Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of this bill is to address the unique challenges facing students and families in this time of economic uncertainty. That is why the bill takes steps to ensure parents are not automatically denied a PLUS loan simply because they're struggling with the same mortgage troubles facing so many other families in the country. This amendment is consistent with the spirit of our bill because it recognizes that families also may be grappling with medical bills. And as the chairman explained, sometimes you are hit with a bill, and that shows up as a liability which would put you out of reach of getting another loan, and, in fact, you may not have that liability. And until that is clarified, you are held in abeyance. And students can't wait. So this is a very important amendment that the gentlelady has presented. I thank Representative Castor for her amendment. It makes the bill better. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we are continuing the debate on H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. This bill is a first step to prevent a crisis before it happens in the student loan program, and its consideration has come not a minute too soon. Peak lending season begins in July, and we cannot, we must not, wait until a student is denied a loan to put mechanisms in place to deal with the turmoil in the student loan market. To date, 60 lenders have suspended their participation in all or part of the FFEL program. This includes 10 nonprofit State loan agencies affecting students in Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire and Minnesota. These are not minor players exiting the program. Nine out of the top 10 consolidation lenders have stopped offering these loans, while 20 out of the top 100 originators have stopped making Stafford and PLUS loans. These 60 lenders account for 13 percent of the total Stafford and PLUS loan volume and 76 percent of total consolidation loan volume. In fiscal year 2006, these lenders originated more than $6.5 billion in Stafford and PLUS loans to more than 800,000 students and parents, and more than $55 billion in consolidation loans to more than 1.8 million borrowers. The bill before us includes necessary reforms to ensure the Department of Education can respond if students have access problems as lending season gets underway. First, it will allow students to receive additional financing that will help them stay in school if they are denied private, nonfederal loans. Second, the bill clarifies aspects of the Lender of Last Resort program, easing participation for students and schools and ensuring funds will be available should they become necessary. Third, the bill ensures that lenders have the authority to provide PLUS loans to struggling parents who are facing difficulties with their home mortgage. And, fourth, the bill grants new flexibility for parents with a new optional grace period that permits parents to defer PLUS loan payments until after the children graduate. Finally, the bill authorizes the Department of Education to invest in or agree to the future purchase of outstanding loans which could free up capital and allow lenders to make new loans in the upcoming school year. I want to thank the chairman for moving very rapidly on this situation. That's not our modus operandi around here; generally we wait until we're in the middle of a crisis to fix this. I hope that I'm wrong in thinking that there may be a crisis coming, but I think it is very appropriate to take these positive steps to ease or prevent a problem that could arise very shortly. I again thank the chairman for his efforts. He has not been well this week, but you wouldn't notice it. He shows up at every meeting, and he has worked very hard. I hope he takes some time over the weekend to get some rest and gets feeling better for next week. I strongly support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, ranking member on our Subcommittee for Healthy Families, Mr. Platts.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. McKEON. Our economy is struggling, families are dealing with a higher cost of living, rising fuel costs, a struggling mortgage market, and the threat of higher taxes. The cost of a college education continues to rise, only now students and families are wondering whether they'll be able to get the loans they need to pay their tuition bills. Like most challenges to our economy, there's no easy answer to the difficulties in our student loan programs. We will need a combination of actions, maybe some legislatively, others through regulation, that will increase liquidity and restore confidence among investors and consumers. This bill is a first step and one that deserves bipartisan support. It signals our commitment to a strong Federal family education loan program and should help ease the minds of students and families, and it does these things without a single cost to the taxpayer. I want to again thank Chairman Miller for his leadership and bipartisan cooperation on this legislation. I would also like to recognize Representatives Ruben Hinojosa and Ric Keller, the chairman and senior Republican on the Higher Education Subcommittee, for their role in making this legislation a reality. The staff deserves special recognition for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor so quickly. On my staff I would like to thank Amy Jones along with Susan Ross and Sally Stroup; on Chairman Miller's staff, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel. Madam Chairman, this bill is a positive first step. It's good for students and families, it's good for taxpayers, and it's good for our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Miller for his work on this amendment. Like the underlying bill, this amendment was developed on a bipartisan basis to respond to some of the very specific challenges facing our student loan program. Although many of the challenges in this amendment are technical in nature, they will help to perfect the bill and ensure it has the impact we intend. For instance, the purpose of this bill has never been to force a shift from the FFEL program to the Direct Loan program. That's why the amendment clarifies that if the Secretary of Education does purchase outstanding loans, she can keep those loans with their existing servicing arrangements. This will ensure a seamless transition for students while having the intended effect of freeing up capital to make new loans. The amendment also ensures the bill will have no cost to taxpayers. From the outset Chairman Miller and I agreed that it was important to move a bill that made meaningful reforms without driving up spending. H.R. 5715 does exactly that. With regard to the Lender of Last Resort program, the amendment clarifies some of the steps that must be taken in order to designate school-wide participation in this program. These reforms will be enhanced even further by the amendment that will be offered shortly by Representative Petri. I appreciate Chairman Miller's willingness to include language proposed by Representative Platts that adds greater clarity and flexibility within the Secretary's ability to purchase loans. Although it was always our intent that this new, temporary authority would include the concept of a ``forward purchase agreement,'' this amendment makes it explicit that the Secretary can enter into agreements to purchase loans in the future. The amendment also clarifies that lenders must reinvest the proceeds from the sale of loans to the Secretary back into making new loans to students. Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for his work on this amendment and on the bill as a whole. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I will not be opposing the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment. The Lender of Last Resort program was never intended to serve as a bailout for our student loan system as a whole. Rather, it was developed as a backstop for individual students on a case-by-case basis to be able to access a student loan if they encountered some rare circumstance in which they could not borrow through the standard channels. I, for one, hope that the broad-based Lender of Last Resort authority in this bill will never be used. After all, the goal of this legislation is to prevent such a crisis within the loan program before it occurs. But I appreciate the steps being taken to ensure that if the Lender of Last Resort program ever needs to be deployed on a larger scale, we will have the infrastructure and processes in place to allow it. However, because the program was simply never intended to be used on a school-wide basis, we should ensure that in implementing this authority, we are not unintentionally subverting current regulations. We also want to ensure that a guaranty agency is not unnecessarily punished for stepping in as a lender if needed. That is why this amendment requests that the Secretary review the regulations with the Lender of Last Resort program in mind. This program should be implemented in a manner that will be effective, efficient, and in the best interest of students. I want to thank Representative Petri for offering this amendment, which requires the Secretary to ensure that regulations are updated to reflect the new responsibilities that would be given to guaranty agencies operating as a lender of last resort for entire schools rather than individual students. This amendment is consistent with our longstanding support for greater sunshine, transparency and consumer protections. I support this amendment, and I urge its passage.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his longstanding commitment to addressing the rising costs of college. This amendment gets to the heart of the concern that many of us have harbored for a long time. It takes a hard look at whether or not an increase in Federal aid will lead to an increase in college tuition. Everyone recognizes that Federal student aid is a good investment. Pell Grants, together with campus-based aid programs, Federal student loans and other higher education benefits help make a college education accessible to every American student. With enactment of the Higher Education Act in 1965, these financial aid programs truly did make college more affordable. But beginning in the eighties and in the decades since, college tuition has skyrocketed. Despite our best efforts to keep pace by investing in student aid, college is becoming less affordable for many families. Tuition goes up, so we increase financial aid. But when we increase financial aid, tuition goes up. It's a vicious cycle. And we are losing ground. Unfortunately, this pattern has even led some of us to question whether an investment in financial aid is a wise one. After all, if we're driving tuition increases by, for instance, increasing loan limits, we may be doing more harm than good. I think there's agreement that this bill will help borrowers by increasing unsubsidized borrowing limits. Particularly for borrowers who are unable to access higher-cost credit-based private loans, this additional Federal loan availability may be the difference between enrolling or not. But as we increase that type of financial aid, we need to very seriously review the consequences of that action. That's why this amendment calls on the Government Accountability Office to determine how the increase in borrowing limits impacts tuition. I thank Representative Castle along with Representative Welch for their leadership on this issue. It's a good amendment. It improves the bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. McKEON. I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed, Madam Chairman.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5715, a bill that will help ensure college students and their families are able to plan with confidence for the upcoming school year. On its own, this bill will not restore confidence and stability to the student loan programs, but it is an important first step. For months, Members on both sides of the aisle have been warning the U.S. Departments of Education and the Treasury, the various federal financial institutions, and indeed anyone who will listen, about the potential risks to our student loan program. Many of us recognized early that it was only a matter of time before the turmoil in the broader credit markets would spill into the student loan programs. Unfortunately, those warnings have become reality. I would like to share just a few of the headlines that have appeared in major papers over the last several weeks. The Wall Street Journal said, Credit Woes Hit Student Loans. The New York Times said, Fewer Options Open to Pay For Costs of College. The Washington Post said, Credit Crisis May Make College Loans More Costly: Some Firms Stop Lending to Students. USA Today said, Credit Woes May Hinder College-Bound. Mr. Chairman, with this bill, we are acting to prevent a crisis before it develops. As these headlines demonstrate, the anxieties among students and families are very real. This bill is far from a complete solution. But it contains modest, yet meaningful, steps to restore investor confidence, begin to address liquidity shortages, and most importantly, provide assistance to student and parent borrowers. The challenges in the student loan market are multifaceted. Last year, federal support for the loan program was slashed, forcing loan providers to scale back on benefits and reevaluate their future participation in the program. This year, disruptions in the capital markets have reduced liquidity and shaken investor and consumer confidence. With enactment of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act last fall, we cut some $18 billion from the program over 5 years. Although we were able to reinvest some of those funds in Pell Grants, which I strongly support, it appears now that we may have done more harm along with that good. That's because we cut so deeply into the student loan program that many lenders have opted to stop offering federal loans altogether. On the issue of liquidity, what we require is a two-pronged approach to reinstate the flawed capital into the program. First, this bill authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to act as a secondary market by purchasing or agreeing to purchase student loans so that lenders and holders can make or purchase new loans in the upcoming school year. Although this plan will provide only a modest amount of liquidity, it sends an important signal that policymakers are committed to the program's long-term stability. And it does so with no cost to the taxpayer. Second, to provide an even greater flow of capital into the program, we are taking steps to ensure other federal financing authorities are viewed as viable sources of liquidity. To that end, this legislation contains a sense of Congress, urging these authorities to exercise their existing authorities to inject liquidity into the marketplace. We're not alone in recognizing that this market-based problem requires a marked-based solution. Just yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on the impact of market disruptions on student loan access, and he called for intervention by the Federal Financing Bank. I welcome these types of creative and complementary approaches, which will work in concert to calm the market. Taken together, the prospect of federal financial institutions and the U.S. Department of Education stand ready to take the necessary steps to invest in and commit to the future purchase of loans will begin to quell the market uncertainty and restore confidence among investors, as well as among students and families planning for the coming school year. The troubles facing our financial markets and our economy as a whole are daunting. But we would do a real disservice to students and families if we dismissed the challenges in the student loan program as merely a symptom of a larger problem that is outside our control. The fact is, we can take steps to prevent a collapse in the student loan market. We can do so quickly, and without a cost to taxpayers, by focusing on our commitment to market stability. I would also offer a word of caution to those who are wary of federal intervention: If we fail to act now, we may be forced to take on a much greater governmental role in the future. And surely we can all agree that it's better to preserve the private sector program now than to replace it with a federal program later. We made a commitment more than four decades ago that there are national benefits to an affordable, accessible higher education system. What we are doing today is restating that commitment and sending a signal to students and families that we continue to believe in this program that has opened the doors of higher education to so many millions of aspiring young Americans. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that deserves our support. I want to thank the chairman for moving so quickly on this issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of our leadership team, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3361, the Pension Protection Technical Corrections Act of 2008, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which represented the most comprehensive reform of our Nation's private pension system in a generation. After years of thorough examination, thoughtful legislative development, and careful coalition-building, we finally restored common sense to our Nation's pension system through enactment of this landmark law. Thanks to those reforms, today's retirement security laws match the new realities of the 21st century economy, meaning that more U.S. workers will be able to count on their retirement savings being there for them when they need it. The Pension Protection Act included tough new funding requirements to ensure employers adequately and consistently fund their pension plans, provided workers with meaningful disclosure about the financial status of their benefits, and protected taxpayers from a possible multi-billion dollar bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The Pension Protection Act's reforms were built on six fundamental principles that helped ensure a stronger, more secure retirement for millions of American workers. Those principles were: certainty, with a permanent and more accurate calculation of employers' pension liabilities; common sense, which enabled employers to build up a cushion in their pension plans during good economic times; stability, achieved by closing funding loopholes and ensuring employers make adequate and consistent cash payments to their plans; transparency through timely and straightforward information given to employees about the health of their retirement plans; honesty from employers and union leaders, who are no longer permitted to make hollow promises of extra benefits that will never materialize because a plan is severely underfunded; and portability, established by ensuring that hybrid plans, such as cash balance pensions--which offer portable, more generous worker benefits--remain a viable part of the defined benefit system. Having served as the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce during this process, I am pleased to have been part of this effort. Of course, it is to be expected that in legislation of that magnitude, we did not get every word perfect, or every provision as clear as it could be. That is the point of the bill before us today-- H.R. 3361 is a narrow, technical bill that corrects inadvertent errors in drafting contained in the original law, and provides necessary clarification and focus, to ensure that the law is administered as Congress intended. For that reason, I support the bill before us today, and hope that it will quickly be enacted into law. I must note for the record, however, that more remains to be done. The bill before us is very narrow in scope, and addresses only those issues that are considered purely technical on a consensus basis. There are other issues that remain to be addressed. For example, late last year, the Senate passed by unanimous consent its own version of a technical corrections bill, which included critical clarifications with respect to the issue of asset smoothing. I would hope that this issue is addressed in any final technical correction package that we consider. Also, there are numerous provisions which Members and staff have discussed since enactment of the 2006 law, which enjoy broad, bipartisan support, but which did not fall within the scope of this narrow package of technical corrections. Going forward, it will be necessary for us to address these items, and I stand ready to work with my Chairman, Mr. Miller, and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee in doing so. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reiterate my support for this narrow legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the GIVE Act. I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Miller, as well as the Chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. McCarthy of New York and Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania, for their efforts to develop a solid, bipartisan bill that will strengthen our national service programs. I would also like to recognize Brad Thomas from my staff for his hard work on this bill. Like many of my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, I historically have had concerns about AmeriCorps and the other programs within the Corporation for National and Community Service. Particularly during the 1990s, Federal management of these programs was at best dismal. For years, I joined many of my colleagues, led by Mr. Hoekstra, in seeking to establish performance measures to ensure that these national service programs are in fact meeting their goals. Under the Bush administration, it has become clear that these programs are being held more accountable and they have become more efficient as a result. For example, the corporation received its seventh consecutive clean audit during the fiscal year 2006. Likewise, the corporation's leadership has instituted significant improvements in efficiency and quality, including streamlining the grants and application reporting processes, consolidating five field service centers into one, and automating education award payments, time and attendance, and travel. In short, the recent management of this program has far surpassed its record of low accountability under the previous administration; and for that reason in particular, it deserves our continued support. Moreover, this program brings together our neighbors to serve one another and thus benefit our Nation. Although there are clear opportunities to strengthen and improve these programs, the simple fact is that the corporation plays a key and increasingly effective role in, as President Bush would say, ``rallying the armies of compassion.'' Later today I plan to offer an amendment that will strengthen this already good bill. The purpose of my amendment is to acknowledge the patriotism, commitment, and sacrifice made by members of the military and their families. In return for their service to our Nation, I believe the least we can do is ensure our national service programs are able to benefit veterans and military families. Madam Chairman, this bill is based on sound principles for reform outlined by the administration and developed in conjunction with the corporation. It includes a long overdue emphasis on accountability with its inclusion of performance measures and increased competition. And on the whole, I find the bill to be a balanced one that is worthy of our support. Madam Chairman, this bill represents a bipartisan effort to come together on a program that is good for the citizens of this Nation. Unfortunately, our Democrat colleagues have been unwilling to work in the same bipartisan fashion on our Nation's security interests. It has been 18 days since the Protect America Act expired, nearly 3 weeks that the majority has conspicuously refused to bring the bipartisan Senate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modernization bill to a vote. And yesterday we got a glimpse of the reason why. An anonymous Member argued that delaying action on this critical security measure made for good politics. Madam Chairman, it is unfathomable that our Nation's security may be put at risk in the name of political gamesmanship. I strongly urge the majority to bring FISA modernization for a vote. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which will enhance the GIVE Act by codifying our commitment to ensuring veterans can serve and be served within our national service programs. The purpose of my amendment is to acknowledge the patriotism, commitment, and sacrifice made by members of the military and their families. In return for their service to our Nation, the least we can do is make sure that our national service programs are able to benefit veterans and military families. On a bipartisan basis, the Education and Labor Committee chose to incorporate support for veterans in the GIVE Act. My amendment is a natural extension of that theme, and I hope it will garner the same bipartisan agreement as the underlying bill. Already, the GIVE Act seeks to increase opportunities for veterans to serve and to increase the number of national service programs responding to the needs of veterans under AmeriCorps. My amendment enhances that effort by prioritizing services for and service by veterans throughout all of our national service programs. The bill before us includes a set-aside within AmeriCorps to support programs for veterans. In addition, the bill includes a study of how veterans are served and how they can be served more effectively. These are positive first steps, but my amendment goes further. Under my amendment, the Corporation will be required to place a priority on applications that serve veterans or recruit veterans to serve. Rather than a fixed set-aside within a single program, this amendment will allow us to broaden the reach of service by and in support of veterans. The Corporation for National and Community Service is required to establish priorities when funding national service initiatives. This ensures a targeted, effective investment. Under my amendment, included among those priorities would be an emphasis on programs that recruit veterans into service opportunities, promote community-based efforts to meet the unique needs of military families while a family member is deployed, and promote community-based efforts to meet the unique needs of military families when a member of a family returns from a deployment. In addition, this amendment requires the Corporation to report to Congress on its efforts to increase the number of veterans serving in AmeriCorps and other positions that are eligible for the education award. Veterans, particularly those recently deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, deserve opportunities to reintegrate into their communities through service programs funded under the national service laws. This amendment will increase those opportunities. Without this amendment, we will not have the necessary information to effectively increase veteran participation in national service positions or provide an educational award in exchange for citizen service. At a time when our service men and women are sacrificing on our behalf around the world, we should be doing all we can to repay that sacrifice. My amendment will make it the explicit policy of the Federal Government to encourage the national service programs to focus more on the unique needs of those heroes and their families, and to encourage more veterans to take advantage of service opportunities under these laws. The GIFT Act is a solid, bipartisan reform package that will strengthen our national service laws to make them more accountable, efficient, and cost effective. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank subcommittee Chair, Mrs. McCarthy, and ranking member, Mr. Platts, for their hard work on this bill. It's a good, bipartisan effort. I thank them for their help on this amendment. I urge the amendment be supported by our colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I will add 1\1/2\ minutes to demonstrate also bipartisanship.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) 2 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, we do have another speaker.