[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12724-12732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3136, ADVANCING COMPETENCY-BASED 
    EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT OF 2013, AND PROVIDING FOR 
   CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4984, EMPOWERING STUDENTS THROUGH ENHANCED 
                        FINANCIAL COUNSELING ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 677 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 677

       Resolved, That at any time after 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. 3136) to establish a demonstration program for 
     competency-based education. 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 amendments specified in this section 
     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 amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-52. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of 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 amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     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.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after 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. 
     4984) to amend the loan counseling requirements under the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided 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 amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 113-53. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part B of 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 amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

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

[[Page 12725]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 677 provides for structured rules for 
consideration of H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education 
Demonstration Project Act, and H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students 
Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.
  The Rules Committee was pleased to work with Members on both sides of 
the aisle to provide for floor consideration of a number of their 
amendments. The resolution makes in order 11 amendments to H.R. 3136 
and seven amendments to H.R. 4984. In total, the committee made in 
order nine Democrat amendments, three Republican amendments, and six 
bipartisan amendments.
  As a member of the Rules Committee, it is a privilege to see the 
number of amendments we have been able to make in order this Congress 
and the openness of the legislative process. My hope is that we will 
continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to advance good 
legislation.
  My colleagues on the House Education and the Workforce Committee and 
I have been working to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. We have 
held 14 hearings and invited dozens of witnesses to discuss a wide 
variety of issues facing students, families, and institutions of higher 
education.
  Since the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the 
landscape has been constantly evolving with the student population 
rapidly changing and institutions developing more cost-effective modes 
for delivering academic content.
  The upcoming reauthorization provides policymakers an opportunity to 
improve the law and strengthen America's postsecondary system to ensure 
Federal policies are flexible enough to allow future developments and 
innovations to occur.
  Based on feedback received from the public and the committee's desire 
to reform the law in a way that will assist students in obtaining an 
affordable higher education that leads to employment opportunities, the 
committee will promote reforms that adhere to the following principles: 
empowering students and families to make informed decisions; 
simplifying and improving student aid; promoting innovation, access, 
and completion; and ensuring strong accountability and a limited 
Federal role.
  Reform will help more Americans achieve their dreams of a 
postsecondary education and help secure a more prosperous future for 
the country.
  The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills that 
will inform the reauthorization process. H.R. 3136 creates a 
demonstration project for competency-based education. Competency-based 
education allows students to demonstrate what they already know and 
learn at their own pace by mastering specific skills and knowledge that 
translate to real-world application for their degrees.
  H.R. 4984 ensures that students have the information needed to make 
good choices with their financial aid dollars and understand how to use 
that money well by increased financial counseling and services.

                              {time}  1245

  Education is a great opportunity in this country, and we have the 
most diverse system of postsecondary education in the world, with more 
than 6,000 public, private, nonprofit, and proprietary institutions of 
higher education. This diversity affords students from all backgrounds 
an opportunity to find an institution that meets their unique needs and 
helps them pursue personal goals of continuing their education.
  The rule before us today starts that reform process, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the two underlying bills, H.R. 3136, 
the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act of 
2013, and H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial 
Counseling Act. I do rise in opposition to the rule for reasons that I 
will go into regarding preventing us from addressing many of the major 
issues within public education and higher education.
  While I am supportive of these two bills, I am disappointed that the 
House is not embarking on a full reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act. We can nip around the edges in certainly a constructive 
way to reduce costs, as these bills do, to be helpful, but none of them 
are game-changers or, dare I say, even a substantial part of making 
college more affordable like we could through the reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act.
  Since the last reauthorization in 2007, higher education has become 
more and more expensive. The cost of attending a university per student 
has risen by almost five times the rate of inflation since 1983. At the 
very time that an advanced degree is more important than ever for 
somebody to have a good job in today's increasingly complex global 
economy, it is getting further and further from the price range and 
affordability for American middle class families.
  While a 4-year university isn't always the best choice, some form of 
postsecondary education is increasingly important--whether that is 
community college, whether it is a certification program--to be able to 
ensure that young people, and people of all ages, have access to a 
good-paying job in the 21st century workforce. Only by pursuing a full 
scale reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, soliciting ideas 
from Democrats and Republicans across the aisle, can we truly be able 
to help put college more in reach for students. As many of my 
colleagues from across the aisle say, we need to examine how or if many 
of the student loan programs only contribute to the increasingly high 
cost of college education. We need to take ideas from our side of the 
aisle, including some that I cosponsor regarding reducing textbook 
costs or looking at new and better ways that we can look at income-
based repayment for student loans.
  Through a comprehensive reauthorization, we can streamline payments 
by replacing our complicated student loan system with a simplified 
income-based program, which is part of a bipartisan bill that I sponsor 
with Congressman Petri called the ExCEL Act. We could also improve 
articulation and transfer agreements so that students can move quickly 
and efficiently towards a credential from less expensive community 
colleges, if necessary, to colleges that offer 4-year degrees.
  Furthermore, Representative Hinojosa's open textbook legislation 
would help keep costs down so students can concentrate on their studies 
rather than having to work additional jobs just to be able to afford 
the textbooks. Finally, we can make sure that we improve accountability 
for colleges and universities that are not serving students well so 
that our limited Federal resources are used in a way to provide 
incentives to States and universities that support public education and 
they keep public education, higher education, affordable.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Higher Education Act, which this 
Congress does not appear to be moving forward on and this bill does not 
allow amendments to, our Nation's landmark kindergarten through 12th 
grade education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
sometimes referred to as No Child Left Behind, is long overdue to be 
replaced with a new reauthorization.
  And this week, I was pleased to hear the President signed another 
work product of this body, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity 
Act, another long overdue, bipartisan bill to improve our workforce 
development system that many of my colleagues on the Education and 
Workforce Committee have worked on for many years. That bill started in 
a partisan way. The first iteration on the House floor received zero 
Democratic votes. The compromise, however, received the

[[Page 12726]]

support of every Democrat and nearly every Republican. It passed by a 
margin of 415-6.
  Just a few months ago, we passed bipartisan bills to substantially 
improve the charter schools program and Federal investment in education 
research with a strong bipartisan vote. So, Mr. Speaker, this body has 
shown it can pass bipartisan Education and Workforce bills. These two 
bills coming before us today are additional examples of that. So why 
haven't we undertaken the hard work to make a full-fledged bipartisan 
effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind?
  Like with the Workforce Investment Act, we had a partisan version 
come to the floor. Not a single Democrat voted for it, just as not a 
single Democrat voted for the first iteration of the Workforce 
Investment Act. Anybody can pass partisan legislation that no one else 
supports, but that is not a constructive step towards lawmaking. 
Lawmaking entails making the tough decisions, working with the other 
side to create a work product. Again, with WIA, we had a 415-6 vote. 
With No Child Left Behind, whether it is that high or not, let's get a 
majority of Democrats and Republicans working together to reauthorize 
it. They began that hard work in the Senate Health Committee, where 
they have a bipartisan education reform bill that they have not brought 
to the full floor of the Senate, but at least they began that work of 
working in a bipartisan manner towards replacing No Child Left Behind 
with a new Federal education law.
  This bill which passed the House, the Student Success Act, the 
Republican-only education bill, was opposed by Democrats for many 
reasons. First of all, it would have locked in education funding at 
sequester levels. Secondly, it would have locked many of our critical 
programs that support STEM, literacy, and the arts, support English 
language learners, and left students trapped in failing schools with 
little recourse for action. It was opposed not only by Democrats but 
also by the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and also 
every major education organization.
  This process was unlike all other previous efforts to reauthorize the 
ESEA, when under the strong leadership of my colleagues, like now-
Speaker Boehner and Ranking Member Miller, Democrats and Republicans 
came together to strengthen and improve our education system. As 
Ranking Member Miller enters retirement, with his last year in the 
House, we need to learn from his success in building consensus and 
forging compromise, in keeping students across our country first to 
ensure that we get the most bang for our buck with our limited Federal 
investment and students and young people receive the skills they need 
to compete in the 21st century workforce.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize that our opportunity to build on 
the success of No Child Left Behind, which shined a light on the 
achievement gaps for minority and low-income students, is now, more 
than ever, critical. But just as it had successes, it also had failures 
that are recognized across the aisle. The superficial formula for 
adequate yearly progress is defended by nobody, and yet continues to be 
the law of the land.
  I hope that this body can come together, just as we have for WIA, for 
charter schools, for ESRA, just as we are doing for the bills we are 
considering today, to update and improve the ESEA. That is what our 
students deserve and what we were elected to do. Rather than let these 
bills we are passing today stand out as an aberration, let us build 
upon them, let them form momentum for higher ed reauthorization and 
ESEA reauthorization so we can begin the substantive work that the 
voters of this country have hired us to do.
  Despite the fact that we are not considering a full reauthorization 
of the Higher Education Act, despite the fact that we are not 
considering a full reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I am 
nevertheless pleased that we are considering H.R. 3136, a bill that I 
coauthored with Representative Salmon. This bill allows innovative 
colleges and universities to shorten the time and cost of earning a 
degree through self-paced programs based on learning rather than seat 
time. This innovation, called competency-based education, allows 
students to work at their own pace and earn credit by mastering the 
knowledge, rather than sitting in a seat and, let's be honest, 
sometimes not even being awake. This growing trend of innovation around 
competency-based education is particularly important because it 
provides a way to increase innovation and reduce the costs of a college 
degree.
  Today's students come to college with different backgrounds and learn 
at different rates and different times of day. The competency-based 
education program allows an institution to tailor a program of study to 
an individual student. By measuring and assessing competencies, or what 
a student can demonstrate that they know, students are guaranteed to 
matriculate with the knowledge of the skills they need to master. 
Businesses will know what to expect upon hiring these students, and 
students will be incentivized to learn as quickly and as inexpensively 
as they can.
  While the Department of Education currently has some latitude to 
explore this model through the experimental sites' programs, the 
current regulations need to be updated and streamlined to better 
support these innovative programs, which is what this bill does.
  I am proud to say that in my district, institutions like Colorado 
State University's Global Campus are demonstrating that online public 
universities with competency-based programs can lead the way in 
attracting, educating, and graduating young learners and adult learners 
to succeed in the 21st century workforce. But CSU-Global and programs 
like it currently need to adhere to existing higher education 
structure, which limits the schedules of students and limits when 
students can achieve financial aid because traditional higher education 
is based on the Carnegie unit, or credit hour, rather than what the 
students learn.
  As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act, this project, this innovation that this bill will unleash is more 
crucial than ever. In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the 
growing trend towards distance education and the opportunity for 
students to learn online. Now once again, we have the opportunity to 
learn from, to study, and to innovate around competency-based 
education, to learn about the changes that we need to make to maintain 
quality, to reduce costs, and to increase the number of students that 
have access to these programs.
  That is why I was proud to work with Representative Salmon, Chairman 
Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Ms. Foxx on this legislation, which 
would permit institutions to waive certain regulations that stand in 
the way of them adopting a competency-based model. We will learn a lot. 
We will learn what works, and we will learn what doesn't work. They are 
both important as we seek to expand innovation across the higher 
education sector to reduce costs and increase quality.
  This legislation will allow Congress and the general public to learn 
more about the opportunities that competency-based education offers for 
students to increase access and opportunity in higher education.
  I am also pleased that the House is considering under this rule H.R. 
4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling 
Act. Financial counseling is an important method for students to learn 
about the most effective and least expensive way for them to finance 
their higher education, both before, during, and after their college 
experience. Many students simply don't have the knowledge or the 
resources or the help to make sound decisions in their own interests 
about their opportunities to finance their postsecondary education.
  To the degree that we don't provide a high quality standard of 
counseling, first-generation students in particular are the students 
who stand to benefit the most from improving access to higher education 
and they often lose

[[Page 12727]]

out. H.R. 4984 makes many improvements to our financial counseling 
obligations under current law. The bill ensures that all students and 
parents who participate in the Federal loan program receive proactive 
counseling each year that is personalized to meet their own financial 
needs. Students will receive information about the terms and conditions 
of Pell Grants and various other loan programs. The bipartisan bill 
also directs the Secretary of Education to create and disseminate 
online tools to provide annual loan counseling, helping to bring our 
financial aid counseling system into the 21st century and put useful, 
relevant information into the hands of students.
  One place in particular that financial counseling can play an 
important role is when determining whether to take out Federal loans or 
private student loans. Private student loans often have variable 
interest rates, as high or higher than 14 percent. They are not 
eligible for the important deferment, income-based repayment, or loan 
forgiveness options that come with Federal student loans, but half of 
private student loan borrowers borrowed less than they could have in 
Federal Stafford loans. So without realizing it in many cases, people 
are turning to the higher priced, less beneficial private market place 
when they still have unused capacity on the Federal student loan side. 
It is clear that there is an information gap and students need 
information about the terms and conditions of these loans.
  That is why I am thrilled that this underlying bill contains an 
important part of my Know Before You Owe Act, which I first introduced 
last session and reintroduced this session, along with Representative 
Bishop and Representative Schwartz, to ensure that financial counseling 
includes additional disclosures on private education loans, with 
information about college financing options and warnings about riskier 
private loans to help students make informed decisions about their 
choices so that they get the best deal that is available to them under 
current law.

                              {time}  1300

  I am also pleased the underlying bill will improve exit counseling 
for student loan repayment. Unfortunately, many students default on 
what could otherwise be manageable levels of debt because they don't 
understand the payment options.
  The ExCEL Act, which I mentioned earlier and introduced with 
Representative Petri, would make simple income-based repayment the 
default option, which will reduce paperwork and administrative overhead 
and prevent this unfortunate occurrence and make payments more 
affordable for students.
  The bill will help students understand that they have many options to 
pay back their loans and help them make the choice that is best for 
them.
  These bills are a step forward, but affording college education 
requires a lot more progress than a full step. We need to make enormous 
progress to reverse the trend of the last few decades that have led to 
five times the cost of college inflation adjusted since 1983.
  I wish I could be here before you to say that these bills will fix 
that. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that they will help, but they 
alone will not turn around the alarming trend that is making college 
harder and harder for middle class families to afford.
  So while I support these bills as a step forward, I oppose the rule 
and call upon this body to allow a full and open debate on the Higher 
Education Act on ESEA.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the prime sponsor on one of these bills.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education 
Demonstration Project of 2014.
  I would like to thank Chairman Kline and the subcommittee Chairwoman 
Foxx for their support and work on this legislation. I am really 
appreciative of Representative Polis and all of his fine work. This 
truly is a bipartisan bill.
  I would also like to state how proud I am to be part of a body that 
has actually taken its job very, very seriously for the hard times that 
most Americans have fallen upon, and I am proud that over the course of 
the last year and a half since I rejoined the Congress, that we passed 
over 320 bills--40 of them that would create jobs in this economy 
immediately--that are languishing in the Majority Leader of the 
Senate's drawer and have no action taken.
  A lot of the American public are frustrated, and they have gone to 
calling this the do-nothing Congress. Well, let me tell you, half the 
Congress--the House--is actually doing its work.
  When it comes to the appropriation bills, which we are required by 
our rules and our laws to do every year, the House will have done its 
duty by the end of this year in passing all the appropriation bills. I 
think we have done 10 of them so far. I believe the Senate hasn't done 
any.
  So I think that when it comes to dealing with the cost of higher 
education, this is a big step in the right direction. We are aware of 
the cost of higher education. It has grown by more than 500 percent 
since 1985 compared to an overall inflation rate of 121 percent.
  Federal regulations greatly impede the efforts to reduce the cost of 
a college degree. As a result, we have got to implement policies to 
allow institutions to be innovative in developing new models of 
education, instead of continuing with the status quo because the status 
quo is not working.
  That is why I introduced the Advancing Competency-Based Education 
Demonstration Project of 2014 with my colleagues Representative Polis 
and Representative Brooks.
  This important bipartisan legislation will set up a pilot project to 
allow institutions to more easily develop innovative ways to deliver 
education to their students. H.R. 3136 is the first step in allowing 
students to earn a degree and enter the job market sooner based on 
their knowledge and their skill set, rather than seat time in the 
classroom.
  My bill will direct the Secretary of Education to implement a 
demonstration project and to waive regulatory requirements that impede 
innovations that might decrease costs to students.
  The program would allow colleges to provide college credit to 
students who can prove competencies through prior work and life 
experience, rather than a specified amount of time in the classroom.
  In our field hearing that we held in Arizona, two of our college 
presidents from Arizona State University and the University of Arizona 
said that this will immensely help them to be able to get students 
through their degree programs quicker, based on their competency.
  They all agreed that the group of people that it will probably help 
more than anybody else in America are our returning veterans because 
they come with certain skill sets that they don't get credit for.
  I would like to just talk 1 minute about how that process works 
because I had it work in my life. I served a mission for my church to 
Taiwan when I was a young man, and I came back fluent in Mandarin and 
Chinese.
  It didn't make a lot of sense for me to go through Chinese 101 and 
learn how to say ``where is the bathroom'' with the other kids when I 
could already speak fluent Mandarin and Chinese.
  I was able to test out of that by demonstrating my competency of 
already being fluent in the language, and I got just about an entire 
semester's worth of credit.
  That is what we are talking about here. People who have been in the 
military, people who have been in other jobs that they have had, where 
they have been able to learn skills that don't necessarily translate 
into book work, but they are a lot more proficient at those skills than 
a lot of kids entering the classroom. This is going to cut through a 
lot of the garbage and allow people to be able to get those degrees 
earlier and, thereby, reducing their costs.
  This legislation passed out of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee by a voice vote, and it allows

[[Page 12728]]

higher education institutions to explore more innovative ways to 
deliver education, measure quality, and disperse financial aid based on 
actual learning, again, rather than seat time.
  It provides flexibility to the schools looking to provide students a 
more personalized, cost-effective education, and I think that is what 
we are all here for.
  I thank the Speaker for entertaining my ideas, and I thank the 
gentlewoman for giving me the time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4582, Mr. Tierney's 
bill, to enable millions of students, graduates, and parents in middle 
class families to responsibly finance their existing student loans.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the ranking member of the Education and 
the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I did file an amendment to this bill that would be 
considered today. Quite simply, what it does is provide existing 
student loan borrowers the opportunity to responsibly refinance their 
high-interest debt to a lower-interest obligation, like homeowners and 
car owners are able to do all the time.
  The amendment is based on legislation that I filed here in the House 
and my colleague, Elizabeth Warren, filed over in the Senate. We have 
over 130 cosponsors here in the House and dozens of respected 
educational groups and diverse organizations in support of this 
measure.
  The amendment would help students and parents save some real money. 
In fact, the Congressional Research Service says that a middle class 
undergraduate student with an average loan debt would save over $4,000 
over the life of the loan and a typical graduate student would save 
more than $2,500 and the parent who borrowed money to help pay for 
their child's education would save more than $3,500.
  Mr. Speaker, these are real savings, real dollars, and no doubt, they 
are going to be directly invested back into the community. The Center 
for American Progress estimated that refinancing just the Federal 
student loans, not the parents' loans on that, would pump $21 billion 
back into the economy.
  It helps taxpayers too. The Congressional Budget Office--nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office--said that, over 10 years, it would save 
taxpayers $22 billion.
  So the proposal is a good deal for taxpayers, it is a good deal for 
students and parents, and it is a good deal for the economy. The real 
question here is: Why isn't there an urgency to move this legislation? 
Because the benefits to the economy are huge and the savings for 
taxpayers are real--despite all this, the Republican leadership blocked 
this amendment from coming to the floor for consideration today.
  By blocking that amendment, the Republican leadership has denied 
every Member in this Chamber the ability to vote on this important 
measure and show that they are standing with the people--with the 
students, with the parents, with the economy at large for people who 
want to take benefit of this legislation.
  Worse, by blocking this amendment, the Republican leadership denies 
relief to tens of millions of college students and parents and middle 
class families across the country who would benefit from the provisions 
of the bill that we would offer.
  Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable, but unfortunately, it is becoming 
more and more common in the House here, as it looks like Republicans 
refuse to stand with middle class families and those that aspire to the 
middle class, instead of putting politics before everything.
  Instead of debating my amendment and the provisions of it that would 
help middle class families, Republicans are finding some way to sue the 
President of the United States.
  If you were to take that measure and ask the public: Would you rather 
have some relief and allow people to be able to write down and 
refinance their loans to a more reasonable interest rate as parents, as 
undergraduate students, graduate students, and parents of students--
would you rather do that, or would you rather pursue some suit against 
the President which doesn't make any sense and isn't going to have any 
effect and doesn't work to get them real relief in things that matter 
to them in their lifetime today?
  We are not doing what we should be doing this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. 
We should be putting politics aside. We should be allowing this 
amendment. We should rely on every Member of this House to vote on it.
  I believe that we would get a strong bipartisan vote of support if we 
did that. I ask my colleagues to not vote on the previous question, to 
allow us to insert this amendment, and move forward.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
quite well aware that his amendment was not germane to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Education and the 
Workforce Committee for bringing up H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students 
Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan bill.
  Within the past year, I have held two Paying for College Workshops in 
my district. These district events have attracted hundreds of parents 
and students. I have noticed that parents take more careful notes 
during these workshops, but all of them were eager--all who attended 
were eager to learn about how to finance college tuition, from the free 
application for Federal student aid, to understanding the multiple 
grant and loan programs. Many students and parents struggle to 
understand this very complicated process.
  I think that that is why this bill is important, the Empowering 
Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. With total student 
debt now over $1 trillion, it is critical to equip students and parents 
with proper interactive counseling, so that they have the knowledge to 
make responsible and informed decisions when borrowing.
  Understanding the terms and conditions for the Pell grants, 
understanding what an individual's financial obligations are after 
graduating, these are key to helping students and parents understand 
and manage financial health well beyond college.
  I, again, would like to thank Representative Brett Guthrie and 
Representative Suzanne Bonamici for their joint work on this bill. I 
would like to express my support, not only for their bipartisan 
endeavor, but for the other higher education bills before the floor 
this week. These bills work to strengthen our education policy.
  An education is one of the most important investments an individual 
can make. We must ensure that students and parents are able to make 
financially responsible choices. We must make sure they understand 
about Pell grants and other such programs available to them, along with 
the other higher education bills before this floor.
  Let's improve the current system. I urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking member of the 
Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and 
Workforce Training.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
of H.R. 5134, legislation which would reauthorize two advisory 
committees within the U.S. Department of Education for 1 year.
  The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and 
Integrity, known as NACIQI, and the Advisory Committee on Student 
Financial Assistance play vitally important advisory roles to the 
Secretary of Education and Congress and would not otherwise be extended 
through the General Education Provisions Act when the Higher Ed Act 
expires this year.

[[Page 12729]]

  NACIQI, for example, advises the Secretary of Education on matters 
related to postsecondary education accreditation and the certification 
process for higher ed institutions to participate in Federal student 
aid programs.
  The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance provides 
advice and counsel on Federal student financial aid policy to both 
Congress and the Secretary of Education, including the recommendations 
for increasing college access and persistence to higher ed for low-
income and moderate-income students.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and 
Workforce Training, I want to thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member 
George Miller, and Ranking Member Foxx for their leadership on this 
issue.
  Although I will continue to fight for a more comprehensive 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I believe that this bill, 
as well as the other three higher education bills being voted on this 
week, make some key improvements to the Higher Education Act.
  So with that, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 
5134.

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the higher education landscape in America is changing to 
meet the demands of the ever more technologically engaged student 
population, as well as meeting the needs of adults who are coming back 
to college after some time in the workforce.
  One of the most exciting innovations is competency-based education, 
which takes traditional degrees and college courses and maps them to 
specific skill sets or knowledge pieces, known as ``competencies.'' A 
student progresses through a course by mastering these skill sets and 
obtaining the knowledge to prove they understand the concept.
  Many of these students are individuals returning to college after an 
interrupted first attempt where they dropped out of college. As Mr. 
Salmon said, many are veterans with skills that have not yet been 
equated to coursework. Now they hope to improve their skills and 
further their careers, but these adults have already been learning 
skills along the way through their jobs and life experiences. 
Competency-based education allows students to move quickly through 
concepts they understand and spend more time focusing on skills that 
they need.
  Additionally, many of these programs apply the skills or concepts to 
real-world problems that students may have faced in their workplaces or 
in their families, which helps create a habit of continual learning and 
application.
  While well-intentioned, Federal regulation has often gotten in the 
way of innovative programs because it cannot account for the rapid 
change taking place. That is why my colleague, Representative Matt 
Salmon, has authored H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based 
Education Demonstration Project Act. This legislation will promote this 
innovation by directing the Secretary of Education to implement pilot 
projects for competency-based programs that will deliver greater 
flexibility to institutions that want to provide students with a more 
personalized education experience.
  The bill will ensure accountability by requiring annual evaluations 
of each of these projects to determine program quality and ensure 
student achievement. My hope is that these projects will better inform 
our reauthorization of the Higher Education Act by giving us proven 
results of what works and what does not work in the current regulatory 
framework. Additionally, it will help inform our discussions around 
financial aid and what learning in the 21st century classroom looks 
like.
  I worked in higher education for many years and thought these changes 
were imminent long ago, but higher education change in the past has 
occurred at a leisurely pace. It is exciting today finally to see some 
of the ideas and concepts that have been around for years being more 
widely tested and finding success.
  In our country, there are 4.6 million jobs going unfilled because 
employers are not able to find individuals with the right skill sets to 
meet their needs. As these individuals come back to school to improve 
their skills, we should find ways to recognize and give credit for what 
they have already learned to help them move through the process more 
quickly. This bill will help students do just that by providing 
flexibility to institutions to create programs that meet those needs 
and holding them accountable for the results.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my esteemed colleague and the 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 
Higher Education and Workforce Training.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to express my strong 
support for H.R. 4983, the Strengthening Transparency in Higher 
Education Act.
  The underlying bill strengthens data transparency in higher education 
by establishing a new college dashboard Web site, which replaces the 
Network Navigator and ensures the inclusion of nontraditional students 
and data metrics.
  The college dashboard Web site will provide better and more 
accessible information for students and families. Key information will 
consist of enrollment and completion data on full-time and part-time 
students, disaggregated by Pell recipients; by race, ethnicity, and 
disability; as well as information on net price, average student loan 
debt, and the college costs.
  This bill promotes transparency on the use of adjunct faculty. For 
the first time, our Nation's colleges will be required to report the 
ratio of part-time to full-time instructors by degree level.
  In addition, this legislation creates a more accessible calculator 
with clearer and more individualized information on student costs.
  Finally, the bill requires that the college dashboard Web site be 
consumer tested with other agencies and students and institutions and 
experts to ensure it provides understandable and relevant information.
  I am proud to say that Texas has been a leader in this area. The 
University of Texas system, for example, has developed an impressive 
college productivity dashboard designed to create transparency and to 
measure productivity in a more effective way. Above all, the UT 
dashboard system also provides students, families, and policymakers 
with robust data and information that they can use to make more 
informed decisions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Having better data and information has allowed the 
University of Texas to identify achievement gaps and to make 
improvements in areas that need reform. More accurate data on college 
participation and completion, for instance, can help to improve student 
outcomes, particularly for low-income students and students of color.
  In closing, I applaud Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Ms. 
Foxx for working in a bipartisan manner to advance this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of 
H.R. 4983.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the other bill to be considered under this rule is H.R. 
4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling 
Act, which will promote financial literacy through enhanced counseling 
for all recipients of Federal financial aid.
  Making the decision to pursue postsecondary education can be 
challenging, and many students and families find themselves overwhelmed 
by the choices and new terminology. It is in the best interest of 
students and taxpayers alike that information about Federal aid be 
presented in a way that is easily understood.
  Additionally, for most students, Federal financial aid provides them 
with more money than they are used to handling, and they struggle with 
how to

[[Page 12730]]

manage properly their debt loads and living expenses. Students want to 
be treated as independent adults and therefore assume the 
responsibility that comes with their choices.
  As they make the transition to college, or back to the classroom for 
adult learners, this bill seeks to help students make smart decisions 
about financing their education so they fully understand the 
circumstances they may face at the completion of their education.
  This legislation ensures that borrowers, both students and parents, 
who participate in the Federal loan programs receive interactive 
counseling each year that is personalized to their individual 
situation, as well as review their loans each year and consent before 
receiving new Federal student loans.
  The bill expands financial counseling to include students who receive 
a Pell grant, and it also directs the Secretary of Education to 
maintain and share a consumer-tested, online counseling tool 
institutions can use to provide annual loan and Pell grant counseling 
as well as exit counseling.
  Mr. Speaker, it may surprise Members in this Chamber that I was the 
first person in my family to graduate from high school and go to 
college, where I worked full-time and attended school part-time. It 
took me 7 years to earn my bachelor's degree, and I continued to work 
my way through my master's and doctoral degrees.
  From my own experience, I am convinced this is the greatest country 
in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is that a person 
like me who grew up extremely poor, in a house with no electricity and 
with no running water, with parents with very little formal education 
and no prestige at all, could work hard and be elected to the United 
States House of Representatives.
  That is why I am passionate about ensuring that students have the 
opportunity to get an education but also understand the responsibility 
they are assuming in taking out a loan and the implications it may have 
on their family for years to come.
  Throughout my career serving low-income, first-generation students, I 
know how rewarding an education can be, and this bill provides extra 
tools to help those students fully understand their commitments. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress is best characterized by missing 
opportunities, whether it is balancing our budget, whether it is 
immigration reform, or, in the context of education, which is the 
primary issue I work on here on the committee in this institution, the 
opportunity to reauthorize and replace No Child Left Behind with a 
Federal education policy that works for our country and to replace the 
Higher Education Authorization Act with a bill that makes college more 
affordable for American families.
  Today's considerations, while good bills--and I am particularly 
honored to have my bill with Mr. Salmon on the floor of the House, and 
I look forward to managing that and discussing its merits later and 
encourage a strong bipartisan vote of support--the tragedy is that we 
are nibbling around the edges and not dealing with the core of the 
issues that the American people demand that Congress deal with.
  When we look at congressional approval ratings of 12 percent, we need 
go no further in explaining that than the hesitancy of this body to 
solve or address any of the major issues that I hear from my 
constituents on a daily basis.
  If this Congress were serious, we could put H.R. 15, our bipartisan 
immigration reform bill, on the floor of this House. I am confident it 
would pass. If this body were serious, we could put the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act, a bipartisan bill, on the floor of this House to 
prevent companies across our country from firing Americans simply 
because of whom they date or love in their private lives, and it would 
pass.
  We could begin the not easy work but the worthwhile work of working 
together, Democrats and Republicans, on reauthorizing ESEA, No Child 
Left Behind, and replacing our broken Federal education policy with a 
constructive approach that works for kids across our country in 
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.
  What would be those principles behind reauthorizing the ESEA? I think 
there are a lot of good ideas from both sides of the aisle.
  When No Child Left Behind was signed into law by George Bush, it was 
a step forward for transparency and accountability; but even in the 
immediate aftermath, it was clear that Congress didn't get everything 
right. Rather than improving it and adjusting it, it has been frozen 
like a time capsule from 2001. Secretary Duncan has done what he can 
with the broad authority of waivers.
  I hope that my Republican colleagues agree that vesting any 
administration--not just this President--with that kind of ability 
should not be the intent of lawmakers. We should address the flaws in 
the act.
  I think any President, Democrat or Republican, is doing what they can 
with the law such as it is, but the real answer doesn't lie with an 
administration. It lies with Congress. It lies in Congress altering and 
changing the AYP formula.
  What does real accountability look like? Growth over time and how 
much students are learning. What should ESEA contain? It should promote 
innovation and excellence. It should expand and replicate what works in 
public education. The most promising thing we have is that we have 
examples of schools that work with at-risk kids from every demographic 
that outperform their peers and prepare kids for college and the 
workforce.
  Finally, we need to change what doesn't work in public education.
  So shining a light isn't enough. Having a broad stroke of AYP and 
policy levers and penalties that are unconnected to actually improving 
schools doesn't work. But we need to begin the difficult work of 
turning around persistently failing schools to ensure that every child 
across our country has access to a good education.

                              {time}  1330

  That is the work we are not doing. It is the work we are not doing in 
this bill. It is the work we haven't done in committee in any 
meaningful way, and it joins the litany of issues that I hear about 
from my constituents on a daily basis.
  Has this Congress balanced the budget? No.
  Has the Congress resolved our immigration crisis as we have seen the 
temperature increase with the tens of thousands of young people on our 
southern border? No, we haven't taken a single step. In fact, this 
Congress hasn't even passed or brought to the floor or debated a single 
immigration bill.
  For a while, we were hearing that there would be a ``piecemeal 
approach'' to immigration reform. We are nearing the end of the 113th 
Congress, and we haven't seen a single piece. I don't know what kind of 
a meal that is, but it is not one that satisfies one's appetite, and it 
doesn't satisfy the appetite of the voters not to see Congress deal 
with immigration reform, secure our border and replace our broken 
immigration system with one that works for our country.
  People in the education world--teachers, students, families, school 
board members, principals across our country--all know what I hope my 
colleagues know, which is that ESEA is broken, that No Child Left 
Behind doesn't work. It has flaws that aren't ideological--they aren't 
Democrats say this or Republicans say this. It has formulas that don't 
make sense to anybody. It is the formula, namely, that

[[Page 12731]]

declares that nearly every public school in our country is a failure.
  Now, that can be something that some people might want to say 
rhetorically, but I don't think you will even find too many Democrats 
or Republicans saying that every public school in this country is a 
failure. I shouldn't say ``every.'' It is 99 percent or 95 percent of 
them. I think there are a few small ones that got through, but AYP sets 
up this apparatus that is nearly impossible for schools to meet, which 
is requiring that every student cohort achieve proficiency now. It 
sounded good. Congress mandated that every student become proficient, 
but it shouldn't be a great surprise that it didn't happen, so it is 
time to replace that with something that makes sense. If people 
rhetorically want to say all public schools are failing on either side 
of the aisle, they are welcome to it, but I think we all know that the 
reality is more nuanced in that there are good public schools and there 
are poorly performing public schools.
  The way that you treat and deal with a good public school and public 
policy is not to say it is a failing one. You can praise it. You can 
say they are doing a great job. You can pat them on the back. You can 
certainly challenge them to do more, but that is a very different 
policy response to a persistently failing high school where six out of 
10 kids who go in the door in ninth grade don't even graduate. That 
school is doing their community a disservice and is only increasing the 
rampant inequality of opportunity that plagues our country.
  Instead of relying on temporary fixes and marginal improvements, I 
encourage this Congress to take on the real issues--to take on 
immigration reform, to take on balancing the budget, and, in this 
context, to take on ESEA: replace our broken education law No Child 
Left Behind with a bipartisan bill that we can be proud of and that 
will endure for the next decade; replace the Higher Education Act with 
a bipartisan bill that actually makes substantive progress around 
reducing the cost of college.
  I want to thank Ranking Member Miller and Chairman Kline. I encourage 
my colleagues to vote against the rule, and I would encourage them to 
vote ``yes'' on both of these bipartisan bills.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have worked in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation that is 
before us today and on some other legislation. Yesterday, the President 
signed H.R. 803, which we called the SKILLS Act when it left the House. 
I am very proud of that, and the President talked about how happy he 
was to sign that bill and how doing things in a bipartisan fashion felt 
so good.
  But my colleague across the aisle keeps talking about ``the 
Congress.'' As he well knows, but sometimes does not present accurately 
to the American people, ``the Congress'' consists of two Chambers: the 
House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives, 
as evidenced by what we are doing here today, is very serious about 
doing our work.
  On average, the House is holding 37 hearings every week, fulfilling 
our oversight responsibilities. We have passed 321 bills that are 
sitting in the Senate and are not being taken up by Senator Reid, who 
is responsible for stopping meaningful legislation that will reduce 
energy costs and help create jobs in this country.
  The record of House Republicans on fiscal issues is second to none. 
We have cut discretionary spending every year since taking control of 
the House. We have proposed reforms to many of our entitlement 
programs. If the gentleman is sincere in his desire for a balanced 
budget, I ask him to work with his ranking member on the Budget 
Committee to propose such a path. House Republicans have voted to 
support a pathway to balance, and Democrats have voted to raise taxes 
on hardworking Americans while never reaching balance.
  Mr. Speaker, there is much work that needs to be done in this 
country, and we are facing lots of challenges. I believe that education 
is the most important tool Americans at any age can have. It was a 
privilege to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the 
Education Committee to advance legislation that seeks to meet the needs 
of today's student population as well as to provide accountability for 
hardworking taxpayer dollars invested. I think the record of the 
Education and the Workforce Committee is very clear: when our 
colleagues across the aisle will work with us, we move legislation.
  No legislation is perfect, and that is why I look forward to 
continuing to work with my colleagues to address their concerns and 
improve this legislation through the amendment process. Additionally, I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find common 
ground on advancing higher education reform that will improve the 
opportunities and results for students and will provide accountability 
for taxpayers.
  However, these bills provide a good foundation to work from, and as a 
proud supporter of this legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this rule and the underlying bills.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule as 
it does not make in order a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4984, that I 
introduced with my friend Congressman Runyan.
  Under the legislation, institutions are required to provide certain 
information to borrowers recommending they exhaust their federal loan 
opportunities before taking out private loans, that federal loans 
typically offer better terms, and that if they do decide to take out a 
private loan, an explanation regarding some of the borrower's rights. 
Our simple, right-to-know amendment would add to the list of 
information required to be made available an explanation of the 
differences between private loans and federal loans when it comes to 
the death or disability of the borrower. Borrowers would be notified 
that the borrower's estate or any cosigner of a private loan may be 
obligated to repay the full amount of the loan in the event of the 
death or disability of the borrower.
  This amendment is based on bipartisan legislation I introduced with 
Mr. Runyan, legislation which passed by a voice vote in the House a few 
years ago. The Bryski family--who live in Mr. Runyan's district in 
South Jersey--fought for six years to discharge a private student loan 
they cosigned for their son Christopher, a college student who suffered 
a traumatic brain injury during his third year at Rutgers University 
and passed away after spending two years in a coma. Upon Christopher's 
death, his family was told by the bank that they would have to take 
over the loan and begin making payments on the $50,000 owed.
  No family ever expects to lose a child. However, should the 
unexpected happen during college, it is a terrible fact today that 
families not only struggle with the loss of their loved one, but are 
also burdened as they find out they now have the obligation to pay the 
student's outstanding private loans. In this circumstance, federal 
loans are forgiven, but private lenders often still require families to 
pay back loans on behalf of their children. Understandably, the 
unexpected costs are difficult to absorb, and families are not mentally 
prepared for these various circumstances.
  While no one can prepare for or anticipate the death of a loved one, 
especially a child entering college, requiring this information to be 
made available will ensure families can make the most appropriate 
financial decisions about how they finance higher education. This bill 
does not add a dime to the deficit, and we are not seeking to change 
lending rules or requiring banks to discharge debt. We simply want loan 
cosigners to understand what they could be responsible for.
  It is a disappointment that the Majority would rather keep parents in 
the dark, and would rather allow private banks and some of their most 
heartless practices remain in the shadows than consider this simple 
amendment that would simply ensure that students and their families are 
warned about this possibility.
  I urge opposition to the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 677 offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
     for the refinancing of certain Federal student

[[Page 12732]]

     loans, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce and the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4582.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . When 
     the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of 
     the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to 
     ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then 
     controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or 
     yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________