Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Today, we are taking up the very serious issue of the constitutionality of separation of powers, but the rule also covers the deregulation of pesticides. I think that should be noted here as well, because one is as ridiculous as the other.

This is a ridiculous lawsuit of one House of Congress seeking to sue the President for not implementing a law they have tried everything to kill.

The majority has wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the real problems of the United States.

Instead of tackling climate change, ensuring that college is affordable, and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure, the majority wants to sue the President for doing his job. The record is clear. This has been judged the most recalcitrant and useless Congress in history.

This lawsuit will be a monumental waste of time, energy, and funds. This is a political maneuver timed to peak as Americans go to the polls in November for the midterm elections. This lawsuit is a drumbeat pushing Members of the Republican Party to impeachment.

Last week in the Rules Committee, Democrats attempted to amend this resolution. In the pursuit of transparency and accountability, we offered

several amendments that addressed the cost of this lawsuit.

The majority in the Rules Committee voted down every amendment that the minority offered. With this closed rule, we have set a new record, by the way, for the most closed rules in a single Congress. On the committee level, on the House floor, and in the minds of our citizens, this is a closed process, a partisan maneuver, and nothing but a political messaging opportunity.

This lawsuit is a gimmick, which even legal scholars of the majority's own party say will fail, including the conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C. McCarthy. He wrote about this lawsuit and said it is:

A classic case of assuming the pose of meaningful action

while in reality doing nothing.

Democrats in the House and the American people could not agree more.

The House minority has three main concerns about this lawsuit: first, the cost; second, the partisan nature; and third, the lack of legal standing and the implications for our constitutional separation of powers.

First, the cost. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which not a single Republican voted for, the majority has mounted a Herculean effort trying to repeal, dismantle, and discredit it. It seems that they will spare no expense attempting to take health care away from millions of Americans.

Not only did they shut down the government to deny Americans health care, it took from this economy $24 billion to pay for that shutdown. In addition, with over 50 votes on the House floor to undermine the Affordable Care Act, the majority has spent more than $79 million on that voting effort.

When the minority of the Rules Committee requested from the majority the proximate costs of this lawsuit, we got a response that read: ``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.''

Cost is not a hypothetical question, because there are real consequences for our country.

The minority and the American people still would like to know how much will this cost and where will the money come from. We asked directly through letters and by offering amendments to the resolution, and we have gotten no clear answers.

What cuts will come from what programs that Americans depend on to pay for this ridiculous lawsuit? The majority will spend money on more than 13 hearings, 50 briefings, 25,000 pages of documents produced, and allocated $3.3 million for a Select Committee on Benghazi. All that money for Benghazi, but they won't give us a concrete answer on where the funds will originate to pay for the lawsuit.

In a similar lawsuit, when Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, they paid their lawyers $520 an hour. I choke over that figure. At that rate, we would have paid over $1 million a year for a 40-hour workweek. If we are spending that kind of money, we ought to do it out in the open, and that amendment was defeated on party lines.

The majority does not intend to make this lawsuit anything but another opportunity to attack the President, which leads me to our second concern: its partisan nature.

As I said, no Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. After strenuous efforts to take health care away from millions of Americans, the majority plans to file a lawsuit that, if successful, would result in the faster implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The inconsistency is breathtaking. Let me reiterate that. After not a single vote for health care, with over 50 votes to kill it, they are suing the President of the United States because he did not implement it faster. I don't know if anybody can make sense out of that, but all this effort to derail a law that is working. Just 2 days ago, The Washington Post reported in an article, titled ``Medicare finances improve partly due to ACA, hospital expenses, trustee report says,'' that the Affordable Care Act has extended the life of Medicare by 4 years because of the savings, and that will only get better.

I would like to insert this article from The Washington Post dated July 28, 2014, into the Record.

[From the Washington Post, July 28, 2014]

Medicare Finances Improve Partly Due to ACA, Hospital Expenses, Trustee

Report Says--Outlook for Social Security, However, Remains the Same

(By Amy Goldstein)

Medicare's financial stability has been strengthened by the

Affordable Care Act and other forces that have been subduing

health-care spending, according to a new official forecast

that says the fund covering the program's hospital costs will

remain solvent until 2030--four years later than expected a

year ago.

The annual report, issued Monday by trustees overseeing the

government's two largest entitlement programs, found little

change overall in the finances of Social Security. The

trustees warned, however, that the part of Social Security

that pays monthly benefits to people with disabilities is

especially fragile and, without changes, will start to run

short of money for benefit checks in 2016.

Taken together, the findings provide a nuanced portrait of

the fiscal future of these two programs, which act as

cornerstones of social insurance--and a buffer against

poverty--for older people and other vulnerable Americans. The

trustees welcomed the improved financial prospects for

Medicare but acknowledged that the underlying reasons are not

yet entirely understood. At the same time, they exhorted

Congress to take steps to prevent both programs from

collapsing in the long term.

``Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain

projected long-run program costs,'' the trustees said in a

message accompanying their reports.

For the past few decades, Democrats and Republicans have

fretted about the unsustainability of the Medicare and Social

Security programs. They have appointed high-level

commissions, proposed legislation and tried to stoke public

fears that benefits might not be available for their

parents--or themselves. But Congress has not restructured

either program to withstand long-term fiscal pressures, and

the issue has been absent lately from the agendas of both

parties.

At a news briefing Monday, Cabinet secretaries and two

public trustees reiterated the call for Congress to act.

``[We] must make manageable changes now, so we do not have to

make drastic changes later,'' Treasury Secretary Jack Lew

said.

``It is getting very late in the game'' to find a

bipartisan consensus, said the trustees' only Republican,

Charles P. Blahous III, who worked on Social Security and

other economic issues as an aide to President George W. Bush.

``A solution much further delayed is a solution much less

likely to occur.''

Both programs are being strained by the nation's

demographics. As more baby boomers reach retirement age,

people 65 and older are making up an increasing percentage of

the country's population, with proportionally fewer working-

age Americans chipping in payroll taxes.

Medicare's finances are facing other pressures, too,

including from scientific advances that lead to new treatment

and therapies, the report said.

The trustees' forecast said that the trust fund that pays

for hospital care--Medicare Part A--has been strengthened

significantly, with the date when it is predicted to start

running short of money extended by 14 years since the

Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. The report also

predicted that the insurance premiums that older Americans

pay for the portion of Medicare that covers doctors' visits

and other outpatient care would probably remain the same for

a third year in a row.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell

said that it is impossible so far to gauge how much of that

trust fund's improved fiscal health was due to the health-

care law as opposed to other changes in the health-care

system that are slowing cost increases. She said both had a

role. The ACA, for instance, is slowing payments to Medicare

Advantage, the part of the program in which older Americans

join private health plans, while other provisions focus on

curbing hospital readmissions.

The report said that spending on hospital stays last year

was less than expected, although trustees noted that analysts

have not determined whether this trend reflected broad

economic trends or stemmed from specific changes in the

practice of medical care.

If Medicare is unchanged by 2030, the year it is projected

to become insolvent, it would then be able to pay 85 percent

of its beneficiaries' hospital bills, a proportion that would

slip to 75 percent by 2047, the forecast said.

For Social Security, the trustees predicted that the

program's two separate trust funds will, combined, have

enough money to pay all the retirement and disability

benefits it owes until 2033, the same time horizon as in the

last two annual forecasts. They forecast that Social Security

will be able to afford checks for retirees and workers'

survivors until 2034--nearly two decades longer than the part

of the program that pays disability benefits.

Social Security's expenditures last year exceeded its

income from payroll taxes, as it has each year since 2010,

the report says, although interest so far is making up the

difference.

This year, President Obama backed away from an idea he

broached in his budget last year to save money for Social

Security by changing the basis on which inflation is

calculated for the program. But his 2015 budget proposal

reprises the idea of charging more for care under Medicare to

older Americans who are relatively well-off--an idea that

Congress has not touched this year.

In calculating Medicare's future finances, the trustees for

the first time acknowledged that Congress has each year

overridden scheduled reductions in Medicare doctors' fees--

cuts that, if adopted, would lower payments for doctors'

services by 21 percent in 2015. In the latest report, the

trustees assumed that such cuts would continue to be waived.

The trustees noted that their new forecast was released 49

years to the week that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the

law that enacted Medicare, a major component of the Great

Society programs of the mid-1960s. Social Security was a

response to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Last year, Medicare insured 52 million Americans, including

43.5 million age 65 and older and nearly 9 million younger

people with disabilities. Social Security last year provided

benefits to 41 million retired workers and their families, 6

million survivors of workers who died, and 11 million

working-age people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll from the Commonwealth Fund found 77 percent of people were pleased with their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent satisfaction rate with the new plan that they have bought.

The House majority is going to spend unknown millions of dollars coming from somewhere to stymie a law their own party Members support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this article from Talking Points Memo, citing a survey from July 10, 2014, entitled: ``Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought ObamaCare Coverage Like Their Plans,'' into the Record.

[From Talking Points Memo Livewire, July 10, 2014]

Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought Obamacare Coverage Like Their Plans

(By Dylan Scott)

About three-quarters of Republicans who obtained health

insurance under Obamacare are satisfied with their coverage,

according to a survey published Thursday by the Commonwealth

Fund.

The survey found that 74 percent of Republicans said they

were very or somewhat satisfied with their new coverage.

Overall, 78 percent of Americans said they were satisfied: 73

percent of those enrolled in a private plan and 84 percent of

those enrolled in Medicaid.

There was a minimal difference between the previously

uninsured and the previously insured: 79 percent of the

former were satisfied and 77 percent of the latter were,

according to the survey by the group, which is generally

supportive of Obamacare.

Those surveyed also reported being better off: 58 percent

said that they were better off now than they were before,

while 9 percent said they were worse off. And 81 percent said

that they were optimistic that their new coverage would help

them get the health care they need.

Some of the survey's broader findings, on the overall drop

in the number of uninsured and the percentage of Obamacare

enrollees who were previously uninsured, generally fell

within other findings. It found that the uninsured rate for

adults under 65 fell from 20 percent to 15 percent since

Obamacare enrollment began. It also found that 63 percent of

Obamacare enrollees had been previously uninsured.

The survey, conducted from April 9 to June 2, covered 4,425

U.S. adults.

Mr. Speaker, it is also obvious to the American people that this is a political stunt. A recent poll, commissioned by CNN, shows 57 percent of us oppose this lawsuit. That is right: the majority of this country recognizes it for what it is: a political scheme. They recognize that there is no basis for this lawsuit.

And our third concern is the legitimacy of standing, in the legal sense, as well as the constitutional principles that the Supreme Court has said limit the kind of disputes that a court can consider.

Perhaps the best authority for the inadequacy of the majority's claim to standing is one of the majority's own witnesses at our Rules hearing, the Florida International University College of Law professor, Elizabeth Price Foley. Professor Foley wrote in a February article:

When a President delays or exempts people from a law--so-

called benevolent suspensions--who has standing to sue him?

Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don't, by

definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for

standing.

That's why, when President Obama delayed various provisions

of ObamaCare, his actions cannot be challenged in court.

Congress probably can't sue the President, either.

If the majority's own witness doesn't think that Congress has standing, what judge will?

Finally, one of the most dangerous possible consequences of this lawsuit would be an unprecedented transfer of powers from the legislative to the judicial branch.

This concern for maintaining the separation of powers as it was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers is exactly why courts have established what is called the ``political question doctrine.''

It says that courts should stay out of fights between the other two branches of the Federal Government and should defer to the other branches when the Constitution says the matter to be resolved is the responsibility of the President or the Congress. That couldn't be clearer, Mr. Speaker.

The mismanagement of our Nation's funds is deplorable, the partisan nature of the stunt is a abundantly clear, and our constitutional balance of powers is in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the closed rule which, yet again, distorts the legislative process and stifles debate even on the most important issues.

Mr. Speaker, we will ask the House to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up four bills: first, the Bring Jobs Home Act; second, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which pays women equal to men for the same job; third, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10; and finally, the Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which makes it easier for young people to pay their college loans.

These are the priorities of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and align themselves with those priorities instead of this lawsuit, which is surely a waste of time, money, and resources.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the fact that only Democrats are speaking of impeachment.

Just today, The Hill newspaper announced that a most respected and admired member of the Republican Conference said of the lawsuit, spearheaded by John Boehner:

Theater is a show. Why not impeach instead of wasting $1

million to $2 million of the taxpayers' money? If you are

serious about that, use what the Founders of the Constitution

gave us.

He was referring to impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I will place into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Sessions and between Ranking Member Brady and Chairwoman Miller of the House Administration Committee. This exchange of letters catalogs our repeated requests for an estimate of the projected cost of this partisan enterprise and the identification of accounts that will be cut to pay for it. As you will note, the responses to our letter provide no information about the cost estimate and no indication from where the funds will come.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2014.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner: Within the draft resolution to

initiate a lawsuit against the President, we learned that you

intend to seek authorization to ``employ the services of

outside counsel and other experts.'' Such authority clearly

falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration, and as such, I am writing to express my

expectation that Republicans will be open and transparent

about the use of taxpayer money in pursuing this highly

dubious and partisan lawsuit.

As evidenced by House Republicans' conduct in the $2.3

million failed effort to defend the discriminatory and

unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in the courts,

strong bipartisan oversight is clearly necessary in any plan

to hire outside counsel. The Republican majority must not be

permitted to use taxpayer dollars as a slush fund to award a

no-bid contract to high-priced, politically connected

Republican lawyers without any transparency or accountability

to the House or the American people.

Our opposition to the deeply partisan basis of your lawsuit

in no way diminishes the need for normal oversight of the

terms of any contract signed by Republican Leadership

obligating the House to pay millions of dollars to private

attorneys. Therefore, I expect you will honor regular order

through my committee, even with this highly irregular

lawsuit.

The American people deserve to know how and where their tax

dollars are being spent, and House Administration Committee

Democrats insist on regular consultation and transparency in

the selection criteria and process, cost, and lobbying

connections of any counsel or experts hired in the name of

the House.

Sincerely,

Robert Brady,

Ranking Member,

Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, if people are supposed to think that this is really a genuine concern by the House of Representatives and not a partisan gimmick, then why didn't the majority consult with Democrats or the Senate beforehand and say: We want to do this on behalf of Congress. Will you talk with us about participating?

That idea of joint participation is long gone from here, and I regret to say that.

But that didn't happen. It was cooked up in some meeting where we probably discussed how to win back the Senate, or whether to impeach the President, or how the campaign fundraising is going and so forth.

You are not fooling anyone. This is about politics and the elections, and you know it and I know it and, polling shows it, all the people in the country know it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to ask: Why did the majority shut off all amendments to this resolution? And more importantly, why have they even blocked a traditional motion to recommit? That is something that we generally always give to the minority on both sides of the aisle, a motion to recommit.

Now, I think the reason is--you know, being somewhat cynical, and I will admit to that after what we have been through here--but the cynic would say that they don't want us to have a motion to recommit because our side might bring up a motion, which it would be our privilege to do, that might put the Republican Members on record on impeachment. Now, I don't know that. We got no answer as to why we were not given the privilege of a motion to recommit.

But there is one thing we do know. We know that this lawsuit is going to cost unknown millions and will be an unconscionable waste. We know that that cost is going to come out of programs that have already suffered grievous cuts over the last few years and on which people oftentimes depend for their very lives.

We know that it is pretty partisan because the Democrats were never consulted at any point on this issue, and we know that it is flawed because experts have told us that there is no way in the world that the House of Representatives has any standing on this issue and that a good Federal judge will send it back to us almost immediately.

We know it is a distraction, and we know that what it distracts us from are the serious, serious issues that all of us hear about every day from our own constituencies.

Do you think anybody ever calls me up and says: Why don't we impeach the President or go after the President because it is raining today and it surely is his fault? No, we don't hear that.

I hear about, I am having a hard time getting a new job. I need help to pay for my child's education. I hear a lot of times, my daughter's unemployment benefits have run out. She is facing eviction. I don't know what I am going to do. I hear from people who talk about the children who have come to this country--many of them unaccompanied, by themselves--in an absolute inhumane wave of human suffering that we need to pay some attention to.

I know that out there today, we have had floods in my part of the country in upstate New York that have devastated entire water projects and sewer projects, and something needs to be done. But we won't do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and please vote ``no'' on the rule. This is one of the

most important issues that we have ever faced during our time in Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the two underlying bills, H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act of 2013, and H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. I do rise in opposition to the rule for reasons that I will go into regarding preventing us from addressing many of the major issues within public education and higher education.

While I am supportive of these two bills, I am disappointed that the House is not embarking on a full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We can nip around the edges in certainly a constructive way to reduce costs, as these bills do, to be helpful, but none of them are game-changers or, dare I say, even a substantial part of making college more affordable like we could through the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Since the last reauthorization in 2007, higher education has become more and more expensive. The cost of attending a university per student has risen by almost five times the rate of inflation since 1983. At the very time that an advanced degree is more important than ever for somebody to have a good job in today's increasingly complex global economy, it is getting further and further from the price range and affordability for American middle class families.

While a 4-year university isn't always the best choice, some form of postsecondary education is increasingly important--whether that is community college, whether it is a certification program--to be able to ensure that young people, and people of all ages, have access to a good-paying job in the 21st century workforce. Only by pursuing a full scale reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, soliciting ideas from Democrats and Republicans across the aisle, can we truly be able to help put college more in reach for students. As many of my colleagues from across the aisle say, we need to examine how or if many of the student loan programs only contribute to the increasingly high cost of college education. We need to take ideas from our side of the aisle, including some that I cosponsor regarding reducing textbook costs or looking at new and better ways that we can look at income- based repayment for student loans.

Through a comprehensive reauthorization, we can streamline payments by replacing our complicated student loan system with a simplified income-based program, which is part of a bipartisan bill that I sponsor with Congressman Petri called the ExCEL Act. We could also improve articulation and transfer agreements so that students can move quickly and efficiently towards a credential from less expensive community colleges, if necessary, to colleges that offer 4-year degrees.

Furthermore, Representative Hinojosa's open textbook legislation would help keep costs down so students can concentrate on their studies rather than having to work additional jobs just to be able to afford the textbooks. Finally, we can make sure that we improve accountability for colleges and universities that are not serving students well so that our limited Federal resources are used in a way to provide incentives to States and universities that support public education and they keep public education, higher education, affordable.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Higher Education Act, which this Congress does not appear to be moving forward on and this bill does not allow amendments to, our Nation's landmark kindergarten through 12th grade education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sometimes referred to as No Child Left Behind, is long overdue to be replaced with a new reauthorization.

And this week, I was pleased to hear the President signed another work product of this body, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, another long overdue, bipartisan bill to improve our workforce development system that many of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee have worked on for many years. That bill started in a partisan way. The first iteration on the House floor received zero Democratic votes. The compromise, however, received the support of every Democrat and nearly every Republican. It passed by a margin of 415-6.

Just a few months ago, we passed bipartisan bills to substantially improve the charter schools program and Federal investment in education research with a strong bipartisan vote. So, Mr. Speaker, this body has shown it can pass bipartisan Education and Workforce bills. These two bills coming before us today are additional examples of that. So why haven't we undertaken the hard work to make a full-fledged bipartisan effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind?

Like with the Workforce Investment Act, we had a partisan version come to the floor. Not a single Democrat voted for it, just as not a single Democrat voted for the first iteration of the Workforce Investment Act. Anybody can pass partisan legislation that no one else supports, but that is not a constructive step towards lawmaking. Lawmaking entails making the tough decisions, working with the other side to create a work product. Again, with WIA, we had a 415-6 vote. With No Child Left Behind, whether it is that high or not, let's get a majority of Democrats and Republicans working together to reauthorize it. They began that hard work in the Senate Health Committee, where they have a bipartisan education reform bill that they have not brought to the full floor of the Senate, but at least they began that work of working in a bipartisan manner towards replacing No Child Left Behind with a new Federal education law.

This bill which passed the House, the Student Success Act, the Republican-only education bill, was opposed by Democrats for many reasons. First of all, it would have locked in education funding at sequester levels. Secondly, it would have locked many of our critical programs that support STEM, literacy, and the arts, support English language learners, and left students trapped in failing schools with little recourse for action. It was opposed not only by Democrats but also by the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and also every major education organization.

This process was unlike all other previous efforts to reauthorize the ESEA, when under the strong leadership of my colleagues, like now- Speaker Boehner and Ranking Member Miller, Democrats and Republicans came together to strengthen and improve our education system. As Ranking Member Miller enters retirement, with his last year in the House, we need to learn from his success in building consensus and forging compromise, in keeping students across our country first to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck with our limited Federal investment and students and young people receive the skills they need to compete in the 21st century workforce.

I urge my colleagues to recognize that our opportunity to build on the success of No Child Left Behind, which shined a light on the achievement gaps for minority and low-income students, is now, more than ever, critical. But just as it had successes, it also had failures that are recognized across the aisle. The superficial formula for adequate yearly progress is defended by nobody, and yet continues to be the law of the land.

I hope that this body can come together, just as we have for WIA, for charter schools, for ESRA, just as we are doing for the bills we are considering today, to update and improve the ESEA. That is what our students deserve and what we were elected to do. Rather than let these bills we are passing today stand out as an aberration, let us build upon them, let them form momentum for higher ed reauthorization and ESEA reauthorization so we can begin the substantive work that the voters of this country have hired us to do.

Despite the fact that we are not considering a full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, despite the fact that we are not considering a full reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I am nevertheless pleased that we are considering H.R. 3136, a bill that I coauthored with Representative Salmon. This bill allows innovative colleges and universities to shorten the time and cost of earning a degree through self-paced programs based on learning rather than seat time. This innovation, called competency-based education, allows students to work at their own pace and earn credit by mastering the knowledge, rather than sitting in a seat and, let's be honest, sometimes not even being awake. This growing trend of innovation around competency-based education is particularly important because it provides a way to increase innovation and reduce the costs of a college degree.

Today's students come to college with different backgrounds and learn at different rates and different times of day. The competency-based education program allows an institution to tailor a program of study to an individual student. By measuring and assessing competencies, or what a student can demonstrate that they know, students are guaranteed to matriculate with the knowledge of the skills they need to master. Businesses will know what to expect upon hiring these students, and students will be incentivized to learn as quickly and as inexpensively as they can.

While the Department of Education currently has some latitude to explore this model through the experimental sites' programs, the current regulations need to be updated and streamlined to better support these innovative programs, which is what this bill does.

I am proud to say that in my district, institutions like Colorado State University's Global Campus are demonstrating that online public universities with competency-based programs can lead the way in attracting, educating, and graduating young learners and adult learners to succeed in the 21st century workforce. But CSU-Global and programs like it currently need to adhere to existing higher education structure, which limits the schedules of students and limits when students can achieve financial aid because traditional higher education is based on the Carnegie unit, or credit hour, rather than what the students learn.

As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, this project, this innovation that this bill will unleash is more crucial than ever. In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the growing trend towards distance education and the opportunity for students to learn online. Now once again, we have the opportunity to learn from, to study, and to innovate around competency-based education, to learn about the changes that we need to make to maintain quality, to reduce costs, and to increase the number of students that have access to these programs.

That is why I was proud to work with Representative Salmon, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Ms. Foxx on this legislation, which would permit institutions to waive certain regulations that stand in the way of them adopting a competency-based model. We will learn a lot. We will learn what works, and we will learn what doesn't work. They are both important as we seek to expand innovation across the higher education sector to reduce costs and increase quality.

This legislation will allow Congress and the general public to learn more about the opportunities that competency-based education offers for students to increase access and opportunity in higher education.

I am also pleased that the House is considering under this rule H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. Financial counseling is an important method for students to learn about the most effective and least expensive way for them to finance their higher education, both before, during, and after their college experience. Many students simply don't have the knowledge or the resources or the help to make sound decisions in their own interests about their opportunities to finance their postsecondary education.

To the degree that we don't provide a high quality standard of counseling, first-generation students in particular are the students who stand to benefit the most from improving access to higher education and they often lose out. H.R. 4984 makes many improvements to our financial counseling obligations under current law. The bill ensures that all students and parents who participate in the Federal loan program receive proactive counseling each year that is personalized to meet their own financial needs. Students will receive information about the terms and conditions of Pell Grants and various other loan programs. The bipartisan bill also directs the Secretary of Education to create and disseminate online tools to provide annual loan counseling, helping to bring our financial aid counseling system into the 21st century and put useful, relevant information into the hands of students.

One place in particular that financial counseling can play an important role is when determining whether to take out Federal loans or private student loans. Private student loans often have variable interest rates, as high or higher than 14 percent. They are not eligible for the important deferment, income-based repayment, or loan forgiveness options that come with Federal student loans, but half of private student loan borrowers borrowed less than they could have in Federal Stafford loans. So without realizing it in many cases, people are turning to the higher priced, less beneficial private market place when they still have unused capacity on the Federal student loan side. It is clear that there is an information gap and students need information about the terms and conditions of these loans.

That is why I am thrilled that this underlying bill contains an important part of my Know Before You Owe Act, which I first introduced last session and reintroduced this session, along with Representative Bishop and Representative Schwartz, to ensure that financial counseling includes additional disclosures on private education loans, with information about college financing options and warnings about riskier private loans to help students make informed decisions about their choices so that they get the best deal that is available to them under current law.

I am also pleased the underlying bill will improve exit counseling for student loan repayment. Unfortunately, many students default on what could otherwise be manageable levels of debt because they don't understand the payment options.

The ExCEL Act, which I mentioned earlier and introduced with Representative Petri, would make simple income-based repayment the default option, which will reduce paperwork and administrative overhead and prevent this unfortunate occurrence and make payments more affordable for students.

The bill will help students understand that they have many options to pay back their loans and help them make the choice that is best for them.

These bills are a step forward, but affording college education requires a lot more progress than a full step. We need to make enormous progress to reverse the trend of the last few decades that have led to five times the cost of college inflation adjusted since 1983.

I wish I could be here before you to say that these bills will fix that. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that they will help, but they alone will not turn around the alarming trend that is making college harder and harder for middle class families to afford.

So while I support these bills as a step forward, I oppose the rule and call upon this body to allow a full and open debate on the Higher Education Act on ESEA.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4582, Mr. Tierney's bill, to enable millions of students, graduates, and parents in middle class families to responsibly finance their existing student loans.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my esteemed colleague and the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is best characterized by missing opportunities, whether it is balancing our budget, whether it is immigration reform, or, in the context of education, which is the primary issue I work on here on the committee in this institution, the opportunity to reauthorize and replace No Child Left Behind with a Federal education policy that works for our country and to replace the Higher Education Authorization Act with a bill that makes college more affordable for American families.

Today's considerations, while good bills--and I am particularly honored to have my bill with Mr. Salmon on the floor of the House, and I look forward to managing that and discussing its merits later and encourage a strong bipartisan vote of support--the tragedy is that we are nibbling around the edges and not dealing with the core of the issues that the American people demand that Congress deal with.

When we look at congressional approval ratings of 12 percent, we need go no further in explaining that than the hesitancy of this body to solve or address any of the major issues that I hear from my constituents on a daily basis.

If this Congress were serious, we could put H.R. 15, our bipartisan immigration reform bill, on the floor of this House. I am confident it would pass. If this body were serious, we could put the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a bipartisan bill, on the floor of this House to prevent companies across our country from firing Americans simply because of whom they date or love in their private lives, and it would pass.

We could begin the not easy work but the worthwhile work of working together, Democrats and Republicans, on reauthorizing ESEA, No Child Left Behind, and replacing our broken Federal education policy with a constructive

approach that works for kids across our country in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.

What would be those principles behind reauthorizing the ESEA? I think there are a lot of good ideas from both sides of the aisle.

When No Child Left Behind was signed into law by George Bush, it was a step forward for transparency and accountability; but even in the immediate aftermath, it was clear that Congress didn't get everything right. Rather than improving it and adjusting it, it has been frozen like a time capsule from 2001. Secretary Duncan has done what he can with the broad authority of waivers.

I hope that my Republican colleagues agree that vesting any administration--not just this President--with that kind of ability should not be the intent of lawmakers. We should address the flaws in the act.

I think any President, Democrat or Republican, is doing what they can with the law such as it is, but the real answer doesn't lie with an administration. It lies with Congress. It lies in Congress altering and changing the AYP formula.

What does real accountability look like? Growth over time and how much students are learning. What should ESEA contain? It should promote innovation and excellence. It should expand and replicate what works in public education. The most promising thing we have is that we have examples of schools that work with at-risk kids from every demographic that outperform their peers and prepare kids for college and the workforce.

Finally, we need to change what doesn't work in public education.

So shining a light isn't enough. Having a broad stroke of AYP and policy levers and penalties that are unconnected to actually improving schools doesn't work. But we need to begin the difficult work of turning around persistently failing schools to ensure that every child across our country has access to a good education.

That is the work we are not doing. It is the work we are not doing in this bill. It is the work we haven't done in committee in any meaningful way, and it joins the litany of issues that I hear about from my constituents on a daily basis.

Has this Congress balanced the budget? No.

Has the Congress resolved our immigration crisis as we have seen the temperature increase with the tens of thousands of young people on our southern border? No, we haven't taken a single step. In fact, this Congress hasn't even passed or brought to the floor or debated a single immigration bill.

For a while, we were hearing that there would be a ``piecemeal approach'' to immigration reform. We are nearing the end of the 113th Congress, and we haven't seen a single piece. I don't know what kind of a meal that is, but it is not one that satisfies one's appetite, and it doesn't satisfy the appetite of the voters not to see Congress deal with immigration reform, secure our border and replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country.

People in the education world--teachers, students, families, school board members, principals across our country--all know what I hope my colleagues know, which is that ESEA is broken, that No Child Left Behind doesn't work. It has flaws that aren't ideological--they aren't Democrats say this or Republicans say this. It has formulas that don't make sense to anybody. It is the formula, namely, that declares that nearly every public school in our country is a failure.

Now, that can be something that some people might want to say rhetorically, but I don't think you will even find too many Democrats or Republicans saying that every public school in this country is a failure. I shouldn't say ``every.'' It is 99 percent or 95 percent of them. I think there are a few small ones that got through, but AYP sets up this apparatus that is nearly impossible for schools to meet, which is requiring that every student cohort achieve proficiency now. It sounded good. Congress mandated that every student become proficient, but it shouldn't be a great surprise that it didn't happen, so it is time to replace that with something that makes sense. If people rhetorically want to say all public schools are failing on either side of the aisle, they are welcome to it, but I think we all know that the reality is more nuanced in that there are good public schools and there are poorly performing public schools.

The way that you treat and deal with a good public school and public policy is not to say it is a failing one. You can praise it. You can say they are doing a great job. You can pat them on the back. You can certainly challenge them to do more, but that is a very different policy response to a persistently failing high school where six out of 10 kids who go in the door in ninth grade don't even graduate. That school is doing their community a disservice and is only increasing the rampant inequality of opportunity that plagues our country.

Instead of relying on temporary fixes and marginal improvements, I encourage this Congress to take on the real issues--to take on immigration reform, to take on balancing the budget, and, in this context, to take on ESEA: replace our broken education law No Child Left Behind with a bipartisan bill that we can be proud of and that will endure for the next decade; replace the Higher Education Act with a bipartisan bill that actually makes substantive progress around reducing the cost of college.

I want to thank Ranking Member Miller and Chairman Kline. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, and I would encourage them to vote ``yes'' on both of these bipartisan bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 616 provides for consideration of three important bills. The first, H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, will ensure continued operations for those Federal agencies responsible for monitoring the health and safety of our food and drug supplies. H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, are two critical pieces of tax legislation that will give certainty to the small business community, making permanent two pieces of our Tax Code which Congress has had to continually renew annually for decades. Making these tax credits permanent will allow businesses to look out for more than a year ahead and to actually evaluate their economic situations, allowing for those businesses to make staffing and investment decisions for the long term rather than just the short term.

The rule before us today provides for a modified open rule for H.R. 4800. This allows all Members to offer any amendments to the bill that they may choose. The Speaker is committed to completing as many appropriations bills under regular order as possible.

The rule before us formalizes the same unanimous consent agreement that was entered into during the consideration of the CJS appropriations bill, which streamlines the debate, providing for 10 minutes of debate on every amendment offered on the bill. However, in no way does this rule restrict Members from offering any and all amendments to the underlying bill.

The rule further provides for the consideration of both H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, both under a closed rule. By bringing these two bills here today, Members will be allowed to debate the policy of each of these tax provisions individually rather than as a single omnibus tax extender legislation hurriedly passed at the end of the year that would not allow Members to weigh in on each separate extender as this process does.

H.R. 4800, the Agriculture and Related Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides almost $21 billion for the department agencies funded in the bill. This is funded at the same level as fiscal year 2014 and $457 million above the President's request. The bill provides critical funding for agricultural research; animal and plant health; conservation programs; the Farm Service Agency; rural development, including infrastructure and food safety inspection; the Food and Drug Administration; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and the food and nutrition programs, including child nutrition, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the program for women, infants, and children.

Of particular importance to the work I have been involved with on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the agriculture appropriations bill provides over $2.5 billion in funding to the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the bill allows for the collection of user fees cumulatively, amounting to overall discretionary funding of $4.5 billion in the FDA.

These dollars serve an important mission. From drug and device approval to food safety, the Food and Drug Administration is at the regulatory forefront of protecting the Nation's health, but it also acts as the doorway for new treatments and cures. From basic research to cutting-edge treatments, America has led the way in opening new fields of discovery and taking medicine to boundaries that I could not have imagined during my medical training or career, yet we have barely scratched the surface of medical breakthroughs that are over the horizon. And believe it or not, there are only hundreds of treatments for diseases that afflict us and thousands still without any treatment at all, let alone a cure.

Will the United States continue to be the home for the latest inventions? If the answer to that is yes, the Food and Drug Administration will be a key part of the future.

Patients and innovators are on the front lines in the fight against diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, yet their voices are not always heard. Bureaucratic rules have stood in the way of innovation. Some estimates show that medical devices may be approved almost 4 years earlier in Europe than in the U.S.

In 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended ``encouraging innovation'' as part of the FDA's mission statement in order to ensure that the FDA understood its role in helping new innovative treatments reach patients.

However, the true impact of the medical device, pharmaceutical, biologic, and generic drug industries in the United States is that they are partners in providing our physicians and practitioners with the tools that they need to prevent disease and alleviate human suffering.

The Food and Drug Administration must have the infrastructure and programs in place to ensure all innovations are dealt with in a fashion that ensures safety for the patient, as well as a straightforward and predictable and streamlined approval process. The Food and Drug Administration can continue to streamline the approval process of single-molecule drugs with which they have the most regulatory experience, but if we can't handle the fundamentals, then we have got a big problem.

Congress has taken several bipartisan actions in the last few years to break down the barriers to health innovation, and the Food and Drug Administration will and has seen changes as a result. The funding provided will continue to move these reforms along, but as report language notes, there is a great deal of work that remains to be done.

For the good of patients and to retain our global leadership and the economic benefits that come with it, it is time to breathe new life into the life sciences sector. As a physician, I understand the importance of ensuring that the government has the resources to lead to the next generation of treatments in the 21st century while also ensuring that those treatments are safe and effective. The bill will ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the scientific and medical expertise that they need when reviewing products utilizing emerging science by providing adequate resources in a challenging fiscal environment.

After the successful passage of the farm bill this year, the next step in that process is to fund those programs. H.R. 4800 achieves that goal.

And I will add, I was disappointed to see that the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, to bring grocery stores and fresh food to underserved communities, was not funded in this appropriations bill even after the House resoundingly defeated an amendment to strip the program from the farm bill, showing that this body overwhelmingly supports this initiative. I understand that an amendment to fix this oversight will be offered during consideration of the bill, and I hope that something can be worked out.

The two tax bills before us today are, again, critical to give small businesses stability and the ability to look beyond the end of each calendar year in making decisions for their companies. Extending these provisions today will be a boost to our economy.

H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would make permanent a provision within the Tax Code that allows annual investments of depreciable business property up to $500,000 to be expensed. Further, computer software and rules for the expensing of qualified real property--leasehold improvement, restaurant and retail improvement property--can also be written off as well.

The present tax system harms investment in many ways. One of the most important is that, unlike other expenses, businesses must deduct capital expenses--such as for business equipment--over many years rather than the year the expense is incurred. This raises the cost of capital and reduces investment. H.R. 4457 would go a long way to reverse this trend.

Likewise, the other two tax extenders that we are voting on today deal with S corporations or pass-through corporations. These corporations elect not to pay any Federal corporate taxes and, instead, pass corporate income, losses, and deductions and credits through to their shareholders.

H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, makes permanent an expired tax break that would enable businesses set up S corporations to shrink the window that they have to hold built-in gains from 10 years to 5.

H.R. 4454, the Permanent S Corporation Charitable Contributions Act of 2014, would make permanent the tax rule requiring an adjustment to the basis of a shareholder's stock in an S corporation if the corporation makes tax-deductible charitable donations.

Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate research and development. Sixty-two Democrats voted against the measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the policy, but it was the fact that the measure was not offset. However, offsets are something in Congress that we need when we are creating new programs or allocating money not previously appropriated, essentially making the American people pay more in taxes. Offsets are unnecessary and not needed when, in fact, we are shielding the American people from being taxed.

Moreover, we heard last night in the Rules Committee, and I suspect we will hear it again today on the floor, about the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in this rule are not offset. Congress only needs to pay for tax credits if one subscribes to the belief that all money in the country--all money in the country--belongs first to the government rather than the people. I reject this mind-set. Congress does not need to justify or offset not taking more money from the American people; Congress needs to justify and pay for policies that take money from the American people.

Indeed, every member of the Rules Committee on the minority side has voted at least three times to extend these very provisions without having any sort of offset. President Obama, himself, signed those three extensions of these provisions into law, all done without offsets. Senator Wyden, who has been working on a larger tax extender bill in the Senate has included the same PAYGO language that is included in these bills before us in this legislation. To make hay about this issue, which is truly much ado about nothing, is to play politics with taxpayers and our economy, and the Republican majority in this House will not play along.

In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package, permanent extenders like these are common sense. They bring back stability and certainty to businesses that are constantly waiting at the end of every calendar year to see if Congress will retroactively act to provide that tax relief.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of a response.

In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, 2009 to 2010, this House never considered a single bill under an open rule. Let me state that again: 2009 to 2010, the 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi was Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit, that is the definition of a closed process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first off, I just want to reference something on Speaker John Boehner's Web site.

John Boehner took the Speaker's gavel in January of 2011,

promising to run a more open U.S. House of Representatives

than his predecessor. In the 3\1/2\ years since then, Speaker

Boehner has made good on that pledge by allowing more

amendments and a steady stream of ``open rules,'' while the

Democratic-controlled United States Senate, under Majority

Leader Harry Reid, has gone in the other direction.

One congressional expert calls open rules, which allow

Members to freely offer amendments of essentially any nature

during the consideration of a given bill, ``essential for

fair consideration of legislation on the House floor.

Under Boehner's leadership, Members on both sides of the

aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more

amendments, and the House has operated under far more open

rules than were allowed under the previous Democratic-

controlled House.

The final years of the Pelosi-run House were a tour de

force in closed government. During the final 2 years of

Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never

considered a single bill under an open rule. Some Members of

Congress served their entire House careers under Speaker

Pelosi without ever operating under an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of so-called immigration reform, the administration has done more to distance and set back any policy in that direction.

Why do I say that? The reason is the unintended effects of their policies to send a message worldwide to those that come here by any method possible, and we will not prosecute, we will not send you back.

As a consequence, we have got an issue on the border of our State in Texas that is, at the same time, both heartbreaking and frightening, with underage children literally being shoved across the border.

Mr. Speaker, what does it say when an 8-year-old child can cross our border illegally? Who else is getting in, if 8-year-olds are able to come across this porous border that the administration has opened up?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that those conditions the gentleman referenced that might cause a child to be frightened existed 4 years ago, existed 3 years ago, but there has been a dramatic change in the past 2 years.

I believe that change is directly attributable to the policies of the administration when they went around the United States Congress to unilaterally alter the United States immigration laws, which specifically, in the Constitution, is a legislative branch requirement.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills: H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015; H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014; and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-In Gains Recognition Period Act for 2014.

The rule is fair and important for us to move forward on the debate on these pieces of legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 616 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide

for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 4582.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused,

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked

the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled

to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member, 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

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 964 provides for consideration of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013.

On Monday, the House had a full and thorough debate on H.R. 935. While the bill did not gain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass by suspension, it did receive 253 bipartisan votes.

It is important we pass this bill in order to reduce the regulatory burden that has been placed on the nearly 365,000 pesticide users, and this rule allows us to do that.

The rule also allows the House to consider H. Res. 676.

This resolution will allow the Speaker to initiate litigation for actions by the President--or other executive branch officials-- inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.

The fact that we have to sue the President simply to ensure that he is working within the constraints of the Constitution, to me, Mr. Speaker, is troubling, but that is the situation we are facing.

While there have always been disagreements between the legislative and executive branches about how expansive the President's authority is, the Constitution is explicit that Congress writes the laws and the President's role is to ``take care'' that those laws are faithfully executed. No President may have both powers.

Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of having a President who not only enforced the laws, but made them. An executive with those powers would easily infringe on citizens' liberty. Our Founders saw this firsthand. That is why they were fleeing to come to this country and form this country. They knew the Executive would try to exceed the power afforded under the Constitution, even when it is occupied by someone who previously taught the limits the Constitution puts on Presidential power. That is why they were so careful in delegating among the three branches.

This system of checks and balances has served America so well for so long. Now, I am sorry for the civics lesson, but it is clear that some on the other side of the aisle have temporarily lost sight of how important these checks and balances are to the functioning of this House and to the legislative branch in general.

But that wasn't always the case. When Representative Conyers, for instance, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he remarked:

We are coequal branch of government, and if our system of

checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative

that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or

ignoring the bills that are signed into law.

Representative Nadler, for his part, cautioned:

And I hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into the

excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be

a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to

destroy the power of the Congress and the judiciary and to

limit our power to protect the liberties of the American

people against encroachments by the Executive are a waste of

time, I hope they will rethink what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, I read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one party or one President. This is a legislative versus executive issue; it is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. And, to be frank, the legislative branch has been on the losing end of this for quite some time.

But my point is that we shouldn't be so callous or shortsighted as to not defend our article I powers simply because the President in question happens to belong to one party.

If we don't take action now, what stops future Presidents--Republican or Democrat--from eroding our powers further? Congress, itself, has shown little opposition to the harm it has done to the separation of powers over the years. That is why it is critical that we take action now. This should be a cause that the legislative branch can unite around, not divide over.

Instead, we have Members of Congress standing in applause when the President says he will bypass Congress to enact his agenda. Mr. Speaker, half of this body stood up in applause. It should be done in defiance. Here we have Members of Congress cheering for the President for basically saying he is going to eliminate their purpose here.

This isn't the first President whose actions have raised the alarms of an overreaching executive, and it is clear if we do nothing, it will not be the last.

I urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, and to stop the assault on the separation of powers.

Let's finally say to the Executive: ``Enough is enough.'' Let's finally say: ``Support the Constitution, support the separation of powers, and support this rule.''

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

I do not, Mr. Speaker. I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here today. A lot of it, I don't know exactly where they are coming from. But we have heard a lot of things today.

Democrats would like to believe--or would like the American people to believe, or go to that narrative--that Congress hasn't done its job. Well, you have to remember that the House of Representatives is one- half of that. The Senate is the other half.

Now, if you think about it, we have sent 40 jobs bills over to the Senate, where they are gathering dust on Leader Reid's desk. We have passed seven of the appropriations bills here in the House. The Senate, zero. We have passed important tax legislation to ensure our economy continues to grow and that companies continue to hire.

We will be voting today on a veterans package to help our veterans. And tomorrow, for the second time, we are going to consider a bill as it relates to the highway trust fund.

So perhaps the Republicans in the House are getting the job done with support of Members on the other side of the aisle. How many bipartisan bills are sitting there in the Senate just languishing away because there is a decision made just not to move anything forward from the House? That is unfortunate because that hurts the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of things that are supposedly what we want to do. But here is what I believe we are trying to do today. It is about defense of the Constitution. It is pure and simple. It is about the protection that is given by the Constitution to the two houses of the legislative branch and to the President of the United States and the executive branch and to the judiciary, and that separation of powers is within the Constitution. That is what we are fighting for.

Forget about all this other stuff that has been thrown up as a smokescreen. We are fighting to defend the Constitution.

And people say, well, you know, it could cost money. Well, thank goodness. Thank God that our Founding Fathers didn't say, well, you know what? It is a reach too far. It will cost too much. It could cost our lives. They didn't make that decision. What they said was, it is important for the future of this country that we live by the Constitution, that we design a Constitution that will endure into the future.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this Constitution has endured and has provided the guidance for this country to move forward every day. It is not by happenstance. It is by the fact that we are supposed to live by and defend the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a deputy sheriff, if we just said, You know what, I don't agree with the free speech portion of the Constitution, we would have stopped free speech. I had to defend people, stand there and put my body in front of people who were opposed to what the people behind me were saying that was repugnant to us and to most Americans. But I had to put my safety at risk for their free speech. And you know, I could have said, You know what, I don't agree with that. That is just part of the Constitution. Let's not worry about free speech. But we didn't do that. We didn't rewrite the law. We didn't rewrite it.

You know, yesterday or the day before--I am not sure which day it was--but in the Rules Committee, we heard an impassioned description from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster), who was the speaker of the house in Florida, who was sued by the Governor in regards to the implementation of law. And guess what? That body won.

And thank goodness that the house won in the Supreme Court of Florida and that they just didn't say, You know what, you don't have standing. So forget about that.

A lot of people are trying to presuppose what the Supreme Court is going to say or do. I would suggest to you that I am willing to go along with whatever the Supreme Court says. Now, I may not like it. But I am willing to go along with it because I do believe they are the ultimate arbitrators as to what is constitutional and what isn't.

It is amazing that this document that we are talking about, that there is a question about it, that there is a question about the separation of powers.

I would like to read a quote from then-Senator Barack Obama:

We have got a government that was designed by the Founders

with checks and balances. You don't want a President that is

too powerful, a Congress that is too powerful, or a Court

that is too powerful. Everybody has got their own role.

Congress' job is to pass legislation.

The President can veto it or sign it, but what George Bush

has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power

in the Presidency, he has been saying, well, I can basically

change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says I

don't agree with this part or that, I'm going to choose to

interpret it this way or that way.

It is not part of his power, but it is part of the whole

theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along.

I disagree with that.

Once again, quoting then-Senator Obama, Senator Obama says:

I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the

Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United

States.

Now, I don't know what happened on the trip from the Capitol down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how that changed, but I guess the Presidency can change your view of the world. It may not be an accurate view of the world, but it can change it.

I think what then-Senator Obama said rang true then and rings true today. It is about the separation of power, and let me tell you something, my friends on the other side of the aisle should be standing there with us because, for too long, this House has now become irrelevant. Congress in general is becoming irrelevant.

When I got elected just over 4 years ago, I came up here with a purpose. I came up here with a belief in the Constitution and that there is separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, but now, I hate to say it, in my 4 years, I have become disenchanted with the fact that this House for way too long has just had a ``cooperate and graduate'' kind of attitude, and I don't think we should do that.

That is why, today, the buck stops here. We have got to make a stand in regards to is the Constitution relevant, is this House relevant. If not, we should just all go home. There is no reason to be here.

I have three sons that serve their country and that have put their lives on the line for this country, not by their own choice--I mean, they serve their country at their choice--but when they go off into war, it is at the direction of the President.

It is a direction to protect this country, and they do so willingly. They raised their hand to say they are going to support and defend the Constitution. I raised it as a police officer outside of Chicago, I raised it as a deputy sheriff, I raised it as sheriff, and I raised it here when I got sworn in as a Member of this body.

I take that seriously, and I take it seriously when anybody thinks they can trample on the Constitution. I take it seriously when anybody thinks that they are above where we need to be.

This legislation is about empowering the Speaker of the House, if he so deems it, to sue the President. I happen to agree with that. Mr. Speaker, we can talk all day--at least I could--in regards to why it is important that this House protect its prerogative in regards to passing legislation and reminding the executive branch as to what their duties are.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Let me tell you something, I wasn't here before this. I got here 4 years ago. I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent or whatever. I believe in this institution. I believe in the Constitution of this country, and I believe we should do everything in our power to defend it no matter who is trying to usurp it.

So I encourage my colleagues for the last time to support this rule, to support this institution, and to support this Constitution. It is about are we really serious about the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so rightfully created.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 677 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 677 provides for structured rules for consideration of H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act, and H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.

The Rules Committee was pleased to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to provide for floor consideration of a number of their amendments. The resolution makes in order 11 amendments to H.R. 3136 and seven amendments to H.R. 4984. In total, the committee made in order nine Democrat amendments, three Republican amendments, and six bipartisan amendments.

As a member of the Rules Committee, it is a privilege to see the number of amendments we have been able to make in order this Congress and the openness of the legislative process. My hope is that we will continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to advance good legislation.

My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and I have been working to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. We have held 14 hearings and invited dozens of witnesses to discuss a wide variety of issues facing students, families, and institutions of higher education.

Since the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the landscape has been constantly evolving with the student population rapidly changing and institutions developing more cost-effective modes for delivering academic content.

The upcoming reauthorization provides policymakers an opportunity to improve the law and strengthen America's postsecondary system to ensure Federal policies are flexible enough to allow future developments and innovations to occur.

Based on feedback received from the public and the committee's desire to reform the law in a way that will assist students in obtaining an affordable higher education that leads to employment opportunities, the committee will promote reforms that adhere to the following principles: empowering students and families to make informed decisions; simplifying and improving student aid; promoting innovation, access, and completion; and ensuring strong accountability and a limited Federal role.

Reform will help more Americans achieve their dreams of a postsecondary education and help secure a more prosperous future for the country.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills that will inform the reauthorization process. H.R. 3136 creates a demonstration project for competency-based education. Competency-based education allows students to demonstrate what they already know and learn at their own pace

by mastering specific skills and knowledge that translate to real-world application for their degrees.

H.R. 4984 ensures that students have the information needed to make good choices with their financial aid dollars and understand how to use that money well by increased financial counseling and services.

Education is a great opportunity in this country, and we have the most diverse system of postsecondary education in the world, with more than 6,000 public, private, nonprofit, and proprietary institutions of higher education. This diversity affords students from all backgrounds an opportunity to find an institution that meets their unique needs and helps them pursue personal goals of continuing their education.

The rule before us today starts that reform process, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the prime sponsor on one of these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts is quite well aware that his amendment was not germane to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

Mr. Speaker, the higher education landscape in America is changing to meet the demands of the ever more technologically engaged student population, as well as meeting the needs of adults who are coming back to college after some time in the workforce.

One of the most exciting innovations is competency-based education, which takes traditional degrees and college courses and maps them to specific skill sets or knowledge pieces, known as ``competencies.'' A student progresses through a course by mastering these skill sets and obtaining the knowledge to prove they understand the concept.

Many of these students are individuals returning to college after an interrupted first attempt where they dropped out of college. As Mr. Salmon said, many are veterans with skills that have not yet been equated to coursework. Now they hope to improve their skills and further their careers, but these adults have already been learning skills along the way through their jobs and life experiences. Competency-based education allows students to move quickly through concepts they understand and spend more time focusing on skills that they need.

Additionally, many of these programs apply the skills or concepts to real-world problems that students may have faced in their workplaces or in their families, which helps create a habit of continual learning and application.

While well-intentioned, Federal regulation has often gotten in the way of innovative programs because it cannot account for the rapid change taking place. That is why my colleague, Representative Matt Salmon, has authored H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act. This legislation will promote this innovation by directing the Secretary of Education to implement pilot projects for competency-based programs that will deliver greater flexibility to institutions that want to provide students with a more personalized education experience.

The bill will ensure accountability by requiring annual evaluations of each of these projects to determine program quality and ensure student achievement. My hope is that these projects will better inform our reauthorization of the Higher Education Act by giving us proven results of what works and what does not work in the current regulatory framework. Additionally, it will help inform our discussions around financial aid and what learning in the 21st century classroom looks like.

I worked in higher education for many years and thought these changes were imminent long ago, but higher education change in the past has occurred at a leisurely pace. It is exciting today finally to see some of the ideas and concepts that have been around for years being more widely tested and finding success.

In our country, there are 4.6 million jobs going unfilled because employers are not able to find individuals with the right skill sets to meet their needs. As these individuals come back to school to improve their skills, we should find ways to recognize and give credit for what they have already learned to help them move through the

process more quickly. This bill will help students do just that by providing flexibility to institutions to create programs that meet those needs and holding them accountable for the results.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the other bill to be considered under this rule is H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, which will promote financial literacy through enhanced counseling for all recipients of Federal financial aid.

Making the decision to pursue postsecondary education can be challenging, and many students and families find themselves overwhelmed by the choices and new terminology. It is in the best interest of students and taxpayers alike that information about Federal aid be presented in a way that is easily understood.

Additionally, for most students, Federal financial aid provides them with more money than they are used to handling, and they struggle with how to manage properly their debt loads and living expenses. Students want to be treated as independent adults and therefore assume the responsibility that comes with their choices.

As they make the transition to college, or back to the classroom for adult learners, this bill seeks to help students make smart decisions about financing their education so they fully understand the circumstances they may face at the completion of their education.

This legislation ensures that borrowers, both students and parents, who participate in the Federal loan programs receive interactive counseling each year that is personalized to their individual situation, as well as review their loans each year and consent before receiving new Federal student loans.

The bill expands financial counseling to include students who receive a Pell grant, and it also directs the Secretary of Education to maintain and share a consumer-tested, online counseling tool institutions can use to provide annual loan and Pell grant counseling as well as exit counseling.

Mr. Speaker, it may surprise Members in this Chamber that I was the first person in my family to graduate from high school and go to college, where I worked full-time and attended school part-time. It took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's degree, and I continued to work my way through my master's and doctoral degrees.

From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person like me who grew up extremely poor, in a house with no electricity and with no running water, with parents with very little formal education and no prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the United States House of Representatives.

That is why I am passionate about ensuring that students have the opportunity to get an education but also understand the responsibility they are assuming in taking out a loan and the implications it may have on their family for years to come.

Throughout my career serving low-income, first-generation students, I know how rewarding an education can be, and this bill provides extra tools to help those students fully understand their commitments. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have worked in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation that is before us today and on some other legislation. Yesterday, the President signed H.R. 803, which we called the SKILLS Act when it left the House. I am very proud of that, and the President talked about how happy he was to sign that bill and how doing things in a bipartisan fashion felt so good.

But my colleague across the aisle keeps talking about ``the Congress.'' As he well knows, but sometimes does not present accurately to the American people, ``the Congress'' consists of two Chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives, as evidenced by what we are doing here today, is very serious about doing our work.

On average, the House is holding 37 hearings every week, fulfilling our oversight responsibilities. We have passed 321 bills that are sitting in the Senate and are not being taken up by Senator Reid, who is responsible for stopping meaningful legislation that will reduce energy costs and help create jobs in this country.

The record of House Republicans on fiscal issues is second to none. We have cut discretionary spending every year since taking control of the House. We have proposed reforms to many of our entitlement programs. If the gentleman is sincere in his desire for a balanced budget, I ask him to work with his ranking member on the Budget Committee to propose such a path. House Republicans have voted to support a pathway to balance, and Democrats have voted to raise taxes on hardworking Americans while never reaching balance.

Mr. Speaker, there is much work that needs to be done in this country, and we are facing lots of challenges. I believe that education is the most important tool Americans at any age can have. It was a privilege to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the Education Committee to advance legislation that seeks to meet the needs of today's student population as well as to provide accountability for hardworking taxpayer dollars invested. I think the record of the Education and the Workforce Committee is very clear: when our colleagues across the aisle will work with us, we move legislation.

No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to address their concerns and improve this legislation through the amendment process. Additionally, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find common ground on advancing higher education reform that will improve the opportunities and results for students and will provide accountability for taxpayers.

However, these bills provide a good foundation to work from, and as a proud supporter of this legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bills.

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