Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. No one in this body believes more in accountability than I do. However, increasing Federal control over our lives and over institutions of higher education is not the way to go. As Jefferson said--and I paraphrase--if we allow Washington to tell us when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. In order to make postsecondary education more affordable and accessible for students, we need to encourage innovation on our college campuses and allow institution leaders to develop and implement their own solutions to drive down the costs for students. However, this cannot happen if the Federal Government continues to attempt to micromanage our higher-education system by imposing more regulations. The Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act repeals two onerous regulations that give the Federal Government unnecessary control over the academic affairs of colleges and universities. H.R. 2117 will ensure institutions can continue to develop innovative programs and course options to meet students' needs. We have letters of support from colleges, higher-education associations, and the National Governors Association on this legislation. When the Education and the Workforce Committee held a markup of H.R. 2117 last summer, I was also pleased to have the support of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can continue to work together by approving this legislation to help students and colleges. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the comment of my colleague from California, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that this bill, again, has bipartisan support. We have a letter from the National Governors Association, which talks about the need to strengthen higher education, not give more Federal control; and a letter from the American Council on Education, signed by Molly Corbett Broad and 98 institutions from across the country, mostly public and private institutions. This is not a for-profit or a public issue. This is all institutions of higher education who are concerned with this issue. National Governors Association, Washington, DC, July 1, 2011. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and Representative Pelosi: On behalf of the nation's governors, we write in support of H.R. 2117, the ``Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.'' In June, the U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee passed H.R. 2117 on a bipartisan basis. We urge Senate and House leadership to take action to approve this important legislation to preserve the autonomy and strength of America's higher education system. H.R. 2117 would repeal two federal regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education that are highly problematic for states, institutions of higher education, and our students. Specifically, the bill would repeal the new federal definition of a credit hour and a new requirement that erects federal hurdles for states to authorize higher education programs. Additionally, the bill prohibits future action by the U.S. Department of Education to promulgate new federal mandates, rules, or regulations with respect to a federal definition of a credit hour. Perhaps at no other time in history has the quality of our higher education system been so vital to students and our national economic interests. At the same time, across the country, governors are pursuing innovative higher education reforms to expand opportunities for students, create and retain jobs, enhance state competitiveness, and expand economic development. The new federal regulations could have a chilling effect on innovation and productivity in higher education. Governors urge your support of H.R. 2117. We look forward to working with you to continually strengthen our nation's higher education system. Sincerely, Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee. Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Vice Chair, Education, Earl Childhood and Workforce Committee.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I would just like to point out very briefly to my colleague, Mr. Bishop, that institutions have always had the authority to do institutionally approved equivalency. It isn't something that we needed the Federal Government to give us. As a former assistant dean, I did that all the time, approved institutional equivalence to courses. We have always had that approval. We didn't need the Federal Government to write it into rules and regulations. Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2117. Today's debate on the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act affords us a valuable opportunity to discuss challenges facing our higher education system. I think that we all agree that we have a higher education system that's the envy of the world, and we all want to see it continue to enjoy the recognition that it enjoys now. But this also provides us an opportunity to show bipartisan support for the issue before us. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for understanding the danger to the higher education community that the regulations are presenting to us and that they will stall the efforts in our country to make higher education more accessible and more affordable to everyone in the country. There's no denying the cost of college is skyrocketing. Last year, tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and universities increased 8.3 percent, even as inflation rose only by approximately 3 percent. In recent months, students and families have urged Congress to take action on the issue of rising college costs. The administration has proposed several programs and initiatives that they claim will reduce student loan debt and rein in tuition. However, these initiatives only further entrench the Federal Government in the affairs of States and institutions. Rather than getting the Federal Government more involved in higher education, we can start by working together to remove harmful regulations that pile unnecessary financial burdens on colleges and universities. The legislation before us today will eliminate two onerous regulations advanced by the Department of Education in October of 2010. The credit-hour and State authorization regulations will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional Federal overreach into higher education. The State authorization regulation sets Federal requirements States must follow to grant colleges and universities permission to operate within the State, infringing on a State's ability to regulate in the way it chooses. For institutions that offer distance learning courses, this could mean meeting authorization requirements and paying authorization fees in all 50 States. One online university reports the State authorization regulation could cost the institution $700,000 initially, plus an additional $400,000 required annually. Faced with this astronomical sum, the university could be forced to pass these costs along to students in the form of higher tuition or new fees, or discontinue academic programs in some States. Either way, students will be the victims of this harmful regulation. Higher education officials are also crying foul over a regulation that establishes a Federal definition of a credit hour. Last spring, Excelsior College President John Ebersole testified to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training about this regulation, stating it inserts the Department of Education into academic judgments that should be made at the institution level and could destroy accelerated learning programs that allow students to complete their education more quickly. As a result, students will have fewer opportunities to graduate early with a smaller loan burden, and schools will have less incentive to offer creative courses that promote learning outside the classroom. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to support this positive legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Andrews for his pointing out that this is a very bipartisan bill, supported by a coalition of many groups. I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2117.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), chairman of the House Education & the Workforce Committee.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to point out again to my colleague that the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and also the Senate in January of 2007. When they did, the unemployment rate in this country was 4.5 percent. We were projected at that time to have a surplus in our budget of about $450 billion. In just 2 short years, the unemployment rate skyrocketed and the deficit skyrocketed. The Democrats were in control of Congress when the President took office. That's why he inherited a rotten economy. He didn't inherit a rotten economy from President Bush. He inherited a rotten economy from his own party, and he's frankly done nothing to make it any better. I would also like to point out to my colleague across the aisle that the stimulus that he voted for, which the President promised would do so much for the economy, was $1 trillion, which is 9 years' worth of spending on national defense for the war in Iraq given his figures alone. Madam Speaker, the American people have heard a lot recently about exploding college costs, the burden of student debt. President Obama highlighted these issues in his State of the Union address. Therefore, it is ironic that the Department of Education, which reports to him, is increasing the cost of higher education with unnecessary rules and regulations. At the Subcommittee on Higher Education's hearing on college costs in November, we heard many suggestions on how colleges and universities could cut costs. We heard from colleges who have cut their operating budgets, offered expedited degree programs, and encouraged dual enrollment for high school students. Students and families are struggling to make ends meet, and higher education institutions must find ways to cut costs. Imposing onerous rules and regulations at the Federal level is a disincentive to the schools to do that. It's also a major disincentive to one of the major innovations in education: distance learning. As I mentioned earlier, these unnecessary Federal regulations mean increased regulatory burdens for institutions, and in turn, greater compliance costs trickle down to increase expenses for students and their families. The Federal Government's involvement in elementary and secondary education illustrates what happens when Washington gets too big. The most recent reauthorization of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, is a perfect example of good intentions at the Federal level adrift in a feckless sea of red tape and overregulation. This law is a classic example of Federal top-down attempts to improve education in America's schools. It's a noble goal, but it has completely failed. If we can agree on anything, it is that our children should be well educated and prepared for a life of productive citizenship. However, the Federal Government's ability to accomplish this is in serious doubt. As history has shown time and again, Federal meddling has resulted in a one-size-fits-all approach that neglects local concerns and produces a grotesque layer of wasteful bureaucracy. Right now my colleagues in the House Education and the Workforce Committee are working on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. While my colleagues across the aisle won't support all of our revisions, we did find consensus on charter school legislation last year. H.R. 2218 received bipartisan support in committee and passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 365 54 in September. Although we may not always agree, I hope we can continue to find ways to work with our colleagues across the aisle to improve education in this country. Thomas Jefferson once said: Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill, which would repeal a small part of the burdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations that we're struggling with and take one step toward reducing Federal intrusion in higher education. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is a very hardworking Member of Congress, and I know that he pays close attention to what's going on in the Congress. I'm sure he simply forgot the fact that we have passed over 30 bills in the House and sent them to the Senate, and the Senate has not acted on them. These 30 bills--we've actually passed hundreds of bills--but those 30 bills, in particular, were focused on creating jobs. Now, my colleague seems to have forgotten that. He seems also to have forgotten the fact that the Senate is controlled by his colleagues in the Democratic Party, and that's where the problem is with jobs bills. Also, most of those 30 bills that we've passed, or a great number of them, had energy components, Madam Speaker, which would help bring down the cost of gasoline, which would help improve our energy resources in this country. So we get a twofer for most of those bills. However, again, those bills are languishing in the Senate. We have focused on creating jobs in the House, and one of the ways that we could truly create jobs is to reduce our deficit and reduce our debt. Republicans have been very much focused on that here in the House of Representatives, and in most cases, again, we get bipartisan support for those efforts. In fact, the 30 jobs bills that have passed the House have had bipartisan support. So there are ways for us to work together. I think the focus of my colleague is to increase spending, increase Federal Government involvement; and we know that that goes against the grain. We know from history that that does not improve the economy, does not create jobs. We have an underemployment rate of over 15 percent, created beginning with the Democrats' takeover of the Congress in January of 2007, going through their 4 years. Then it really skyrocketed when President Obama was elected and was there for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress. So I'd just like to remind my colleague that he goes back a little ways in history in talking about things that we have done here, but he fails to mention some of the effects of what he and his colleagues had. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 563 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2117, which repeals the Department of Education's State authorization regulation and the Federal definition of a credit hour. I think most people on both sides of the aisle would agree that our higher education system is the envy of the world. The bill we will consider today, H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act, passed the House Education and Workforce Committee with bipartisan support on June 15, 2011, and I'm very, very proud of that. A lot of Americans believe Members of Congress can't work together, but H.R. 2117 shows the opposite. I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues across the aisle to pass this legislation and hope we can find more ways to work together. In 2010, the Department of Education issued a series of regulations purportedly aimed at improving the integrity of Federal student aid programs. Included in these regulations was a new ``State authorization'' rule that imposes a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate on institutions of higher education and infringes on the rights of States to regulate their higher education systems. Institutions are already required to be authorized by the State in which they're located. However, the Federal Department of Education was not satisfied leaving these decisions solely to States and added several Federal criteria to existing State authorization processes which would unnecessarily complicate the process for institutions and further burden already strapped State governments by increasing their workload. In addition, it is unclear whether the regulation would require online education programs to be authorized in every State in which they have students. One online university reports the State authorization regulations could cost the institution $700,000 initially, plus an additional $400,000 annually. H.R. 2117 also repeals the Federal definition of a credit hour. This definition has historically been the jurisdiction of accrediting agencies and institutions. And again, the process has worked very well. There have been no complaints about it. Last year, Excelsior College president John Ebersole testified in front of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training about this regulation, stating it inserts the Department of Education into academic judgments that should be made at the institution level and could destroy accelerated learning programs that allow students to complete their education more quickly. These regulations will restrict innovation, limit flexibility, and pave the way for additional Federal overreach into higher education. Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Virginia needs to redirect his comments about silent response to the Democrat-controlled Senate, the party of which he is a member. Fostering job growth for the American people continues to be the number one job for House Republicans, and we have a record to prove it. With unemployment and underemployment at above 15 percent for the past 36 months, the Obama economy continues to produce the Nation's worst jobless record since the Great Depression. So far, by following the House Republican Plan for America's Job Creators, the House passed more than 30 bipartisan jobs bills on behalf of the American people. Each of these bills is aimed at unleashing the power of our private sector to freely and confidently build, invest, innovate, and expand again--and put millions of Americans back to work. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these bipartisan House-passed jobs bills are being ignored or blocked in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The American people are tired of waiting. It's time for Democrats in the Senate and the White House to put politics aside and pass these jobs bills.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, since declaring its independence from the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan has been a valuable ally to the United States in a turbulent region. In the true spirit of friendship, it seems appropriate for Congress to note the 20th anniversaries of two important events in their country's history which take place in late- February. February 26 marked the 20th anniversary of the Khojaly Tragedy which is the largest of Azerbaijani civilians in the country's history. The town of Khojaly is located in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and was then home to some 7,000 Azerbaijani citizens. On February 25 26, 1992, in a period of less than 12 hours, 613 citizens were slain at the hands of Armenian forces. In the wake of these atrocities, Human Rights Watch described the advancing forces as committing ``unconscionable acts of violence against civilians as they fled.'' Given our deepening ties with Azerbaijan it is important for American citizens to remember this event. February 28 is the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Azerbaijani-American diplomatic relations, which is an event forming a partnership which of importance to both countries. The initial focus of these relations was on trade between the two countries and, in particular, Azerbaijan's abundant natural resources. Today, Azerbaijan is a full partner to the United States, working with us and our allies to safeguard our combined security and prosperity. One of the most telling examples of their commitment to this partnership came in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when Azerbaijan pledged to stand by the United States as in our efforts to secure the homeland and bring justice to the perpetrators of this tragedy. True to its word, Azerbaijan has supported allied efforts in the War on Terror by allowing unrestricted access to its territory for American aircraft, troops and supplies, as well as committing its own troops to fight alongside our own. As these two important anniversaries come to pass, I join Azerbaijan in mourning those who died in Khojaly, celebrating 20 years of shared diplomatic relations, and hoping for the continued security and prosperity of our nations in an ever-more dangerous world.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that our colleagues across the aisle are doing their best to hide the truth about the cuts to Medicare that came with ObamaCare and those that the President has recommended in his budget. However, the truth will out. The President's health care takeover, like his latest budget, is bad for our Nation's seniors. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Democrats' health care and tax increase law slashed funding for Medicare Advantage plans used by millions of seniors across the country. According to an October Forbes article, the average beneficiary-- considering both those who stay in the stripped-down Medicare Advantage program and those who transition out of it--will incur an average cut of more than $3,700 in benefits per year by 2017. That will directly affect the 40,000 seniors in my mostly rural North Carolina district who enjoy Medicare Advantage plans. So much for the President's promise that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it.'' That's just another reason why I voted against the health care law and intend to support its repeal.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.