[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2363-2381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PROTECTING ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN HIGHER EDUCATION ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 563

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 2117) to prohibit the Department of Education 
     from overreaching into academic affairs and program 
     eligibility under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965. 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 and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for

[[Page 2364]]

     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 563 provides for a structured rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 2117, which repeals the Department 
of Education's State authorization regulation and the Federal 
definition of a credit hour.
  I think most people on both sides of the aisle would agree that our 
higher education system is the envy of the world. The bill we will 
consider today, H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher 
Education Act, passed the House Education and Workforce Committee with 
bipartisan support on June 15, 2011, and I'm very, very proud of that.

                              {time}  1230

  A lot of Americans believe Members of Congress can't work together, 
but H.R. 2117 shows the opposite. I appreciate the opportunity to work 
with my colleagues across the aisle to pass this legislation and hope 
we can find more ways to work together.
  In 2010, the Department of Education issued a series of regulations 
purportedly aimed at improving the integrity of Federal student aid 
programs. Included in these regulations was a new ``State 
authorization'' rule that imposes a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate 
on institutions of higher education and infringes on the rights of 
States to regulate their higher education systems. Institutions are 
already required to be authorized by the State in which they're 
located. However, the Federal Department of Education was not satisfied 
leaving these decisions solely to States and added several Federal 
criteria to existing State authorization processes which would 
unnecessarily complicate the process for institutions and further 
burden already strapped State governments by increasing their workload.
  In addition, it is unclear whether the regulation would require 
online education programs to be authorized in every State in which they 
have students. One online university reports the State authorization 
regulations could cost the institution $700,000 initially, plus an 
additional $400,000 annually. H.R. 2117 also repeals the Federal 
definition of a credit hour. This definition has historically been the 
jurisdiction of accrediting agencies and institutions. And again, the 
process has worked very well. There have been no complaints about it.
  Last year, Excelsior College president John Ebersole testified in 
front of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 
about this regulation, stating it inserts the Department of Education 
into academic judgments that should be made at the institution level 
and could destroy accelerated learning programs that allow students to 
complete their education more quickly.
  These regulations will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and 
pave the way for additional Federal overreach into higher education.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, my good friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another day in the House of 
Representatives and another day without a jobs bill. It's almost March, 
and my Republican colleagues who control this House still have not put 
a meaningful jobs bill on the floor. In fact, their best chance of 
passing a jobs bill could have been the highway reauthorization bill, 
but they screwed that up so badly that they had to yank it off the 
floor before an embarrassing bipartisan defeat.
  So what are we doing today? Well, Madam Speaker, today, we're 
considering a bill targeting Department of Education regulations 
defining credit hours and setting minimum requirements that all higher 
education institutions must meet to be considered authorized by a 
State. We're targeting Department of Education regulations. We're not 
considering a jobs bill. There's no new, bipartisan highway bill. 
There's no bill that helps put cops, firefighters, and librarians back 
to work. And there's no new bill that helps train workers for the 
future.
  The economy may be inching along, recovering slowly, but it still 
needs some help. We need a real, comprehensive jobs package. Instead, 
we just get a bill to dismantle a few regulations with no attempt to 
make our education system better. This is no way to run the House of 
Representatives.
  Let's look at where we've been. They started off the new Congress 
with their health care repeal and replace, but we're still waiting on 
the replace part. To be clear, Republicans voted to take away health 
protections for seniors, they voted to take away health care 
protections for young people under 26, and they voted to take away 
health care protections for those with preexisting conditions, but they 
haven't proposed anything to replace those important provisions.
  Since then, the Republican leadership has played legislative Russian 
roulette with our economy by holding the debt limit discussions 
hostage, by holding up the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance 
extensions multiple times, and, most recently, by proposing the most 
partisan highway reauthorization bill I think in the history of this 
Congress.
  On top of that, the Republican leadership has wasted our time by 
debating resolutions to defund National Public Radio and Planned 
Parenthood. We have debated resolutions making it easier for unsafe 
people to carry concealed weapons across State lines. We've spent a 
good period of time on this House floor debating a bill to reaffirm our 
national motto. And soon we'll probably vote on a bill to restrict 
contraception, another attack on women's health by this Republican-
controlled House.
  Madam Speaker, there are more important things we should be doing, 
and, yes, education should be something we debate. I'm all for bills 
improving our education system. In fact, I'd welcome the opportunity to 
act in a bipartisan way to improve our school systems across the board. 
What we should be talking about today is college affordability. What we 
should be talking about today are ways to ensure that

[[Page 2365]]

every single American student has access to a quality education. And 
despite what Republican Senator Rick Santorum might think, it's not 
snobby to try to make sure our students have access to the best 
education possible.
  What we should be considering on the floor of the House today is 
legislation to extend the tax deduction for tuition and fees that 
families across this country rely on to help bear the incredible burden 
of rising tuition costs. This deduction, Madam Speaker, of up to$4,000 
expired at the end of last year, and congressional action is required 
to extend this tax benefit past the 2011 tax year. But that is not what 
we are considering today on the House floor.
  We should also be considering legislation to prevent the looming 
increase in subsidized Stafford student loan rates--from 3.4 percent to 
6.8 percent--that will occur if Congress does not act before July 1, 
2012. These need-based loans are critical for students who might 
otherwise be unable to attend college, and we should act now on 
legislation to stop the doubling of their interest rates. But, Madam 
Speaker, that is not what we are doing today.
  Republican Governors, including the head of the Republican Governors 
Association, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, overwhelmingly support 
President Obama's college education agenda. But in the House of 
Representatives, all we see is an effort to attack and dismantle the 
President's initiatives and no attempt to actually make college more 
accessible and more affordable.
  Madam Speaker, this is just another squandered opportunity by this 
Republican Congress. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. 
It is time for us to work in a bipartisan way to focus on how to get 
this economy moving again and to focus on jobs. And when we focus on 
education, let's focus on issues that will make a real difference in 
the lives of our young people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is a very hardworking 
Member of Congress, and I know that he pays close attention to what's 
going on in the Congress. I'm sure he simply forgot the fact that we 
have passed over 30 bills in the House and sent them to the Senate, and 
the Senate has not acted on them. These 30 bills--we've actually passed 
hundreds of bills--but those 30 bills, in particular, were focused on 
creating jobs. Now, my colleague seems to have forgotten that. He seems 
also to have forgotten the fact that the Senate is controlled by his 
colleagues in the Democratic Party, and that's where the problem is 
with jobs bills.
  Also, most of those 30 bills that we've passed, or a great number of 
them, had energy components, Madam Speaker, which would help bring down 
the cost of gasoline, which would help improve our energy resources in 
this country. So we get a twofer for most of those bills. However, 
again, those bills are languishing in the Senate.
  We have focused on creating jobs in the House, and one of the ways 
that we could truly create jobs is to reduce our deficit and reduce our 
debt. Republicans have been very much focused on that here in the House 
of Representatives, and in most cases, again, we get bipartisan support 
for those efforts.

                              {time}  1240

  In fact, the 30 jobs bills that have passed the House have had 
bipartisan support. So there are ways for us to work together.
  I think the focus of my colleague is to increase spending, increase 
Federal Government involvement; and we know that that goes against the 
grain. We know from history that that does not improve the economy, 
does not create jobs.
  We have an underemployment rate of over 15 percent, created beginning 
with the Democrats' takeover of the Congress in January of 2007, going 
through their 4 years. Then it really skyrocketed when President Obama 
was elected and was there for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled 
Congress.
  So I'd just like to remind my colleague that he goes back a little 
ways in history in talking about things that we have done here, but he 
fails to mention some of the effects of what he and his colleagues had.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would point out to my friend from North Carolina 
that the problem with the transportation bill, which had the potential 
to create millions of jobs in this country, was not the United States 
Senate. The problem with the transportation bill was the extreme right 
here in the House of Representatives that insisted that their 
leadership bring to the floor one of the most partisan, one of the most 
awful transportation bills we have ever, ever seen.
  The sad thing is that transportation bills used to be bipartisan. In 
fact, they've always been bipartisan, where Democrats and Republicans 
would come together. This bill was so partisan that even a number of 
Republicans couldn't support it. So they yanked it from the House floor 
because they were fearful of an embarrassing defeat.
  A good, robust surface transportation bill is a good jobs bill. We 
need to invest in our infrastructure in this country. We need to invest 
in our roads and our bridges and in mass transit. The transportation 
bill that the Republicans brought to the floor gutted mass transit, 
just gutted it. So that's not a problem with the United States Senate; 
it's a problem with the leadership here in the House of 
Representatives.
  My colleague talks about jobs. The President of the United States 
came to this Chamber and addressed the Nation on the need to create 
more jobs, on the need to help create a climate where more private 
sector jobs could happen. He submitted to us a plan. We cannot even get 
an up-or-down vote on the President's jobs plan. We can't even get a 
vote on it.
  So when my friends talk about jobs, you know, we have this 
opportunity to at least vote on a jobs bill. If you don't want to vote 
for jobs, that's one thing; but at least give us the opportunity to 
vote up or down on it.
  Just one other thing about the deficit and the debt. I don't know of 
a single economist who would disagree with the statement that this debt 
crisis that we're currently in began with the passage of the Bush tax 
cuts, which were not paid for. Then the prescription drug bill--that 
was a lot more expensive than my Republican colleagues advertised--
wasn't paid for. Add on to that two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, not 
paid for. The last time this country didn't pay for a war was when we 
borrowed money from the French to fight the British. I mean, we're 
going to war and asking the brave young men and women who serve in our 
military to put their lives on the line, and we're not even willing to 
pay for it. So that's how we got in this mess.
  Add to that the greed on Wall Street which brought this economy to a 
halt, and here we are trying to struggle to get our economy back on its 
feet. But I'm going to tell you that we're not going to get this 
economy back on its feet unless we invest in the American people, 
unless we invest in education, unless we invest in our infrastructure, 
unless we invest in medical research, unless we invest in the 
innovation economy so that we can compete in the global economy in the 
years to come.
  So I don't want to hear any lectures about deficits and debt. It is 
not even credible for my friends on the other side to point the finger 
on that, given the fact that when Bill Clinton left office we had 
record surpluses. We know how we started in this decline, and now we 
need to figure out a way to dig ourselves out.
  So, again, I wish we were debating a transportation bill on the floor 
of the House today. I wish we were debating a bill to be able to 
address the fact that interest rates on student loans are going to 
increase unless we do something. We ought to make education more 
affordable for people. No one in this country who wants a college 
education ought not to get one because they can't afford it.
  Those are the things we should be talking about here today. Instead, 
they

[[Page 2366]]

pulled the transportation bill and we're doing this today. And we'll be 
out of here on Thursday before noon, I'm told. The American people want 
us to work on their behalf.
  I regret the fact that this bill, however well-intentioned, to me is 
not the legislation we should be debating right now. This is not the 
urgent need. We ought to be talking about jobs; and my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, when it comes to jobs, have an absolutely 
lousy record.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, there's so much to refute and so little 
time.
  I would like to point out to my colleague that he mentions the Bush 
tax cuts. He conveniently forgets to mention that they actually should 
be called the Obama-Pelosi tax cuts because those tax cuts were 
extended in 2010 when President Obama was President and Nancy Pelosi 
was Speaker of this House. So they should no longer be called the Bush 
tax cuts. They should rightfully be called the Obama-Pelosi tax cuts 
because even those two people understood that we should not raise taxes 
in the middle of a horrible recession--brought on, I might say, by our 
colleagues across the aisle.
  I'd also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that--
let's assume that those tax increases were allowed to go into effect. 
We would still have a $400 billion deficit in this country. We know 
that if we took away every penny of wealth that those millionaires and 
billionaires--that they so desperately want to tax, if we took away 
every penny of their wealth--not just increased their taxes, but took 
all their wealth away from them, it would amount to a little over $1 
trillion. And then it wouldn't be available. There would be no tax 
increases available on those people in the future, and we still 
wouldn't have solved our problem.
  Now, our colleagues across the aisle want to make it worse by 
continuing to spend money. I know my colleague is not on the Education 
Committee, and maybe he isn't aware of the fact that the Department of 
Education has the third largest share of our discretionary spending of 
all the Departments in the Federal Government. Only the Departments of 
Defense and Health and Human Services have larger budgets than the 
Department of Education, but it's still not enough money. And what have 
we got to show for all of that money? Test scores, absolutely flat; no 
improvement since 1965 for over $2 trillion spent on education. Madam 
Speaker, I'm sorry, again, I can't allow my colleague to rewrite 
history in his own terms.
  I'd also like to point out that when President Obama had both the 
House and the Senate in his control--60 votes in the Senate and 255 
votes here--did he propose a jobs bill? No. He waited until he had been 
in office 3 years before he proposed a jobs bill.
  My colleagues across the aisle were in charge of this body and the 
Senate for 4 years. Did they reauthorize the transportation bill? Did 
they reauthorize ESEA? No.

                              {time}  1250

  So I am sorry--I believe in that old saying, People who live in glass 
houses should not throw stones.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time, and I would advise my 
colleague from Massachusetts that I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me respond, Madam Speaker, by reminding my colleagues that when 
President Obama became President of the United States, he inherited the 
worst economy since the Great Depression. My colleagues don't like to 
hear that, but that's just the facts.
  This has been a very difficult time not only for the U.S. economy but 
for the global economy. The President has been trying with little or no 
help from this House to get this economy back on the right track. The 
good news is that in spite of all the obstructionism here in the House 
of Representatives by my Republican colleagues, the economy is slowly 
but surely getting better little by little.
  We could help that if we actually talked about jobs and actually 
voted on bills that were about investing in people and creating jobs, 
putting people back to work. We could accelerate this recovery, but the 
obstructionism continues. I should point out, Madam Speaker, that those 
of us on the Democratic side have nothing against rich people, 
millionaires or billionaires. It's fabulous that in this country people 
can accrue enormous wealth. Where we have problems is when Warren 
Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There's 
something fundamentally wrong with our tax system that puts all the 
burden on middle class families and basically provides a whole bunch of 
loopholes so that a lot of the wealthiest people and a lot of the 
wealthiest corporations in this country can escape paying taxes.
  I think what people want is fairness. It's not about soaking the 
rich; it's about fairness. I'm going to tell you this tax system that 
we have right now isn't fair to middle class families at all. I would 
also say to my colleague, we talk about our deficits and we talk about 
our debt--don't exclude these wars that we're fighting. We borrow $10 
billion a month for Afghanistan alone. We borrow; we don't ask anyone 
to pay for it. It goes on our credit card. How is that being 
responsible? How is that doing the right thing? I want these wars 
ended. I think the war in Iraq was a mistake, and I want us to get out 
of Afghanistan as soon as humanly possible. But whether you're for or 
against these wars, you ought to pay for them. If you don't, it goes 
onto our credit card. We pay $10 billion a month for Afghanistan alone.
  Madam Speaker, I would also just say that one of the ways to get out 
of this deficit and out of this debt we have right now is to grow the 
economy, to put people back to work. The more people working, they pay 
taxes, and we can put it toward lowering our debt. What I fear and what 
has bothered me about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is 
they have used the deficit as an excuse to go after programs like 
Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, programs that provide a 
circle of protection for people in our country, our senior citizens who 
are the most vulnerable. Rather than going down that way, and rather 
than debating the bill that we're debating today, I wish we were 
debating the President's jobs bill. I wish we were debating something 
that we could send over to the Senate that would help put people back 
to work, that would help this economy grow faster. That's not what 
we're doing. We're doing the same old same old, which is not much of 
anything. This is a place, unfortunately, where trivial issues get 
debated passionately and important ones not at all.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have to point out again to my colleague that the Democrats took 
control of the House of Representatives and also the Senate in January 
of 2007. When they did, the unemployment rate in this country was 4.5 
percent. We were projected at that time to have a surplus in our budget 
of about $450 billion. In just 2 short years, the unemployment rate 
skyrocketed and the deficit skyrocketed. The Democrats were in control 
of Congress when the President took office. That's why he inherited a 
rotten economy. He didn't inherit a rotten economy from President Bush. 
He inherited a rotten economy from his own party, and he's frankly done 
nothing to make it any better.
  I would also like to point out to my colleague across the aisle that 
the stimulus that he voted for, which the President promised would do 
so much for the economy, was $1 trillion, which is 9 years' worth of 
spending on national defense for the war in Iraq given his figures 
alone.
  Madam Speaker, the American people have heard a lot recently about 
exploding college costs, the burden of student debt. President Obama 
highlighted these issues in his State of the Union address. Therefore, 
it is ironic that the Department of Education, which reports to him, is 
increasing the cost of higher education with unnecessary rules and 
regulations.

[[Page 2367]]

  At the Subcommittee on Higher Education's hearing on college costs in 
November, we heard many suggestions on how colleges and universities 
could cut costs. We heard from colleges who have cut their operating 
budgets, offered expedited degree programs, and encouraged dual 
enrollment for high school students.
  Students and families are struggling to make ends meet, and higher 
education institutions must find ways to cut costs. Imposing onerous 
rules and regulations at the Federal level is a disincentive to the 
schools to do that. It's also a major disincentive to one of the major 
innovations in education: distance learning. As I mentioned earlier, 
these unnecessary Federal regulations mean increased regulatory burdens 
for institutions, and in turn, greater compliance costs trickle down to 
increase expenses for students and their families.
  The Federal Government's involvement in elementary and secondary 
education illustrates what happens when Washington gets too big. The 
most recent reauthorization of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, is a 
perfect example of good intentions at the Federal level adrift in a 
feckless sea of red tape and overregulation. This law is a classic 
example of Federal top-down attempts to improve education in America's 
schools. It's a noble goal, but it has completely failed.
  If we can agree on anything, it is that our children should be well 
educated and prepared for a life of productive citizenship. However, 
the Federal Government's ability to accomplish this is in serious 
doubt. As history has shown time and again, Federal meddling has 
resulted in a one-size-fits-all approach that neglects local concerns 
and produces a grotesque layer of wasteful bureaucracy. Right now my 
colleagues in the House Education and the Workforce Committee are 
working on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. While my 
colleagues across the aisle won't support all of our revisions, we did 
find consensus on charter school legislation last year. H.R. 2218 
received bipartisan support in committee and passed the House by a 
bipartisan vote of 365-54 in September.
  Although we may not always agree, I hope we can continue to find ways 
to work with our colleagues across the aisle to improve education in 
this country. Thomas Jefferson once said:

       Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to 
     reap, we should soon want bread.

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the 
underlying bill, which would repeal a small part of the burdensome and 
unnecessary Federal regulations that we're struggling with and take one 
step toward reducing Federal intrusion in higher education.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 171, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               YEAS--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--171

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Akin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Jackson (IL)
     Landry
     Lankford
     Lee (CA)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     McMorris Rodgers
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Rangel
     Rooney
     Waxman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1326

  Mr. CAPUANO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BISHOP of New York changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 74, I was delayed and unable 
to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page 2368]]


  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 74 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2117.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nugent). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 563 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2117.

                              {time}  1326


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2117) to prohibit the Department of Education from overreaching 
into academic affairs and program eligibility under title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, with Mrs. Miller of Michigan in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), chairman of the 
House Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentlelady, Ms. Foxx, for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic 
Freedom in Higher Education Act.
  The legislation before us today is driven by a simple goal: to ensure 
Washington isn't adding to the burden of rising college costs by 
imposing burdensome regulations.
  Last year, tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and 
universities increased over 8 percent. The average 4-year public 
college student now graduates with roughly $22,000 in debt.
  Helping more students realize the dream of an affordable higher 
education is a shared goal. However, solving a problem like rising 
college costs starts with recognizing that, as is so often the case, 
Washington is part of the problem.
  Each year, the average higher education institution spends a 
significant amount of time and money complying with Federal regulations 
and reporting requirements, costs that can trickle down to students' 
tuitions and fees.
  H.R. 2117 will eliminate two unnecessarily burdensome regulations 
advanced by the Department of Education in late 2010. The credit-hour 
and State authorization regulations were part of a so-called ``program 
integrity'' package that significantly increased Federal intrusion in 
academic affairs.

                              {time}  1330

  The credit-hour regulation attempts to measure student learning at 
the Federal level, and restricts colleges from offering outside 
coursework and creative learning opportunities that could help students 
save money and graduate early.
  The State authorization regulation is even more troubling as it will 
lead to thousands of dollars in additional costs for colleges and 
universities across the Nation. In my home State of Minnesota, schools 
must spend between $2,000 and $3,500 per program, depending on the 
level of degree offered, to comply with this extreme regulation.
  In order to best prepare today's students to join tomorrow's 
workforce, we must not overwhelm schools with poorly conceived 
regulations that lead to wasted time and money. H.R. 2117 will repeal 
two particularly problematic regulations, protecting academic 
institutions and prospective students from significant financial and 
bureaucratic burdens.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Academic 
Freedom in Higher Education Act.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Madam Chair and Members of the House, we are now considering 
legislation that would significantly compromise the Department of 
Education's ability to oversee and safeguard our Federal investment in 
higher education and safeguard and protect the taxpayers who are paying 
for that investment in higher education.
  This legislation couldn't be more ill-timed. In this tough budget 
environment, we should be concerned with how the Federal Government 
spends the limited resources we dedicate to Federal student aid. During 
the 2009-2010 school year, students relied on nearly $200 billion in 
Federal student aid to prepare for jobs for today and jobs for 
tomorrow. That's the money that they borrowed, and that's the money 
that was given to them in grants. If that money is not spent in a 
responsible way, and if it's not protected, it goes down the drain. 
It's lost forever, and the students are left with the debt.
  Two years ago, the Department of Education's inspector general 
exposed a loophole that allowed a higher education institution to award 
more credits to get more student financial aid than was appropriate. 
They were charging for nine units a day that they said was graduate 
work. It turned out when the accreditors went through and looked at it, 
they deemed it was really the equivalent of 3 hours of credit work, and 
the level of work was at the undergraduate level. But they were able to 
charge the students, students had to borrow money, and at the end of 
the day they ended up with units that were worth nothing. Students 
attending this institution, many of whom were relying on Federal aid 
programs, were paying double the price because the school inflated the 
number of credits charged.
  In response to the inspector general's findings and recommendations, 
the Department of Education promulgated rules defining a credit hour 
and providing other protections for students, including ensuring 
students have access to a complaint process if there's fraud involved. 
What the Department of Education did was necessary and narrowly 
targeted to address a very costly problem.
  However, the bill before us today seeks to prevent the Department 
from protecting taxpayers and students. It would blow open the loophole 
that the inspector general concluded led to the inappropriate Federal 
spending. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today 
explicitly increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in our Federal 
student aid programs.
  At a time when the higher education market is in so much flux, with 
new kinds of programs popping up around the country and online, this is 
the wrong time to open this loophole against the taxpayers' best 
interest.
  The Department of Education should have tools to ensure that students 
who are eligible to receive Federal student aid are receiving it, and 
that the institutions that serve these students are upholding the 
integrity of the programs. This seems like a simple proposition: making 
sure taxpayers and students aren't getting ripped off.
  This legislation eliminates those important consumer protections, and 
it does so under the banner of academic freedom. But the Department's 
protections do not interfere with academic freedom. Colleges and 
universities will continue to be free under the Department's rule to 
set whatever higher standards they see fit for their students as long 
as the accreditors agree. In this economy, millions of students rely on 
Federal student aid programs to make the college dream a reality. This 
is exactly why the Department of Education has moved to ensure greater 
accountability and taxpayer protection. And it's exactly why the 
legislation is misguided.
  Now more than ever, we need accountability in higher education that 
works in the best interests of students who use Federal aid programs.
  In the last Congress, Democrats worked to make sure that our student 
aid programs worked in the best interest of students, families, and 
taxpayers. We also worked hard to make

[[Page 2369]]

higher education more accessible for families for whom degrees may have 
been out of reach.
  One way we helped to make higher education more accessible and 
affordable and financially manageable for students and families was to 
lower the interest rates on loans. Specifically, we lowered the 
interest rate on need-based student loans to 3.4 percent, almost 
cutting the cost to those borrowers in half. The interest rate 
reduction is scheduled to end this summer. It will bounce back to where 
it was before the Democrats acted to reduce it. For the sake of our 
students, low rates should be extended. If Congress fails to act, 
interest rates on need-based student loans for more than 7 million 
students will double this July. This increase will cost an average 
borrower almost $2,800 in additional interest payments.
  At a time when our economy is on fragile footing, we shouldn't be 
building more hurdles for young people to get the education and the 
skills they need to succeed. When interest rates are at historic lows, 
we should not be asking students to pay more on their student loan debt 
just because Congress failed to act.
  Earlier this month, Mr. Hinojosa and I asked the committee's majority 
to take immediate action on this important issue. The President has 
called for action as well. But just like with other economic issues 
that are vitally important to the American people, those requests have 
been met with silence.
  So today, instead of saving students from interest rate hikes, we are 
here debating a bill that will take away the tools the Department of 
Education needs to oversee and protect our investment in higher 
education, to protect those students who are borrowing money to go to 
college.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I urge the 
majority to take up a bill to make sure that interest rates don't 
double come July.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, H.R. 2117. This 
bipartisan legislation will prevent the Department of Education from 
defining a college credit hour, something that is best left to our 
institutions of higher learning and their accrediting agencies. It will 
also block a cumbersome new rule that will require States to use 
Federally set, one-size-fits-all criteria to regulate higher education. 
If these two rules were allowed to go into effect, it would create 
tremendous new burdens and additional cost for students.
  The exploding cost of higher education is already putting the 
opportunity of a college education and diploma out of reach for too 
many Americans. Last year, tuition and fees at public, 4-year schools 
increased by 8.3 percent. More regulations will lead to more 
administrative staff, and ultimately larger tuition bills. And I might 
add, the fact that one institution or several institutions break the 
law--we have laws against robbing banks, and people do that. There are 
unscrupulous people out there. But this is putting a burdensome 
regulation on the folks that are following the rules.
  The average debt of a college graduate today is approximately 
$22,000. When I went to medical school, I started in 1967 and graduated 
in 3 years in 1970. My father was a factory worker. I was able to work 
in medical school and graduate with no debt from college and medical 
school. That's unheard of today. Today, students are so far in debt 
that they'll spend much of their working life paying off these 
exorbitant loans that they have.
  There is much that we can do to improve access to higher education 
and lower costs. Issuing new regulations, however, takes us in the 
opposite direction. I've taken hundreds of hours of college credit, and 
not one of them has been approved by the Federal Government, and yet I 
am a board certified physician. I think this goes way too far. Again, I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the senior Democrat on the 
Higher Education Subcommittee.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, 
misguided legislation that repeals efforts to protect students' and 
taxpayers' investment in higher education.
  Every year, the Federal Government spends billions of dollars on 
student financial aid, and we must account for these Federal 
investments. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education 
and Workforce Training, I am deeply concerned that H.R. 2117 would 
undermine the Secretary of Education's ability to oversee and safeguard 
our Federal investment in higher ed.
  In my view, strong regulations strengthen the accountability and 
review of institutions of higher education that participate in Federal 
student aid programs, and help to maintain program integrity.
  In a globally competitive world, our students deserve to get what 
they pay for--high quality educational programs that prepare them for 
the demands of the 21st century workforce--and nothing less.

                              {time}  1340

  H.R. 2117 repeals the U.S. Department of Education's credit-hour 
regulation, which sets a minimum standard for the work needed to equal 
a credit hour for the purposes of the Federal Student Aid program. To 
avoid having institutions overstate credit hours or inflate the Federal 
student aid paid for students attending those programs, we must have 
consistent measures for credit hours. The credit-hour definition 
provided by the Department is consistent with standard industry 
practice and provides needed flexibility for innovative programs.
  H.R. 2117 also repeals the requirement that higher education 
institutions be legally authorized in the States they operate in and 
that they have a process in place for handling student complaints when 
an institution fails to live up to its promises. Repealing this 
regulation is clearly unacceptable. Students need to be protected from 
unscrupulous actors.
  Most importantly, I am very disappointed that we are not using our 
time today to focus on making college more affordable. We must ensure 
that interest rates for need-based undergraduate student loans do not 
double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July of this year. If 
Congress fails to act, more than 7 million students will face 
approximately $2,800 in higher loan repayment costs. Now, more than 
ever, American students need Congress' help to afford the cost of a 
college education.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2117 because 
Congress and the Department of Education must provide strong oversight 
for Federal student aid dollars and do everything possible to put 
students and taxpayers first and protect them from the risk of fraud, 
waste, and abuse in our Federal student aid programs.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend, Ms. Foxx, for yielding to me on this 
important issue.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for this 
important legislation, H.R. 2117. Recently, bureaucrats at the 
Department of Education promulgated a rule which would require 
institutions that offer distance education programs to meet State 
requirements in every State in which they have a distance education 
student. This legislation that we have here would repeal that rule, a 
rule that negatively affects hundreds of colleges and thousands of 
students around this country.
  Specifically, in my district, I'm very proud that I have Central 
Texas College. Central Texas College may be the largest community 
college in the United States, possibly the world; and it consistently 
has students of 75,000-plus every year. They provide both on-campus and 
distance education for thousands of American warfighters,

[[Page 2370]]

soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines around the world. These folks 
who are in any place you could imagine are taking courses from Central 
Texas College, and they would be specifically impacted if the rule the 
bureaucrats have put upon us is not repealed. This is very important to 
the future of the educated warfighters.
  Under this rule, only colleges that maintain significant resource 
reserves would be able to comply with these State authorization 
requirements.
  Just let me point out that Central Texas College is a small public 
school doing great work for educating our soldiers around the world. We 
shouldn't let the bureaucrats in Washington take away the opportunity 
for an education for thousands of soldiers and other students that rely 
on distance education. This little school that sits on the edge of Fort 
Hood in Killeen, Texas, is educating soldiers around the world on 
shipboard and in military posts, and we need to make sure that this 
H.R. 2117 is passed to protect their education.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  First, let me say I agree with my friend from California that the 
highest priority in higher education ought to be avoiding that doubling 
of student loan rates this summer. We should get to work on that.
  Second, I rise in support of this bill, and let me tell you why. 
There is no question that avoiding fraudulent or wrongful credit hours 
is something we need to do. If someone pays for a credit hour, it ought 
to really be worth what they're paying for. And certainly, if the 
Federal taxpayers are paying for this through a Pell Grant or a student 
loan, it certainly ought to be worth what we're paying for.
  The question is, Who is best positioned to make that determination? 
For years in American higher education, we've had a system where a 
combination of institutions, their regional accrediting bodies--which 
are peer accreditors--and to some extent State governments have decided 
the answer to that question. Without question, there have been some 
abuses. Without question, there have been some wrong answers. I don't 
think that those abuses or wrong answers justify adding another layer 
of decision-making to the system, which would be the Department of 
Education.
  I certainly do think it is worth the attention of the committee, the 
Congress, and the administration to think about ways to root out the 
bad practices that we have seen; but I think yet another level of 
rulemaking is the wrong way to go.
  The other objection that I would make to the rule is that I think 
that we've fallen into a pattern here, particularly in higher 
education, where too few decisions are being made in a statutory way by 
this body and too many decisions are being made by the Department of 
Education through the regulatory process. As a result of these 
objections, a broad coalition of educators across the country is in 
support of this bill, and I am pleased to join that coalition and urge 
a ``yes'' vote on the bill here today.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Andrews for his 
pointing out that this is a very bipartisan bill, supported by a 
coalition of many groups.
  I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. 
This important legislation aims to repeal two of the Department of 
Education's packages of regulations that will hinder colleges and 
universities from making decisions that best serve their students.
  These Federal regulations handed down from the Department of 
Education are not only proving to be costly, but they're intruding into 
areas best handled by academic institutions individually and also 
States.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2117 to 
repeal two regulations specifically that affect State authorization of 
academic institutions and the definition of credit hours. These 
provisions allow the Federal Government to reach further into the 
educational authority of the States. The State authorization provision 
requires institutions offering distance-education programs to meet 
requirements in every State in which they have a distance-education 
student. This regulation threatens programs like those offered by Penn 
State's World Campus and limits access to quality education.
  Many programs have already started to identify States where they will 
no longer be able to offer distance education. The credit-hour 
provision establishes a Federal definition of a credit hour, hindering 
institutions of higher education from making innovative and sensible 
core academic decisions related to their curriculum and imposing a one-
size-fits-all approach.
  While I was home in Bucks County last week, Madam Chairman, I had the 
opportunity to meet with the president of a local college. He was 
worried specifically about the impact these burdensome regulations 
would have on his students; and more than 60 higher-education 
associations and accrediting organizations have joined him in 
expressing their support for the repeal of these costly regulations.
  Over the course of the last decade, we've seen the cost of higher 
education skyrocket, with the rise in tuitions and fees at public 4-
year colleges and universities outpacing inflation by 5 percent. The 
rising cost of higher education will not be solved through more Federal 
mandates and programs. We must return flexibility to academic 
institutions and prevent Federal overreach into higher education by 
passing this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from California. And here I 
join the New Jersey Presidents Council, which represents all the 
institutions of higher education in New Jersey, in support of this 
legislation, as well as the Association of Independent Colleges and 
Universities in New Jersey who support this bill, as well as the 
American Council on Education, which represents 1,600 college 
presidents around the country in support of this bill.

                              {time}  1350

  Clearly, there have been abuses in some businesses and some 
institutions and those abuses have to be addressed, but this 
legislation I think makes sure that we go about it in the right way.
  I'd like to quote from one of my constituents, President Shirley 
Tilghman of Princeton University. She writes:

       Unlike many nations elsewhere in the world, the United 
     States has nurtured a vibrant and vigorous respect for 
     academic freedom. Under such a system, American higher 
     education has flourished.

  She goes on:

       But if recent trends continue, in which the staff at 
     accrediting agencies seek to substitute their own judgments 
     about what mission an institution should pursue and about how 
     the institutions can best achieve that mission and measure 
     success, we risk damaging the country's leading institutions.

  In other words, the Department's rules strike at the heart of our 
excellent higher education. But whether these rules are in effect or 
not doesn't matter if students can't afford to go to college.
  My amendment to this legislation to require Pell Grants be maintained 
at at least the current level of $5,500 was not made in order. Now, in 
New Jersey, 213,000 students use Pell Grants to make college 
affordable.
  There's bipartisan agreement on Ms. Foxx's bill, but unfortunately 
this is a partisan matter.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. HOLT. The Republicans in the House have three times approved a 
budget that would slash the maximum Pell Grant award to $3,040, the 
lowest since 1998. Slashing Pell Grants would put college out of reach 
for thousands of students.
  I call on the Republicans, because this is a partisan matter, to 
protect

[[Page 2371]]

Pell Grants and not roll them back to their 1998 levels in their budget 
this year.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2117. Today's debate on the Protecting 
Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act affords us a valuable 
opportunity to discuss challenges facing our higher education system.
  I think that we all agree that we have a higher education system 
that's the envy of the world, and we all want to see it continue to 
enjoy the recognition that it enjoys now. But this also provides us an 
opportunity to show bipartisan support for the issue before us.
  I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
understanding the danger to the higher education community that the 
regulations are presenting to us and that they will stall the efforts 
in our country to make higher education more accessible and more 
affordable to everyone in the country.
  There's no denying the cost of college is skyrocketing. Last year, 
tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and universities increased 
8.3 percent, even as inflation rose only by approximately 3 percent.
  In recent months, students and families have urged Congress to take 
action on the issue of rising college costs. The administration has 
proposed several programs and initiatives that they claim will reduce 
student loan debt and rein in tuition. However, these initiatives only 
further entrench the Federal Government in the affairs of States and 
institutions. Rather than getting the Federal Government more involved 
in higher education, we can start by working together to remove harmful 
regulations that pile unnecessary financial burdens on colleges and 
universities.
  The legislation before us today will eliminate two onerous 
regulations advanced by the Department of Education in October of 2010. 
The credit-hour and State authorization regulations will restrict 
innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional Federal 
overreach into higher education.
  The State authorization regulation sets Federal requirements States 
must follow to grant colleges and universities permission to operate 
within the State, infringing on a State's ability to regulate in the 
way it chooses. For institutions that offer distance learning courses, 
this could mean meeting authorization requirements and paying 
authorization fees in all 50 States.
  One online university reports the State authorization regulation 
could cost the institution $700,000 initially, plus an additional 
$400,000 required annually. Faced with this astronomical sum, the 
university could be forced to pass these costs along to students in the 
form of higher tuition or new fees, or discontinue academic programs in 
some States. Either way, students will be the victims of this harmful 
regulation.
  Higher education officials are also crying foul over a regulation 
that establishes a Federal definition of a credit hour. Last spring, 
Excelsior College President John Ebersole testified to the Subcommittee 
on Higher Education and Workforce Training about this regulation, 
stating it inserts the Department of Education into academic judgments 
that should be made at the institution level and could destroy 
accelerated learning programs that allow students to complete their 
education more quickly. As a result, students will have fewer 
opportunities to graduate early with a smaller loan burden, and schools 
will have less incentive to offer creative courses that promote 
learning outside the classroom.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to 
support this positive legislation, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Miller for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation, and I'm going to focus my 
remarks on the credit-hour piece of the legislation.
  The Department of Education has established a minimum standard for 
the credit hour. This is being derided as taking away institutional 
flexibility. It's being described as a Federal overreach. It's being 
described as onerous. It's being described as dangerous.
  Let's read the regulation. The regulation says that a credit hour is 
an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and 
verified by evidence of student achievement that is--here's the part I 
want us to pay attention to--an institutionally established equivalency 
that reasonably approximates not less than 1 hour of classroom 
instruction for 15 weeks per credit hour.
  An institutionally established equivalency; that places the 
responsibility for determining what a credit hour is where it belongs--
with the faculty and with the accreditor of that particular 
institution, so long as it complies with a minimum Federal baseline or 
minimum Federal standard.
  Now, with respect to overreach, with respect to how dangerous this 
is, with respect to how onerous this is, let's be clear: this very 
definition of a credit hour has been the law in the State of New York 
since 1976. We have some pretty good institutions in New York that have 
managed to survive even in the face of this so-called ``onerous'' 
regulation. Columbia University is one of the best universities in the 
world; so, also, is NYU; so, also, is Fordham; so, also, is Syracuse. 
This has been the law.
  I administered a school in the State of New York. Our cost of 
compliance for complying with the credit-hour regulation was exactly 
zero, and we were able to create all kinds of innovative programs--a 
semester at sea, cooperative education, internships, truncated courses 
that met in accelerated time formats for 4 and 5 weeks--all because we 
established an institutional equivalency that was agreed to by our 
faculty and agreed to by our accreditors. That's all this regulation 
does.
  So for us to describe it as if it's going to end higher education as 
we know it and it's going to stifle innovation and be onerous to 
students and add to the length of time for their degree program simply 
is not true. We have a 35-year experience in New York that says that 
this regulation works just fine.
  Lastly, let me say we define an academic year as consisting of 24 to 
36 credit hours. That's what the Federal Government says. We say that 
you need to take at least 6 credit hours in order to be minimally 
eligible for financial aid, and yet we don't define the credit hour. So 
we base a great many of our judgments on what a credit hour is, yet we 
don't define it.
  Let's vote against this piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I would just like to point out very briefly 
to my colleague, Mr. Bishop, that institutions have always had the 
authority to do institutionally approved equivalency. It isn't 
something that we needed the Federal Government to give us. As a former 
assistant dean, I did that all the time, approved institutional 
equivalence to courses. We have always had that approval. We didn't 
need the Federal Government to write it into rules and regulations.
  Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me the time, and not just for the time but for her continued leadership 
on the floor of this House and in the Halls of Congress. It is steady, 
it is dignified, it is common sense, and it is certainly a great 
reflection of the people she represents.
  I rise this afternoon to give my strong support to this measure.
  During this time of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, it is 
more important than ever to make sure the Federal Government does not 
stand in the way of Americans who wish to continue their education and 
gain the skills necessary for a more prosperous future. It's pretty 
simple. I believe a strong higher education system is critical to 
preparing American

[[Page 2372]]

graduates for an increasingly competitive workforce.
  In Indiana, my students are not just competing with other students in 
Fort Wayne and Evansville. They are competing with students from places 
all over the world whose names we can barely pronounce. That requires a 
different strategy. However, the regulatory initiatives put forth by 
the Department of Education will only add strain and undue burden on 
our colleges and universities.
  One of these regulations pertains to the authorization that a college 
or university must obtain from a State when operating within that 
State. For institutions providing online education programs, which is 
becoming the new norm, this regulation could require them to obtain 
authorization in every State where enrolled students reside in order to 
participate in the Federal student aid programs. This regulation will 
only serve to negatively impact States and institutions of higher 
education across the country and inject the Federal Government once 
again into an issue that is best left to the States and the 
postsecondary institutions themselves.
  I heard from many outstanding institutions in Indiana on this 
regulatory change. They are facing hundreds and potentially thousands 
of additional administrative hours just because they offer online 
programming. That is not fair. That is not American. Not only that, but 
if this rule goes into effect, they will likely deny entrance to 
students in States where they are not approved and deny financial aid 
to any current students living in those States, as well.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, we've just spent the last few hours in an 
Education and Workforce Committee markup debating the disastrous 
Republican rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Not 
content to undermine K-12 education, the majority adjourned the markup 
so they could come down here and inflict damage on higher education, as 
well.
  Through the repeal of two important Department of Education 
regulations, H.R. 2117 undercuts college students' ability to be 
assured a quality education for their investment. Congresswoman Foxx's 
bill repeals two Department of Education regulations intended to 
protect consumers, students, taxpayers, and the money that we invest in 
higher education because it doesn't hold the spending accountable to 
ensure that there's real progress for the dollars that we invest.
  This bill doesn't do anything to solve the problem of how to make 
college more affordable for more people. Why are we doing this? Why 
aren't we addressing the absolutely looming student loan interest rate 
hike that will drastically increase the cost of college? If Congress 
doesn't act by July, more than 7 million students will face an increase 
of approximately $2,800 in higher costs.
  At a time when a sluggish economy is making it hard for young people 
to find work, why aren't we standing here talking about cutting the 
barriers to higher education? Why aren't we opening a pathway to the 
American Dream? Why are we restricting access to a college education? 
Why aren't we working for these kids instead of against them? I don't 
understand this. We should be working together to increase 
accountability. We should be protecting taxpayer investments. We should 
be opening the door to higher education. Instead we're debating this 
wasteful partisan piece of legislation.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no.''
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the chairwoman for her hard work on this bill.
  A year ago I spoke on the House floor urging this committee to 
introduce legislation repealing the program integrity regulations. 
Today I speak in support of H.R. 2117, which repeals two of these 
regulations.
  While we must ensure that our small number of schools who have acted 
in bad faith are dealt with accordingly, the credit-hour and State 
licensing regulations are an overreaction with vast unintended 
consequences. First, these regulations will significantly alter the 
Federal role in the accrediting and licensing of institutions of higher 
education. Second, they will also drastically limit student access to 
educational programs and negatively impact all schools.
  Let me give you an example of a school located in the Midwest in my 
district--Ohio Christian University--as an example of a school that 
will be adversely affected by these regulations. OCU is located in 
Pickaway County, which is a typical county in southeastern Ohio and 
mirrors that of many across the Midwest. It is struggling with this 
difficult economy. It has lost over 2,500 jobs, and only 11 percent of 
the residents in this county have a bachelor's degree.
  In contrast, Ohio Christian University has created 150 jobs in just 5 
years while graduating thousands of students since its founding in 
1948. In addition to offering traditional undergraduate degrees, OCU 
offers an online degree program. Currently, more than 1,000 students 
from over 15 States are enrolled in that program. Because of the high 
costs and administrative burdens required to get licensing in every 
State where an online student resides, OCU will be forced to un-enroll 
at least half of its online students and lay off a large number of 
staff. Further, as part of the adult degree program, OCU offers a 
limited number of credit hours for prior learning and work experiences. 
This program allows nontraditional students the ability to return to 
school and earn their degree. To comply with the credit-hour 
regulation, the university will be forced to eliminate that program, 
which would be a significant disincentive for older students. The 
regulation will also negatively impact traditional students by setting 
a strict definition of credit hour, and this will eliminate the 
school's ability to credit innovative courses which provide students 
with the cutting-edge skills and knowledge required for future 
employees.
  Today I urge my colleagues to protect our schools, States, and 
students from these burdensome, overreaching regulations by supporting 
H.R. 2117.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in 
Higher Education Act.
  This legislation would remove critical safeguards ensuring that 
American taxpayer dollars are used responsibly in our higher education 
system. For example, unregulated for-profit colleges are targeting our 
veterans, targeting low-income students, and targeting minorities. 
These institutions receive a high percentage of their revenue from 
Federal student loan dollars, yet they're failing to properly educate 
their students. As a result, the students who need the most support are 
failing to get it. They are more likely to drop out, graduate without a 
degree and without the proper training they need to obtain gainful 
employment. And in turn, they're unable to pay back their student loan 
debt. H.R. 2117 would let the for-profit colleges off the hook.
  We must start focusing our efforts on making college more affordable 
for all students. We must stop the interest rates from doubling on 
student loans and provide for innovative ways to help students pay back 
their loans rather than condemning them to early lives of debt.

                              {time}  1410

  We need to increase the maximum Pell Grant and broaden the 
eligibility for them. We need to invest in programs at community 
colleges that train students to enter into our workforce. We need to 
refocus our attention on assisting young Americans to obtain the 
education they need and deserve instead of repealing regulations that 
protect our investment in their future.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

[[Page 2373]]


  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation 
which will enable even more fraud and abuse in the for-profit college 
industry.
  Right now, many for-profit colleges are engaged in the same sorts of 
predatory lending schemes that we saw in the housing market. According 
to Holly Petraeus at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
recruiters from for-profit colleges have been signing up marines with 
serious brain injuries, marines who cannot even remember what they 
signed up for, in order to inflate their profits.
  According to a 2009 Pew study, even though only 1 in 14 students, or 
7 percent, attend these proprietary schools, they make up nearly half, 
44 percent, of the default rate on student loans.
  So, if anything, we need more comprehensive oversight over for-profit 
colleges. Instead, this bill repeals regulations that are already on 
the books and makes it easier for the institutions to commit fraud at 
the expense of students and taxpayers.
  What the bill does is it overturns regulations for awarding the 
Federal student aid that are aimed at ensuring accountability and 
reducing fraud. It removes the ability of the Secretary of Education to 
define a credit hour without providing an alternative. It removes the 
Federal Government's ability to protect students from being overcharged 
and ultimately overcome by costly student loans. By getting rid of the 
State authorization requirement, it opens the door to billions of 
taxpayer dollars going to institutions that are openly flouting the 
law. It's about manipulating credit hours in order to receive more 
Federal aid.
  Instead of deregulating for-profit colleges, we should be working to 
ensure that these institutions are fulfilling their obligations to 
their students. We should work to fix the real problems that students 
face right now: growing student debt and the upcoming interest rate 
increase on student loans. This bill will only cause more fraud and 
abuse in a sector that is already rife with it, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that this bill, 
again, has bipartisan support.
  We have a letter from the National Governors Association, which talks 
about the need to strengthen higher education, not give more Federal 
control; and a letter from the American Council on Education, signed by 
Molly Corbett Broad and 98 institutions from across the country, mostly 
public and private institutions.
  This is not a for-profit or a public issue. This is all institutions 
of higher education who are concerned with this issue.
                                                          National


                                        Governors Association,

                                     Washington, DC, July 1, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker 
     Boehner, and Representative Pelosi: On behalf of the nation's 
     governors, we write in support of H.R. 2117, the ``Protecting 
     Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.'' In June, the U.S. 
     House Education and the Workforce Committee passed H.R. 2117 
     on a bipartisan basis. We urge Senate and House leadership to 
     take action to approve this important legislation to preserve 
     the autonomy and strength of America's higher education 
     system.
       H.R. 2117 would repeal two federal regulations issued by 
     the U.S. Department of Education that are highly problematic 
     for states, institutions of higher education, and our 
     students. Specifically, the bill would repeal the new federal 
     definition of a credit hour and a new requirement that erects 
     federal hurdles for states to authorize higher education 
     programs. Additionally, the bill prohibits future action by 
     the U.S. Department of Education to promulgate new federal 
     mandates, rules, or regulations with respect to a federal 
     definition of a credit hour.
       Perhaps at no other time in history has the quality of our 
     higher education system been so vital to students and our 
     national economic interests. At the same time, across the 
     country, governors are pursuing innovative higher education 
     reforms to expand opportunities for students, create and 
     retain jobs, enhance state competitiveness, and expand 
     economic development. The new federal regulations could have 
     a chilling effect on innovation and productivity in higher 
     education.
       Governors urge your support of H.R. 2117. We look forward 
     to working with you to continually strengthen our nation's 
     higher education system.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon,
       Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.
     Governor Robert F. McDonnell,
       Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce 
     Committee.
                                  ____



                                American Council on Education,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2012.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the higher education 
     associations and accrediting organizations listed below, I 
     urge you to vote for H.R. 2117, which would repeal two highly 
     problematic and prescriptive regulations initiated by the 
     Department of Education (ED).
       The credit hour definition and state authorization 
     regulations took effect on July 1, 2011. They are the product 
     of a larger attempt by ED to curb abuse and bring greater 
     integrity to the federal student aid programs. These efforts 
     are laudable, and many portions of the regulatory package ED 
     produced will be effective in achieving their intended goals. 
     However, given the almost total lack of evidence of a problem 
     in the context of credit hour or state authorization, these 
     two portions of the package miss their mark. We see no 
     justification for two regulations that so fundamentally alter 
     the relationships among the federal government, states, 
     accreditors and institutions. We believe the outcome of this 
     unprecedented regulatory overreach will be inappropriate 
     federal interference in campus-based decisions in which the 
     faculty play a central role. The end result will be a 
     curtailment of student access to high-quality education 
     opportunities.
       A federal credit hour definition opens the door to federal 
     interference in the core academic decisions surrounding 
     curriculum, which is the exact type of interference expressly 
     prohibited in the act that created ED. It sets in motion the 
     basis for perpetual regulatory intervention in multiple 
     institutional and accreditation decisions associated with the 
     credit hour. Moreover, the federal definition at issue poses 
     serious challenges for institutions as they review tens of 
     thousands of courses in an effort to ensure consistency with 
     it. Accreditors face similar burdens as they attempt to 
     develop or revise their own policies and practices to review 
     institutions' credit policies for consistency with the 
     definition. Finally, the definition places accreditors in the 
     untenable position of being required to put aside the 
     academic judgments of the traditional peer review process and 
     instead substitute the federal government's judgment about a 
     critical component of the academic enterprise.
       The state authorization regulation intrudes upon 
     prerogatives properly reserved to the states, potentially 
     upsetting recognition and complaint resolution procedures 
     that have functioned effectively for decades. It has also 
     generated enormous confusion in the distance education arena 
     and has created a market for definitive legal compilations of 
     the extensive number of statutory requirements within each of 
     the states with which institutions must comply. Having no way 
     to accurately predict or control student mobility, most 
     institutions will need to pursue authorization in all 50 
     states even before knowing from which states their students 
     may ultimately enroll. State policies vary widely. They can 
     be complex, are often ambiguous and may be accompanied by 
     fees that may be cost-prohibitive for many public and 
     nonprofit institutions. At the end of the day, the most 
     pernicious consequence of the state authorization regulation 
     might be that institutions that have been exploring the 
     expansion of their online courses in order to lower the costs 
     of tuition will not find it economically feasible to continue 
     down this path.
       It is important to note that neither of these regulations 
     was developed in response to underlying legislation 
     indicating a desire by Congress to regulate colleges and 
     universities in these areas. To the contrary, as we have 
     noted, the credit hour definition conflicts with ED's 
     enabling legislation which prohibits interference in core 
     academic matters.
       We believe these regulations are misguided and will have 
     far-reaching negative consequences for higher education. We 
     strongly

[[Page 2374]]

     support H.R. 2117, and we ask you to vote in favor of its 
     adoption.
           Sincerely,
                                              Molly Corbett Broad,
                                                        President.
           On behalf of:


                     Higher Education Associations

       ACPA-College Student Educators International; American 
     Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; American 
     Association of Colleges of Nursing; American Association of 
     Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine; American Association of 
     Community Colleges; American Council on Education; American 
     Dental Education Association; American Indian Higher 
     Education Consortium; American Psychological Association; 
     Appalachian College Association.
       Association of American Medical Colleges; Association of 
     American Universities; Association of Benedictine Colleges 
     and Universities; Association of Catholic Colleges and 
     Universities; Association of Chiropractic Colleges; 
     Association of Community College Trustees; Association of 
     Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges; Association of 
     Independent Colleges and Universities in New Jersey; 
     Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio; 
     Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design.
       Association of Independent Kentucky Colleges and 
     Universities; Association of Jesuit Colleges and 
     Universities; Association of Presbyterian Colleges and 
     Universities; Commission on Independent Colleges and 
     Universities in New York; Conference for Mercy Higher 
     Education; Council for Christian Colleges & Universities; 
     Council for Higher Education Accreditation; Council for 
     Opportunity in Education; Council of Graduate Schools; 
     Council of Independent Colleges.
       EDUCAUSE; Federation of Independent Illinois Colleges & 
     Universities; Georgia Independent College Association; 
     Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; 
     Independent Colleges and Universities of Texas; Independent 
     Colleges of Washington; Independent Colleges of Indiana; 
     Kansas Independent College Association; Louisiana Association 
     of Independent Colleges and Universities; NASPA-Student 
     Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
       National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers; National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities; National Association of Student Financial Aid 
     Administrators; New American Colleges and Universities; South 
     Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities; Tennessee 
     Independent Colleges and Universities Association; University 
     Professional & Continuing Education Association; Wisconsin 
     Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; Women's 
     College Coalition; Work Colleges Consortium.


                  Regional Accreditation Organizations

       Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 
     Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting 
     Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities, Western 
     Association of Schools and Colleges; Commission on 
     Institutions of Higher Education, New England Association of 
     Schools and Colleges; Middle States Commission on Higher 
     Education; Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities; 
     Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on 
     Colleges; The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central 
     Association of Colleges and Schools.


                   Other Accreditation Organizations

       ABET; Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education; 
     Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the 
     Physician Assistant; Accrediting Commission of Career Schools 
     and Colleges; Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges 
     and Schools; Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism 
     and Mass Communications; American Board for Accreditation in 
     Psychoanalysis, Inc.; American Board of Funeral Services 
     Education; American Dental Association Commission on Dental 
     Accreditation; American Occupational Therapy Association--
     Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education.
       American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Association 
     for Biblical Higher Education; Commission on Accreditation; 
     Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools; 
     Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors; 
     Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy 
     Education; Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy 
     Education/American Physical Therapy Association; Commission 
     on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs; 
     Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management 
     Education; Commission on Accrediting of the Association of 
     Theological Schools; Commission on Collegiate Nursing 
     Education.
       Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related 
     Educational Programs; Council of Arts Accrediting 
     Associations, including: National Association of Schools of 
     Art and Design; National Association of Schools of Dance; 
     National Association of Schools of Music; National 
     Association of Schools of Theatre; Council on Academic 
     Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; 
     Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational 
     Programs; Council on Chiropractic Education; Council on 
     Education for Public Health.
       Council on Naturopathic Medical Education; Council on 
     Podiatric Medical Education; Council on Rehabilitation 
     Education; Council on Social Work Education; Distance 
     Education and Training Council; Joint Review Committee on 
     Education in Radiologic Technology; Joint Review Committee on 
     Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology; National 
     Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences; National 
     League for Nursing Accrediting Commission; Teacher Education 
     Accreditation Council; Transnational Association of Christian 
     Colleges and Schools.

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2117, 
the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.
  This legislation will simply wipe out all of the credit-hour and 
State authorization program integrity rules. These rules are so 
important and crucial because this is what prevents the widespread rip-
off, fraud, and abuse in this industry.
  H.R. 2117 would repeal the Department of Education's State 
authorization regulation, which gives States the ability to enforce 
their right to require that all colleges operating within their 
jurisdictions be authorized to do so. Without this State authorization 
rule, States have no way of knowing which colleges operate within their 
State unless they operate on physical campuses.
  The State authorization rule simply requires that, as a condition for 
a receipt of Federal aid, colleges verify that they have authorization 
from the States in which they operate and are in adherence to their 
State education laws.
  This legislation also aims to overturn the rule creating a sweeping 
Federal definition of credit hour. Currently, there is no common 
understanding of what colleges mean when they use the word ``credit.''
  The most egregious result of this provision's repeal is the abuses of 
for-profit colleges, like the American Intercontinental University, who 
has been charged with inflating their credit hours to a point when they 
offered nine college credits for courses that were only 5 weeks long.
  The Federal definition of a credit hour is imperative to directly 
address colleges that have been inflating their credits to acquire more 
Federal student financial aid dollars.
  This rule will also help mitigate the widespread problems students 
face in transferring credits from one institution to another by 
articulating a more precise measure of educational concept attainment 
represented by credits a student earned.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. WATERS. This program's integrity rules have been put in place to 
ensure that all students receive a fair shake in their quest to obtain 
a higher education. Instead of working against the Department of 
Education and Secretary Duncan, policymakers should be working with 
them to implement these rules in a sensible way, not trying to repeal 
them altogether.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening with private postsecondary 
schools is the next biggest scandal. You think the subprime meltdown 
was big, when American taxpayers find out how much of their tax dollars 
are being ripped off by these private postsecondary schools who have a 
Joe Blow school for computer learning with no computers, teachers who 
are not accredited, credit hours that are distorted, and students who 
don't get trained, don't get education, can't transfer anything, and 
end up with a lot of debt, I ask you to please reject this legislation.
  I have the greatest respect for the legislator who's introduced this, 
but this is wrong. This is a rip-off, and we should be against it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comment of my colleague 
from California, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 2375]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no further speakers, Madam 
Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would just conclude that I think, when you consider 
the $200 billion that the taxpayers of this country provide through the 
Federal Government student aid programs to the institutions of higher 
education all across the country, all of different dynamics, that 
before we throw out what modest accounting system we have for trying to 
make sure that we buy value for each and every student who spends their 
money, the money that they borrow, the money that their parents borrow 
to try to provide them the educational opportunities so that they can 
participate in the greater American opportunity all across this 
country, we ought not to be throwing this system out.
  As Mr. Bishop pointed out, this is a minimum requirement. It's a 
requirement that many people will recognize. When you sign up for a 
three-unit course, very often you find you spend 3 hours a week in that 
class. If you sign up for a five-unit course, you're spending more 
time.
  The question really becomes--now as we see a lot of different 
institutions mixing into this space and receiving and living off almost 
85 to 90 percent of their revenues that come from the Federal 
taxpayers--do these courses really have value? Are they giving the 
student the value for which they're signing up?
  The record is replete that in many instances that's not the case, 
that in many instances the students have been defrauded. In many 
instances, it was represented that this was all transferable to the 
State colleges and to the university systems when, in fact, it turned 
out not to be true.
  I think that we ought to make sure that we don't throw out that 
current accounting system to make sure that taxpayers and students are 
getting value for the money that they spend and the money that they 
work hard to pay back at a time when we have nothing to take its place.
  The idea now that in the future you need no accreditation in a State 
to start up an institution and then you have access to all of the 
revenues you can grab from the Federal Government makes no sense to me 
at all. We ought to have accountability in this system, and that 
accountability runs to the students and it runs to the taxpayers in 
this country. I would hope that we would reject this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1420

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  No one in this body believes more in accountability than I do. 
However, increasing Federal control over our lives and over 
institutions of higher education is not the way to go. As Jefferson 
said--and I paraphrase--if we allow Washington to tell us when to sow 
and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
  In order to make postsecondary education more affordable and 
accessible for students, we need to encourage innovation on our college 
campuses and allow institution leaders to develop and implement their 
own solutions to drive down the costs for students. However, this 
cannot happen if the Federal Government continues to attempt to 
micromanage our higher-education system by imposing more regulations.
  The Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act repeals two 
onerous regulations that give the Federal Government unnecessary 
control over the academic affairs of colleges and universities. H.R. 
2117 will ensure institutions can continue to develop innovative 
programs and course options to meet students' needs. We have letters of 
support from colleges, higher-education associations, and the National 
Governors Association on this legislation.
  When the Education and the Workforce Committee held a markup of H.R. 
2117 last summer, I was also pleased to have the support of many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can continue to 
work together by approving this legislation to help students and 
colleges. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Protecting 
Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chair, the federal government's overreach into 
education is doing more harm than good for our schools and 
universities. The bill before us today, the Protecting Academic Freedom 
in Higher Education Act, would repeal some of the more heavy-handed 
regulations created by the Department of Education. I am concerned that 
states becoming actively involved in the accreditation process could 
adversely affect private universities in Northern California and 
throughout the U.S. by adding another layer of costly mandates and 
bureaucratic interference. I also do not believe the federal government 
should micromanage universities through actions such as defining the 
credit hour, which interferes with the academic authority of university 
leaders. I strongly support this legislation ending both of those 
harmful and unnecessary rules, and I hope the Senate will join us in 
eliminating these excessive regulations.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2117, the 
Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. I want to first 
thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for sponsoring this important 
piece of legislation and Chairman Kline for giving H.R. 2117 the 
attention it deserves.
  In October of 2010, the Department of Education introduced a 
regulatory package that aimed to improve the integrity of student 
financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants and federal student loans. 
However, the outcome was an introduction of two new burdensome rules, 
the credit hour and state authorization regulations. Two more prime 
examples of the current Administration's overreaching regulatory 
agenda. I have deep concerns about the impact these regulations will 
have on college affordability.
  Under the new credit hour regulation, federal student aid would be 
awarded to students based on the number of credits they take each term 
with the federal government defining a credit hour. This would 
discredit and negatively impact the traditional role of colleges and 
universities. Not only would this undermine colleges and universities 
but it would also overrule a state's determination of whether an 
educational program is a credit hour. In turn, this could lead to 
students receiving less federal aid or taking a slower path to 
graduation which results in fewer choices for students looking for 
postsecondary options to further their education. Overall students 
should be measured by how much they learn in the classroom instead of 
how much time they spend in the classroom.
  The State Authorization regulation would impose a one-size fits all 
approach to America's higher education community and weaken what is 
currently a strong and diverse community of institutions, each with 
their own unique missions. This new management style would result in 
unnecessary and excessive costs not only on states and universities but 
as well as the students. Furthermore, it would give states 
unprecedented authority over private and religious institutions.
  H.R. 2117 puts the right foot forward by repealing these burdensome 
regulations and instead focuses on the student and fosters an 
environment that enables them to learn and grow in a cost-effective 
manner. This legislation not only protects the student but also the 
academic institutions enabling them to focus on the individual by 
helping them excel in the academic community rather than having to 
worry about big government and its regulations.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 2117, which would 
repeal important consumer and taxpayer protections without providing an 
alternate solution to safeguard students.
  Under the Higher Education Act, the federal government, states, and 
accrediting agencies share responsibility to ensure that students 
receive a high quality education. As the federal government invests 
billions in federal student assistance, this ``triad'' must also work 
together to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse. The Department of 
Education issued regulations intended to clarify the state's 
responsibility to authorize institutions and ensure that they have a 
system in place to address student complaints.
  The regulations also create a uniform definition of a credit hour, 
which is used on the federal level to allocate student aid dollars. The 
Department's Inspector General has advised that the failure to define 
the credit hour has hampered the Department's ability to address waste 
and fraud in the student aid program.
  Finally, the regulations clarify existing requirements that 
institutions offering distance

[[Page 2376]]

learning programs be authorized according to the laws of every state in 
which they operate. I appreciate the concerns of many schools that 
authorizing in multiple states could be costly and duplicative. For 
this reason, I strongly support efforts on the State level to establish 
reciprocity agreements to ease this burden while still ensuring that 
students receive a quality education.
  However, in repealing the regulations entirely, this bill ignores the 
advice of the Inspector General and leaves billions of dollars of 
student aid vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. It also eliminates 
basic consumer protections for students.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that students receive a high 
quality education and taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. By repealing 
the Department's efforts but offering no alternate plan, this bill 
abdicates that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chair, I rise today to highlight the passage of H.R. 
2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act (H.R. 
2117). The House of Representatives approved this legislation on 
February 28, 2012.
  I am a proud cosponsor and a Member of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee, which debated and reported this bill out of 
Committee with a bipartisan vote last summer.
  If enacted, this legislation would remove costly and burdensome 
regulations from colleges and universities across the country. In a 
time of federal government expansion, H.R. 2117 would help curtail the 
Department of Education's overreach into the rules and regulations 
governing institutions of higher learning. The bill contains two 
provisions that would repeal recent Department of Education mandates. 
These provisions relate to the federal definition of a credit hour and 
to the way states authorize and license institutions of higher 
education.
  Historically, each institution of higher learning maintained the 
ability to determine what constitutes a credit hour subject to the 
oversight of accrediting agencies that would determine the specific 
number of credit hours to assign each course. Over time the federal 
government became more involved in the process. I strongly believe that 
the federal government should not impose a one-size-fits-all approach 
to determine standard credit hours for all colleges and universities. 
This decision should be made at the state and institutional levels.
  Burdensome federal regulation of institutions of higher learning slow 
innovative learning and increase costs for students. Federal government 
regulations should not control a states' decision whether to grant a 
college or university permission to operate within that state.
  Madam Chair, I have heard from numerous institutions across Alabama 
regarding these challenges. Please allow me to submit a letter into the 
Congressional Record from the president of Spring Hill College, which 
is located in my home state of Alabama, for support of H.R. 2117. This 
letter explains how the Department's intrusive regulations are 
hampering growth of Spring Hill College. The letter also notes that the 
high cost associated with federal regulations stifle educational 
opportunities when those costs must be transferred to students. The 
federal government must not impede the work of our colleges and 
universities. When this happens, students are the ones most negatively 
affected.
  Removing federal standards and granting states and institutions more 
flexibility is the key for expanding learning for all students. By 
allowing institutions to determine the educational needs of its 
students and by releasing states from these new mandates, we can move 
our system forward. I look forward to continued bipartisan support of 
the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, and I 
encourage our friends in the Senate to give H.R. 2117 serious 
consideration in the coming months.

     Hon. Martha Roby,
     House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Roby: As I know you are aware, the House 
     of Representatives has now scheduled H.R. 2117 to be 
     discussed on the house floor this week. As president of one 
     of the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the United 
     States, I urge you to lend your support to this important 
     legislation.
       H.R. 2117 addresses regulatory overreach by rescinding 
     regulations on credit hour and state authorization, imposed 
     by the Department of Education that became effective July 1, 
     2011. I, along with my fellow Jesuit college presidents, 
     believe these regulations are intrusive and inappropriate.
       Determining credit hour requirements has been and should be 
     determined by the institution of higher education that awards 
     credit for fulfilling academic work. National higher 
     education accrediting agencies through long established peer 
     review processes oversee how colleges and universities award 
     college credit, and that is the way it should be. Spring Hill 
     College, for example, is an accredited member of the Southern 
     Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS.)
       The current federal regulatory definition interferes with 
     the integrity of awarding college credits with a one size 
     fits all approach. This approach hinders course creativity 
     and academic autonomy.
       This regulation also impacts institutions that provide 
     distance education courses by mandating unnecessary filings 
     in states that result in more costs of time and money for 
     many institutions. As I'm sure you recall, testimony given by 
     several college presidents to the House Subcommittee on 
     Postsecondary and Workforce Training pointed out that 
     ``unnecessary federal regulations will impose additional 
     regulatory burdens on colleges and universities, which could 
     lead to higher costs being passed down to low-income and 
     disadvantaged students. H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic 
     Freedom in Higher Education Act, ensures that colleges and 
     universities are able to focus their energy and resources on 
     educating students. Congress and the Administration should 
     focus on increasing educational opportunities for students 
     and streamlining federal regulations that inhibit innovation 
     in higher education,'' according to the subcommittee's 
     summary. Therefore, I ask for your support of H.R. 2117.
       I can also assure you that Spring Hill College continues to 
     implement and seek further ways to hold down college costs 
     while staying true to our mission to form leaders engaged in 
     learning, faith, justice and service for life.
       Thank you for all you do for our Alabama and for your 
     support of Spring Hill College and our important mission. We 
     look forward to welcoming you to our campus when your 
     schedule permits.
       May God Bless you.
           Sincerely,
                                           Richard P. Salmi, S.J.,
                                   President, Spring Hill College.

  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2117

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Academic Freedom 
     in Higher Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO STATE AUTHORIZATION 
                   AND DEFINING CREDIT HOUR.

       (a) Regulations Repealed.--
       (1) Repeal.--The following regulations (including any 
     supplement or revision to such regulations) are repealed and 
     shall have no legal effect:
       (A) State authorization.--Sections 600.4(a)(3), 
     600.5(a)(4), 600.6(a)(3), 600.9, and 668.43(b) of title 34, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (relating to State 
     authorization), as added or amended by the final regulations 
     published by the Department of Education in the Federal 
     Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66832 et seq.).
       (B) Definition of credit hour.--The definition of the term 
     ``credit hour'' in section 600.2 of title 34, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as added by the final regulations published by 
     the Department of Education in the Federal Register on 
     October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66946), and subsection 
     (k)(2)(ii) of section 668.8 of such title, as amended by such 
     final regulations (75 Fed. Reg. 66949 et seq.).
       (2) Effect of repeal.--To the extent that regulations 
     repealed by paragraph (1) amended regulations that were in 
     effect on June 30, 2011, the provisions of the regulations 
     that were in effect on June 30, 2011, and were so amended are 
     restored and revived as if the regulations repealed by 
     paragraph (1) had not taken effect.
       (b) Regulations Defining Credit Hour Prohibited.--The 
     Secretary shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation or 
     rule that defines the term ``credit hour'' for any purpose 
     under the Higher Education Act of 1965 on or after the date 
     of enactment of this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 112-404. Each such amendment

[[Page 2377]]

may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112-404.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In subparagraph (A) of section 2(a)(1) of the bill as 
     reported--
       (1) strike ``Sections 600.4(a)(3), 600.5(a)(4), 
     600.6(a)(3),'' and insert ``Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), section''; and
       (2) strike ``, and 668.43(b)''.
        At the end of subsection (a) of section 2 of the bill as 
     reported, add the following:
       (3) Preservation of student protection process.--The repeal 
     of section 600.9 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply with respect to the 
     following provisions of such section:
       (A) The first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) through the term 
     ``State laws''.
       (B) Paragraph (a)(2).
       (C) Paragraph (b).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. The bill we are debating today, H.R. 2117, eliminates 
the entire State authorization rule, including the establishment of a 
process for States to review and appropriately act on student 
complaints concerning an institution. This amendment would make sure 
that those student-complaint provisions are retained.
  Up until now in many States, a student who discovered that the 
program she is enrolled in is not providing the preparation she paid 
for or is not preparing her in the way that they suggested or has 
treated her unfairly would have little recourse in the way of 
complaint. Not all States have a complaint process in place, but these 
recently implemented rules established a State-based process for 
students to lodge a complaint.
  This provision is a good idea. This process will help to shine light 
on programs and will give students and families an opportunity for 
recourse when they feel they have been misled or mistreated by an 
institution or a program. The vast majority of institutions work in a 
student's best interest and will seek to guide students and address 
concerns when they arise. This amendment ensures that students have a 
place to air their concerns when that is not the case.
  I think we should maintain the student-protecting provision in the 
regulations by removing the provision that eliminates it in this bill. 
My amendment protects students and taxpayers by ensuring that each 
State has a process in place to receive and review student complaints 
and by promoting good practices and addressing abuses.
  Last Congress, we worked hard to protect consumers from bad practices 
at credit card companies and banks. We should do the same for students. 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Under the Higher Education Act, accrediting agencies are 
already required to have a system for individuals to give complaints 
about a college or a university. Under current practice, many States 
have well-established complaint processes that are serving students.
  I am also concerned about the burden this regulation will place on 
States. While the economic situation in our country has shown modest 
improvements recently, States are struggling with huge budgetary 
challenges. They have limited staff and may not be able to handle new 
and unnecessary changes required under this proposal.
  During a time when States, institutions, parents, and students are 
worried about ways to increase college affordability, I think it would 
be better for States to put their limited resources towards helping 
colleges and universities keep their tuitions down rather than adding 
another layer of State bureaucracy.
  For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just quickly, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, well, a lot 
of States are already doing this, but now we don't want to add a 
burden. This simply says the State has to have a process. If the State 
has a process, it's over, it's done. So why would we take away that 
voice in those States that don't have a process?
  Let's make sure that students have a place to go. As we know, many of 
these financial scandals have been brought to us by students because 
they can't get redress anywhere else. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. In closing, the underlying legislation, H.R. 2117, 
stacks the deck against due process and the ability for families and 
students to seek redress when institutions or programs deny them or 
mistreat them regarding the services that they've purchased and the 
education that they're seeking.
  By reinserting that provision, we allow families and students to have 
redress, to have due process and to have a fair and balanced look at 
complaints they might have. It is simple, it is direct, and it merits 
remaining in the legislation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I will say once again that I believe this 
is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-404.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 13, strike ``subsection (k)(2)(ii)'' and 
     insert ``clauses (i)(A), (ii), and (iii) of subsection 
     (k)(2)''.
       Page 5, line 24, insert ``of Education'' after 
     ``Secretary''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2117, the 
Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.
  In the months since the Education and the Workforce Committee 
approved H.R. 2117, States and institutions have expressed concerns 
about interpretations of the clock-hour provisions in the credit-hour 
regulation. The regulation would prevent some programs from converting 
to a credit-hour program even though the conversion is permitted under 
State law. This change could alter the manner in

[[Page 2378]]

which colleges and universities disburse Federal student aid, and it 
could harm students' abilities to progress sufficiently in their 
coursework.
  My amendment would prevent the Federal Government from reinterpreting 
a State's laws or regulations to require credit-hour programs to 
convert back to clock-hour programs. The State should be the final 
judge of its own laws and regulations. This is a necessary step to 
correct the Department of Education's interpretation of a clock-hour 
program, and it will reaffirm our intent that the discretion for 
determining clock-hour programs should remain with States' accrediting 
agencies and institutions.
  Madam Chairman, the amendment improves the underlying legislation and 
ensures colleges and students are protected from the harmful Federal 
intrusion into academic affairs. I urge my colleagues to lend their 
support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair.
  This amendment is absolutely consistent with this legislation. What 
it does is just simply make it easier for any institution to maximize 
the amount of Federal aid they get.
  Under this amendment, they would be able to choose whether or not 
they want to be a clock-hour or a credit-hour institution, and that 
would depend really on how they could game the reimbursement that's 
available to them again without checking whether or not this provision 
allows for the student to receive value for that money which they 
borrow to pay for their education. I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, urging my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-404.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Colorado rise?
  Mr. POLIS. Thank you.
  I have an amendment at the desk. This will be amendment No. 5.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3. 
Does the gentleman wish to offer it?
  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk. The amendment is numbered 
No. 3.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subsection (a) of section 2, add the 
     following:
       (3) State authorization regulations for certain 
     institutions.--
       (A) Regulations required.--Notwithstanding section 482(c) 
     or section 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or the 
     repeals under paragraph (1)(A) of this section, not later 
     than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Education shall issue regulations that apply the 
     regulations repealed under paragraph (1)(A) to any 
     institution of higher education that has--
       (i) a graduation rate that is below the national average 
     for its sector, as defined in the common education data 
     developed by the National Center for Education Statistics;
       (ii) a cohort default rate that is higher than the national 
     average for its sector; or
       (iii) a completion rate that is below the national average 
     for its sector, as determined pursuant to section 668.8 of 
     title 34, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed as limiting or otherwise affecting the 
     applicability of section 101(a)(2) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, Congress should be the taxpayers' advocate to 
root out waste, fraud, and abuse wherever it occurs; and this is 
particularly true when it comes to student financial aid.
  Both of my amendments pertain to this category of making sure we have 
the right structure in place to in one case incentivize and in another 
case have a strategy to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Every dollar we 
lose to fraud and waste is a dollar that's not invested in our young 
people, a dollar of deficit spending, of government spending that is 
not producing the desired outcome of education or youth preparation of 
our workforce for jobs in the 21st century and improving our economic 
strength.
  If we are eliminating some of the basic protections that are 
categorically applied under the bill, it's very important that we 
require institutions that are failing students to prove their value. 
And if schools have a chronically low graduation rate, a low completion 
rate or a high loan default rate they, in fact, should be required to 
be recognized by the State in which they are operating as a backstop 
against fraud, waste, and abuse to ensure that the students' complaints 
and questions are at least heard by their own State if they believe 
that they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by a college or 
university.
  That's what my amendment would do. It would provide an incentive for 
colleges and universities to produce better outcome for students.
  In both of my remarks, I am going to be talking a little bit about 
Carnegie units and how we determine time. Frankly, this bill is a very 
limited piece. What we need to do more broadly when we reauthorize the 
Higher Education Act is really look at outcome-based measurements for 
learning in higher education.
  I think the Secretary, with his rules regarding gainful employment, 
provided some useful indicators around outcome-based measurements. 
There are many others that we should look at. That part of what we need 
to accomplish is freeing good-performing institutions up from the input 
restraints, the input barriers.
  If they can effectively teach something that normally takes 2 hours 
in 5 minutes, that institution should be rewarded for that and 
encouraged to do that.
  What a great way to invest our taxpayer money in some innovative 
institution of higher education that has figured out how to get 2 hours 
of legacy Carnegie credit into 5 minutes of rapid instruction. What a 
wonderful accomplishment, and I am hopeful that that and more can be 
accomplished.
  My amendment would provide an incentive for colleges and universities 
to produce better outcomes. Where they are not performing, they would 
be subject to their State. Where they are performing, they would have 
the additional flexibility under this act, and I think that that's 
something we should encourage in higher education.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  This amendment is simply unnecessary, and I oppose it. Since the day 
the President took office, members of his administration have been 
issuing one heavy-handed regulation after another, primarily in the 
name of program integrity. However, the regulations simply bring 
increased Federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives and do not 
provide the kind of accountability that we need to have throughout our 
Federal Government. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, in what other government program would we 
somehow say it's all right to keep fuddling taxpayer money without 
accountability. Specifically, my amendment would retain State 
authorization requirements for institutions that have below-average 
graduation rates, below-average annual completion rates and above-
average loan-default rates, free up the good-performing institutions to 
experiment and not holding them accountable to the Carnegie units that

[[Page 2379]]

continue to reach out and prevent innovation in the education sector.
  I believe the regulations are reasonable and a relatively low burden 
on colleges. I think by providing this incentive we could make sure 
that universities and institutions of higher education that are good 
custodians of our public dollars are freed up to engage in the kind of 
innovation that can produce a 21st-century workforce and drive 
education innovation into the new century. Those that continue that 
have below-average graduation rates, completion rates, and high default 
rates will make sure that there is a recourse, a recourse with their 
States, for those institutions.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, again, I want to state my opposition to 
this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentleman from Colorado 
seek recognition?
  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 5.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman request a recorded vote on 
amendment No. 3?
  Mr. POLIS. No.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is not agreed to.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-404.
  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk. It's amendment No. 5.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman attempting to offer amendment No. 
4, which is the next amendment in order?
  For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike subsection (b) of section 2 of the bill.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, this amendment simply strips the 
language from the underlying bill that permanently constrains the 
Secretary from promulgating a regulation or a rule that defines a 
credit hour, permanently constrains the Secretary from promulgating a 
regulation or a rule.
  And I would suggest that this would represent very, very poor public 
policy. We provide over $200 billion in Federal student aid, either in 
the form of grants or in the form of guarantees; and the basis, at 
least in part, on which we provide that is students' adherence to the 
minimum number of credit hours that they must take and institutions' 
adherence to that which they define as a credit hour.

                              {time}  1440

  We have no idea what's going to happen 10 years from now, 15 years 
from now, 20 years from now with respect to whether institutions will 
be in compliance. We have no idea whether or not shortcuts will be 
taken. We have no idea with the ongoing proliferation of online 
instruction and other nontraditional means of instruction whether or 
not we will be dealing with a higher education universe that is 
maintaining the appropriate quality controls and maintaining the 
appropriate protections against the kind of abuse that would ensue if 
students are able to take courses where the credit hour is not as 
demanding as reasonable people would suggest it would be, where the 
semester might be shorter as a result of lack of adherence to what a 
reasonable definition of a credit hour is. To put the Secretary of 
Education in a position where he or she would be unable to act in that 
circumstance is simply unwise, and to impose on the Congress the 
responsibility to fix a situation that could be much more easily fixed 
by regulatory or administrative action is also unwise.
  So this is very straightforward. It is very simple. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, the creation of a Federal definition of credit 
hour is a prime example of Federal overreach into an area that should 
be left to colleges and universities. This has worked from the 
beginning of our country. Our accrediting bodies, our colleges and 
universities, have done their jobs. There have been no complaints about 
this. There was one minor episode that occurred, one isolated event, 
and it was addressed through the accrediting body. This is a typical 
example of the overreach of this administration, and particularly the 
Department of Education.
  If a need arose in the future to create a Federal definition or put 
some additional parameters around this section of the law, then it 
should be done through the legislative process where the implications 
of such a definition can be thoroughly examined.
  Madam Chair, the Founders were very, very wise when they created the 
Constitution. They delineated exactly what the Federal Government 
should and should not be doing. The word ``education'' is no place in 
the Constitution, but article I, section 1 does talk about the House of 
Representatives and the Congress. That's where the Founders wanted the 
power to lie, where the authority is to lie. We are accountable to the 
people whom we represent. We are the people's House. We should not be 
abrogating our responsibility to unelected bureaucrats. I'm almost 
embarrassed that any Member would want to do that. We need this 
responsibility. We have the time to take care of it if there is such a 
need.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I would simply point out that my friend from 
North Carolina continues to use words like ``intrusion'' and 
``overreach''; and yet a few moments ago, in response to comments I had 
made during general debate, she said that as an academic dean, the 
gentlelady was able to exercise discretion and define a credit hour and 
define a course and define a semester. There is absolutely nothing in 
the regulation that the Department of Education has promulgated that 
would prevent the gentlelady or someone in her position from continuing 
to exercise that discretion because in the regulation it says that 
institutionally determined equivalents are perfectly permissible and 
perfectly acceptable. So the discretion that the gentlelady quite 
correctly utilized while she was a dean remains in the toolbox of every 
college administrator in this country.
  And so I would urge defeat of the underlying bill, I would urge 
passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct; deans and assistant 
deans and others at colleges and universities have that authority right 
now. They've had it since the beginning of the creation of institutions 
of higher education, and we don't need the Federal Government meddling 
in places it has no business meddling.
  I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.

[[Page 2380]]




                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-404.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 5 at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND 
                   PROTECTION FROM POTENTIAL WASTE, FRAUD, AND 
                   ABUSE.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Education shall provide a proposal 
     to Congress on how the Secretary will, through the authority 
     of the Secretary to promulgate regulations related to 
     institutional eligibility for participation under title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965, prevent waste, fraud, and 
     abuse of Federal financial aid dollars by institutions of 
     higher education under such Act to ensure the effective and 
     efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I think that the gentlelady from North 
Carolina has put together a good bill. It has some good parts and some 
bad parts. I am very hopeful that she will accept this amendment.
  I believe that the intent of the bill, specifically around making 
sure that we don't have an overarching implementation of Carnegie 
units--and again, where does this stem from? It stems from a U.S. 
Department of Education Office of Inspector General report that found 
that there is not an established definition of credit hour or minimum 
requirement. The Secretary, working within those constraints, tried to 
provide a definition. I don't think that is a productive road to go 
down, so I strongly support the general thrust of this bill.
  But where we need to move is toward outcome-based measurements. We 
have this same discussion in K-12 education as well. And the conclusion 
that I've come to, and I've come to the same conclusion in higher 
education, is we need to free institutions up with regard to the inputs 
to promote innovation and make sure that we hold institutions 
accountable for the outputs where taxpayer money is at stake.
  One component of the bill that I hope the gentlelady from North 
Carolina can work with me on in accepting this amendment, and I think 
it is a very pragmatic amendment that would improve the bill, since we 
are removing many of the specifics that currently combat waste, fraud, 
and abuse--and I don't think we want to combat waste, fraud, and abuse 
by applying an overly rigid hour-is-an-hour standard with no wriggle 
room because what we care about is whether kids are learning, not 
whether they spend 5 minutes or 2 hours doing it. I've talked to folks 
who use apprenticeships, who use online education, and we should hold 
them accountable for results where there is taxpayer money at hand, but 
at the same time we want to make sure that there's a backstop for what 
I think folks on both side agree exist, which is waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the system. What my amendment would do is replace the 
specifics of these regulations with a directive to the Department of 
Education to come up with an alternative plan that protects taxpayer 
dollars and students' rights.
  This would make sure that we can deal with many of the issues raised 
by the inspector general, not by providing an overly arching and rigid 
definition of time that's a necessary part of education but, rather, by 
requesting and requiring that the Secretary come up with ideas that are 
consistent with the future of education towards combating waste, fraud, 
and abuse.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I appreciate the very positive comments that 
my colleague from Colorado has made about the underlying bill. I hope 
very much that he will support it. I appreciate, actually, serving with 
him on the Rules Committee and the often commonsense approaches that he 
brings to legislation that we're reviewing. However, I have to say 
reluctantly that I am opposing his amendment.
  I don't think, again, that we need to ask the Department of Education 
to present more plans or more rules and regulations. It is certainly 
doing a lot to present rules and regulations that are totally 
unnecessary.
  Next year we will have the reauthorization of the higher education 
bill. As I think most people know, the Speaker has asked all the 
committees, all the subcommittees to exercise their oversight 
responsibilities, and we are certainly doing that and will continue to 
do that. Therefore, I think that the gentleman from Colorado's 
amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I think that, again, my amendment would 
provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate alternative higher-
education settings. The reason we're talking about rules and preventing 
fraud, waste, and abuse is not somehow the government is going 
someplace that's unwarranted; but these are Federal student loans, 
these are Federal programs we're talking about. We do not want 
taxpayers to be ripped off, and we do not want students to be ripped 
off. I believe that directing the Secretary to come up with an 
alternative plan to the one we're stripping out would go a long way 
toward accomplishing that.
  And I agree with the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Fundamentally, 
many of these issues need to be discussed during the reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act; and I hope that she will join me at that 
point, yes, on freeing up the inputs-based measurements, but equally, 
if not more important, making sure we hold the recipients of taxpayer-
funded programs accountable for the outcomes.
  And there is no perfect outcome-based measurement--we know this from 
K-12 education as well--but even a mediocre one is better than none. 
And I think it will fall upon this Congress to do that. I think that 
this bill facilitates that discussion; but should it become law, I 
would certainly hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can 
join me in supporting this commonsense directive to ensure that waste, 
fraud, and abuse do not enter the system along with freeing up 
innovation and thoughtful new ways to educate kids.
  I urge my colleagues to join me on voting ``yes'' on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, again, I appreciate the sentiments of my 
colleague from Colorado; but I would say to him that there is 
absolutely nothing to prevent the Secretary of Education from coming to 
the Education and Workforce Committee and presenting his ideas on where 
there is waste, fraud, and abuse. We would be more than happy to do 
that. Most of what we hear from the administration is spend, spend, 
spend, not how can we save money, but spend, spend, spend.
  All of us want to make sure that every dime of taxpayers' money is 
well spent, and I can assure you that members of my committee want to 
see that the money is well spent, and we'll be working on that issue as 
we have been working on it, as will all the Republican majorities in 
the House do that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

[[Page 2381]]

  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2117) to 
prohibit the Department of Education from overreaching into academic 
affairs and program eligibility under title IV of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________