Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I don't rise to oppose. I just wanted to commend my friend for bringing this issue and highlighting it. We think it is very important. We wanted to note that we support what he is trying to do. We certainly accept the amendment, and we look forward to working with him through the process to help achieve the objectives that he stated.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for programs that support vulnerable seniors. Frankly, my committee has provided increases for these programs in prior years because, like her, we understand how valuable and important they are to keeping seniors independent in their homes. As the gentlewoman knows, our subcommittee received an allocation below last year's level, and we were not in a position to provide another year of increases to these programs. The amendment reduces the administration funds available to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. A reduction of this magnitude would significantly hinder the Secretary's ability to administer the agency. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He raises, I think, a genuinely important issue. Our committee understands the value of the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training program, which is why we did not accept the administration's budget request which actually canceled the program. Our committee, as my friend knows, received an allocation that was lower than fiscal year 2017, so we had to make some tough decisions. I want my friend to know we will work with him going forward and see if we can arrive at a solution that he finds more satisfactory in the final bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the amendment and for working with our good friend who couldn't be here tonight to make sure that this issue that I know she cares deeply about and I know my friend cares deeply about is raised. I tell the gentlewoman that I will continue work with her as we move forward in the appropriations process this year. I hope we can reach an agreement, particularly in this area. I understand the gentlelady's frustration with finding a large enough offset to accommodate the increase she proposes. However, her amendment would actually reduce resources for the Department of Education by nearly a quarter. I think this would jeopardize the Department's ability to administer the very program she seeks to increase. So I will reluctantly oppose the amendment at this time. I believe the offset within the Department of Education administrative account is just simply too much. Again, I want to reiterate to my friend that I look forward to working with her as we go forward and perhaps receiving a different allocation under a House-Senate agreement in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, having yielded to people on both sides of the debate, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, quite sincerely, for his amendment. And again, as I will oft repeat tonight, as the gentleman knows, we had to cut $5 billion from this bill, and we had to make some genuinely tough choices. In this case, we accepted the President's recommended funding level for magnet schools, and we were also able to increase charter schools, though not by as much as the President requested. Charter schools have demonstrated effectiveness in providing a real choice in quality education for millions of students around the country. If we have a change in our allocation in conference, I will gladly take another look at the magnet school program to evaluate additional funding there. I think my friend makes a very good case on their behalf; however, at this time, simply because of reasons of allocation, I will oppose the amendment because the offset reduces charter school grants, which I strongly support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my friend about charter schools. Actually, charter schools have provided enormous opportunity for children of every race, every ethnic background. They have been particularly effective, I think, in minority areas, so I reject any suggestion that the decisions we made had anything to do with race or racism or that the charter school movement is involved in that. I just don't think that is the case. But I do agree in the importance of magnet schools, and if we get a different allocation, we are going to sit down and work with our friends to see if we can also make some progress in that area. But at this time, I am going to continue to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my friend I certainly don't take the amendment as an attack on charter schools any more than I accept the idea that, by funding charter schools, we are involved in promoting racial segregation. That is not what we are trying to do here. We have a genuine debate over the best vehicles to go forward. I happen to think both these vehicles are good vehicles. I have seen what the charter school movement, frankly, has meant in New Orleans, what it has meant in this city, the opportunities that it has opened to thousands and thousands of students of all racial backgrounds. And the administration, as my friend knows, has put a particular emphasis here. And while we increase funding, we are not anywhere close to what the administration wanted to do. So I want to reiterate to my friend from Connecticut that we intend to work with him if we have an allocation change where we can find some additional resources, because I think he makes a very good point, and I very much value the contributions that magnet schools also have made to try to improve educational outcomes across the spectrum for our students. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my friend from Minnesota for the amendment. I am a big fan of career and technical education, and, frankly, along with the State of Ohio, Oklahoma probably has the most robust and strongest career technical education program of any State in the country. It is actually something we fund ourselves, for the most part. I would recommend other people do the same. I am also, you know, frankly, as my friend knows, dealing with a cut of $5 billion from the bill. In this case, the gentleman seeks to cut TRIO funding to pay for his amendment. In my opinion, it is totally misguided. Since the TRIO program began, it has produced over 5 million college graduates, and those college graduates were almost exclusively from families where no one had ever had the opportunity to go. This is a proven successful program. It has helped literally millions of first generations of college students, so I strongly support TRIO and will not support cuts in this program; so I, therefore, oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been a good and robust debate, but I don't think it has been a particularly partisan debate. As a matter of fact, I see people on both sides of the aisle that actually have both solutions. My friend, Mr. Scott, may have the best solution of all: let's plus-up both of these programs because they both do a lot of good. But, in this case, I don't think you make one the enemy of the other. I have seen TRIO programs work, and I have seen how many jobs they produce. We are not serving anywhere close to the population eligible for TRIO. Somewhere less than 10 percent of the eligible students actually take advantage of the program. Again, my State invests very heavily, probably more heavily than most other States that I would suggest do the same thing Ohio and Oklahoma have done. And these programs which my friend rightly champions, I have seen people actually raise their own taxes so they could have a career or technical institute. So I think there is merit to both of these approaches. But I do also think 5 million college graduates from people who did not have the chance to go is something this country ought to think about. The statistics tell us each of those graduates in a lifetime earn $1 million more than they would have. I promise you, the Federal Government will get its share of that million dollars. This is a program that has paid for itself over and over again. Perhaps as we go forward, we can find other ways to help both of these programs capitalize on their potential. So while I agree with the objective my friend is trying to achieve, I don't agree in achieving it at the expense of TRIO or GEAR UP. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin is a good friend. We serve on the Budget Committee together, and, frankly, I know how sincere his concern about the issues that he lays out is. I know how hard he fought on that committee, and oftentimes we were unlikely allies in a number of places. So I know this is a passion and a sincere commitment. I remind my friend, he knows I know he would have preferred more, but this bill is $5 billion less than it was last year. He certainly had some success, and success that I agree with, but in this particular case, if I understand the gentleman's amendment correctly, it would basically cut education administration by $43 million, a roughly 10 percent cut across the board in the administrative areas. Or is it just a 2 percent cut in everything?

Mr. COLE. Okay. But substantial reductions, and in programs that have already been cut. So for that reason, I would oppose my friend's additional cuts, but I would hope to work with him going forward in something that I know he knows is a far greater driver of our debt, and that is entitlement reform. That is where the money is. We end up fighting every year over discretionary accounts that are relatively minor compared to the behemoths of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other so-called mandatory programs. They are only mandatory because Congress doesn't have the courage to pick up the law and actually deal with them. So I am going to work with my friend in that area because I know he is sincere. In this case, I feel compelled to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.