the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244, the nays are 171. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2117. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. according to house resolution 563 and rule 18, the chair delairs the house of the committee -- declares the house of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2117. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the committee of the hole -- whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2117 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the department of education from overreaching into academic affairs and program eligibility under title 4 of the higher education act of 1965. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, and the gentleman from california, mr. george miller, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. the house is not in order. the chair: the gentlelady is correct. the house will come to order. the house will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. and thank you for the recognition. i would now like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from minnesota and chairman of the house education work force committee, mr. kline, for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for as much time as he may consume. the gentleman will suspend a moment. the committee is not in order. the committee will be in order. members are advised to take their comments off the floor. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. and i thank the gentlelady, ms. foxx, for yielding the time.

i rise in support of h.r. 2117, the protecting academic freedom and 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 costs by imposing burdensome regulations. last year tuition and fees of public four-year colleges an universities increased over 8%. the average four-year public college student now graduates with roughly $22,000 of debt. help be more students realize the dream of an affordability 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 -- madam chair -- the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will come to order. members are advised to take their conversations from the floor.

the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. 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 crickle 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. the credit regulation attempts to measure student learning at the federal level and restricts colleges from offering outside course work and creative learning opportunities that can help students save money and graduate early. the state authorization regulation is even more troubled. 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 dependent upon the level of degree offered to comply with this extreme regulation. in order to best prepare today's students to join tomorrow's work force, 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 perspective students from significant financial and bureaucratic burdens. madam chair, i urge my colleagues to support the protecting academic freedom and higher education act and i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california. >> i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: 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 to 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 to dedicate to federal student aid. during 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. that's the money given to them in grants. and if that money is not spent in a responsible way, and if it is 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 higher education institutions 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 ourned tout when the acreditors went through and looked at it they deemed it was the equivalent of three hours of credit work and the level of work was at the undergraduate level, but they were able to charge the students, the students had to borrow money at the end of the day they ended up with units 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 is fraud involved. what the department of education was -- what the department of education did was necessary narrowly targeting to address a very costly problem. however the bill before us today seeks to prevent the department from protecting taxpayers and students. it would be -- it would blow open the loophole that the inspector general concluded led

to the inappropriate federal spending. in other words, mr. speaker, the bill before us today explicitly increases the risk of fraud and 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 the students who are eligible receive federal student aid for the purpose of which they are receiving it an the institution that serves these programs are upholding the integrity of that program. 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 protection does not interfere with academic freedom. colleges and universities will continue to be free under the department's rules to set whatever higher standards they see fit for their students as long as the acreditors agree.

this -- in this economy millions of students are lie on federal student aid programs to make the dream of college degree a reality. this is exactly why the department of education is moved to ensure greater accountability and taxpayer protection. it's exactly why the legislation is misguided. now more than ever we need accountability in higher education that works for the best interest of students and the federal aid programs. in the last congress, democrats worked to make sure that our student aid programs worked in the best interest interests of students, families, and taxpayers. we also worked hard to make higher education more accessible to families for whom degrees may be out of reach. one way we help make it accessible and affordable and fppingsly manager for students and families was to lower the interest rates on loans. specifically we lowered the interest rates on need-based students loans to 3.4%, almost cutting the cost to those lenders in half, borrowers in half. the interest rate reduction is scheduled to end this summer t will back out to where it was

before, the democrats acted to reduce it. for the sake of our students and low rates, it should be extended. if congress fails to act, interest rates on need-based student loans for more than seven million students will double this july. this increase will cost the average borrower almost $2,800 in additional interest payments of the at a time when the economy is on fragile footing, we shouldn't build more hurdles for young people. when interest rates are at a historic low, we should not ask opportunities to pay more on a student loan debt because congress failed to act. earlier this month we asked the majority to take immediate action on this important issue. the president has called for action as well. just as other economic issues vitally important to the american people, those requests have been met with silence. today instead of saving students from interesting rate hikes, we are here debating a bill that will take away the tools for the department of education needs to oversee and protect our investment in higher education, to protect

240es students -- 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. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank you, madam chairman. 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 acrediting agencies. it will also block a cumbersome new rule that will require states to use federally set one-size-fits-all criteria for higher education. these two rules were allowed to go into effect that would create tremendous new burdens and additional costs for students.

the exploding cost of higher education is already putting the opportunity of a college education going out of reach for too many americans. last year more regulations will lead to more administrative staff and ultimately larger tuition bills and i might add, madam chairman, the fact that one institution or several institutions break the law, we have laws against robbing banks and people do that. they are inscrupulous people out there. this is putting a burdensome regulation on the folks 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 three years. 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 up much

of their working life paying off these exorbitant loans that they have. there's too much -- there is much we can do improve access to higher education and lower costs. issuing new regulations, however, takes us in the opposite direction. i have taken hundreds of hours of college credit and not one of them has been approved by the federal government. yet i am a board certified physician. i think goes way too far. again i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, the senior democrat on the higher education subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. 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 work force 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 reveal 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 paid for, high quality educational programs that prepare them for the demands of the 21st century work force and nothing less.

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 federal student aid programs. 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 ed 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. repeating -- 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% to 6.8% in july of this year. if congress fails to act, more than seven 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 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. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: i thank my friend, ms. foxx, for yielding to me on this important issue. madam speaker, i rise today to voice my strong support for this important legislation, h.r. 2117. recently bureaucrats in 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 distant education students. this legislation that we have here would repeal that rule, a rule that negatively affects colleges and thousands of students around this country. but 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 has consistently has students of 75,000-plus every year. they provide both on campus and distance education for thousands of american war fighters, soldiers, sailors, and marines around the world. these folks are in any place you can imagine are taking courses from central texas college. and they would be specifically impacted if this -- if the bure contracts -- the rule the bureaucrats have put upon us is not repealed. this is very important to the future of the educated war fighters. under this rule only colleges that maintain significant resource reserves will be able to comply with the state -- these state authorized requirements. -- authorization requirements. let me point out, 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 college, 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. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, madam chair. 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. someone pays for a credit hour, it ought to be worth what they are paying for. and certainly if the federal taxpayers are paying for this through a pell grant or student loan, it certainly ought to be worth what we are 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 accreditting bodies which are peer accreditters to, 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 justifies adding another layer of decision

making to the system which would be the department of keadition -- the department of education. i certainly do think it is worth the attention of the committee and 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 rule making is the wrong way to go. the other objection that i would make to the rule is i think that we fall 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i'd 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 recognize my distinguished colleague from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2117, the protecting academic freedom and higher education act. it's to -- this important legislation aims to repeal two of the department of education's package 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 limit 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. i was home last week, 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 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 four-year colleges and universities outpacing inflation by 5%. 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california -- to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: madam chair, i thank my friend from california and here i join the new jersey president's council which represents all of 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. 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 tillman of princeton university. she writes, quote, 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 accreditting agencies and i might add government agencies seek to substitute their own judgments about what mission and institution should

pursue and how that institution can best achieve that mission and measures success, we risk damaging the country's leading institutions. nord, these -- in order, these are my words -- in other words, these are my words, this strikes at the heart of our 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 ath at least the current level of $5,500 was not made in order. now in new jersey, 213,000 students make pell grants -- use pell grants to make college affordable. there's bipartisan agreement on ms. foxx's bill, but unfortunately this is a partisan matter. the republicans in the house have three -- may i request -- thanks. the republicans in the house have three times approved a budget that would slash the

maximum pell grant 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 pell grants. and not roll them back to their 1998 levels in their budget this year. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 2117. today's debate on the protecting academic freedom and higher education act afford -- in higher education act affords us a valuable opportunity to discuss challenges facing our higher education system and 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 asuccess -- 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 four-year colleges and universities increased 8.3%. even as inflation rose by only approximately 3%. 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 regulations sets federal requirements states must follow to grant colleges and universities permission to operate within the state. infringing on the 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 stomach, the -- sum, the university could be forced to pass these costs along to students in the form of higher tuition and 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 a college president testified to the subcommittee on higher education work force 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 have will have less incentive to offer creative classes. 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. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. 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. federal government has -- the department of education has established a minimum standard for the credit hour. this as 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 atext to, an institution -- attention to, an institutiony established equivalency that reasonable approximate mates not less than -- proximates noes less than one hour -- approximate not less than you are with hour. that places the responsibility for determining what a credit hour is where it belongs, with the faculty and with the accreditter to of that particular institution so, long as it complies with the minimum federal baseline or a 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 n.y.u. and syracuse. this has been the law. i have ministered 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 four and five weeks. all because we established an institutional equivalency that was agreed to by our faculty and agreed to by our accreditter tos. that's all this regulation does. so for us to describe it is if

it's -- as if it's going to end higher education as we know it and is going to stifle innovation and be onerous to students and add to their -- the length of time for their degree programs 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 six 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 regulation, pardon me, let's vote against this piece of legislation. thank you very much. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman.

i'd 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 institutionally equivalence to courses. so we've always had that approval. we didn't need the federal government to write it into rules and regulations. madam chairman, i now would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. . mr. rokita: i thank the gentlewoman from nbling north carolina for yielding me the time. not just the time but her continued leadership on the floor of this house and in the halls of congress. it's steady. it's dignified, it's common sense and 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, madam chair, 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 graduates for an increasingly competitive work force. in indiana my students are not just competing with people from other students from fort wayne and evansville, they are competing with students from places whose names we can barely pronounce. all over the world. and 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 pertains to the authorization a college or university must attain from a state when operating within a

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 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 even the post secondary institutions themselves. i heard from many outstanding institutions in indiana on this regulatory change. they are facing hundreds and potentially thousands of add digsal administrative hours because they offer online programming. that is not fair, that is not american. not only that, 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 that reason i urge my colleagues -- for all these reasons i urge my colleagues to adopt this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you. we just spent the last two hours in the education and work force committee markup debating the disastrous republican rewrite of the elementary and secondary education act. not content to undermine k through 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 these -- two ponch department of education regulations, h.r. 2117 undercuts college students' ability to be assured a quality education for their investment. congresswoman fok's bell repeals two regulations

intended to protect consumers, students, and taxpayers, and the money that we invest in higher education because it doesn't hold the spending accountable to ensure that there is 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 seven million students will face an increase of approximately $2,800 in higher costs. at a time when 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 by -- why aren't 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 are debating this wasteful partisan piece of legislation. i urge all members vote no. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. austria: thank you. 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 would repeal 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 crediting and licensing institutions of higher education. second, they will also drastically limit student access to educational programs that negatively impact all schools. let me give you an example of a school located in the midwest in my district, ohio christian university. an example of a school that would be adversely affected by these regular laces. it's located in pickway county, a typical county in southeastern ohio and mirrors that of many across the midwest struggling with this difficult economy which is has lost over 2,500 jobs and only 11% of the

residents in this county have a bachelor's degree. in contrast, ohio christian university has created 150 jobs in just five years while graduating thousands of students since its founding in 1948. in addition to offering traditional undergraduate degrees, o.c.u. offers an online degree program, currently more than 1,000 students from over 15 states are enrolled in that program. because of the high cost of administrative burdens required to get licensing in every state where online student resides, o.c.u. will be forced to unenroll at least half of its online students and lay off a large number of staff. further, as part of the adult degree program, they offer a limited number of credit hours for prior learning and work experiences. this allows nontraditional students to return to school and earn their degree. to comply with the regulation, the university will be forced to eliminate that program which

will be a significant disincentive for older students. the regulation will also negatively impact traditional students by setting a strict definition of credit hours. this will limit 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. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. 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 safety guards against 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 are 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 proper training they need to obtain gainful employment. and in turn they are 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. we need to increase the maximum pell grant and broaden the eligibility for them. we need to invest in programs at community college that is train students to enter into our work force. we need to refocus our attention on assisting young americans to obtain the education they need and deserve instead of repealing regulation that is protect our investment in their future. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker, 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 scheme we saw in the housing market. and acording to the consumer financial protection bureau, recruiters have been signing up marines with serious brain injuries. marines who could not remember what they signed up for to inflate their profit. according to a 2009 pew study, even though only one in 14 students or 7% attend these proprietary schools, they make up nearly half, 44% of the default rate on student loans. so if anything, we need more comprehensive oversight over for-profit colleges. instead this repeals regulations that are already on the books to make it easier for the institution to commit fraud at the expense of students and taxpayers. the bill does it overturns regulation for awarding federal student aid that are aimed at ensuring accountability and

reducing fraud. it removes the ability of the secretary of education to find 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. and by getting rid of the state authorization requirement, it opens the door to billions of taxpayers' dollars going to institution that is are openly flouting the law. it's about manipulating the credit hours to receive more federal aid. instead of deregulating for-profit colleges, we should be working to ensure these institutions are fulfilling their obligations to their students. we should work to fix the real problem that students face right now. growing student debt and the upcoming interest rate increase on student loans. this bill will overwhelm cause more fraud and abuse in a sector that is already rife with it. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, 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 broad and 98 institution from across the country. mostly public and private institutions. this is not a for-profit or public issue. this is all institutions of higher education who are concerned with this issue. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: madam speaker, i

rise today in opposition to h.r. 2117, the protecting 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 state authorization regulation which gives states the ability to enforce their right to require that all colleges operating within their jurisdiction be authorized to do so. without the state authorization rule, states have no way of knowing which colleges operate within their states unless they operate on physical campuses.

the state authorization rule simply requires that as a condition for receipt of federal aid, colleges verify that they have authorization from the states in which they operate and are inherent 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 where they offered nine college credits for courses that were only five weeks long. the federal definition of a credit hour is imperative to directly address colleges that have been inflating their credit 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 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 post secondary schools is the next biggest scandal. you'd think the subprime meltdown was big, when american taxpayers find out how much of their tax dollars are being ripped off by these private post secondary schools who have the 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 has introduced this but wrong. this is a rip -- but this is wrong. thgs a ripoff -- this is a ripoff. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate the comment of my colleague from california and i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: we have no further speakers, madam chair, and i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i would just conclude that i think when you consider the $200 billion that the taxpayers of this country provide to the institutionses of higher learning all -- institutions of higher learning all across the country, 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 thank yous their money, the money that they go -- who spends their money, the money that they borrow, the money that their parents borrow, to provide them the educational opportunities so 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. the requirement that many people will recognize, when you sign up for a three-year course very often you find out you're spending three hours a week in that class. when you sign up for a five-hour course, you're spending more time. the question becomes now as we see a lot of different institutions mixing into this space and living off almost 85% to 90% of their revenues 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. in many instances the students

have been defrauded. in many instances they were represented that this is all transferable to the state colleges or to the university systems when in fact it turned out not to be true. and 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. and 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 make noes sense for me at all. -- makes no sense to me at all. we ought to have accountable in that system and that accountable runs to the students and it runs to the taxpayers in this country. i would hope that we would reject this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman is

recognized for up to 12 minutes. ms. foxx: thank you. 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 jeffson said, and i paraphrase, if we allow washington to tell us when to sew and when to reap, we should soon want bread. in order to make post secondary education more affordable and accessible to 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, the national governors association on this legislation. when the education and the work force 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 and higher education act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. 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 five-minute rule. and shall be considered read no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except

those printed in house report 112-404. each such amendment 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 shath shall not be subject to -- and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment the at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-404. the chair: pursuant who house -- to house resolution -- pursuant to house res. report 563, mr. -- to house res. -- to house report 563, the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. the bill we are debating today

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 would amendment would make sure that those student complaint provisions are retained. up until now, in many states, a student who discovers 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 a 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 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 the students' best interests and will seek to guide students and

address concerns when they arise. the amendment is sure that -- 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 of credit companies and banks. we should do the same for students. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise in opposition? ms. foxx: madam chairman, i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you. the higher education act,

crediting agencies are already requiring to have a system for individuals to give complaints about a college or university. under current practice many states have well established complaint processes that are serving students. i'm also concerned about the burden this regulation will place on states. while the economic situation is in our country has shown -- in our country has shown modest improvements, 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 toward helping colleges and universities keep their tuition down rather than adding another layer of state bureaucracy. for these reasons and others i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona.

mr. grijalva: if i may, let me yield to the ranking member of the education committee. mr. miller: just quickly, you can't have it both ways. you can't say a lot of states are doing this but now we don't want to add a burden. this says a state has to have a process. a state has a process, it's over. it's done. and so why would we take away, why would we take away that voice in those states that don't have a process? let's make sure the 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 thank the gentleman for yielding and i urge a aye vote on his amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserve? mr. grijalva: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i'll reserve, madam chair. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. the underlying legislation, h.r. 2117, stacks the deck against the due process and ability for families and students to seek redress when institutions or

programs deny them or mistreat them regarding the services they purchased. 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 complaint it might have. it is simple, it is direct and it merits remaining in the legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you. i'll say once again, i believe this is unnecessary and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: on that i would

ask for a recorded vote. the chair: does the gentleman ask for the -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-404 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 563, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair are recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. -- the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 2117, the protecting am deckic freedom in higher education act. in the months -- academic freedom in higher education act. 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 which colleges and universities disperse federal student -- disburse federal student aid. my amendment will prevent the federal government from reinterpreting a state's laws to require credit hour programs to convert back to clock hour programs. a 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 will reaffirm our intent that discretion for determining clock hour programs should remain with states, crediting -- accrediting agencies and institutions. the amendment improves the underlying legislation and ensures colleges and students are protected from a harmful

federal intrusion into academic affairs. i urge my colleagues to lend their support and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california rise in opposition? mr. miller: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman. this amendment is consist went this legislation -- consistent with this legislation. it will just make it easier for nep any institution to maximize the amount of federal aid they get. they would be able to choose whether they were a clock hour or credit hour institution and that would depend on how he could game the reimbursement -- gain the re-- how they could gain the reimbursement available to them. i oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina. . ms. foxx: i yield back the balance of my time urging my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-404, for what purpose does the --

the chair: the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. this will be amendment five. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 3. mr. polis: the amendment is numbered 3. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 112-404 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 563, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, 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 other case have a strategy to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. every dollar we lose to fraud and waste is a dollar not invested in our young people. a dollar of deficit spending, government spending that is not producing the desired outcome of education or youth preparation of our work force for jobs in the 21st century. and improving our economic strength. if we are eliminating some of the basic protections that are categorically a pride under the bill, it's very important that we require that institution that is are failing students to improve their value. schools have a chronically low graduation rate, a low

completion rate, or high loan default rate then in fact they should be required to be recognized by the state in which they are operating as a backstop against fraud, waste, and abuse to ensure the students can -- complaints and questions are at least heard by their own state if they believe they have been treated unfairly. that's what my amendment would do. provide a incentive for colleges and universities to produce better outcome for students. in both of my remarks i'm 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 re-authorization higher education act is 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 we should look at that part of what we need to accomplish is freeing

good performing institutions up from the input restraints, input barriers. if they can effectively teach something that only takes two hours even five minutes, that institution should be rewarded for that enand encouraged to do that. what a great way to invest our taxpayer money. some innovative institution of higher education has figured out how to get two hours of legacy carnegie credit into five minutes of rapid instruction. what a wonderful accomplishment. i'm hopeful that and more can be accomplished. my amendment would provide a incentive for colleges and university 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's something we should encourage in higher education. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. does the gentlewoman rise in opposition? ms. foxx: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam

chairman. this amendment is simply unnecessary and oy pose 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 regulation simply brings 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 it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: one other government program would we say it's all right to keep funneling taxpayer money without accountability? specifically my amendment would retain state authorization requirements for institution that is have below average graduation rates, below average annual completion rates, and above average loan default rates. and free up the good performing institutions to excomparmente and not hold them accountable to the carnegie units that

continue to reach out and prevent innovation in the education sector. i believe the regulations are reasonable and 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 work force and drive education innovation into the new century. and those that continue to 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. miss fobs: thank you, madam -- ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i want to state my opposition to this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i have a desk. amendment number 5. the chair: does gentleman request a recorded vote on amendment number three? mr. polis: no. the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. it's now in order to considered amendment number 4. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise -- force mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk number five. the chair: would the gentleman be speaking on amendment number four which is the amendment that is in order at this moment? mr. polis: i ask -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. bishop: madam speaker, i have a desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 112-404, offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 563, the gentleman from new york, mr. beneficiary yp, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you very much, madam speaker. this amendment simply strips the language from the underlying bill that permanently constrains the secretary from prom mull gating -- promulgating a regulation or 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. 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 short cuts 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 the 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 that it would be. where the semester might be shorter as a result of lack of add heavens to what a reasonable definition of a credit hour is. and to put the secretary of education in the 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's very simple. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. does the gentlewoman rise in opposition? ms. foxx: yes, madam chairman, i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for tife minutes. ms. foxx: madam chairman, 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 speaker, the founders were very, very weiss when they created the -- wuse when they created the -- wise when they created the constitution. they delynnated exactly what the federal government should and should not be doing. the word education is no place in the constitution. but article 1, 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 -- or the authority to lie. we are accountable to the people who represent, we are the people's house. we should not be abrogating our responsibility to un-elected bureaucrats. i'm almost embarrassed that any member would want to could 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. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: i 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 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 promulgating 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 equivalent are perfectly permissible and 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. so i would urge defeat of the underlying bill. i would urge passage of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: the gentleman is correct. deans and assistant deans and others at universities and colleges have that authority right now. they have had it since the beginning of the creation of institutions of higher education. we don't need the federal government meddling in business -- in places it has no business

meddling. i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: may i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. bishop: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-404. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? . mr. polis: i have an amendmented a the desk. the clerk: amendment number 5 precipitationed in house report 112-404 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 563, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from colorado is

recognized. mr. polis: thank you, 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'm 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 carneigie units, and, he again, where does this stem from? it stems from a u.s. state of department report that found that there's not an established definition of credit hour minimum requirement. the secretary working within those constraints tried to provide a definition. i don't think that's a productive road to go down. so i strongly support the general thrust of this bill. but where we need to move is towards outcome-based measurements. we have the 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 that the gentlelady from north carolina can work with me on in accepting this amendment and i think it's a very pragmatic and a piece of an amendment that could improve the bill, since we are removing many of the specifics that currently combath combat, waste -- combat waste, fraud and abuse, and again i don't think we want to combat waste, fraud and abuse by mr. ayotte: plying an over -- by applying an overly rigid standard, what we care about is whether kids are learning, not how much time they spend doing it. i've talked to folks who use apresentshipitiesships, online education, and we should hold -- apprenticeships, online education. we should make sure there is a backstop for what i think people on both sides agree exists which is waste, fraud and abuse in the

system. what my amendment would do is replace the specifics of these regulations 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 require that the secretary come up with ideas that are consistent with the future of education towards combating waste, fraud and abuse. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate the very positive comments that my colleague from colorado has made about the underlying bill. and i hope very much that he will support it. and 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 re-authorization 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 and therefore i think that the gentleman from colorado's amendment is unnecessary and i oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. i think 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 it's unwarranted. these are federal student loans. we do not want taxpayers to be ripped off. 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 towards accomplishing that. i agree with the gentlewoman from north carolina, fundamentally many of these issues need to be discussed during the re-authorization of the higher education act and i hope that she will join me at that point, yes, on freeing up the input-based measurements but equally if not more important making sure we hold the recipients of tax-pair funded programs accountable for the outcomes. and there is no perfect outcome measurement. but even a mote oaker one is better than -- mediocre one is

better than no -- than none. 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 west, -- waste, fraud and abuse do not enter the system, along with freeing up innovation and thoughtful new ways to education kids. i urge my colleagues to join me on voting yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, 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 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 taxpayer money is well spent and i can assure you that members of the -- my committee want to see that the money's 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 congress, in the house, do that. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. and urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. tion thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house of the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2117 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the hou

. they could pay for that and there's $45 million that could

go to a water project or several water projects, and i just give some thought to that. thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. >> senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. last week president obama went to miami to give another speech on energy. he stated that, quote, i will do whatever i can to develop every source of american energy so our future isn't controlled by events on the other side of the world. nice words. the president too often says one thing and then does in my opinion something very different. and to me that's been nowhere more evident than what we are seeing in the interior department because the president says he supports an all out, all-of-the-above energy strategy, but the department has repeatedly taken steps to limit american energy production. a couple of compafrpbls, in november the department propose add five-year plan which excludes both pacific and atlantic oceans.

the plan excludes the development off the coast of virginia, even though both senators, both democrat senators and the governor of virginia, a republican, supported such development. in january, the department withdrew approximately a million acres in northern arizona from uranium production, the department withdrew this land even though both senators and the goff goff of arizona opposed the -- governor of arizona opposed the withdrawal and the department continues to pursue new stream protection regulations which will limit american coal production. the department is taking this step even though members of congress and officials from coal producing states oppose the new regulations. now we get to the specific pain at the pump. on friday the front page of the "usa today" read most ever could get hit by $5 gasoline. . the president said he's focused on production. the department speaks otherwise as does the fiscal 2013 budgets

which includes tens of thousands of fees. the president can't have it both ways. he can't pursue an "quote, all out, all-of-the-above energy policy." following up specifically with the release the president did last year from the strategic petroleum reserve. has this administration begun any planning to tap the strategic petroleum reserve? >> all options are on the table. >> so that is something that then you are considering tapping. so could you explain what happened to gas prices last year following the president's decision to tap the strategic reserve? >> i would say, senator, all options are on the table. i disagree with you as far as

the president's adgenda. we have worked to develop our oil and gas resources in a safe and responsible way and we have done so on the onshore and the offshore. we have developed other resources including renewable energy and for the first time since three-mile island we have opened up the possibility for nuclear energy as well. so when the president says an all-of-the-above strategy for the united states, he's serious about getting us moving beyond the gridlock that has basically kept this energy program in the united states in a failing paradigm for the last 30 years. >> so the "washington post" said last year the release from the 30 -- >> we will show you all of this hearing later in our schedule. also in our video library at c-span.org. we are going to take you live to the capitol now for a republican leader briefing on a jobs proposal. we want to remind you that the house is expected to gavel back in shortly so we will leave

this briefing and take you back to the house when they gavel back in. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> as you see, we members are here joined by many entrepreneurs from across the country who have come here today with success because their success was earned by running businesses and succeeding in a very tough economy that we're in. as has been noted, these entrepreneurs made it through the crash years of 2006 and 2008 and plenty of entrepreneurs who have not. and it is for them that we're here. we are here to make sure that we can jump-start this economy. we're here all behind what's called a jobs act that we'll be voting on in the house next week. thises is jobs act, jump-start

our business startups act. it is a compilation of bills that have some of which have been voted on the floor of the house with heavy bipartisan support. these are bills which also reflect the work of the president's jobs council. and as has been shown today, the white house has said we need to get started jump-starting our business startups and that's exactly what the bill does. many of the members that are here have bills that are in the package. they range from increasing the availability of small business to access capital to bills which tend to reduce the regulatory burden on startup businesses and frankly allow them to flourish and grow and that's what we believe is the secret to the success of growing this economy, it is to get the small business engine started again. so with that it's my pleasure to call upon lori countryington. she's the president of lord,

willis oil company in michigan. a successful entrepreneur who's here in washington to join the effort to try to jump-start our small businesses. lori. >> thank you. thank you. first of all, i want to said as we look at our country and how to motivate our economy, it's entrepreneurs, every company in this country was started by an entrepreneur. and so what leader cantor has done for us is he's given us this opportunity to unshackle some of these things that have been binding us. so at my company, which is an energy company, this is going to create -- let us have the opportunity to create jobs and we're just really grateful for that. thank you. >> next, of course, is the speaker of the house who has been nothing but a champion for the small businesses being a small business man himself, knowing the importance of growing our small business

base. >> well, eric, thanks. let me say thanks to you and your team and all the members behind us who worked hard to put this bill together. red taped bureaucracy, lack of access to capital makes it difficult to create new businesses. right now we have new business startups at the lowest level we've seen in some 30 years, and if we're serious about growing our economy and creating opportunities for our fellow citizens, making sure that we get rid of the red tape and people have access to capital are critically important. as eric said, i used to run a small business. i know about the red tape, the bureaucracy and how difficult it is to put the capital together to take an idea and to turn it into a real business. so i want to thank all of these members pour their work. during the state of the union address the -- members for their work. during the state of the union address the president called for an idea like this. i hope that democrats and the

white house will join us in moving this very important bill. >> next up, i'd like to call upon the majority whip who has one of the hallmark bills in this package, kevin mccarthy. >> well, thank, mr. leader, and i will tell you at age 20 i started my first business, a small deli. i didn't put a lot of thought in the name. i named it after myself. it was successful. i tell you in today's environment i don't know if i could start it again. the biggest challenge we have is access to capital and regulation. and you wonder is small business really the place we should focus. in my view it's the only place. every statistic shows you the greatest growth in america, if you take from the last recession until this one, is small business. seven million new jobs were created by small business. 60% of those seven million came from companies five years old or younger. and as the speaker just said,

we are at our lowest level in 30 years. this is a great opportunity to find what the future holds. this will jump-start it. now, a challenge when it comes to access to capital, when i started my first small business, i wanted to open up five more deles. kind of tough for a bank to lone to a 20-year-old kid, but because i grew up in a different side of the neighborhood, the rules that we have based in 1933 i couldn't go talk to somebody that had capital that wanted to invest with me privately unless i had a previous relationship with them. i would have to go register, take my money, get an attorney and register with the s.e.c. well, that's yesterday. today we want the ability to have a good idea for capital to find the idea but also when you have the ability to find capital in other places you don't have to make the monthly payments. you're able to grow and prosper

in the business. and so let's match a strong idea with somebody who wants to max capital and go out there. the one thing people don't realize today, there's more cash on hand than at any other time in the last 50 years. that's because of the uncertainty in this country. this will unshackle it. >> next up is a member of the financial services committee and our chairman of the republican conference, jeb hensarling. >> thank you, leader. we know that we continue to be in the slowest and weakest recovery in the postwar era, and one of the reasons we are, as previous speakers have pointed out, is that new business startups are at one of their lowest levels in decades. not unlike our majority whip, before coming to congress i was a small business person. and the two great challenges that i had as a small business person was access to capital and government red tape. the jobs bill addresses both of

them. i certainly want to thank leader, eric cantor, for heading up this initiative, but we have to jump-start our small businesses. we know that it is the animal spirits that adam smith wrote about in 1776 that are the key to job growth in america. we want to help unleash those animal spirits to jump-start this, to help our small businesses greater access to capital, and even bernie marcus, the founder and former chairman of home depot, once said he couldn't even start home depot today. we want to make sure that the future home depots get their start, the jobs act addresses that. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of it. >> thank you, jeb. next, member of the financial services committee, chairwoman of the financial institution subcommittee from west virginia, shelley capito. >> thank you, mr. leader, and

thank you all for being here today. i am really excited to be here for this bill for two reasons. number one, last week when i was home, many of us were home, i went to our tech park. it was a formally had been a huge research facility for what was then union carbite. the union leaders got together when they downsized and said what do we need to do with this area. it's for entrepreneurs, new ideas to create the businesses of the future for a state like west virginia as they're transitioning away from the more traditional ways, economies of our state. and the question i got in this meeting as a chemical alliance zone is, what are you doing for entrepreneurs and startups, and so i talked about the bills we had passed through committee, through the financial services committee, some we passed through on the floor. the other reason i'm excited about this today is the other question i got is, are you guys ever going to do anything together? and i don't think they're meaning us together. they mean us as americans, yes,

but as republicans and democrats. and this is something we agree on. we've shown it in committee. we've worked through the bumps and bruises in committee, and we've done it on the floor. i think we can do it. the president is supportive of this because he knows it will relates in job creation. i know i only said two but i have one other thing. the other thing i like about this bundle of bills, it looks to the future. it looks as how to use the internet, how to use the newer technologies to create capital, to eliminate regulations and to be more efficient and to reward those bright young minds that are trying to find a way to not only provide for themselves but provide for members of their community. >> next is the individual who actually -- whose bill will serve as the base bill and the sponsor is stephen fincher of tennessee. >> i spoke to a constituent and one of them said, mr. fincher, you need to bring us more jobs.

news flash, we don't create jobs in the halls of congress. the private sector creates jobs, and that's what this package does. it puts the focus back on the private sector, back on capitalism and the free market. i was thinking, the heartbeat of america is in the heartland of america, not in washington, d.c., on a beautiful day like this and we have here, it's good that we were sent here a year and a half ago almost to do what we're doing today. this is a process. it's been a tough journey, but this shows you that we can work together and hopefully our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will get behind this and show the american people that this still can be the greatest country on earth and our children can be the brightest future, even more bright than what we've had. thank you. >> next is the gentlelady from new york, also serves on the financial services committee, dr. nan hayworth. >> thank you, leader. compliments to you and our colleagues here for introducing a bill that will truly

transform the climate for our businesses in ways that we desperately need. i represent the hudson valley of new york, and in fact we do have folks right at home, i can think of very directly, biotech entrepreneurs who are growing companies right in the hudson valley. they are creating life-saving innovations. they are creating jobs, and the jobs act will provide them with the fuel that they need to grow. this is what america's about. this is the best of america. it's about our entrepreneurs, our innovators and all of the people who rely on americans to create and innovate and all of our american people who desperately need jobs and will have many more of them based on this act. so i want to thank the president for voicing support for this bill today and i am confident that it will pass through the house, and i compliment our colleagues again.

>> questions? >> senator reid is saying [inaudible] i was wondering if you can how to get to the president's desk? >> i have not spoken to him today but i certainly plan to speak with him and work with the speaker and seeing what we can do to try and make sure this package of bills gets to the president's desk. as we saw this morning, the president seems willing to actually work with us and perhaps we can sign this into law. >> speaker boehner, there was a tragedy in ohio with the school shooting. do you think that will prompt any new legislation as far as -- [inaudible] in this country? >> clearly our hearts goes out to the families of those two victims. the violence should not be tolerated in our society. but let's be honest. there are about 250 million guns in america, and so they're

out there. but people should use them responsibly. >> mr. speaker, on the highway bill, leader reid suggested you all had given up on your bill. i'm not even sure if i heard him right. he suggested you all have given up, is that the case, or are you still working on it >>, -- the house has gaveled back in for votes. so we'll take you there live here on c-span. the chair: the committee is in the state of the whole house for the further consideration of h.r. 2117 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the department of education from overreaching into academic affairs and program eligibility under title 4 of the higher

education act of 1965. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-404 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. poe less, had been post -- polis, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-404 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. grijalva of ares. amendment number 4 by mr. bishop of new york. amendment number 5 by mr. polis of colorado. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-404 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which further proceedings were postpone and on

which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-404 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 170. the nays are 247. the amendment is not adopted. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

will all members please take seats. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. will all members please take seats or take conversations off the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latourette: i thank the speaker and i thank my colleagues for their attention. madam speaker, sadly, in a set of occurrences that have become all too frequent in our country, on 7:45 a.m. in ohio, about 25 miles east of cleveland, allegedly a student brought a gun into the cafeteria of the high school, opened fire and shot five of the students. as you stand here today, three of those students have succumbed to the injuries received and have passed away. two continue to be under medical care. i would indicate that in these tragedies there are also items of heroism, and an assistant

coach, frank hall, chased the gunman out of the high school at great risk to himself but perhaps saving further tragedy. madam speaker, on behalf of all of our colleagues, i would ask the house to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen, the staff at the school, their families and the city of chardon. the chair: the house will observe a moment of silence. mr. latourette: i thank the chair. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-404 by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-404 offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150, the nays are 255. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 5 printed in house report 112-404 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes presprail -- prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-404 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 1 9, the nays are 217 -- 199, the nays are 217. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly the under the rule the committee rises -- accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 117 and pursuant to house resolution 563 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. in s a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the wlole?

if not, the question is on the adoption of the committee amendment in the a nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the department of education from overreaching into academic affairs and program eligibility under title 4 of the higher education act of 1965. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. if members would please clear the well. and take their conversations from the floor.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. capps: yes, i'm opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2117 to the committee on education and labor with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the foth following, c, -- add the following, c, protecting students from higher loan cost and a devalued educational degree. nothing in subsection b shall limit the authority of the secretary of education to promulgate or enforce any regulation or rule under title 4 of the higher education act of 1965. one, for the purpose of reducing the cost of higher education for students or, two, during any year in which the interest rate

for subsidized direct federal staff loans used to purchase credit hours under such time. is higher than 3.4% -- title is higher than 3.4%. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate and we have heard some heated debate on this bill. but my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together and to do something extraordinarily important. to contain the escalating costs of higher education. i want to be clear. passing this amendment will not prevent the passing of the underlying bill. if it's adopted my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentlewoman deserves to be

heard. the gentlewoman may continue. mrs. capps: regardless of how one feels about the bill, we should all agree on a major problem facing students and their families. i'm talking about the skyrocketing costs of higher education, putting the american dream way out of reach for far too many students. mr. speaker, my final amendment is very simple. it says that nothing in this bill should limit the secretary's ability to reduce the cost of higher education for students. in 2007 democrats working with president bush lowered the interest rate on need-based student loans to 3.4%, at no cost to taxpayers. this change is saving college graduates thousands of dollars in student loan payments. but unless we act soon the interest rates on these loans will double this summer. that will cost more than seven million student borrowers at college and universities across the country more than $2,800 in additional interest payments. mr. speaker, students cannot

afford graduating from college with mortgage-sized debt. student loan debt now surpasses overall credit card debt. we can do something about this. we need our grass to be developing the next clean energy source, discovering the cures for life-threatening diseases. we need them to fill vital jobs in our communities such as nurses, teachers, firefighters and police. we don't need them to leave school overwhelmed by student loan payments and we don't want them avoiding higher education in the first place due to the threat of crushing debt. instead, we need to make sure they are prepared for the global marketplace and we can do that by making college more affordable. but incredibly, this bill limits the education secretary's ability to protect students and taxpayers from higher education costs. with more than $200 billion in aid distributed each year, the secretary must have the tools to lower costs for students and their families and to protect our nation's investment in education. we shouldn't be tying the secretary's hands at a time

when we must be utilizing every tool available to keep college costs down. and in particular, we should not do this while students face a potential doubling of interest rates on their loans which will happen this summer if congress doesn't take action now. the cost of borrowing for a student loan is already too high. let's not make the problem worse. again, my amendment simply states that nothing in the bill shall limit the secretary's ability to reduce the cost of higher education for students, something we can all agree on. so i urge a vote to lower costs for students and hardworking american families, and i'm pleased to yield to my dwrished colleague from california, george miller. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and i thank her for offering this motion to recommit. i say this is a simple proposition. if congress fails to act in july of this year, interest rates on student loans will double, and if those interest rates on student loans double, that means the ample borrower

will -- that means the average borrower will pay an additional $2,800. at at a time of high interest rates, we have to make sure that the secretary has the authority -- that they understand that they get value for what they're buying, that they don't get overcharged, that they're not subject of fraud and abuse, and the waste in the system when people try to overcharge them for the number of units that they're offering them. we cannot let these students go into this area unprotected when interest rates are about to double. congress can solve this problem by retaining the interest rates at 3.25% and be done with this issue and the legislation will go forward. but if we don't protect the students and their families from the increased in interest rates, then the secretary retains the authority to make sure that they're not subject to waste, fraud and abuse when they're borrowing money to pay for their education. i thank the gentlewoman for

introducing this legislation. mrs. capps: thank you. i urge a yes vote on the motion to recommit, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i am opposed to the motion to recommit. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i reserve all points of order against the motion. mr. speaker, we don't need this motion to recommit. my colleagues should all vote against it. we have a situation where our colleagues across the aisle want to take the secretary of education and make him a czar of education. we on our side of the aisle are very much concerned about the cost of a college education and we've done a lot to make college accessible and affordable for students in this country. however, increasing rules and regulations simply increases --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman may continue. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, would you please ask the house to be in order again? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. members, please take your conversations from the floor. the gentlewoman may continue. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. republicans are very much concerned about the cost of going to college ourselves. we want to reduce the cost of going to college. our subcommittee has had hearings on this. there are many ways to do this, but having the federal government establish price controls is not the way to do it. the federal government in fact has encouraged too much borrowing because the federal government has been such a big borrower itself, it has established that kind of mentality across the country.

so we'd like to see the level of borrowing reduced. we'd like to see the level of debt and deficit go down so that the economy would rebound, people could get jobs and those who do have debt would be able to better deal with that debt. we don't need more government rules and regulations. we don't need the government picking winners and losers and we don't need this kind of regulation -- this kind of authority ceded to the secretary of the department of education. the congress needs to be dealing with these issues. we are dealing with the issues. the underlying bill deals with the issues because we reduce the role of the federal government and rules and regulations. higher education has policed itself very well over the years. we need to pass the bill, the underlying bill and reject the motion to recommit, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 241. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. those fairing a recorded -- a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 303, the nays are 114 the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from

the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 566, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1837 to address certain water-related concerns on the san joaquin river and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings tooed on motions to suspend the rules the rules on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to seek recognition -- the speaker pro tempore: seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1433, the private property rights protection act of 2012, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1433, a bill to protect private property rights. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr.

smith, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1433, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i want to thank congressman sensenbrenner and congresswoman waters for introducing h.r. 1433, the private property rights protection act, to restore vital property rights protections following the supreme court's decision in keylow vs. city of new london. this bipartisan legislation passed the house during the 109th congress by a vote of 397-38 with 99% of republicans and 81% of democrats present voting in favor of final passage. unfortunately, the bill was never voted on in the senate.

today, over six years later, the keylow decision continues to call out for congressional action. our founders realized the fundamental importance of property rights. property rights protections are enshrined throughout the constitution, including in the fifth amendment, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. despite these protections in keylow, supreme court held the government may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another for private economic development. the descenting judges sharply criticized the court's decision saying the majority opinion was, quote, effectively to delete the words for public use from the taking clause of the fifth amendment, the government has a right to transfer property from those with few resources to those with more. the founders cannot have

intended this perverse result, end quote. this legislation essentially reverses this result and prohibits state and local governments that receive federal economic development funds from abusing eminent domain for private economic development. it also prohibits the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. this bill restores americans' faith in their ability to build, own and keep their property without fear the government taking their homes, farms or businesses to give to other people. and it tells commercial developers that they should seek to obtain property through private negotiation, not by public force. too many americans have lost homes and businesses through eminent domain use replaced by luxury condominiums and federal

law currently allows federal funds to be used to support condemnations for the benefit of private developers which encourages this abuse nationwide. as the institute for justices witness observed during our hearing on this bill, quote, using eminent domain so that another richer, better connected person may live or work on the land you used to own tells americans that their hopes, dreams and hard work do not matter as much as money and political influence. the use of eminent domain for private development has no place in a country built on traditions of independence, hard work and protection of property rights, end quote. americans' homes are their castles. federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund the battering ram of emmeant domain abuse. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, to restore the constitution's broad protections for private

property rights. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. without objection, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, controls 20 minutes. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i reluctantly rise in opposition to the measure before us. the so-called private property rights protection act. now, while the goal of this legislation to protect property owners and tenants from the abuse of eminent domain is laudable and important, it would in reality is up plant the work they have already done to respond to the -- supplant the work they have already done to respond to the keylow vs. city of new london in the seven years since the court handed down that decision.

most importantly, whatever the concerns my colleagues may have about the keylow decision, the use and abuse of the power of eminent domain, i hope that every member would look very carefully of the penalty it will impose on states, counties, cities and towns across the country. even if they never take a single piece of property, even if a jurisdiction never uses eminent domain at all, the mere possibility that some future administration would use emmed -- eminent domain in a prohibited manner would cast a permanent cloud over the jurisdiction's finances. the risk of the catastrophic penalties being imposed over the life of a 10-year or 0-year

bond would be enough -- 20-year bond would be enough to destroy or mitigate a city or state's ability to float bonds at any time for any reason. at the very least, our cities and states would be forced to pay a risk premium that would make us the envy of greece. and while it would destroy the finances of every community and county in the country it would still allow the most flagrant abuses of eminent domain today, one glaring example is that of keystone x.l. pipeline and all pipelines is specifically exempted. even now when a canadian company is threatening farm families with eminent domain for a project that hasn't even been approved, this bill would

give transcanada a free pass. whatever your concerns, this bill is not the right answer to a very important question. you see, since 2005, there have been new developments that call into question whether congress should even act at this point. when this house last considered similar legislation, the keylow decision was new and there was real concern that the supreme court had opened floodgates to abusive takings of homes, businesses, churches and farms. the states responded which is their role in our federal system. they responded to the concerns of the people who live in those communities to restrain state power and safeguard property rights. in some cases the state courts have acted to restrain state

governments in ways that the federal law would not. in response to the keylow decision, the states would amend their own eminent domain laws and so more than 40 states have acted. states have considered carefully the implications of this decision and the needs of their citizens. congress should not now come charging in after seven years of work and presume to sit as a national zoning board, air gaiting to our national government the right to decide which states have gotten the balance right and deciding which projects are or are not appropriate. and yet my colleagues who decry an intrusive federal government who exhaust states rights, who

demand that the courts defer to the elected branches of government to make important decisions are not satisfied, they want the courts to interfere. they want a one-size-fits-all washington-knows-best solution. they don't want to respect the way states have dealt with this issue. the power of eminent domain is an extraordinary one and should be used rarely and with great care. all too often it has been abused for private gain or to benefit some at the expense of others. had this bill been drawn the appropriate line between permissible and impermissible uses of eminent domain, i think that's one of the questions we really need to consider. we all know the easy cases. as the majority in keylow said,

the city would no doubt be forbidden from taking the petitioner's land for the purpose of confering a private benefit on a particular party. nor would the city be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose when its actual purpose was to destow a private benefit. -- bestow a private benefit. but which projects are appropriate and which are not can sometimes be a difficult call. historically eminent domain has been used to destroy communities for projects having nothing to do with economic development as prohibited by this bill. for example, highways have cut through neighborhoods, destroying them. i know about that. many of these communities have been low-income and minority communities and many of them have yet to recover from the wrecker's ball, yet, this bill

would permit those projects to go forward using eminent domain as if nothing had happened. other projects that have a genuine public purpose would nonetheless be prohibited. there is no rhyme or reason for this legislation. i believe, as i did in 2005, this bill is the incorrect approach to a very serious problem. and that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield six minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, who is the sponsor of this legislation and also a former chairman of the judiciary committee. after that, mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, be allowed to control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from wisconsin is . -- the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized.

mr. sensenbrenner: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to state at the beginning that i deeply appreciate my co-sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. this is a sensenbrenner-waters bill. you will never see another sensenbrenner-waters bill, and that is probably one of the best reasons to vote in favor of it. i am pleased that the house of representatives today is considering h.r. 1433, the private property rights protection act. this legislation will prevent economic development from being used as a justification for exercising the power of eminent domain. i first introduced a version of this bill after the 2005 supreme court's ruling in keylow vs. city of new london. in this decision, the court held 5-4 that economic development can be a public use under the fifth amendment's takings clause, justifying the government's taking of private

property and giving it to a private business for use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base. as a result of this ruling, the federal government's power of eminent domain has become almost limitless, providing citizens with few means to protect their property. under the decision, farmers in my state of wisconsin are particularly vulnerable. the fair market value of farmland is less than residential or commercial property, which means that those who generate as much property tax as homes and offices. uncle sam can condemn one's family house only because another entity would pay more in tax revenue. the bill is needed to restore to all americans the property rights the supreme court took away. although several states have independently passed legislation to limit the pow ore -- power of eminent domain and some states have barred the practice under their state constitution, these laws exist

on a varying degree. the private property rights restoration act will provide american citizens in every state of this country with the means to protect their private property from exceedingly unsubstan rble -- unsubstan shated claims of need. if a state uses eminent domain to transfer private property to other private owners, they are ineligible for federal funds for two fiscal years following the determination that the law has been violated. it prohibits the federal government from using eminent domain for economic purposes. the protection of property rights is one of the most important tenets of our government. i am mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses, particularly in low-income and minority neighborhoods and the need to

stop it. i am also mindle of they have reasons we should allow the government to take land when the way in which the land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. this bill accomplishes both of those goals. the immediate to ensure property rights and return to all americans is as strong now as it was when kehoe was decided. congress must play a piftal role. i urge my colleagues to join me in protecting property rights for all americans and limbs the dangerous effects of the kehoe decision on the moat vulnerable in society. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: it is my pleasure to recognize the senior member of the judiciary mitigating circumstance long standing friend and supporter for many year the honorable maxine waters for as much time as she

may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. conyers, i want to thank you for not only granting me this time but for being my friend if many -- for many years. it is odd for me to be on the opposite side of you this may be first time certainly in my career we have ever disagreed on anything. and mr. sensenbrenner is correct, this is the only time we will probably come together on an issue but we have been together on this one for a long time. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1433 the private property rights protection act of 2011. this legislation that i join with representative sensenbrenner on will restore the property rights of all americans an prevent the federal government or any authority of the federal government from using economic development as a justification for exercising its power of

eminent domain. economic development condemnations have all too often been used by powerful interest groups to acquire land at the expense of the poor and politically weak. as the descent in the keho -- kehoe case pointed out, to reason that the benefits from using private rights, economic development taking for public use is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property. the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process. including large corporations and development firms. as for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more but found -- to those with me. the founders cannot have

intended this. few protested the kehoe ruling more ar dently than the naacp in an amicus brief, it argued that the burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged. unfettered eminent domain authority, the naacp concluded is a license for government to coerce individual ops behalf of society's strongest interests. the private property rights protection act of 2011 will discourage eminent abuse by denying local governments that take private property for economic development access to federal economic funds for a period of two years. one of the basic constitutional functions of american government is the protection of private property rights. h.r. 1433 will protect homes,

communities, churches and other privately owned property from predatory takings under the guise of economic development. private developers and local governments that have a genuine project should be able to acquire the land or property they need through legitimate, voluntary purposes. if the project really is more valuable than the current use of the same land, then they should be willing to negotiate with property owners who are willing to sell. eminent domain abuse impacts both urban and rural communities and it is pastime that congress acted affirmatively to protect the private property rights of all americans who all too often are not evenly matched to challenge private companies in lengthy litigation. when the supreme court created ambiguity with its ruling,

congress must be clear. there should never be a legal question concerning the rights vims have to be secure in their homes and communities. with that, let me just wrap this up by saying, i have been engaged for the past several years with the fund meltdown in this country that caused so many families to be in foreclosure. i have been engaged on a subject because i consider the home the most precious asset, the most precious possession, that any american can have. and so whether it's trying to protect people who got involved in mortgages that they did not understand, mortgages where they were suckered into signing on the dotted line because we had exotic products that had been put into the marketplace which now caused them to lose that home, or whether it is the pure question of eminent

domain, property ownership is the basic -- the basis of our american government and protected should be always by the constitution and the members elected to come to congress to uphold the constitution and protect our citizens. and so, today, i join with congressman sensenbrenner and others on the opposite side of the aisle in ways that i don't normally do and probably won't have the opportunity to do for a long time to come, but today it's important and we join together in the interest of american citizens who simply want to be able to own their home without their government intervening in their lives and taking their property and saying they're doing it in the name of economic development. i yale back the balance of my time. -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized.

mr. sense -- >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sensenbrenner: property ownership is one of the fundamental rights in our constitution. they codified the takings clause of the fifth amendment to the constitution which requires that private property shall not be take fortune public use without just compensation. mr. goodlatte: this had two conditions, that the subsequent use of the property is for the public and the government gives the property owners just compensation. however, the supreme court's 5-4 decision in kelo versus new london was a step in the wrong direction. it expanded the ability of state an local governments to seize property under the guise

of economic development when the public use is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity. by defining public use so expansively, the court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the founders of our nation. in the wake of this decision, state and local governments can use eminent domain power to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. cities may now bulldoze private citizen's homes, farms and small businesses to make way for shopping malls and other developments. for these reason, i join with chairman sensenbrenner to introduce h.r. 1433, the private property right pross text act. i am pleased that h.r. 1433 incorporated many provisions

from legislation i co-authored in the 109th congress, the stop act. specifically, it would prohibit all economic development funds for a period of two years for any state or local government that uses economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. in addition, this legislation would allow state and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. furthermore, this bill specifically grants adversely affected land owners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to ep force the provisions of the bill. h.r. 1433 also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain such as taking land for public uses such as roads while prohibiting abuses of emdement -- eminent domain power. no one should live in fear of

the government snatching up their home, farm, or business and the private property protection act will create insent i haves to ensure these abuses don't occur in the future. i urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation an reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished chairman and the manager of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman. from virginia. and i look forward to joining in supporting this legislation, h.r. 1433. this is a legislation that has been long in coming, it's a bipartisan initiative, and i think it is particularly

important when we speak to our colleaguings who are representing the american public to be able to say that property is valuable, that the bill of rights that requires due process before a taking is being reinforced by this legislation. h.r. 1433 would prohibit a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation over property to be used for economic development or over property used for economic development within seven years after that exercise if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds in any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intened to be used. texas has faced a number of incidences, mr. speaker. one in particular is after the aftermath of hurricane ike, although there are different laws dealing with coastal property, i see the pain or saw

the pain in a number of beach owners' faces, as their property was condemned. even though they were trying to anxiously save it. this bill established -- establishes a private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of violation of this act this helps the little guy. someone who owns property can actually have a remedy to stand up and challenge the taking of their property. the bill prohibits state immunity in federal or state court and sets the statute of limitations at seven years. although i offered an temperature to -- amendment to extend that to 10 years, i compromised at seven. as well as calling on the attorney general to bring action in certain circumstances, prohibits an action brought later than seven years after the condemnation