Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill to support our brave student soldiers. The men and women of the Armed Forces give selflessly to defend our freedom overseas and respond to emergencies here at home. Some of them are also students pursuing the dream of a college education, just like millions of other Americans. These military personnel volunteer to put their educational pursuits on hold so they can serve the Nation. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and the least we can do is make their transition to and from education as seamless as possible. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for his long-standing commitment to the legislation before us. He had an outstanding career with the U.S. Marine Corps before coming to Congress, and I want to thank him also for his service there. He has championed passage of this bill on a temporary basis since 2003, and he is here today supporting a permanent extension of this measure to ensure members of the military will always be afforded the flexibility and support they need. This bill has always received support from our friends on the other side of the aisle, and I am pleased to have key members of the Education and Labor Committee joining us in introducing legislation to extend the flexibility and waiver authority in this bill. I want to thank Chairmen Miller and Hinojosa, along with Mr. Sestak, who also had a very distinguished career in the Navy, and it is good to see Navy and Marines still working together, for introducing legislation that as we propose makes this legislation permanent. The men and women of our Armed Forces have made considerable sacrifices for our Nation, and for that we are grateful. As members of the Education Committee, we also recognize the importance of a higher education system that is accessible. What this bill does is allow the Secretary of Education to accommodate the unique needs of our student soldiers so that higher education remains flexible and accessible while they serve our country. Once again, I would like to thank Representative Kline for his leadership and recognize our friends on the other side of the aisle for their continued support of this legislation. I strongly support the permanent extension of the HEROES Act to support the many heroes protecting our freedom, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, former chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, we've, I think, heard some very good things about this bill. I've been on this committee now for 15 years since I came to Congress. I've had great concerns about people that are not able to go to college. We've seen statistics that show that 48 percent of young people from lower-income families are not able to attend college because of the cost of college. I have introduced legislation. I've done what I could to try to reduce the cost of college. This bill is called the Cost Reduction Act. It does nothing to reduce the cost of college. It gives money to schools, which we haven't done in the past. We've given the money to individual students and let them pick the school that they've gone to. It does increase the money to Pell Grants, and I appreciate that. During the time that I was Chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee and the time that we've been in the majority, we've doubled the money going into Pell Grants, and we have a million and a half students, now, more that are receiving Pell Grants than before. And that's good. But the thing about this bill that really bothers me, I guess, is the promise it holds out to students that they're never going to receive. It reminds me of a TV contest, game contest that I've seen in the past that showed three curtains or three doors, and you tried to pick the door that had the great prize. And my concern is that these students are going to start school with the idea that their interest is going to be cheaper 4 years, 5 years from now when they graduate, and they're going to find that it's not. There's a promise there that when they open that door they're going to find a huge tax burden. They're going to find huge loan burdens. And what we should be working on in a cost reduction bill is something that actually addresses what we can do to lower the cost of a college education, not the loan interest. What we should really be trying to do is address the core problem, the cost. College cost has been going up four times faster than people's ability to pay for the last 20 years. We should be addressing that problem. We should oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I'm happy now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Is there any way we could prevail upon the chairman to give us 1 or 2 of his 23\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a member of the committee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the committee, Mr. Souder.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this conference report which is the product of both a flawed policy and a flawed process. The conference report was made available to Republicans for the first time less than 24 hours before it reached the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, that was just the latest in a series of disappointments we have endured throughout the process. But perhaps my greatest disappointment is the sinking reality that this conference agreement could have done more to help low-income students gain access to college. Instead, I fear we have squandered a tremendous opportunity. College Cost Reduction, the name of this act, really is not a part of this bill. It is a huge spending bill. There is one element of this conference report worthy of praise, and I would like to begin there. This conference agreement will invest approximately $11 billion in Pell Grants, which I believe are the single most effective tool to help open the doors of higher education to low-income students. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the senior Republican of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness, deserves great credit for the Pell Grant increases that have been provided over the last several years. Mr. Keller is a champion for the Pell Grant program, having founded the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus to advocate for this critical program. The recipient of a Pell Grant himself, Mr. Keller has shined a spotlight on the importance of targeting the Federal investment in higher education to serve low-income students. If I had been in the room when this agreement was reached, I would have preferred to invest even more in Pell Grants. In fact, I advocated a straightforward approach to reform that would have saved billions of dollars by making the student loan program more efficient and plowed those resources directly into Pell Grants. It is an approach that I continue to believe would have received strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Instead, the Democrats opted to jeopardize the stability of the Federal Financial Education Loan program by imposing excessive cuts, created an unnecessary complex and cumbersome auction scheme that will deny parents a choice of loan providers, imposed an impossible timeline for implementation that sets students up for confusion and program participants up for failure, and created massive new entitlement programs. I harbor serious concerns about this conference report when it is simply taken at face value. Unfortunately, I fear that when we consider the long-term ramifications, these concerns grow much more serious. First, the conference report creates new entitlement programs, but only provides short-term funding. Every single person in this room knows that once created, an entitlement will not die. That means in 5 years we will be forced to make additional cuts to fund these new entitlements. Second, the conference report includes the misguided plan to temporarily reduce interest rates. What once was a campaign promise has become a trap that will ensnare either students or taxpayers, and possibly both. The plan would temporarily phase down interest rates over the next 4 years, and just as soon as the rate gets down to half the level it is today, as Democrats promised during the campaign, it will jump back to its current level. The choice then becomes whether we break the promise to students and allow the rates to rise or break the promise to taxpayers that this legislation is paid for and stick them with an additional 20 to $30 billion to pay for those cuts over the next 5 years. The third consequence of this proposal, which I believe the majority has not considered, is the undue burden that will be caused by its hasty implementation. The conference report presumes that complex technological and service changes will be implemented in a matter of weeks. It seems almost inevitable that this unrealistic timeline will create chaos within these programs for students, program participants and the Department of Education. And, finally, let me be perfectly clear. I have absolutely no confidence in the Department of Education's ability to implement the changes outlined in this conference report, particularly with the timeline it sets. It gives me no pleasure to point out this obvious fact, particularly in a Republican administration, but it's true, and sadly, we will all be watching this failure play out in the weeks, months and years ahead. There's another issue that bears mentioning, and it's what this conference report unfortunately does not do. Despite its lofty name, this legislation does nothing at all to reduce the cost of college. It didn't have to be this way. In fact, the bill that passed the House contained provisions that I championed to make college cost increases more transparent to students and parents. These commonsense reforms were stripped away, leaving consumers with nothing. The majority will tell you these college cost provisions were removed because they did not meet the stringent rules applied to a budget reconciliation package. That may well be true. If so, I consider it further proof that by abusing the reconciliation process we missed key opportunities to help students. While this conference agreement is unmistakably a product of the Democratic Congress, I cannot help but express my disappointment in the administration for their role in this process. The fiscal year 2008 budget request proposed excessive cuts to the student loan programs, cuts that I believe may ultimately destabilize the largest source of Federal financial assistance. And when the bill left this House, the administration promised to veto the bill if some of these egregious measures were left in the bill. They are still there, and I now understand the President will sign the bill. This conference agreement makes a significant investment in the Pell Grant Program. For that, I'm appreciative. I only wish it had done more. I wish that we could have seized upon the opportunity, worked together in a bipartisan fashion, and produced a conference report that lived up to its name. Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the conference report we are considering and the process that was used to get here, and so I must oppose final passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Just 2 minutes? Could we ask unanimous consent that we each get 2 extra minutes? I would love to hear you for 25.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee ranking member on the higher education portion of the Education Committee.

Mr. McKEON. May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This rule would provide for consideration of fiscally irresponsible legislation that would create costly new entitlement programs and misdirect billions of aid toward colleges, universities, college graduates and philanthropic organizations rather than the low-income students who need the help the most. My colleagues who were around in the last Congress may remember that when we passed a real budget reconciliation bill, the Education and Workforce Committee found some $18 billion plus in savings, two-thirds of which we directed towards deficit reduction and one-third of which we directed towards increased student benefits such as higher loan limits, more grant aid for low-income, high-achieving students, and loan forgiveness for high-demand teachers. Unfortunately, H.R. 2669, the bill that will be before us today, takes us in a drastically different direction. The rule before us provides for the culmination of months of abuse of the budget reconciliation process as a backdoor way to implement significant changes to programs best addressed through regular order. Not a single committee hearing has been held on this legislation. The potential impact of many of its student loan cuts has never been weighed, and no one has provided adequate reasons regarding why the new entitlement programs and complex student loan auction scheme created under the conference report are necessary or fiscally reasonable. It eliminates the right of parents to choose their lender and replaces consumer choice with a government-run auction system that is complex, burdensome and untested. And all of this will be put into place in a couple of weeks time. I'm anxious to see how the department puts this into place. This measure could have been improved by infusing more savings into the Pell Grant Program. Pell is a proven success that has helped millions of young people attend college. In the time during the last 12 years that we were in charge, we have increased Pell Grant spending double. As the chairman just pointed out, the amount of what he talked about, the individual aid to each individual student, has remained fairly even, but the amount that we have put in has been increased like a billion dollars a year over that period of time because we have a million and a half more students that have now been able to take advantage of that and use the money for their help in getting their chance to achieve the American Dream. By creating a bundle of new entitlement programs complete with new bureaucracy, rules, and regulations, this conference agreement places billions of dollars in new Federal spending on autopilot with no accountability to taxpayers whatsoever, completely opposite of what the real purpose of reconciliation is for. The purpose of reconciliation, requiring an easier passage by only requiring 50 votes in the Senate, was set up to reduce mandatory spending and to save money on the budget deficit. And this will actually increase and go just the opposite direction. And finally, let me be perfectly clear: I have absolutely no confidence in the Department of Education's ability to implement the changes outlined in this conference agreement, particularly with the timeline it sets. It gives me no pleasure to point out this obvious fact, particularly in a Republican administration, but it's true. And sadly, we will be watching this failure play out in the coming months and years. The rule allows consideration of a conference report that breaks promises to students and taxpayers alike. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how I wish we had followed a more open and inclusive process up to this point. My friends on the other side of the aisle pledged during the campaign that the 110th Congress would be the most fair, open and honest in history. Yet it is my understanding that the Democrats are close to finalizing an agreement on a conference report before conferees have even been named and with little input from House Republicans. There is nothing fair, open or honest about that. The Senate Budget Committee chairman predicted months ago that the budget reconciliation process was in danger of being abused as a ``stalking horse'' for new spending, and looking back he could not have been more on target. The House bill in fact included one of the most significant increases in higher education entitlement spending we have ever witnessed, establishing nine new entitlement programs. And bear in mind most of that new spending isn't even targeted toward low-income students who need it the most, but rather at institutions, philanthropic organizations, and graduates. That is a remarkable change from the historic function of Federal student aid programs. For more than four decades, these programs have existed for a single purpose, to give our neediest students a chance at obtaining a college degree and pursuing the American Dream. The House bill turns its back on that tradition. House Republicans support strengthening our Nation's student aid programs, but we do not support targeting scarce Federal student aid resources at wealthy philanthropic organizations, universities with million- or billion-dollar endowments and college graduates, and we certainly do not support doing so at the expense of the market- based FFEL program, which has been a success by any measure. There is a way, Mr. Speaker, that we can avoid making this critical mistake. Slightly reducing the cuts to lender subsidies and redirecting funding to provide additional support for Pell Grants, rather than creating costly new entitlement programs, are two steps that could be taken in an effort to achieve bipartisan support for this bill. I believe the final step is to include language that would allow for a careful analysis of possible auction scenarios to determine if an auction is really in the best interests of students and taxpayers before requiring its implementation. In fact, I have heard from many Members, including 14 Democrats, who expressed concern about the automatic implementation of an auction and encourage that we approach any auction proposal with caution. If the conference report achieves these four goals, I believe we can achieve strong bipartisan support for this bill. Doing anything less could endanger our support and trigger a Presidential veto threat, just as the House bill did in July. So as we prepare to formalize a conference report, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bear this in mind. Mr. Speaker, I believe another part of the Senate's reconciliation bill also deserves the attention of this Chamber and inclusion in our conference report, specifically, the provision that would block the importation of terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay into American communities. We are a Nation at war and Guantanamo provides the highest level of security to ensure our enemies do not endanger American lives. Some Democrats have suggested that the site be closed and terrorists be sent into American communities such as Edwards Air Force Base in my district, Fort Knox, Kentucky, Quantico, Virginia, and others. But make no mistake: transferring terrorist detainees to these communities will create an opportunity for our enemies to escape, recruit and disseminate their terrorist skills, and it would make these domestic facilities prime targets for any attack that al Qaeda is able to mount within our borders. Congress simply should not allow this to occur, and I thank the Senate for including this important language in its reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same by voting ``yes'' on this motion to instruct.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3221, the Democrat Energy Scarcity Bill. Congress must act decisively to pass a balanced, comprehensive energy policy that creates more American-made energy, spurs good jobs, corrects our supply-and-demand imbalance, lowers prices for consumers, and strengthens America's ability to compete. But the bill before us today would do none of that. Instead of creating new energy supplies for consumers, they trap America's vast energy resources under ever-more bureaucratic red tape and punitive taxes that discourage domestic energy investments. As senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, I rise in opposition not only against H.R. 3221's remarkable lack of any new energy, but also against the sliver of the bill marked up out of the blue by our committee in June, the so-called ``green jobs'' provision in the bill. I was chairman of our Postsecondary Subcommittee in 1998 when Members of both parties enacted the Workforce Investment Act, or WIA, to establish the system of one-stop career centers aimed at providing one convenient, central location to offer job training and related employment services. While these reforms have been successful, the WIA system is still hampered by often unnecessary bureaucracy that prevents it from being as effective as it could be for workers and their families. In response to this, in the last Congress, the Republican-led House voted to further streamline and consolidate these programs. Today, rather than following suit, H.R. 3221 will add to the duplicative nature of these job training programs, all under the guise of ``green jobs.'' Make no mistake: this marks a significant step backwards in our effort to streamline the delivery of job training services. Through the green jobs provision in this bill, though they have garnered a great deal of attention from the media and Members, it was significant enough to garner the attention of the Department of Labor. In an analysis of the language we marked up in committee earlier this year, the agency noted that the new program created under this bill would duplicate assistance that is available already to help train workers under the Workforce Investment Act. As a result, should H.R. 3221 become law, it would mean more red tape, more bureaucracy, and more hurdles for job seekers. At a time when Congress purports to be so interested in enhancing American competitiveness, making it more difficult for job providers and job seekers to become more competitive themselves, surely this is not a wise course of action. This reverse in course at the heart of H.R. 3221 should not be taken lightly. But given the process that has brought us here, I fear it has been. The Education and Labor Committee never held a single hearing on it, outside stakeholders had little or no time to review it, and the bill had been purposely crafted outside the WIA reauthorization process. However, to meet an artificial deadline for introduction of the Democrat Energy Scarcity Bill, our committee was forced to act hastily. This ill-considered process is especially discouraging because this fall our committee is expected to begin the process of reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act. Indeed, that process is the appropriate venue for consideration of the green jobs language considered in the bill before us today. If we did follow this more responsible process on the green jobs language, there are a number of questions Members could and should ask about it. For one, Members should know the rationale for giving nonviolent criminals priority for training under the green jobs bill. Members also should know why the majority choose to circumvent the successful one stop program and instead insist the training for green jobs be provided through an entirely new and separate line of programs. Finally, Members should know why labor unions are given special treatment under this bill, when the local workforce investment boards and the business community, those that actually provide jobs, are left out in the cold. Unfortunately, we will never get an answer to these or any other questions about green jobs on the minds of Members, because this language has been rushed to the floor. As a result, it will make our job training system more cumbersome and less efficient for both green jobs training and any other training delivered through the workforce investment system. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I also must note my continued strong opposition to the majority's insistence on including controversial Davis-Bacon wage mandates in both this and other bills forced through the House this year. Davis-Bacon wages violate capitalist values of free markets and competition, and they can inflate costs of projects by as much as 15 percent, costs that get passed on to taxpayers. Moreover, they force private companies to do millions of dollars more in excess administrative work each year. At a time when we should be encouraging more investment in our energy infrastructure, as this bill purports to do, expanding this mandate is an unwise course, and one, I might add, that was never considered before the committee of jurisdiction, the Education and Labor Committee. For these and other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support H.R. 3221, the Democrat Energy Scarcity Bill; and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), subcommittee ranking member on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the Republican time for the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him and his family and son, especially, who joined the Marines the day after 9/11 and is now serving his third deployment. I rise today in opposition to the cleverly dubbed troop readiness bill being considered. While none of us here want to be at war, the fact remains that we are. And we owe it to the honorable men and women in uniform to provide the proper tools, resources and atmosphere for victory. So it is beyond my comprehension that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle must insist on limiting the authority of our military leaders and General Petraeus. From the outset, this poorly crafted dwell time bill may have the faint appearance of trying to improve the readiness of units and quality of life of members in the Armed Forces, but it is just another example of the disingenuous goal masked by a clever name. In truth, the bill is a backhanded attempt to force an American withdrawal from Iraq. In doing so, the bill limits the flexibility of the U.S. military commanders to conduct operations in the field and only prohibits troops deployed in Iraq. This is a point that should not be overlooked. The true intent of this legislation is obvious. There are mandates that only apply to the U.S. forces committed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Afghanistan, another active theater in this war against terror, is not even mentioned. If this were a sincere effort on the part of my Democrat counterparts, it would apply to all deployments. Mr. Speaker, the harsh realities in this bill would have lasting negative effects on our military and would inappropriately infringe upon the constitutional duties of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief. If this bill were to become law, it would paralyze our military. It would increase stress on our Armed Forces by reducing the pool of forces available and would intensify the risk of our soldiers remaining in Iraq. Moreover, it could theoretically extend the amount of time forces remain on the ground in Iraq, which would negatively impact the morale of our soldiers and their families at home. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3159 is bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Churchill once said in the midst of another war, ``Give us the tools and we will finish the job.'' Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this House and of this Congress and of this Nation to give our men and women the resources they need to see this conflict through to the end. While our troops are fighting in Iraq, Democrat leadership is crafting thinly veiled legislation to weaken their ability to succeed, and I think we must ask ourselves why. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. We have had a good debate last night and this morning, and the other side has tried to make this an emotional debate about discrimination, but that is not debate. We all, both Democrat and Republican, oppose discrimination. Madam Speaker, in Congress bad process usually makes for bad product. Let there be no mistake, the process that brought H.R. 2831 to the floor today was incredibly sloppy. Likewise, the product itself could not be sloppier. The title of this bill should be, ``The End of the Statute of Limitations.'' This bill was hastily patched together by the Education and Labor Committee Democrats at the behest of the House majority leadership with the hope of grabbing a few headlines just a month after the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the 1964 Civil Rights Act statute of limitations. Neither House Republicans nor many key outside stakeholders were consulted as the bill was drafted, and the bill was not considered at a single legislative hearing. Then, again, at the behest of the House Democrat leadership, the Rules Committee granted a completely closed rule, locking out nearly 400 Members from amending or even considering amendments for this legislation. Had this bill truly been a narrow fix, as its supporters would have the American people believe, this sloppy process may not have been such a problem. However, this is a major fundamental change to civil rights law and no less than four separate statutes. The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 Civil Rights Act, took 2 years of negotiation, debate, and bipartisan accord to accomplish. By comparison, this bill took just 2 months. It cheapens our legislative process and, indeed, it cheapens the work that has gone into decades of serious considerate civil rights lawmaking. The legislative product itself, as my Republican colleagues and I have discussed, is no less flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in current law and, in so doing, would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. And trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this prospect. Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill that is the result of an equally bad process. The President has threatened to veto it should it arrive at his desk, and rightfully so. But we should never let it get to that point. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of our elected leadership.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee ranking member.