Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion being considered. Yet again, I find myself standing in defense of our military leaders and our honorable men and women in uniform. Today's ill-conceived resolution is another example of partisan maneuvering by the Democrats. I think it is important to remind my colleagues exactly what is being sought by this resolution and the negative effect it will have. While our troops are fighting in Iraq, Democratic leadership is attempting to draw attention from any signs of progress and ignore the sound strategy that we laid out earlier this year. What happened to the promise of a New Way Forward in Iraq? General Petraeus has honorably taken on this leadership role in this war with the support of Democrats in the other body, and yet, here today the Democrats seek to publicly undermine him. It is shameful. He was given a job to do--to execute the Baghdad Security Plan--and he is doing it alongside our troops. The plan is still underway and today's interim report indicates a reduction in violent attacks in Baghdad. We should be standing with him, with our plan, and allowing for its full implementation. Instead, however, we see today the real Democratic agenda in this resolution: the truth is the Democrats aren't interested in whether or not the security plan will work. Mr. Speaker, I question whether this resolution would do more harm than good. A precipitous withdrawal of troops would seriously endanger our soldiers and would signal defeat to our enemies around the world. Mr. Speaker this House speaks loudest when it speaks with purpose, and voting to remove troops before receiving the report in September, that we asked for, is contradictory and bad policy. This bill does not honor the sacrifice and dedication of our troops who have fought to implement the plan we approved. We should never miss the opportunity in this House to act in the best interest of our foreign policy and our men and women in harm's way. We should--at every opportunity--reject undermining the faith and dedicated work of our brave men and women in uniform. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous resolution. It is the duty of this House and of this Congress and of this Nation to give our men and women the support they need to see this conflict through. We have allocated a timeframe for our new General, and now we must allow our military leaders the opportunity to prevail.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2669, the cleverly titled College Cost Reduction Act. And what I would like to encourage my colleagues to do, in listening to this debate, is try to find what in this bill actually will cut or lower the cost of a college education. There will be a lot of talk about cutting subsidies to lenders. There will be a lot of talk about lowering student interest rates, which actually then is paid to graduates of college, but what are we doing to hold down the cost of a college education? The cost of higher education has been going up more than four times the rate of inflation for the last 20 years, and we have not done anything to lower those costs. This bill allegedly has been crafted to balance fiscal responsibility with significant new aid for college students and their families. In fact, the majority touts the bill as the most substantial package of new benefits since the GI bill. But under the microscope, it is clear that these claims fall completely flat. In reality, this legislation is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for new entitlement spending at the long-term expense for American taxpayers. Even though we are considering this bill under the expedited procedure of budget reconciliation, which, as my colleagues know, is intended for real deficit reduction, this bill simply and shamelessly exploits the process. It cuts roughly $18.58 billion over 5 years in payments to student loan providers but simultaneously spends more than $17 billion during that same period on multiple programs, including nine new entitlement programs. So while they are talking about cutting mandatory spending, they are actually creating nine new entitlement programs, an apparent net savings of less than 9 percent. These new entitlements include grants to Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian and other minority-serving institutions, grants to institutions with low tuition, grants to institutions to create new teacher preparation programs, grants to philanthropic organizations, a new mandatory Perkins loan program, cooperative education grants, and on and on and on. These sound like wonderful things, and I think what we are really seeing is that Democrats are Democrats. Give them an opportunity to spend money, they can't help themselves. History has proven that once Washington, DC creates a new entitlement program, it never ever dies. In other words, taxpayers will foot the bill for this onslaught of new entitlement spending for years to come. These same students that will be given some savings through some of these special entitlement programs eventually are going to have to pay for them in higher taxes that they will provide later. During that time, it will certainly dwarf the token ``savings'' found in H.R. 2669. It should be noted, too that much of this new entitlement spending is aimed at colleges, universities and philanthropic organizations, which we have never done before. The Federal Government has been sending Federal money to the students directly. Now they are sending it to organizations rather than to the students. This represents a historic departure from the intent of Federal student aid programs. As long as the Higher Education Act has existed, student aid entitlement dollars have been targeted towards students themselves. It is lost on me how sending these funds to institutions rather than to the students attending them helps more Americans pay for college. I doubt that we will see any reduction in tuition rates when they get this new money. But that is just what H.R. 2669 aims to do. What is more, Mr. Speaker, other proposals included in this bill, such as the interest rate cut for certain college graduates included in the ill-fated Six for '06 legislation passed earlier this year, will have even more explosive long-term costs that could amount to tens of billions more in Federal Government spending. Who will be paying for it? You guessed it. The American taxpayers. And don't forget the cut to interest rates would not aid a single college student. Only graduates. Rather, the benefit would be aimed squarely at those who by definition no longer attend college. While the intent of this new spending is admirable, it is equally misdirected. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has threatened a veto of this disingenuous legislation and for good reason. With billions in new programs, most of which are directed toward institutions and graduates rather than students, those who really need the help to get into college and stay in college to get on the ladder to achieve the American Dream, this bill marks the first step towards an explosion in new, unchecked entitlement spending and another unfortunate step toward further hyperinflation in college costs. Indeed, the measure before us overreaches by creating new entitlement spending for every conceivable constituency in higher education. It overreaches by failing to focus on the historical Federal roll in higher education supported by Democrats and Republicans alike: helping low-income students. And it overreaches by extracting too much out of the Federal Financial Aid Program, which has been a success by all measures. I cannot support it, and I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, chairman of the RSC (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order at the desk.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) such time as she may consume.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a very interesting debate. At the beginning of the debate, I asked our colleagues to please listen carefully for anything they might hear that would lower tuition rates, that would lower the cost of a college education. I have listened very carefully, and I haven't heard anything. I have heard a lot of talk about investment, I have heard a lot of talk about new spending, and a lot of these things sound wonderful. It reminds me kind of when I would take my children to sit on Santa Claus's knee. He would ask them what they want. They would tell him all the wonderful things, and many times I wished I could have been Santa Claus and just give them all that they wanted. Sometimes it comes back to reality and the parents have to make some tough decisions based on our budget. I think people that are listening to this debate realize that there is no free lunch. With all of the new programs, nine new entitlement programs, somebody is going to have to pay for those. I just entreat those who are watching to not create nine new entitlements, to place the interests of colleges, universities, graduates, philanthropic organizations above the needs of low-income students. Let's not put this price on our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if bridging the gap between low-income students and their dream of a college education is a primary goal of this House, then this substitute should be adapted with ease. That's because this amendment nearly doubles the Pell Grant increase provided by the underlying bill. It makes Pell funding available year around for students seeking to finish their degrees more quickly by taking summer courses, which also makes a savings for them, and it eliminates a role that needlessly punishes students attending low-cost schools by limiting the amount of Pell Grant funds they can receive each year. First some background. Less than a third of savings in the underlying bill, roughly $6 billion, is directed to the most successful student aid program on the books today, the Pell Grant program. In fact, more funds under the base bill are directed toward those who are, by definition, no longer even students. This is done by temporarily phasing down interest rates on certain loans being repaid by college graduates. The remaining third of the bill triggers billions of dollars in new entitlement spending, including nine new areas of entitlement spending all together. In fact, some of this new spending is not even directed towards students, but rather to institutions, like colleges, universities, and philanthropic organizations. This Pell Grant substitute will tip the balance back toward low- income students struggling to pay for their college education by increasing the maximum Pell Grant far more than the underlying bill. Specifically, it would provide for $9 billion in additional funding for Pell Grants over the next 5 years. Again, that's nearly double what the underlying bill would do. Here's how we do it. This Pell Grant proposal adopts the same cut to lender insurance rates from 97 to 95 percent as the underlying bill, while having the same goal of reducing administrative fees paid to guaranteed agencies as well. In addition, this substitute would save the Federal Government about $11 billion through lower special allowance payments. I believe this structural savings is far more responsible than the underlying bill which, much like the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, fails to take into account the fact that Congress cut some $18 billion from the student loan programs just last year. With these savings, more than $15 billion in total, this amendment corrects current law to equalize the Pell and direct loan rates for PLUS loans at 7.9 percent. It retains bipartisan language from the underlying bill to permit members of the Armed Forces the ability to defer their loans for up to 13 months upon returning from service. Most importantly, it invests more than $9 billion in the Pell Grant program. This investment would allow us to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $350 in 2008, compared to the smaller increase in the underlying bill, and by $100 for each year thereafter. On top of that, this measure would pay down the deficit by $5.74 billion. That's more than three times what the underlying bill would dedicate toward deficit reduction. Also included in this substitute are key college cost reforms, including the College Affordability and Transparency Act legislation that I introduced earlier this year to arm parents and students with more information about college costs than ever before. The measure also would take important steps to insist that colleges and universities be held more accountable for their role in the college cost crisis. Mr. Speaker, through my substitute amendment, we would increase Pell, decrease the deficit, more directly address college costs and put in place a handful of other student benefits without creating a single new entitlement program. We would accomplish all of this without creating a new maze of rules and regulations for students, parents and institutions to navigate. And, we would accomplish all of this without shortchanging the low-income students who need the most help to get on the ladder to achieve the American dream. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say how relieved I am that the measure we are considering today does not incorporate the highly controversial STAR Act, which would turn over the entire Federal student loan program to Washington bureaucrats. I appreciate the chairman for not including that. I continue to strongly support healthy competition between the government-run Direct Loan program and the market-based Pell program, and doing anything to upset that competition would be terrible for students, parents and taxpayers alike. Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not express some concerns about the extent of the Pell cuts in H.R. 2669. After cutting some $18 billion from our student loan program during a budget reconciliation process in the last Congress, an additional cut of more than $18.75 billion this year strikes me as overreaching. Though this figure is close to the President's cut in his latest budget proposal, I believe the administration itself went too far and gave very little consideration to the impact of the cuts we made in the last Congress. I also believe supporters of H.R. 2669 did not take into account the impact the bill's cuts may have on student loan default rates. When I became chairman, 12 years ago, of this subcommittee over higher education, the default rates were running about 25 percent. And through competition and the things that we have worked on during that time, we have cut that rate to where now the default rate is running at about 5 percent. If it gets back up to those higher ranges again, that is going to cost the American taxpayer another $11 billion a year. House Republicans are already on record as having supported savings from some of the lender subsidies, and there may well be room to go even further. Later today, in my substitute, I offer cutting $15 billion, which is a little less than the underlying bill but may still be too high. Only time will tell. But we must be cautious to not overreach. The majority often takes aim at student lenders and seeks continual and excessive cuts as a way to punish them for daring to make a profit. You know, businesses have to make a profit or they don't remain in business. And if they don't remain in business and making loans to students, running about $70 billion a year now, if they don't continue to make those loans, some would say, well, then the direct lending program can take it over, which means the Department of Education, which there have been some criticisms of, would become the largest bank in the world, doing all of the student loan system. Early in my tenure here, they had to shut down their program because they couldn't keep up, and it was a much smaller program at the time. I have very great concerns of turning the whole student loan program over to the Department of Education. The real victims in all of this debate are the smaller lenders. The large lenders, which is kind of a paradox because they are the ones that we seem to be going after, they will survive, and they will even get better. The small lenders that help those that need the small loans, it takes about $7,000 for a lender to make a profit on these loans. In my community, kids going to the community colleges need a much smaller loan. The tuition, the fees and everything run less than $1,000 a year. And if they take out a loan to cover that, the lenders that are making that loan really aren't making any money; they are doing it as a service. They are not going to do that for long. When they keep getting hit with these kind of cuts, they will just get out of the program, and then, eventually, it will be turned over to the government-run program. Let me just give a couple of examples here of the things I am concerned about. The Navy Federal Credit Union right here in Virginia that holds $280 million in Federal loans; or San Miguel Federal Credit Union that holds $140 million; or Simmons First National Bank in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, that holds $86 billion; or Sovereign Bank in Reading, Pennsylvania, that holds $79 million; Commerce Bank and Trust in Topeka, Kansas, that holds $60 million; or Zion's First National Bank in Salt Lake with $67 million; will these lenders still be in a program offering loans to their local citizens, or will they be driven out of the program by large lenders such as Sallie Mae? That is something that time will tell as we keep cutting the subsidy that the Federal Government gives now to help these small businesses remain to give the help to those students that need the loans the very most. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington, our newest mother in the House of Representatives, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire what our time remaining is.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This rule would provide for consideration of fiscally irresponsible legislation that will create nine new entitlement programs and misdirect billions of dollars in aid towards colleges, universities, college graduates and even philanthropic organizations, rather than low-income students and parents and those who need it 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, for real students, 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 takes us in a drastically different direction. The rule before us provides for continued 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 bill. The potential impact of many of its student loan cuts has never been weighed and no one has provided adequate reasons regarding why or how many of the nine new entitlement programs created under the bill are necessary or fiscally responsible. So, by creating a bundle of new entitlement programs, complete with new bureaucracy, rules, regulations, this bill places billions of dollars in new Federal spending on autopilot with no accountability to taxpayers whatsoever. Instead, this measure could be improved by infusing more savings into the Pell Grant program. Pell is a proven success that has helped millions of young people attend college, and I am grateful that this rule will give the House an opportunity to move billions out of new, misdirected entitlement spending and into Pell later today. Even so, the rule allows for the continuation of a budget reconciliation process that has been flawed, abused and used as a springboard for billions in new entitlement spending. As a result, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill.