Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2117) to prohibit the Department of Education from overreaching into academic affairs and program eligibility under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 563 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2117, which repeals the Department of Education's State authorization regulation and the Federal definition of a credit hour.

I think most people on both sides of the aisle would agree that our higher education system is the envy of the world. The bill we will consider today, H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, passed the House Education and Workforce Committee with bipartisan support on June 15, 2011, and I'm very, very proud of that.

A lot of Americans believe Members of Congress can't work together, but H.R. 2117 shows the opposite. I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues across the aisle to pass this legislation and hope we can find more ways to work together.

In 2010, the Department of Education issued a series of regulations purportedly aimed at improving the integrity of Federal student aid programs. Included in these regulations was a new ``State authorization'' rule that imposes a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate on institutions of higher education and infringes on the rights of States to regulate their higher education systems. Institutions are already required to be authorized by the State in which they're located. However, the Federal Department of Education was not satisfied leaving these decisions solely to States and added several Federal criteria to existing State authorization processes which would unnecessarily complicate the process for institutions and further burden already strapped State governments by increasing their workload.

In addition, it is unclear whether the regulation would require online education programs to be authorized in every State in which they have students. One online university reports the State authorization regulations could cost the institution $700,000 initially, plus an additional $400,000 annually. H.R. 2117 also repeals the Federal definition of a credit hour. This definition has historically been the jurisdiction of accrediting agencies and institutions. And again, the process has worked very well. There have been no complaints about it.

Last year, Excelsior College president John Ebersole testified in front of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training about this regulation, stating it inserts the Department of Education into academic judgments that should be made at the institution level and could destroy accelerated learning programs that allow students to complete their education more quickly.

These regulations will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional Federal overreach into higher education.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is a very hardworking Member of Congress, and I know that he pays close attention to what's going on in the Congress. I'm sure he simply forgot the fact that we have passed over 30 bills in the House and sent them to the Senate, and the Senate has not acted on them. These 30 bills--we've actually passed hundreds of bills--but those 30 bills, in particular, were focused on creating jobs. Now, my colleague seems to have forgotten that. He seems also to have forgotten the fact that the Senate is controlled by his colleagues in the Democratic Party, and that's where the problem is with jobs bills.

Also, most of those 30 bills that we've passed, or a great number of them, had energy components, Madam Speaker, which would help bring down the cost of gasoline, which would help improve our energy resources in this country. So we get a twofer for most of those bills. However, again, those bills are languishing in the Senate.

We have focused on creating jobs in the House, and one of the ways that we could truly create jobs is to reduce our deficit and reduce our debt. Republicans have been very much focused on that here in the House of Representatives, and in most cases, again, we get bipartisan support for those efforts.

In fact, the 30 jobs bills that have passed the House have had bipartisan support. So there are ways for us to work together.

I think the focus of my colleague is to increase spending, increase Federal Government involvement; and we know that that goes against the grain. We know from history that that does not improve the economy, does not create jobs.

We have an underemployment rate of over 15 percent, created beginning with the Democrats' takeover of the Congress in January of 2007, going through their 4 years. Then it really skyrocketed when President Obama was elected and was there for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

So I'd just like to remind my colleague that he goes back a little ways in history in talking about things that we have done here, but he fails to mention some of the effects of what he and his colleagues had.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there's so much to refute and so little time.

I would like to point out to my colleague that he mentions the Bush tax cuts. He conveniently forgets to mention that they actually should be called the Obama-Pelosi tax cuts because those tax cuts were extended in 2010 when President Obama was President and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of this House. So they should no longer be called the Bush tax cuts. They should rightfully be called the Obama-Pelosi tax cuts because even those two people understood that we should not raise taxes in the middle of a horrible recession--brought on, I might say, by our colleagues across the aisle.

I'd also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that-- let's assume that those tax increases were

allowed to go into effect. We would still have a $400 billion deficit in this country. We know that if we took away every penny of wealth that those millionaires and billionaires--that they so desperately want to tax, if we took away every penny of their wealth--not just increased their taxes, but took all their wealth away from them, it would amount to a little over $1 trillion. And then it wouldn't be available. There would be no tax increases available on those people in the future, and we still wouldn't have solved our problem.

Now, our colleagues across the aisle want to make it worse by continuing to spend money. I know my colleague is not on the Education Committee, and maybe he isn't aware of the fact that the Department of Education has the third largest share of our discretionary spending of all the Departments in the Federal Government. Only the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services have larger budgets than the Department of Education, but it's still not enough money. And what have we got to show for all of that money? Test scores, absolutely flat; no improvement since 1965 for over $2 trillion spent on education. Madam Speaker, I'm sorry, again, I can't allow my colleague to rewrite history in his own terms.

I'd also like to point out that when President Obama had both the House and the Senate in his control--60 votes in the Senate and 255 votes here--did he propose a jobs bill? No. He waited until he had been in office 3 years before he proposed a jobs bill.

My colleagues across the aisle were in charge of this body and the Senate for 4 years. Did they reauthorize the transportation bill? Did they reauthorize ESEA? No.

So I am sorry--I believe in that old saying, People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time, and I would advise my colleague from Massachusetts that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to point out again to my colleague that the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and also the Senate in January of 2007. When they did, the unemployment rate in this country was 4.5 percent. We were projected at that time to have a surplus in our budget of about $450 billion. In just 2 short years, the unemployment rate skyrocketed and the deficit skyrocketed. The Democrats were in control of Congress when the President took office. That's why he inherited a rotten economy. He didn't inherit a rotten economy from President Bush. He inherited a rotten economy from his own party, and he's frankly done nothing to make it any better.

I would also like to point out to my colleague across the aisle that the stimulus that he voted for, which the President promised would do so much for the economy, was $1 trillion, which is 9 years' worth of spending on national defense for the war in Iraq given his figures alone.

Madam Speaker, the American people have heard a lot recently about exploding college costs, the burden of student debt. President Obama highlighted these issues in his State of the Union address. Therefore, it is ironic that the Department of Education, which reports to him, is increasing the cost of higher education with unnecessary rules and regulations.

At the Subcommittee on Higher Education's hearing on college costs in November, we heard many suggestions on how colleges and universities could cut costs. We heard from colleges who have cut their operating budgets, offered expedited degree programs, and encouraged dual enrollment for high school students.

Students and families are struggling to make ends meet, and higher education institutions must find ways to cut costs. Imposing onerous rules and regulations at the Federal level is a disincentive to the schools to do that. It's also a major disincentive to one of the major innovations in education: distance learning. As I mentioned earlier, these unnecessary Federal regulations mean increased regulatory burdens for institutions, and in turn, greater compliance costs trickle down to increase expenses for students and their families.

The Federal Government's involvement in elementary and secondary education illustrates what happens when Washington gets too big. The most recent reauthorization of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, is a perfect example of good intentions at the Federal level adrift in a feckless sea of red tape and overregulation. This law is a classic example of Federal top-down attempts to improve education in America's schools. It's a noble goal, but it has completely failed.

If we can agree on anything, it is that our children should be well educated and prepared for a life of productive citizenship. However, the Federal Government's ability to accomplish this is in serious doubt. As history has shown time and again, Federal meddling has resulted in a one-size-fits-all

approach that neglects local concerns and produces a grotesque layer of wasteful bureaucracy. Right now my colleagues in the House Education and the Workforce Committee are working on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. While my colleagues across the aisle won't support all of our revisions, we did find consensus on charter school legislation last year. H.R. 2218 received bipartisan support in committee and passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 365 54 in September.

Although we may not always agree, I hope we can continue to find ways to work with our colleagues across the aisle to improve education in this country. Thomas Jefferson once said:

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to

reap, we should soon want bread.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill, which would repeal a small part of the burdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations that we're struggling with and take one step toward reducing Federal intrusion in higher education.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2117.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), chairman of the House Education & the Workforce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Madam Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Andrews for his pointing out that this is a very bipartisan bill, supported by a coalition of many groups.

I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 2117. Today's debate on the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act affords us a valuable opportunity to discuss challenges facing our higher education system.

I think that we all agree that we have a higher education system that's the envy of the world, and we all want to see it continue to enjoy the recognition that it enjoys now. But this also provides us an opportunity to show bipartisan support for the issue before us.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for understanding the danger to the higher education community that the regulations are presenting to us and that they will stall the efforts in our country to make higher education more accessible and more affordable to everyone in the country.

There's no denying the cost of college is skyrocketing. Last year, tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and universities increased 8.3 percent, even as inflation rose only by approximately 3 percent.

In recent months, students and families have urged Congress to take action on the issue of rising college costs. The administration has proposed several programs and initiatives that they claim will reduce student loan debt and rein in tuition. However, these initiatives only further entrench the Federal Government in the affairs of States and institutions. Rather than getting the Federal Government more involved in higher education, we can start by working together to remove harmful regulations that pile unnecessary financial burdens on colleges and universities.

The legislation before us today will eliminate two onerous regulations advanced by the Department of Education in October of 2010. The credit-hour and State authorization regulations will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional Federal overreach into higher education.

The State authorization regulation sets Federal requirements States must follow to grant colleges and universities permission to operate within the State, infringing on a State's ability to regulate in the way it chooses. For institutions that offer distance learning courses, this could mean meeting authorization requirements and paying authorization fees in all 50 States.

One online university reports the State authorization regulation could cost the institution $700,000 initially, plus an additional $400,000 required annually. Faced with this astronomical sum, the university could be forced to pass these costs along to students in

the form of higher tuition or new fees, or discontinue academic programs in some States. Either way, students will be the victims of this harmful regulation.

Higher education officials are also crying foul over a regulation that establishes a Federal definition of a credit hour. Last spring, Excelsior College President John Ebersole testified to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training about this regulation, stating it inserts the Department of Education into academic judgments that should be made at the institution level and could destroy accelerated learning programs that allow students to complete their education more quickly. As a result, students will have fewer opportunities to graduate early with a smaller loan burden, and schools will have less incentive to offer creative courses that promote learning outside the classroom.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to support this positive legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would just like to point out very briefly to my colleague, Mr. Bishop, that institutions have always had the authority to do institutionally approved equivalency. It isn't something that we needed the Federal Government to give us. As a former assistant dean, I did that all the time, approved institutional equivalence to courses. We have always had that approval. We didn't need the Federal Government to write it into rules and regulations.

Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that this bill, again, has bipartisan support.

We have a letter from the National Governors Association, which talks about the need to strengthen higher education, not give more Federal control; and a letter from the American Council on Education, signed by Molly Corbett Broad and 98 institutions from across the country, mostly public and private institutions.

This is not a for-profit or a public issue. This is all institutions of higher education who are concerned with this issue.

National

Governors Association,

Washington, DC, July 1, 2011.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker

Boehner, and Representative Pelosi: On behalf of the nation's

governors, we write in support of H.R.

2117, the ``Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education

Act.'' In June, the U.S. House Education and the Workforce

Committee passed H.R. 2117 on a bipartisan basis. We urge

Senate and House leadership to take action to approve this

important legislation to preserve the autonomy and strength

of America's higher education system.

H.R. 2117 would repeal two federal regulations issued by

the U.S. Department of Education that are highly problematic

for states, institutions of higher education, and our

students. Specifically, the bill would repeal the new federal

definition of a credit hour and a new requirement that erects

federal hurdles for states to authorize higher education

programs. Additionally, the bill prohibits future action by

the U.S. Department of Education to promulgate new federal

mandates, rules, or regulations with respect to a federal

definition of a credit hour.

Perhaps at no other time in history has the quality of our

higher education system been so vital to students and our

national economic interests. At the same time, across the

country, governors are pursuing innovative higher education

reforms to expand opportunities for students, create and

retain jobs, enhance state competitiveness, and expand

economic development. The new federal regulations could have

a chilling effect on innovation and productivity in higher

education.

Governors urge your support of H.R. 2117. We look forward

to working with you to continually strengthen our nation's

higher education system.

Sincerely,

Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon,

Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.

Governor Robert F. McDonnell,

Vice Chair, Education, Earl Childhood and Workforce

Committee.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comment of my colleague from California, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

No one in this body believes more in accountability than I do. However, increasing Federal control over our lives and over institutions of higher education is not the way to go. As Jefferson said--and I paraphrase--if we allow Washington to tell us when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

In order to make postsecondary education more affordable and accessible for students, we need to encourage innovation on our college campuses and allow institution leaders to develop and implement their own solutions to drive down the costs for students. However, this cannot happen if the Federal Government continues to attempt to micromanage our higher-education system by imposing more regulations.

The Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act repeals two onerous regulations that give the Federal Government unnecessary control over the academic affairs of colleges and universities. H.R. 2117 will ensure institutions can continue to develop innovative programs and course options to meet students' needs. We have letters of support from colleges, higher-education associations, and the National Governors Association on this legislation.

When the Education and the Workforce Committee held a markup of H.R. 2117 last summer, I was also pleased to have the support of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can continue to work together by approving this legislation to help students and colleges. I strongly urge

my colleagues to support the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Under the Higher Education Act, accrediting agencies are already required to have a system for individuals to give complaints about a college or a university. Under current practice, many States have well-established complaint processes that are serving students.

I am also concerned about the burden this regulation will place on States. While the economic situation in our country has shown modest improvements recently, States are struggling with huge budgetary challenges. They have limited staff and may not be able to handle new and unnecessary changes required under this proposal.

During a time when States, institutions, parents, and students are worried about ways to increase college affordability, I think it would be better for States to put their limited resources towards helping colleges and universities keep their tuitions down rather than adding another layer of State bureaucracy.

For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I will say once again that I believe this is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.

In the months since the Education and the Workforce Committee approved H.R. 2117, States and institutions have expressed concerns about interpretations of the clock-hour provisions in the credit-hour regulation. The regulation would prevent some programs from converting to a credit-hour program even though the conversion is permitted under State law. This change could alter the manner in which colleges and universities disburse Federal student aid, and it could harm students' abilities to progress sufficiently in their coursework.

My amendment would prevent the Federal Government from reinterpreting a State's laws or regulations to require credit-hour programs to convert back to clock-hour programs. The State should be the final judge of its own laws and regulations. This is a necessary step to correct the Department of Education's interpretation of a clock-hour program, and it will reaffirm our intent that the discretion for determining clock-hour programs should remain with States' accrediting agencies and institutions.

Madam Chairman, the amendment improves the underlying legislation and ensures colleges and students are protected from the harmful Federal intrusion into academic affairs. I urge my colleagues to lend their support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time, urging my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

This amendment is simply unnecessary, and I oppose it. Since the day the President took office, members of his administration have been issuing one heavy-handed regulation after another, primarily in the name of program integrity. However, the regulations simply bring increased Federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives and do not provide the kind of accountability that we need to have throughout our Federal Government. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, again, I want to state my opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the creation of a Federal definition of credit hour is a prime example of Federal overreach into an area that should be left to colleges and universities. This has worked from the beginning of our country. Our accrediting bodies, our colleges and universities, have done their jobs. There have been no complaints about this. There was one minor episode that occurred, one isolated event, and it was addressed through the accrediting body. This is a typical example of the overreach of this administration, and particularly the Department of Education.

If a need arose in the future to create a Federal definition or put some additional parameters around this section of the law, then it should be done through the legislative process where the implications of such a definition can be thoroughly examined.

Madam Chair, the Founders were very, very wise when they created the Constitution. They delineated exactly what the Federal Government should and should not be doing. The word ``education'' is no place in the Constitution, but article I, section 1 does talk about the House of Representatives and the Congress. That's where the Founders wanted the power to lie, where the authority is to lie. We are accountable to the people whom we represent. We are the people's House. We should not be abrogating our responsibility to unelected bureaucrats. I'm almost embarrassed that any Member would want to do that. We need this responsibility. We have the time to take care of it if there is such a need.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct; deans and assistant deans and others at colleges and universities have that authority right now. They've had it since the beginning of the creation of institutions of higher education, and we don't need the Federal Government meddling in places it has no business meddling.

I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the very positive comments that my colleague from Colorado has made about the underlying bill. I hope very much that he will support it. I appreciate, actually, serving with him on the Rules Committee and the often commonsense approaches that he brings to legislation that we're reviewing. However, I have to say reluctantly that I am opposing his amendment.

I don't think, again, that we need to ask the Department of Education to present more plans or more rules and regulations. It is certainly doing a lot to present rules and regulations that are totally unnecessary.

Next year we will have the reauthorization of the higher education bill. As I think most people know, the Speaker has asked all the committees, all the subcommittees to exercise their oversight responsibilities, and we are certainly doing that and will continue to do that. Therefore, I think that the gentleman from Colorado's amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, again, I appreciate the sentiments of my colleague from Colorado; but I would say to him that there is absolutely nothing to prevent the Secretary of Education from coming to the Education and Workforce Committee and presenting his ideas on where there is waste, fraud, and abuse. We would be more than happy to do that. Most of what we hear from the administration is spend, spend, spend, not how can we save money, but spend, spend, spend.

All of us want to make sure that every dime of taxpayers' money is well spent, and I can assure you that members of my committee want to see that the money is well spent, and we'll be working on that issue as we have been working on it, as will all the Republican majorities in the House do that.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my good friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another day in the House of Representatives and another day without a jobs bill. It's almost March, and my Republican colleagues who control this House still have not put a meaningful jobs bill on the floor. In fact, their best chance of passing a jobs bill could have been the highway reauthorization bill, but they screwed that up so badly that they had to yank it off the floor before an embarrassing bipartisan defeat.

So what are we doing today? Well, Madam Speaker, today, we're considering a bill targeting Department of Education regulations defining credit hours and setting minimum requirements that all higher education institutions must meet to be considered authorized by a State. We're targeting Department of Education regulations. We're not considering a jobs bill. There's no new, bipartisan highway bill. There's no bill that helps put cops, firefighters, and librarians back to work. And there's no new bill that helps train workers for the future.

The economy may be inching along, recovering slowly, but it still needs some help. We need a real, comprehensive jobs package. Instead, we just get a bill to dismantle a few regulations with no attempt to make our education system better. This is no way to run the House of Representatives.

Let's look at where we've been. They started off the new Congress with their health care repeal and replace, but we're still waiting on the replace part. To be clear, Republicans voted to take away health protections for seniors, they voted to take away health care protections for young people under 26, and they voted to take away health care protections for those with preexisting conditions, but they haven't proposed anything to replace those important provisions.

Since then, the Republican leadership has played legislative Russian roulette with our economy by holding the debt limit discussions hostage, by holding up the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extensions multiple times, and, most recently, by proposing the most partisan highway reauthorization bill I think in the history of this Congress.

On top of that, the Republican leadership has wasted our time by debating resolutions to defund National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood. We have debated resolutions making it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons across State lines. We've spent a good period of time on this House floor debating a bill to reaffirm our national motto. And soon we'll probably vote on a bill to restrict contraception, another attack on women's health by this Republican- controlled House.

Madam Speaker, there are more important things we should be doing, and, yes, education should be something we debate. I'm all for bills improving our education system. In fact, I'd welcome the opportunity to act in a bipartisan way to improve our school systems across the board. What we should be talking about today is college affordability. What we should be talking about today are ways to ensure that every single American student has access to a quality education. And despite what Republican Senator Rick Santorum might think, it's not snobby to try to make sure our students have access to the best education possible.

What we should be considering on the floor of the House today is legislation to extend the tax deduction for tuition and fees that families across this country rely on to help bear the incredible burden of rising tuition costs. This deduction, Madam Speaker, of up to $4,000 expired at the end of last year, and congressional action is required to extend this tax benefit past the 2011 tax year. But that is not what we are considering today on the House floor.

We should also be considering legislation to prevent the looming increase in subsidized Stafford student loan rates--from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent--that will occur if Congress does not act before July 1, 2012. These need-based loans are critical for students who might otherwise be unable to attend

college, and we should act now on legislation to stop the doubling of their interest rates. But, Madam Speaker, that is not what we are doing today.

Republican Governors, including the head of the Republican Governors Association, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, overwhelmingly support President Obama's college education agenda. But in the House of Representatives, all we see is an effort to attack and dismantle the President's initiatives and no attempt to actually make college more accessible and more affordable.

Madam Speaker, this is just another squandered opportunity by this Republican Congress. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. It is time for us to work in a bipartisan way to focus on how to get this economy moving again and to focus on jobs. And when we focus on education, let's focus on issues that will make a real difference in the lives of our young people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would point out to my friend from North Carolina that the problem with the transportation bill, which had the potential to create millions of jobs in this country, was not the United States Senate. The problem with the transportation bill was the extreme right here in the House of Representatives that insisted that their leadership bring to the floor one of the most partisan, one of the most awful transportation bills we have ever, ever seen.

The sad thing is that transportation bills used to be bipartisan. In fact, they've always been bipartisan, where Democrats and Republicans would come together. This bill was so partisan that even a number of Republicans couldn't support it. So they yanked it from the House floor because they were fearful of an embarrassing defeat.

A good, robust surface transportation bill is a good jobs bill. We need to invest in our infrastructure in this country. We need to invest in our roads and our bridges and in mass transit. The transportation bill that the Republicans brought to the floor gutted mass transit, just gutted it. So that's not a problem with the United States Senate; it's a problem with the leadership here in the House of Representatives.

My colleague talks about jobs. The President of the United States came to this Chamber and addressed the Nation on the need to create more jobs, on the need to help create a climate where more private sector jobs could happen. He submitted to us a plan. We cannot even get an up-or-down vote on the President's jobs plan. We can't even get a vote on it.

So when my friends talk about jobs, you know, we have this opportunity to at least vote on a jobs bill. If you don't want to vote for jobs, that's one thing; but at least give us the opportunity to vote up or down on it.

Just one other thing about the deficit and the debt. I don't know of a single economist who would disagree with the statement that this debt crisis that we're currently in began with the passage of the Bush tax cuts, which were not paid for. Then the prescription drug bill--that was a lot more expensive than my Republican colleagues advertised-- wasn't paid for. Add on to that two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, not paid for. The last time this country didn't pay for a war was when we borrowed money from the French to fight the British. I mean, we're going to war and asking the brave young men and women who serve in our military to put their lives on the line, and we're not even willing to pay for it. So that's how we got in this mess.

Add to that the greed on Wall Street which brought this economy to a halt, and here we are trying to struggle to get our economy back on its feet. But I'm going to tell you that we're not going to get this economy back on its feet unless we invest in the American people, unless we invest in education, unless we invest in our infrastructure, unless we invest in medical research, unless we invest in the innovation economy so that we can compete in the global economy in the years to come.

So I don't want to hear any lectures about deficits and debt. It is not even credible for my friends on the other side to point the finger on that, given the fact that when Bill Clinton left office we had record surpluses. We know how we started in this decline, and now we need to figure out a way to dig ourselves out.

So, again, I wish we were debating a transportation bill on the floor of the House today. I wish we were debating a bill to be able to address the fact that interest rates on student loans are going to increase unless we do something. We ought to make education more affordable for people. No one in this country who wants a college education ought not to get one because they can't afford it.

Those are the things we should be talking about here today. Instead, they pulled the transportation bill and we're doing this today. And we'll be out of here on Thursday before noon, I'm told. The American people want us to work on their behalf.

I regret the fact that this bill, however well-intentioned, to me is not the legislation we should be debating right now. This is not the urgent need. We ought to be talking about jobs; and my friends on the other side of the aisle, when it comes to jobs, have an absolutely lousy record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me respond, Madam Speaker, by reminding my colleagues that when President Obama became President of the United States, he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. My colleagues don't like to hear that, but that's just the facts.

This has been a very difficult time not only for the U.S. economy but for the global economy. The President has been trying with little or no help from this House to get this economy back on the right track. The good news is that in spite of all the obstructionism here in the House of Representatives by my Republican colleagues, the economy is slowly but surely getting better little by little.

We could help that if we actually talked about jobs and actually voted on bills that were about investing in people and creating jobs, putting people back to work. We could accelerate this recovery, but the obstructionism continues. I should point out, Madam Speaker, that those of us on the Democratic side have nothing against rich people, millionaires or billionaires. It's fabulous that in this country people can accrue enormous wealth. Where we have problems is when Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There's something fundamentally wrong with our tax system that puts all the burden on middle class families and basically provides a whole bunch of loopholes so that a lot of the wealthiest people and a lot of the wealthiest corporations in this country can escape paying taxes.

I think what people want is fairness. It's not about soaking the rich; it's about fairness. I'm going to tell you this tax system that we have right now isn't fair to middle class families at all. I would also say to my colleague, we talk about our deficits and we talk about our debt--don't exclude these wars that we're fighting. We borrow $10 billion a month for Afghanistan alone. We borrow; we don't ask anyone to pay for it. It goes on our credit card. How is that being responsible? How is that doing the right thing? I want these wars ended. I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and I want us to get out of Afghanistan as soon as humanly possible. But whether you're for or against these wars, you ought to pay for them. If you don't, it goes onto our credit card. We pay $10 billion a month for Afghanistan alone.

Madam Speaker, I would also just say that one of the ways to get out of this deficit and out of this debt we have right now is to grow the economy, to put people back to work. The more people working, they pay taxes, and we can put it toward lowering our debt. What I fear and what has bothered me about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is they have used the deficit as an excuse to go after programs like Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, programs that provide a circle of protection for people in our country, our senior citizens who are the most vulnerable. Rather than going down that way, and rather than debating the bill that we're debating today, I wish we were debating the President's jobs bill. I wish we were debating something that we could send over to the Senate that would help put people back to work, that would help this economy grow faster. That's not what we're doing. We're doing the same old same old, which is not much of anything. This is a place, unfortunately, where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Chair and Members of the House, we are now considering legislation that would significantly compromise the Department of Education's ability to oversee and safeguard our Federal investment in higher education and safeguard and protect the taxpayers who are paying for that investment in higher education.

This legislation couldn't be more ill-timed. In this tough budget environment, we should be concerned with how the Federal Government spends the limited resources we dedicate to Federal student aid. During the 2009 2010 school year, students relied on nearly $200 billion in Federal student aid to prepare for jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow. That's the money that they borrowed, and that's the money that was given to them in grants. If that money is not spent in a responsible way, and if it's not protected, it goes down the drain. It's lost forever, and the students are left with the debt.

Two years ago, the Department of Education's inspector general exposed a loophole that allowed a higher education institution to award more credits to get more student financial aid than was appropriate. They were charging for nine units a day that they said was graduate work. It turned out when the accreditors went through and looked at it, they deemed it was really the equivalent of 3 hours of credit work, and the level of work was at the undergraduate level. But they were able to charge the students, students had to borrow money, and at the end of the day they ended up with units that were worth nothing. Students attending this institution, many of whom were relying on Federal aid programs, were paying double the price because the school inflated the number of credits charged.

In response to the inspector general's findings and recommendations, the Department of Education promulgated rules defining a credit hour and providing other protections for students, including ensuring students have access to a complaint process if there's fraud involved. What the Department of Education did was necessary and narrowly targeted to address a very costly problem.

However, the bill before us today seeks to prevent the Department from protecting taxpayers and students. It would blow open the loophole that the inspector general concluded led to the inappropriate Federal spending. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today explicitly increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in our Federal student aid programs.

At a time when the higher education market is in so much flux, with new kinds of programs popping up around the country and online, this is the wrong time to open this loophole against the taxpayers' best interest.

The Department of Education should have tools to ensure that students who are eligible to receive Federal student aid are receiving it, and that the institutions that serve these students are upholding the integrity of the programs. This seems like a simple proposition: making sure taxpayers and students aren't getting ripped off.

This legislation eliminates those important consumer protections, and it does so under the banner of academic freedom. But the Department's protections do not interfere with academic freedom. Colleges and universities will continue to be free under the Department's rule to set whatever higher standards they see fit for their students as long as the accreditors agree. In this economy, millions of students rely on Federal student aid programs to make the college dream a reality. This is exactly why the Department of Education has moved to ensure greater accountability and taxpayer protection. And it's exactly why the legislation is misguided.

Now more than ever, we need accountability in higher education that works in the best interests of students who use Federal aid programs.

In the last Congress, Democrats worked to make sure that our student aid programs worked in the best interest of students, families, and taxpayers. We also worked hard to make higher education more accessible for families for whom degrees may have been out of reach.

One way we helped to make higher education more accessible and affordable and financially manageable for students and families was to lower the interest rates on loans. Specifically, we lowered the interest rate on need-based student loans to 3.4 percent, almost cutting the cost to those borrowers in half. The interest rate reduction is scheduled to end this summer. It will bounce back to where it was before the Democrats acted to reduce it. For the sake of our students, low rates should be extended. If Congress fails to act, interest rates on need-based student loans for more than 7 million students will double this July. This increase will cost an average borrower almost $2,800 in additional interest payments.

At a time when our economy is on fragile footing, we shouldn't be building more hurdles for young people to get the education and the skills they need to succeed. When interest rates are at historic lows, we should not be asking students to pay more on their student loan debt just because Congress failed to act.

Earlier this month, Mr. Hinojosa and I asked the committee's majority to take immediate action on this important issue. The President has called for action as well. But just like with other economic issues that are vitally important to the American people, those requests have been met with silence.

So today, instead of saving students from interest rate hikes, we are here debating a bill that will take away the tools the Department of Education needs to oversee and protect our investment in higher education, to protect those students who are borrowing money to go to college.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I urge the majority to take up a bill to make sure that interest rates don't double come July.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the senior Democrat on the Higher Education Subcommittee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

We have no further speakers, Madam Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I would just conclude that I think, when you consider the $200 billion that the taxpayers of this country provide through the Federal Government student aid programs to the institutions of higher education all across the country, all of different dynamics, that before we throw out what modest accounting system we have for trying to make sure that we buy value for each and every student who spends their money, the money that they borrow, the money that their parents borrow to try to provide them the educational opportunities so that they can participate in the greater American opportunity all across this country, we ought not to be throwing this system out.

As Mr. Bishop pointed out, this is a minimum requirement. It's a requirement that many people will recognize. When you sign up for a three-unit course, very often you find you spend 3 hours a week in that class. If you sign up for a five-unit course, you're spending more time.

The question really becomes--now as we see a lot of different institutions mixing into this space and receiving and living off almost 85 to 90 percent of their revenues that come from the Federal taxpayers--do these courses really have value? Are they giving the student the value for which they're signing up?

The record is replete that in many instances that's not the case, that in many instances the students have been defrauded. In many instances, it was represented that this was all transferable to the State colleges and to the university systems when, in fact, it turned out not to be true.

I think that we ought to make sure that we don't throw out that current accounting system to make sure that taxpayers and students are getting value for the money that they spend and the money that they work hard to pay back at a time when we have nothing to take its place.

The idea now that in the future you need no accreditation in a State to start up an institution and then you have access to all of the revenues you can grab from the Federal Government makes no sense to me at all. We ought to have accountability in this system, and that accountability runs to the students and it runs to the taxpayers in this country. I would hope that we would reject this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just quickly, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, well, a lot of States are already doing this, but now we don't want to add a burden. This simply says the State has to have a process. If the State has a process, it's over, it's done. So why would we take away that voice in those States that don't have a process?

Let's make sure that students have a place to go. As we know, many of these financial scandals have been brought to us by students because they can't get redress anywhere else. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

This amendment is absolutely consistent with this legislation. What it does is just simply make it easier for any institution to maximize the amount of Federal aid they get.

Under this amendment, they would be able to choose whether or not they want to be a clock-hour or a credit-hour institution, and that would depend really on how they could game the reimbursement that's available to them again without checking whether or not this provision allows for the student to receive value for that money which they borrow to pay for their education. I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you.

I have an amendment at the desk. This will be amendment No. 5.

I have an amendment at the desk. The amendment is numbered No. 3.

Madam Chair, Congress should be the taxpayers' advocate to root out waste, fraud, and abuse wherever it occurs; and this is particularly true when it comes to student financial aid.

Both of my amendments pertain to this category of making sure we have the right structure in place to in one case incentivize and in another case have a strategy to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Every dollar we lose to fraud and waste is a dollar that's not invested in our young people, a dollar of deficit spending, of government spending that is not producing the desired outcome of education or youth preparation of our workforce for jobs in the 21st century and improving our economic strength.

If we are eliminating some of the basic protections that are categorically applied under the bill, it's very important that we require institutions that are failing students to prove their value. And if schools have a chronically low graduation rate, a low completion rate or a high loan default rate they, in fact, should be required to be recognized by the State in which they are operating as a backstop against fraud, waste, and abuse to ensure that the students' complaints and questions are at least heard by their own State if they believe that they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by a college or university.

That's what my amendment would do. It would provide an incentive for colleges and universities to produce better outcome for students.

In both of my remarks, I am going to be talking a little bit about Carnegie units and how we determine time. Frankly, this bill is a very limited piece. What we need to do more broadly when we reauthorize the Higher Education Act is really look at outcome-based measurements for learning in higher education.

I think the Secretary, with his rules regarding gainful employment, provided some useful indicators around outcome-based measurements. There are many others that we should look at. That part of what we need to accomplish is freeing good-performing institutions up from the input restraints, the input barriers.

If they can effectively teach something that normally takes 2 hours in 5 minutes, that institution should be rewarded for that and encouraged to do that.

What a great way to invest our taxpayer money in some innovative institution of higher education that has figured out how to get 2 hours of legacy Carnegie credit into 5 minutes of rapid instruction. What a wonderful accomplishment, and I am hopeful that that and more can be accomplished.

My amendment would provide an incentive for colleges and universities to produce better outcomes. Where they are not performing, they would be subject to their State. Where they are performing, they would have the additional flexibility under this act, and I think that that's something we should encourage in higher education.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, in what other government program would we somehow say it's all right to keep fuddling taxpayer money without accountability. Specifically, my amendment would retain State authorization requirements for institutions that have below-average graduation rates, below-average annual completion rates and above- average loan-default rates, free up the good-performing institutions to experiment and not holding them accountable to the Carnegie units that continue to reach out and prevent innovation in the education sector.

I believe the regulations are reasonable and a relatively low burden on colleges. I think by providing this incentive we could make sure that universities and institutions of higher education that are good custodians of our public dollars are freed up to engage in the kind of innovation that can produce a 21st-century workforce and drive education innovation into the new century. Those that continue that have below-average graduation rates, completion rates, and high default rates will make sure that there is a recourse, a recourse with their States, for those institutions.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 5.

I have an amendment at the desk. It's amendment No. 5.

Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 5 at the desk.

Madam Chair, I think that the gentlelady from North Carolina has put together a good bill. It has some good parts and some bad parts. I am very hopeful that she will accept this amendment.

I believe that the intent of the bill, specifically around making sure that we don't have an overarching implementation of Carnegie units--and again, where does this stem from? It stems from a U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General report that found that there is not an established definition of credit hour or minimum requirement. The Secretary, working within those constraints, tried to provide a definition. I don't think that is a productive road to go down, so I strongly support the general thrust of this bill.

But where we need to move is toward outcome-based measurements. We have this same discussion in K 12 education as well. And the conclusion that I've come to, and I've come to the same conclusion in higher education, is we need to free institutions up with regard to the inputs to promote innovation and make sure that we hold institutions accountable for the outputs where taxpayer money is at stake.

One component of the bill that I hope the gentlelady from North Carolina can work with me on in accepting this amendment, and I think it is a very pragmatic amendment that would improve the bill, since we are removing many of the specifics that currently combat waste, fraud, and abuse--and I don't think we want to combat waste, fraud, and abuse by applying an overly rigid hour-is-an-hour standard with no

wriggle room because what we care about is whether kids are learning, not whether they spend 5 minutes or 2 hours doing it. I've talked to folks who use apprenticeships, who use online education, and we should hold them accountable for results where there is taxpayer money at hand, but at the same time we want to make sure that there's a backstop for what I think folks on both side agree exist, which is waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. What my amendment would do is replace the specifics of these regulations with a directive to the Department of Education to come up with an alternative plan that protects taxpayer dollars and students' rights.

This would make sure that we can deal with many of the issues raised by the inspector general, not by providing an overly arching and rigid definition of time that's a necessary part of education but, rather, by requesting and requiring that the Secretary come up with ideas that are consistent with the future of education towards combating waste, fraud, and abuse.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think that, again, my amendment would provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate alternative higher- education settings. The reason we're talking about rules and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse is not somehow the government is going someplace that's unwarranted; but these are Federal student loans, these are Federal programs we're talking about. We do not want taxpayers to be ripped off, and we do not want students to be ripped off. I believe that directing the Secretary to come up with an alternative plan to the one we're stripping out would go a long way toward accomplishing that.

And I agree with the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Fundamentally, many of these issues need to be discussed during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act; and I hope that she will join me at that point, yes, on freeing up the inputs-based measurements, but equally, if not more important, making sure we hold the recipients of taxpayer- funded programs accountable for the outcomes.

And there is no perfect outcome-based measurement--we know this from K 12 education as well--but even a mediocre one is better than none. And I think it will fall upon this Congress to do that. I think that this bill facilitates that discussion; but should it become law, I would certainly hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can join me in supporting this commonsense directive to ensure that waste, fraud, and abuse do not enter the system along with freeing up innovation and thoughtful new ways to educate kids.

I urge my colleagues to join me on voting ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank Mr. Miller for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this legislation, and I'm going to focus my remarks on the credit-hour piece of the legislation.

The Department of Education has established a minimum standard for the credit hour. This is being derided as taking away institutional flexibility. It's being described as a Federal overreach. It's being described as onerous. It's being described as dangerous.

Let's read the regulation. The regulation says that a credit hour is an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that is--here's the part I want us to pay attention to--an institutionally established equivalency that reasonably approximates not less than 1 hour of classroom instruction for 15 weeks per credit hour.

An institutionally established equivalency; that places the responsibility for determining what a credit hour is where it belongs-- with the faculty and with the accreditor of that particular institution, so long as it complies with a minimum Federal baseline or minimum Federal standard.

Now, with respect to overreach, with respect to how dangerous this is, with respect to how onerous this is, let's be clear: this very definition of a credit hour has been the law in the State of New York since 1976. We have some pretty good institutions in New York that have managed to survive even in the face of this so-called ``onerous'' regulation. Columbia University is one of the best universities in the world; so, also, is NYU; so, also, is Fordham; so, also, is Syracuse. This has been the law.

I administered a school in the State of New York. Our cost of compliance for complying with the credit-hour regulation was exactly zero, and we were able to create all kinds of innovative programs--a semester at sea, cooperative education, internships, truncated courses that met in accelerated time formats for 4 and 5 weeks--all because we established an institutional equivalency that was agreed to by our faculty and agreed to by our accreditors. That's all this regulation does.

So for us to describe it as if it's going to end higher education as we know it and it's going to stifle innovation and be onerous to students and add to the length of time for their degree program simply is not true. We have a 35-year experience in New York that says that this regulation works just fine.

Lastly, let me say we define an academic year as consisting of 24 to 36 credit hours. That's what the Federal Government says. We say that you need to take at least 6 credit hours in order to be minimally eligible for financial aid, and yet we don't define the credit hour. So we base a great many of our judgments on what a credit hour is, yet we don't define it.

Let's vote against this piece of legislation.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment simply strips the language from the underlying bill that permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule that defines a credit hour, permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule.

And I would suggest that this would represent very, very poor public policy. We provide over $200 billion in Federal student aid, either in the form of grants or in the form of guarantees; and the basis, at least in part, on which we provide that is students' adherence to the minimum number of credit hours that they must take and institutions' adherence to that which they define as a credit hour.

We have no idea what's going to happen 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now with respect to whether institutions will be in compliance. We have no idea whether or not shortcuts will be taken. We have no idea with the ongoing proliferation of online instruction and other nontraditional means of instruction whether or not we will be dealing with a higher education universe that is maintaining the appropriate quality controls and maintaining the appropriate protections against the kind of abuse that would ensue if students are able to take courses where the credit hour is not as demanding as reasonable people would suggest it would be, where the semester might be shorter as a result of lack of adherence to what a reasonable definition of a credit hour is. To put the Secretary of Education in a position where he or she would be unable to act in that circumstance is simply unwise, and to impose on the Congress the responsibility to fix a situation that could be much more easily fixed by regulatory or administrative action is also unwise.

So this is very straightforward. It is very simple. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would simply point out that my friend from North Carolina continues to use words like ``intrusion'' and ``overreach''; and yet a few moments ago, in response to comments I had made during general debate, she said that as an academic dean, the gentlelady was able to exercise discretion and define a credit hour and define a course and define a semester. There is absolutely nothing in the regulation that the Department of Education has promulgated that would prevent the gentlelady or someone in her position from continuing to exercise that discretion because in the regulation it says that institutionally determined equivalents are perfectly permissible and perfectly acceptable. So the discretion that the gentlelady quite correctly utilized while she was a dean remains in the toolbox of every college administrator in this country.

And so I would urge defeat of the underlying bill, I would urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.