Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the recently designated opportunity zones in North Carolina's Fifth District. Last month, the U.S. Treasury approved 22 opportunity zones in North Carolina's Fifth District as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Referring to areas with untapped economic potential, The New York Times called the provision ``the first new substantial Federal attempt to aid those communities in more than a decade.'' With new incentives for long-term capital investment, opportunity zones allow State and local governments to facilitate increased economic development in rural and suburban areas often overlooked for new investments as companies are drawn to thriving metropolitan areas. Thanks to the tax cuts and regulatory relief delivered by this united Republican government, the American economy is booming, and opportunity zones will spread that prosperity to communities in need of new capital to create wealth and grow.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, across the country, communities are struggling to bear the heavy burden of the worsening trend to opioid addiction. At the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we like the idea of evidence- based policymaking. We like to see numbers and statistics. We have to remember, though, that these are never just numbers; they are real people in our own communities. We have held hearings, spoken with experts, brainstormed solutions, and drafted bills. It has become abundantly clear to me that, for every person living with an opioid addiction, there are countless others who also have a steep price to pay. Few things are more devastating than witnessing a neighbor, a friend, a coworker, or a loved one fall prey to addiction and feeling powerless to stop it. I want to thank and commend members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for leaving no stone unturned as we work to make healing possible to all victims of this scourge of addiction, not only those who are struggling with opioid abuse. Too many people, especially children, have been impacted by this scourge. Today's bills are designed to bring relief to those who are affected by the addiction while addressing the needs of children and families who have been left in this tragedy's wake. According to many experts, the worst of the opioid addiction is still to come. If we are to bring this senseless tragedy to an end, we need to do all we can to ensure that the law addresses the needs of families, workplaces, and communities at large. I believe the bills the House is voting on today will do just that, and again, I commend the members of the Education and the Workforce Committee for all their hard work.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this month, the Federal Reserve estimated GDP will hit 4.8 percent in the second quarter of 2018. Under the former administration, GDP never hit even 3 percent. Thanks to tax reform and regulatory relief passed by this unified Republican government, Americans are experiencing economic expansion after 8 years of stagnation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: One million jobs have been created since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted--223,000 were added last month; In May, average hourly earnings increased by 2.7 percent; and Unemployment is at its lowest since 2000. The Conference Board also reports consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. Democrats apparently haven't learned the key to economic progress, promising to raise taxes if given the chance. However, tax cuts and repeal of onerous Obama-era regulations have been pivotal for our economy. Now, nearly every measure of success is in our favor. The PROSPER Act is Good for Our Country

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit today about the PROSPER Act and share some articles that have been published that help explain why the PROSPER Act is so good for our country, so good for students, and needs to be passed. The first article is an article in Forbes by Preston Cooper, May 23, 2018. Mr. Speaker, I include the entire article in the Record. [From Forbes, May 23, 2018] What Betsy DeVos Should Have Said About the PROSPER Act (By Preston Cooper) Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos testified before the House Committee on Education and Workforce on Tuesday. Representative Bobby Scott, the Democratic ranking member on the committee, asked DeVos about his concerns with the PROSPER Act, House Republicans' bill to reform the federal role in higher education. DeVos' answer could have been better. Here's how the exchange between the two proceeded: Rep. Scott: Madam Secretary, the PROSPER Act provides for a $15 billion cut in student aid, is that right? Secretary DeVos: I've heard that opined. I'm not sure I agree with that, but . . . Scott: Do you have another number? DeVos: Pardon me? Scott: Do you have another number? DeVos: It's an approach to giving students much more flexibility in pursuing their higher education. Scott: $15 billion cut. Do you have another number? DeVos: I have heard that opined, that that is the case. I said I don't necessarily share that perspective. Here's a better answer that DeVos could have given to Scott's question. (The below exchange, in case it's not clear, is entirely fictional.) Rep. Scott: Madam Secretary, the PROSPER Act provides for a $15 billion cut in student aid, is that right? Secretary DeVos: That's not quite accurate, Congressman, but it's a common misconception. The Congressional Budget Office score of the PROSPER Act did estimate a $15 billion reduction in student aid over the next ten years, but only on the mandatory side of the budget. Democrats and many in the media latched onto this number, which appeared on page two of the score, and ignored what the other thirty-five pages said. But as I have read the entire CBO score, I can tell you that the PROSPER Act does not cut federal spending on higher education. The PROSPER Act expands the federal government's flagship student aid program for low-income students, the Pell Grant. To encourage timely completion, the bill provides a $300 bonus to Pell Grant students who take on more than a full- time course load. Most importantly, the bill makes several regulatory changes aimed at expanding both student and institutional eligibility for the program. As a result, under the PROSPER Act, an additional 1.1 million students annually would receive Pell Grants by 2027. All of these changes cost money, of course. But the Pell Grant is unique among federal programs in that it is funded partially on the mandatory side of the budget, and partially through the annual appropriations process. The $15 billion reduction in student aid that you cited, Congressman, only reflects changes on the mandatory side. If you include the estimated increase in appropriations due to Pell Grant expansion in your calculations, you'll find that the PROSPER Act will increase, federal spending on higher education by $12 billion over the next ten years. While the PROSPER Act increases higher education spending overall, it's true that the bill finds savings in certain areas. In a time when the national debt surpasses $21 trillion, it's important to live within our means. Changes to student loan repayment options are the largest single source of savings in the PROSPER Act. These changes mostly focus on limiting loan forgiveness, which in practice delivers its benefits mostly to graduate borrowers with very large loans. The bill makes these changes while retaining income-driven repayment options for borrowers to ensure monthly payments remain affordable. The PROSPER Act therefore redistributes federal funds from graduate students and those with high student loan balances, who tend to be higher-income, to the low- and middle-income undergraduate students who receive Pell Grants. These priorities are also reflected in the administration's budget proposal, which would make the student loan program more generous for undergraduates and pay for it by asking higher- earning graduate borrowers to pay a little more. In conclusion, the PROSPER Act does not cut federal higher education funding by $15 billion. It increases funding by $12 billion by making new investments in the Pell Grant program for our nation's most vulnerable students. Recognizing budget constraints, the bill partially offsets the cost by reining in poorly-targeted and expensive loan forgiveness programs. While I welcome debate over specific provisions of the PROSPER Act, I hope those are priorities that Democrats on the committee can get behind.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cooper explains that there is a common misconception about PROSPER that is being exploited, unfortunately, by many colleges and universities and our Democratic friends. He says: ``The Congressional Budget Office score of the PROSPER Act did estimate a $15 billion reduction in student aid over the next 10 years, but only on the mandatory side of the budget. Democrats and many in the media latched onto this number, which appeared on page 2 of the score, and ignored what the other 35 pages said. But as I have read the entire CBO score, I can tell you that the PROSPER Act does not cut Federal spending on higher education.'' ``The PROSPER Act expands the Federal Government's flagship student aid program for low-income students, the Pell grant. To encourage timely completion, the bill provides a $300 bonus to Pell grant students who take on more than a full-time course load. Most importantly, the bill makes several regulatory changes aimed at expanding both student and institutional eligibility for the program. As a result, under the PROSPER Act, an additional 1.1 million students annually would receive Pell grants by 2027.'' ``. . . you'll find that the PROSPER Act will increase Federal spending on higher education by $12 billion over the next 10 years.'' ``Changes to student loan repayment options are the largest single source of savings in the PROSPER Act. These changes mostly focus on limiting loan forgiveness, which in practice delivers its benefits mostly to graduate borrowers with very large loans. The bill makes these changes while retaining income-driven repayment options for borrowers to ensure monthly payments remain affordable.'' ``In conclusion, the PROSPER Act does not cut Federal higher education funding by $15 billion. It increases funding by $12 billion by making new investments in the Pell Grant program for our Nation's most vulnerable students. Recognizing budget constraints, the bill partially offsets the costs by reining in poorly-targeted and expensive loan forgiveness programs.'' I welcome the debate over specific provisions in the PROSPER Act, and I hope that those priorities are ones that the colleges and universities will get behind, and that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will get behind.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government became heavily involved in the Nation's postsecondary education system when Congress passed the Higher Education Act of 1965. Over time, well-intentioned but misdirected policies and requirements have put special interests ahead of students' interests. It is time to develop a system designed to support students in completing an affordable postsecondary education that will prepare them to enter the workforce with the skills they need for lifelong success. The Education and the Workforce Committee is moving us in that direction, Mr. Speaker, by passing last December the PROSPER Act. The PROSPER Act, the word ``PROSPER'' stands for: Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform. It is a really apt title for what it is that the committee is proposing. I emphasize this is a work of the Education and the Workforce Committee and the 23 Republican Members who are on that committee. What the PROSPER Act does is it expands student access to higher education in many different ways: It allows students to use Federal student aid, including Pell grants, for shorter term programs that will help students get into the workforce more quickly. It expands the availability of industry-led earn-and-learn programs that lead to high-wage, high-skill, and high-demand careers. It improves early awareness of postsecondary Federal financial aid options for students in high school. It makes the application for Federal student aid easier for middle class families by streamlining the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, making the FAFSA available on a mobile application and ensuring both the app and the online form are consumer tested, clear, and easy to use. We hear from parents all the time about how difficult the FAFSA is to complete. It repeals unfair requirements that limit low-income students' access to career-focused institutions. It supports at-risk and minority students by reforming the TRIO programs to better evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, expand access to these programs for students, and encourage institutions to create programs using evidence-based innovations like P4Success. The PROSPER Act improves student aid in the following ways: simplifying student aid into one grant program, one loan program, and one workstudy program to ease confusion for students who are deciding the best options available to pay for their college educations. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the complications of the loan programs as they currently exist. There are six different loan programs, nine repayment options, and 32 deferment and forbearance options. What has that gotten us? It has gotten students $1.4 trillion into debt. We find that unacceptable, and PROSPER will help change that. We give a Pell grant bonus to recipients who enroll in the number of credits necessary to complete their education in what is considered on time. That will vary: for students in community colleges, 2 years; and for students in a baccalaureate program, 4 years. We add $14.5 billion back into students' pockets by eliminating hidden origination fees on Federal student loans that add unnecessary costs to college. Mr. Speaker, I talk every day to Members who have been misled by colleges and universities in their districts about what PROSPER does. Many well-meaning, I am sure, administrators and college presidents are calling Members and saying: The PROSPER Act cuts financial aid for students. Mr. Speaker, it does nothing of the sort. Because of the way we restructure the loan programs, however, it does save the taxpayers, right now, based on CBO's score, $15 billion. However, it makes available to students 12 million more dollars just in financial aid, not to count what we are talking about in the $14.5 billion in origination fees. By providing access to a new ONE Loan with reasonable loan limits and creating an easily accessible income-based repayment option, it offers an affordable monthly payment option to all borrowers, and it caps interest accrual. This is something else that the schools misunderstand. We do help the students with their loan programs not while they are in school, but when they are out of school. Many people have misunderstood the legislation and the wording in the PROSPER Act, so I have encouraged my colleagues to share with me the concerns they hear from colleges and universities so we can make sure that what they are being told are the facts and not either a misunderstanding of the legislation, because people aren't used to reading the legislation, or an out-and-out fabrication of what is in the bill. We reward the institutions in the workstudy program by helping the most vulnerable students complete their education and expand the ability of students to receive Federal workstudy dollars while gaining valuable work experience in a field of their choice. Mr. Speaker, I have been in education for a long, long time. I know 40-some years ago we had studies that showed that students who participated in the workstudy program made better grades, made better use of their time, graduated at a higher rate, and were much more likely to get a job after graduation. What we do is we actually double the amount of money in the workstudy program and allow a portion of that money to be used by students in an industry- and institution- approved program in the private sector. We all know that internships often turn into jobs, and we know it is much more likely that a student would get a job in the private sector if he or she is able to do an internship and workstudy funds can be used to cover those internships. Another thing that the PROSPER Act does is it reimagines how institutions best serve students in these ways, providing students access to new providers of postsecondary education by allowing those providers to partner with traditional colleges and universities for up to 100 percent of a student's educational program. We are living in a vastly changing world with all types of opportunities available now to students to gain an education and to gain the skills they need. We need to stop living in the 16th century, as much of education is doing in this country, and come up to speed with what is available to us through technology. We, in the PROSPER Act, encourage competency-based education by creating a clear pathway for competency-based education programs to be eligible for Federal student aid to help students attain a less costly degree based on their own learning rather than time spent in a seat. Mr. Speaker, when I taught many years ago at Appalachian State University, at Mayland Community College, and at Caldwell Community College, I often encouraged students to participate in activities outside the classroom because so much impressive learning can go on outside of sitting in a seat listening to a teacher lecturing. We need to do more of that. Students, again, have access to so many opportunities where they could be deemed proficient in an area and be able to get credit for that which would speed up their earning a degree. We repeal the antiquated and rigid definition of distance education making it possible for institutions to develop more creative methods of delivering postsecondary education. We allow, through the PROSPER Act, minority-serving institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities to use grant funds for certain initiatives such as pay for success, dual enrollment, and the development of career-centered programs. It is time, again, Mr. Speaker, for us to acknowledge that there are many, many opportunities out there for students to gain the skills that they need to be able to be certified and be able to get the credentials that they need to lead a successful life in our country, and what we are doing with the PROSPER Act is advancing those opportunities. I want to quote from an article that was recently published that encourages the passage of the PROSPER Act. The article was written by Rachelle Peterson, who is the policy director at the National Association of Scholars, and I am going to give a few quotes from that article. She says: ``It has been 53 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law, and 10 years since it was reauthorized, under President Obama. Over the years, the law--which touches nearly every aspect of higher education--has turned into a special interest bonanza. It shields traditional colleges from marketplace competition, weaves a labyrinthine web of student aid options, packs on the pork, and in the last administration served as a pretext for the Department of Education to invent politically charged regulations.'' I couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Speaker. She goes on to say: ``The PROSPER Act . . . would streamline Federal programs, relax burdensome regulations, forbid the Secretary of Education from acting outside the scope of the law, and protect the key principles of free speech and religious freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get a package of legislation that would do all of those things, but she goes on: ``Today, my organization, the National Association of Scholars, released a top- to-bottom review of the PROSPER Act, concluding that it represents the best opportunity to reform higher education in decades. With a few tweaks, the PROSPER Act should be passed at once. Two especially important areas--Federal student aid reform and protections for freedom of speech and association--show why.'' I am very, very grateful to the National Association of Scholars and Rachelle Peterson for her kind words about the PROSPER Act. She goes on to say: ``Currently, Federal student aid is a complicated system that encourages students to take on unmanageable debt and incentivizes colleges to raise tuition.'' She mentions the different loan programs, grants, and ways to get loans forgiven. She talks about the PROSPER Act simplifying Federal student aid, reining in costs, and making it easier for students to see their options. She goes on to say: ``PROSPER also gives colleges `skin in the game' by making them financial stakeholders in students' success. Individual programs whose students have low loan repayment rates would become ineligible for accepting Federal student loans, forcing these low- performing programs either to improve their quality or to lower their costs. When students drop out, colleges would become liable to repay a portion of the students' Federal aid, creating an incentive to adopt high admissions standards.'' She goes on to say: `` . . . the PROSPER Act does a remarkable job of cutting bureaucratic overgrowth to return Federal student aid to its core purpose: helping students who are prepared for college find ways to afford it. . . . `' She goes on and on. I am not going to continue to quote from her, but I include in the Record this material so that every person reading the Congressional Record has an opportunity to read her excellent article. [From The Hill, May 23, 2018] Congress, Pass the Prosper Act for Federal Student Aid Reform (By Rochelle Peterson) It has been 53 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law, and 10 years since it was reauthorized, under President Obama. Over the years, the law--which touches nearly every aspect of higher education-- has turned into a special interest bonanza. It shields traditional colleges from marketplace competition, weaves a labyrinthine web of student aid options, packs on the pork, and in the last administration served as a pretext for the Department of Education to invent politically charged regulations. The PROSPER Act, introduced in December by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would reauthorize the Higher Education Act and clean up the mess it has become. The bill would streamline federal programs, relax burdensome regulations, forbid the Secretary of Education from acting outside the scope of the law, and protect the key principles of free speech and religious freedom. Today, my organization, the National Association of Scholars released a top-to-bottom review of the PROSPER Act, concluding that it represents the best opportunity to reform higher education in decades. With a few tweaks, the PROSPER Act should be passed at once. Two especially important areas--federal student aid reform and protections for freedom of speech and association--show why. Currently, federal student aid is a complicated system that encourages students to take on unmanageable debt and incentivizes colleges to raise tuition. The system has six loan programs, numerous grants, and some four dozen options for paying off or getting loans forgiven. The PROSPER Act simplifies federal student aid, reining in costs and making it easier for students to see their options. It caps the amount of money parents and students can borrow from the federal government. It streamlines federal student aid into a single loan program, a single grant program, and a single repayment program. It eliminates special interest projects, such as public service loan forgiveness, which privileged government employees by forgiving their loans after 10 years of payments. PROSPER also gives colleges ``skin in the game'' by making them financial stakeholders in students' success. Individual programs whose students have low loan repayment rates would become ineligible for accepting federal student loans, forcing these low-performing programs either to improve their quality or to lower their costs. When students drop out, colleges would become liable to repay a portion of the students' federal aid, creating an incentive to adopt high admissions standards. The bill misses some important elements of student aid reform, such as making income-share agreements enforceable and requiring colleges to spend a minimum percentage of endowment income. It also maintains the Department of Education's monopoly on government student aid, rather than transferring financial authority to the states. But overall, the PROSPER Act does a remarkable job of cutting bureaucratic overgrowth to return federal student aid to its core purpose: helping students who are prepared for college find ways to afford it, without driving up costs. The PROSPER Act also takes an important stand for freedom of speech and association, principles that colleges have recently given scant attention. The Act prevents colleges from discriminating against religious student groups by denying them official recognition and other standard benefits, such as access to campus facilities. And it protects the rights of religious institutions to govern themselves in a manner consistent with their religious missions. The PROSPER Act also addresses the need for free speech on campus, although its policy changes, while laudable, need to be shored up. Currently, many colleges designate ``free speech zones'' as the only places students and faculty can engage in public speech. In response, the PROSPER Act offers the ``sense of Congress'' that free speech zones are ``inherently at odds'' with the First Amendment--a principled though legally unenforceable statement. A key amendment by Rep. Tom Garrett (R-Va.) requires colleges and universities to disclose any speech codes, providing sunlight that will help watchdog organizations and free speech litigators target bad campus policies. The amendment also authorizes the secretary of Education to investigate colleges that are accused of using unpublished rules or selective enforcement to target certain types of speech. This is important for students whose free speech has been abridged, because they currently have little recourse but to file a lawsuit, an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. These are key changes that go a long way toward restoring freedom of speech on campus. But no bill is perfect, and the PROSPER Act misses some opportunities. It should also authorize the secretary of Education to investigate whether colleges' policies are actually conducive to free speech in the first place. Colleges should be required to report to Congress annually on the state of free speech on their campuses, including details on any violations of free speech, punishment for offenders, and steps taken to protect free speech going forward Colleges repeatedly found to be malfeasant at protecting free speech should lose eligibility for Title IV federal student aid. Students deserve a college education that is rigorous, affordable, dedicated to intellectual freedom, and focused on scholarship, not politicization. The PROSPER Act is a step in the right direction.

Ms. FOXX. My reason for doing this is to say that it is not just members of the committee, it is not just Members of Congress who support the PROSPER Act. It is people who understand the situation that exists in our country and want to see us make things better for students. Mr. Speaker, I grew up extraordinarily poor, but I knew that education was my key to getting out of poverty. I had to work hard, but I also had to get credentials. In this day and time, we know that having credentials is more important than ever. So I want to say again, the PROSPER Act, which stands for Promoting Real Opportunities, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform, is a key to doing that. This will do more to help poor students get out of poverty than almost anything that I have seen in a long, long time. Every Member of Congress hears every day that employers do not have people to fill the 6 million jobs that are out there that are vacant right now. What we do with PROSPER is make it possible for 7 million more students to get Pell Grants. And part of our reason for doing that is to help students get into short-term programs that will give them skills, give them credentials, and allow them to build on those skills over time, hopefully, to create a degree. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, what we are doing with PROSPER is allowing people to be able to get to participate in short-term programs where they will gain skills that will make them employable. They will be able to build on their credentials over time and, we hope, become life-long learners and ultimately earn degrees. But the main thing is, we have right now 6.6 million jobs vacant in this country. We have employers crying for people to fill those jobs. They cannot find those people now in this country. We have many people who could fill the jobs if they were able to gain the skills for them. By opening up Pell Grants to 7 million more students, we think we will get a match. It is clear right now, Mr. Speaker, that post-secondary education is unworkable for far too many individuals trying to enter the workforce. Americans deserve a better system that works for them. The PROSPER Act advances bold, commonsense solutions that will transform post-secondary education, better serve students, protect taxpayers, and set America up for long-term economic success. We are doing things in the bill that colleges and universities asked us to do. We are getting the Federal Government out of the way by repealing outdated Federal regulations and prohibiting the Secretary from exceeding her authority under the law. Again, the institutions have asked us for this. By doing this, everybody wins, Mr. Speaker. The PROSPER Act simplifies and improves Federal student aid by moving to one grant, one loan, one workstudy system, making it easier for students to understand their options. The bill encourages institutions to evolve, but holds them responsible by rethinking the post-secondary education accountability system. The bottom line is this bill is about getting people into jobs with the skills they need to succeed. To do that, it cuts through the morass of Federal red tape, eliminates the maze of Federal aid programs, and unleashes innovation to a sector stuck in the 20th century--I would argue maybe even the 19th century. I am going to make one or two more general comments about what PROSPER does, because I think it is so important that the American people understand what it is we are attempting to do here. Since 2007, Mr. Speaker, the published in-state tuition and fees at institutions increased at an average rate of 3.2 percent beyond inflation. If that had happened with the average automobile in this country, the average car today would be costing $80,000, instead of probably about $27,000. That is the inflation that has occurred in post-secondary education. We have a 6-year completion rate of only 54.8 percent. That is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Every year that a student is forced to stay in a college or university is costing that student $68,000 in lost wages and tuition and fees. The numbers go on and on. Eighty-one percent of parents say 4-year schools charge too much. Fifty-four percent of parents think 4-year schools are accessible to middle class Americans. In other words, many middle class Americans have given up on the hope of their child going on to school. Only 13 percent of people in this country believe college graduates are well prepared for success in the workforce. Fewer than two in five managers believe college graduates are well-equipped for a job in their field. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I made my living for a long time in education. I love education. I want everybody to get a great education. I know that it is the ticket to success in this country. But our current system is not working. What we do with the PROSPER Act, Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform will give Americans a much better chance to gain the skills they need and be successful. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, only days after we commemorated National Police Week, I rise to honor the life of Trooper Samuel Newton Bullard. The community of Ronda, North Carolina, tragically lost Trooper Bullard in the line of duty on Monday in my district. A 3-year State trooper veteran, Trooper Bullard was dedicated to the safety and protection of Surry County. Our country could not be so blessed without selfless law enforcement officers like him who protect our communities and uphold the rule of law that our safety rests upon. My heartfelt condolences go to the family and friends of Trooper Samuel Newton Bullard. While Trooper Bullard's ultimate sacrifice cannot be repaid, I remain grateful for his sacrifice and remember him and his loved ones in my prayers. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about a serious situation that exists in our country, a very serious situation. Every Member of this body hears every day from employers in our districts that they have jobs that are going unfilled because Americans do not have the skills they need to fill those unfilled jobs. Specifically, there are over 6 million unfilled jobs in this country due to the skills gap. We have a solution to that problem, Mr. Speaker, and it has come out of the Education and the Workforce Committee. It is called the PROSPER Act. Today, in The Hill, there was a terrific article encouraging this body and this Congress to pass the PROSPER Act, and I am going to quote some of the article. The article was entitled ``Congress, Pass the PROSPER Act for Federal Student Aid Reform.'' It is written by Rachelle Peterson. ``It has been 53 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law, and 10 years since it was reauthorized, under President Obama. Over the years, the law--which touches nearly every aspect of higher education--has turned into a special interest bonanza. It shields traditional colleges from marketplace competition, weaves a labyrinthine web of student aid options, packs on the pork, and in the last administration served as a pretext for the Department of Education to invent politically charged regulations. ``The PROSPER Act . . . would reauthorize the Higher Education Act and clean up the mess it has become. The bill would streamline Federal programs, relax burdensome regulations, forbid the Secretary of Education from acting outside the scope of the law, and protect the key principles of free speech and religious freedom. ``Today, my organization, the National Association of Scholars, released a top-to-bottom review of the PROSPER Act, concluding that it represents the best opportunity to reform higher education in decades. With a few tweaks, the PROSPER Act should be passed at once. Two especially important areas--Federal student aid reform and protections for freedom of speech and association--show why.'' Ms. Peterson goes on: ``Currently, Federal student aid is a complicated system that encourages students to take on unmanageable debt and incentivizes colleges to raise tuition. The system has six loan programs, numerous grants, and some four dozen options for paying off or getting loans forgiven. ``The PROSPER Act simplifies Federal student aid, reining in costs and making it easier for students to see their options. It caps the amount of money parents and students can borrow from the Federal Government. It streamlines Federal student aid into a single loan program, a single grant program, and a single repayment program. It eliminates special interest projects, such as public service loan forgiveness, which privileged government employees by forgiving their loans after 10 years of payments.'' Mr. Speaker, Ms. Peterson really encapsulates at the beginning of this article the reasons why we should be passing the PROSPER Act. Again, it passed out of the committee in December, and we are working to find floor time to be able to bring this bill to the floor and be able to have the House vote on it, send it to the Senate, have the Senate vote on it, and send it to the President for his signature. Again, Ms. Peterson says, ``Congress, Pass the PROSPER Act for Federal Student Aid Reform,'' but as she explains in her quotes as I quoted, she says even more about it. Let me explain some additional reasons why we need to pass the PROSPER Act. Eighty-one percent of parents say 4-year schools charge too much. Fifty-four percent of parents think 4-year schools are accessible to middle class Americans. Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in this country, not just with skills but people who are in poverty. The way for people to get out of poverty is to gain a good education that provides skills for people to be able to get a job. Mr. Speaker, all my life I have promoted the need for people to get a great education. I myself am a living example of what an education can do for a person. I grew up in a house with no electricity, no running water. My parents had a sixth grade and ninth grade education. I come from no privilege whatsoever, and yet, Mr. Speaker, I and many millions of other people in this country who came from similar circumstances were able to get a good education and use their talents and skills to lead successful lives. What I want, Mr. Speaker, is for every American who has the drive to do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, while the Federal Government doesn't create jobs, the Federal Government can create situations where jobs can be created by the private sector, and we can help people gain the skills that they need to take those jobs. Again, as I said, we have over 6 million unfilled jobs in this country, and what we need and what employers are begging us for is to provide the opportunity for people to gain the skills that they need to fill those jobs. This is the way the American people feel right now. Again, 81 percent of Americans say the schools charge too much. What we do with PROSPER is give an incentive to the schools to charge less. We don't tell them what to charge--that is not the role of the Federal Government--but we put in place policies that we believe will cause tuition not to continue to rise at such a high rate and that students will get more information so they choose well the programs they go into. Also, we are closing out the opportunities that I had and millions of other middle class Americans have had in the past by pricing post- secondary education too high and making people feel it is not possible. Only 13 percent of the people in this country believe that college graduates are well prepared for success in the workplace. Something is wrong, Mr. Speaker, that we have this low a number of people in this country who believe that those who are graduating from college or attending college don't have the skills that they need to take those jobs that are out there available. And there is even more negativity coming from those who employ those who go to college. Let me share some other information. Only two in five managers believe college graduates are well equipped for a job in their field. Mr. Speaker, even those who go to college are not completing their education. We have a 6-year completion rate of only 54.8 percent. And what does this mean to students? It means $68,000 per year in lost wages and the cost of attending. Mr. Speaker, this is occurring not just with those who attend what are known as 4-year colleges, which actually now are 6-year colleges because students are aren't graduating in 4 years--most of the ones graduating are graduating in 6 years--but it is applying to students who are in what we have always called 2-year colleges. So we have a terrible problem every way you look in this country in terms of providing the opportunities for not only poor people, but middle-income people, for completing a degree or a program or a certificate that will allow them to gain the skills that they need and the credentials they need. We are a credentialing society, Mr. Speaker. We want people to be able to prove what they have done. Therefore, we need to honor people with all kinds of credentials and make it easier for them to gain those credentials. Not everybody needs a baccalaureate degree to be a successful person in our country, and we know that because only 30 percent of the people in this country do have a baccalaureate degree. Yet we have millions and millions of people already who are successful. What we want to do is encourage more people to seek certification and programs that allow them to be certified without necessarily completing a baccalaureate. Mr. Speaker, people will say: Well, you don't honor liberal arts degrees if you are encouraging people to go on and just get a certificate. I want everybody to get a liberal arts degree. I got a liberal arts degree. I think that is wonderful. But people don't have to do that immediately out of high school, and they don't have to do it in order to lead successful lives. But ultimately, we hope everybody will be a lifelong learner, and the best way to be a lifelong learner, I think, is to help people be successful early on so they will be encouraged to continue to want to learn and do the things that will make them successful. So what does PROSPER do? We make it possible for more students to qualify for Pell grants for short-term programs. This is what we do, Mr. Speaker. Pell grants are the grants that undergird most people going to college who don't come from very affluent families. The maximum Pell grant in this country now is about $6,000. But students can qualify for that if they are very, very poor. What we would like to do is allow Pell grants to be used for shorter term programs, again, to get students to get into a program, help them gain certification so they can continue to earn and learn, so they can get a job, continue their education. So we make it possible for 7 million more people to qualify for Pell grants. Many colleges and universities, unfortunately, have come out against the PROSPER Act. Why is that, Mr. Speaker, when we make 7 million more students eligible for Pell grants? It is because, Mr. Speaker, we also ask for more accountability on the part of the schools and universities, and I will talk a little bit more about that in a minute. And what do we do for the schools? We say to them: Help these Pell grant students graduate on time, meaning 4 years. And guess what. We will give you a little bonus for this. Right now, the schools get no rewards for helping their students graduate on time. In fact, they get rewarded if they extend the amount of time that students are in school. But that costs the students money in lost wages. It also encourages them to borrow more money, which is not a good thing. We know right now that we have $1.4 trillion in student debt in this country. We see the headlines every day in the newspapers about the problem with student debt. We don't want to encourage students to take out more debt. We want the students to get less debt. So we simplify what we are doing in financial aid, Mr. Speaker. That is what we hear from schools, parents, students. We just had a meeting with Members of Congress before I came up here, and Members of Congress who have had children go to college all talked about how complicated the FAFSA is, how invasive of privacy it is, and how we need to do better with the FAFSA, which is the financial aid form that students have to fill out to qualify. But we also have a complicated set of loans, grants, and campus-based programs. So what do we do with PROSPER? We simplify things, Mr. Speaker. Right now, we have six different loan programs, nine repayment options, 32 deferment and forbearance options--that means 32 different ways not to pay back your loan--and $1.4 trillion in student debt. What we do is we turn these six loan programs into one loan program. We make it much less complicated. Students and parents can understand. We take the various grant programs and turn them into one grant program. It will all be called Pell grants. And we take a couple of the grant programs and put them in workstudy. Why do we do that, Mr. Speaker? Because we have known for 50 years or more that workstudy is successful. We have done studies to show that students who work are much more likely to graduate, they do better academically, they become better time managers, and they are much more likely to get a job when they graduate. What we do with workstudy is we make it an even better program than it is now. We double the amount of money that is in workstudy, and we make it possible for the school to allocate up to 50 percent of the money into the private sector. What that will do, Mr. Speaker, is that will allow the students to work in the private sector, do an internship, a co-op, or an apprenticeship program. We know that most of the time those programs result in a job, and that will start the student on a successful career, we believe, in the industry or business or area that the student wants to go into. It is better than just working on campus. Working on campus is a positive thing, and it helps the students a lot, but working in the private sector is even better because, again, those often lead directly into employment in the private sector. So this is what we do. Mr. Speaker, we are responding to the public. We are responding to the schools saying financial aid is too complicated. Parents and students say financial aid is too complicated. We are listening to both of those folks. The institutions have said it, and the students and parents have said it. What else are we doing with the financial aid? We are putting $14.5 billion back in the pockets of students. How are we doing that? We are eliminating the origination fee for loans. This was a hidden fee that most students didn't know anything about. They had to pay this up front out of the loans that they were getting, and very often it made a big difference to the students in terms of having the funds that they needed to be successful in their programs. So we eliminate that, Mr. Speaker, and we think this is a very, very positive thing that we are doing. In general, what we are doing with the PROSPER Act is we are responding to the American people. We are responding to employers who are saying to us: Please, help us with smoothing the way for students to go to colleges and universities to be able to gain the skills that they need to take these 6 million jobs that we have available out here. Universities are not doing it for us. The colleges are not doing it for us. The colleges and universities are graduating approximately 1.4 million students every year. Yet what is happening is we have got all of these jobs unfilled out here, and we have got graduates being graduated but they don't have the skills that the employers need. Study after study after study, poll after poll after poll is telling us that. We are hearing it from everybody. This is not a panacea. It is not going to answer every single need that is out there. We never said that it would. But it is a true reform of postsecondary education. What we want to do is say to the postsecondary institutions: We have heard you. We have heard what you have said. You have said reduce or eliminate a lot of the rules and regulations that we have. That is what is driving up the cost of tuition. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker. We have revised or eliminated 59 percent of the 59 rules that were presented to us by the colleges and universities. But when they talk to our colleagues here, we never hear them mention that to them. But we are doing that. So we are responding to them. They said: Simplify financial aid. We are doing that. So we are doing what the schools asked us to do. We are doing what employers asked us to do. We are providing funds for short-term programs that will result in certificates that will result in the ability for students to gain the skills they need and go to work after as short a period of time as 10 weeks and 300 hours. This is a huge change in the way financial aid has been offered in the past. We have listened to parents and students. We have simplified financial aid. We are making it much easier for students to apply for financial aid. We make it simpler for them to understand exactly the aid that they are going to be getting, what their obligations are going to be, and we know that, ultimately, it is going to bring down the cost of postsecondary education because we remove incentives for the colleges and universities to keep raising tuition and fees because we are saying to the colleges and universities: We want you to help these students succeed. We want you to encourage these students to take out less debt, and we are providing you the vehicle for doing that. So, Mr. Speaker, we are responding to all the segments of the population that have asked us to change the way postsecondary education is delivered in this country. We are going to help fulfill these 6 million unfilled jobs and we are going to bring down the cost of tuition and fees and make financial aid less complicated. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud President Trump for issuing the Protect Life Rule, delivering on his promise to ensure that the government is not involved in the abortion business--either directly or indirectly. When Title X was created in 1970, Congress intended for these funds to go toward family planning programs, explicitly barring abortion providers from receiving funds by stating: ``None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'' Since then, the will of Congress and those we represent has been undermined as Title X funds have routinely contributed to employee salaries, facility costs, and medical supplies for abortion providers. The Protect Life Rule is a victory for the majority of Americans who are fundamentally opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion without decreasing funding for other Title X beneficiaries, and I stand by our pro-life President's decision.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize May 13 through 19 as National Police Week. This week is a special time to honor the law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty protecting our communities. Last Sunday, 360 of those brave men and women were added to the number of fallen law enforcement heroes on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Their sacrifice is not forgotten, and their families remain in our prayers during this week of remembrance. We are blessed to live in a country founded on the rule of law, and this cherished principle would not be preserved without our Nation's dedicated law enforcement officers. This week, we also show our gratitude to the 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line daily for our safety. Thanks for all you do.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close or does the gentleman from Texas have the right to close?

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague Mike Conaway and the other members of the Agriculture Committee for their work on the farm bill. I have every intention of voting for the bill and have stated that on many occasions. Having been working on a reauthorization of a major bill recently, I can certainly sympathize with the effort here and say that, overall, this bill is an improvement on past farm bills because it responds to the desperate need of work requirements for able-bodied people. However, there is another piece of this bill that has been around for a long time, 85 years, that is not corrected, is decidedly bad policy, and is long overdue to be corrected, and our amendment does that. This amendment is not new. In fact, this body has debated it in every farm bill for over a generation. The issue of which I speak is the issue with sugar and the need for reform of the way we treat sugar, which is different from all other commodity programs. It is the only program that provides both loan supports and supply management. Supply management is the ugly cousin of direct payments. It rewards inactivity. Americans are outraged when they hear tales of direct payments to farmers for not producing something. That same injustice--reward for inactivity, protection from competition--is what we find in the sugar program. Let's be crystal-clear about what the sugar program does. It puts the government in charge of deciding how much sugar will be produced in this country, which inflates the cost, and it guarantees the processing industry a base profit by giving them subsidized loans. We stopped these practices years ago for other commodities, and only sugar is left with this sweet deal. When the government gets into picking winners and losers, American jobs are at risk. The International Trade Commission has stated that for every job the sugar program protects we lose three manufacturing jobs. Congress should not be in the business of defending a program that is a bona fide job killer. This amendment has a broad coalition of support. Free market groups, economists, environmentalists, consumer groups, and manufacturers all support this amendment. Let me tell you about the other coalition. It is not very large. It is made up of 13 vertically integrated sugar processors. That is it. Our government is transferring wealth to these processors. It shifts cost onto our Nation's manufacturers and consumers by almost $4 billion annually. We are going to hear that the amendment subjects farmers to some new exposure to foreign imports. What they will fail to tell you is that, between our government's suspension agreements, import quotas, and tariffs, our government already regulates every single ounce of foreign sugar coming into our market. Will our amendment weaken the ability of the USDA to regulate these imports? Not in the slightest. We simply give USDA more flexibility. We are going to hear arguments about candy bars, candy companies, and lots of other distractions. But it is all brought up to shift your attention away from the very program we are here to debate, the sugar program. In reality, the sugar program hates sunshine. It hates getting the spotlight. But I am glad we are debating it here today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, not my words, but the International Trade Commission says that for every job sugar protects, we lose three manufacturing jobs. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.