gentleman from minnesota rise. >> i would like to yield three minutes to the ranking member on the higher education subcommittee. >> thank you. i am in opposition to this because i believe that there is a better way to protect students and taxpayers. the authors of this legislation would say that the purpose of this is to simply stabilized student lending. they say the federal family education loan program will need to be replaced with a government run direct programs. the program has been a stable resource of private loans for more than 40 years, with the large national lenders to the small, local nonprofits with benefits and services. colleges and universities are opting for a rate of benefits and services.

. the president of western kentucky university told me at the end -- that the end of the ffel program would men e-- mean the end of many programs and borrowing support programs. further, the president of st. catherine college, a small, independent college in my district, shared his concerns about the impact it will have on colleges of his size. it would mean investing staff time and money to to the change processes when budgets have been cut to the core. clearly it will have a major clearly it will have a major impact on schools and students. it is true the ffel was hit by global market collapse that rocked our economy last year. when that happened student loan capital dried up, along with capital across all sectors and the stability was needed and congress stepped in. last year, congress passed the ensuring continued access to student loans act which

provided a temporary federal back stop to protect borrowers from loan disruption. it's worked exceedingly well and not a single borrower has been left without a loan. if our goal is simply to stabilize student lending, there's a simple solution. we should extend it to -- it until the economy rebounds. that means no confusion for schools and no uncertainty for borrowers if we were to extend the program while the market remains turbulent. republicans have offered a plan that would do that. later today, i'll join ranking pleb kline to offer an -- ranking member kline to offer an alternative to this. in the meantime, we're calling for a commission to study student loan programs and propose alternatives to protect borrowers and taxpayers alike. our plan is a way to slow down

and take a more thoughtful, reasonable approach to long-term student loan reform. instead we'll vote on a plan that will shape the way students pay for college and radically expand the federal government in the process. proponents of the bill claim it saves $87 billion for taxpayers. in reality that $87 billion -- the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-pired. mr. kline: the gentleman -- yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. guthrie: this comes because the government charges student interest more than it costs to borrow, turning it into a profit-making venture. we're taking student money and spending it on -- much of it, on an array of new government programs. students and schools lose the value of choice, competition, around innovation and taxpayers will be on the hook for massive new entitlement spending and a huge expansion in government borrowing to finance the loans

that will need to be made directly from the treasury. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: as a member of the house education and labor committee and as an orange co--- original co-sponsor of this bill i rise in support of this bill. i thank chairman miller on his leadership on this as well as on so many other important measures. while this bill includes many significant provisions, the part of the bill that i'm excited about is the creation of the early learning challenge fund. like the pre-k act i introduced earlier this year, the fund would establish a competitive grant program to support, not

supplant state efforts to improve the quality of their early education programs. evidence shows that quality early education is the best foundational investment we can make in our children. last night, i had the opportunity to meet with members of the fill and thropic community who -- fill and thropic community and to quote these people, this quality early education is the most powerful investment america can make. they not only understand the value of quality early learning but support successful programs all across the country including in hawaii and they are not alone. educators, economists, brain development researchers, police chiefs, chambers of commerce, retired military personnel all have emphasized the critical need for quality early education to prepare our children for

success in school and in life. this bill is an important step in preparing our children for such success. i urge my colleagues to support this measure, a bill that makes important investments in education for all our children from birth through college. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: at this time, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from indiana, mr. souder. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. souder: i thank our ranking member. the loud sound you hear is the big gulp. public option swallowing the private option. we hear excuses why it's not the same. but here are some of the key business points to remember here. there has been confoogs in the quotes here on the floor what in this 7% that the private sector has between revenues, which is the loan income that the banks

receive and their profits. there is also confusion between the net profit and the gross profit. the gross profit has all the expenses to come out, whereas the net profit is the bottom line, which is a relatively small number. and the reason this is important is that government, if they take this over and swallow the private sector into the public option, we'll have basically the same costs. when you compare cost to cost, the government can't deliver it at the same price as the private sector, never has and never will . now this expense question and we have argued about this for years and one of the things that's clear is the federal government doesn't deappreciate. so fixed expenses like buildings aren't counted that come off the net expenses. we do buildings in one appropriations bill in one lump

sum. it is not something you would ammortize over time. the expenses at the department of education, such as lighting in the building, even many cases, staff aren't assigned to the student loans, they're assigned to the department of education. but even then when you ask the private sector to compete, even paying that profit, 80% of the colleges chose the private sector because the service delivery was better. in fact, hopefully the government is going to be wise enough here that they're going to contract out with the private sector at the end of the day to deliver much of these services because there is no capability in the federal government to deliver this. the proposal on the face of it isn't even plausible, that we're hearing about all these new funding programs when the net profit out of the private sector is minimal compared to the new programs. so where does the money come from?

the best i have been able to determine, it's a different method of borrowing. we apparently are going straight to the fed and treasury. that is merely a transfer of federal funds. it still reclueses the liquidity in the banking system and being used to subsidize the new programs in the student loans. why does this become important? because s.b.a. goes directly into the same fund. there's no reason to use the bank. on what grounds do we use banks for farmers' loans? they can borrow cheaper than any bank and should eliminate any loans that are going anywhere in the private sector. mr. kline: yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. souder: the key question here is the constitutional authority of the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. then we have the federal reserve system that was set up to

provide a balance and stability in the funding of the united states. what we did not create is a national bank and this bill is the beginning of the creation of a national bank and no reason why every other leapeding category won't become a national bank too. that's what we are hearing. a massive government takeover in category after category. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to ms. titus. ms. titus: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3221. nevada has been hard hit by the economic downturn and facing record unemployment. the investments in this bill will help nevada's students and dislocated workers obtain the education and training they need to compete in the workforce and will do so in a fiscally responsible way. specifically, this bill invests more than $60 million in pell

grants for nevada's 3rd district, making more than 13,000 students eligible for aid. it provides $1 million a year for the next five years to bolster college access and completion support programs for students in nevada. it strengthens our community colleges by ensuring that nevada receives nearly $19 million to help finance projects to renovate and construct state-of-the-art facilities and invests in 21st century green schools by performing nevada's school districts with $21 million for smool modernization, renovation and repairs to create more energy-efficient teaching and learning climates. the implementation of which will put the people of nevada to work. this bill includes an amendment that i offered to establish an advisory counsel to the

secretary of education. quality education is the key to prosperity for individuals and for our country. so i urge your support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i yeed three minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. biggert: i rise in opposition to this bill. 60 years ago, the only student loans available were private loans. unfortunately, the system left out many students with either limited financial resources or poor or nonexist ent credit. in 1965, congress created the family education loan program which has been successfully administered and regulated, federally-backed student loans. but president clinton decided to create a new federally run program to provide student loans at public option. just under one-third of colleges

have chosen the public option, also known as the direct loan program. democrats have decided that by leveraging the borrowing power of the federal government which congress has more aptly demonstrated they can score it by c.b.o. the government's size and ability to raise taxes at any time to pay off its debt, it can borrow money at a cheaper rate than private banks by requiring all students that use student loans to borrow directly from the government, this bill allows the government to make a greater profit while students count it as a cost savings and then spend it on other educational priorities. it's interesting that after the government student loan public option failed to gain widespread acceptance, the other side proposes to eliminate all other choices so students are forced into the public option. the other side of the aisle has

proposed another public option that will supposedly save money to underpay doctors and hospitals which forces private plan owners to make up the difference. in a few years, the public plan may be the only affordable option available to most americans. i don't want a single-payer health care system nor student loan program. 83% of americans are satisfied with their current health care, over 2/3 of all colleges have elected to go with the privately administered program. we should let colleges continue to select the student loan program that works best for their students not the ones chosen by the bureaucrats in washington. i urge a no vote to make sure that student loan public option is not the only option. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes

to ms. chu. ms. chu: as a professor for over 20 years, i know firsthand how important community colleges are to helping hard working americans achieve their dreams. about one out of every two college students attends a community college and they are some of the hardest workers i have ever met. my students came from all walks of life. they were immigrants, single moms and laid-off workers and many of the students were the first in their families to go to college. community colleges are the backbone of our nation's workforce, providing students with technical training to fill our nation's most critical fields. they fit the needs of all students and backgrounds. the investments truly reflects the role community colleges play in our economy. $7 billion is provided to

re-invigorate the community college experience to improve instruction, initiate job counseling and create programs for students on the weekends, evenings and online. $2.5 billion is provided to renovate community college facilities and allow them to accommodate growing enrollment and provide students with modern facilities so they are better prepared when they graduate. in an increasingly competitive world economy, america's economic strength depends upon the education and skill of its workers. this bill will help us to meet that challenge. thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: may i inquire as to how much time is remaining, please? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 16 1/2 and the

gentleman from california has 15 1/2. mr. kline: thank you. at this time, i would like toll yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: this is a case study on how a public option becomes a public monopoly in a 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 >> today, headlines and calls are next on "washington journal." the house continues to work on the student loan bill, live at 10:00 eastern. and in one hour, we will be joined by the co-chairman of the progressive caucus in the house. at 8:30 eastern, the president of the american enterprise institute offers his assessment of the obama administration. we will take your questions of the obama administration. we will take your questions