Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3221) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me time to discuss this bill.

During the month of August, people all over this country spoke out against the government takeover of our health care system. They are fed up with increased spending, increased long-term deficits and debt, and want to reduce

the role of government in our lives. This bill does just the opposite of that.

I complimented my colleague from California Mr. Miller, yesterday, in a kind of a backhanded way, by saying that he has come up with very, very good titles for the bills that he has been handling in this session. The titles do just exactly the opposite of what the bills do. This bill is called Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, and to a person who hasn't spent time reading it or thinking about it, that sounds like a good thing to do. However, this bill and, of course, the rule, which we are debating today, aren't fiscally responsible and this is not the way we should be going.

As I listened to my colleague speak today, I was impressed by the paternalistic attitude that is represented by this bill and by the comments being made by our colleagues: It's going to give more freedom to people. It's going to ensure that community colleges do such and such. It's going to close the achievement gap.

Would that the government had that kind of power. Would that money alone do that kind of thing. That's not what this bill is going to do, and this rule needs to be voted down.

This bill was passed out of the House Committee on Education and Labor by a vote of 30-17. It eliminates the Federal Family Education Loan Program and shifts all student loans to a government-run system under the Direct Loan Program. In addition, the bill creates nine new programs and increases the Federal Government takeover of early education, higher education, school construction, and more. It is an insidious intrusion into education at all levels by the Federal Government, and it doesn't deserve to be passed by this House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that sometimes we are all given to a little hyperbole here on the floor, but the comment from my distinguished colleague from California that this would be absolutely no cost to taxpayers, if there is anybody listening to this who believes that, I am going to find some swamp land in New Mexico to sell them.

We know that the estimates are that 40,000 jobs are going to be lost in the private sector as a result of this bill. So tell me, who is going to be administering this program? Right now the Direct Loan Program covers 20 percent of the loans that are given out. So is the Department of Education going to absorb this workload? I doubt that. Are they not going to ask for more help to be able to administer the other 80 percent?

In terms of debts, we keep hearing about people who are graduating from college with so much debt. Where is the issue of personal responsibility that we keep hearing so much about from the President. Debt is a personal responsibility. There is no reason for anybody in this country to graduate from college with $50,000 worth of debt.

And it is pretty good business for the government to be in because we can borrow money cheaper than the private sector can: that sounds like the argument that established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And we do know where that has led us.

Last but not least, I guess it is going to be hundreds of years before our colleagues stop blaming every ill in this country on the Bush-Cheney administration.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the ranking member of the Education Committee.

I would like to share with the Members some concerns that have been shared with me by the University of North Carolina system, and I will quote: ``UNC is concerned about the committee's attempt to divert Federal funding away from higher education to K-12 construction and early childhood education.

``While K-12 construction and early childhood education may be worthwhile Federal priorities, they should not be funded at the expense of higher education.''

Another point that they have made is that they're very concerned about a provision in the Miller reconciliation

bill that would eliminate the in-school interest exemption for graduate and professional student borrowers.

While we are talking about how we want people to continue their education and how important an education is to our country, putting graduate students in the position of having to pay interest while they're in school is not a very smart thing for us to be doing.

I want to talk a little bit about other changes that are coming to the Federal Financial Aid Program through this bill. It's going to eliminate restrictions that prevent individuals convicted of drug possession from receiving taxpayer-funded financial aid. It's going to change the need analysis formula, which is going to fail to do enough to fundamentally simplify our system of financial aid programs, and there is a move to variable interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans, which keeps the system unnecessarily complex for borrowers in an effort to cover a broken political promise to cut interest rates in half, which was made last year and which we debunked, I thought, pretty well then.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that we did have several amendments made in order by the Rules Committee, and we're very grateful for that because it gives us an opportunity to debate those amendments on the floor. And we have certainly talked a lot about that in the past, especially with the appropriations process.

But I want to say that we were very disappointed that, given the financial situation in our country and the concern that people have that's being expressed every day by our constituents over the fact that we continue to have massive job losses in this country, despite the fact that the President promised with the passage of the stimulus bill that we would not go above an 8 percent unemployment rate, that ever since the President came into office, job losses have skyrocketed, and the fact that our deficit is the largest that it's ever been in the history of this country. There were two amendments that we think we should have had made in order so that we could discuss the financial situation and the impact that this bill, the underlying bill is going to have.

One of those amendments, by Congressman Tom Price of Georgia, provided that the act would fail to take effect if the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury--all of those positions, of course, controlled by the President--would determine that the provisions of section 201, which would end the FFEL program, will result in more than 5,000 job losses. We are very concerned that this bill is going to increase job losses.

Furthermore, the amendment by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) would have prohibited using Federal funds to carry out titles 3 through 5 of H.R. 3221 until the national deficit is under $1 trillion.

We believe that in a time, again, when our economy is suffering tremendously from actions--wrong actions taken and appropriate actions not taken--that we should not be adding to the problems of our citizens by increasing unemployment and increasing the deficit.

So I want to express our concern that those amendments were not made in order, but express my appreciation for those that were made in order, including one from me.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I think I may be the only Member of Congress who has been a community college president. So I've had a good bit of experience. I was a professor and an assistant dean at a university. I served on a school board for 12 years. So I have extensive experience in the field of education.

I am a product of public education. I grew up extraordinarily poor. I doubt there is anybody in the Congress who grew up as poor as I did. And I know that much of the success that I have had has been the result of the opportunities I had in education. I give credit to the people who taught me and who guided me throughout my educational career. It took me 7 years to get my undergraduate degree, but I graduated without a dime of debt because I worked and went to school. I know that it is possible to do that, and I know that a person does not have to borrow $50,000 a year to get an education in this country. We are blessed that we have extraordinarily high-quality, low-cost education programs all across this country. We have excellent community colleges. We have excellent public education, higher education, and we have excellent private education. We have more choice in this country than any other place in the world.

As I said, I have extensive background in this area. As a community college president, I had the opportunity to work with the Workforce Investment Program. As a member of the State legislature, I had an opportunity to understand these programs and work with them at some length. So I am not unfamiliar with this area. What I see when I read this bill, particularly as it talks about giving money to community colleges, is basically setting up a welfare program for States and for community colleges. We already have the kind of accountability, I believe, that we need in community colleges in this country.

Yesterday, again, my distinguished colleague from California said that the bill has, for the first time ever, accountability in it. I have read this bill. There is no accountability in here. There are benchmarks established somewhere out in the future. They're not even discussed in the bill. There is talk about serving underserved groups of people. There is really no accountability in here.

And I'm wondering if our colleagues are going to consider men an underserved group. It's my understanding--and, again, I'm not up to date on the literature--that approximately 65 percent of the people now in higher education are women. So women have certainly found the opportunities there.

I have a great number of concerns about this bill, not just what it's going to do to the student loan programs but to the other areas. It's going to get into elementary education, preschool education. We just don't need the Federal Government injecting itself here. The bill is going to limit choices for parents and students seeking educational loans and I think decrease the quality of service historically provided by private lenders. In 2007-2008, the FFEL program served more than 6.4 million students and parents at 5,000 postsecondary institutions, lending a total of $55.3 billion or 78 percent of all needed Federal student loans. In general, postsecondary institutions have preferred to provide their student loans through the private FFEL program because of its ability to provide students high-quality customer service, education outreach, and loan default prevention.

Again, what this is, in my opinion, is another takeover by the Federal Government of a segment of our society that we don't need taken over.

I would like to quote from an article from The Weekly Standard entitled, Need a Student Loan? Boy, Does Uncle Sam Have a Deal for You:

``For whatever else the monopoly in direct lending accomplishes, it will greatly expand the number of young people who find themselves entangled with, and ultimately beholden to, the vast system of rewards and rebukes that the Federal Government has at hand. More than 65 percent of college students borrow money to go to college. That's a lot of guinea pigs.

``We already have a foreshadowing of possibilities. Congressmen are tinkerers, and they have been tinkering with federally backed loans for years, hoping to push borrowers into doing things that Congressmen find pleasing. The most interesting of their ideas was signed into law by President Bush. This shouldn't be a surprise, since by his second term Bush had proved a pretty ambitious tinkerer himself. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007--such big titles you have, grandma!--was designed to let college students know what they should do once they got out of school.

``Student borrowers can have their Federal loans forgiven after 25 years, on the condition that they make a single minimum payment every 360 days. This is already a significant inducement to acquire a Federal rather than a private loan. But the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program goes a step further. You can have your loan forgiven after only 10 years, vastly reducing the total amount of money you pay for your college education--to below $5,000 in some cases--on three conditions. Your loan has to be handled directly by the government, with no contamination from private lenders; you have to meet a schedule of monthly minimum payments; and upon graduation, you have to get the right kind of job.

``The right kind of job turns out to be what's loosely called ``public service.'' In common discourse, public service is already an elastic term, used mostly as a form of self-flattery, but seldom has the euphemism been stretched quite as far as it was in Bush's bill. Work for the government, any government--whether as an actuary, a diplomat, or a teacher; a social worker, a fighter pilot, or a forklift driver--and you qualify for the loan forgiveness. You qualify, too, if you take a job with any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization: the Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Group, the Rainbow Coalition, the Transgender Law and Policy Institute, even, theoretically, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't matter if you're an agitator, lawyer, lobbyist, congressional aide, or pavement-pounder hectoring passersby into signing petitions for Greenpeace. The important thing is, you can't be helping anyone turn a profit.''

Madam Speaker, this bill is another government takeover of parts of our lives, and this rule should be voted down along with the bill.

[From the Weekly Standard, Aug. 3, 2009]

Need a Student Loan?

(By Andrew Ferguson)

The House Committee on Education and Labor is having a busy

summer. (Everybody in Washington is having a busy summer!)

Earlier this month, for example, one of its essential

subunits--the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and

Secondary Education and Healthy Families and Communities, or

SECESEHFC--held lengthy hearings to determine new ways the

United States Congress might accomplish one of its many

important goals: the ``Prevention of Bullying.''

The subcommittee chairman, a congressman named Kildee, from

Michigan, pointed out that last year, fully 75 percent of

schools in the United States had reported an incident of

bullying or worse.

``One incident is one too many,'' Kildee said, thoughtfully

if not originally. ``We must do something immediately to

address this widespread problem.''

With the ``prevention of bullying'' safely in the solution

pipeline, the committee went on to do something immediately

to address another widesperead problem. Apparently college

students are getting private loans to fund their education.

Last week the committee approved a bill that will put an end

to all that.

The committee's vote accelerates a process that was begun

under President Clinton. In 1994, Congress approved his idea

of a Direct Lending Program for students who needed to borrow

money to go to college. Before then the government had merely

guaranteed student loans, which were originated and serviced

by private banks selected by the government. The guarantee

ensured that the ``private'' loans made huge profits for the

banks, regardless of interest rates or default rates.

Guaranteed loans are a textbook example of crony capitalism

or (if you prefer) corporate socialism: The government

assumes all the risk while doling out contracts to favored

businesses, who then reap the profits. With student loans,

the lender gets preening rights in the bargain, marketing

itself as a Merchant of Dreams, a benefactor of America's

youth, a sweet-tempered Mr. Jaggers to a nation of eager

Pips. In truth, the only people who like the system of

guaranteed loans are the student loan industry--now handling

more then $90 billion a year--and the congressmen whose

districts contain large numbers of people who work in the

student loan industry.

Direct lending eliminates these unctuous middlemen by

encouraging students to borrow money directly from the

federal government. The program semi-satisfies libertarians,

who dislike cronyism, and thrills liberals, who believe the

noble goal of universal college education should be

uncorrepted by the yuckiness of money making. Liberal backers

of direct lending believe, in effect, that there's room for

only one merchant of Dreams around here, and it better be the

federal government. Moreover, direct lending saves the

government money--no really, it does--by reducing fees and

other handling costs, savings which can then be passed on to

the poor borrowers, though they never are.

The bill that passed out of committee last week completes

the triumph of Clinton's program. The grandly titled Student

Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 does away with the

federal guarantee for student loans and brings them all under

the care of Congress and fhe federal Department of Education,

saving (say the committee's accountants) nearly $10 billion a

year. The committee plans to rechannel more than half

those savings to purposes other than financing higher

education. But for a college student trying to make

tuition, the most dramatic consequence is that federal

direct lending will soon be the only kind of lending there

is. Washington will be the lender of first and last

resort.

Some students--or more likely, their parents--still take

out private bank loans with no federal guarantees. This

accounts for about 14 percent of the student loan market. But

it's unclear how long that corner of the market can last, as

the federal government slowly crowds out truly private

lenders by offering customers lower interest rates, greater

discounts, and easier eligibility rules. Most likely the

private lenders will abandon the field altogether, and the

last chance to build a genuinely competitive market in

college loans will be lost.

Few will weep over that vanished opportunity--until,

perhaps, they see what Congress does with the new power that

has fallen into its lap. For whatever else the monopoly in

direct lending accomplishes, it will greatly expand the

number of young people who find themselves entangled with,

and ultimately beholden to, the vast system of rewards and

rebukes that the federal government has at hand. More than 65

percent of college students borrow money to go to college.

That's a lot of guinea pigs.

We already have a foreshadowing of the possibilities.

Congressmen are tinkerers, and they have been tinkering with

federally backed student loans for years, hoping to push

borrowers into doing things that congressmen find pleasing.

The most interesting of their ideas was signed into law by

President Bush. This shouldn't be a surprise, since by his

second term Bush had proved a pretty ambitious tinkerer

himself. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program of the

College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007--such big

titles you have, grandma!--was designed to let college

students know what they should do once they got out of

school.

Student borrowers can have their federal loans forgiven

after 25 years, on the condition that they make a single

minimum payment every 360 days. This is already a significant

inducement to acquire a federal rather than a private loan.

But the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program goes a step

further: You can have your loan forgiven after only 10 years,

vastly reducing the total amount of money you pay for your

college education--to below $5,000 in some cases--on three

conditions. Your loan has to be handled directly by the

government, with no contamination from private lenders; you

have to meet a schedule of monthly minimum payments; and upon

graduation you have to get the right kind of job.

The right kind of job turns out to be what's loosely called

``public service.'' In common discourse public service is

already an elastic term, used mostly as a form of self-

flattery, but seldom has the euphemism been stretched quite

so far as it was in Bush's bill. Work for the government, any

government--whether as an actuary, a diplomat, or a teacher;

a social worker, a fighter pilot, or a forklift driver--and

you qualify for the loan forgiveness. You qualify, too, if

you take a job with any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization: the

Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the

Rainbow Coalition, the Transgender Law and Policy Institute,

even, theoretically, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't

matter if you're an agitator, lawyer, lobbyist, congressional

aide, or a pavement-pounder hectoring passersby into signing

petitions for Greenpeace. The important thing is, you can't

be helping anyone turn a profit.

The first loans won't be forgiven till 2017, so there's no

telling yet how many people are taking advantage of the

program or how much it will cost. But it's clearly designed

to cast a very wide net. Indeed, its definition of public

service is so broad that only a certain kind of graduate

would be denied this splendid perk of an almost-free

education: the idiot who went to work in the world of buying,

selling, inventing, making, and producing.

Though Bush couldn't have known it, his program anticipated

the age that dawned this January. It fits the ambitions and

tastes of the Obama era, especially as summarized on several

occasions by the first lady. She and her husband are perhaps

the most famous student-loan borrowers in history. She speaks

often of the torment of living under the debt load they had

accumulated in college (Princeton, Columbia) and law school

(Harvard). In remarks first reported by Byron York in

National Review, in February 2008, she was particularly

graphic. Thanks to their student loans, the Obamas found

themselves ``struggling to figure out how we would save

for our kids.''

What placed them in this position, Mrs. Obama said, was

their decision to ``move out of the moneymaking industry''--

both had worked in corporate law--``into the helping

industry.'' Again, the term ``helping'' is loosely defined:

After leaving their law firms, he went to work for the

Illinois state senate, she to Chicago city government and

then a nonprofit hospital. ``We left corporate America, which

is a lot of what we're asking young people to do,'' she said.

Recently she expanded on the theme. ``I went from college

to law school to a big old fancy law firm,'' she told a group

of Americorps workers, ``where I was making more money than

both of my parents combined.'' But then came a revelation.

``I had to ask myself whether, if I died tomorrow, would I

want this to be my legacy, working in a corporate firm,

working for big companies? And when I asked myself the

question, the resounding answer was, absolutely not.''

How great their struggles were, and to what extent the

struggles were aggravated by college-loan payments, are open

questions. From the time they left their money-making days

behind, according to tax returns, the Obamas never had a

combined yearly gross adjusted income of less than $207,000.

Usually it was much more. (During those years in the helping

industry, the Obamas donated 0.9 percent of their income to

charity, presumably because, as the old saying goes, ``we

gave at the office.'') By 2005, Mrs. Obama alone was making

$315,000 a year as an industrial helper, directing

``community affairs'' at her hospital. Except for the bad

timing, she could have had her loan debt scrubbed by

President Bush's program.

One justification for the program is that people in the

helping industry need the financial help, because of their

low pay. But most people would consider the Obamas' income

pretty good money. It turns out that public service, even

strictly defined, doesn't necessarily require financial

sacrifice. Neal McCluskey and Chris Edwards, of the

libertarian Cato Institute (one of those public-serving

nonprofits), have tried to show that government work,

including public school teaching, compares favorably with

work in the private sector, whether you count wages,

benefits, or both. Using data from 2004, Edwards found that

the average federal worker earned an average of 56 percent

more than the average employee in the real economy.

So if public servants don't need their loans forgiven any

more than do debtors in the private sector, what's the point

of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program? Why provide

an incentive for graduates to steer clear of the private

workforce? Mrs. Obama's remarks capture the spirit behind the

program. The implication isn't merely that nonprofit jobs are

admirable. It's that they're always and everywhere more

admirable than jobs in the world of commerce.

The logic closes like a pincer: The only loans available to

students will be from the government; and the only way to get

the most favorable terms on the loans will be to do what the

lender likes. Of course, you don't have to work for

Greenpeace or Amnesty International or AmeriCorps. But if you

don't, you'll pay every penny of your student loan, plus

interest, while your friends who made the right decision

won't have to do that. No one's making anyone do anything.

It's not a threat, it's a nudge. It's not an ultimatum, it's

a suggestion. And it's certainly not bullying. Bullying is

about to be made illegal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as proposed in President Obama's FY 2010 budget, H.R. 3221 eliminates the FFEL student loan program that has been the overwhelming choice of students and families for more than 40 years, replacing it with a government-run program. While Democrats continue to use government takeovers as a panacea to all economic problems, converting all student loans to government subsidized loans is just another way that Democrats are killing jobs, increasing government intrusion, and eroding the rights of the consumer. I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, having no additional speakers on our side of the aisle, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 746 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Virginia Foxx. All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the record.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 746 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.

The rule makes in order 24 amendments, which are listed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment and the Kline substitute, which are each debatable for 20 minutes.

The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 746 and the underlying bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was passed by the House Education and Labor Committee with bipartisan support.

I thank Chairman Miller, as well as my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle for their leadership in this historic legislation that puts America's students and their families first. Education is the key to progress and prosperity, both for individuals as well as collectively as a Nation.

Every day we hear from our constituents about their inability to afford college or their excessive student loan debt that burdens their families. Just yesterday I talked to a young woman who attends a university in my district, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and she is graduating with $50,000 in debt.

This Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act tackles this problem head-on by making the single largest investment in higher education in history without costing taxpayers any more.

Following the unprecedented Federal support for education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which increased Pell Grants and funding to K-12 schools through special ed and Title I, this landmark legislation will transform the way our student loan programs operate and generate $87 billion in savings over the next 10 years

that will be used to help increase Pell Grant scholarships, keep interest rates low on Federal loans, and create a more reliable and effective financial aid system for families at no cost to taxpayers. Converting all new Federal student lending to the reliable, effective, and cost-efficient Direct Loan Program enables these critical investments to make our economy strong and competitive while reducing the deficit and bringing college in reach for countless American families.

I strongly believe in President Obama's goal that the United States become the world leader in the proportion of college graduates by 2020. But like the rest of the country, lower-income students in my home State of Colorado are too often left behind because their families can't afford to pay for college.

Over the next 10 years, this bill invests more than $589 million in Colorado alone to increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarships to $5,550 a year in 2010 and $6,900 in 2019. And starting in 2011, the scholarship's value will be preserved by indexing it to inflation plus 1 percent. Under this bill, students in my district could see a dramatic increase in their Pell Grant awards over the next 10 years.

Applying for financial aid should help, not hinder, college access, yet an estimated 1.5 million college students who likely were eligible to receive Pell Grants didn't even apply for financial aid because they found the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA document, too confusing to fill out. This bold legislation makes it easier for families to apply for financial aid through a streamlined FAFSA form that is simpler and shorter by reducing the number of questions and allowing applicants to use the information from their tax returns.

In addition, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act strengthens and expands the Perkins Loan Program that provides low-cost Federal loans to every U.S. college campus and keeps interest rates low on subsidized Federal student loans by making them variable beginning in 2012. These interest rates are currently set to jump from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 2012. For the 5.5 million borrowers across the Nation who take out subsidized student loans every year, these changes mean real savings and offer much-needed relief, more money that can go into textbooks, living expenses, and paying additional college tuition above the student loan amount.

We also know that too many students enroll in college but drop out and don't graduate. College access should lead to college success. However, only half of students who enroll end up with a bachelor's degree. This has enormous economic implications for college dropouts and our economy as a whole because workers with bachelor's degrees earn 54 percent more on average than those who attend some college but don't finish.

This legislation invests $3 billion to bolster college access and completion through innovative programs that focus on financial literacy and help retain graduate and undergraduate students, as well as a $2.5 billion investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds stay in school and complete their studies. Colorado, as an example, will receive at least $10.5 million over the next 5 years from the increased funding for the College Access Challenge Grant Program.

In recognition of our troops' heroic service to our country, H.R. 3221 gives servicemembers more freedom to attend the college of their choice under the GI Bill and also helps our troops afford an education by providing loan forgiveness for members of the military who are called up to duty in the middle of an academic year, and we all know how disruptive that can be, and helping them complete school and get their degree is an important element that this bill provides to those who serve our Nation proudly.

As a member of the Community College Caucus, I am thrilled that this legislation recognizes the critical role that these open-door institutions play in our communities both as gateways to higher education as well as providers of a highly skilled workforce to fill the needs of our local economies and prepare kids for the growth sectors of our economy and for jobs in the ever-changing and evolving economic sectors. Community colleges are an essential component of America's workforce development, and that is recognized by this bill.

In my district in Colorado, Front Range Community College and the Colorado Mountain College are effectively addressing the needs of both students and employers and represent an essential component for our economic development as well as a source of community pride. By encouraging historic partnerships and innovative reforms and expanding access to free and high-quality online courses, this legislation helps prepare Colorado's 117,000 community college students with the real- world experiences and skills they need to be ready for 21st century jobs or to transfer to 4-year colleges or universities to complete their bachelor's degree. Enrollment in our community colleges is up 20 percent this fall compared to last year, so this funding will help our existing system and infrastructure meet that demand.

Colorado ranks third nationally in expected growth in jobs that will require post-secondary training, and we need to dramatically increase the number of degrees, certificates, and credentials awarded. These new investments will help community colleges establish articulation agreements, expand academic training programs for high-wage occupations in high-demand industries like health care, and improve student support services.

We will also build and enhance links through dual enrollment through our K-12 system to increase collegiate access as well as giving kids who might be first-generation college goers support as they attend college through the K-12 system and take their first college courses and show that, yes, they can achieve at the college level.

Through our bolstering community colleges, we can also strengthen their labor market responsiveness and competitiveness. And to ensure that community college students learn and thrive in modern updated state-of-the-art facilities, Colorado would receive $28.7 million under capital facilities, which will leverage additional funds to help repair and construct projects for community college facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing.

But the impact of savings realized from cutting the middleman between students and lenders goes beyond higher education. They will also help ensure that the next generation of children enters kindergarten with the skills needed to succeed in school by increasing access to birth- to-five early learning programs for children from low-income families. The Early Learning Challenge Fund would award $1 billion each year in competitive grants to States that raise the bar of early education standards, show a State commitment to meeting the needs of birth-to- five students and practices through comprehensive reform, build an effective early childhood workforce, improve the school readiness outcomes of young children, and promote parental and family involvement. Investing in high-quality early education is not only the right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do since it yields a high return, saving taxpayers up to $14 for every dollar we spend.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of early childhood advocates from across the country, economists, business leaders, bankers, philanthropists, child development experts, who agree that smart investment in early education is critical if we want to close the achievement gap, prevent the achievement gap from arising before kids even enter kindergarten rather than trying to play catchup after the fact through improving our public schools alone. We can close the achievement gap and ensure that children from all economic and social and ethnic backgrounds are prepared to thrive in school as well as in life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, in a brief response to the gentleman from California, I had the opportunity to talk to a student, Hailee Koehler, who goes to the University of Colorado, yesterday. She is graduating $50,000 in debt; $30,000 of that is privately borrowed capital and $20,000 is her student loans. The interest rate that she pays on the money that she accessed outside of the federally backed student loans is 15 to 18 percent. That is the interest rate on $30,000 of her debt. And this is just the cost of a college education. This is $50,000 tuition, books, room/board. That is actually very reasonable compared to what it costs at some colleges. She is paying 10 percent less on her federally backed student loans. What a difference in her life it would make if she had access to more at the lower rate.

When we are talking about the government going out and borrowing money, government is borrowing money, 3 percent, 4 percent a year. That is what the government is paying. If we can turn that around and loan that out at 5, 6, or 7 percent, it sounds like a pretty good business for the government to be in.

I know the gentleman has experience in business. Doesn't that sound like a pretty good business proposition?

Reclaiming my time, I would simply submit it is better for students and the system, to the extent debt has to be on the books, for debt to be at 3 percent, 5 percent, 6 percent at a year rather than 15 to 18 percent a year which is onerous for anyone who has that kind of debt load.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

I would like to inform the gentlelady from North Carolina I was just given this information by staff that some of the remarks that she made were with regards to a previous version of the bill. The version that is being put forth in this rule does allow graduate students to be eligible for in-school interest subsidies for subsidization through the Stafford loan.

So the changes she's referring to were in fact discussed and there was initially some discussion that it could come down a different way. But this bill being put forward does allow graduate students to participate in that.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Committee on Education and Labor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, overcrowded and crumbling schools threaten the safety and achievement of America's students and are an embarrassment for our education system.

Our schools are short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. In my home State of Colorado, the backlog of school construction and maintenance needs has been estimated between $5.7 and $10 billion. That is why this legislation assists school districts with funds for school modernization, renovation, and repair projects that will create healthier, safer, and more energy-efficient teaching and learning climates.

Colorado will receive more than $42 million over the next 2 years under this bill. In 2006, I cochaired a successful campaign for a $300 million bond issue for the Boulder Valley School District in my school district to address the needs of our schools. But many low-income districts in Colorado don't have the capacity to finance the necessary school upgrades. That is why I am particularly pleased that this legislation addresses income disparities by allocating funds to States and districts based on their share of students from low-income families.

Most importantly, this legislation is fiscally responsible because it pays for itself. By ending subsidies currently given to banks and private lenders, this bill saves taxpayers $87 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition to investing in our education system, this legislation also directs $10 million in savings back to the U.S. Treasury to help pay down the deficit and boost the fiscal health of the country our children will inherit. This legislation is yet another major step towards building a 21st century early childhood education system that will prepare the next generation of students for a lifetime of success.

In a global knowledge-based economy, our Nation cannot afford to waste talent and squander human capital. Each and every student who is ready and wants to go to college shouldn't give up because of the cost barriers that are in their way. This landmark legislation's historic investment in college scholarships provides increased educational opportunities to Americans across the board.

I talked to another student from the University of Colorado yesterday, Alexis Smith, who talked about her family's story. She grew up in a family with a small business in the Denver area. Their family earns between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, depending on the business. Like a lot of American families, they fall above a lot of the need- based scholarship programs and below the range that college is easily affordable. Alexis is graduating college with $25,000 in debt, including substantial credit card debt. She would not have been able to go to college without help from Pell Grants as well as Stafford loans, and her father is currently working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week at age 63 to help afford to put her and her brother through college. These are the kinds of sacrifices that Americans are willing to make.

The Federal Government is here as a partner. By passing this bill, we will be able to improve the student loan program and create savings that we can pass back along to the students in the form of increased availability of student loans as well as grants. That is why I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.