Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, can you give me an example of a barrier?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of the Marshall amendment. As the amendment states, there are unique challenges facing rural areas, especially in regards to refueling and infrastructure for alternative-fuel vehicles, such as those that run on natural gas and hydrogen or electric or plug-in electric hybrid vehicles that require an electrical outlet. I thank Mr. Marshall for trying to ensure that rural Americans have the same benefits in this area as their urban counterparts. With that, I would support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Cohen amendment even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, you said it would help the American manufacturers. Is it one specific manufacturer, or who would this benefit? I want to make sure that it is not just a specific manufacturer.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns about the gentleman's amendment. As I read the amendment, I note that Mr. Massa is adding language that would support public-private partnerships dedicated to overcoming barriers in commercial application of transformational vehicle technologies that utilize such industry-led facilities. Perhaps the gentleman could explain in a little more detail who would be able to take advantage of this change and what types of activities it would allow.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, the RV is an optional purchase for a consumer, usually used for vacation purposes. We've been talking about recreational. And, again, I really have some concerns of spending taxpayer funds on research and development. If the gentleman could convince me that this would lower the fuel consumption so much that it would save-- Do you have any idea how many recreational vehicles there are that would benefit from this research?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I would not oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Holt amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I support the Holt amendment. I think that this amendment makes clear that the pilot program was intended to include agricultural and construction nonroad equipment. Therefore, I do support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Marshall amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I just have a question of the designee, Mr. Gordon. I am not sure that this amendment is necessary as I believe that a qualified plug-in electric vehicle manufacturer is considered an automotive manufacturer. Do you think that there definitely needs to be something written into the amendment saying that a qualified plug-in electric vehicle manufacturer is considered an automotive manufacturer?

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, as I said, I am not necessarily opposed. I just wanted clarification whether you thought that these vehicles would not be included in this bill, if they were not addressed.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I just want to make sure that we all understand the intent so we can make an informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to this bill. Could you give me a little more on who benefits from this and the barriers?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I do support the amendment. I think it simply lays out examples of electromechanical storage technologies to make sure that they are included in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Kennedy amendment even though I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield.

Mrs. BIGGERT. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, so in other words, this would be the same kind of chassis that would be in one of the commercial trucks?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I know you are talking about the commercialization, which is what we sometimes call the ``valley of death'' for companies to get out beyond the demonstration to the marketplace which is probably the hardest for so many companies. And you think that this will help a lot of different companies be able to do that?

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this bill. Sixty years ago, the only student loans available were private loans. Unfortunately, the system left out many students with either limited financial resources or poor or nonexistent credit. So in 1965, Congress created the Federal Family Education Loan Program which has successfully administered and regulated federally backed private student loans for the past 44 years. But President Clinton decided that we could save money by creating a new federally run program to provide student loans at public option. At present, just under one-third of colleges have chosen the public option, also known as the Direct Loan Program. However, Democrats have decided that by leveraging the borrowing power of the Federal Government, which Congress has more aptly demonstrated, they can save money, as scored by CBO. We all know that because of the Federal Government's size and ability to raise taxes at any time to pay off its debts, it can borrow money at a cheaper rate than private banks. By requiring all students that use Federal loans to borrow directly from the government, this bill allows the government to make a greater profit off students, count it as a ``cost savings,'' and then spend it on other educational priorities. It is interesting that after the government's student loan ``public option'' failed to gain widespread acceptance, the other side of the aisle now proposes to eliminate all other choices so that students are forced into the public option. Even more interesting is that the other side of the aisle has proposed another ``public option'' that will supposedly save money by using the government's size to underpay doctors and hospitals, which forces private plan owners to make up the difference. I fear that in a few years, the public plan may soon be the only affordable option available to most Americans. I don't want a single-payer health care system, and I don't want a single-payer student loan program. Just as 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with their current health care, over two-thirds of all colleges have elected to go with the privately administered FFEL program. We should let colleges continue to select the student loan program that works best for their students, not the one chosen by bureaucrats in Washington. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this bill to make sure that the student loan ``public option'' is not the only option.