To extend the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance for one year.

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.

Reserving the right to object, I'd like to understand the reasons--I understand the typographical errors and appreciate that the chair wishes to revise those, but I'm curious about one provision.

As the chair would remember, I came to the committee and asked that they not waive the rule for the Cassidy amendment because the Cassidy amendment will increase the deficit by $15 billion over 30 years. And of course the rules of the House don't allow us to engage in additional spending without an offset, and there is no offset. But the chair did waive all points of order, so the rules of the House don't apply to this additional $15 billion of deficit spending.

But now my understanding is that they want to substitute a different amendment, which, instead of $15 billion of additional deficit over 30 years, would only create $14,999,999,970 of new deficit.

I would like to understand why we're bothering to do this. I think over the span of 30 years, increasing the deficit by $14,999,999,970 versus $15 billion, which is easier to say because it has got a lot of zeros in it, what's the rationale? Why would we do this? Why do we need UC for this? I'm just curious.

Could the gentleman respond.

Continuing to reserve the right to object, so the bottom line here, if I can define it for our colleagues in simple language, is the net difference in waiving the rules of the House of $30, apparently the total waiving of the rules of the House to allow additional deficit spending. In contradiction of what the other side of the aisle normally proposes, there is somehow a dramatic difference between $14,999,999,970 of new debt and deficit and $15 billion, which requires a substitution of this amendment, because it's my understanding it would somehow then violate the Budget Act twice. Is that accurate? Even though you've waived the rule and we can go ahead with the amendment, you would be violating the Budget Act twice. So we just want to say we're only violating the Budget Act once; is that the difference?

Further reserving the right to object, if you're going to waive the rules of the House to create $15 billion in new deficit, I don't know why we need unanimous consent to waive the rules yet again to create $14,999,999,970 in deficit. I guess that makes a difference somewhere to someone, so I would not object.

I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

We could have done this bill as a suspension bill 2 days ago. That is, it probably could have passed the House by unanimous consent, which is very rare, if this provision had not been added.

There is consensus on both sides of the aisle that it's critical that we move forward with this agreement with Mexico to deal with shared resources in the western Gulf of Mexico. However, the Republicans have chosen to use this as a vehicle to launch yet another attack on Wall Street reform, on the Dodd-Frank reforms, which is totally unnecessary. Obviously, it was presented as: it's potentially, possibly, maybe a future problem for American oil companies if the Mexicans change their law. Under their existing law, there is no problem. We're going to see disclosure, and it will be disclosure by Mexican companies that are bidding or by American companies that are bidding or by any other foreign company that is bidding in the gulf. You will see full disclosure, so no one would be at a commercial or at an economic disadvantage.

But the premise here is that, someday, Mexico might change their law, and therefore our companies would have to disclose and theirs wouldn't. If that did happen at some potential possible future date by some potential possible future Mexican Government, then the Securities and Exchange Commission has adequate authority, even under the Dodd-Frank reforms, to waive that requirement because it would be in the public interest and commercial interest of the United States of America to waive that provision in this instance. Now, that's dealing with Mexico.

The second problem with what they're proposing here is that they actually want to totally repeal this section of Dodd-Frank for any future agreements with any other nations on a transboundary basis, which could certainly include Canada and, likely, with the conflicts that are looming over the Arctic Ocean and the resources up there, with Russia. Now, I get pretty

nervous when I start thinking that U.S. companies are going to be negotiating secret agreements with Russia and that somehow these are going to protect our taxpayers, that they're going to protect our shareholders, that they're going to protect our public interest. That, I think, is really a very, very, very disturbing trend with this bill.

So the issue is: do we want to get this done? If we want to get it done, this is not the way to do it, because this bill, as amended by the Republicans to change the agreement and waive the rules for oil companies so they can make secret payments to the Government of Mexico, that will not pass the Senate. So we'll have yet another one-House bill, and we will further delay what the Republican side wants to expedite, which is offshore oil and gas development.

I would suggest that, rather than expediting things here, we're messing them up, and I would suggest to my colleagues that we oppose this bill in this form, that we bring it back as a clean authorization with the existing agreement with Mexico, and that we move forward and get it done. I expect, if we got it done here, we could bring it up again and get it done in a day or under suspension or perhaps, I think, with unanimous consent, even between today and tomorrow. Then the Senate would pass it with unanimous consent, and we'd be done with it.

Instead, we're going to have yet another example of the dysfunction of the Congress because we're going to pass a version here that cannot pass in the United States Senate, and then, I guess, the Republicans will try and blame the Senate for not wanting to waive the rules and allow oil companies to make secret payments to the Government of Mexico in order to garner commercial deals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

That was very impassioned, and we can agree with the necessity of moving forward with the agreement. The problem is that the gentleman ignored the fact that the United States Senate will not pass this bill as written. They will not waive the Dodd-Frank disclosure rules to allow big oil companies to make secret deals with the Government of Mexico. They're not going to do that. So you're slowing things down by insisting on repealing part of these vital Wall Street reforms.

With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who is an expert on this provision of law.

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

If the gentleman would go to the microphone, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and I will yield to him.

Your assertion is that Mexico asked the Government of the United States to include a waiver of our financial services reform provisions in section 105 in this agreement, and the Obama administration didn't agree to that but Mexico signed the agreement anyway, and now you're trying to help out the government of Mexico to get something that you claim they wanted but didn't get from this administration; is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Well, that's what you just said.

Well, please clarify.

Okay. With that, I would reclaim my time. I could ask to have the record read back, but I won't because it would delay things. But you said this is what Mexico wanted. You did say that just before as you spoke. Now you're saying that you believe that this is reflecting the spirit of the agreement. Now I will accept that. You believe that changing the agreement by waiving our financial services law is in the spirit of the agreement. I don't believe that. Maxine Waters, who serves on the Committee on Financial Services, doesn't agree with that. And, unfortunately, the President of the United States doesn't agree with that, so this bill is going nowhere. It's not going to get out of the Senate. They have a bipartisan bill over there that doesn't waive Dodd-Frank that they could pass by unanimous consent. We could be done with this. But no, we're not going to do that; we're going to play games.

So here's what the President said. He's got something to say about this in the end, he really does:

The administration cannot support H.R. 1613, as reported by

the House Committee on Natural Resources because of the

unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract

from the bill. Most significantly, the administration

strongly objects to exempting actions taken by public

companies in accordance with the transboundary hydrocarbon

agreements from requirements section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank

Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's natural

resource extraction disclosure rule. As a practical matter,

this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure

of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the

United States or foreign governments in accordance with a

transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly

and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency

and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and

minerals sectors.

So if we proceed with this bill in this form, the President will veto the bill, and we'll be back again. And how many months that'll take, I don't know. But to assert that somehow Mexico wanted this, or the administration wanted it, and they just kind of forgot to put it in the agreement, and now we're helping them out, even though the administration says they don't want it, and I don't know what the government of Mexico says--and then there was another issue raised about confidentiality provisions.

In fact, the SEC has more than adequate capabilities to do general exemptions in sections 12(h) and 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act. They could issue exemptions from this disclosure requirement under this authority, should it be warranted. In fact, the SEC today confirmed with us that there is nothing that would prevent the SEC from issuing exemptions should they be warranted. Now, the objection here is to waiving any and all future agreements from any public disclosure of payments to foreign governments. That's what you're doing here today. It's not about this one agreement or problems that might crop up with Mexico. That could be accommodated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It's about doing away with a critical section of Dodd- Frank. And if you want to do that, why not bring it up in the Financial Services Committee, have a hearing, have a debate, send us a bill and repeal it. But don't try and do it in the dark of night in the hope that if you attach it to this agreement, which we all agree should be entered into, Mexico wants, U.S. wants, that you're doing anybody a favor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)

May I ask the Chair, how much time remains on either side?

Okay. Does the gentleman have more speakers or would he be closing?

Mr. Speaker, what we've heard here today is that by modifying this agreement, by preventing disclosure of payments by big oil companies to foreign governments which could essentially constitute under-the-table agreements, bribes, however you have it, will somehow lower gas prices for the American people.

Now, I think if you went out and asked the American people, ``Do you think allowing ExxonMobil or any of the other big companies to enter into secret agreements with foreign governments to exploit jointly held resources is going to benefit you at the pump?'' I think they'd kind of laugh at you. I mean, no offense, but they would.

The bottom line is there's also a further assertion that somehow this possible future development of this area will lower the price at the pump. It won't and it hasn't, and today the prices are excessive.

Why are they excessive?

Well, there's this funny little thing that happens just around Memorial Day every year. The refiners--and the refinery industry has been dramatically consolidated over the last few years because there's been buyouts and closures and everything else--they decide that they've got to do periodic maintenance.

It's got to happen at the beginning of the driving season; and, of course, they all schedule it at the same time and they limit refinery capacity, and then they say there's a shortage and the price jumps up 50 cents a gallon, like it did in Oregon just a month ago--50 cents a gallon in a week.

Whoa, what happened? Did you see anybody waving red flags saying, We don't have any gas, or yellow flags?

Anybody remember the seventies? No. Everybody had gas. They just jacked up the price, because that's the way that the oil companies celebrate the beginning of the summer vacation season for the American people, by increasing their profits with extraordinary and unwarranted increases in the price claiming there's somehow a shortage because somehow they're cleaning their refineries, or one of them had a problem. They are actually exporting gasoline from the west coast.

What does that mean?

There's actually a glut of oil in the gulf region right now that they can't refine. We've got refineries closed in California with oil sitting in storage tanks that can't be refined. And somehow, if we just had more oil to add to the glut, to add to the full storage tanks because the refineries are shut down to drive up the price--or maybe they're not shut down. There was actually an investigation last year. When they claimed they were shut down, they weren't. So we don't really know.

But to say, well, gee, we trust the oil companies. Let's let them negotiate secret agreements with the Government of Mexico, with Canada, with--ultimately, perhaps with Russia and that will benefit the consumers at the pump, it does not meet the laugh test.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, we heard earlier the assertion that that would protect American workers. I'm not quite certain how that's going to work out. And probably it doesn't even help stockholders, because they might really want to know what's going on. I'm not sure.

I thank the gentlelady.

The bottom line here is it's simple. If we pass this bill in this form, the President would veto it if it came out of the Senate. It will not come out of the Senate.

They are actually acting in a true bipartisan way in the Senate, and they have a bill which could receive probably unanimous consent that does not contain this provision, that does not provide this waiver of the Dodd-Frank Act in favor of the big oil companies.

It's simple. I can see, you know, and I can count, and in all probability the Republican side will prevail here, but they are not furthering the cause of expediting the signing of this agreement and the execution of this agreement between Mexico and the United States by sending a bill to the Senate that the Senate will not pass.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.

I believe Ms. Waters stated very clearly that there is substantial, if not unanimous, support on this side for this agreement without this provision, which would ultimately lead to the development of these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up the bill (H.R. 1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1613.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act.

This bill was introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico along our Nation's maritime boundary with Mexico.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa signed this long-awaited agreement February 2012. Since that time, the House Committee on Natural Resources has repeatedly requested draft-implementing legislation from the Obama administration. But it was not until March 19, 2013, when the committee finally received just that--several short sentences to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promote development of energy resources that lie along the boundary with Mexico.

Despite the Obama administration sitting on this agreement for over a year, that should not in any way downplay the importance of getting this agreement approved. This agreement is good for our economy, and it's good for our American workers.

Opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates jobs, it creates more American-made energy, and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs.

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State Department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. These areas are estimated to contain as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

These areas are ready to be explored and developed, and this bill will give the U.S. job creators the certainty they need to move forward. Activity can begin once this agreement is enacted.

This bill executes the implementation of the U.S.-Mexico agreement, but it also looks to the future--providing a clear and transparent path for how future administrations should go about submitting future agreements with other countries with which we share international boundaries. Given the fact that this implementing legislation was bogged down within several agencies for over a year, I believe that Mr. Duncan's solution is a necessary step to ensure a smoother and more expedient process in the future.

H.R. 1613 also includes language to protect American workers by removing uncertainty surrounding the application of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act disclosure requirements.

The agreement signed by the Obama administration and Mexico specifically provides what royalty payments Mexico would receive from energy developers. However, under current U.S. law, companies that commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to disclose payments made to a foreign government. This could create a potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that prohibit disclosure of payments.

This would then block American workers from being able to develop these resources.

Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect American jobs and American-made energy in this instance. Without it, foreign-controlled energy companies could develop this American energy resource. The royalty payments to Mexico would still be undisclosed and kept private, but the net result would be that Americans would lose out on this energy potential.

The Natural Resources Committee and Mr. Duncan have worked hard to advance this bill and get it signed into law. It's important to American energy, to American jobs, to American energy security, and it is important in order to support a positive relationship with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who worked very hard on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me clarify just a few major points here. First of all, the President did not say he would veto it. He said he had a concern. I accept that. But the President did not say he would veto this legislation. After all, it was his Secretary of State that negotiated the agreement. Why would he veto an agreement negotiated by his Secretary of State?

Secondly, if this could pass so easily out of the Senate, as my friend from Oregon asserts, why hasn't the Senate passed it?

We always ask that question over here. In fact, sometimes we get ourselves in a gridlock because we're so, maybe, frightened of what the Senate may or may not do.

Listen, if the Senate wants to pass this agreement without this provision, do it. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. Nobody.

Now, let me make another observation here that I think is probably more important in this debate than anything else that has been said, and that is, as was pointed out several times--I mentioned it in my opening remarks; Mr. Duncan mentioned it; Mr. Salmon mentioned it--in 2012, this agreement was signed. None of the information was given to us because we had to implement it. Now, I wonder why. Could it possibly be that the mindset of this administration, which, by the way, has consistently been nonresponsive to more exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore--if I may, Mr. Speaker, go back just a bit.

When this administration took office, there was no moratoria on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts. One of the first actions of this President was to lock up 85 percent of those potential resources. So maybe they do have a bit of a bias against offshore drilling.

So here's an amendment, here's an agreement that was signed over a year

ago. It took over a year for it to come here. Because of no action on their part, it was going nowhere legislatively until Mr. Duncan said, Listen, this is something we ought to do.

So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, is the reason why they're taking this one element--and I'll talk about that in a moment--as a reason to oppose this legislation really because they're trying to cover up the fact they don't like any offshore drilling?

I'll let somebody draw whatever conclusions they want. I simply ask the rhetorical question.

I will be more than happy to yield to my friend on that point. I assume he wants to talk about that, and I'm more than happy to engage in that debate.

Reclaiming my time, I think if you go back and look at the bills that have come in front of this body before in the last Congress--in fact, later on today--you will find that the overwhelming opposition to that legislation, if it's going to mirror what happened in the last Congress, was to oppose offshore development. So I'll just make that observation. Others can draw the conclusion.

But here is something that is very curious about this debate on why we should defeat this legislation because of this provision dealing in disclosure.

Anybody could have offered an amendment to take that provision out of the bill. It would have been perfectly in order. There's no parliamentary problem with striking from a bill. And there was an amendment, by the way, that was offered by a Member from the other body but was withdrawn. Both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are arguing against this because of this provision, they could have offered the amendment. It would have been made in order, and we could have debated it. But the amendment wasn't offered. I don't know why.

I will be more than happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I simply said that there is a pattern in this administration and with my friends on the other side that they oppose that. I'll let others draw that conclusion.

I will be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, we believe that this provision in Dodd-Frank is contrary to the agreement because the only moneys--and I'll get to this point. I was going to get to it later, but I'll get to it right now. The only moneys that go to Mexico are what the Obama administration agreed to for these royalties or leases. That is the only money that goes to Mexico. So we believe that there's no reason to have this particular requirement in the bill, and that's why we did it.

Now you can disagree with that, of course. You have every right to do it. But if you really believe that this bill should be defeated because of that provision, why didn't you offer an amendment? Wait, there was an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn. Curious? I don't know what their reasons are.

So all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a good piece of legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And if the Senate, to conclude, has a different view, let them pass their different view and we'll work it out. Isn't that the reason our Founding Fathers had two bodies? So we can work out the differences?

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: On May 15, 2013, the Committee on

Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental

Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act,

as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a

result of your having consulted with the Committee on

Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that

fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our

committee from further consideration of the bill so that it

may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor.

The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with

our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of

H.R. 1613, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any

jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or

similar legislation, and that our committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that we may address any

remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction.

Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of

an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and

requests your support for any such request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1613, as

amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in your committee's report to

accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record

during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I find this amendment offered on this bill to be rather strange because the amendment usurps itself as an effort to protect states' rights. Well, the underlying bill is about an international agreement between the United States and Mexico, and that boundary is about 200 miles from the nearest shoreline. There is no jurisdiction of any State that goes that far out, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this bill that would change any existing laws as it relates to states' rights and their waters.

But this amendment isn't necessary. It's simply restating the status quo. The sponsor of the amendment and all those concerned with upholding states' rights can be assured that the existing rights of the individual 50 States are fully respected and in no way undermined by this bill, as I just mentioned. However, adopting this amendment could impact international relations with foreign states. And the reason why is because in foreign law, as I understand it, the term ``state'' means foreign government. There's no explanation in the amendment about states, so that raises a concern.

So by adopting this amendment, you could potentially destroy the agreement that we have in place. And what will that do? Well, it would delay American energy production, and it would delay the creation of American jobs.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, just simply to close, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment is really unnecessary, and I think that chart points that out. You're talking hundreds of miles offshore, and yet the amendment asserts itself to protect states' rights. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot connect the dots on that.

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

I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as to thank my friend, Mr. Salmon from Arizona, for his leadership in the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on this issue because he understands what is at stake.

One thing this bill will do is attract jobs. It will help the United States Government create energy sector jobs. The second thing it will do is help meet our energy needs, and it will help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing those energy resources here at home. That's a national security issue. By being less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we are less dependent on what goes on in that part of the world. There can be no national security without energy security, and this is a step in the right direction.

We are willing to say that the Obama administration got something right in forming this agreement and signing it. In February of 2012, Secretary Clinton signed this agreement with the Foreign Secretary from Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, to open up this area known as the ``western gap'' in the Gulf of Mexico so that both countries--Mexico and the United States--could explore and start producing oil and natural gas from this area.

What it does is to create a broader legal certainty along that U.S.- Mexico boundary area in order to foster more American energy development and job creation. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement estimates that this area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 34 billion cubic feet of natural gas-- shared resources. Yet they're shared under a common border, a border between the United States Government and Mexico. If you think of a border, think about it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a maritime boundary, and these resources lie underneath the Earth's Outer Continental Shelf. Underneath that border, who do they belong do? This agreement addresses that they are shared resources. They belong to both countries, and we ought to utilize this agreement in order to start harvesting those resources.

The gentleman talks about changes to Dodd-Frank and other things, but why is that necessary? Who will benefit? I'll tell you who won't benefit if we don't put this language in there. The people who won't benefit are the American consumers. They are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline. They won't benefit because we won't be producing American resources to meet their energy needs.

So why is this necessary? Without the changes to this agreement, the language in the agreement can create an impossible situation for American companies operating on transboundary hydrocarbon resources.

For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the disclosure of the very information that the Dodd-Frank rule requires of American companies. This would lead to a situation in which companies that are regulated by the SEC have at the very least uncertainty about compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies, which are not regulated under Dodd-Frank or by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate under the United States' agreement and are regulated.

The change in this language will open up competition and allow American companies to actually go to work without the uncertainty as to which laws they need to comply with and which they don't. This is the right thing. The changes to this language will ensure that American energy development will go forward in the transboundary area and that those resources in that area will be harvested to provide the necessary energy for America, which drives our economy.

This is the right thing for America. We are willing to enact this agreement because we want to harvest those resources, and we want America to move toward American energy independence. Ultimately, we want to put Americans to work. We want to create jobs--good paying, long-term, energy sector jobs. We do that by moving toward American energy independence. We do that by enacting this agreement and by opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration and development. It's the right thing for America. It's a movement toward an all-American energy policy, utilizing American resources to meet American energy needs and putting Americans to work.

I can only see a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans and for all Americans by moving this agreement forward. We asked, from February 2012 until now, for the United States Department of the Interior to send us the enacting legislation, to send us the enacting ability so that we could vote on something in the last Congress, and they failed to do that. So understanding that we need to do that, the Natural Resources Committee took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do it. We're going to pass the implementing language to enact that agreement and put Americans to work and provide those resources that are so vital to moving this economy along.

Let's just be clear, America, what we're talking about and where we're talking about.

This chart shows the Western Gap, the only area covered under the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement--the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration--to open up this area; 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that's so far away from the shore of Florida that really makes this amendment not applicable.

This is the area we're talking about, this 1.5 million acres that would produce American jobs and American energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

I urge opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in this motion to recommit is just the latest attempt by a few on the other side of the aisle to cater to special interests instead of the needs of the American people.

Behind me, I have a copy of the transboundary area that we're talking about, the Western Gap. You'll notice in that map you don't even see the State of Florida.

This bill enacts an agreement between the United States Government and Mexico to open up a million and a half acres to offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, an agreement negotiated by and signed by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in February 2012.

We want to make sure this agreement will help create American jobs. We want to make sure that we're developing our resources in a safe and responsible way. We want to make sure that this bill puts us on the path toward North American energy independence.

This bill does all of those things, yet the gentleman that offers the motion says he is against the bill. Actually, he said he's for it, but for a lot of different reasons. But this is an attempt to delay the fact that we need to make changes.

The time for delay is over. The time to come together in a bipartisan way to create jobs through energy is at

hand. We want to develop these resources to achieve North American energy independence and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy, and we want to reduce the cost of fuel for all Americans.

We want this bill to be part of an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy. We want to provide the regulatory clarity and the certainty that energy producers need to explore the area, create the jobs, and produce the energy that we need. And for all of you still on the fence about whether or not to support this bill, let us remember that this is the administration's agreement, and we actually want to get it enacted.

So let's get to work creating American jobs while producing American energy. Let's defeat this motion and let's pass this bill to put Americans back to work.

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