Floor Statements

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

I rise in support of S. 3352, to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. I am pleased to announce that this is the very last extension of the Higher Education Act that Congress will have to pass during this reauthorization. It has been a long journey, but I fully expect that Chairman Miller, that senior Republicans McKeon and Keller and that the rest of my colleagues will be here on the floor later this week to pass a conference report.

Since 2003, we've passed over one dozen extensions of this law since it first expired. S. 3352 will ensure that vital Federal college access and student aid programs will continue to serve those students for the next 2 weeks who depend upon them while the final conference report makes its way to the President's desk.

I am excited that Congress is ready to pass the Senate proposals that will ensure that students and their families will have the ability to get higher education Pell Grants, to obtain Perkins loans and to gain additional transparency into the costs of college, especially as students are getting ready to head back to school in a few short weeks.

I urge my colleagues to support this extension, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I have always agreed with that famous quotation from former House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who noted ``all politics is local.'' I also subscribe to the adage that ``all government is local.''

Wisconsin is particularly proud of its strong tradition of local government, formally dating back to the ratification of the Wisconsin State Constitution in 1848. The Wisconsin State Constitution contains at least four references to local government and clearly grants the

Wisconsin State Legislature the authority to enact legislation to create local government and establish the framework within which local governments operate.

Ten Wisconsin cities currently have the council-manager form of government which was first authorized in 1919.

This year, the city of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, celebrates the 50th anniversary of its adoption of the council-manager form of government. The council-manager system has served the city well, and I am pleased to congratulate Fond du Lac on this significant milestone.

Interestingly enough, Fond du Lac was the last city in Wisconsin to have the commissioner form of government, which featured three commissioners and a mayor, all elected, with the commission directly supervising city departments. Fifty years ago there were increasing questions about the effectiveness of this form of government. While local political issues made some sort of change appealing, there was growing popularity across the country at that time for the council- manager form of government, which the city of Fond du Lac ultimately adopted.

Often cited as an advantage of the council-manager model is the balance achieved between professional management of daily operations and policy decisions made by elected officials. While ultimate control of the government lies with elected officials, functional experts provide professional management of daily operations.

Robert McManus was the first city manager appointed by the city council in 1958. Mr. McManus was followed by Henry Buslee, Myron Medin, Daniel R. Thompson, Jack Howley, Stephen T. Nenonen, and Tom Ahrens. Thomas Herre, who was most recently appointed in 2005, currently serves in this key leadership role. Of this group, Myron Medin was Fond du Lac's longest serving city manager, serving from November of 1967 through August of 1983.

On the occasion of this noteworthy anniversary, it is important to commend the members of the Fond du Lac city council over the last 50 years for the care they have taken in appointing those who have served as city manager and in efficiently and effectively supervising the city's affairs. Of historical interest, it is fitting to note that James Megellas, a highly decorated World War II hero and native son of Fond du Lac, was the first city council president to preside under this new form of government.

I hope you will join me in congratulating the City of Fond du Lac and its citizens on the 50th anniversary of their adoption of the council- manager form of government.

Madam Speaker, on March 20, 2008, the City of Ripon, Wisconsin, celebrated the 150th anniversary of its being granted a city charter by the State of Wisconsin in 1858. The sesquicentennial of Ripon's chartering will be officially observed this summer at an annual community celebration called ``Riponfest,'' which attracts thousands of visitors to the city to participate in a weekend of events recognizing everything that is best about this outstanding community in the heart of Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District.

Ripon, of course, is best known as ``the Birthplace of the Republican Party.'' According to the Wisconsin State Historical Society, ``the first mass meeting in this country that definitely and positively cut loose from old parties and advocated a new party under the name Republican'' took place on March 20, 1854, in the ``Little White School House'' in Ripon.

I am pleased that a number of my colleagues have had the opportunity over the years to visit the Little White School House in Ripon. This site, which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, was recently restored thanks to the generosity of the Jeffris Family Foundation of Janesville, Wisconsin, which provided a challenge grant matched by funds raised by the dedicated and hardworking citizens of Ripon. They recognize the historical significance of this important site and the value of maintaining it so that it may be visited and enjoyed by future generations.

Ripon always has maintained a heritage of active citizenship and has been the home of a number of nationally recognized leaders, including George Peck, nationally beloved author of the Peck's Bad Boy books and Governor of Wisconsin; Harry Selfridge, founder of Selfridge's Department Store in London and the man who revolutionized retail commerce through the creation of the modern department store; Carrie Chapman Catt, a leader of the women's suffrage movement who organized the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and founded the League of Women Voters; Winifred Edgerton, the first woman in the country to earn a PhD in mathematics; Ben Marcus, whose nationwide empire of cinema complexes, hotels, and restaurants began with the Campus Cinema in Ripon; and Mark Conrad who, when elected mayor of Ripon in 1972 while still attending college, became the youngest mayor in the Nation.

For one hundred and fifty-seven years, Ripon has been the home of Ripon College, a nationally recognized quality liberal arts institution. For over one hundred and fifty years, Ripon has also valued its citizens with entrepreneurial spirit and vision who have given rise to the many businesses that continue to thrive there.

Given its rich history and regional significance, Ripon has been a leader among Wisconsin communities in the preservation of the historic architecture, artifacts, and documentary records related to the city's character and development.

I hope you will all join me in congratulating Ripon, Wisconsin, on the 150th anniversary of its chartering as a city by the State of Wisconsin.

In September, the House considered and passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, also known as H.R. 2881. That legislation reauthorizes the FAA for the next 4 years. Unfortunately, though, the other body has not come to any agreement on its bill, and so we are here today considering yet another extension. The bill before us would extend the programs and funding at the Federal Aviation Administration at current levels through the end of this budget year.

This bill funds the operations and safety initiatives of the Federal Aviation Administration; provides Airport Improvement Program contract authority at the budget year 2007 level through the end of September; authorizes such sums as are necessary for FAA Facilities and Equipment, Research and Development, through the end of the budget year; and extends the authority to limit the third party liability of air carriers arising out of acts of terrorism through March of 2009.

The bill before us will ensure that our national aviation system continues to operate until a full FAA reauthorization can be enacted.

We need to look at how to meet the growing demands placed on our Nation's infrastructure whether modernizing our antiquated air traffic control system or repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

We also need to produce more domestic energy and look for alternative fuel sources.

There is much work yet to be done on the FAA reauthorization bill. I urge our colleagues in the other body to take up a comprehensive reauthorization package so that we may get to conference. We must work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to craft legislation that our President can sign.

So I support this extension in order to allow us time to accomplish the important goal of coming to agreement on the comprehensive FAA reauthorization package.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a resolution calling for the U.S. Government to lead a global diplomatic initiative to limit the incentives for speculation in crude oil futures through the adoption of international standards for margin requirements on speculative trading in oil futures. By establishing this policy we can moderate surging oil prices and bring relief to consumers around the world.

Margin payments are paid to an exchange when purchasing a futures contract. Akin to an escrow deposit in a real estate transaction, margin requirements are set by exchanges and not government regulation. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, the purchase of a standard oil futures contract for 1,000 barrels carries a margin requirement of just over $10,000, a small percentage of the value of a contract with a settlement price this week of $135,000 for oil priced at $135 per barrel.

This relatively small amount of capital required to purchase a contract and reap potentially sizeable gains from the daily movements in the price of crude oil is an attractive invitation to speculative investors. Higher margin requirements would reduce this incentive by limiting such opportunities for gain. By removing speculative money from the crude oil market, we can begin to bring down oil prices and relieve the pain our constituents feel at the gas pump.

Currently, there is a heated debate of whether a growth in speculative trading is showing up as part of a ``speculative premium'' built into the price of crude oil. Because so much trading in energy futures takes place in unregulated exchanges, there is a shortage of good information, and we lack the empirical evidence necessary to make a firm conclusion.

In the absence of such firm data, some have argued that tight supplies and high demand are the only explanation for high prices. On the other hand, many have suggested that heightened speculation has resulted in adding anywhere from $10 to $35 to the price of each barrel of oil. The market indications cited by supporters of the market speculation theory are impressive and include:

April 2008 oil stocks held by the U.S. and its fellow members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development totaled 2.562 million barrels, above recent averages and sufficient for 53.4 days of consumption.

The president of OPEC, Chakib Khelil of Algeria, in declining to commit the organization's members to a production increase, noted that supply was exceeding demand by one-half million barrels per day.

OPEC has also lowered its forecast of average daily global consumption of oil by 60,000 barrels, the third time this year that the oil cartel has reduced its estimate. This view coincides with that of the International Energy

Agency whose monthly Oil Market Report for June reported that oil consumers would use 70,000 barrels less per month than it had previously estimated.

An economist with WTRG Economics was quoted by MarketWatch as observing, ``We had another week of uncertainty, with oil trading more as a currency and inflation hedge than based upon the fundamentals. This will continue to be the case as long as the long-only index funds are allowed free rein in the futures market. ``

Since 2003, investment in commodity index funds has risen from $13 billion to $260 billion.

National Journal has cited the writings of Anit Anand of brokerage firm KRChoksey in reporting the number of current energy hedge funds as 634, up from 180 in October 2004.

Recognizing the significance of these trends, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced the formation of an interagency task force to examine investor practices, supply and demand factors, and the role of speculators. Additionally, on June 14, 2008, the International Monetary Fund, responding to a call from Group of Eight finance ministers, agreed to look into the role that futures trading has played in pushing crude oil prices ever higher.

Certainly, other factors influence the price of oil, and it is only fair to examine whether any is responsible for the current situation.

Oil prices are subject to a ``political risk premium'' caused by instability and the threat of violence in countries producing significant quantities of oil. While the political climate in these areas remains tense, it cannot be said to have changed appreciably for the worse over the past five years.

Long term supply questions also are part of today's crude oil price. Yes, there are fears that supplies are diminishing, encouraged by peak oil theorists, but there has been no new dramatic information on this point that would explain the 94 percent price boost that Bloomberg Financial has reported over the past year.

Finally, some point to the drop in the value of the dollar to explain the price pain felt by U.S. consumers. This explanation, too, falls short of providing a satisfactory answer. While the dollar price of crude oil is 4.3 times higher than it was in 2004, Europeans also are paying 2.7 times more for oil purchased with the much stronger euro.

In the final analysis, it's clear that among these components of the price of oil, only commodities trading has seen a dramatic change of pace. It is hard to escape the conclusion 4 that financial trading plays a contributing role in having pushed crude oil prices up 94 percent in the past year.

We need to take action to restore the market for oil futures to its intended purpose--not as a speculative vehicle for energy hedge funds. At the same time, we need to recognize the international nature of energy trading and implement market reforms globally. My resolution calls upon the diplomatic and financial leadership of the U.S. government to begin this process. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join in support of the resolution before us. It is appropriate and important that we honor the hardworking men and women who make our infrastructure the envy of the world. Investment in the Nation's highway, bridge and transit infrastructure has not kept up with growing demands on the system. Our Department of Transportation found that to maintain highway bridge and transit networks, governments at all levels would need to invest nearly $95 billion per year for each of the next 20 years, and to improve highway, bridge and transit networks, that level of investment would need to increase to nearly $154 billion per year.

Recently, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, a bipartisan commission made up of representatives from various transportation sectors appointed by leadership in both parties and from the executive branch, reported to the Congress that the United States needs to invest up to $340 billion annually for the next 50 years to upgrade the Nation's existing transportation network to a good state of repair and to build the more advanced facilities that our people will require to remain competitive with other emerging economic powers around the world.

We have neglected this work for a generation, and it will come back to haunt our children and our grandchildren, unless we begin the necessary investment and the necessary work, not just to provide the jobs, which is obviously important, but to provide the efficient undergirding of our economy, which will enable us to maintain our standard of living, improve it, and maintain our competitiveness as an international power.

Our committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has jurisdiction over our water transportation system, and that consists of 926 coastal and inland harbors maintained by the Corps of Engineers and some 25,000 miles of inland and coastal commercial waterways. If we don't keep our harbors and waterways operating efficiently, we obviously threaten our economic prosperity. To meet these needs, as well as the need for flood protection and environmental restoration, passing a Water Resources Development Act for 2008 is high on our committee's agenda.

According to separate studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, EPA and municipal groups, the current rate of capital investment will not keep our waterway treatment systems operational. State and local governments are spending nearly $10 billion a year in capital investments and waste water infrastructure, and most of this funding comes from local ratepayers.

However, to meet the needs of communities all over our country, we should be doubling that spending. We can't continue to take our modern wastewater treatment facilities for granted. Not only are they critical to protect our health and environment, they are important to protect our economy as well.

Public infrastructure plays an important role in enhancing our quality of life, improving our environment, and contributing to our economic prosperity. These systems, and the professionals, engineers, and administrators who maintain them, are sometimes taken for granted. So it is important that Congress recognize the contribution they make to ensure that America remains the world's premier economic power, and passage of this resolution will do that. I urge all Members to support House Resolution 1137.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

The resolution before us, House Concurrent Resolution 309, as has been pointed out, authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for the District of Columbia's Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run to be held June 6, 2008. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department will serve as cosponsors of this year's event.

Special Olympics is an international organization dedicated to enriching the lives of children and adults with disabilities through athletics and through competition. The torch run is a special event that works with Federal and local police departments to run the Flame of Hope to Fort McNair, the site of the local Special Olympics games.

The torch will be lit in a ceremony recognizing supporters of the Special Olympics on the west steps of the United States Capitol. Nearly 1,200 police officers, Special Olympics athletes, and members of the public will be present for the ceremony torch lighting and the start of the run. Once lit, the torch will be carried by police officers to Fort McNair.

More than 26 police departments will join together to support the Special Olympics by raising money, carrying the torch, or running in support of the Special Olympics. Support of Congress has helped this special event hold an opening ceremony on the Capitol grounds that works with both Federal and local police departments to support the Special Olympics. This year's event will be the 23rd held on the Capitol grounds. I encourage my colleagues to join the law enforcement community in supporting the Special Olympics and in joining me in supporting the resolution before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 339, which was introduced by our colleague, Representative Michael Burgess from Texas. The resolution expresses support for the goals of Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month.

Each May during Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, State agencies and motorcycle organizations across our country conduct a variety of activities to remind all riders and motorcyclists to share the road. These activities also encourage riders to wear protective gear, never drink and ride, be properly licensed, and receive proper training. All of these important messages help motorcyclists and other motorists get ready for the busy riding season ahead.

In approximately two-thirds of fatal car versus motorcycle crashes, the driver of the car has been found to be at fault. Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month will help drivers of cars, trucks, and motorcycles remember that they must consider other users of the road as they use their own vehicles.

Additionally, this resolution recognizes the transportation benefits associated with motorcycling. Specifically, motorcycles are fuel efficient and decrease congestion while having little impact on our Nation's transportation infrastructure. I support this resolution, and I hope it brings attention to motorcycle safety across our Nation's highways as well as the benefits associated with motorcycling. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 305, introduced by our colleague, Earl Blumenauer from Oregon. The resolution expresses the importance of bicycles in our transportation system. Bicycles provide a way to reduce congestion on our highways, decrease air pollution and enrich the health of Americans who use them.

The resolution supports the implementation of State and local street policies that accommodate all users of transportation, and supports funding for core Federal transportation programs that support nonmotorized infrastructure.

With rising fuel prices, bicycling offers a way for Americans to save money and time on our busy highways, while maintaining and improving their fitness. I hope this concurrent resolution will bring attention to the many benefits of bicycling.

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of the resolution, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would require that fuel surcharges collected by a motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder be passed through to the person responsible for bearing the cost of the fuel. This is similar to legislation introduced in the Senate by Senators Olympia Snowe and Sherrod Brown.

I am introducing this bill in response to comments I have heard from independent truckers and small trucking companies in my district and the State of Wisconsin. They tell me that there are occasions where they must pay for the cost of fuel but the broker or carrier they are working with is not passing on to them fuel charges that are being billed to the shipper.

In normal circumstances, this seems patently unfair, but in this day of $4.00-plus per gallon diesel fuel, it is unconscionable that a fuel surcharge is being assessed but not passed on to the one actually paying the fuel bill. I have been told by one of my constituents who is an independent trucker who will be appearing in bankruptcy court next month that this inequity contributed to his financial problems. It is not right and it should be corrected.

Diesel is now the largest operating expense that truckers are facing. According to the American Trucking Associations, it is expected that the annual diesel bill for the trucking industry will increase by more than $22 billion in 2008--from $112 billion in 2007 to $135 billion this year.

The trucking industry is primarily small businesses and we have 325,000 independent owner-operators that collectively operate 525,000 trucks in the United States. They are crucial to our economic vitality in delivering goods across the country, but are facing ever-increasing challenges in terms of regulation and costs. The TRUCC Act is the least we can do to send the message and be clear that they should not be disadvantaged from the payments they deserve.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by the text that I have placed at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Under current law, Federal Family Education Loan Program guaranty agencies are obligated to serve as lenders of last resort to borrowers who have been denied a Federal student loan by two lenders. The legislation we are considering today puts in place measures that will permit an entire higher education institution, rather than just individuals, to participate in the Lender of Last Resort program and also clarifies the Secretary of Education's authority to advance mandatory funds to guaranty agencies to serve as the lender of last resort.

The amendment I am offering today would simply require the Secretary of Education to review and revise as necessary the regulations concerning prohibited guaranty agency inducements to ensure that such agencies do not engage in improper inducements as lenders of last resort.

Currently, guaranty agencies are provided flexibility from the general lender prohibitions regarding inducements and exempted from others when they act as lenders of last resort. While this flexibility may be necessary, the bill before us would expand the role of guaranty agencies acting as lenders of last resort. And it's prudent to take another look at these regulations to be sure that students and taxpayers continue to be protected.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Miller and our ranking member, Buck McKeon, for working together on this important legislation. As has been pointed out, the bill we are considering today will put in place additional measures to ensure continued access to Federal student loans.

During committee consideration I expressed concern with one provision in the bill that would permit an entire institution rather than the individual the authority to participate in the lender of last resort program. I urged the committee to consider clarifying the trigger mechanism for school eligibility in order to avoid a situation in which a guaranty agency is in essence the lender of first resort. I am pleased that the chairman included language in the manager's amendment that will be offered that requires the Secretary of Education, not the guaranty agency, to determine whether a school qualifies for institution-wide designation.

Furthermore, the manager's amendment requires institutions to demonstrate that a minimum number of students or percentage of students have been rejected by eligible lenders before receiving this designation.

These are two important changes, so I again thank Chairman Miller for including them in the manager's amendment and appreciate Ranking Member McKeon's assistance on this issue.

While the focus of the bill we are considering today is making sure contingency plans are in place should turmoil in the credit markets affect the availability of Federal student loans and the Federal Family Education Loan Program, we do have another Federal student loan program that is immune to effects of the credit market, and that is the Direct Loan Program.

Just this year, over 100 schools have applied to participate in the Direct Loan Program. Penn State University stated that it is moving to the Direct Loan Program because it will ``enable students to continue their education without worrying about whether and where their Federal student loans come from.''

Currently, the Direct Loan Program accounts for about 20 percent of the student loan market. However, the Secretary of Education has stated on multiple occasions that the Direct Loan Program could easily double the amount of new loans it makes to students.

It is just commonsense that in times of market turmoil, instead of relying on untested fall-back measures in the FFEL Program, universities should also consider the Direct Loan Program.

I will conclude by emphasizing that to date, no student or college has reported problems accessing Federal student loans. Currently, the disruption is best described as forcing some students to switch lenders. The message from Congress to students and families should be that they should not panic and should continue to pursue Federal student aid in the upcoming school year. There are measures in place, and in this bill we are strengthening those measures, to ensure that students will always have access to Federal student loans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. English from Pennsylvania, for yielding, and I appreciate the hard work that he and members of his committee have done in this area.

I had the privilege of appearing before his subcommittee as we were considering the financing of this legislation. In fact, in September of last year, the House considered and passed a bill that resulted from that hearing, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which was H.R. 2881. It reauthorized the FAA for the next 4 years. On several occasions after that, the House passed bills to extend the FAA programs.

Unfortunately, the other body has taken no action on any of these measures; therefore, the authority of the FAA's essential programs and taxes were extended through the end of this month as part of the omnibus appropriations act. Regrettably, those FAA programs and authorities not extended in the omnibus expired on September 30.

Additionally, although the omnibus appropriation bill provided money, it did not extend the FAA's contract authority, and therefore as of December 31, the FAA no longer has the authority to make new obligations, including sorely needed Airport Improvement Program grants to allow airports to complete vital infrastructure improvement projects. The omnibus also included a provision that would prevent the FAA from spending any money of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund after March 1 of this year.

Without some congressional action to extend the FAA's authority on March 1st, the FAA will be facing a partial shutdown. It is unlikely that Congress will be able to send a long-term FAA reauthorization bill to the President for consideration before the February 29 deadline.

We have before us H.R. 5270. This bill would extend the funding and expenditure authority of the FAA through June 30 of this year, 2008. The bill also extends the taxes funding the Airport and Airway Trust Funds through June 30, provides Airport Improvement Program funding through September 30, and extends eligibility for essential air service subsidies and airport grant funding.

Ideally, we should be considering the FAA reauthorization conference report at this time. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, we are considering the third short-term extension of the FAA's authority by the House. However, this bill will ensure that our national aviation system continues to operate until a full FAA reauthorization can be enacted.

There is much work yet to be done on the FAA reauthorization bill. We need to work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to pass legislation that the President can sign.

I support this extension in order to allow us time to accomplish this important goal.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, my alternative market study mechanism, which is before us, this amendment would significantly advance our understanding of market-based reforms to the guaranteed student loan program that were begun last year during our consideration of the College Cost Reduction Act. This Congress has demonstrated significant interest in developing some type of comprehensive market-based reform in order to overhaul the guaranteed loan program and make certain that taxpayers' interests are better served.

Last year, I had the opportunity to offer an amendment in the Education and Labor Committee to the College Cost Reduction Act to study and pilot a market-based reform, such as an auction, to determine how the Federal Government may better determine lender yields to reduce wasteful spending in the guaranteed loan program. This amendment was adopted in the committee and included in the bipartisan House-passed bill last summer.

Well, I was pleased that an auction pilot was included in the final law. There is growing concern among reformers, the lending industry, and the administration that the Senate model which was adopted may have significant implementation and logistical challenges.

However, this bill presents us with an opportunity to further study and consider an effective market-based reform proposal. So the amendment before us would simply amend the current auction pilot evaluation language included in this bill to require the Secretaries of Education and the Treasury, in conjunction with the Government Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative market-based reform to the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The alternative should reduce Federal costs to taxpayers and use savings to increase need-based grants to lower-income students.

I'd urge Members to support this amendment to further our understanding of market-based reform options. The study would mark an important step toward fully understanding market-based reforms of the program and would build on reforms incorporated in the College Cost Reduction Access Act. And again I'd ask my colleagues to support an alternative market mechanism study amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we'd just say that it's important for us to get informed, knowledgeable advice as to how to operate the student loan programs, the direct program, and the guarantee program better. In the past, we've adopted pretty much a political-based approach of Congress setting the amount of the guarantee that private lenders receive for making student loans. In the reform act this summer, we cut that and tried to put in place a pilot approach coming from the Senate for a market-based mechanism. This would broaden the study; and, I think, would, in fact, be something that will end up saving the taxpayer money if it works. And if it doesn't work, we're no worse off. It's a study.

So I don't understand the reluctance to try to get the Treasury Department and experts in this area. We have auctions for loans weekly to finance the debt of our country. And we certainly can do a better job of pricing the guaranteed student loan program.

I certainly do.

I thank the chairman.

I certainly would urge the chairman and the ranking minority member on the committee, as they go to conference, to keep an open mind on this proposal so we can do the best job with the taxpayers' money and help students get their loans in a cost-effective manner.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment should be much less controversial than the one that just passed. As you're aware, the Federal Government runs two Federal student loan programs that provide the same affordable loans to American students: the Federal Family Education or Guaranteed Loan Program, and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program.

In the past year, a significant amount of attention has been paid to the scandal-ridden and wasteful guaranteed loan program. Reducing excessive subsidies was the primary goal of the bipartisan College Cost Reduction and Access Act that was enacted last September, and we have seen some success. But this program was so embroiled with illegal and unethical activity between lenders and financial aid officers that sweeping new rules are included in this higher education reform act aimed at ending these relationships and providing much greater transparency for students and for taxpayers.

Given all of the abuse that's occurred in the guaranteed program, imagine my surprise when an amendment ended up being adopted which had the effect of targeting the direct loan program and a seemingly innocuous amendment to audit the direct loan program contained a series of reporting requirements applied only to the direct loan program which were designed to make it appear the program was performing more poorly than the tarnished guaranteed program.

I should note that despite the scores of improprieties documented in the

guaranteed loan program, the direct loan program has had no similar ethical abuses. Further, it has been scored as significantly cheaper by the Office of Management Budge, CBO and GAO, since its inception in the early 1900s.

Now it will be one thing if the amendment applied these new reporting provisions equally to both the guarantee and direct programs, and I'm encouraged that the author of the amendment, my respected colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Price), has indicated that that is his intent, and I'm hoping that we can, in fact, adopt this amendment to apply requirements to both programs.

But this language currently in the bill has the effect of undermining the direct loan program, boosting the guaranteed loan program's performance in comparison, and the amendment before us addresses the language.

Madam Chairman, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The amendment would maintain the audit and most of the reporting requirements added to the direct loan program but would also require comparable audits in reporting for guaranty agencies in the Guaranteed Loan program. I have no doubt the direct loan program will pass the audit with shining colors, and I look forward to the report. I hope the same can be said of the Guaranteed Loan program.

I would ask support for the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield to the chairman of the full committee such time as he may consume.

Madam Chairman, I just have to say, this is important, because, on the one hand, if you treat a direct loan as adding to the debt with no offset because it is a loan which will be repaid, the loan is an asset, there should be some offset, you can get a very misleading picture. If you are cosigning a note, you are liable on the note, and that's what we do when we guarantee these private loans.

So zero costs in the direct program and outlay. And it misleads, too, because unless you compare apples and apples, you can have a badly distorted picture.