[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 131 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H9558-H9566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3221, STUDENT AID AND FISCAL 
                       RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2009

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 746 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 746

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3221) to amend the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Education and Labor or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  THE SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. 
Virginia Foxx. All time yielded for consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous material into the record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 746 provides for a structured rule 
for consideration of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2009.
  The rule makes in order 24 amendments, which are listed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is 
debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment and the Kline 
substitute, which are each debatable for 20 minutes.
  The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 746 
and the underlying bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, 
which was passed by the House Education and Labor Committee with 
bipartisan support.
  I thank Chairman Miller, as well as my colleagues on the committee on 
both sides of the aisle for their leadership in this historic 
legislation that puts America's students and their families first. 
Education is the key to progress and prosperity, both for individuals 
as well as collectively as a Nation.
  Every day we hear from our constituents about their inability to 
afford college or their excessive student loan debt that burdens their 
families. Just yesterday I talked to a young woman who attends a 
university in my district, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and 
she is graduating with $50,000 in debt.

                              {time}  1045

  This Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act tackles this problem 
head-on by making the single largest investment in higher education in 
history without costing taxpayers any more.
  Following the unprecedented Federal support for education in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which increased Pell Grants and 
funding to K-12 schools through special ed and Title I, this landmark 
legislation will transform the way our student loan programs operate 
and generate $87 billion in savings over the next 10 years

[[Page H9559]]

that will be used to help increase Pell Grant scholarships, keep 
interest rates low on Federal loans, and create a more reliable and 
effective financial aid system for families at no cost to taxpayers. 
Converting all new Federal student lending to the reliable, effective, 
and cost-efficient Direct Loan Program enables these critical 
investments to make our economy strong and competitive while reducing 
the deficit and bringing college in reach for countless American 
families.
  I strongly believe in President Obama's goal that the United States 
become the world leader in the proportion of college graduates by 2020. 
But like the rest of the country, lower-income students in my home 
State of Colorado are too often left behind because their families 
can't afford to pay for college.
  Over the next 10 years, this bill invests more than $589 million in 
Colorado alone to increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarships to 
$5,550 a year in 2010 and $6,900 in 2019. And starting in 2011, the 
scholarship's value will be preserved by indexing it to inflation plus 
1 percent. Under this bill, students in my district could see a 
dramatic increase in their Pell Grant awards over the next 10 years.
  Applying for financial aid should help, not hinder, college access, 
yet an estimated 1.5 million college students who likely were eligible 
to receive Pell Grants didn't even apply for financial aid because they 
found the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the FAFSA document, 
too confusing to fill out. This bold legislation makes it easier for 
families to apply for financial aid through a streamlined FAFSA form 
that is simpler and shorter by reducing the number of questions and 
allowing applicants to use the information from their tax returns.
  In addition, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act 
strengthens and expands the Perkins Loan Program that provides low-cost 
Federal loans to every U.S. college campus and keeps interest rates low 
on subsidized Federal student loans by making them variable beginning 
in 2012. These interest rates are currently set to jump from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent in 2012. For the 5.5 million borrowers across 
the Nation who take out subsidized student loans every year, these 
changes mean real savings and offer much-needed relief, more money that 
can go into textbooks, living expenses, and paying additional college 
tuition above the student loan amount.
  We also know that too many students enroll in college but drop out 
and don't graduate. College access should lead to college success. 
However, only half of students who enroll end up with a bachelor's 
degree. This has enormous economic implications for college dropouts 
and our economy as a whole because workers with bachelor's degrees earn 
54 percent more on average than those who attend some college but don't 
finish.
  This legislation invests $3 billion to bolster college access and 
completion through innovative programs that focus on financial literacy 
and help retain graduate and undergraduate students, as well as a $2.5 
billion investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
Minority-Serving Institutions to help students from disadvantaged 
backgrounds stay in school and complete their studies. Colorado, as an 
example, will receive at least $10.5 million over the next 5 years from 
the increased funding for the College Access Challenge Grant Program.
  In recognition of our troops' heroic service to our country, H.R. 
3221 gives servicemembers more freedom to attend the college of their 
choice under the GI Bill and also helps our troops afford an education 
by providing loan forgiveness for members of the military who are 
called up to duty in the middle of an academic year, and we all know 
how disruptive that can be, and helping them complete school and get 
their degree is an important element that this bill provides to those 
who serve our Nation proudly.
  As a member of the Community College Caucus, I am thrilled that this 
legislation recognizes the critical role that these open-door 
institutions play in our communities both as gateways to higher 
education as well as providers of a highly skilled workforce to fill 
the needs of our local economies and prepare kids for the growth 
sectors of our economy and for jobs in the ever-changing and evolving 
economic sectors. Community colleges are an essential component of 
America's workforce development, and that is recognized by this bill.
  In my district in Colorado, Front Range Community College and the 
Colorado Mountain College are effectively addressing the needs of both 
students and employers and represent an essential component for our 
economic development as well as a source of community pride. By 
encouraging historic partnerships and innovative reforms and expanding 
access to free and high-quality online courses, this legislation helps 
prepare Colorado's 117,000 community college students with the real-
world experiences and skills they need to be ready for 21st century 
jobs or to transfer to 4-year colleges or universities to complete 
their bachelor's degree. Enrollment in our community colleges is up 20 
percent this fall compared to last year, so this funding will help our 
existing system and infrastructure meet that demand.
  Colorado ranks third nationally in expected growth in jobs that will 
require post-secondary training, and we need to dramatically increase 
the number of degrees, certificates, and credentials awarded. These new 
investments will help community colleges establish articulation 
agreements, expand academic training programs for high-wage occupations 
in high-demand industries like health care, and improve student support 
services.
  We will also build and enhance links through dual enrollment through 
our K-12 system to increase collegiate access as well as giving kids 
who might be first-generation college goers support as they attend 
college through the K-12 system and take their first college courses 
and show that, yes, they can achieve at the college level.
  Through our bolstering community colleges, we can also strengthen 
their labor market responsiveness and competitiveness. And to ensure 
that community college students learn and thrive in modern updated 
state-of-the-art facilities, Colorado would receive $28.7 million under 
capital facilities, which will leverage additional funds to help repair 
and construct projects for community college facilities that are 
primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing.
  But the impact of savings realized from cutting the middleman between 
students and lenders goes beyond higher education. They will also help 
ensure that the next generation of children enters kindergarten with 
the skills needed to succeed in school by increasing access to birth-
to-five early learning programs for children from low-income families. 
The Early Learning Challenge Fund would award $1 billion each year in 
competitive grants to States that raise the bar of early education 
standards, show a State commitment to meeting the needs of birth-to-
five students and practices through comprehensive reform, build an 
effective early childhood workforce, improve the school readiness 
outcomes of young children, and promote parental and family 
involvement. Investing in high-quality early education is not only the 
right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do since it yields a 
high return, saving taxpayers up to $14 for every dollar we spend.

  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of early 
childhood advocates from across the country, economists, business 
leaders, bankers, philanthropists, child development experts, who agree 
that smart investment in early education is critical if we want to 
close the achievement gap, prevent the achievement gap from arising 
before kids even enter kindergarten rather than trying to play catchup 
after the fact through improving our public schools alone. We can close 
the achievement gap and ensure that children from all economic and 
social and ethnic backgrounds are prepared to thrive in school as well 
as in life.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me time to 
discuss this bill.
  During the month of August, people all over this country spoke out 
against the government takeover of our health care system. They are fed 
up with increased spending, increased long-term deficits and debt, and 
want to reduce

[[Page H9560]]

the role of government in our lives. This bill does just the opposite 
of that.
  I complimented my colleague from California Mr. Miller, yesterday, in 
a kind of a backhanded way, by saying that he has come up with very, 
very good titles for the bills that he has been handling in this 
session. The titles do just exactly the opposite of what the bills do. 
This bill is called Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, 
and to a person who hasn't spent time reading it or thinking about it, 
that sounds like a good thing to do. However, this bill and, of course, 
the rule, which we are debating today, aren't fiscally responsible and 
this is not the way we should be going.
  As I listened to my colleague speak today, I was impressed by the 
paternalistic attitude that is represented by this bill and by the 
comments being made by our colleagues: It's going to give more freedom 
to people. It's going to ensure that community colleges do such and 
such. It's going to close the achievement gap.
  Would that the government had that kind of power. Would that money 
alone do that kind of thing. That's not what this bill is going to do, 
and this rule needs to be voted down.
  This bill was passed out of the House Committee on Education and 
Labor by a vote of 30-17. It eliminates the Federal Family Education 
Loan Program and shifts all student loans to a government-run system 
under the Direct Loan Program. In addition, the bill creates nine new 
programs and increases the Federal Government takeover of early 
education, higher education, school construction, and more. It is an 
insidious intrusion into education at all levels by the Federal 
Government, and it doesn't deserve to be passed by this House.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I thank the Rules Committee for reporting this legislation to the 
floor with the amendments that have been made in order. And I want to 
thank the gentleman from Colorado for his strong support for this 
legislation not only in the Rules Committee but in our committee, the 
Education and Labor Committee, where he led a number of efforts to 
improve this legislation.
  This rule will allow for the proper input and amendments from Members 
from both sides of the aisle on legislation that will be transformative 
for our students, families, and taxpayers.
  The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act will allow us to invest 
$87 billion to make college more affordable, to build a world-class 
community college system, and to improve the opportunities to help our 
youngest students succeed. This represents the single largest 
investment in Federal college aid in history. We will be able to do 
this at absolutely no cost to the taxpayers by undertaking long overdue 
student loan reforms.
  The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act is a win-win. It's a 
win for students. They'll have dependable access to Federal college 
aid, and it will make these programs more effective and efficient for 
families and for taxpayers. It will help rebuild our economy that is 
cutting edge, innovative, and it will help again regain our global 
leadership in both competitiveness and in college graduation rates.
  I would like to especially make clear that this bill is, in fact, 
fiscally responsible. Not only will we be able to take and substitute 
the subsidies that we now pay out for institutions to lend the 
government's money to the students for the government to buy back, we 
will take those subsidies and we will invest that money on behalf of 
students and their families and institutions to improve the education 
that they will receive, to improve the access, to try to improve the 
retention rates so that students that, in fact, take out and borrow 
money end up with a degree and not as a dropout with a lot of debt, and 
we will also return about $10 billion to the Treasury to help reduce 
deficit spending.
  Every aspect of this bill speaks to the future, to the future of our 
economy, to the future strength of our families, to the future needs of 
students who seek to acquire and are fully qualified to benefit from a 
college education.
  Again I thank the Rules Committee, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation when we debate it on the floor later today and 
tomorrow.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to 
our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that we are here talking about the issue of 
education and how we're going to pay for it. And I think that there is 
clearly a bipartisan agreement that improving the quality of education 
in the United States of America is essential, not only for people to be 
successful right here in the United States, but as I regularly point 
out, if we are in this global economy going to see the kind of success 
that we all want, it is essential that we have the best educated, most 
talented young people who are ready to enter the job market.

                              {time}  1100

  That is why making sure that they can pursue higher education is a 
very high priority. There is no disagreement on that whatsoever. The 
reason we are here right now, Madam Speaker, is to address the issue as 
to how we pay for it.
  Now, I was just in a discussion with the very distinguished new 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), and we were talking about the 
size of the Federal deficit. It is $1.6 trillion. I reminded him that 
is larger than the entire Federal budget was just 10 years ago. We have 
a number of new plans before us that dramatically expand that. Health 
care is just one of them. We have the $787 billion stimulus package. We 
have many, many plans that expand rather than reduce the reach of 
government. Unfortunately, we have before us one more of those.
  Now we have sort of what I have seen as the battle within the 
Congressional Budget Office. We have a lot of different figures that 
have been thrown forward to us which create some conflict. I think one 
of the most interesting was a letter that I just saw sent from Doug 
Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, our 
colleague, Mr. Gregg. In it he refers to the fact that as we go down 
the line, we are going to obviously see what is a tremendous increase 
in expenditures.
  I listened to my friend, the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee, talk about the fact that we will have $10 billion in 
savings. Based on what I have seen from this Congressional Budget 
Office number, we not only will not have savings; we will have a 
dramatic increase in spending.
  Now we know that pursuing private markets is the right way for us to 
go, but we have had disruptions in the private markets over the past 
couple of years. Unfortunately, the measure before us prevents us from 
being able to rely on private credit markets in the future. One of the 
reasons that is so important is because private capital is what I 
believe we should be relying on as much as possible.
  I am not saying there should be no role for government, but this 
measure before us usurps even a modicum of private sector involvement. 
Where do we as taxpayers look? As my friend and I were just discussing, 
the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Kline, we will be looking to 
China as we continue to go further and further into debt. That is 
unfortunately exactly what this legislation will do. We will be paying 
a rate of return on that money that the taxpayer is borrowing. And, 
again, we will be ignoring the private markets as they reemerge.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I have to say that this is just one more 
indication, as all of the attention is focused on health care, of 
another $50 billion to $150 billion expansion of the burden that is 
imposed on our taxpayers, and I don't believe that it will do nearly as 
well as the private sector would in trying to look to the sources of 
credit so that we can ensure that the pluralism

[[Page H9561]]

that we have in education, clearly the best higher education system on 
the face of the Earth, succeeds.
  And so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to make 
sure that we do have the kinds of improvements that I believe the 
gentleman from Minnesota wants us very much to implement.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, in a brief response to the gentleman from 
California, I had the opportunity to talk to a student, Hailee Koehler, 
who goes to the University of Colorado, yesterday. She is graduating 
$50,000 in debt; $30,000 of that is privately borrowed capital and 
$20,000 is her student loans. The interest rate that she pays on the 
money that she accessed outside of the federally backed student loans 
is 15 to 18 percent. That is the interest rate on $30,000 of her debt. 
And this is just the cost of a college education. This is $50,000 
tuition, books, room/board. That is actually very reasonable compared 
to what it costs at some colleges. She is paying 10 percent less on her 
federally backed student loans. What a difference in her life it would 
make if she had access to more at the lower rate.
  When we are talking about the government going out and borrowing 
money, government is borrowing money, 3 percent, 4 percent a year. That 
is what the government is paying. If we can turn that around and loan 
that out at 5, 6, or 7 percent, it sounds like a pretty good business 
for the government to be in.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I know the gentleman has experience in business. Doesn't 
that sound like a pretty good business proposition?
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and I appreciate his 
question. Let me say that obviously the lowest rate is what we all want 
to pursue. I believe if we create an opportunity to move into the 
private markets, creating more competition will play a role in bringing 
those rates down; and that is what we should be doing.
  The debt burden that is going to continue to be imposed on the U.S. 
taxpayer is something we also need to address as well.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I would simply submit it is better for 
students and the system, to the extent debt has to be on the books, for 
debt to be at 3 percent, 5 percent, 6 percent at a year rather than 15 
to 18 percent a year which is onerous for anyone who has that kind of 
debt load.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  The troubling legacy of the eight years of Bush-Cheney mismanagement 
includes many types of deficits. We all know of the soaring budget 
deficit, but every bit as real is the ``opportunity deficit.''
  Despite our success earlier this year in creating a new higher 
education tax credit and expanding Pell Grants, too many young 
Americans find themselves unable to go to college because of financial 
barriers. As the gentleman from Colorado just mentioned, too many 
others leave college with such a mountain of debt they are unable to 
pursue some of the professional objectives that they would like to do.
  When our youth cannot develop their full God-given potential because 
of financial barriers, our entire country suffers an opportunity 
deficit. With families struggling in this difficult economy, we bridge 
the opportunity gap and ensure that more students can obtain a college 
degree.
  This bill really corrects two deficits left over from the Bush 
Administration by eliminating the waste and inefficiency in the 
operation of the federal student financial assistance program. It is 
truly an investment in America's future. By eliminating the unnecessary 
middleman role of private financial institutions, eliminating the red 
tape and lending directly to the students, the Federal Government will 
have more money for them and more resources left over to apply to 
reducing our national debt.
  With the approval of this bill, just in my Central Texas 
congressional district alone, over the next decade, college students 
attending the University of Texas, Huston-Tillotson University, Texas 
State University, St. Edwards, and ACC, will receive more aid, about 
$46 million more aid, with this measure. Fifteen thousand more students 
will apply through the simplified financial aid application form, as we 
cut through the red tape. And we will have $15 million more dollars to 
help young people prepare to go to college to get the education that 
they need. Who could oppose such a winning combination of helping our 
students and reducing the national debt?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Who could oppose this winning combination? Well, the 
banks who pocketed the wasteful expenditure of taxpayer money, of 
course, and a few ideologues in the Republican Party who oppose all 
federal involvement unless it helps their buddies.
  The alternative that the Republicans are offering today is little 
more than another corporate bailout that will provide billions more to 
lenders instead of reducing our debt and helping our students.
  Let's invest in our students and reject another corporate giveaway.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I know that sometimes we are all given to a 
little hyperbole here on the floor, but the comment from my 
distinguished colleague from California that this would be absolutely 
no cost to taxpayers, if there is anybody listening to this who 
believes that, I am going to find some swamp land in New Mexico to sell 
them.
  We know that the estimates are that 40,000 jobs are going to be lost 
in the private sector as a result of this bill. So tell me, who is 
going to be administering this program? Right now the Direct Loan 
Program covers 20 percent of the loans that are given out. So is the 
Department of Education going to absorb this workload? I doubt that. 
Are they not going to ask for more help to be able to administer the 
other 80 percent?
  In terms of debts, we keep hearing about people who are graduating 
from college with so much debt. Where is the issue of personal 
responsibility that we keep hearing so much about from the President. 
Debt is a personal responsibility. There is no reason for anybody in 
this country to graduate from college with $50,000 worth of debt.
  And it is pretty good business for the government to be in because we 
can borrow money cheaper than the private sector can: that sounds like 
the argument that established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And we do 
know where that has led us.
  Last but not least, I guess it is going to be hundreds of years 
before our colleagues stop blaming every ill in this country on the 
Bush-Cheney administration.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kline), the ranking member of the Education Committee.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Once again Members on the other side of the aisle are frantically 
rushing to expand the reach and cost of the Federal Government. Well, 
if government expansion is what you are looking for, this is the bill 
for you.
  H.R. 3221 eliminates the private sector-based Federal Family 
Education Loan program and shifts every student and every school in 
America into the Direct Loan Program beginning July 1, 2010, less than 
10 months away.
  It creates or expands numerous entitlement programs, spending tens of 
billions of dollars on everything from pre-kindergarten programs to 
school renovation to online course management.
  Republicans offered more than a dozen amendments to this deeply 
flawed legislation, amendments that were designed to forestall the 
damage it is sure to cause, or at the very least, alleviate some of the 
most egregious spending and policy shifts. Six of those amendments were 
made in order, less than half. By comparison, Democrats offered a total 
of 32 amendments: 18 were made in order and another five were 
incorporated into the manager's amendment. That means in total 72 
percent of the amendments offered by Democrats will receive a vote 
today.
  A bad process often accompanies a bad bill, and H.R. 3221 is no 
exception. The Education and Labor Committee has a track record of 
working across party lines when it comes to education.

[[Page H9562]]

In recent years, our panel has approved a comprehensive renewal of 
Federal higher-education programs that incorporated ideas from both 
Democrats and Republicans. We also acted last year to avert a shutdown 
of the student loan programs by enacting, with bipartisan support, the 
Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act.
  Apparently, Democrats have now decided to abandon that effort and 
pursue a partisan goal they have harbored for more than a decade. 
Bipartisanship has been cast aside, as this rule reflects.
  If Democrats wanted to pursue a thoughtful, careful, bipartisan 
approach to stabilizing the student loan programs and reducing our 
deficit, they would support the Republican alternative which we plan to 
offer later in the debate. That's one amendment that was made in order 
under this rule, and I am certainly glad it was. Our amendment offers a 
commonsense solution that allows us to slow down and carefully consider 
what is best for students, schools, and taxpayers.
  Shifting to 100 percent direct lending will radically alter the way 
students pay for college. It will cause upheaval at colleges and 
universities from coast to coast as schools scramble to make the 
personnel and infrastructure changes necessary to administer a program 
that is run by the Federal Government.
  This is a serious issue that deserves a serious debate. And what are 
we doing about it? We are giving it a few hours this afternoon and 
tomorrow morning before casting our votes and turning our attention to 
the next thing.

                              {time}  1115

  Students deserve better. Families deserve better. The tens of 
thousands of Americans who stand to lose their jobs deserve better. And 
taxpayers--who ultimately foot the bill for this measure, this massive 
expansion of government--deserve better.
  We have had discussion already this morning about the costs of this 
bill. And they are certainly confusing and debatable. Proponents say 
and have said it will save billions and reduce the deficit. Others say 
it will add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, as Mr. Dreier 
was addressing earlier.
  In fact, I was looking at a story from McClatchy Newspapers coming 
out of Kansas City, discussing an independent analysis of this program, 
and it says, ``Changes in the loan program will `save a big chunk of 
money,' said Marc Goldwein, the policy director for the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget, a watchdog group. Will it be the right 
amount to offset the new spending? The obvious answer is we don't 
know.''
  He warned that the new system's fiscal outlook would be 
``particularly uncertain because it would depend on economy-related 
factors such as default rates, need-based aid, and other factors.''
  In fact, that's why the Congressional Budget Office, in looking at 
this bill, has amended, although not officially by the rules of this 
House, its estimate. The letter that Mr. Dreier talked about, addressed 
to Senator Gregg, they said if we had used market risk-based analysis 
like we did in the TARP program, this bill wouldn't ``save $87 billion, 
but some $33 billion less.'' And if we counted the discretionary 
spending--over $13 billion--it would cost more. And if we looked at the 
real cost of Pell Grants, it would cost another $11.5 billion more.
  So I think those that say that this is going to impact the deficit, 
increase the deficit, have the arguments in their favor. I understand 
it's debatable. But what is certainly clear, what is not confusing, is 
that this bill is an expansion of the government, with new programs and 
new spending. It is a government takeover in an industry. And it will 
result in a loss of jobs.
  I wanted to address just a couple of comments that have already been 
made today in this debate. I felt the pain when my colleague from 
Colorado talked about the student that was paying some 15.5 percent 
interest. That's not a FFEL program. That interest rate is capped. We 
want to make sure that such a program exists and people aren't paying 
those kind of interest rates.
  Then, I'm always struck when one of my colleagues says, Well, we're 
trying to eliminate waste and inefficiency by going to a government 
program. My colleagues, that just defies history, to find a government 
program that reduces waste and inefficiency. The stories are rampant. 
We know in every department huge amounts of waste and inefficiency, 
whether it's a $500 or $600 hammer in Defense acquisition or money 
wasted on trailers sitting in fields after hurricane recovery efforts. 
The Federal Government does not reduce waste and inefficiency. That 
defies history.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. I'd like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the 
Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 
make three quick points, but first I want to say that I rise in support 
of this rule and, more importantly, in support of the underlying 
legislation.
  Three quick points. The ranking member of the Rules Committee spoke 
with great reverence for private markets and talked about how we are 
eliminating any private role in the student loan program. The truth is 
that, were it not for the intervention of the Federal Government this 
year, there would be virtually no private student loan market.
  We passed last year a piece of legislation called the Ensuring 
Continued Access to Student Loans, and we did so so that students could 
continue to borrow because of a lack of liquidity in the student loan 
market. Had we not acted, the private student loan market would have 
been severely diminished, if not nonexistent. In fact, 60 percent of 
the $85 billion that students were borrowing this year, they are 
borrowing as a result of the intervention of the Federal Government.
  So we can't rely on the private loan market. And one of the reasons 
we are taking this action is because students need to have a source of 
funding that they can rely upon.
  So it's very important that we pass this legislation to address the 
issue of the lack of liquidity in the student loan market and to give 
students a source of financing that they can rely upon.
  The second point. We talk constantly in this Chamber about waste, 
fraud, and abuse. And the simple fact is that we are supporting a 
private loan program, the FFEL program, that wastes $8 billion to $9 
billion a year in taxpayer dollars, and we are making the judgment that 
those taxpayer dollars would be much better spent if we took that $8 
billion or $9 billion and used it to help students attend college, to 
improve community colleges, to expand other student aid programs, to 
help students graduate, something that's very, very important.
  So we are attacking the waste, fraud, and abuse that exists.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. We are attacking the waste, fraud, and abuse 
that exists, and doing so in a way that helps students.
  Lastly, my friend from Minnesota, the ranking member of the Education 
Committee, just said that we are pursuing a partisan goal. I would take 
issue with that and say that what we're pursuing is a very practical 
goal.
  The practical goal we're pursuing is to help young people go to 
college. We are not going to be able to compete as a Nation in an 
increasingly competitive global marketplace unless we have an educated 
workforce. Higher education is the key to that educated workforce.
  So, from a very practical perspective, not partisan perspective, we 
need to pass this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. I would like to share with the Members some concerns that 
have been shared with me by the University of North Carolina system, 
and I will quote: ``UNC is concerned about the committee's attempt to 
divert Federal funding away from higher education to K-12 construction 
and early childhood education.
  ``While K-12 construction and early childhood education may be 
worthwhile Federal priorities, they should not be funded at the expense 
of higher education.''
  Another point that they have made is that they're very concerned 
about a provision in the Miller reconciliation

[[Page H9563]]

bill that would eliminate the in-school interest exemption for graduate 
and professional student borrowers.
  While we are talking about how we want people to continue their 
education and how important an education is to our country, putting 
graduate students in the position of having to pay interest while 
they're in school is not a very smart thing for us to be doing.
  I want to talk a little bit about other changes that are coming to 
the Federal Financial Aid Program through this bill. It's going to 
eliminate restrictions that prevent individuals convicted of drug 
possession from receiving taxpayer-funded financial aid. It's going to 
change the need analysis formula, which is going to fail to do enough 
to fundamentally simplify our system of financial aid programs, and 
there is a move to variable interest rates for subsidized Stafford 
loans, which keeps the system unnecessarily complex for borrowers in an 
effort to cover a broken political promise to cut interest rates in 
half, which was made last year and which we debunked, I thought, pretty 
well then.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inform the gentlelady from North Carolina 
I was just given this information by staff that some of the remarks 
that she made were with regards to a previous version of the bill. The 
version that is being put forth in this rule does allow graduate 
students to be eligible for in-school interest subsidies for 
subsidization through the Stafford loan.
  So the changes she's referring to were in fact discussed and there 
was initially some discussion that it could come down a different way. 
But this bill being put forward does allow graduate students to 
participate in that.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the 
Rules Committee for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, 
and this rule, and I rise in support of every student who hopes to 
attend college but is grappling with rising costs.
  For millions of students across America, we are going to make the 
cost of attending college more affordable. In Florida, my home State, 
hundreds of thousands of students and families will find the cost of 
attending college more affordable through significant increases in the 
Pell Grant and expanded student loans.
  I cosponsored this landmark investment in our students and higher 
education because over the next 10 years we will invest over $2.2 
billion in Florida students, including over $100 million for students 
in the Tampa Bay area, through increases in the Pell Grant. That means 
direct aid to half a million Florida students, including over 24,000 
students in my district alone, at no new cost to taxpayers.
  We all understand that in this economy families are being squeezed by 
the rising cost of tuition and living expenses. And with the price of 
college steadily increasing, too many students are forced to make tough 
choices when trying to figure out how to pay for college. But due to 
our efforts and support from President Obama, a college education in 
America will be more affordable.
  A college education has always been critical. People with college 
degrees earn more. And a college degree today is even more valuable as 
the fabric of our workforce changes and we prepare students for 21st 
century jobs.
  Thank you to Chairman George Miller and the great Education and Labor 
Committee for standing up once again for students, families, and 
American colleges and universities. Madam Speaker, this bill provide 
our students with the tools they need to be successful, and I urge 
support.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the fact 
that we did have several amendments made in order by the Rules 
Committee, and we're very grateful for that because it gives us an 
opportunity to debate those amendments on the floor. And we have 
certainly talked a lot about that in the past, especially with the 
appropriations process.
  But I want to say that we were very disappointed that, given the 
financial situation in our country and the concern that people have 
that's being expressed every day by our constituents over the fact that 
we continue to have massive job losses in this country, despite the 
fact that the President promised with the passage of the stimulus bill 
that we would not go above an 8 percent unemployment rate, that ever 
since the President came into office, job losses have skyrocketed, and 
the fact that our deficit is the largest that it's ever been in the 
history of this country. There were two amendments that we think we 
should have had made in order so that we could discuss the financial 
situation and the impact that this bill, the underlying bill is going 
to have.
  One of those amendments, by Congressman Tom Price of Georgia, 
provided that the act would fail to take effect if the Secretary of 
Education, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and the 
Treasury--all of those positions, of course, controlled by the 
President--would determine that the provisions of section 201, which 
would end the FFEL program, will result in more than 5,000 job losses. 
We are very concerned that this bill is going to increase job losses.
  Furthermore, the amendment by the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) would have prohibited using Federal funds to 
carry out titles 3 through 5 of H.R. 3221 until the national deficit is 
under $1 trillion.
  We believe that in a time, again, when our economy is suffering 
tremendously from actions--wrong actions taken and appropriate actions 
not taken--that we should not be adding to the problems of our citizens 
by increasing unemployment and increasing the deficit.

                              {time}  1130

  So I want to express our concern that those amendments were not made 
in order, but express my appreciation for those that were made in 
order, including one from me.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time, and I rise in 
support of this rule. I think it's clear from the debate and the 
discussion that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
rather put their support with banks, maintain banks as the middlemen in 
this effort--banks are making money hand over fist and enormous 
profits--and cast their lot with banks versus casting their lot with 
students and their families.
  Education is the cornerstone of our republic. It is only by offering 
and delivering quality education for all of our citizens--from the 
earliest years to the college years--that we can live up to our most 
noble democratic principles and ensure freedom and equality, that we 
make opportunity real for each and every American, and that we can 
continue to lead the world to economic security and lasting prosperity. 
As President Obama said last week, and I quote, Countries that out-
educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow.
  But today as our economy struggles to emerge from a debilitating 
recession, fewer and fewer students are able to afford a college 
education. Although the Recovery Act we passed in the winter has helped 
to fill the gap, States are facing massive budget shortfalls and are 
thus forced to decrease the resources available to education. 
Meanwhile, many schools are raising tuition, cutting financial aid and 
closing classrooms.
  That's why this bill is the right bill at the right time. By 
restructuring our Federal financing of student loans to enhance the 
Direct Loan Program, we can realize significant savings throughout the 
system. This money will be applied to other areas of critical education 
funding, including increasing Pell Grants and Perkins loans. With these 
and other reforms in the bill, such as keeping investment rates low and 
simplifying student aid forms, this legislation keeps the door of 
opportunity afforded by a college education open to all, without 
costing American taxpayers an extra dime.
  Equally important to the savings realized by this bill is the 
creation of the State Challenge Grants which will allow States to 
invest in their early childhood development infrastructure. These 
competitive grants will mark a

[[Page H9564]]

historic collaboration between the Department of Education and Health 
and Human Services, where the expertise on these programs has 
traditionally resided.
  Each day, over 11 million children under the age of 5 spend time 
outside the care of their parents and in a wide variety of 
environments. We need to ensure that they are spending this critical 
social and cognitive development time in a quality setting. As with any 
endeavor, early investments in education yield tremendous dividends 
down the road for both the student and for society. Cognitive science 
and countless studies tell us the same thing: early childhood education 
helps students achieve more throughout their lives. There is arguably 
no better way to spend our education dollars than to fund these 
important programs.
  In closing, I am proud of the bill that Chairman Miller has brought 
to this committee, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I think I may be the only Member of Congress 
who has been a community college president. So I've had a good bit of 
experience. I was a professor and an assistant dean at a university. I 
served on a school board for 12 years. So I have extensive experience 
in the field of education.
  I am a product of public education. I grew up extraordinarily poor. I 
doubt there is anybody in the Congress who grew up as poor as I did. 
And I know that much of the success that I have had has been the result 
of the opportunities I had in education. I give credit to the people 
who taught me and who guided me throughout my educational career. It 
took me 7 years to get my undergraduate degree, but I graduated without 
a dime of debt because I worked and went to school. I know that it is 
possible to do that, and I know that a person does not have to borrow 
$50,000 a year to get an education in this country. We are blessed that 
we have extraordinarily high-quality, low-cost education programs all 
across this country. We have excellent community colleges. We have 
excellent public education, higher education, and we have excellent 
private education. We have more choice in this country than any other 
place in the world.
  As I said, I have extensive background in this area. As a community 
college president, I had the opportunity to work with the Workforce 
Investment Program. As a member of the State legislature, I had an 
opportunity to understand these programs and work with them at some 
length. So I am not unfamiliar with this area. What I see when I read 
this bill, particularly as it talks about giving money to community 
colleges, is basically setting up a welfare program for States and for 
community colleges. We already have the kind of accountability, I 
believe, that we need in community colleges in this country.
  Yesterday, again, my distinguished colleague from California said 
that the bill has, for the first time ever, accountability in it. I 
have read this bill. There is no accountability in here. There are 
benchmarks established somewhere out in the future. They're not even 
discussed in the bill. There is talk about serving underserved groups 
of people. There is really no accountability in here.
  And I'm wondering if our colleagues are going to consider men an 
underserved group. It's my understanding--and, again, I'm not up to 
date on the literature--that approximately 65 percent of the people now 
in higher education are women. So women have certainly found the 
opportunities there.
  I have a great number of concerns about this bill, not just what it's 
going to do to the student loan programs but to the other areas. It's 
going to get into elementary education, preschool education. We just 
don't need the Federal Government injecting itself here. The bill is 
going to limit choices for parents and students seeking educational 
loans and I think decrease the quality of service historically provided 
by private lenders. In 2007-2008, the FFEL program served more than 6.4 
million students and parents at 5,000 postsecondary institutions, 
lending a total of $55.3 billion or 78 percent of all needed Federal 
student loans. In general, postsecondary institutions have preferred to 
provide their student loans through the private FFEL program because of 
its ability to provide students high-quality customer service, 
education outreach, and loan default prevention.
  Again, what this is, in my opinion, is another takeover by the 
Federal Government of a segment of our society that we don't need taken 
over.
  I would like to quote from an article from The Weekly Standard 
entitled, Need a Student Loan? Boy, Does Uncle Sam Have a Deal for You:
  ``For whatever else the monopoly in direct lending accomplishes, it 
will greatly expand the number of young people who find themselves 
entangled with, and ultimately beholden to, the vast system of rewards 
and rebukes that the Federal Government has at hand. More than 65 
percent of college students borrow money to go to college. That's a lot 
of guinea pigs.
  ``We already have a foreshadowing of possibilities. Congressmen are 
tinkerers, and they have been tinkering with federally backed loans for 
years, hoping to push borrowers into doing things that Congressmen find 
pleasing. The most interesting of their ideas was signed into law by 
President Bush. This shouldn't be a surprise, since by his second term 
Bush had proved a pretty ambitious tinkerer himself. The Public Service 
Loan Forgiveness Program of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 
of 2007--such big titles you have, grandma!--was designed to let 
college students know what they should do once they got out of school.
  ``Student borrowers can have their Federal loans forgiven after 25 
years, on the condition that they make a single minimum payment every 
360 days. This is already a significant inducement to acquire a Federal 
rather than a private loan. But the Public Service Loan Forgiveness 
Program goes a step further. You can have your loan forgiven after only 
10 years, vastly reducing the total amount of money you pay for your 
college education--to below $5,000 in some cases--on three conditions. 
Your loan has to be handled directly by the government, with no 
contamination from private lenders; you have to meet a schedule of 
monthly minimum payments; and upon graduation, you have to get the 
right kind of job.
  ``The right kind of job turns out to be what's loosely called 
``public service.'' In common discourse, public service is already an 
elastic term, used mostly as a form of self-flattery, but seldom has 
the euphemism been stretched quite as far as it was in Bush's bill. 
Work for the government, any government--whether as an actuary, a 
diplomat, or a teacher; a social worker, a fighter pilot, or a forklift 
driver--and you qualify for the loan forgiveness. You qualify, too, if 
you take a job with any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization: the 
Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Group, the Rainbow Coalition, 
the Transgender Law and Policy Institute, even, theoretically, the 
Heritage Foundation. It doesn't matter if you're an agitator, lawyer, 
lobbyist, congressional aide, or pavement-pounder hectoring passersby 
into signing petitions for Greenpeace. The important thing is, you 
can't be helping anyone turn a profit.''
  Madam Speaker, this bill is another government takeover of parts of 
our lives, and this rule should be voted down along with the bill.

                [From the Weekly Standard, Aug. 3, 2009]

                          Need a Student Loan?

                          (By Andrew Ferguson)

       The House Committee on Education and Labor is having a busy 
     summer. (Everybody in Washington is having a busy summer!) 
     Earlier this month, for example, one of its essential 
     subunits--the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and 
     Secondary Education and Healthy Families and Communities, or 
     SECESEHFC--held lengthy hearings to determine new ways the 
     United States Congress might accomplish one of its many 
     important goals: the ``Prevention of Bullying.''
       The subcommittee chairman, a congressman named Kildee, from 
     Michigan, pointed out that last year, fully 75 percent of 
     schools in the United States had reported an incident of 
     bullying or worse.
       ``One incident is one too many,'' Kildee said, thoughtfully 
     if not originally. ``We must do something immediately to 
     address this widespread problem.''
       With the ``prevention of bullying'' safely in the solution 
     pipeline, the committee went on to do something immediately 
     to address another widesperead problem. Apparently college 
     students are getting private loans to fund their education. 
     Last week the committee approved a bill that will put an end 
     to all that.

[[Page H9565]]

       The committee's vote accelerates a process that was begun 
     under President Clinton. In 1994, Congress approved his idea 
     of a Direct Lending Program for students who needed to borrow 
     money to go to college. Before then the government had merely 
     guaranteed student loans, which were originated and serviced 
     by private banks selected by the government. The guarantee 
     ensured that the ``private'' loans made huge profits for the 
     banks, regardless of interest rates or default rates.
       Guaranteed loans are a textbook example of crony capitalism 
     or (if you prefer) corporate socialism: The government 
     assumes all the risk while doling out contracts to favored 
     businesses, who then reap the profits. With student loans, 
     the lender gets preening rights in the bargain, marketing 
     itself as a Merchant of Dreams, a benefactor of America's 
     youth, a sweet-tempered Mr. Jaggers to a nation of eager 
     Pips. In truth, the only people who like the system of 
     guaranteed loans are the student loan industry--now handling 
     more then $90 billion a year--and the congressmen whose 
     districts contain large numbers of people who work in the 
     student loan industry.
       Direct lending eliminates these unctuous middlemen by 
     encouraging students to borrow money directly from the 
     federal government. The program semi-satisfies libertarians, 
     who dislike cronyism, and thrills liberals, who believe the 
     noble goal of universal college education should be 
     uncorrepted by the yuckiness of money making. Liberal backers 
     of direct lending believe, in effect, that there's room for 
     only one merchant of Dreams around here, and it better be the 
     federal government. Moreover, direct lending saves the 
     government money--no really, it does--by reducing fees and 
     other handling costs, savings which can then be passed on to 
     the poor borrowers, though they never are.
       The bill that passed out of committee last week completes 
     the triumph of Clinton's program. The grandly titled Student 
     Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 does away with the 
     federal guarantee for student loans and brings them all under 
     the care of Congress and fhe federal Department of Education, 
     saving (say the committee's accountants) nearly $10 billion a 
     year. The committee plans to rechannel more than half 
     those savings to purposes other than financing higher 
     education. But for a college student trying to make 
     tuition, the most dramatic consequence is that federal 
     direct lending will soon be the only kind of lending there 
     is. Washington will be the lender of first and last 
     resort.
       Some students--or more likely, their parents--still take 
     out private bank loans with no federal guarantees. This 
     accounts for about 14 percent of the student loan market. But 
     it's unclear how long that corner of the market can last, as 
     the federal government slowly crowds out truly private 
     lenders by offering customers lower interest rates, greater 
     discounts, and easier eligibility rules. Most likely the 
     private lenders will abandon the field altogether, and the 
     last chance to build a genuinely competitive market in 
     college loans will be lost.
       Few will weep over that vanished opportunity--until, 
     perhaps, they see what Congress does with the new power that 
     has fallen into its lap. For whatever else the monopoly in 
     direct lending accomplishes, it will greatly expand the 
     number of young people who find themselves entangled with, 
     and ultimately beholden to, the vast system of rewards and 
     rebukes that the federal government has at hand. More than 65 
     percent of college students borrow money to go to college. 
     That's a lot of guinea pigs.
       We already have a foreshadowing of the possibilities. 
     Congressmen are tinkerers, and they have been tinkering with 
     federally backed student loans for years, hoping to push 
     borrowers into doing things that congressmen find pleasing. 
     The most interesting of their ideas was signed into law by 
     President Bush. This shouldn't be a surprise, since by his 
     second term Bush had proved a pretty ambitious tinkerer 
     himself. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program of the 
     College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007--such big 
     titles you have, grandma!--was designed to let college 
     students know what they should do once they got out of 
     school.
       Student borrowers can have their federal loans forgiven 
     after 25 years, on the condition that they make a single 
     minimum payment every 360 days. This is already a significant 
     inducement to acquire a federal rather than a private loan. 
     But the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program goes a step 
     further: You can have your loan forgiven after only 10 years, 
     vastly reducing the total amount of money you pay for your 
     college education--to below $5,000 in some cases--on three 
     conditions. Your loan has to be handled directly by the 
     government, with no contamination from private lenders; you 
     have to meet a schedule of monthly minimum payments; and upon 
     graduation you have to get the right kind of job.
       The right kind of job turns out to be what's loosely called 
     ``public service.'' In common discourse public service is 
     already an elastic term, used mostly as a form of self-
     flattery, but seldom has the euphemism been stretched quite 
     so far as it was in Bush's bill. Work for the government, any 
     government--whether as an actuary, a diplomat, or a teacher; 
     a social worker, a fighter pilot, or a forklift driver--and 
     you qualify for the loan forgiveness. You qualify, too, if 
     you take a job with any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization: the 
     Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the 
     Rainbow Coalition, the Transgender Law and Policy Institute, 
     even, theoretically, the Heritage Foundation. It doesn't 
     matter if you're an agitator, lawyer, lobbyist, congressional 
     aide, or a pavement-pounder hectoring passersby into signing 
     petitions for Greenpeace. The important thing is, you can't 
     be helping anyone turn a profit.
       The first loans won't be forgiven till 2017, so there's no 
     telling yet how many people are taking advantage of the 
     program or how much it will cost. But it's clearly designed 
     to cast a very wide net. Indeed, its definition of public 
     service is so broad that only a certain kind of graduate 
     would be denied this splendid perk of an almost-free 
     education: the idiot who went to work in the world of buying, 
     selling, inventing, making, and producing.
       Though Bush couldn't have known it, his program anticipated 
     the age that dawned this January. It fits the ambitions and 
     tastes of the Obama era, especially as summarized on several 
     occasions by the first lady. She and her husband are perhaps 
     the most famous student-loan borrowers in history. She speaks 
     often of the torment of living under the debt load they had 
     accumulated in college (Princeton, Columbia) and law school 
     (Harvard). In remarks first reported by Byron York in 
     National Review, in February 2008, she was particularly 
     graphic. Thanks to their student loans, the Obamas found 
     themselves ``struggling to figure out how we would save 
     for our kids.''
       What placed them in this position, Mrs. Obama said, was 
     their decision to ``move out of the moneymaking industry''--
     both had worked in corporate law--``into the helping 
     industry.'' Again, the term ``helping'' is loosely defined: 
     After leaving their law firms, he went to work for the 
     Illinois state senate, she to Chicago city government and 
     then a nonprofit hospital. ``We left corporate America, which 
     is a lot of what we're asking young people to do,'' she said.
       Recently she expanded on the theme. ``I went from college 
     to law school to a big old fancy law firm,'' she told a group 
     of Americorps workers, ``where I was making more money than 
     both of my parents combined.'' But then came a revelation. 
     ``I had to ask myself whether, if I died tomorrow, would I 
     want this to be my legacy, working in a corporate firm, 
     working for big companies? And when I asked myself the 
     question, the resounding answer was, absolutely not.''
       How great their struggles were, and to what extent the 
     struggles were aggravated by college-loan payments, are open 
     questions. From the time they left their money-making days 
     behind, according to tax returns, the Obamas never had a 
     combined yearly gross adjusted income of less than $207,000. 
     Usually it was much more. (During those years in the helping 
     industry, the Obamas donated 0.9 percent of their income to 
     charity, presumably because, as the old saying goes, ``we 
     gave at the office.'') By 2005, Mrs. Obama alone was making 
     $315,000 a year as an industrial helper, directing 
     ``community affairs'' at her hospital. Except for the bad 
     timing, she could have had her loan debt scrubbed by 
     President Bush's program.
       One justification for the program is that people in the 
     helping industry need the financial help, because of their 
     low pay. But most people would consider the Obamas' income 
     pretty good money. It turns out that public service, even 
     strictly defined, doesn't necessarily require financial 
     sacrifice. Neal McCluskey and Chris Edwards, of the 
     libertarian Cato Institute (one of those public-serving 
     nonprofits), have tried to show that government work, 
     including public school teaching, compares favorably with 
     work in the private sector, whether you count wages, 
     benefits, or both. Using data from 2004, Edwards found that 
     the average federal worker earned an average of 56 percent 
     more than the average employee in the real economy.
       So if public servants don't need their loans forgiven any 
     more than do debtors in the private sector, what's the point 
     of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program? Why provide 
     an incentive for graduates to steer clear of the private 
     workforce? Mrs. Obama's remarks capture the spirit behind the 
     program. The implication isn't merely that nonprofit jobs are 
     admirable. It's that they're always and everywhere more 
     admirable than jobs in the world of commerce.
       The logic closes like a pincer: The only loans available to 
     students will be from the government; and the only way to get 
     the most favorable terms on the loans will be to do what the 
     lender likes. Of course, you don't have to work for 
     Greenpeace or Amnesty International or AmeriCorps. But if you 
     don't, you'll pay every penny of your student loan, plus 
     interest, while your friends who made the right decision 
     won't have to do that. No one's making anyone do anything. 
     It's not a threat, it's a nudge. It's not an ultimatum, it's 
     a suggestion. And it's certainly not bullying. Bullying is 
     about to be made illegal.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the 
Committee on Education and Labor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the respected gentleman from 
Colorado.
  I rise in full support of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility 
Act, which would make college more affordable and accessible with a 
landmark investment in college aid. This will not cost taxpayers a dime 
by improving the

[[Page H9566]]

way that our student loan programs operate. In fact, we can expect a 
$10 billion savings for taxpayers. Our experience with the direct loan 
program has lasted two decades now, and it is a great success. Students 
like it, colleges like it, taxpayers like it. Let's expand it.
  This legislation makes available $40 billion to increase the maximum 
Pell Grant scholarship from its current $5,500--a long way from the 
$4,000 where it was mired for a number of years--now to $6,900 by later 
in the decade. It would, in effect, double the number of students who 
receive Pell Grants in my home State of New Jersey. Further, by 
converting all new Federal loans to the stable and cost-efficient 
Direct Loan Program, the bill would help keep interest rates low on 
need-based Federal student loans.
  I'm especially pleased that the bill provides billions to modernize 
and make our Nation's elementary and secondary schools more energy 
efficient, including a number of provisions that I'm pleased to have 
written. Finally, I strongly support the Early Learning Challenge Fund, 
the community college reforms, and the simplifications to the FAFSA 
forms that are also included in this bill. I want to thank Chairman 
Miller for working with me to protect the Graduate Stafford Loan 
Program in this bill.
  This is a good bill. Millions of students and parents support the 
goals of the bill. Let's answer their pleas for help and make colleges 
more affordable. No one can argue reasonably that now is not the time 
to improve accessibility and affordability of college. I urge support 
of this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, as proposed in President Obama's FY 2010 
budget, H.R. 3221 eliminates the FFEL student loan program that has 
been the overwhelming choice of students and families for more than 40 
years, replacing it with a government-run program. While Democrats 
continue to use government takeovers as a panacea to all economic 
problems, converting all student loans to government subsidized loans 
is just another way that Democrats are killing jobs, increasing 
government intrusion, and eroding the rights of the consumer. I will 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, having no additional speakers on our side of the 
aisle, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, overcrowded and crumbling schools threaten 
the safety and achievement of America's students and are an 
embarrassment for our education system.
  Our schools are short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 
billion. In my home State of Colorado, the backlog of school 
construction and maintenance needs has been estimated between $5.7 and 
$10 billion. That is why this legislation assists school districts with 
funds for school modernization, renovation, and repair projects that 
will create healthier, safer, and more energy-efficient teaching and 
learning climates.
  Colorado will receive more than $42 million over the next 2 years 
under this bill. In 2006, I cochaired a successful campaign for a $300 
million bond issue for the Boulder Valley School District in my school 
district to address the needs of our schools. But many low-income 
districts in Colorado don't have the capacity to finance the necessary 
school upgrades. That is why I am particularly pleased that this 
legislation addresses income disparities by allocating funds to States 
and districts based on their share of students from low-income 
families.
  Most importantly, this legislation is fiscally responsible because it 
pays for itself. By ending subsidies currently given to banks and 
private lenders, this bill saves taxpayers $87 billion over 10 years, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  In addition to investing in our education system, this legislation 
also directs $10 million in savings back to the U.S. Treasury to help 
pay down the deficit and boost the fiscal health of the country our 
children will inherit. This legislation is yet another major step 
towards building a 21st century early childhood education system that 
will prepare the next generation of students for a lifetime of success.
  In a global knowledge-based economy, our Nation cannot afford to 
waste talent and squander human capital. Each and every student who is 
ready and wants to go to college shouldn't give up because of the cost 
barriers that are in their way. This landmark legislation's historic 
investment in college scholarships provides increased educational 
opportunities to Americans across the board.
  I talked to another student from the University of Colorado 
yesterday, Alexis Smith, who talked about her family's story. She grew 
up in a family with a small business in the Denver area. Their family 
earns between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, depending on the business. 
Like a lot of American families, they fall above a lot of the need-
based scholarship programs and below the range that college is easily 
affordable. Alexis is graduating college with $25,000 in debt, 
including substantial credit card debt. She would not have been able to 
go to college without help from Pell Grants as well as Stafford loans, 
and her father is currently working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week at 
age 63 to help afford to put her and her brother through college. These 
are the kinds of sacrifices that Americans are willing to make.
  The Federal Government is here as a partner. By passing this bill, we 
will be able to improve the student loan program and create savings 
that we can pass back along to the students in the form of increased 
availability of student loans as well as grants. That is why I strongly 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________