John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although again I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. The purpose of this amendment is to allow States to provide education and training for early learning providers by entering into partnerships with higher education institutions. I don't oppose these partnerships at all, but I am concerned with the underlying language here. What we are doing in the bill, we are diverting $8 billion to fund and impose requirements on State early childhood systems. In 2005 the GAO reported there were already 69 Federal early childhood programs spread out over 10 Federal agencies with no coordinated or comprehensive strategy. It is not the partnerships to improve early learning provider training that cause my concern. It is the entire notion that the Federal Government is inserting itself yet again into pre-K education and other areas, especially when we have not yet met our obligation to very important programs like IDEA, creating new programs that once again will be underfunded, once again will compete with special ed. We ought not be adding new programs when we haven't met our basic obligations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, once again I rise to claim time in opposition, although once again I am not going to oppose the amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, clearly there is continuing disagreement over money that this bill saves or costs. The Congressional Budget Office provided an original score of a so-called savings of $87 billion. That same Congressional Budget Office has provided additional information which would indicate that this bill is going to put us further into deficit, further into debt by perhaps as much as $50 billion. This is not a money-saving bill. This is, indeed, a government takeover of an industry. This will cost jobs despite the Etheridge amendment. This is a bad piece of legislation. I am going to support this amendment because it is at least a Band-Aid. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, this amendment, it seems to me, is a little bit like putting a bandaid on what has proven to be a gaping wound. I don't think it's going to make many things worse, and it might even stop a little bit of the bleeding, but it certainly won't heal the damage. H.R. 3221 eliminates a program that over 70 percent of colleges and universities have consistently chosen. This amendment is an acknowledgment that the breakneck pace of this transition by next summer will be a problem for students, families and schools. While I share the concern about this radical change to our financial aid system, I fear this amendment may not do as much good as the gentleman from Texas hopes. The Department of Education already maintains a Web site on Federal aid programs and regularly disseminates information to high schools about the availability of Federal student aid. In spite of information about the direct loan program, most schools still choose the FFEL Program. That tells me it's not a lack of information but a genuine preference for the choice, innovation and competition of the FFEL Program. Informing students and families is important, but it's no substitute for simply maintaining the program they already know and they already like. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I don't plan to vote against it.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. The purpose of this amendment is indeed laudable. It's to ensure that dislocated workers are considered in each State's postsecondary education planning. It's a reasonable goal. I support the goal. We should all support that goal. But there is a rich irony here in that the underlying bill itself is going to create thousands of these dislocated workers. We have seen estimates of 30,000 or 35,000. So if we are serious about helping dislocated workers, and I believe we are, we should scrap this underlying job-killing bill and find a better way to stabilize student lending for the long term. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not plan to oppose it.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, this amendment kind of attempts to cobble together a new system that will provide students, families and colleges the types of delinquency prevention, default aversion and financial literacy services available today under the FFEL Program. I do not oppose these types of activities; I support them. But the existence of this amendment, it seems to me, is proof that we are eliminating these important benefits by eliminating the FFEL Program. Rather than figuring out a better way to keep the FFEL Program, to keep the private sector involved, the majority is attempting to wedge some of its components into the direct loan program. I am concerned that the net result will mean fewer students served with more red tape for those who do wish to obtain these services. As I said, Madam Chair, I am not going to oppose this amendment, but Members should know there is a much easier way to preserve the value- added elements of FFEL. Rather than destroying the program and working to recreate it, we can work to preserve and improve the FFEL Program. Madam Chair, I yield back.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although at this time I do not expect to oppose it.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. In fact, I rise to say that we are going to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time, although I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We clearly have some differences of opinion on this legislation, as often happens in this body. I want to underscore a couple of things that the underlying bill, by mandating the public option, mandating a government takeover of an industry, does to expand the government's role. It creates new programs, it creates new expenses. It will cost jobs in the private sector. And when you remove the budget gimmicks, and you look at the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, it is clear that it will add to the deficit. It will add to our debt. And so we are looking at an underlying bill here that says it's better if we turn over to the Department of Education and the Treasury the responsibilities of lending $100 billion a year to students and getting the interest back from those loans. Of course, we don't have the $100 billion. We are running a deficit this year of $1.6 trillion, and we are looking at a debt in 10 years of $21 trillion. So in order for the government, now this huge bank, to have the money to lend, the government is going to have to go somewhere, China perhaps, and borrow that money so that it can lend the money. This seems to be a strange time to be doing this. I think the underlying bill is flawed. I think it is a rush to a government takeover. It is going to add to our deficit. So I rise in strong support of this amendment, which says let's take advantage of the private sector. Let's see if there is a way that we can strengthen it, encourage it. Let's take some time and continue with the bipartisan agreement ECASLA and look at the program before we push precipitously the entire industry into the hands of the government.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, although, in fact, I'm going to support the amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a good, laudable goal. I certainly hope it works. Financial literacy is in dire straits at every stage of our development. I don't know that this will do the job, but I certainly like the direction it's going. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although, once again, I do not plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our higher education system should be focused on serving low-income and nontraditional students along with dislocated workers and veterans. In fact, some parts of the system are already working and working well. Community colleges and proprietary institutions, for example, are addressing this need. I do not oppose prioritizing these populations if we're providing grants for education and job training. But again, this amendment proves that H.R. 3221 was crafted hastily, failing to adequately address the needs of students and job seekers. It creates a new program that duplicates many of the purposes of the existing job training system under the Workforce Investment Act which is long overdue for reauthorization, I might add. Those populations are receiving assistance today under WIA. I would also point out the perverse consequences of this bill coupled with this amendment. Under H.R. 3221, we will likely see significant job losses, creating those dislocated workers. Rather than adding to the number of dislocated workers, we should simply abandon this job- killing bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support this amendment. I support the comments of my colleagues from New Jersey and Mississippi, the author of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, we're going to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. It was the gentleman's amendment. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair. Doesn't the opposite side have the right to close on these amendments as offered?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. 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).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. 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.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.