[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1530-E1531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGARDING 
                         ``GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 30, 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express serious concerns 
regarding the Department of Education's recent Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking regarding ``gainful employment.''
  As it is currently proposed, the Department's approach will lead to 
serious educational capacity cutbacks in critically important fields 
such as nursing and education and will disproportionately affect low-
income and minority students.
  Today, 2.8 million students attend career colleges. Seventy-six 
percent of these students live independently, without parental support. 
Sixty-three percent are 24 years old or older. Fifty-four percent 
delayed postsecondary education after high school. Forty-seven percent 
have dependent children, and almost one-third of these students are 
single parents.
  The Department's suggested approach will disproportionately harm 
these nontraditional and lower-income students who have no choice but 
to rely on student loans to pursue a postsecondary education and need 
the flexibility career colleges provide.
  On May 18, I along with thirteen of my colleagues were assured during 
a meeting with

[[Page E1531]]

Secretary Duncan that our concerns would be taken into account, but 
thus far, I have difficulty believing that that was anything more than 
a facade. The proposal does not reflect our previously stated concerns 
and recent discussions indicate that rather than a productive dialogue 
with the administration, Members will receive little more than a formal 
response once the rule is set in stone.
  The ``gainful employment'' provision has been in statute since 1965, 
why is there this sudden rush to get this done by a drop, dead certain 
date? We all agree that both tax payer funds and students' best 
interests should be protected, but rushing into a blanket approach that 
will limit student access to higher education and fails to adequately 
address problem institutions, is irresponsible.
  Throughout this process, I have been trying to gain a better 
understanding of what exactly it is that the Department wants to 
address.
  If it is unreasonable amounts of student debt, well, I agree that is 
a concern. Let's then have a frank conversation on student debt, but it 
is not only the institutions that are responsible. Students, lenders, 
policy makers, as well as institutions must be part of this process and 
must be held accountable.
  However, what student debt has to do with ``gainful employment'' is 
beyond me. Let's not kid ourselves; there is no connection between debt 
and future income and ``gainful employment.'' As any young Capitol Hill 
staffer will tell you, salary is no indication of the quality of their 
job.
  I agree with the existing statute and the Department of Education 
that certificate and vocational programs should lead students to better 
employment. It is therefore shocking that there is no mention of job 
placement, professional certification passing rates, employer 
verification, or anything else job-related in determining an 
institution's effectiveness.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage Secretary Duncan and the individuals in 
the Department of Education who are writing these regulations to visit 
some of the schools in my District to see for themselves the 
commendable job they are doing at providing professional opportunities 
to students who would otherwise not have them.
  Higher education needs more competition and more capacity to expand 
access, improve quality, and prepare the 21st century workforce, not 
less. The Department's suggested approach detracts from the ability of 
deserving Americans to compete in the global economy.
  I strongly urge the Department of Education to abandon this foolish 
proposal and go back to the drawing board. Members of Congress such as 
myself are ready and willing to work with the Department and other 
interested parties to ensure that we better protect our students and 
improve the quality and accessibility of educational opportunities 
across all sectors of our educational system.

                          ____________________