span of a few years. the gentleman from minnesota is absolutely right. this direct loan program was accomplished in 1993 as a public option. it was designed to increase consumer choice. that's what we were told at the time. and only one problem. the consumers never warmed to it. at its peak, the government direct loan program only attracted 34% of loan volume. today, even with all of the financial difficulties in the private sector, it's earned only 27% of the market. the rest of that market is ably administered by 1,500 services and guarantee agencies that employ 30,000 private sector workers. this bill literally shuts down 40 years of successful private sector involvement with student loans and hands the government monopoly control. as the bumper sticker warns, the government hates competition.

we're told this is going to save money. pardon my skepticism, but i doubt that the same government that runs fema is going to bring efficiency to the student loan program. in fact, it's precisely the fierce competition among loan providers that is producing lower prices for students at universities and processing and servicing, not to mention broader benefits, such as college planning services, financial literacy education, default conversion. one of the providers is the california ed fund in my district. last year alone, the ed fund helped nearly 420,000 borrowers to avoid default. they saved taxpayers $4.2 billion in default claims, one provider, $4.2 billion in savings to american taxpayers.

. will and ariel doorant asked this question, -- durant asked this question, what makes ford a good car? chevrolet, competition. that created an innovative force is snuffed out by this bill for the student loan industry. if this bill becomes law, we are going to be back here a few years tsh in a few years and have yet another failed government monopoly program. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i just want to have 10 seconds to say i'm delighted that the ed fund supports this legislation. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, who was very active in writing this legislation. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. loebsack: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the

student aid and fiscal responsibility. in particular, i want to thank chairman miller and all of my colleagues who worked on this legislation. i'm particularly pleased that this bill contains legislation i worked on with chairman miller, congressman kildee, congressman chandler to help modernize, renovate and repair our crumbling schools with energy efficient and renewable resources. schools across america in every state are deteriorating. in my state alone, the g.a.o. has found that 79% of all schools needed to repair or upgrade their buildings and facilities. providing schools with funds to help leverage local dollars to modernize their schools in need of repair will also create good-paying local jobs in every state and will help improve the safety and the health of our students. this legislation will provide much-needed funds for school facility modernization projects

over the next two fiscal years to help ensure our students have world class, safe, healthy and energy efficient environments in which to learn. given the increasingly global nature of our economy and the workplaces our students will be entering, it is more important than ever that we dedicate the resources necessary to ensure our children will be able to compete. with the passage of this historic student aid and fiscal responsibility act, we will indeed be making an historic commitment to the next generation through significantly improved educational opportunities, and i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to have my remarks revised and extended, please. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. burton: why isn't that

colleges and universities around the country, 70% to 80%, are going with the family education loan program? it's because it's better, it works better. they don't want to mess with a government bureaucracy. you know, in 1993, and i think it's been stated already -- and i don't want to be redundant, but the clinton administration resurrected the direct lending program and they pushed it through congress and it didn't take long for the program's reputation to be synonymous with slow, government bureaucracy service. and the minority's views on the section in this bill h.r. 3221, tells us that the program will collapse, as it did then. in 1998 the congress passed the higher education amendments of 1998, which specifically blocked the clinton administration from phasing out

the fael program because it did not make for sound public policy then and it doesn't now. and i think it's extremely important. we have unemployment that's at 9.7%. i'm sure it's going to go over 10%. more than 30,000 private sector jobs are directly affected by what you're going to do today. in my district in the state of indiana it's 2,356 jobs. and right in the fifth district it's 1,500 jobs. and our unemployment rate in that state is 10.4%. i don't understand at a time of economic difficulty you want to do something that's going to put more people out of work, especially when you're talking about a program that didn't work before. it was junked and now you are going to resurrect it. i know you'll come up with a million ideas why we should do it. it's more government control, more government bureaucracy, something that hasn't worked and the american people simply doesn't want it. we just passed the stimulus bill and the stimulus bill

obviously hasn't done a great deal to solve the problems. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. burton: we need competition in the private sector. we don't need to take over this sector like what we did with the automobile industry. socialism doesn't work. government control doesn't work. so i urge my colleagues to reconsider and think, it didn't work before, it won't work now. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair reminds members that they must address their comments to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tierney: you would think we are not having private lenders from lending. they can make student loans. they can. without subsidy and without a guarantee they probably won't

find themselves very competitive. right now the government is providing 60% of all the capital that goes in because that market didn't have the liquidity that was required in order to keep up those loans. what we're seeing here is the option for the taxpayers, the same people who are trying to send their kids to school, transferring their money over to private lenders, guaranteeing the loans, giving them a subsidy so they can make a profit that will be money that can't be used for pell grant scholarships and for low-interest loans. the people in my district, 100,000 residents in massachusetts will get more pell grant scholarships because we take that money instead of giving it to the lenders we give it to the families. 100,000 people in massachusetts will get lower interest rate loans because we don't take that money and transfer their tax money to private lenders. we in fact keep it into the system. with all that said and done and we've improved education, as the president has called on us to do. we'll put $10 billion back in to pay down our debt. this is a sad telewhen they think that the only -- tale when we think they can do that is we give them subsidies and

guarantee their loans. if they want to compete, let them compete. i think the american families are saying they are hard pressed. some of them are out of work. some of them are making less. all of them have more bills to pay for their students. they want to have access to those pell grant scholarships. they want lower interest loans so their children will have an opportunity to move forward. better for them than the lenders to pad their wall street investors' pockets. that's what's going to improve this country and make us competitive as we move forward. with that i yield back the balance of my time and thank you, madam chair woman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. at this time i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes and 30 seconds. mr. petri: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. petri: i rise in support of h.r. 3221 which moves all student loans to the direct

loan program. for over two decades i championed direct loans as the most cost-effective way to provide student loans. but the defenders of the archaic guarantee loan program are confused so let me be clear. currently we have two federal student loan programs which provide the exact same loans to students. fell is a federal program, not a private loan program. private lenders make the loans with two separate subsidies from the federal government, a guaranteed interest rate that's determined by the political process, not the markets, and a guarantee against default losses. thus, if a student defaults, the taxpayers are on the hook, not the private lender. the profits are private but the losses are socialized. fell is not free enterprise. over the years it has proven to be fraught with scandal and an unreliable source of funds and it costs billions of dollars more for the taxpayers.

a writer, bill crystal's "weekly standard," magazine said that it's a textbook example of crony capitalism. the direct loan program eliminates the middleman, lending directly from the treasury, and all servicing and bill collecting operates through pr formans-based clts. over the years, there has been unanimous agreement by budget experts under the clinton and bush administrations on the excessive costs of fell. earlier this year, an estimate by the c.b.o. once again reiterated this conclusion when it reported that switching to 100% direct lending would result in nearly $87 billion in savings. at this point i'd like to engage in a colloquy with chairman miller. chairman miller, i support the grant program included in this bill that aims to strengthen

community colleges. it's my understanding that public two-year liberal arts colleges that offer associate degrees and certificate programs such as the university of wisconsin colleges will be eligible to compete for these funds. do you agree with that interpretation? mr. miller: will the gentleman yield? mr. petri: yes, i do. mr. miller: i agree. mr. petri: i thank the gentleman for his assurance. i thank my colleague and for the time and will submit my full remarks. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. hare, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hare: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of the student aid and fiscal responsibility act. i'm particularly pleased with the investment this bill makes in the pell grant, early childhood education and our nation's community colleges.

h.r. 3221 provides $76.1 million to increase the maximum pell grant in my congressional district to $6,900 by the year 2019. additionally over 16,700 illinois students will be eligible for pell scholarships. the legislation also includes my amendments to remove barriers to expand access to early learning programs, to disadvantaged children, and to encourage states to implement positive behavioral supports in their early childhood educational system. and finally, i added provisions to make community colleges for competitive for completion grants and to collect data on the location of grant recipients ensuring that the most remote american communities are accessing funding opportunities. again, h.r. 3221 takes bold steps towards improving the accessibility of higher

education. it invests on our children and focuses the important role that community colleges play in economic development. i commend my chairman, chairman miller, and president obama for this visionary initiative, and i urge all my colleagues to support it. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. at this time i would like to yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the budget committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the gentlelady and i thank the ranking member as well. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. let me be clear. i support education. it's an indispenseable component of america's prosperity. i don't find fault with pell grants or student loans. what i find fault with is the way that the math doesn't add up in this bill. this bill includes a sleight of hand in so many ways that it

either raises the deficit by $5.7 billion or as much as $37 billion. it creates 10 new entitlement programs that will dramatically increase spending over the next 10 years, and it adds to our already alarming levels of borrowing. let me try and explain what's going on in here with respect to the budget gimmicks that are employed here. first off, the bill claims to reduce mandatory spending by $7.8 billion and dedicate that savings to deficit reduction. but through this budget gimmick, the bill shifts $13.5 billion in necessary program administrative costs over to the discretionary category where it cannot be counted by the congressional budget office. with this gimmick removed, the bill actually increases the deficit by $5.7 billion. that's the smallest budget gimmick in this bill. the second largest budget gimmick in this bill is the way that it is scored. not using the kind of scoring we use for such things like when we scored fannie or freddie or tarp when we used risk adjustment scoring. if you score it under the

accurate rules that c.b.o. says it ought to be scored under, this bill would raise the deficit by $32 billion. but beyond that, these 10 new entitlement programs that are being created have artificial sunset dates in the law. the most permanent thing in washington is a temporary government program. and if you repeal these artificial sunset dates, that's $39 billion added to the deficit, according to the congressional budget office. . this bill crowds out the private sector, deprives choices and uses enormous budget gimmicks and exploits the system to try to say it is saving money, reducing the deficit. it does nothing like it. with that, i yield back the remaining time to the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield to mr. pomeroy for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pomeroy: i rise to engage in a colloquy with mr. miller. mr. miller: i yield to the the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: i rise to discuss an issue that is of critical importance to my district. we have a unique situation in north dakota. the bank of north dakota was created by the state 1919. the bamping of north dakota has administered the lending and loan guarantee functions to assist families, schools in providing reliable student loans. only bank in the country to perform the guarantee lending for the student loan program. it is an important institution and served 150,000 borrowers at post-secondary institutions in my state.

the bank has provided counseling, work shops, providing techniques when counseling. the result has been an extremely low default rate under the pell loans administered by the bank of north dakota. for all of these reasons, i have been a huge supporter of this program. i commend the work that the state employees have done to make college accessible. i have received concerns about altering its role in the student lending programs and i would like to address that issue. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue and i recognize that the bank of north dakota is an important institution in north dakota and different from any other lending institution in the country. mr. pomeroy: this assures a role of private lending in the servicing of loans. i thank the chairman for his inclusion of a provision that ensures nonprofit entities this will be able to ensure student

loans. will you work with me to ensure the bank of north dakota can continue to participate in the federal lending program? mr. miller: i will work with you as this legislation moves through congress to make sure that the state bank has a continued role in the student lending program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from georgia, member of the committee, dr. price. the chair: dr. price, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: here we are again, growing government. the student aid and fiscal responsibility act under or wellian title to say the least, marks the culmination of a 44-year journey to finally end the private student lending system and doing so in the worst economic downturn in generations. perhaps my friends on the other side didn't notice but they must

be ignoring that more than 14 million americans are unemployed on their watch, but this legislation has real consequences for the economy, specifically in regard to job losses. based on an employment survey of private lending loan participants conducted jointly by the consumer bankers association, the education finance council and the national council education loan programs this program may eliminate up to 30,000 private sector jobs. nearly every state could expect to see job losses when the democrats, quote, invest in education, unquote. and remember this is in the midst of the worst economic downturn in generations. the question has got to be asked, is there any sector of the economy for which democrats aren't planning to have the government control and dominate, taking over the entire student lending system is the latest example after health care,

financial institutions and auto bailouts. you could go on and on and on. the other side is clearly more committed to creating more bureaucracy than preserving jobs and more bureaucracy exactly is exactly what happens when you have a public option in this or any other arena. and the finances as my friend from wisconsin talked about would be laughable. converts the perkins loan program to a mandatory program, creates a new college access and completion fund with for new programs costing $3 billion, $4.9 billion -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: additional 30 seconds. mr. price: creates a $4.9 billion mandatory fund program to repair public elementary and secondary schools. federal money for building local schools and the 70th program for

early learning programs in this nation. the 70th at a cost of $8 billion. you think we could have relied on the previous 69. this is a bad idea whose time has not come. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the mr. wu. mr. wu: what is or wellian is the distortion of argument presented by the other side in this debate because any bank who wants to make a student loan can continue to make a student loan. what will not happen anymore is making those student loans with a taxpayer subsidy and a subsidy where there is not only a guaranteed interest rate, but the taxpayer keeps the bad loans and the private sector, the bank, gets to keep the good loans. that's not going to happen anymore and who's going to

benefit? students. i rise in support of this bill, not only because of the tremendous advances in student financial aid, in pell grants, in working toward a better loan rate for students, but also the assistance to local schools to build safer, more energy-efficient schools, which will be better learning environments and also return jobs and be more energy efficient for local communities. so many of our communities are in urgent need of renovating schools and recent estimates show that america's schools need billions of dollars in retrofitting and repair to have safe and healthy learning environments for our kids. the funds in this bill will help our schools return money to our communities by saving energy and creating jobs. i want to thank mr. miller, chairman miller, for working with me to add seismic retrofitting, storm runoff systems and additional energy resources for our local schools.

in a place like oregon where better sound science shows that we have a much higher earthquake risk. we urgently need the seismic retrofits and other safety measures. i commend the chair for working on this and urge support on this legislation to create healthy and safe schools and assist college students through school. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: could i inquire again as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has four minutes. the gentleman from california has 6 1/2 l minutes. mr. kline: at this time, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the the gentleman from east tennessee, dr. roe. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i rise in opposition to h.r. 3221. what we're doing here today is using our country's financial crisis to eliminate an industry. and i might add go, my son used this program for his own education. a democratic majority in the house, senate and white house created the direct loan program in 1993. many republicans were skeptical that democrats' intention was to introduce competition and keep private lenders honest in what is the first opportunity since then with the unified majority, they are proving republicans' suspicions correct. our -- in the debate we are having in health care, our friends are making the case that we need government to provide consumers the best choice. it is astonishing we are considering a bill that eliminates the federal family

education loan program that they are choosing over the government-run alternative. so much for competition. what's worse in this legislation, it may increase the deficit even more. if we use the c.b.o.'s assumptions, this will save $13 billion in the first five years. that means in the second five years, the bill will cost taxpayers, $6 billion in new funding and this doesn't begin to address what happens in the second 10 years when the spending doesn't have to be offset. it is disingenuous while calling our actions fiscally responsible. c.b.o. has estimated if the default rates run higher than their estimates the bill could cost taxpayers $33 billion more in 10 years. the spending would be less troubling if it weren't mandatory spending which means it goes on auto pilot and never reviewed by congress and never has to comply with annual

budgets. if there was an obvious bipartisan alternative that achieved 388 votes in the last congress. access to student loan act which ensures that they can make it through a tough credit crisis should be what we are considering today. since passing in the last congress, the program has worked well. we should be commending chairman miller and members of the committee who were last year for a job well done. instead the democrats are trying to have the government take over a private industry that is providing a service the american people like. here's the bottom line in this debate. if you like a multibillion dollar program that has zero oversight from congress, vote for the bill. if you would like to vote for unemployment, vote for this bill. if you believe washington bureaucrats will find ways to become more efficient by eliminating the competition, you

should definitely support this bill. if you feel like we should be seeking bipartisan ground on the future of our children's education, please join me and vote yes on the kline amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new hampshire, ms. shea-porter. ms. shea-porter: i thank the chairman for his leadership on this bill. as a member of the committee on education and labor, i rise to express my support for the student aid and fiscal responsibility act. with this legislation, we are investing in our students. we are providing needed dollars to improve our early education programs and rebuild our schools. we simplified the student aid application. we invest $40 billion in pell grants. we do this and produce a savings of $10 billion over the next 10 years. i'm pleased that we also recognize the important work done by the local nonprofits by

ensuring them a continued role in the servicing of student loans. in my home state of new hampshire, we have one of these local nonprofits, the new hampshire higher education assistance foundation. it is a well respected member of our the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield one minute to the speaker. the chair: the distinguished speaker of the house is recognized. for one minute. the speaker: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the chairman for giving me this opportunity to

come to the floor in strong support of the student aid and fiscal responsibility act. i do so because education is the best investment individuals can make in themselves, parents can make in their children and a nation can make in its citizens and in its future. today is possible because of the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the education and labor committee, congressman george miller. students across america have no better advocate for affordable and accessible higher education. thank you, mr. miller. i'd also like to acknowledge the chairman of the subcommittee on higher education, life on learning and competitiveness. i love that trio of jurisdiction. and a national leader on college affordability, congressman ruben hinojosa. to them and to all of the members of the education and labor committee, we are all in your debt. we all know that for every additional year of higher

education and individual's earning increases about so -- 10%. we know that education is the key to the prosperity of the nation, the prosperity of the individual, the prosperity of the nation. but for far too many, a quality higher education has been simply unaffordable. i heard of cases where parents have been hesitant to encourage their children to strive for college because they can't afford to send them. what sadder testimony could there be for the prospects for that person? expanding access to higher education is essential to building america's way out of recession and keeping our nation competitive. immigration -- innovation begins in the classroom. it is essential that we prepare our students for 21st century jobs by providing all americans for the skills they need to compete. when democrats came to the

majority in 2007, we passed in a bipartisan way the college cost reduction and access act. that was the single largest investment in education since the g.i. bill in 1944. until today. today we will make the largest investment in making college more affordable in the history of our nation. on the 100th day of president obama's presidency in the house and in the senate we passed the budget. the president had three pillars for turning the economy around for creating jobs in that budget. to do so to create jobs, to give tax breaks to the middle class and to reduce the deficit. and the three pillars for turning the economy around and creating jobs were investments in education, in health care and in a new energy policy for good green jobs for the future. today, we are passing legislation to support the

education pillar of that budget. again, education is essential to the fulfillment of individuals, the competitiveness of our nation and it is the foundation of our democracy. this bill is a great bill, and i want to again reiterate what others have said. it invests $40 billion in pell grant -- in pell grants and increases the maximum grant that can be awarded. that makes a big difference to our students. invests more than $2.5 billion in historically black colleges and universities and minority serving institutions. a big issue for mr. hinojosa and for many of us here. strengthens the perkins loan program that provides low cost loans to students. it keeps interest rates low for those who have federal student loans. this is very important. that means that more students will enter clemming -- that

they will graduate with less debt and that the federal loan initiatives that they and their families depend upon are strengthened for decades to come and on top of all the that, taxpayers will save money. under mr. miller's leadership, we are investing in our children without heaping mountains of debt upon them. this legislation is fiscally responsible. following the strict standards of the pay-as-you-go spending and saving for the taxpayer. you heard all the things i said about pell grants and college investments and perkins loans and interest rates low. with the $87 billion in tax payer savings that this bill -- taxpayer savings that this bill achieves, we are able to do all of that by switching to a direct loan program. so it invests $77 billion back into the education of our people while reducing the federal entitlement spending by

$10 billion. that's billion with a b. this legislation seizes the opportunity to strengthen our nation by making an historic commitment to our students in a landmark investment in our future. i urge my colleagues to join the distinguished chairman and members of the committee in a bipartisan way and vote aye. thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: madam speaker, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding and i rise in strong support of this bill. the issues before the house to want, madam speaker, are these. do you agree or disagree that the time has come to make college more affordable for men and women around this country by making pell grants scholarships more available, student loans less expensive, more available? i think most people would say, yes, we do agree with that. issue before the house tonight is, is it time for the country to make an investment in the youngest americans, 3 and 4 and 5-year-olds who have yet to go to formal school so they get the best education early in their lives? i think the answer would be yes. the question before the house tonight is at a time when many of our schools are inefficient, falling apart, battedly in need of repair -- badly in need of repair or replacement, is it

time to put americans back to work in repairing and rebuilding some of those schools? i think, madam speaker, most people would think, yes, it is time to do that. but they are worried about the fiscal crisis that this administration and this congress inherited. so maybe we shouldn't do those things. but if there are a way to reduce the deficit and achieve the things i just talked about, wouldn't it make sense to do that, and i think most would say, yes, it most certainly would. and that's the bill before us tonight does. the congressional budget office , a fair, nonpartisan arbor of the facts said the following -- the status quo student loan program that takes taxpayer money and gives it to private lenders and then rewards them to take a risk, not with their money but with ours, doesn't make any sense.

let me say that again. the way the present program works is that private lenders get money from the taxpayers, take a risk with the taxpayers' money and get paid a reward for taking that risk. now, it is fine to take a risk with your own money and we should encourage that in this country. but when you take a risk with the taxpayers' money you shouldn't be rewarded for it. this bill stops that practice. and the congressional budget office says that yields $87 billion in savings over the next few years. here's what we do. we invest $77 billion of that in the education of the people of this country. the strongest engine of economic growth known to this country. educating men and women to be scientists and teachers and engineers and craftsmen and craftswomen. educate our young children. repair our schools that are in need of repair.

but then the bill also takes $10 billion and reduces the deficit that we inherited. this is a chance to vote yes for college scholarships and loans. it's a chance to vote yes for educating the youngest americans. it's a chance to vote yes to rebuild our crumbling schools and vote yes for deficit reduction. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. andrews: i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: madam chair, could i inquire of the chairman if he's the -- mr. miller: do we have additional time? the chair: you have one minute remaining. and mr. kline has one minute remaining. mr. miller: madam chair, i yield myself one minute -- mr. kline: i think you get to close. the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to

close. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself the remaining time, such time as i may consume. it's clear that there's some dispute over what this does to the deficit. but i would argue that looking at the latest information from, as my friend from new jersey says, the fair, nonpartisan ash tore of the facts, the congressional budget office, this legislation will add to the deficit somewhere between $15 billion and $50 billion. subject to debate. what is absolutely clear is that forcing the public option is a government takeover, it does grow government with more new programs, and it does force job losses. i think that's indisputable. madam chair, this is bad policy. it's a bad bill. and i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: madam speaker, i believe that many of those

facts he cited are in fact are in dispute. but i just want to say this. we got off to a rather fast start this afternoon. and i want to take a moment to thank all of the members of the committee who worked so hard on this legislation. i want to thank the rules committee for making this rule in order. i want to thank the minority. i know they don't agree with this legislation but i appreciate the work they have done with us on facilitating the markup of this legislation and bringing it to the floor. and i just wanted to acknowledge that. we kind of just got right into the bill. but i wanted to say that on behalf of all of the staffs that have worked together. again, they don't agree on the outcome or the bill in this fashion, but we still have to work together so that we can meet our obligations as a committee to this house. and i wanted to take time to thank everyone. i think now my time has expired and we'll go to the manager's amendment. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment is h in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except those printed in house report 111-256. each amendment may be offered only in the amendment printed in the report designated by a member 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 of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment and shall no not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-256. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: i have a manager's amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-256 offered by mr. george miller of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 746, the gentleman

from california, mr. miller, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: thank you, madam chair. and i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. faleomavaega. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. faleomavaega: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. faleomavaega: madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3221, the student aid and fiscal responsibility act of 2009. i especially want to thank chairman miller, the ranking member kline and members of the house education and labor committee for producing this important bill, to reform the federal student loan program, provide modernization, renovation of public school facilities, enhance early learning and strengthening our nation's community colleges. i also want to commend the chairman of the higher education subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. ruben hinojosa, for his leadership and efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor. madam speaker, this bill

provides many benefits to our schools and families across the united states. especially in these dire economic times, h.r. 3221 provides much-needed assistance, not only to make education more affordable and accessible but also assistance to increase the number of degrees and certificate completion rates. madam speaker, i want to thank the authors and sponsors, especially for recognizing the value of community colleges throughout our nation. this legislation gives authorization to the secretary of education to award grants to states and territories for the construction of new community college facilities and for the modernization, renovation and improvements of existing facilities. this is a fantastic bill and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam speaker. the chair: for what purpose do you rise? mr. kline: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.

mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i got to -- i've got to admit that this manager's amendment does make some helpful changes, and i appreciate that. however, it fails to address the fundamental flaws with the underlying bill, and for that reason i must oppose it. i do appreciate chairman miller's willingness to incorporate some modest bipartisan changes. for example, mr. plats' amendment to assist the children of fallen public safety officers. and despite these improvements, the bill still imposes a heavy cost on americans today and in the future. it will cost students and schools the benefits of choice, competition and innovation. it will cost our work force tens of thousands of jobs, including over 600 jobs in my home state of minnesota and over 1,000 jobs in chairman miller's home state of california. . it could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. despite the improvements that the manager's amendment makes,

i'm still unable to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. larson: thank you, chairman miller. expanding access to an affordable education and job training is one of the shurest ways we can build a stronger and more competitive american economy for years to come. the student aid and financial responsibility act of 2009 is the single largest investment, the sinkle largest investment in aid to help students and families to pay for college in the history of this country. i commend chairman miller, the ranking member and the entire committee especially in these severe and dire economic times

and when there is so much stress on working families to provide this opportunity to have america resume the preeminent position that it has in society. this means, joe courtney reminds us, over 77 million additional funding in pell grants to thousands of connecticut students. this bill includes legislation that i have worked on and i thank the chairman and the members for including it. the notion of expanding opportunity to our community colleges, to expand their mission, an opportunity to reach out in these economic times for people who seek to retrain themselves and utilize the opportunities that our community colleges represent. community colleges reach every corner of this country with over

1,100, urban, rural and suburban settings. this is vitally important and as we face additional global challenges that we are able to retrain our workforce in a manner that allows them to matriculate in the job networks that will be combined with the entrepreneurial and private sector to create the jobs that we need. i commend chairman miller for this effort and urge support of this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: at this time, i would like to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member on the higher education subcommittee, mr. guthrie. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: this amendment may do a number of positive things but at its heart i have significant concerns.

specifically, i have concerns of the impact of this bill on the deficit and jobs all across this country. we have heard from the congressional budget office since the introduction of this bill, since the bill was originally scored that there are a number of hidden costs included. no matter how we look at it, this bill will not save $10 billion. the cost of this bill is at least $15 billion, a cost that will go towards the deficit, not against the deficit reduction. i'm very concerned about the implication on the unemployment rate in my state. we are federalizing one more private sector program and eliminating the good work being done throughout the country. this means 30,000 jobs being lost nationwide, approximately 500 in my state, the commonwealth of kentucky all because we decided to kill this program instead of figuring out a viable solution. the services provided by lenders will not be continued at the

same level when they are required to enter into contracts with the federal government. we have seen the impact of these craggets. earlier this year, the department of education contracts put out the contracts. more of these services will be able to provide compliance with the law not the robust services that were previously provided by the private sector. i'm concerned about the true impact of this bill. we will not recognize the impact until this bill has been implemented and it may be too late. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from rhode island, mr. kennedy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy: as we know from legislation that this committee worked on many years ago called the foundations for learning program as part of the

elementary and secondary education act, social development is as important as anything in a child's life. we recognize these same important facts and in this legislation, we reflect these findings by acknowledging that importance intervening in a child's life who has had domestic violence exposure, homelessness, mental illness that the intervention in these children's lives make an enormous difference in their lives and educational abilities. for these reasons, i think it's important piece of legislation that needs to be adopted. and i appreciate the chairman for acknowledging these facts and incorporating the legislation into the body of his bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i recognize ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3221 the student aid and fiscal responsibility act of 2009 because it invests in the future of our nation, making college a reality for more students by investing in pell grants and programs that will ensure improved graduation rates and the renewed investment of our nation's future. creating the american graduation initiative was one of the most important parts, because it will help community colleges find innovative ways to improve the developmental education and job skills training that so many students and workers need. and in the end, we are investing in our future. 25% of our population are the

young people of this nation. 100% of our future is made up of those individuals. with h.r. 3221, we are ensuring that we will have a better future because they will have a better future. i request that every member of this congress vote for our kids and our future. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. not here? i yield one minute to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. sutton. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sutton: i rise in strong support of the student aid and fiscal responsibility act and i want to commend my friend, the chairman, george miller, for his

great work and leadership on this and so many issues. investing in education is one of the most important things we can do to grow and strengthen our workforce and secure our well-being as a fation. this bill makes historic investments in our economic future by improving early education opportunities and making college more affordable and all at no taxpayer expense. the economic downturn has made a growing college affordability crisis worse for america's students and families, but this bill will help our students and families by increasing the maximum pell grant scholarship and targets $6.8 billion to community colleges like lore lane county community college in my district. this transforms the way the programs operate guaranteing students to low interest loans. by cutting out the middle man, this legislation will save taxpayers $87 billion over 10

years. it pays for itself with $77 billion in returns, $10 billion to deficit reduction. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i continue to reserve. mr. miller: i'm the last remaining speaker. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has the right to close. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i have remaining. just to quickly run through the manager's amendment, in addition to the technical changes, my amendment would refine provisions regarding grants that ensures that services for veterans are coordinated with the existing under current law and provides educational finance

for first responders children killed in the line of duty. requires the secretary to consider a state financial commitment to early learning when evaluating certain grant renewals and tribal colleges and universities are eligible to receive american graduation initiative grants and i urge all the members to support this manager's amendment. i would like to draw attention to one part of this legislation and that is really the unprecedented $10 billion investment to make community colleges part of our economy's recovery. for years, business leaders told us there weren't enough workers with the knowledge and expertise. community colleges do and can play an even more significant role in addressing this this shortage. this will help strengthen the partnerships among community colleges, businesses and job training programs that will align community college

curricula with high-demand industries and provide community colleges with the tools to replicate programs that are educating and training students and workers and fulfill an important priority for the business community, which is continually understood that the value of community colleges have been in training high school workers and meeting local employment needs as economies change and move from one kind of economy to another. that's why this historic initiative has strong support from the business community, including the business round table. the business round table wrote recently to me and the members of the committee that on behalf of the business round table, i want to commend you for including the community college initiative. the community college initiative and the president's american graduation initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions while requiring skills for new jobs and careers that will take place. that is why the community college initiative is so important for community colleges

to reach the potential and become more effective. they need increased gaugs rates, adopt innovation to better serve customers and develop partners with the private sector. for that reason, they support that provision of the bill. i'm delighted we have worked long and hard on both sides of this committee with the business community to try to develop a program to strengthen our community colleges. with that, i would like to yield what remaining time i have to -- i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i want to thank chairman miller for the improvements that his manager's amendment has made to the bill. as i stated earlier, the fundamental flaws with this legislation still remain, even though there are parts, which as he correctly stated that some members of the community certainly support, some members

of the business community, many of us support, for example, mr. platts' amendment, i'm glad those are included, but doesn't change the fact that this is -- the underlying bill is still flawed public policy. we have heard again and again from speakers that this is going to put money back into the treasury and reduce the deficit but yet we have provided information that shows that is not the case. this will increase the deficit and debt. i was staggered the other day to look and see we are now projecting with the latest numbers from the white house that in the next 10 years, the national debt will have grown to $21 trillion. and this bill, the underlying bill adds new programs, programs that will be chronically underfunded and compete for money, will grow that deficit spending. while i appreciate the improvements that the manager's

amendment has made, i still must oppose this. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.. in the opinion of the chair, the heist have it and the -- the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-256. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. hoekstra: i would like to claim time in support of the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment nument 2 printed in house report 111-256 offered by mr. hoekstra of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 746, the gentleman from michigan, mr. hoekstra, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from michigan. . mr. hoekstra: i thank the chair. i'll yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, the student aid fiscal responsibility act that's in front of us today will authorize $6.6 billion in new mandatory taxpayer dollars to create three federal school construction programs for elementary and secondary schools. what my amendment will do is my amendment will strike these new government programs that would nationalize the school construction industry and direct the savings towards deficit reduction. you know, in the years that i've been in congress, one of the things that we continue to see over the years is a continued expansion of the role of the federal government in k through 12 education. we saw the most massive expansion in 2001, the passage of no child left behind. no child left behind has left a tremendous number of mandates, increased cost and little improvement in schools, in

children's performance around the country. and now, rather than giving back and yielding control for our kids' education, back to parents, back to local schools and back to states, again, we're having another massive expansion of the federal government's involvement in k through 12 education. this time in the school construction. and i'm sure the arguments will be, but, you know, we need to help the schools. we need to help the states. we need to build them and give them the money to build new schools. excuse me, where does this money come from? well, some of this money, if not all of it, will be deficit spending which states can't do. but in reality if it's deficit spending, it's going to be our kids and our grandkids that are going to be paying for it and if it's money that we collect in taxes, it's going to be money that comes from the states, comes from individuals in our local communities, comes to washington and then we will tell them how they can spend it.

there are 27 at last count, 27 directives as to how states and local school districts will be able to spend their own money. school districts must ensure that a certain percentage of the school construction materials meet green standards. school districts must compile a report describing the projects funded under the bill and seven other reporting requirements. school districts should educate students about the school construction project being constructed at their school. i'm assuming if they're going to have to be required to teach their students, there's going to have to be some reporting requirement saying, i educated my kids at my school about what this project was about and they're going to fill it out and send it to the state and send it to washington, meaning that for every construction dollar that we spend, maybe 60 cents, 65 cents of it will be spent on construction. the other 35 cents to 40 cents of that $1 will be spent on

recording requirements, meeting federal requirements and those types of things. this is a bad idea. we will not end up building more schools, we will not end up having more construction, we will have less construction because of federal bureaucracy and federal bureaucrats will end up siphonning off a lot of this money for their purposes to make sure that the local school districts do what washington bureaucrats want them to do and not what needs to be done in their local school districts. this is a bad idea. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and give this money and reduce the deficit, take some of the burden off of our kids and our grandkids in the future. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i yield myself two minutes. mr. speaker, members of the

house, what this amendment would do, while the author has talked about a lot of other problems he doesn't like in the bill, this amendment would strike the school construction money that is in this legislation for elementary, secondary and for the community colleges. i think this is a very important part of this legislation. many, many members have supported the efforts that we've had before to try to have the federal government help local communities address the school construction needs and when we see now that community colleges are under tremendous pressure because of the economic dislocation from the recession that has taken place and continues to take place for so many communities and so many families, as people are going back to schools, we recognize the shortage of facilities that are there and what we're say something that this time we would lend a hand to those community college districts, to those k through 12, elementary, secondary school contradicts, so they can -- contradicts --

districts, so they can make investments that will save them money. as we see schools making investments in solar, in insulation, in energy efficient buildings, what we see is a dramatic drop in their ongoing -- the ongoing operating costs of those schools in terms of the utility bills that are really quite dramatic. and we ought to do what we can to facilitate. we have the opportunity with this legislation to help facilitate local districts meeting that demand. this also comes at an important time for these districts because as you know they're under siege from the loss of revenues in many local districts, because of the economic down turn. in some cases they've had to postpone these projects even though they're desperately needed. they've had to postpone these modernizations that are desperately needed and we know the fact that when children are having the availability of a clean, well-lighted place, a modern facility, they in fact do better in school.

it's a statement of values about a community, about their children and i would hope that we would vote against this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. hoekstra: i yield myself as much time as i shall consume. mr. speaker, washington has helped enough. my local school districts are saying, stop, we don't need more of washington's help. you gave news to child left behind with great fanfare, promises of all this money and all we got were rules and regulations which are taking valuable time and resources away from educating our kids and putting it into bureaucracy and trying to follow ill-advised guidelines, mandates and

directives from washington, d.c. they say, stop, we don't need nymph this washington help where you come into our school districts, where you come into our communities and if you're going to pay for these bills which most likely will not be paid for, but if they were, you come into our communities and you extract $6 billion out and then you force us to apply to get that money back knowing that the money will be appropriated or allocated by who has power in washington, d.c., and who has the quote-unquote influence and it will be distributed unfairly. they don't need that kind of help anymore where we take their money, allocate it back to them after they've applied for it, tie all sorts of mandates and restrictions to it, so we shrink the purchasing power of that dollar and then we have the federal government is going to

come in, this wonderful department of education will come in, and they will audit us to make sure that we spend the money exactly the way that they told us to spend it. that kind of help is no longer helping our kids, it never did help our kids, we're failing our kids with this legislation, we're shrinking the purchasing power of education dollars, not enhancing it. this kind of washington help needs to stop. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield myself 15 seconds. we should not punish local school districts or school children because the republican president, george bush, broke his promise to this country, to families and to those students and to teachers when he failed to deliver on his promise of $77 billion additional dollars that school districts have had to make up while living under no child left behind. but let's not punish the kids today because the president could not keep his promise. i yielded remind -- yield the remaining time to mr. bishop of

new york. mr. bishop: i thank the chairman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the amendment. let me make a couple of points. first, the section that the amendment seeks to strike is essentially a bill that was passed by the house earlier this year with broad bipartisan support. the 21st century green high performing public schools facilities act. it passed with very good bipartisan support. we're seeking simply to fund that bill in part. it is estimated that the back log of unmet needs of four k through 12 education alpha silts amounts to some $255 billion -- facilities amounts to some $255 billion. this helps school districts deal with that need. i was surprised to hear the gentleman from michigan say that his school districts in his -- and his school superintendents

have been saying, enough. i have had the exact opposite experience. i would say that rarely does a week go by that some school superintendent or some school board members don't come to my office seeking federal help with their facility's needs. their budgets are strained, particularly in these difficult economic times. they have real bricks and mortar needs, they are unable to address them without hurting their academic programs and they are seeking the support of the federal government. quite the contrary to the experience that the gentleman from michigan has. so i would urge that we reject this amendment and i would urge that we support the if a silt needs of k through 12 -- the facility needs of k through 12 education. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

mr. hoekstra: mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. hoekstra: request a recorded vote. the chair: furt proceedings on the amendment will be postponed -- further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. cardoza: mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. the clerk: -- at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 offered by mr. cardoza of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and opponent will each have five minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. cardoza: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, california community colleges recently announced that they're enrollment for 2008-2009 academic year increased at the system's 110 colleges in california by more than 135,000 students. extremely high unemployment rates and restricted admissions at the state's four-year college

systems have led to a record number of students seeking degrees and certificates. this trend in increasing enrollments is being mirrored across our nation during these tough economic times. while increased enrollments in higher education programs is to be applauded, there is also some concern about our state's ability to manage the impact of enrolling so many new students. california's community colleges are dealing with nearly $1 billion in cuts as a result of the state's budget crisis this year. this shortfall in funding is placing stress on a system that's already stretched to capacity. h.r. 3221 will provide critical funding opportunities for those very community colleges to better serve their students, filling a funding gap most states are currently unable to meet. providing access to affordable higher education, especially at the community college level, is going to be essential to the recovery of congressional districts like mine that have extremely high unemployment

rates. as i've said many times, this economic crisis has hit my district particularly hard. in july, the bureau of labor statistics ranked the metropolitan area of merced, california, with the fourth highest unemployment rate in the nation at 17.6%. two other metropolitan areas in my district had unemployment rates of 16.3% and 16.0% respectively. all three areas are well over the national average unemployment rate of 9.7%. my amendment simply provides community colleges serving in areas with high unemployment rates higher than the national average, like my district, have priority consideration when applying for this grant money. investing in our community college system, especially the ones in areas with unhigh unemployment above the national average -- with high unemployment above the national average, is critical. it will allow our nation to emerge from this downturn, empowered with both the

education and work force skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. do i yield to the chairman. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of his amendment. i think he makes a very important point in terms of the priority that we have to give to those areas that really receive very harsh treatment in this economic dislocation and we know and we believe in the -- and the president has made it clear that community colleges are one of the engines to change those outcomes and to reinvigorate those local economies so i strongly support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for offering it. mr. cardoza: resuming, mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for supporting my amendment. mr. chairman, as merced college, modesto junior college

and others work hard to educate the next generation of americans, they are building a newfoundation for hope across america. investing in schools in these and other areas suffering from high unemployment is important. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment though i don't oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cline: i wanted to take a moment, -- mr. kline: i wanted to take a moment, with the debate we had on mr. hoekstra's amendment, it strikes to the underlying bill, that's the problem here, not this amendment, the underlying bill. the chairman of the committee, the distinguished chairman, pointed out there was a broken promise.

i'm sad to say it was entirely predictable that president bush would be blamed for breaking a promise. we've had presidents going back for years and congresses going back for years and this congress today that is failing to live up to a promise made many years ago, and that's to provide its share, its full funding of special education under idea, so whether we're talking about green, high-performing schools as a new program or many of the new programs introduced in this legislation, it seems to me we ought to fulfill that promise first rather than starting new programs which will be chronically underfunded and will be competing for that essential funding under idea. so again, the problem here is not this amendment, i'm going to support this amendment. it's the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. it's now in order to consider amendment number four. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 111-256, offered by mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington and an opponent will each control five minutes. ms. mcplor -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment is about good practices, enshuging that -- ensuring that federal resources are dedicated to areas with the

greatest need for funds. we ensured the stimulus package, more than $53 billion of it went to the state fiscal stabilization fund, which funds states and localities to use the funds for any activity under etsa, idea, the adult and family literacy act or for modernization, renovation or repair of public school facilities. i was one of a number of members concerned about the prospect of creating a nationalized school construction fund, particularly in light of reports indicating the lack of academic achievement made by our middle and high school students. for example, the 2006 program for international assessments puts the united states 15-year-olds in the bottom quarter of participating nations in math and the bottom third in science. this is unacceptable. these reports demonstrate there's more to be done this to

the strenlten the education our children are receiving, especially as it relates to the nation's future competitiveness in the global market. i do not believe a federalized school construction program, one with limited transparency and accountability, is the solution to the problem. let me be clear. there's no doubt that certain schools are in dire need of renovation and repair. we can assist them in making the necessary repairs in order to create safe and secure learning environments. however, once secure funds have been directed to one area for repair, responsible governance tells us remaining funds should go to areas that have not yet received the fund bug have a demonstrated need. my amendment accomplishes this by limiting areas that have already received construction funds from receiving funds authorized by this bill for construction. h.r. 3221 already provides a limitation on construction

funding for community colleges that have received the stimulus dollars. it should be no different for elementary and secondary schools, sending a much-needed message that learning should be a priority in the formative years of a child's education. i urge my colleagues to recognize the need for responsible governance by voting for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: i rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: this is where we were with the previous amendment to strike the construction funds that would be available. in this case, the k through 12rks the amendment as drafted, if they received those funds under the recovery act of which one of the allowable cost originally started out with a line item for construction, it

became an allowable cost, they received any of those funds they would be ineligible to receive construction funds. the fact of the matter is the record is starting to develop that few if any of those school districts were able to use the funds for construction because of the cuts that took place in almost every state across the country, where those funds were used to mitigate the firing of teachers, to continue to try to develop a reasonable class size and all of the other costs that were going as local school districts were really hard -- very hard hit in this economic recovery from the downturn in local revenues, state revenues and that's why this amendment is necessary. i would hope that the opposition to this amendment is important so that these school districts can receive the funds to build a clean, modern, energy efficient facilities. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms.

jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and thank him for the way his leadership has led to an overwhelming change in the way we think about education. i rise to oppose the amendment present but support the underlying bill. this is a response to the competitiveness of the world. each and every district that is represented here in this body, rural and urban, large around small, clamors for more education, particularly secondary education, higher education. in my own district alone, as it relates to pell grants, 23,084 students will be impacted with as much as $110 million in new pell dollars that will help not only the nation's colleges but in my instance, the 18th congressional district. i happen to have a district that has any number of colleges, both private and

public, large and small. research and nonresearch. students coming from all economic backgrounds. and i can assure you the importance of pell grants is without comparison. then, i also represent an area that was hit by hurricane ike, one year to the date last week, still suffering from the lack of infrastructure, schools that have been destroyed and the $359 million that will come into texas, k through 12, will be a remarkable change for the people of galveston or the people on the gulf impacted by this devastating hurricane. in addition, i think it's important to note a full $87 billion in savings, competition in place, anyone who wants to provide a student loan, private bank, state bank, can provide it. but we are providing for the hardworking, tax-paying family, additional dollars and a fair, even playing field.

that's something to celebrate. we're investing $3 billion to bolster college access and completion support, crucial issue. i happen to have a large community college system. i'm gratified that language is in here specifically to enhance community college. our community college system is growing with 60,000 students plus. this is the first step. go to community college be you someone who is working, someone raising children, someone going back to school a military person who is retired or just gotten out of the service, working with the g.i. bill, now has an opportunity to be able to go to a college that has reinforced dollars. this is a bill that cuts at america's competitiveness. the world is getting smaller, people know science and math. they are looking to be inventive. that means in order to create an economic engine for this country, we've got to educate our population. people are clamoring for education. as i indicated, all walks of

life, retirees, people changing jobs, people who have been laid off and fired, this is a new step. let me say, i want to applaud what we are doing here today, not because members are doing it, because we're changing lives. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment is about responsibility. recognizing that we have limited dollars. we just passed $53 billion in the stimulus package that includes funding made available for school construction. there are a lot of priorities within our education system. i, too, am very concerned about competitiveness, about america's competitiveness, about our future, what's happening in our schools and in congress we need to make sure that we're getting the resources where we are need --

where they are need sod our kids can compete, so our students can succeed. that's not happening. our students are not competing effectively in the world, in the global environment right now, in the global economy, and we're falling behind, i quoted the numbers for math and science, what this is doing is just saying that the money will be made available will be made available to school districts that didn't receive the money, school construction money in the stimulus package. in my mind, it prevents double dipping, it will allow more of the schools -- more schools to possibly access the school construction dollars, and it will protect other dollars to be used for other priority projects within our education system. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield myself the balance of the time. it's a clever amendment.

what it says, if you got money from the stimulus package, you cannot get money for school construction. mind you, the money in the stimulus package, did not provide for school construction. it provided as an allowable expense. whether you used it or didn't use it, you wouldn't get it because it was an allowable expense under that legislation. the fact of the matter is, we have far too many children in this country, every region of this country, going to antiquated, outdated, unsafe schools and the back log for school modernization, energy modernization, for trying to clean schools up and repair them and renovate them is as long as the road from here to the west coast. and the fact of the matter is that this government has the ability to help those schools to do that. so that those children you're worried about learn, we know they learn better if they're in a well cleaned, well-lit place to learn, as opposed to where

the rain is coming through, the laboratories don't work, the windows are broken. that sounds extreme but that's the case in many schools across the country in all different settings. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number five. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five, printed in house report

111-256, offered by ms. pingree of maine. the chair: the gentlewoman from maine and an opponent will each control five minutes. the gentlewoman -- the chair recognized the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree sfk thank you very much, mr. chairman. in addition to making landmark investments in higher education and student financial aid, h.r. 3221 provides over $4 billion in funding for k through 12 public schools. this funding is critical to ensure that students grow up and lirn in healthy, safe environments that maximize their chances to seve a quality education and graduate from hoog. -- high school. this is particularly challenging for areas facing extraordinary economic hardship. public schools in these areas need additional attention and support to make sure students have every opportunity to succeed. h.r. 3221 currently sets aside

$223 billion for schools suffering in natural disaster or severe economic distress, however, it does not recognize those areas affected by the closure of a military base as eligible for this emergency funding. a base closure, such as the closing of brunswick in my district is a devastating event. schools in these areas need special attention. the closure of a base means the overnight disruption of a local economy. the funding which disappears one year after the students leave, community are left without a dependable source of funding without critical school repairs. in brunswick, maine in my district, the closure -- maine, in my district, it will result in an estimated 7,000 total jobs lost. a reduction in 10% of the public school population and millions of dollars lost, including $1

million in school funding that will be lost. my district is not alone. the closure of the naval air station in corpus christi, texas, will result in 7,000 military and civilian jobs lost from that area. in fact, the 2005 resulted in the closure of major army, navy and air force bases in states across the country, including maine, georgia, new jersey, new york, virginia, pennsylvania, and texas. mr. speaker, schools and communities are affected by these closures and would all be eligible to benefit from much-needed funding under this amendment. we need to help communities like brunswick recover from the loss of a military base and we need to give them the resources they need to maintain a high quality school system. these investments in education are critical to putting these communities on a path to economic growth and redevelopment. the need for emergency educational funding in areas affected by the base closure is clear. my amendment helps public schools in bureaucratic communities recover from the --

brack communities recover from the impact of losing hundreds of students and millions of dollars in taxpayer support. i urge you to support the schools, teachers and students in brack communities by voting yes on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. supporting our men and women in uniform is important and so, too, is it important to support communities where the military has left an imprint. i think this is a reasonable way of targeting funding and i will not oppose the amendment. as we try to do what's best for communities, including those impacted by a base closure, we should consider job losses that would come as a result of this underlying bill. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. mr. miller: will the gentlewoman yield to me? ms. pingree: i gladly yield. millmy i thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. i know how hard -- mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. i know how hard she's worked on this. many people have experienced brac community closing and which want -- i want to thank her for this amendment and hope we would -- we plan to accept the amendment on this side and apparently the republicans will accept it on their side. so thank you so much for offering this. ms. pingree: thank you for your thoughts. the chair: the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you. i just want to once again urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the schools and the teachers in those communities that are affected by the brac and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman up. i do think it's a good way to target -- thank you, mr. chairman. i do think it's a good way to target this funding. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-256 offered by ms. pingree of maine. the chair: the gentlewoman from maine and a member opposed will each control five minutes. ms. pingree: thank you very much. the chair: the chair recognizes

the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, h.r. 3221 makes a remarkable investment in higher education at a time when our country needs it the most. but during these tough economic times students need to be able to access an affordable education. in my home state of maine we have one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country but one of the lowest rates for enent -- entry into college. far too often, qualified, hardworking students in my state don't go to college because their families just can't afford it. president obama set a goal that by 2020, america will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. investment in our community colleges is essential to achieving this goal in maine and across the country. community colleges are a critical resource for new and returning students who want to further their education and enhance their job skills. they he provide a wide variety of innovative educational programs at affordable rates. and american families recognize the value of community colleges. in my state and many others,

there are waiting -- lists because the community colleges can't handle the demand. that's why we must ensure that these schools have the funding they need to construct new facilities as well as the ability to renovate and repair existing facilities to create safe, energy efficient, effective learning environments. the need is high. the american association of community colleges estimates that it would take roughly $100 billion to fully fund the construction and renovation of community colleges across the country. this far exceeds the $2.5 billion that we have set aside under this bill. unfortunately when this bill was originally drafted, it included a provision to prohibit any community college that received recovery act funding from receiving grants for construction or repair. that's why i'm offering this critically important amendment. the intent of the recovery package was to provide temporary injection of money into our economy to create jobs and support our states, schools and local communities who are struggling during an economic downturn. states were encouraged to use

this money for facility improvements and modernization. in maine, every community college except one accepted this funding. they had no way of knowing that using these funds would interfere with their ability to access additional support. these schools should not be penalized for accepting this help. it is also important to note that this amendment would also permit historically black colleges and universities to receive assistance under this bill. even if they also received assistance under the higher education act of 1965. these institutions play an important role in our educational system and should not be excluded from the benefits provided by this bill. as president obama declared, it's time to reform our community colleges so that they provide americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future. this amendment and the underlying bill will help do just that. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington rise? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker, i claim to -- i terrorize claim time in opposition. i rise in opposition to this amendment because my opposition is an attempt to put this congress on a path to fiscal responsibility. i'm a big supporter of the community colleges and the important opportunities that they offer students across this country. but as i described earlier, just a few minutes ago, last february this body approved $53 billion in spending for schools. including higher education facilities for activities including school construction. i expressed concern then as i am now that this federalized school construction fund is not the answer to improving our nation's education system. in fact the higher education act already includes a program by

which community colleges can receive funding for construction and repairs. if this amendment passes there will be three federal construction funding sources for community colleges to choose from. the stimulus package, the higher education act and h.r. 3221, the underlying bill. when i talked to community colleges and when i talk to school districts in my district, what they want is more flexibility, more local control, not more strings, more programs with more strings attached to them. particularly at a time when this nation is running record deficits. we're losing thousands of jobs and families are struggling to make ends meet. it seems to me that once funds have been obtained by a community college for construction any remaining funds should be directed toward job training or teaching displaced workers new job skills. to me this amendment makes the statement that we are not concerned about the nation's fiscal status. while i'm concerned, i urge my colleagues to be concerned as

well by opposing this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chair. i rise again to support the amendment and to talk about the importance of community college modernization, about the ability for our community colleges to rebuild and restructure these important institutions. in this time of such dire economic need, i find that so many of my constituents are contacting me and saying, you know, at this moment in time i plan to return and get an education. i want to do everything i can to make sure that as the economy improves i'm ready and prepared with the skills for this new surgery. people want to have green jobs, they want to be prepared for the new technology. they want an education and as young people grow up in my state, particularly my state, 38th in per capita income, many, many families struggling in this

economy, the wung thing -- one thing we hear over and over again is that the young people in our state who graduate from high school at such high rates want to go onto college. they want to make sure they can get a college education. but over and over i hear from young people, you know, we couldn't afford it, i had to take a year off, and we hear from the community colleges. we can't expand fast enough, we can't make sure that we have the space available for the young people who want to attend college in our state. in this time of dire economic need, when our state is turning to the federal government and saying, do what you can to help us, help us with education, i can't imagine any reason not to support our community colleges, not to make sure that they were able to take advantage of every possible opportunity for education funding. you know know, i come from state that's really struggled to balance the budget, like so many other states across the country, where our state has made cuts everywhere they could, to to local aid, to education, places that we never wanted to go in the state government to make those cuts. and you know what i hear all the time from my state legislate

ors, from my storm -- legislators, from my former colleagues? they say, please make sure the federal government puts all the money it can into education, particularly higher education. that's what this amendment does. it makes sure that no community college was penalized for taking advantage earlier, make sure that every community college was available to be there for our young people. i continue to support this amendment. i think it's so important in my state and so many other states. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. it's really about fiscal responsibility and instead of starting a new program, let's direct the money, the limited dollars that we have, let's direct those dollars to our community colleges, but let's direct it to the programs that will actually offer job

retraining, job skills and offer more programs that we need all across this country rather than another school construction program to compliment two funding sources that already exist. with that i stand in opposition and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-256 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina and an opposing member will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i want to thank the rule committees for making my amendment in order and am glad to be here to speak on this bill. first, i want to say that my whole life was spent in education. i was president of a community college, i spent 12 years on a school board. i taught and was an assistant dean at appalachian state university. i was an administrator there. i was a director of a trio program at appalachian. so i have been very much

involved with education all my life. i'm the product of a public school system and give credit to the success that i've had in life to the fact that i had great teachers and administrators who cared a lot about me and gave me some direction, though i came from extreme poverty and from a family where no one had ever graduated from high school. i'm a very strong support over community colleges because i believe community colleges have been terrific in our country, particularly in north carolina. i think we have an excellent system of community colleges. so i'm very proud of having been associated with them. they were created to be able to serve the community in which they are located and they're able to pivot very quickly to offer the kinds of programs that the community needs, particularly in the area of work forest development. so -- work force development.

so i want to say that while i'm here to strike a part of this bill that would be spending money on new educational programs, it isn't because i have any animus toward education at all and i have great experience in that area. my amendment strikes the entire american graduation initiative created by title five of the bill while maintaining the privacy provisions that maintain -- that are part of the whole act. they ensure that student information is protected from individuals not authorized to view it and that students cannot be identified by any unique identifier. this is also an area i have been very much concerned about. it authorizes and appropriates a total of $7 billion, $730 million between f.y. 2010 and f.y. 2030 and $260 million

between f.y. 2010 and f.y. 2019. my objections come from several different areas. number one, this is dupe licktive of programs -- duplicative of programs already under the act and the new open, online education provision gives authorizations grants from the federal government to develop curricula that will be used in online courses. in my opinion, this is a step toward federal curriculum for schools and colleges. it also severely interferes with the authority of tates and localities to determine the -- of states and localities to determine the curriculum schools provide. it also wastes taxpayer money to federally fund an online course initiative already being provided by 1,000 colleges and universities across the country.

i'm also concerned about a provision in that section which says the secretary's authorized to make grants to other appropriate entities. is it possible that acorn could receive funding thru this broad statement? can the majority promise me, on the record, that $1 is not now nor will it go to acorn after passage of this bill? it's, again, the way the section reads, it can go to other appropriate entities, and we have seen how the folks on the other side have found every excuse in the world to fund that program. we also aren't getting any sense of responsibility from the kind of legislation that's being passed here that we're hearing so much about from the president and my colleagues on the other side. we've heard so much about how the states don't have the money to do what they need to do.

this is, then a welfare program for the states and the community colleges within the states. the community colleges already have programs where they evaluate what they're doing, they have to justify their programs, and the state should be setting priorities and funding those things that are most needed in the state. with unemployment as high as it is, i know that all the community colleges in north carolina are setting priorities to work with people who need to get the education they need to get jobs. but there's so much taxpayer money wasted here on administration and bureaucracy and very little lack of accountability despite what my colleagues have said. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. andrews, a member of the committee. the chair: does the gentleman

rise in opposition? mr. andrews: i do. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: this amendment does not pose a choice between those who support bureaucracy and those who support education. it poses a choice between those who wish to see economic growth by investing in the most important aspect of economic growth, our work force, and those who would prevent such a thing. i would not rely on this argument on frankly my colleagues here in the house, though i commend them for putting this in the bill. i would rely instead upon this statement from the business round table which is the association of chief executive officers of leading u.s. companies with more than $5 trillion in annual revenues and $10 million employees. this is not the community colleges speaking, this is not those of us on the majority

side speaking, it's the c.e.o.'s of the leading companies in america. here's what they said. on behalf of the business round table, i want to commend you, it's addressed to chairman miller, for inclusion of the community college initiative in h.r. 3221. this community college initiative and the president's american graduation initiative reflect the fact that community colleges have emerged as important institutions where acquiring new skills for new jobs and new careers will take place. the united states cannot compete without the most highly skilled and motivated workers in the world. i dare say that our odds of achieving that goal in the work forest are severely compromised if our community college sector is not strengthened. the community colleges i represent are overwhelmed with new applicants. they're overwhelmed attempting to find facilities and resources to deal with the

education of those new applicants. that's why my colleges would agree with the c.e.o.'s, the biggest companies in this country who say the community college initiative is so important for community colleges to reach their potential. let us not unduly constrict these fine institutions. let us not listen to republicans or democrats. let's listen to the leaders of corporate america who say, vote yes and oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: it's astonishing when unemployment is more than 13% in north carolina, i have to defend an investment in community colleges. community colleges give students a chance to learn the skills they need to support themselves and their families and community college students move heaven and earth to take advantage of that chance. community college students often work full time, go to school full time and for many,

you can put on top of that, taking care of their children. in north carolina, about one adult in six is enrolled in the community college each year. all manner of workers depend on our community colleges for the skills they need for their livelihood. construction workers, law enforcement and other first responders. biotech workers. all man over health care workers. and on and on. talk to community college students and you will learn what industries are laying off and what industries are hiring. north carolina, like much of the nation, was already going through a tough economic transition, even before the recession. millions of families depend on a community college education to make it through in tough economic time -- and tough economic times have only made community colleges more important. enrollment in north carolina's community colleges increased by 8% just last year and

preliminary data shows enrollment is increasing even more this year. i welcome the obama administration's recognition of the importance of community colleges to working families to breadwinners willing to work hard and learn new skills. it is long overdue. north carolina's community college leaders welcome that too and strongly support this program. i have a letter just -- dated yesterday from the president of north carolina's community colleges strongly supporting this program. help parents who will make any sacrifice to support their families, vote for working families, defeat this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. foxx -- ms. foxx: would the gentleman yield for a question? the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i have the right to close.

ms. foxx: -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. miller: this amendment should be overwhelmingly rejected. not only does it destroy the obama administration's initiative on community colleges but what every member knows that as much as community colleges are doing today, as many students as they help, they're being asked to do even more and the fact of the matter is we need them to do more and we need them to do a better job. we still have too many students starting community colleges but not successfully completing it either with a certificate for a career or an a.a. degree or transition to a four-year school. whatever path they take. we have got to strengthen those pathways that those students take. we've got to strengthen the ability of community colleges to make sure that they can provide that kind of opportunity. they are becoming the catalyst for economic innovation, economic change, economic

revitalization and flexibility in all of our communities. what the obama administration suggested with this initiative is we should help them do that because we're vitally in need of their success so that people can change the careers as we move from one economy to another. as energy becomes modern and innovative and new, we need a different type of energy worker. we must defeat the foxx amendment and stick by this initiative and support the community colleges. the chair: the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i ask for a record vote. the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. further proceedings on this amendment are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

mr. miller: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3221 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today until 2:00 p.m. and mr. mchugh of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1243, an act to provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of congress to arnold palmer in recognition of his service to the nation and promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today, floling legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, september 23 for five minutes. mr. jones, september 23 for five minutes. and mr. forbes today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california.

mr. nye of virginia. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. maffei of new york. mr. grayson of florida. mr. faleomavaega of american samoa. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. nye: i rise asking unanimous consent to claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nye: mr. speaker, i rise

today to honor the service and sacrifice but most importantly the life of first lieutenant michael e. johnson of the united states marine corps who gave his life to defend our nation. mike johnson grew up in the sand and surf of virginia beach along with his twin brother dan and his younger brother steve. at hickory high school in chesapeake, he was an accomplished athlete and a member of the crew team. and from an early age, he always talked of following in his grandfather's footsteps and becoming a marine. mike loved the outdoors and after visiting relatives in oregon, he decided to attend college at oregon state. in college he met his soul mate, derrinda, and in 2007 they were married in her hometown of keyser, oregon. mike told his friends that one day he hoped to become a park ranger. bringing together his love of the outdoors with his commitment

to public service. but for mike, duty came first. and with our country at war, mike decided that his own dreams would have to wait. he joined the marines and after training at quantico, mike and his wife moved to okinawa, japan, where first lieutenant johnson was assigned to the seventh communications battalion, third marine headquarters group, third marine expeditionary force. two months ago mike was deployed to afghanistan where he was assigned as part of an embedded team training the afghan army. on september 8, his unit was attacked by insurgent fighters as they approached a village in eastern afghanistan. in a firefight that lasted over eight hours, mike and three other americans were killed. as a husband, a son, a brother, and a friend mike was a positive influence on everyone around him. he loved his family and his friends and he cherished every

moment he had with them. mr. speaker, today across virginia flags are flying at half-staff in honor of lieutenant johnson and his memory. but for those lucky enough to know him, he will always be remembered for the smile that never left his face, and by the words he lived by, carpy diem and -- carpe diem and semper fi. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. jones, north carolina. mr. moran, kansas. ms. kaptur, ohio. mr. burton, indiana. mr. maffei, new york. mr. wolf, virginia. mr. grayson, florida.

mr. neugebauer, texas. mr. faleomavaega, american samoa. mr. bishop, utah. mr. deal, georgia. mr. forbes, virginia. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? to -- >> to address the house for one minute.

revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the president's mention of a tort reform demonstration project in his speech to congress last week was a red herring. by putting secretary see we'llous -- sebelius in charge of a tort reform demonstration project, the president has left tort reform to the former executive director and chief lobbyist for the kansas trial lawyers association. the president may have well just said, we need to protect the hen house so i'm appointing the fox to evaluate security. democrats deride the status quo in health care, waving their fingers and blaming special interests, but their rhetoric fails to meet reality. in a moment of extreme candor, howard dean, the former d.n.c. chairman said, and i quote, the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers and

that is a plain and simple truth. talk about beholden to special interests. mr. speaker, the democrats were serious about reducing cost and making health care more affordable without bankrupting our country, they would embrace tort reform. the fact is they just aren't. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes. as the designee of the minority as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a treat to be able to join you, members of congress, and those listening in tonight on a topic that has absorbed the attentions of our country, the topic of health care. this week the president delivered a major address to the house, senate, and public about his health care plans. it was really a big debate. a lot of discussion, actually some heated kinds of words, some concerns about facts and what was opinion, what was facts. all of these things have been probably inescapably in the news

for many of us to observe. and the big debate on the facts calls forth that old quip that everybody is entitled to their opinions but there's one set of facts. and what we are going to try to take a look at this evening are some of these different controversial areas and what really -- how do you straighten this thing out, and why is there controversy and why is there debate over what the facts are even though people have their own opinions? when we take a look -- i apologize, being an engineer, i maybe tend to get things a little complicated here. but this is a chart of the democrats' health care plan. and if it seems like it's a little complicated, it's because it is a little bit complicated and something as complicated as this obviously is going to make it a little difficult for people to sort out. what exactly are the facts? that's what we are going to be working on. i'm hoping to be joined by some of my colleagues that are

experts in certain areas here of the health care plan, but i think just to start with, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. this is a fairly complicated proposal by the house democrats in their bill. it essentially is going to try to take over 18% of the u.s. economy, which is the entire health care sector, and put it under government management. it doesn't do that immediately, but that's it's net effect over a period of time. so if this is -- if there are some debates over facts and questions, it may be not surprising. now, perhaps when you take a look at a big government takeover of something, any particular area of our government, one of the things that you worry about is is that it may become expensive. your quality may go downhill. there's been complaints sometimes about a number of our different -- the federal emergency act, the fema people. there were concerns about their performance during katrina. concerned about the performance

of the post office relative to how much it cost. concerns about the c.i.a., about the kind of numbers they gave us on iraq before gulf war one and gulf war two, they got it wrong both times. and the efficiencies. do i yield to my good friend from minnesota, congressman klink. -- claurn. -- kleine. mr. kline: i wonder if the gentleman would mind putting up that first chart because it strikes me that it's a pretty complicated chart. as the gentleman said. i found when i was back in my home state of minnesota, i was traveling around talking to groups, i used that chart a number of times and i wanted to point out there was indeed prepared by the republican staff , but there's nothing on that chart that isn't in the bill. that is a depiction of best effort depiction to describe what this bill does. mr. akin: you are talking about a thousand-plus page built and

you put it in one chart. it's going to look complicated. mr. kline: exactly. it is over 1,000 pages, it is complicated. the reason i asked the gentleman to put it back up, i have been struck by a number of the proponents, supporters of this bill, including frankly the president of the united states, have said, well, the public option is just a little slice. it's not everything. it's a little slice of this reform. and so one time i tried to look at that and say where is that little slice? could i take the public option out of this, off of of that chart? er where can i find that little slice? it turns out you cannot find that. it is interwoven. there is a bureau of health information. there is a health choices administration and health choigses commissioners. you can't go remove one of those little squares and say that's the public option. and we are left with the simpler bill of reform without this government run option. it's an integral woven part of

that whole 1,100 page package. i understand -- mr. akin: it's like if you had a rug and took out all the threads going one way it doesn't make sense. mr. kline: well said. let me make one more point before you move. you made another very important point. you said this is the democrats' health plan. and that's really too bad. there is not a drop of rubble ink on the 1,100-page bill. that bill moved through three committees in this body and house. and republicans tried repeatedly to make amendments without success. the amendments failed largely on a party-line vote. so we have a democrats' bill and it seems to me -- mr. akin: i can't help but interrupt for a minute because i have heard repeatedly it said, particularly by the president, he said the republicans don't have any alternatives or options. yet the fact is there are dozens of republican bills and knob of -- none of them were put into

any of this. mr. kline: that's an excellent point. but it seems to me we should not be at a point where we are competing, the democrats 1,100-page bill with presumably the republicans' 800-page bill or $1,000-page bill. what we should do to get a bipartisan solution, is take that, take that whole 1,100 pages and push it off, set the bills that have been introduced, push them aside and sit down and see where republicans and democrats could agree on something like a republican proposal we have discussed many times allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 25. if you just did that one thing, if we sit down, republicans and democrats, and said we are going to push all this aside. we are going to push a reset and button and agree on this one thing, you would take seven million of the uninsured and they would be insured. there are many things we could do. not dealing with that. mr. akin: just reclaiming my time. what you are suggesting,

gentleman, it's almost too common sense for us to do. one of the ways that when we do create good legislation, usually there is a good consensus and the minority and majority parties work together, they put stuff together and say, well, this is the stuff we can't agree to. this other people can't agree to. but together let's take a piece of the problem and solve it. instead, what this is an attempt to do is to take one, 1/5 of our economy and federalize it. and that's a pretty ambitious step. even if everybody agreed this would be an ambitious step. . even if they did, this would be a very ambitious, to try to rewrite 18% of the u.s. economy and federalize the whole thing. that's a pretty ambitious thing to do. mr. kline feather if the

gentleman -- mr. kline: if the gentleman would yield, let me pick up on this point of bipartisan effort. i serve also on the armed services committee, as the gentleman knows. you'll recall that earlier this year, the chairman of the armed services committee, mr. skelton and the then-ranking republican membering, mr. mchugh, said we should do if -- we should see if we can do something about the defense acquisition system, everybody know it's a mess. hundreds of dollars for hammers, huge cost overrun, we need to fix the system. if you'll recall, the approach was to get some republicans and some democrats to sit down and our friend from new jersey, rob andrews was chose ton represent the democrats, michael conaway from texas was chose ton represent the republican they sat down together and wrote legislation. mr. akin: actually solved some problems. mr. kline: you'll recall when they finished, they had a good bill, we had legislative hearings, it passed that

committee unanimously. mr. akin: ran right through. mr. kline: and it should. that's the way to solve a problem. you cannot take, behind closed door, one party, write a bill, an 1,100 page bill at a cost that, oh, it depends on what given moment you're looking at it, but it's somewhere well over $1 trillion. well over $1 trillion and present it and say, frankly, as the president did, well i'm taupe suggestions. well the best suggestion i would offer to the president to and my colleagues the majority party here is let's set that aside and sit down and see if there's something we can't agree on here. don't do as the lady did, wonderful lady, when i was back in minnesota, who said, congressman, is there some piece of this, that if you took it out, it would be ok and it's back to your wonderful example of pulling the strings on a rug, pretty soon it doesn't function at all.

you can't reach in there and take out one piece and say, i could support that if we took out the health choices administration. if you take the health choices administration out -- mr. akin: the whole thing falls apart. mr. kline: i think that's an important point. mr. akin: i'd like to get to some of these question that was come up, questions ethis president raised, others raised, we have a little bit of time to say, what's the real story, what's the facts you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. the first thing to think about is, in our environment is, is this health care proposal expensive or is it too expensive. somebody quipped, if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free. how do we assess how expensive it would be, the president started his speech earlier this week -- last week he started the speech by say, hey, i

inherited a $1 trillion debt. immediately as a member of the other party, i thought you inherited a $1 trillion debt but you're not doing too shabby, half of the wall street bailout was under his leadership, then another $787 billion for this supposedly stimulus bill. you've got schip and what the appropriations bill and then the huge bill that was passed, the cap and tax bill here in the house. add that up, it's $3.6 trillion. i think it's reasonable to ask the question, is this thing where the government takes over 18% of the economy going to be expensive? he said it's going to be so efficient we're not going to have any debt and it's going to be fantastic and it will hardly cost anything because we'll take the money out of medicare. with a bill that's sort of plastic, you've got a 1,000-page bill and people want

to change it all the time, it hasn't really been finalized this is the plan. all we have is the 1,000-page draft. how do you aguess -- assess how much it's going to cost. here's one way, here's medicare, social security, and medicaid, the biggest entitlements we've got, they're growing out of control. what we're claiming is the socialized medicine bill is not going to do what these other socialized medicine things did. the liberals agree to these numbers. they're saying, yeah, these things are growing out of control. but this proposal is not supposed to. mr. kline feather sp the gentleman would yield one more time, i hate to interrupt, where you've got a depiction of the unfunded liblets, how much more we expect to spend on those programs than we expect to bring in. that goes out for a number of year, i see up there 2008, 2052 and so forth. we do need to look out there, address the unfunded liability, but you don't have to look that

far. right now, with the latest projections out of the white house, taking the projected deficit spending, how much more we're going to spend and take in over the next 10 year, increasing that from $7 trillion to $9 trillion, trillion dollar, it used to be hard to say that but now we just talk about trillions. mr. akin: used to be billions, it's trillions. mr. kline: if you take the next 10 year the current debt, which is a staggering number in itself, approaching $12 trillion right now, secretary of the treasury is asking us to lift the cap, statutory cap on the debt and you add they the $9 trillion of projected deficit, i ask the gentleman, what is the number $21 trillion of national debt in the next 10 years do? that's without counting the cap and trade bill, which passed so narrowly in the house and should not have passed at all. it doesn't count the health

care bill which already we know is the congressional budget office projected that the bill in front of us, h.r. 3200, almost $232 billion of spending, doesn't account for the years where the deficit runs over $60 billion. it's a staggering amount of money. i don't want to be responsible. mr. akin: there's a good reason for people to be say, hold on in terms of these big government solutions, we are not spending our kids' but our grandchildren -- not spending our kids but our grandchildren into debt on these things. i guess the question is, when you go from george washington to george bush and you're running at whatever it is, $5 trillion, and then you're going to add another $8 trillion just under the obama administration, doesn't that suggest that perhaps we need to kind of get off the accelerator of spending government money? mr. kline: it does.

speaking of grandchildren, my wife and i are planning to travel down and spend time with the grandchildren, i have four wonderful grandchildren, i say they're the best grandchildren, but i run up against the skwlelt who thinks his grandchildren are the best. i think, i should get down on my knees and thank them. they're going to pay all these bills. it's not right. those numbers and that chart, i would say the gentleman -- to the gentleman, are terrifying. as i mentioned, if you bring it down much, much closer, 2019 on that chart is way over there toward the left. mr. akin: that's a day we'll hopefully live to see, our grandchildren will be growing up enough -- i'd like to stop on that point. i notice the gentleman is probably a little younger than i am, you don't get to be a colonel by being -- you can be a chicken, but not a spring

chicken. as we grew up, our parents, sometimes called the greatest generation, they had it in their heart that they wanted to hand a better future to their children and america than what they had been blessed with. it seemed like one of these sort of national virtue that these -- that that generation had the desire to personally sacrifice so you and i could go to college or graduate school or do things they had not had a chance to do. somehow or other, this breaks my heart. that we and our generation, that have been blessed by selfless set of parents in that great generation, are instead wanting to leave our children and grandchildren in a much worse fix than we found ourselves. something about that seems

almost un-american and intolerable to me. would the gentleman want to comment on that? mr. cline: i take your point. -- mr. kline: i'm proud of my parents. part of that greatest generation my father landed in normandy, fought his way across europe, part of that world-changing -- mr. akin: my father was with patton. mr. kline: my father landed on normandy, fought in the battle of the bulge. they came back and did make sacrifices. it's been, as the gentleman suggested, the american way for all generations before us that the next generation has been in better shape, if you will, been left in better condition. it's not that you and i, in fact people in this room don't want things to be worse for our grandchildren. but if we're not careful about how we build this public policy, things are going to be worse. i would argue we have not been careful that we are running a

deficit this year alone that was unthinkable six months ago. unthinkable. that national debt i mentioned, unimaginable that we could possibly consider that. mr. akin: the experience of other countries nationalizing their health care, has that been an inexpensive experience? my understanding it's about broke the budget of people who tried to do this thing. massachusetts tried it and tennessee tried it. and the experience that they had was, it was expensive. massachusetts health care costs have gone up like a skyrocket. in tennessee, the doctors just about left the state. the democrat governor that tried it as a trial project was followed by another democrat governor who called it an unmitigated disaster. the head of canada just declared their socialized medical system a complete mess and a disaster also.

and very expensive. mr. kline: if the gentleman would yield one more time. in minnesota our neighbor, to the north is indeed canada. i'm very proud to say that minnesota is a destination state for health care. we have one of the most famous hospitals, clinics, in the world, the mayo clinic, in rochester, minnesota. the thing about canada is, if they can't get care in canada, if they get tired of waiting in line, which they do wait in lines, and they are denied care, they come see us in minnesota. so it's expensive in canada. to the gentleman's point, it is indeed expensive. but i'm arguing worse than that, it doesn't work for them, for many, many of our canadian neighbors, they cannot afford to wait in lines. mr. akin: i was told by some canadians that it's the best

health care system in the world as long as you're healthy. mr. kline 13k if you're not, you come to minnesota. mr. akin: thank you very much, congressman kline. i appreciate you staying extra on the floor and helping us with a close look, trying to look at some of the questions. the first thing the president raised was the fact that he'd inherited debt and the question becomes, well, he also said that his health care plan was going to get rid of debt and save money and would work really well financially and the question then becomes, well, if that's the case, how come medicaid and medicare seem to be costing so much if the government can't run those without running a huge deficit, what makes you think we can go further? that's one question, how much it costs. another question is the question of bureaucratic rationing. i think a lot of americans who have health insurance have been frustrated by the fact that insurance companies sometimes tell you you can or can't get treatment. and we don't want people

rationing health care that are in the insurance business. we want that to be a doctor-patient kind of question. so one of the big concerns about when the government takes something over, the government will tell you what you can and can't get for treatment. because there was concern on this issue, one of the ways to probe and to test a bill is when it's in committee, for people to be able to make amendments to the bill this particular amendment here was offered by congressman beginning ree from georgia who is a medical doctor, and the thing that i like about it, it's a straightforward and simple statement of policy and it says this. nothing in this section, this is being added to the democrats' health care bill, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine. in other words, what this language is saying is the

doctor-patient relationship is sacred. we want the doctor and the patient to make the medical decisions and that's what this particular sentence was trying to enshrine into law in the middle of this bill. so this amendment was offered in a way to kind of determine, really, where are we going with this health care debate. and this amendment was defeated on an almost straight party line vote. the democrats, with the exception of only one democrat, voted that this language should not be in the bill. the republicans, 100%, said the doctor-patient relationship should be sack rosanget. -- sacrosanct. this is a place where in committee we know what the plan is, that is that there will be federally paid employees or bureaucrats telling you what kind of treatment you can get.

this is what ps in canada and england at all. it's not a big surprise this amendment makes it very clear, the difference in policy between the democrat plan which is that bureaucrats are going to determine what's a reasonable procedure for you to get and it's not going to be based on the doctor and patient. we don't like, as a republican i don't like insurance companies butting in there even more so, i don't like the federal government. i'm joined with a good congressional friend of mine, congressman bishop, i yield to you and ask your advice on this point also. . mr. bishop: if you would get that next one, the chart you have on the back there about abortion because i think it is the same issue. we oftentimes have a great deal of debate and discussion over what is or is not in the bill. that's probably because there is not one bill, there are several bills floating out. what is in someplaces are there and what is not in someplaces are there.

but i think one of the things to remember, because this is basically the same issue, the language the gentleman from missouri just gave on medicare and what it does as far as the practicing of medicine is something that was supposed to be in the medicare bill when that was first produced 40 years ago. doesn't quite work that way because when you start down a road, you often find out you end up in a different situation than when you started that path. when i was still teaching school i often showed my students about the construction of the berlin wall. i was so amazed at the berlin wall to why the united states did nothing to stop the construction of the berlin wall. they have a great interview of dean rusk, the secretary of state at the time, if you know tend of the day you are not going to go down that path, you don't take the first step down that path. many of the issues, like the issuer will this actually fund abortion or not, will this actually deal with illegal immigrants or not --

mr. akin: if i could interrupt a second. what you are talking about is precisely what i wanted to get to tonight. what we've got is a debate over what the facts are. and you're bringing up the question of abortion which is one of the debates. here is the quote, the direct quote, from our president. it says and one more misunderstanding i want to clear up, under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. this is what the president says. ok. and now you made the point that in committee an amendment was offered, is that right? i just wanted to lay that groundwork. this is a statement. this is what the president says. now, what's actually going on in committee? mr. bishop: this unfortunately was in my committee as well in which amendments were made to try to limitation on the abortion funding as you can see the language that is up there. once again that was defeated. what it tells us is that what is in the bill is not necessarily

the same thing as what will happen five and 10 and 20 years down. oftentimes what we are doing is not necessarily starting a program now, but we are opening up the door. i'm mixing metaphors here, you are opening up a door that will take us down the path. and the question is where will that path end? not today, but where will it end in the future? that's why sometimes people can have a difference of opinion. not necessarily what is in the bill, but what this bill provides the opportunity to do in the future that is not in the status quo? we have in this bill many kinds of provisions in there that may not necessarily start a program now, but it gives the opportunity. we may have a program that right now is voluntary and it's established. but it easily could become fully funded and mandatory. mr. akin: what you're saying is something that you and i, gentlemen, take for granted. we live in this world day in and day out, god help us, and in the

political world we realize that when a bill is passed there's armies of people that write the rules and regulations that flesh out what the bill will be. so the question then becomes, does this bill make it clear that we won't be using federal taxpayer money to provide preabortions to people? to me, this is a different question because i have always been pro-life. but to me it's a different question than the question of abortion. it's the question of the fact that i have constituents who are violently pro-life, violently pro-choice and they disagree on that point. but the question is are we going to compel all citizens to use their taxpayer dollars to fund abortions? and that's something very upsetting to many people. the question is, does this bill do that? the bill doesn't specifically say anything, does it? so one of the ways to determine whether or not that's a future intent, that that's a little thing are you going to put in later, is to offer an amendment to make it clear, just so nobody will get upset about this issue,

makes the bill so people can be more comfortable that there won't be any of this federal money used for abortion. so when this amendment is put up, what happens? it gets voted down by a great majority of democrats, right? so that leaves you with the conclusion they want to leave the door open for federal funding with abortions for this bill. you can come to no other conclusion. mr. bishop: one more statement for the gentleman from missouri, i notice we are joined here by one of the most creative thinkers we have on the floor, the gentleman from arizona. i think if i could add a segue here in some particular way, is i agree with you. this presents all the warning clouds out there if we insist that the only solution is a government-controlled, government-mandated solution. and what i think i'd like to make in the few moments that i have is very clear that this is not the only plan that is out there. there are other bills. the gentleman from arizona has a bill.

the gentleman from california, mr. issa, has a bill. the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, has a bill. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. akin: and the gentleman from texas will shoot you if you don't mention his bill. mr. bishop: and all of them are based on a different premise. and the premise is that what government should be be doing is not telling people what they do and telling people what their choices may be, but to try and open up the system so that people have options so that they can choose what they wish to be. and i think that's one of the things that they fundamentally difference in what we are talking about. and those issues, those -- if we really want a bipartisan bill, those bills must be brought to the floor and allowed to be debated and voted so we have a discussion on the philosophy of how we are going to solve this problem and if we truly desire to empower people, or to truly desire to empower the government. i think that's -- i will yield back to whomever you wish to. mr. akin: reclaiming my time. i appreciate you joining us.

congressman bishop is just a regular powerhouse here in congress. we are very thankful for your district sending you up here. your background in teaching and making ideas straightforward and clear and being precise, that scholarly discipline is dreadfully needed at this hour. particularly when we start talking about these very nebulous kind of nail jell-o to the wall health care bills. i'm also joined by a gentleman i respect greatly. he's been a leader here in congress. an innovative thinker, congressman shadegg from arizona. i would appreciate yielding you time. because you have just come on the floor, what i tried to do is say, look, earlier last wheck week when we talked about health care the president came on this floor, debated, discussed, talked about what he wanted to do with health care. there was quite a lot of concern about what really the facts were. the president made a number of

assertions and what i was trying to do is to go back and forth say here's the assertion and here's what we know about what the facts are. and try to lay that out to make it clear. the president said that there is first of all the bill isn't going to cost hardly anything. it's going to save money. it won't put us in debt or anything. yet we don't have too much to be confident other than his tremendous optimism. the next thing that he was saying is that one of the things he said was there is no abortions in this bill. and yet when an amendment was offered to make it so that there couldn't be any, that was voted down on a straight party-line vote. that's what we are trying to do is try to say let's get to the heart of what some of these questions were. the cost, the abortion, the immigration, some of these different issues. i yield to my good friend from arizona. mr. shadegg: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i watched the gentleman engage in this hour earlier and thought i ought to come down and try to add to it. perhaps bring a different perspective, articulate some of

our concerns. i want to thank my colleague from missouri for his efforts. i want to thank my colleague from utah for both his compliment and his hard work on the issues we confront. i really want to hit two points. most importantly i want to hit the final point that the gentleman from utah hit, which is what should be the process? for passing legislation of this significance to the nation? i think the gentleman from utah had it right. it needs to be an open process. it needs to be an opportunity where everyone can surface their ideas, and there needs to be a dialogue. quite frankly that has not happened. it just has not happened. the gentleman led off in his discussion on this point by listing all the different bills, paul ryan of wisconsin has a bill. tom price of georgia has a bill. i have a bill. many -- there are many, many republican bills out there and shockingly the media doesn't tell the american people that

there are any republican ideas out there. yet there are. i think the gentleman from utah said it well. there really is a great philosophical divide on a part of this issue. but it's really just a part of this issue. there are subsets on which there is agreement. when we talk about where the divide is, i think the gentleman from utah said it well, the divide is between the notion which the president is advancing that the only way to fix the problems we have in health care today, and republicans agree there are deep problems in the delivery of health care services today, the democrats and the president say, the way to fix that is, massive government intervention in and quite frankly taking control of the entire health care system and the entire health insurance industry. mr. akin: reclaiming my time for a minute. if lyndon johnson who noticed there were people who were hungry in america took the same

approach, he would have had the government take over all the farms and the grocery stores, wouldn't he? mr. shadegg: and the grocery stores, farms, you name it. mr. akin: it would have gotten a little bit radical, wouldn't we? mr. shadegg: i would have been offended. i want to make the point, one of the things that republicans are portrayed as being the allies of the health insurance industry. in this fight. bunk. the president in his remarks the other evening talked about special interests. some of the biggest special interests in this nation have thrown in behind the president and are pushing this bill. the big insurance companies, they have signed on in support of this bill. there's one piece of it they don't like. they don't like the public plan. but by gosh they like the idea of an individual mandate, which is an issue i think we ought to be discussing, and the big drug companies? the big drug companies are in this hook, line, and sinker so much so that they spent $100

million or maybe more over the august break advertising their support for the president's plan. but let's go back to the basics here. the president and the democrats say the solution is massive government intervention. republicans say, wait a minute. what is driving cost, and what will bring costs down? the gentleman from utah said it correctly. the reality is cost is being driven, i would argue, and most republicans would argue, because you and i don't have patient choice. we can't make the kind of decisions like we could in any other market to drive costs down by buying a product that is less expensive and provides better service. mr. akin: we don't even know what the costs are. mr. shadegg: why are the costs hidden? the costs are hidden because the current structure says if you get your health insurance from your employer, it's tax free. if you buy it yourself, then

it's taxed. so the insurance industry never runs an advertisement, trying to get the gentleman from utah or the gentleman from missouri or the gentleman from arizona to buy an insurance policy from them. they don't have to advertise for our business. they know our employer picks our plan and the plan picks our doctor and they don't much care about us. compare that with the auto insurance industry. in the auto insurance industry, you leave this room right now or anybody watching us at this moment, flips from this channel to a commercial channel and within seconds they'll see an ad for guy could he or all state. i saw an ad for all state not three minutes before i walked over here. or state farm or name it. mr. akin: because they are selling, the auto insurance, to the consumer. in shadegg: in a free market. mr. akin: people who have just the most basic fundamental understanding of what the job of government should be, which is justice, which means people are equal before the law. how can it be equal before the

law when one guy gets insurance with pretax dollars and the other poor guy has to pay dollars after he's been taxed? mr. shadegg: i yield to the gentleman. one of the biggest outrages, i think it's immoral s. that this government says that the least among us, those in this society just barely getting by, working for an employer who can't afford to give them insurance, we say, it would be responsible for you to buy health insurance and we are so concerned about your well-being, that we are going to smack you down and make you buy it with after tax dollars making it at least 1/3 more expensive. that is immoral. and it's a policy of this congress. and i don't see the democrats opposing -- proposing to equalize that tax treatment. mr. akin: i yield to the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i want to give a simple illustration what the gentleman is talking about in i had -- in today's medical

market. if you want to get a nose job, the cost is decreasing every year because there is no middle man and no insurance, you go and negotiate with the doctor. . what could happen, there is a large pool of people who have a difficult time getting insurance. the so-called uninsurable. what would happen to that pool of individuals out there that can't get insurance, if you allowed them to buy insurance with pretax dollars, not post-tax dollar, allowed them to go across state lines, allowed them pooling opportunities. what would happen to the pool of uninsurables which might be able to be handled by 50 different states coming up with programs to meet the demographics of the state and we're doing this thing of empowering people to meet their own needs and solving their own problems, what would be the result of that?

mr. akin: i yield to the gentleman from arizona. mr. shadegg: i have been arguing for a freer market, a free market for health insurance for a long time. i proposed allowing people to buy policies offered in another state, make them available in the state where they live. the president stood before us and said, it's clear we need health care reform and it's clear we need a government plan, because, and he cited, i believe it was mississippi, 75% of plans in mississippi were sold by just five companies. his answer is one new government plan. my answer is, let's let dozens -- let me finish. let's let dozens of private insurance plans come into mississippi and bring about real competition. let me just point out that just today there was a development on the issue. senator baucus released his plan. senator baucus i don't think is a true friend of free markets, but senator draw baucus in a

nod to this idea that's been out there has said he included in his bill the notion of allowing cross-state health insurance sales, increasing competition so somebody who lived in utah might have 30 plans to pick from, rather than five. or somebody who lived in arizona might have 100 plans to pick from, rather than eight. mr. akin: reclaiming my time for a minute, the gentleman raised an interesting point. what we're saying is, i think the president made a stronger case, he said there's one state where there's only one insurance in the market. so his solution is what? we'll give you one insurance plan for the whole united states. that's an interesting way of looking at the problem. what you're suggesting, gentlemen, is you take your insurance and sell it across state lines and what you're try tight dress, i believe is a problem that in some markets, that an insurance company can kind of corner the market and run the prices up. what you're talking about is free enterprise, competition so

you can buy an insurance policy across a state line. mr. shadegg: i wrote a bill loosely described as allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. it doesn't do that but it does increase competition and make more policies available in a similar way. the idea came to us because people living in new jersey were discovering from friends and family members who lived down the street in pennsylvania that the cost for people in pennsylvania was a fraction of the cost of the same policy in new jersey. same four-member family, four times, five times, even eight times as expensive. mr. akin: you've got to move to a different house. mr. shadegg: people were shopping with their feet, literally defrauding the insurance tri-, perhaps understandably so, by saying their address was their brother-in-law's address in pennsylvania. what i did was write a bill

that would say, look, you have to meet a federal standard for financial solvency and appeals. then you meet the standards of one state in terms of what you provide in the policy, and you can file that policy in all 50 states and oh, by the way if you sell it in missouri, then you are subjecting yourself to regulation by the missouri insurance commissioner to protect the people in missouri and the missouri courts to protect the people in missouri. if you sell it in utah, you do the same. but you write one policy and sell it in 50 states. mr. akin: reclaiming my time, you're maintaining the principal of federalism, the state insurance commissioners control and regulate the insurance in their state but you allow the competition to take place. i suspect that your bill will have its most, if it were passed, would have its most dramatic effect right near the border areas of the states, i would think. there you have an insurance policy that has a network of

providers people could go to, i think that's where it would be most effective. but i would yield to our good friend congressman bishop. mr. bishop: if i could just add one philosophical problem again here, once again, this, i think, is one of the reasons why this debate is becoming so partisan and bitter. it's because it is philosophical. that's happened repeatedly in the history of this country, progressive era, great growth in the size of government. 1920's, retrenchment on the size of the individuals, great society big government, reagan, individuals,. we're now in that time where this administration wants to move us to, again, grow the size of government. it's a philosophical debate more than just taking the orangal chart you had and moving this agency here and trying to doo kind of those practical things that lend themselves to bipartisanship. it is a structure on whether we try to help people make choices

for themselves or have government come up with a government plan, government standards, that comes in here. this is once again where i believe the founding fathers who had the idea of federalism plays a significant role. almost every -- i'll not take every state. my state has a plan, recently stuletted, for those who are truly -- recently instituted, for those who are truly uninsurable. it's dedicated and twoted to the demographics of my state. once we give people options so they can form their own pools, buy across state line, buy their own products pretax, you'll shrink the number down so it can be affordable and the advantage of federalism is simply this you can have greater creativity, greater justice applying to circumstances, and more importantly, if a state fails, a program fail, you don't screw up the entire nation. mr. akin: you get experimentation. mr. bishop thank -- mr. bishop: that's what we need

to do. i appreciate you bringing to the floor that the idea presented by the speaker and the president is not the only idea out there. there are other ideas, there are other options that have a different purpose and that purpose is to empower and ennoble the individual. mr. akin: i appreciate the gentleman from utah getting to perhaps philosophically to the heart of this debate. the question is, are we going to go down the path, if you take a look, there was a nation we knew very well back just a few years ago, the nation had this basic operating philosophy, the government will provide you with an education, the government will provide you with a job, the government will provide you with a house, the government will provide you with health care, and we see our own country, and that nation was called the soviet union which is now in the dust bin of history. now we see our nation providing housing, and providing food, providing education, and now we're talking about health

care. this is a little different speed though. because before, when someone was hungry, the proposal was give them a food stamp, i'm not sure it's very efficient but it wasn't to federalize every grocery store and farm in america. this proposal is different. this is saying, we're going to step in and the government is going to take over 1/a of the u.s. economy. that is a pretty tall step to take in one pass. >> if the gentleman will yield. mr. akin: i do. mr. shadegg: that's a pretty tall step given the track record of the nation. the government does not do this very well. we had a bill to bail out the pension fund of postal workers because we had problems there. we saw the inepttude of the government in dealing with the hurricane. and the most famous of all, the

auto -- >> mr. akin: the postal service, fema. mr. shadegg: we did cash for clunkers and flat failed at that, miserably. so the track record of government doing these things isn't good. mr. akin: let's stay on that subject a little more. some people talked about the compassion of the i.r.s. you want the compassion of the i.r.s. in the health care system or the efficient soif the postal service. mr. shadegg: or the efficiency of cash for clunkers. mr. akin: no one has made a big deal about this, in gulf war one, the c.i.a. said, the iraqis are within a year and a half of build agnew clear device. they're 10 or 15 years away, we get in there, they're a year and a half away. we go to gulf war two, nay -- they say they're a year and a half away from building it, they're nowhere near it.

you want to trust your body to these guys. let's talk about the efficient soif the energy department. do you know why the department of energy was created? >> to ensure energy independence. mr. akin: to ensure energy independence. ever since they were created which way has the graph been going. mr. shadegg: the other way. mr. akin: and we want to give our bodies to this one? we're joined by my good friend congressman lamb born. mr. bam -- mr. lamborn: thank you for allowing me to join this discussion. president obama, a few nights ago in this very chamber said, hey, we have problems with medicaid and medicare and we have waste and abuse and fraud and -- that all may be true. but i don't think the solution is, let's start a new trillion-dollar government health care program because we have problems in medicare and medicaid. i mean, if we have problems with medicare and medicaid, i don't see that that's any

excuse to start a new trillion-dollar health care program. so i have real problems with that. and representative akin, let me back up and tell you what i observed when i had some town hall meetings in my district in colorado on health care. just a few weeks ago, i had some interesting meetings where hundreds of people showed up, people were turned away by the hundreds, it was a really good exercise in democracy. i enjoyed hearing from both sides. in fact, admittedly i heard more from people against, but i ask those who were for the program to come forward and say what they had to say. i wanted to hear both sides and i wanted the audience to hear both sides and those watching in the media to hear both sides. mr. akin: you were courageous to do that. there's a lot of people who try to have had town hall meetings and their constituents were not very happy about what's going on down here in the last six months.

mr. -- mr. akin: you had a sense of you wanted to hear people's opinion, you wanted to hear both sides of the subject. >> there was a little bit of give and take, a little bit of high passions on both sides. it was a little unruly at times. but overall it was very positive. i hear that a few of our colleagues, unfortunately, were awol. they evaded having some of these meetings. they only did telephone meetings, which is good in and of itself, but doesn't go far enough compared to a personal meeting. some of our colleagues around the country, representative akin, maybe went as far as they could have. mr. akin: i enjoyed the same thing we did a town hall on health care, it was interesting. >> what i'm seeing is the passion of those concerned about what we're doing is not just that health care is an intensely personal issue or for their mother or grandmother or their loved ones, their child, it's an intensely personal issue.

it goes beyond that i know you know this, but i'll remind you, it also has to do with the recent takeovers we've had in the government. we've been taking over financial institutions, we've been taking over auto companies. mr. akin: we fired the president of general motors. i can't get my brain around that the president of the united states fired the president of general motors. i never thought i'd see that. mr. lamborn: me neither, ever in my wildest dreams. mr. akin: today we're taking over college loans, right? we're going to chase the privates out of that business. mr. lamborn: that's exactly right. that's the wrong thing. those who say they trust the government, yet here we are taking over these things, these huge areas of industry, they have a right to be concerned. but the third thing, representative akin, is that the huge spending that's involved. we get estimates anywhere from $1.2 trillion to $3.5 trillion, i think president obama sai