most important tools that we can give to our students in order to ensure their success in the future.

My resolution was crafted to provide financial literacy training to students taking out Federal Student Loans and will require a minimum of 4 hours of counseling including entrance and exit counseling. Counseling will include the fundamentals of basic checking and savings accounts, budgeting, types of credit and their appropriate uses, the different forms of student financial aid, repayment options, credit scores and ratings, as well as investing.

increasing funding for education

Madam Chair, I also would like to address the relevance of this measure to our nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and minority serving institutions, and to thank Chairman Miller, other members of the Committee and the staff for taking bold and necessary steps to ensure the long-term and robust engagement of these institutions for many years to come. I have always been a proponent of increasing educational opportunities for students of every level, from every socioeconomic background throughout our nation will yield the greatest return on our investment. Providing access to educational opportunities is critical to the nation's long term prosperity. Most recently I advocated on behalf of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, H.R. 329, which sought to make the necessary investments to provide children with a 21st century education, will provide the resources to modernize our schools and colleges, and will provide funding to make college more affordable.

Just as I supported past legislation like H.R. 3081, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which placed a premium on providing funding for and lending institutional support to our Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act invests $2.55 billion in HBCUs and Minority-Serving Institutions to provide students with the support they need to stay in school and graduate.

HBCUs and PBIs as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) as the following: A historically Black college or university is an institution of higher education established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of Black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation. Historically Black colleges or universities also include any branch campus of a southern institution of higher education that prior to September 30, 1986, received a grant as an institution with special needs under HEA Section 321 and was formally recognized by the National Center for Education Statistics as a Historically Black College or University.

Predominantly Black Institutions are defined in HEA Section 318. These institutions meet basic eligibility under Title III, Section 312(b) and serve at least 40 percent Black American students. Basic eligibility under Title III, Section 312(b) of the HEA is met by institutions that:

have low educational and general expenditures (E&G) or seek a waiver by submitting evidence that is both persuasive and compelling to have this requirement waived;

have a requisite enrollment of needy students;

are legally authorized within their respective state to award bachelors degrees or are a community college; and

are accredited by a nationally or state recognized accrediting agency.

An institution is considered to have met the enrollment of needy students criterion if (1) at least 50 percent of its degree-seeking students receive financial assistance under one or more of the following programs: Federal Pell Grant Program, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Work-Study Program and/ or the Federal Perkins Loan Program or (2) the percentage of its undergraduate degree-seeking students who were enrolled at least half- time and received a Federal Pell Grant met or exceeded the average for similar institutions.

We must invest in our nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority Serving Institutions. A digital disparity between HBCU campuses and their counterparts currently exists. There is a significant need among HBCUs to update technological equipment and to develop advanced and cutting edge educational and technological opportunities for students. In the face of the adversity that outdated technology poses, HBCUs continue to generate thousands of African-American graduates who are prepared to compete in and contribute to our global economy. HBCUs represent nine of the top ten colleges that graduate the most African-Americans who go on to earn Ph.D.s. HBCUs and PBIs continue to provide opportunity and advancement to African-American students, and therefore are worthy of federal support.

Accordingly, my past legislative efforts have supported efforts to provide $653 million to strengthen the capacity of HBCUs and PBIs, Hispanic-serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities and Native American-serving Institutions, Asian Pacific Islander, and Native American Institutions. In the state of Texas, we have Tribal, Hispanic and African American populations that will benefit greatly from provisions that provide mandatory funding for the next 10 years. As the nation meets the demands associated with global competitiveness and changing demographics, resources provided in this measure very much are need to ensure our nation's long-term viability. The $85 million designated annually for HBCUs is particularly noteworthy, and will contribute greatly to helping these historic institutions in equipping students with the skills and exposure needed to drive globally relevant innovations and nationally relevant achievement.

Additionally, the measure provides unprecedented increases in student aid--particularly for the Pell Grant and Perkins Loan programs. Most notably, by ensuring that all new federal student loans will be processed through the Direct Student Loan program, the bill is expected to generate $87 billion in savings over the next ten years. These savings will be reinvested in other worthy projects benefiting community colleges and expanding the number of students who enroll and graduate from college.

As a Representative from the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I know firsthand that this will enable HBCUs like Texas Southern University in my district and Prairie View A&M University just outside of my district to thrive.

My past support of bills such as H.R. 3293 have advocated on behalf of an investment of $15.9 billion for Title I Education for the Disadvantaged Children Account, which will provide much needed support to underprivileged children in Grades K through 12, and will give hope to the low income families in my district in Houston, that their children will receive quality education. There is no greater investment in our country than an investment in our children's opportunity to obtain a quality education. I urge my colleagues today to pass this critical piece of legislation, as our nation's long-term prosperity hangs in the balance. Madam Chair, I support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the distinguished chairman and I thank him for his stellar leadership and an overwhelming change in the way we think about education.

I rise to oppose the present amendment, but support the underlying bill. This is a response to the competitiveness of the world. Each and every district that is represented here in this body, rural and urban, large and small, clamors for more education, particularly secondary education, higher education.

In my own district alone, as it relates to Pell Grants, 23,084 students will be impacted, with as much as $110 million in new Pell dollars that will help not only the Nation's colleges but, in my instance, the 18th Congressional District.

I happen to have a district that has any number of colleges, both private and public, large and small, research and nonresearch, students coming from all economic backgrounds, and I can assure you the importance of Pell Grants is without comparison.

Then I also represent an area that was hit by Hurricane Ike 1 year to the date last week, still suffering from the lack of infrastructure, schools that have been destroyed. And the $359 million that will come in construction dollars to Texas, K-12, is going to be a remarkable change for the people of Galveston or the people on the gulf who are impacted by this devastating hurricane.

In addition, I think it's important to note a full $87 billion in savings. Competition in place. Anyone who wants to provide a student loan--private bank, State bank--can provide it. But we are providing for the hardworking, taxpaying families additional dollars and a fair, even playing field. That's something to celebrate.

We're investing $3 billion to bolster college access and completion support. Crucial issues. I happen to have a very large community college system. I'm gratified that language is in here specifically to enhance community college.

Our community college system is growing with 60,000 students-plus. This is the first step. Go to a community college, be you someone who is working, someone who is raising children, someone who is going back to school, a military person who is retired or has just gotten out of the service, working with the GI Bill--you now have an opportunity to be able to go to a college that has reinforced dollars.

This is a bill that cuts at America's competitiveness. The world is getting smaller. People know science and math. They are looking to be inventive. And that means in order to create an economic engine for this country, we have got to educate our population.

People are clamoring for education. As I indicated, all walks of life, retirees, people who are changing jobs, people who have been laid off and fired. This is a new step.

So let me just say I want to applaud what we are doing here today, not because Members are doing it, but because we're changing lives. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 30 seconds. I appreciate that the gentleman wants to make this comparison between a public option and the private sector. Let's run down what happened over the last 10 years.

The private sector took $100 billion in subsidies, and as they became the most profitable sector of the American economy, they couldn't give back any of those subsidies. While they were getting the $100 billion in subsidies, they were engaged in price-fixing, anti-competitive practices, briberies, conflicts of interest, improper disclosure. And, at the end of that, they needed a bailout.

Sound familiar? Want to invest again?

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Or, you can look at the public option here. The public option offered a product of equal value, very low cost, easy to administer, attractive to the people who used it. Major universities have used it for years with any problems, very complimentary about it, and it is in fact saving the loan industry at this very time because the private system has collapsed.

I yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) who has put an awful lot of work into the early childhood education section of this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), the newest member of our committee.

I just want 10 seconds to say that I'm glad the gentleman mentioned the California EdFund. The EdFund supports this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), who was very involved in writing this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

If the gentleman would yield, yes, I do agree with the intent of that language.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a vigorous member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I recognize that the Bank of North Dakota is an important institution in North Dakota and is different from any other lending institution in the country.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, I will work with you, as this legislation moves to conference, to ensure that State banks have a continued role in the Federal student lending program.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Speaker.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

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

Madam Chair, I believe that many of those facts just cited are in dispute but I just want to say this: We got off to a rather fast start this afternoon, and I want to take a moment just to thank all of the members of the committee who worked so hard on this legislation, and I want to thank the Rules Committee for making the rule in order.

I want to thank the minority. I know they don't agree with this legislation, but I appreciate the work that they have done with us on facilitating the markup of this legislation and bringing it to the floor. I just wanted to acknowledge that. We kind of just got right into the bill.

But I wanted to say that on behalf of all of the staffs that have worked together. Again, they don't agree on the outcome or the bill in this fashion, but we still have to work together to meet our obligations as a committee to this House, and I wanted to take time to thank everybody.

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

I have a manager's amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the distinguished Caucus Chair.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, just to quickly run through the manager's amendment, in addition to the technical changes, my amendment would also refine provisions regarding grants authorized under title I of the bill. It ensures that services for veterans are coordinated with those existing under current law, and it provides educational financial assistance for children of public safety officers and other first responders killed in the line of duty. It creates a program to promote teacher excellence, and it requires the Secretary to consider a State's financial commitment to early learning when evaluating certain grant renewals and specifies that Tribal Colleges and Universities are eligible to receive American Graduation Initiative grants.

I would urge all the Members to support the manager's amendment.

I would also like to draw attention to one part of this legislation, and that is really the unprecedented $10 billion investment to make community colleges part of our economy's recovery.

For years, business leaders have told us that there weren't enough workers with the knowledge and the expertise for their specific industries. Community colleges do and can play an even more significant role in addressing this shortage. This bill will help us build a 21st century workforce by strengthening partnerships among community colleges, businesses, and job training programs that will align community college curricula with the needs of high-wage, high-demand industries.

It will help provide community colleges with the tools to replicate programs that are successfully educating and training students and workers for these skilled jobs. And it will fulfill an important priority for the business community, which has continually understood the value community colleges have in training highly skilled workers and meeting local employment needs as economies change and move from one kind of economy to another. That's why this historic initiative has strong support from the business community, including the Business Roundtable.

The Business Roundtable recently wrote to me and to the members of the committee, ``On behalf of the Business Roundtable, I want to commend you for inclusion of the Community College Initiative in H.R. 3221. This Community College Initiative and the President's American Graduation Initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions where acquiring skills for new jobs and new careers will take place . . . That is why the Community College Initiative is so important. For community colleges to reach their potential and become more effective, they need to increase graduation rates, adopt innovations to help them better serve their customers, and develop partnerships and closer cooperation with the private sector.''

For that reason, they support that provision of the bill, and I'm delighted we worked long and hard on both sides of this committee with the business community to try to develop a program to strengthen our community colleges.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

What this amendment would do, while the author has talked about a lot of other things he doesn't like in the bill, this amendment would strike the school construction money that is in this legislation for elementary, secondary, and for the community colleges. I think this is a very important part of this legislation. Many, many Members have supported the efforts that we have had before to try to have the Federal Government help local communities address school construction needs.

When we see now that the community colleges are under tremendous pressure because of the economic dislocation from the recession that has taken place and continues to take place in so many communities and so many families, as people are going back to the schools, we recognize the shortage of facilities that are there and what we are saying is this time we will lend a hand to those community colleges and to those K-12, elementary and secondary school districts so that they can modernize their school facilities and make the investments that will save them money.

As we see reports of schools making investments in solar and insulation and energy-efficient buildings, what we see is a dramatic drop in the ongoing operating costs of those schools in terms of the utility bills that are really quite dramatic. We ought to do what we can to facilitate. We have the opportunity with this legislation to help facilitate local school districts meeting that demand.

This also comes at an important time for these local school districts because, as you know, they are under siege from the loss of revenues in many local districts because of the economic downturn. In some cases they have had to postpone these projects even though they are desperately needed. They have had to postpone these modernizations that are desperately needed. And we know the fact that when children have the availability of a clean, well-lit place, modern facilities, they in fact do better in school. It is a statement of values and also a statement about their community and their children. I would hope we would vote against this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

We should not punish local school districts or schoolchildren because a Republican President, George Bush, broke his promise to this country, to families, and to students and teachers when he failed to deliver on his promise of 77 billion additional dollars that school districts had to make up while living under No Child Left Behind. Let's not punish our kids today because a President could not keep his promise.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of his amendment. I think he makes a very important point in terms of the priority that we have to give to those areas that have really received very harsh treatment in this economic dislocation.

We know and we believe and the President has made it clear that community colleges are one of the engines to change those outcomes and to reinvigorate those local economies.

So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for offering it.

I yield myself 1 minute.

This is really sort of a redo of where we were with the previous amendment to strike the construction funds that would be available--in this case, the K-12. The gentlewoman's amendment, as it's drafted, would, if they receive those funds under the Recovery Act, of which one of the allowable costs originally started out with the line item for construction, it became an allowable cost--if they received any of those funds, they would be ineligible to receive these construction funds.

The fact of the matter is the record is starting to develop that very few if any of the school districts were able to use those funds for construction because of the fact of the cuts that took place in almost every State across the country where those funds have been used to try to mitigate the firing of teachers, to continue to try to develop a reasonable class size, and all of the other costs that were going as local school districts were really very hard hit in this economic recovery from the downturn in local revenues, in State revenues. And that's why this amendment is necessary.

The opposition to this amendment is important so that these school districts can receive these funds to build clean, modern, and energy- efficient facilities.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

It's a very clever amendment. What it says is, if you got money from the stimulus package, you cannot get money for school construction. Mind you, the money in the stimulus package did not provide for school construction. It provided it as an allowable expense. But whether you used it or didn't, under this legislation you wouldn't get it because it was an allowable expense under that legislation.

The fact of the matter is that we have far too many children in this country and every region of this country going to antiquated, outdated, unsafe schools. And the backlog for school modernization, for energy modernization, for trying to clean schools up and repair them and renovate them is as long as the road from here to the West Coast.

And the fact of the matter is that this government has the ability to help those schools to do that. So that those children that you're worried about learning, we know that they learn better if they're in a clean, well lit, warm place to learn, as opposed to a place where the rain is coming through, the lavatories don't work, the windows are broken. That sounds like that's extreme. No, that's the case in far too many schools all across this country in all different settings.

We should reject this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I know how hard she has worked on this problem and the impact that a BRAC closure can bring to all of our communities. Many of us have experienced that in the past and even again currently. I want to thank her for this amendment, and I would hope that we would accept it. We plan to accept the amendment on this side, and apparently the Republicans will accept it on their side. Thank you so much for offering this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this amendment should be overwhelmingly rejected. Not only does it destroy the Obama administration's initiative on community colleges, but it destroys what almost every Member knows, that as much as the community colleges are doing today, as many students as they help, they're being asked to do even more. And the fact of the matter is we need them to do more, and we need them to do a better job.

We still have too many students who are starting community colleges but are not successfully completing it, either with a certificate for a career or an AA degree or transition to a 4-year school, whatever path they take. We have got to strengthen those pathways that those students take. We have got to strengthen the ability of the community colleges to make sure that they can provide that kind of opportunity. They are becoming the catalyst for economic innovation, economic change, economic revitalization and flexibility in all of our communities.

And what the Obama administration is suggesting with this initiative is that we should help them do that because we're vitally in need of their success so that people can change the careers as we move from one economy to another. As energy becomes modern and innovative and new, we need a different type of energy worker.

We must defeat this Foxx amendment. We must stick by this initiative and support the community colleges.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3221, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Government takeover. We have seen and heard a lot of those two words lately--in the credit markets, the banking sector, the automotive industry, and even the building of schools. Then there's health care-- an industry that assumes one-sixth of America's gross domestic product. We're not talking about health care today, but perhaps we should be.

The vote we will take on student lending is a culmination of a plan set in motion more than a decade and a half ago--and one that bears an eerily strong resemblance to the health care debate that rages on today.

In 1993, Congress created a so-called government option for college loans. The idea of this Direct Loan Program was to introduce competition and hold down costs. Sound familiar? Just 16 years later, we're about to vote on a plan that would completely and permanently eliminate the private sector's role in originating and raising capital for Federal student loans. In its place will be a one-size-fits-all Federal loan model that requires the U.S. Treasury to directly lend tens of billions of dollars each year--tens of billions of dollars we don't have, and will be forced to borrow.

So why is Congress intervening to declare one program the winner? If it's truly about competition, the best program ought to win in the marketplace. In fact, one program has won--the public-private partnership of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which is the choice of three-quarters of colleges and universities today.

By eliminating the FFEL program, we will lose the choice, the competition, and innovation of the private sector. That includes everything from technological innovations to loan discounts and borrower services. We will also lose jobs--an estimated 30,000 or more in congressional districts from coast to coast.

And what are we getting in return? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tout this legislation as being fiscally responsible. Respectfully, I beg to differ.

The bill is awash with new entitlement programs, including a new early childhood program to develop and fund programs at the State level; a new program to build and renovate schools;

and a new program to bolster community colleges and involve the Federal Government in developing online curriculum.

Add to these new programs the cost of expanding Pell Grants, funding for Minority Serving Institutions and the Perkins Loan Program, and we have on our hands a massive entitlement spending spree. This spending is allegedly paid for by $87 billion in so-called savings from elimination of the FFEL program. Unfortunately, the numbers just don't add up.

CBO tells us the bill will require $13.5 billion in new discretionary spending--real money that simply isn't counted in the mandatory score. CBO also tells us that, using current figures, the Pell Grant expansion will cost $11.4 billion more than scorekeepers originally predicted-- again, a cost not counted for in the ``official'' score. That means this bill will cost closer to $15 billion over the next 10 years--and when market risk is factored in, the cost spikes to nearly $50 billion more.

Madam Chair, there's a better way. Later in the debate, I will join the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie, in offering an amendment to stabilize student lending by extending programs approved on a bipartisan basis last year.

With this plan, we can put $13 billion towards deficit reduction and, most importantly, we can convene a nonpartisan commission to study long-term structural changes to our student lending systems. In short, it's a thoughtful, reasonable approach to determine what's best for students, schools, and taxpayers alike.

I urge my colleagues to slow down, take a breath, and ask yourself whether another government takeover is what we need right now. I think the answer is a clear ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chair, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Chair, could I inquire how much time is remaining, please?

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chair, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, may I inquire again as to the time remaining.

Madam Chair, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from East Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will continue to reserve.

Madam Chair, can I inquire of the Chair the remaining time?

Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

It is clear, Madam Chair, that there is some dispute over what this does to the deficit. But I would argue that looking at the latest information from, as my friend from New Jersey says, the fair, nonpartisan arbiter of the facts, the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation will add to the deficit somewhere between $15 billion and $50 billion, subject to debate.

What is absolutely clear is that forcing the public option is a government takeover. It does grow a government with more new programs, and it does force job losses. I think that's indisputable.

Madam Chair, this is bad policy, it's a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I have got to admit that this manager's amendment does make some helpful changes, and I appreciate that. However, it fails to address the fundamental flaws with the underlying bill, and for that reason I must oppose it.

I do appreciate Chairman Miller's willingness to incorporate some modest bipartisan changes. For example, Mr. Platts' amendment to assist the children of fallen public safety officers.

And despite these improvements, the bill still imposes a heavy cost on Americans today and in the future. It will cost students and schools the benefits of choice, competition and innovation. It will cost our workforce tens of thousands of jobs, including over 600 jobs in my home State of Minnesota and over 1,000 jobs in Chairman Miller's home State of California.

It could cost taxpayers billions of dollars and increased deficit spending.

So, despite the important improvements that the manager's amendment makes, I am still unable to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Miller for the improvements that his manager's amendment has made to the bill.

As I stated earlier, the fundamental flaws with this legislation still remain, even though there are parts, which as he correctly stated, that some members of the community certainly support, some members of the business community. Many of us support, for example, Mr. Platts' amendment to assist the children of fallen public safety officers, and I'm glad those are included in the manager's amendment. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying bill is still flawed public policy.

We have heard again and again from speakers tonight that this is going to put money back into the Treasury and reduce the deficit, and yet we have provided information from the Congressional Budget Office that shows that's not the case. This is going to increase the deficit; it's going to increase the debt.

I was staggered the other day, Madam Chair, to look and see that we are now projecting, with the latest numbers from the White House, that within the next 10 years, the national debt will have grown to $21 trillion. And this bill, the underlying bill, adds new programs, programs that will be chronically underfunded, will nevertheless compete for money, will grow that deficit spending. So while I appreciate the improvements that the manager's amendment has made, I still must oppose this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take a moment, reflecting on the debate that we just had with Mr. Hoekstra's amendment, because it strikes to the underlying bill. And that's the problem here: Not this amendment--the underlying bill.

The chairman of the committee, the distinguished chairman, pointed out that there was a broken promise. And I'm sad to say it was entirely predictable that President Bush would be blamed for breaking a promise. But I would point out that we have had Presidents going back for years and Congresses going back for years and this Congress today that is failing to live up to a promise made many years ago, and that's to provide its share, its full funding of special education under IDEA.

And so whether we're talking about green, high-performing schools as a new program or many of the new programs introduced in this legislation, it seems to me we ought to fulfill that promise first rather than starting new programs which will be chronically underfunded and will be competing for that essential funding under IDEA.

So, again, the problem here is not this amendment. I'm going to support this amendment. It's the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In addition to making landmark investments in higher education and student financial aid, H.R. 3221 provides over $4 billion in funding for K-12 public schools. This funding is critical to ensure that students grow up and learn in healthy, safe environments that maximize their chances to receive a quality education and graduate from high school. This is particularly challenging for areas that are facing extraordinary economic hardship. Public schools in these areas need additional attention and support to make sure these students have every opportunity to succeed.

H.R. 3221 currently sets aside $200 million in reserve funding for K- 12 schools that are located in areas suffering from a natural disaster or severe economic distress. However, it does not recognize areas affected by the closure of a military base due to Base Realignment and Closure, the BRAC process, as eligible for this emergency educational funding. A base closure, such as the closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station in my district, is a devastating event in a community. Schools in these communities need special attention, because unlike areas hit by economic recession, the closure of a base means the overnight disruption of the local economy. With a dramatic loss of taxpayers and Federal Impact Aid funding, which disappears 1 year after the students leave, BRAC communities are left without a dependable source of funding for critical school repairs.

In Brunswick, Maine, in my district, the closure of the once vibrant Brunswick Naval Air Station will result in an estimated 7,000 total jobs lost, a reduction in 10 percent of the public school population, and millions of dollars in lost economic activity, including $1 million in school funding that will be lost.

And my district is not alone. The closure of the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas, will result in over 7,000 military and civilian jobs lost from that area. In fact, the 2005 BRAC resulted in the closure of major Army, Navy and Air Force bases in States across the country, including Maine, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas. Mr. Chair, schools in communities affected by these closures would all be eligible to benefit from much-needed funding under this amendment. We need to help communities like Brunswick recover from the loss of a military base, and we need to give them the resources they need to maintain a high-quality school system.

These investments in education are critical to putting these communities on a path to economic growth and redevelopment. The need for emergency educational funding in areas affected by the base closures is clear. My amendment helps public schools in BRAC communities recover from the devastating impact of losing hundreds of students and millions of dollars in taxpayer support.

I urge you to support the schools, teachers and students in BRAC communities by voting ``yes'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Thank you for your thoughts. I just want to, once again, urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the schools and the teachers in those communities that are affected by the BRAC.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

H.R. 3221 makes a remarkable investment in higher education at a time when our country needs it the most. But during these tough economic times, students need to be able to access an affordable education.

In my home State of Maine, we have one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country but one of the lowest rates for entry into college. Far too often, qualified, hardworking students in my State don't go to college because their families just can't afford it.

President Obama set a goal that by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. Investment in our community colleges is essential to achieving this goal in Maine and across the country. Community colleges are a critical resource for new and returning students who want to further their education and enhance their job skills. They provide a wide variety of innovative educational programs at affordable rates, and American families recognize the value of community colleges. In my State and many others, there are waiting lists because the community colleges can't handle the demand. That is why we must ensure that these schools have the funding they need to construct new facilities as well as the ability to renovate and repair existing facilities to create safe, energy-efficient, effective learning environments.

The need is high. The American Association of Community Colleges estimates that it would take roughly $100 billion to fully fund the construction and renovation of community colleges across the country. This far exceeds the $2.5 billion that we have set aside under this bill. Unfortunately, when this bill was originally drafted, it included a provision to prohibit any community college that received Recovery Act funding from receiving grants for construction or repair. That's why I'm offering this critically important amendment.

The intent of the recovery package was to provide a temporary injection of money into our economy and to create jobs and support our States, schools and local communities who were struggling during an economic downturn. States were encouraged to use this money for facility improvements and modernization. In Maine, every community college except one accepted this funding. They had no way of knowing that using these funds would interfere with their ability to access additional support. These schools should not be penalized for accepting this help.

It is also important to note that this amendment would also permit Historically Black Colleges and Universities to receive assistance under this bill, even if they also received assistance under the Higher Education Act of 1965. These institutions play an important role in our educational system and should not be excluded from the benefits provided by this bill. As President Obama declared, It's time to reform our community colleges so that they provide Americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future. This amendment and the underlying bill will help do just that.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise again to support the amendment and to talk about the importance of community college modernization, about the ability for our community colleges to rebuild and restructure these important institutions. In this time of such dire economic need, I find that so many of my constituents are contacting me and saying, You know, at this moment in time, I plan to go back to college and get an education; I want to do everything I can to make sure that as the economy improves, I am ready and prepared with the skills for this new century.

People want to have green jobs. They want to be prepared for the new technology. They want an education. And as young people grow up in my State--particularly my State, 38th in per capita income--many, many families struggling in this economy, the one thing we hear over and over again is that those young people in our State who graduate from high school at such high rates want to go on to college, they want to make sure they can get a college education. But over and over I hear from young people, You know, we couldn't afford it; I had to take a year off. And we hear from the community colleges, We can't expand fast enough; we can't make sure that we have the space available for the young people who want to attend college in our State.

In this time of dire economic need, when our State is turning to the Federal Government and saying, Do what you can to help us with education, I can't imagine any reason not to support our community colleges, not to make sure that they are able to take advantage of every possible opportunity for educational funding.

I come from a State that has really struggled to balance the budget, like so many other States across the country. Our State has made cuts everywhere they could to local education, places that we never wanted to go in the State Government to make those cuts. And you know what I hear all the time from my State legislators, from my former colleagues in the State legislature? They say, Please make sure that the Federal Government puts all the money it can into education, particularly higher education.

That's what this amendment does. It makes sure that no community college is penalized for taking advantage earlier. It makes sure that every community college is available to be there for our young people. I continue to support this amendment. I think it's so important in my State and so many other States. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 3221 because I believe there's a better way to protect students, colleges, and taxpayers. The authors of this legislation will argue that the purpose of H.R. 3221 is to simply stabilize student lending. They claim the Federal Family Education Loan program, or the FFEL, is on ``life support'' and must be replaced with the government-run Direct Loan Program.

The FFEL program has been a stable, reliable source of private capital for student loans for more than 40 years. It provides a choice of loan providers--from large, national lenders to small, local nonprofits--and an array of benefits and services.

Colleges and universities overwhelmingly prefer the FFEL, with 70 to 80 percent of schools consistently opting for the public-private option.

Dr. Gary Ransdell, president of Western Kentucky University, has told me that the end of the FFEL program would, ``mean the loss of financial literacy programs, college access programs, default aversion programs, borrowing benefits, and other support services.''

Further, Dr. William Huston, president of St. Catharine College, a small, independent private college in my district, has shared his concerns about the impact the policy shift will have on schools of his size. He said the shift, ``would mean investing staff time and money to change systems and processes at a time where budgets have been cut to the core.''

Clearly, the rush to the Direct Loan Program will have a major impact on schools and students.

Now, it is true that the FFEL program was hit by the global market collapse that rocked our economy last year--and when that happened, student loan capital dried up, along with the capital across all sectors. And when stability was needed, Congress stepped in.

Last year, Congress passed the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, or ECASLA, which provided a temporary Federal backstop to protect borrowers from loan disruption. This program has worked exceedingly well, and to my knowledge, not a single borrower has been left without a loan. The program is still in place today, and if our goal is simply to stabilize student lending, there is a simple solution: we should extend programs under ECASLA to retain the Federal backstop until the economy rebounds.

These programs are working today, which means there would be no confusion for schools and no uncertainty for borrowers if we were to simply extend this program while the market remains turbulent. In fact, Republicans had offered a plan that would exactly do that.

Later today I will join Ranking Member Kline to offer an alternative to H.R. 3221. Our plan extends ECASLA through 2014, aligning it with other programs under the Higher Education Act. In the meantime, we are calling for a commission to study student loan programs and propose alternatives that will protect borrowers and taxpayers alike. Simply put, our plan is a way to slow down and take a more thoughtful, reasonable approach to long-term student loan reform. Instead, we're going to vote on a plan that will reshape the way students pay for college in this country and radically expand the Federal Government in the process. Proponents of this bill claim it saves $87 billion for taxpayers.

In reality, that $87 billion is a combination of savings and government earnings that come because the Federal Government charges students a higher interest rate than it costs to borrow, turning student loans into a profit-making venture for the government. And what do we do with this $87 billion? We are taking student money and spending much of it on an array of new government programs.

Students and schools will lose the value of choice, competition and innovation. Meanwhile, taxpayers will be on the hook for massive new entitlement spending and a huge expansion in government borrowing to finance loans that now need to be made directly from the Federal Treasury.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Madam Chairman, this amendment may do a number of positive things to improve the bill, but at its heart I still have significant concerns.

Specifically, I have concerns about the impact of this bill on the deficit and jobs all across the country. We have heard from the Congressional Budget Office since the introduction of this bill, since the bill was originally scored, that there are a number of hidden costs included. No matter how we look at it, this bill will not save $10 billion over 10 years. In fact, we believe that the cost of this bill is at least $15 billion, a $15 billion cost that will go towards the deficit, not towards deficit reduction.

Finally, I am very concerned about the implication on the unemployment rate in my State. We are federalizing one more private sector program and eliminating all the good work being done throughout the country by the private sector. This could mean as many as 30,000 jobs being lost nationwide, approximately 500 in my State, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, all because we decided to kill this program rather than figure out a viable solution.

The services being provided by guarantee agencies and lenders will not be continued at nearly the same level when these entities are required to enter into contracts with the Federal Government. We have already seen the impact of these contracts. Earlier this year, the Department of Education contracted out the servicing function of the Direct Loan Program for four servicers. The low contract price ensured that most of these servicers will only be able to provide bare-bones compliance with the law, not the robust services that were previously provided by the private sector.

In short, I am very concerned about the true impact of this bill. Unfortunately, we will not recognize the impact until this bill has been implemented, and then it may be too late.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, supporting our men and women in uniform is important, and so too is it important to support the communities where the military has left an imprint. I think this is a reasonable way of targeting funding, and I will not oppose the amendment.

As we try to do what's best for communities, including those impacted by a base closure, we should consider job losses that would come as a result of this underlying bill.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do think it is a good way to target this funding to assist communities that are affected by Federal decisions in the Base Realignment and Closure, be they positive or negative for those communities.

I yield back my time.