Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I introduced a bill that really would have addressed some of these issues. In fact, in the last Congress we passed a bill out of this body. It stalled on the other side of the Capitol, but we passed a bill out of this body that would have addressed some of those issues, and we did it in a bipartisan way. I appreciate those who voted for it on that side of the aisle.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I would ask of people that are following this debate, if they would take the numbers and then realize that what the bill does, it takes the loan rate, which is 6.8 percent, and reduces it to 6.1 the first year, and then incrementally drops it, and then the last 6 months, this is a 5-year bill, the last 6 months it goes to 3.4 percent. If you will take those numbers and figure out how much to borrow each year to get to the 14,000 and then pay it off over the 15 years, if they consolidate the loan, pay it off over the whole 15 years, there is no $4,400 of savings. It is more in the neighborhood of a little over $2,000. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to a new Member of Congress, Mr. Smith from Nebraska, 2 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. McKEON. I am.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, as I have said repeatedly today, the process followed to get this bill to the floor was badly flawed, and the legislation in question is a reflection of that. Our inability to amend the bill means that the bill we have before us today is exactly the same well-intentioned, yet completely misdirected proposal the majority leader thrust upon us just days ago. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have been touting H.R. 5 as a student aid bill during this debate. However, as we have pointed out time after time, not a single college student or potential college student will benefit from this legislation. It impacts only those who graduate when, by definition, they are no longer students. However, Madam Speaker, this motion would transform H.R. 5 from a critically flawed gimmick into a proactive measure that indeed could benefit borrowers, students, and taxpayers alike. To begin, this motion would not block the new majority's promise to reduce college loan interest rates. In fact, it would allow reductions to take place as scheduled for many of the very same graduates who would benefit from them in the first place. However, to ensure that those graduates who could pay their loans under a higher interest rate will do so, this motion establishes an income cap of $65,000, the income level at which the existing student loan tax deduction is phased out, at which the interest rate for a loan will revert back to the current level of 6.8 percent. That is almost twice the average family income of a student eligible to receive a subsidized student loan. However, graduates who may not have as high an income, those men and women who need a little extra help after graduation, will see their interest rate stay at the same exact level as directed by this legislation, as will active duty Armed Forces personnel. This means for many first responders, nurses, teachers and other graduates who choose public careers, their interest rates will remain as scheduled, under H.R. 5. In other words, this motion will maintain most of the same borrower benefits embraced by the Democratic leadership. However, unlike H.R. 5, this motion reduces college loan interest rates and then some. By making the interest cap adjustment I just described, this motion will generate additional savings within the legislation, savings that can be directed toward deficit reduction or an increase in need-based aid such as Pell Grants. I have argued throughout today's debate, and for years, frankly, that our first priority in higher education must be to expand access for low- and middle-income students. This motion embodies that very philosophy. With the savings we will generate as part of this motion, we could provide more aid to a student struggling just to find the means to pay for college. Sadly, more than 400,000 students are fully prepared to attend 4-year college, but will be unable to do so due to record high financial barriers, according to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. For these students, the promise of a college education is an empty one, and for our Nation, the loss of human capital is a serious economic and social tragedy. Under H.R. 5, highly paid college graduates would reap the benefits, but those struggling to find a way into school, they are forgotten altogether. It is ironic that the very same Members who supported the minimum wage increase a week ago for ``fairness'' reasons are today champions of a bill that would undermine that same principle. Madam Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on this motion is a vote for lower college loan interest rates, more needs-based aid, and additional funds to pay down the Federal deficit. A ``no'' vote is a vote for providing benefits to well-paid graduates, not low-income students. Let's give borrowers, students, and taxpayers a better deal. Let's improve this flawed legislation. Let's vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, once again, we just heard that 5 years from now somebody that takes out a loan will save $4,400. Five years from now, there will be no savings based on current interest rates which are 6.8 percent because that is what the rate will go back to. There will be a 6-month window; if somebody takes a loan out at that point, that particular loan they will repay at 3.4 percent. The rest of the time it goes back. Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Had this debate been held in the Education and Labor Committee, I believe the bill we are slated to vote on in a few minutes would have been substantially better. What could we have done in committee to improve upon this badly flawed legislation? For starters, we would have been able to change the fact that college students won't even feel the slightest impact from this plan until they begin repaying their loans when they aren't even students anymore. In other words, we would have made clear that this proposal does nothing to expand college access. And, as a result, we could have done better. Had we done our work through regular order, rather than providing 5 years of gradually increasing benefits to college graduates, we could have crafted a reform measure that continues our commitment to real student aid, a reform measure, while ensuring a sharper focus on institutional accountability. And, as a result, we could have done better. And, had this bill gone through committee we also would have been able to work to ensure this proposal included language that improves college affordability. We would have discussed the fact that we are spending some $90 billion this year on Federal student aid, triple what it was just a decade ago, and we also would have reminded one another that even in spite of this dramatic increase in aid, tuition continues to skyrocket. And, as a result, we could have done better. In committee, Madam Speaker, we also would have more quickly exposed those who were playing fast and loose with the facts. For example, when some on the other side of the aisle say that a typical borrower would save about $4,400 over the life of his or her loan because of H.R. 5, we would have made clear that this simply is not possible. We would have explained to our committee colleagues that for a borrower to receive the complete $4,400 in savings, the 3.4 percent rate must stay in effect for years at a time rather than the 6-month window, and they must consolidate their loans and stretch out repayment over 15 years. In reality, Madam Speaker, for a college freshman who receives a loan at 3.4 percent in the fall of 2011, the only semester during which such loan rate will be available, he or she would save a whopping $6.42 a month in repayment. That is right, $6.42, thanks to the bait and switch tactic disguised as a sunset in this flawed legislation. Consider this: If we were to put the same savings into Pell Grants, for example, that H.R. 5 earmarks for these gradually reduced interest rates for college graduates, we could increase Pell by about $500. I only wish we were afforded that opportunity. However, we weren't, and the legislation before us is little more than a reflection of the broken process by which it was cobbled together.

Mr. McKEON. If I might inquire of the Speaker, what time is left on each side?

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to my good friend from Utah, a member who is returning to the committee, Mr. Bishop, 4 minutes.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say farewell to two very special people, Robbie & Jim Heintzman. Robbie began working as a caseworker for me when I started my first term of office and her husband, Jim, was a helicopter pilot for many years with the Los Angeles Police Department. Now, they have decided to retire and will soon move to Prescott, Arizona to begin a new chapter in their new lives. Robbie has been a true asset to me and I value her loyalty, dedication and expertise. Her compassionate and cheerful presence will be sorely missed in my office, and I know the loss of Jim's expertise and dedicated service will create a void at the police department as well. Robbie's very interesting life prepared her well for the job in my office. She was born in Japan and was the only child of an Air Force dad and a mom who was the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice of the Japanese War Crimes Trial. Living in many places throughout the world, Robbie has always loved traveling and hopes that retirement will afford her the opportunity to finally satisfy her wanderlust. Over the years, Robbie has held many different jobs including bartender, cocktail waitress, newspaper/radio advertising consultant, secretary, saleslady and mother to sons, Sean and Colin Donohue. The three major careers in her life have been as a singer, sailor and as solver of problems for my constituents. She also found time to be a travel coordinator/consultant and now is looking forward to having the time to lead tours to exotic locales. Robbie's singing career started in Hawaii in 1974. In 1975, she went to Tokyo to sing as the house vocalist for Club El Morocco, which at the time was rated the premier nightclub in Japan. After returning to the United States, she formed ``Just Us,'' her own Country-Pop group, in Kingman, Arizona and sang professionally until 1983. While cruising the waters around Hawaii on the S.S. Independence and S.S. Constitution from 1983-1985, and on the waters around Tahiti on the S.S. Liberte in 1986, Robbie held the positions of Bartender, Junior Assistant Purser, Cashier, Yeoman and Senior Purser. She served the last four positions as a commissioned Staff Officer in the U.S. Merchant Marine. In February 1986, she was promoted to Cruise Hostess and resumed singing with the orchestra as part of her duties. Eventually leaving Tahiti for the United States, she started her career as a Staff Assistant/Caseworker with California Senator Ed Davis in 1989 and after I was elected to Congress, Robbie began working for me in January of 1993. Always kind, attentive and sympathetic, she delighted in solving constituent problems and loved helping to make a difference in their lives. About the time that Robbie began her singing career, Jim started his law enforcement career in his hometown of Bloomington-Normal, Illinois. However, sunny California soon beckoned and he moved west to pursue a career with the Los Angeles Police Department. Jim entered the LAPD Academy on January 22, 1973 and after six grueling months of training, he graduated second in his class. Jim's first assignment was the Hollywood Patrol where he walked the Hollywood Boulevard Foot Beat for 2\1/2\ years. He went on to serve in Hollywood Vice, Metro Division and SWAT. He was promoted to Sergeant in 1982 and continued his career at Pacific Division. In August 1983, Jim joined the elite Air Support Division and received his Command Pilot wings in January, 1984. He was promoted to Sgt. II in 1992. Air Support Division has been his home for the past 23 years and he has over 5,000 flight hours under his belt. Some of Jim's more interesting adventures included Pope Paul's visit to Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Summer Olympics, the 1992 Riots, the 1994 Northridge earthquake and the 2000 Democratic National Convention. Jim is most proud though, of his day- to-day patrol over the streets of LA and his ability to be the ground officers' ``eye in the sky'' which greatly enhanced their safety. Robbie and Jim are active volunteers in the Santa Clarita Valley and participate in many organizations. Although California's loss will be Arizona's gain, they plan to quickly resume volunteer activities in their new community. In addition, Jim hopes to continue his flying career in some capacity. Very soon, there will be more time for golf, visiting and other leisure activities. But more importantly, there will be enough time to pursue Robbie's passion for travel because there is more of the world to see and many new people to meet. As Robbie and Jim begin those pleasant, well-deserved years of retirement, I would like to thank them for their many years of dedicated service. I ask my colleagues to join me and extend our best wishes to the Heintzmans for a healthy and happy future filled with success.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman said that this Congress will remember the little guy. The small businessmen that we are trying to help, for the most part, are little guys. I remember when I first started in business. It was a small family business. We had two stores. My dad ran one, and I ran one. I couldn't afford any employees. I had to wait until a friend came in and I could ask him to watch the store for a minute so I could use the restroom or maybe grab a sandwich, or I would just eat standing behind the counter if I didn't have any customers in. So I understand the problems that we are facing. And if we could all focus back on the debate today, the substitute bill that the Republicans wanted to put into play that Mr. McCrery and introduced yesterday does exactly the same thing as the Democratic bill on increasing the minimum wage. But it also goes further, to help small businesses to provide health care to the workers, which I think is very important. And we are missing a wonderful opportunity to join together in a bipartisan way to work to help more people. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, this motion is straightforward in purpose, but for millions of uninsured Americans, it would be incredibly meaningful in practice. During today's debate, many of us, particularly those on this side of the aisle, have talked about the need to expand access to affordable health care. As I noted earlier, when discussing my comprehensive minimum wage package, I believe this debate presents us a tremendous opportunity, not only to impact wages, but to improve working families' quality of life as well. Therefore, I offer this motion in the same spirit as that comprehensive measure. It would ensure that if an employer offers health coverage to his or her workers, an incredibly costly yet incredibly important employee benefit, then this employer should not be further burdened with a 41 percent minimum wage mandate imposed by H.R. 2, a mandate thrust upon these employers without any protections at all for small business and their workers. Mr. Speaker, to speak about the benefits of this proposal, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who has been working this very issue for many years.

Mr. McKEON. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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 move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. McKEON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond. Mr. Speaker, my motion should be ruled germane. The bill before us, brought to the floor under unprecedented circumstances, circumstances that have not been ``fair, open, and honest'' by any means, would raise the minimum wage mandate by 41 percent, with small businesses and their workers left unprotected. Considering that more than 7 million new jobs have been created in the last 3\1/2\ years, and that two-thirds of all new jobs are provided by small businesses, I ask my colleagues, why in the world would we leave them unprotected and endanger this incredible momentum? My motion provides a fair alternative that increases the minimum wage in exactly the same manner as the Democratic leadership's bill; expands access to affordable health care by establishing small business health plans; and extends important protections for small businesses and their workers. My motion should be considered not only germane but a proposal far superior to the Democratic leadership's unbalanced minimum wage proposal.

Mr. McKEON. I am.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time. I appreciate the debate. I appreciate the job that you have done as Speaker. This debate, Mr. Speaker, has been a good one, one marked by thoughtful dialogue on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, that thoughtful dialogue is limited to the last 3 hours, and only the last 3 hours. We didn't have any dialogue in the Committee on Education and Labor, we didn't have any dialogue at the Rules Committee, and because of the unprecedented terms for today's debate, the dialogue that did take place here on the floor certainly won't lead to any improvements in this legislation, at least here in the House. However, I do hold out hope that in the weeks to come, as those on the other side of the Capitol take up this issue, we can build upon this unbalanced legislation and extend proper protections to small businesses and their workers. Nevertheless, the measure we are poised to vote on in a few minutes is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98 percent of the new businesses in the United States. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever. The same small employers are looking for a more cost-effective way to offer health care benefits to their employees, just as large corporations and labor unions across our Nation can do because of economies of scale. What protections does this bill offer these same small employers? None whatsoever. They are the ones that are going to be providing these jobs that are going to be paying the higher wages, and they are getting no relief, no help. As a consequence, people, many people, one study says 1.6 million people, will end up losing their jobs as a result of this. Working families, many of whom would benefit from a minimum wage increase and many of whom depend upon small businesses, are looking to Congress for innovative solutions that would improve their access to affordable health care. What protections does this bill provide them? None whatsoever. My colleagues, we can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better. And I believe, once Congress completes its work, we will do better. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unbalanced legislation. As this debate continues in the weeks to come, I am hopeful that all of us will be mindful of the concerns and the sacrifices of small businesses in each and every one of our districts. If we do that and if we provide them the protections they need and deserve, I am confident that the final product we send to the President's desk will be far superior to the unbalanced and scaled-down measure that we are about to vote on. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.