Paul Mitchell

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Babin for joining us this evening. Congressman Babin talked about the impact on small businesses. Many businesses in his district are what are called pass-throughs--they are family businesses. For the first time ever, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides the ability for small businesses to deduct 20 percent of their income and tax it at a much lower rate--at 25 percent--to allow those businesses to grow. It also allows those businesses to immediately write off the full cost of new equipment, rather than expense it or amortize it over 7 years, because money out of their pocket now means it is real money out that they can't wait for 7 years to get back to the Tax Code-- significant differences allowing businesses in my district and throughout the country to invest in growth. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my colleague representing the 14th District of Texas, with extensive real-world experience in the private sector through his own small business.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), from the 19th District of Texas, who is a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arrington referenced some of the changes in Texas in some of the important improvements in the business climate as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Southwest Airlines and American Airlines both chose to give bonuses to their employees of $1,000 each shortly after passage of this bill and signed by President Trump. A surprise we hadn't anticipated was lowering electricity bills. Both in north Texas and in my district back in Michigan, there were massive cuts in utility rates as a result of lowering taxes--not something that we thought about or bargained for at the time. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and thank him for bringing his medical expertise to the tax reform discussion with his service on the Energy and Commerce Committee, from the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me this evening. Mr. Speaker, I did want to, at this point, wrap up this evening's version of the Tax Truth Squad. Since the tax reform bill was passed and signed into law, let me state again that more than 400 companies have given a pay raise; bonuses; increased 401(k) contributions; or, in the case of utilities, lowered rates--lowered rates dramatically. At least 4 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses. Direct bonus announcements have already topped $3 billion; $3 billion into our economy, into people's pockets, decisions they can make about what they want to do with the money rather than turning it over to the government, rather than turning it over to the IRS, rather than having it spent on bureaucracy. In my home district, we will talk about that more next week, but I want to reference that Fiat Chrysler is moving jobs here from Mexico, moving to Macomb County, investing $1 billion--yes, you heard that right, investing $1 billion--in expanding a plant and creating 2,500 new jobs in Michigan just in that one plant. By the way, they also announced a bonus--a tax bonus separate from their bonus in their contract, which some people said: Oh, it was in their contract. No, it wasn't. It was a bonus of $2,000 per employee as a result of the tax bill. These are major cuts that people overlook. Look at these companies, look at the list of them, and it grows every day. Let me suggest real quickly: I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I know my district and I know my constituents, and $1,000 is not crumbs. I referenced earlier the note I got over the weekend from Mark in my district who says his projected taxes next year save him $2,700 in his pocket. Now, I know where you live, I know where I live, that is real money. Maybe for some of my colleagues, it doesn't matter as much, but that is why we passed this bill. That is why we worked so hard on this bill. That is why we support it. And that is the truth about taxes. That is what we want the American people to understand: we are putting money back in their pockets, money back in the economy, rather than taking money and putting it in government and hoping they do something productive with it. I thank the Chair for the opportunity this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, at 3:40 in the morning, I am a little surprised that some of our colleagues wish to reprise history, but I guess so be it. Some forget here that we passed all 12 appropriations bills in September, to no avail. They sit in the Senate requiring 60 votes. I remember a few days ago I stood here and we talked about math with my colleagues, and the Republicans had 51 votes in the Senate. A democracy requires people work together. The Senate decided not to do that, so we have ended up with a series of continuing resolutions, what I consider to be an absolute travesty of governance. We have to fund the government in pieces. A month here, 6 weeks there. The last CR, we almost had a deal. It seemed like there was an arrangement we would have to move forward to fund the government before the shutdown. But, I will stress, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the other Chamber decided to throw the kitchen sink at it, demand their entire legislative agenda be put into a CR; DACA, which we are hearing tonight, then they came up with pensions. It was one thing after another of demands, using funding our military, funding our government, keeping the lights on as leverage for their political agenda. We have a basic function here: keep the lights on. The second thing the Constitution says is to preserve and protect our Nation, which means we have to fund our military. But some have felt this is not necessarily a priority of theirs if they can't get the other things they want when they want them. We now have a bipartisan agreement that the Senate has sent over. It is far from perfect. I don't know if we will ever see perfect in this Chamber. In my 35 years of business, I rarely saw perfect, but you take progress and move on. What does it do for us? It fully funds defense at the level that Secretary Mattis requested so we can defend our Nation against the threats we see and take care of our military men and women. It funds community health centers. I have 11 of them in my district. It provides 10-year funding for CHIP now--the Children's Health Insurance Program--near and dear to all of us. It provides a down payment on infrastructure that is badly needed in this country. It provides additional funding for opioid treatment in this Nation, a crisis that we face. So, again, I am left to wonder why it is we want to defeat the rule to turn down this effort, this bipartisan agreement, to add another agenda in there. Why would my colleagues want to do that? At some point in time we take progress. The Speaker has indicated we will deal with DACA. We will also move on to dealing with infrastructure. We will move on to workforce development. We have got serious policy issues to deal with, but the priority we have at this moment in time is to fund the government. We have a bipartisan agreement in front of us that has cleared the Senate. It is now 3:43 a.m. I suggest we simply pass the rule, pass it, and go home and get on with policy next week.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. MITCHELL

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

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone can agree here that continuing resolutions--CRs--are bad policy. For the folks in the gallery, it is simple. CRs are whether we keep the lights on or not. They are whether you can call Social Security and get assistance. They are whether you can figure out what is going on with your taxes, call the IRS. They are whether or not we actually function. Yes, it is going to be our fifth CR. Shame on all of us, and I do mean all of us. However, the people on the other side of the aisle, they talk about all their legislative agenda they want put in the package and passed or they are going to vote against keeping the lights on. Think about that. They say: If we don't get DACA, we are shutting the lights off. If we don't get this, we will shut the lights off. That is what happened in the Senate the last shutdown. They say: If we don't get full-year funding for the military, we are shutting the lights off. If we don't get DACA, we are shutting the lights off. If we don't get permanent funding for CHIP, we are shutting the lights off. It didn't work out very well, did it? Our fundamental responsibility is to keep the lights on. There is nothing in this bill that is objectionable. In fact, they have all passed. This bill supports full-year funding for the Department of Defense appropriations. This isn't the first time we passed the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. We have passed it three times. And we sent it to the Senate to die a cruel and horrible death. Why? Not because, as was noted by my colleague, that we can't get 51 votes. We can't get 60 votes. And where do those votes come from? On the other side of the aisle, who will do anything to get their agenda, including putting our military at risk. People die when we make those decisions, and they have. The funding is fully consistent with the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, something that was a bipartisan vote. It provides a 2.4 percent increase to the men and women in the military who put their lives on the line for our Nation, well deserved, something we also voted for and supported. The bill provides full extensions for popular health programs that, in fact, both sides of the aisle supported, a 2-year extension of community health centers. In Michigan, federally qualified health centers serve nearly 650,000 individuals. There are 11 health centers located in my congressional district. They need the funding. That is why I support it. In all of your districts, you have community health centers. But you will argue: Unless we get DACA, we won't fund the military; we won't fund the health centers. This bill also extends Medicare policies, providing options for people receiving home care. Again, it was a bipartisan vote, but now we don't want to support it. I believe we shouldn't continue the habit of short-term spending bills. They are offensive to me; they truly are. We passed, in September, in this House, all 12 appropriations bills and sent them to the Senate. My suggestion to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, rather than lecture us about math--I can count to 60. I can get between 51 and 60. I suggest you make a phone call to some of your colleagues in the Senate and tell them to do their job and bring up the appropriations bills. If they don't like what they are, amend them, go to conference, rather than just obstruct the functioning of our government. The most fundamental responsibility we have is to keep the lights on, is to defend this Nation. If we are not doing that, I have to wonder what we are doing for a job. So I suggest we pass this bill here, we send it to the Senate. And may I suggest that someone on the other side of the aisle make a phone call and ask if they want to see how Schumer shutdown part 2 goes-- their choice.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which I proudly cosponsored. This week, we are reminded of our Nation's most vulnerable people as we solemnly remember the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, abortion has resulted in the deliberate death of too many babies, including babies born alive. We must protect these children. Today, by this bill, we do protect these children who are born after a botched abortion attempt. The CDC reported that, during a 12-year period, over 370 babies died after being born alive during a termination of pregnancy. The intentional neglect of care for these lives is unconscionable. We must respect mothers and their children by ensuring necessary medical care is given to babies born alive after a failed abortion attempt. How hard is that? Any doctor denying care to these newborns must be held criminally accountable. This legislation does that. Madam Speaker, it is our duty to protect all lives, and I took an oath to do just that.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, today is National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, and so I rise to honor our men and women in blue. My oldest son is a local police officer, so I am acutely aware of the risks and sacrifices made by the men and women in law enforcement. They assume risks every day--risks we sometimes take for granted in order to keep our communities safe. Being a law enforcement officer isn't a job. It is a calling. It is a service to the community. Despite the very real risks, they respond to the call always knowing they may not go home. Just last week, a deputy in the community my son serves in was struck by a car during a traffic accident. Yes, he was responding to a traffic accident, and he was hit by a car. It broke his back, broke his neck, and crushed his face. The last update I received, he was in critical condition. All he was doing was trying to protect people at a traffic accident. We can't take that for granted. Today we need to pause and simply offer a thank-you to law enforcement officers across the country and to their families. We offer a prayer for those who have reached the end of watch. Join me today in thanking police officers across this Nation. Take a moment to simply say thank you. Recognizing the Bicentennial Year of Macomb County

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the bicentennial year of Macomb County, Michigan. On January 15, 1818, Macomb County was formally organized as the third county in the territory of Michigan. Macomb County was designated nearly 20 years before Michigan even gained statehood. It was named in honor of General Alexander Macomb, a decorated veteran of the War of 1812. Macomb's rich history of service to our Nation doesn't stop there. In July 1917, almost 100 years after Macomb's founding, Selfridge Field was established. Everyone in Macomb County and the National Guard knows the importance of Selfridge Air National Guard to our national security. Its founding just 13 years after the Wright brothers' first flight is a true testament to the commitment to national security and to innovation that has defined Macomb County for 200 years. In addition to being the auto capital of the world, Macomb led the manufacturing that resulted in the arsenal of democracy in America's victory in World War II. Our defense industry helped the Allies win World War II and continues to provide necessary resources to maintain our strength and security in the world. I am proud to represent Macomb County in Washington, D.C., and eager to celebrate the 200th anniversary of this great county.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to set the record straight on tax reform. Opponents to this plan would have Members believe that tax reform is only a benefit for the wealthy or, hearing them today, a plot by the Trump family. That is simply partisan rhetoric. I have long said I would only vote for tax reform that helps families living paycheck to paycheck--families like the one I grew up in. My dad worked on the line at General Motors, and my mom worked for the Salvation Army. More money in their pockets from their paycheck every week would have made a huge difference. They worked hard to support their family and raise seven children. That little bit of money would have made a difference. Undoubtedly, now, it will make a difference for the American people. That is exactly what this plan does. It puts meaningful money back in the pockets of working families. A typical family is projected to save over $2,000 a year. That may not sound like much to some on the other side of the aisle, but, where I grew up, that is huge. For 57 percent of Americans who don't have enough money to cover a $500 emergency, that money matters. For businesses, it means investments, hiring, and better wages. I have talked to business owners across my district, and they have had the same message: cuts taxes so they can increase wages and hiring. Vic, a restaurant owner in my district, talked to me about tax cuts that would help his business. Vic said: We pay our taxes first, we pay our people second, we pay our bills third, and then if there's anything left over, we get paid. Our Tax Code shouldn't be a challenge or impediment for business owners like Vic. Currently, Americans pay more in taxes than they pay for food and clothing. It is time to fix this. This tax plan does that. This tax plan will help families and businesses across my district and across America, which is why I proudly support it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to emphasize the importance of the reductions and reforms reflected in H.R. 1, which the conference committee will work on today. People in my district and across America await meaningful tax reform. Most Americans paid too much in taxes. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last year that Americans paid more money in taxes than they spent on food and clothing. It is no wonder that nearly 60 percent of Americans believe our current Tax Code is unfair--it is. America's Tax Code is currently chock full of special interest deals, while families living paycheck to paycheck and job creators need lower and simpler taxes now. Throughout this process, my approach has been to evaluate this tax legislation from one question: Will this improve the lives of the vast majority of the people in my district? That answer is, absolutely, yes. The Tax Foundation projects that the House plan will save the average family in Michigan about $2,200 a year. That is real money. Americans deserve to keep more of what they earn. I look forward to reviewing the conference report and finalizing the tax reduction package that will provide relief to all Americans.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and the underlying rule. The Second Amendment right to bear arms must stand resolute, as should all our constitutional rights. This legislation simply affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to effectively exercise their right in other States as they do at home. Forty-two States broadly recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns, and most States allow some form of concealed carry. State recognition of concealed carry licenses from other States is not uniform or consistent. Those who wish to carry a concealed weapon across State lines are subject to a confusing patchwork of State laws that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to travel with a firearm without fear of prosecution. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what critics would have you believe, this legislation does not upend State laws or expand access to firearms. States will still have the right and the ability to set specific conditions for residents to conceal carry, and individuals from other States must abide by those laws and rules when they carry in other States. This legislation does not lessen limitations on gun purchases. If you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm now, they will continue to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm if this bill is passed. If you can't legally own or carry a firearm today, this legislation will not allow you to do so after it is passed. This legislation is about respecting our Constitution. Our other constitutional rights, like free speech, do not expire when you cross State lines. They are not restricted by State lines. So why should we also allow the Second Amendment to be limited by State lines? Indeed, the core of the Second Amendment is self-defense, and the ability to carry a firearm outside your home is a critical component of that constitutional right. That is why 24 State attorney generals, including Michigan's attorney general, Bill Schuette, submitted letters supporting this legislation. They know, like I do, that this legislation is common sense. It prioritizes the rights of law-abiding citizens to conceal carry and the ability to travel freely from State to State without worrying about conflicting State laws and prosecution. Mr. Speaker, each of us are required to take an oath of office here. In that oath, we swear to uphold and defend our Constitution--the Constitution of the United States. That is what this legislation exactly does. It makes sure our exercise of constitutional rights applies throughout the United States. My colleague on the other side of the aisle questions proceeding with this legislation while funding for the Federal Government hangs in the balance in the next 72 hours. I agree. We must keep the lights on. We are all responsible for keeping the lights on. It isn't as if it is one side of the aisle or the other, and in the past, it has been a bipartisan agreement to do so. Suddenly, the other side of the aisle says: If we don't get exactly what we want on terms we have, including on DACA, we will take it to the precipice. A solution on DACA is there if my colleagues wish to take it. At this point, so far, they haven't. But there are some things that aren't malleable. There is right and there is wrong in this. I suggest we solve it in the next 72 hours and we keep the lights on because we are all equally responsible for that.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Veterans in my district, and those who support them. Earlier this month, I attended a Veterans Esteem Team meeting in Lapeer County. It is a dinner organized and prepared by local Junior High and High School students from North Branch, Almont, and Dryden to honor area veterans. Those who have served our nation are the best one percent this country produces. Words will never be adequate to capture the debt of gratitude owed to the men and women of our military who have enabled our nation to continue to be safe and prosperous. I'm honored to serve them, and the students in my district who took the time to recognize and organize this event for our veterans. Therefore, I would like to include in the Record the names of students and sponsors of the Veterans Esteem Team: Veterans Esteem Team Board Members--President: Benjamin Koning, Vice- President: Brian Garner, Secretary: Robert Heugh, Treasurer: Wayne Jacobs, Director: Glenn Ream. Veterans Esteem Team North Branch chapter: Mr. Robert Heugh--Advisor, Darius Boulton, Liberty Cooper, Ms. Dusty Olivia Heugh, Gabe Hutchins, Ayden Marshall, Elizabeth Oland, Logan Sawson, Peyton Shepherd, Valerie Trombley, Spencer Wesch, Karter Shingledecker, Jack Enen, Ryan Rogers. Veterans Esteem Team Almont chapter: Mr. John Reinhard--Advisor, Hannah Chaney, Seth McCarthy, Emily Kruk, Josh Boyd. Veterans Esteem Team Dryden chapter: Abigail Koning.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the veterans in my district and those who support them. Earlier this month, I attended a Veterans Esteem Team event in Lapeer County. It is a dinner organized and prepared by local junior high and high school students from North Branch, Almont, and Dryden to honor area veterans. Those who served our Nation are the best 1 percent this country produces. Words will never be adequate to capture the debt of gratitude owed to the men and women of our military who have enabled our Nation to continue to be safe and prosperous. I am honored to serve with them and the students in my district who took the time to recognize and organize the veterans at this event.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Ron Dunn from Akron, Michigan, who delivered that wonderful opening prayer. Pastor Dunn is an ordained bishop with the Church of God, and is senior pastor of New Hope Ministries in Akron, Michigan, not Ohio. His work is well known beyond the walls of the church. Pastor Dunn has led New Hope Ministries to assist those in need in the Akron community. Under Pastor Dunn's leadership, New Hope Ministries has provided food, clothing, counseling, and even assisted local families in sending their children to summer camp. His service and work is truly an example for all of us here and across the country. Pastor Dunn is also known in our community as the head football coach of the Akron-Fairgrove Junior/Senior High School, where he has mentored the team to grow into upstanding young men. Pastor Dunn's life of service extends back to his service in the United States Army. Pastor Dunn is a veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Mr. Speaker, our community and our Nation are grateful for Pastor Dunn's service and sacrifice. It is an honor to welcome him to the Capitol today.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4174, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2017. I am pleased to see the bill's sponsors and the Speaker move forward with the reforms proposed by the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. H.R. 4174 aims to create and use technology to assess and solve problems; in other words, to make sure tools exist to gauge whether programs work to best serve the American people. It is about utilizing the data we already have to find out what works, what doesn't work, and what could work for some changes. The bill requires agencies to develop evidence-building plans, key outcomes and return investment for the money the taxpayers pay, and creates the position of a chief evaluation officer. Imagine that, we have to actually create a position to evaluate because we aren't doing it effectively now. It establishes an advisory committee to study the Commission's recommendation that Congress create a National Secure Data Service. It includes the OPEN Government Data Act, which ensures that government aggregate data is available to consumers in a usable format. As my colleague said on the other side of the aisle, to make the data malleable, to make the data open format so that, in fact, people can assess not just in government agencies, but out in the public what the data is saying about the programs that they pay for that we fund. Finally, the bill also creates procedures to share that data across Federal agencies and to require protection of individual data that makes up all that aggregate data. All of these provisions are critical to setting our government on a path toward better serving the people in this country. Washington can no longer assess quality based on how much money we dump into programs, how many people we enroll--outcomes that don't tell us whether or not they are succeeding. This can only be done with quality, accessible data. By allowing key data to be connected and reported, we can build evidence to determine what does and doesn't work. More importantly, the American people can see the evidence of what does and doesn't work rather than just bureaucrats in Washington. I would also like to point out how the reforms are working here to lay the foundation for government and Congress to create new policies that apply this information in novel ways. This act, in its call for transparent, efficient, and well-designed data systems, dovetails with other efforts in Congress for transparency and sharing data. A bill I am working on, the College Transparency Act, would do just that for student data and outcomes data from colleges and universities to better enable students and families to make more informed decisions on one of the most important part of their lives: what postsecondary education they pursue and what the outcome will be. This bill, and my bill, streamlines and updates higher education information. It is time to utilize and make meaning out of all the data we currently have and provide that to the taxpayers. The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act and the College Transparency Act both share a few critical goals of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking: First is the protection of the privacy of individuals that may be reflected in the data. That is the first priority. Second is the recommendation that information be more readily shared across agencies. Agencies actually will share what they already know about programs. Third is that agencies develop a strategy to share this data with the public who pays for those programs. These provisions are fundamental to responsibly and effectively utilizing the data that the taxpayers pay for. The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act sets in motion these commonsense policies that will increase the return on investment for the taxpayers and the outcomes of our programs. The compartmentalization of data the government already collects and barriers that prevent the reasonable sharing of it represent a significant missed opportunity for the government to provide value to taxpayers. It amazes me that we had to create a commission to tell us to share this data. Taxpayers have already paid for it. Why aren't we already using it? Long term, these plans are essential. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act. I spent my career in business, so I know how damaging uncertainty is for businesses. Job creators need a clear understanding of the rules; otherwise, businesses and employees suffer and our economy suffers. In yet another incident of unelected bureaucrats overreaching their authority, the NLRB redefined the rule defining joint employers which had been in place for 30 years. Unfortunately, I was not surprised. The NLRB created a maze of uncertainty. Basic business decisions managed between employers and employees are now put into turmoil by the NLRB redefining what an employer is. The Save Local Business Act would roll back a convoluted joint employer scheme, restore a commonsense definition of employer, and protect workers and local employees who are most likely to be impacted by yet another confusing Federal rule. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. 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 my Special Order.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, today is the early action deadline for many colleges in the United States. Thousands of students who are submitting their applications are anxiously hoping for entry into a college, community college, or postsecondary school. As students try to determine what schools are right for them, it is clear they are missing some key information--information we all wish we had for our children: How likely are they to graduate? How long will it take to earn a degree or their certificate? How likely are they to find a job? How much money will they earn if they do find a job? As a parent, I know this information will be helpful. That is why I introduced the College Transparency Act. My legislation would utilize and make meaning out of the data we currently gather at the Federal level to enable students and parents to make informed decisions. I have over 35 years in workforce development and postsecondary education. I understand the difficulties that people have in making informed decisions about what is best for their future career. I also understand the reporting expectations for career colleges and universities. I understand which institutions have the information available and how they provide it. I also understand the burdens that occur in providing that information. Despite the incredible investment involved and the risk in pursuing a postsecondary education, we and students are left with too little information to answer the most basic questions: What can students expect to pay out of pocket? Can you imagine that really they cannot determine how much it will cost them to complete a postsecondary program? How do students fare in the labor market after leaving college? How likely are they to fare in order to enter into the labor market? How do students fare on other metrics of success we all consider important, like earnings, and loan repayment? A prospective student doesn't have the information about which programs at which institutions provide an adequate return on their investment, and on their parents' investment. As a consumer and a father, it is difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that Americans have so little information about potentially what may be the largest investment they make in their lives, and certainly, the second largest. I am the father of six children. The reality is that we are investing and putting six children through a college or a postsecondary program. Think about how much money goes into that. Yet we operate in a vacuum on information. When you shop online, you are able to compare products, you are able to compare costs, you are able to compare features, the value to the consumer. At this point in time, try to do that about programs at a college, university, or career school. Try to compare one university's nursing program to another; or the architecture program, or history program, or the nursing program in a college. Try to find that information. You won't find it online. Try to call the university. Good luck on that. It is not that they don't try to provide it. In fact, they provide reams of data. The reality is that the current system simply doesn't gather that data in a manner that is useful to consumers, the people that ultimately pay the bill. The College Transparency Act would enable students to answer crucial questions, such as how likely they are to enter the workforce successfully, or what their chances are of transferring from a community college to a 4-year college and being able to graduate. Students past and present are owners of the $1.4 trillion outstanding Federal debt, and the clock is ticking. It is time for students, families, and guidance counselors involved in the college decisionmaking process to be able to assist students and have access to information that will make this huge investment make sense. Otherwise, we leave young people to make decisions based on: Well, those colors on the band uniform are really cool; or they have a good football team; or it seems like they have a really nice social life. But, ultimately, what we are making is an investment into the future of our children and the future of this country. They have massive money invested, and let's be honest, we all do as taxpayers as well. We have a huge investment in the preparation of young people for the workforce. It is time to streamline and update our higher education information system so that families and students can make better decisions on their path to long-term success. It is time to utilize and make meaning out of the data we currently collect to assist them in making the choice. The question I am asked is: Why did I submit the College Transparency Act? I spent 35 years operating a private career school group and working in workforce development. I worked at Chrysler Corporation, moved to another company, and also retired out of that field. The point is, I have worked in the field for 35 years. I understand the data that is reported. I understand the challenges that people have in trying to sort out what is the best career path for them, how likely are they to succeed in that career path, and what is it going to cost to go to school? This information all exists--and we will talk about that tonight--but it isn't made available in some coherent manner to students, and we need to fix that. We also can't tell students how long, on average, it takes them to complete their program. It used to be the day where they used to call them 4-year colleges. The reality, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, is 4- year colleges are now a dream, 5 years is the norm, and 6 years is not uncommon, yet we don't talk about the cost it takes to do that. Again, we don't talk about the likelihood of completing even if you attend 6 years. The reality is we have to fix that. In my 35 years of dealing with the system, what became clear to me is it is outdated, it is burdensome, it is unhelpful, and it conflicts. It led me to start working on the College Transparency Act as soon as I came to Congress. It was the first bill that I dropped and submitted in Congress. It is the one I spent the most time on. Why? Because we have a huge investment in postsecondary education, and, even more importantly, we have a huge investment preparing a labor force. I have not gone to an employer since I was sworn into office that has not said to me: We can't find people with the skills to go to work. Yet we have people who have graduated from college who can't find jobs that relate to their degree. We have people who will go to college for an extended period of time or to a postsecondary program who don't complete, but they meander their way through. They get lost. They don't have the information to make an informed decision, and then somehow, sometimes, frankly, we blame the consumer. It is our fault. It is our fault here. It is our fault at the Federal Government. We are making a huge investment, and we expect everybody else to cure the problem. Better information on outcomes in student success will certainly assist in closing the skills gap that we talk about nearly every day here in Congress and certainly every day in the Education and the Workforce Committee when we meet. Senators Hatch, Warren, Cassidy, and Whitehouse share my concern. On the Senate side, they have introduced a similar bill--almost identical--to address this critical issue. I believe on this issue we can get bipartisan support to move forward with an approach to inform the public and the consumers about the decision they will make with their money and, to be honest with you, our investment in their future. The current system is massively broken. This chart will show the current reporting system for higher education in the United States today. If you can possibly read it from there--and we will get it submitted for the Record--these are all the groups that gather data, all the places it goes, and all the information that is exchanged about students going to postsecondary education in the United States. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, can you make any sense of that? I have worked 35 years in that field. I will tell you that a student enrollment for one system doesn't match the definition of enrollment in another system, it doesn't match the definition in the State system, yet we all report that information. Graduate information is all different depending on the system. None of the definitions match. Now, if we can't get definitions to match internally in a system between State accrediting agencies and the Federal Government, how is it we expect students and how are parents to understand whether they are likely to complete the program? And, by the way, none of this information adequately reports student outcomes in terms of employment and doesn't provide them any information on what they are likely to earn. And guess what? Earnings matter in terms of their ability to pay their student loans back. News flash to everybody: it helps if they know what they are going to make. A 2015 study completed by Boston Consulting Group indicated $11.1 billion is spent by institutions to comply with regulations specific to colleges and universities. We don't need more regulations. Good God, help us. We have plenty--we have plenty of reporting. One of the most significant findings of the study was that small and medium colleges are disproportionately impacted by those Federal regulations with compliance eating up a much larger share of expenditures than the wealthier institutions. While we say we need more options for continuing and postsecondary education, for career and technical education at the postsecondary level, we are killing those institutions with rules and regulations of reporting that give us that, that isn't useful to the public that has to make a decision. Imagine that. We have an opportunity to fix that with the Higher Education Act. We have an opportunity to fix that with the College Transparency Act. We have an opportunity now. There are three main goals of the bill. This chart will show you what the bill will collect. First and most importantly, the goal is to provide accurate and complete information that is searchable for students and can be customized. Think about it. How many people have shopped for an automobile? They have on the website a comparison of whatever vehicle to other similar vehicles sold by other manufacturers. You can compare them dealer to dealer. You can get an idea what features are there. Shop for whatever you want, and then tell me if you can find that about any educational program offered by postsecondary institutions. This addresses that issue while reducing reporting burdens on institutions. I believe, and I think most of our party believes, that market competition works best when consumers can actually find out information and make rational decisions. They can compare complete information. They can compare the offerings, the costs, and the outcomes. With that competition, we can, in fact, address one of the other concerns we have, which is: What is the cost of higher education? We can compare it not just on what you pay for tuition, room and board, but the return on investment. What do they get for their time and money in a postsecondary education program? More importantly, choices will be made by consumers and not the Federal Government. We have seen how that works in so many ways, and the Federal Government should not be making choices about the future of Americans. If we arm consumers with that information to make informed decisions, then we can remove the Federal Government from the business of determining quality in education and let consumers and accrediting agencies address that. The bill also replaces a number of reporting requirements that the Federal Government has, most notably what is called the IPED survey. I did them for years. Routinely, we get questions that don't match their definitions because their definitions made no sense for many institutions. Thirdly, the bill aims to provide transparency to its students by requiring they be posted in a searchable database, and the costs would be identified there. Let me go through real quickly in that chart the information that will be available that is not currently available on a searchable basis. You can get enrollment patterns, you can get progress to completion, and you can get completion rates. Do you graduate from a program? Imagine that. You can find that out, and it is the same definition whether it is the University of Michigan or Michigan State where I attended. Wouldn't that be a great idea? You can find out about their postcollege earnings. It is really helpful. Most people go to college or a postsecondary school to find a job, earn some money, and support their family. Can they do that? What is likely to be the outcome? The cost of the program? I mentioned that a couple of times. It is not just tuition and room and board. The reality is that, depending on the program, your costs are significantly different. My 18- almost 19- year-old stepdaughter attends an art school. Well, beyond tuition and room and board, there are huge costs for art supplies. Now, we knew that. I have experience in education. There are a lot of people who start these programs who don't understand there are other costs and what those may be. This process requires reporting of that from the colleges. Also, information about financial aid that is available for those institutions so they can compare program to program, institution to institution, and make a decision that is best for them and their family. That is what we are trying to achieve here. It is achievable. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett) who will speak for a few moments on the bill and its advantages.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague noting both the bipartisan nature of this legislation both in the House and the United States Senate, which, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, some days around here is hard to achieve. Let me note real quickly we have a listing, which I will put up now, of the institutions and organizations that support the College Transparency Act. We are now at over 90 groups that have indicated their support for this legislation and the need for this legislation. I know it is difficult to read from there, but in a moment I will talk more about some of these institutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), who is my colleague and good friend. Yes, he is from Ohio and roots for Ohio State. I went to Michigan State, but I will certainly yield to Mr. Stivers to talk further about the College Transparency Act.

Mr. MITCHELL. I appreciate the gentleman's notation of the groups that support this bill. I was surprised, frankly, with the number of groups that stepped forward--as I said, over 90--to support the College Transparency Act. Some of the groups I would like to stress today include veterans groups. The Student Veterans of America and Veterans Education Success, among others, have endorsed the bill because it helps veterans determine which institutions and programs best serve their unique needs and improve their ability to make progress in the workforce to be successful, something that, frankly, we owe them as part of their service to our country. As Chris Cate, vice president of research at Student Veterans of America, said: ``Based on recent research, the value of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is clear, as student veterans across the country succeed at rates higher than traditional students. Yet, determining these outcomes is currently a significant effort and not easily accomplished without abundant resources. Basing policy on research and data is imperative, and it shouldn't take as much effort as it does today, as we have the answer to this challenge staring us in the face.'' It is the College Transparency Act. We currently collect the data that people are begging to get to make informed decisions for themselves and, frankly, in this case, to assist veterans in making wise decisions on their GI bill. Let me talk a little more about some of the groups that support the bill, and then I will yield to another colleague of mine. Colleges, universities, and postsecondary institutions support this bill, which sometimes surprises me, given what we are trying to do, which is remake a reporting system and make transparent their performance. Think about it. They support the bill without exception. These institutions want more comprehensive information on student progress, completion, and outcomes so they can better understand and evaluate how well they are serving their students and identify areas for improvement. Institutions also know best student-level data collection will decrease the reporting burden and the financial and human resources necessary to report and complete the requirements of the Federal Government, State government, and accrediting agencies. Associations representing institutions serving the majority of college students support lifting the ban on connecting student-level data to help build evidence and improve the quality of the program. As my colleague Mr. Stivers indicated, as well as others, this information is disseminated and developed only at the metadata level. It is not like we are going to send your Social Security number out and post it on a Facebook page with your employment status; although, in your case, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows well your employment status. According to the Michigan Association of State Universities, which serves as the coordinating board for Michigan's 15 public universities in my home State: ``The College Transparency Act of 2017 represents a much-needed modernization of the Federal Government's college reporting system for postsecondary data. The current ban on student-level data in the Higher Education Act represents a gross injustice to students and families who require and deserve more accurate data on postsecondary institutional outcomes in order to be adequately equipped to make one of the most important decision in one's life--whether and where to attend college. By providing more accurate information about institutional graduation rates, salary levels, and other employment outcomes, and additional information on how students fare at individual institutions and in academic programs, the College Transparency Act will enable the creation of an essential resource for student and consumer information.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Michigan Association of State Universities. Michigan Association of State Universities, Lansing, MI, July 10, 2017. Re Endorsement of College Transparency Act, H.R. 2434/S. 1121. Hon. Paul Mitchell, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Mitchell: On behalf of the presidents and chancellors of the 15 public universities of Michigan and the nearly 300,000 students they collectively enroll, I write to express strong support for the College Transparency Act of 2017, H.R. 2434, which you have sponsored, and its companion bill in the Senate, S. 1121. The College Transparency Act of 2017 represents a much needed modernization of the federal government's college reporting system for postsecondary data. The current ban on student-level data in the Higher Education Act represents a gross injustice to students and families who require and deserve more accurate data on postsecondary institutional outcomes in order to be adequately equipped to make one of the most important decision in one's life--whether and where to attend college. By providing more accurate information about institutional graduation rates, salary levels and other employment outcomes, and additional information on how students fare at individual institutions and in academic programs, the College Transparency Act will enable the creation of an essential resource for student and consumer information. Introduced in both Congressional chambers, this bipartisan legislation will also serve as an indispensable tool in helping institutions assess and enhance their academic programs. Michigan public universities rely heavily on data to inform institutional policy and to better serve our students. We commend your leadership and those co-sponsoring the College Transparency Act and offer our support in advocating passage of the legislation. America's students, families, taxpayers and postsecondary institutions will all benefit greatly from its enactment. Sincerely, Daniel J. Hurley, Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. MITCHELL. For similar reasons, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of Community College Trustees, the Dallas County Community College District, State University of New York system, University of Virginia, Virginia Community College System, Ohio State University, Louisiana State University, St. Clair County Community College, and many others support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) to talk further about his views on the College Transparency Act.

Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague, Mr. Smucker, for taking time out of his busy schedule to come here tonight to talk about the act and its importance nationally and in his district. He made reference to something I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, which is that, annually, at the Federal level, we spend $160 billion a year on student aid. We currently spend it into a vacuum, into a giant black hole, in which we hope we get outcomes and which students hope they get outcomes. Certainly, parents hope they get outcomes so they don't continue to live at home. We all hope that we can get success for our young people, and we don't have the information to determine that. Let me also stress that, beyond educational groups, veterans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable have both endorsed this bill as being critical to the success of our Nation going forward. I want to stress for you and everyone in this Chamber, when you get the level of support from such a broad range of people, we have to start asking ourselves: Why have we not already moved on this? Why has it not already taken place? We need to move on this issue sooner rather than later. We can't afford not to. Let me talk about one other group that supports this bill passionately. Students want to know which schools are best fit for their needs. Deciding where to spend their time, their precious dollars, and incur debt is critically important to them. Surprisingly enough, these folks want to do more than go to college, meet new friends, and have a little party every now and then. The vast majority--85 percent--of college freshmen rate getting a better job as very important in their decision to go to college; yet the day-to-day need, as we have talked about repeatedly tonight, to discern which program's institutions will best address that objective is lacking. The ability to provide that information is at our hands. We have the technology. We have the data. We just don't provide it in a usable format. Groups that support this bill include the Big Ten Student Association, Campaign for College Opportunity, Young Invincibles, Institute for College Access and Success, the United Negro College Fund, Achieving the Dream, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, Institute for Higher Education Policy, and the National Association for College Admission Counseling. They support the College Transparency Act. I would ask: How many more groups do we need to gather before we decide to act here in Congress? In the time I have left, I want to address some myths. And if my colleague, Mr. Smucker, who is still here, wants to weigh in on this, I invite him to join at any point in time he wants to weigh in, because we heard a number of myths put forward about the terrible things that the College Transparency Act may arise. One that amazes me is that while the bill requires institutions collect and report tons of new information on students--well, can we bring that chart back up of what we already collect? Let's look at that gem of what we collect currently. We are doing this now. Institutions are doing this now. So tell me, how are we going to collect tons more? In fact, every student who attends a postsecondary education institution in the United States has information reported on them now, whether they take student financial aid or not, because a 1098-T is filed by that institution with the IRS so, in fact, if they claim credit for going to school, tuition tax credit, they can claim that. There is no information that is not currently with one agency or another. The astonishing thing is the discussion that somehow there is some secret about whether someone is attending a postsecondary institution. It is astonishing. College universities, also, because of this reporting, hold the student-level data. They report much of it to the Department of Education, to NCES, and to the State Department of Education to accredit the agencies in a variety of formats. The number of formats, the array of those, will totally amaze you. If you would like, I can get those reports for you. You can spend the afternoon looking through the joys of reporting on educational activities in a postsecondary institution, and none of it makes any sense to anybody that isn't actually in the system, and I will admit, that data doesn't make any sense to me either. Colleges and universities also don't know if their graduates actually get a job, unless half the students come back happily and say they went to work and how much they are making. They don't get that information. They couldn't assist the student with that information if they tried in any accurate basis other than anecdotally. So they don't try. Why would you? You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't make that mistake. That information exists. Why? Because the IRS has a 1098-T on everyone who went to college or a postsecondary institution. That data can be matched by the Treasury Department to whether that student is employed, what they are making, and they can report that, as was noted earlier, through metadata to the Department of Education for development of reports without reporting one individual student's information. So I am lost in understanding how it is we lose our minds around here about student information being disseminated. It exists. It can be protected. Let me talk real briefly about another myth that exists, that somehow tracking the student data will lead to a Federal rating system, the Federal rating system of educational programs of institutions. Well, first, the Department of Education has tried a number of rating systems over there, all with mixed success, at best, and I am trying to be polite. It is late in the evening. Let's not be too blunt. But they failed miserably in doing so. They tried to rate institutions based on cohort default rates, and those are being repealed by many as being inaccurate. They tried to rate institutions on something called gainful employment, but they only do gainful employment for career schools, because, hey, you know, no one goes to a university for gainful employment. I assure you, my guess is the Speaker did as well, you went to the university hoping for gainful employment. I doubt there is anyone in the room who didn't go to a college or university in hopes of gainful employment. The reality is the Department of Education, as they have implemented this, has tried to create these Federal rating systems and failed miserably. So I tell you what, we did something unique. The College Transparency Act explicitly prohibits the creation of a single database by the Department of Education and expressly prohibits using that database for a Federal rating system. I give up. I don't want the Department of Education telling us what a good education system is because look how well they have done so far. We will let consumers decide. We will give them information so they can decide. They can make a wise decision rather than thinking that Big Brother can make that decision for them. If the government were doing so well with it, why is it that every Member in this room has heard from their employers the terrible shortage we have of people in current technical education, of workers? If they were doing such a great job of ratings and informing people what their opportunities were, why are we currently struggling with the workforce we have? It is a disaster. Let's stop thinking we can fix it, and let's let consumers have the information they need to fix it. The bill enables the NCES to aggregate student information from relevant agencies with the responsibility that they had to protect that data, which they have done for years. So now they are doing--not create some massive Federal database in which everybody's name, Social Security number, is accessible so we can determine whether or not you are a successful student. It doesn't do that, not even close to that, never has. It provides information on an accurate basis by a program institution of what your likelihood of success is. Last but not least, I talked a little bit about it, is keeping personal information private, the fears about privacy, and that somehow we can't achieve that under the College Transparency Act. The College Transparency Act requires that data collection should be led by the National Center for Education Statistics. I apologize. I have been using the abbreviation NCES because it has been burned into my memory over the years. It is a statistical agency with strong protocols for securing data and protecting student privacy. It has an excellent track record for doing so. They have consulted with the private sector, pretty good folks, about how to continue to work on student privacy in that data. NCES is already required by law to develop and enforce standards to protect individual level data. As added protection, the act requires, the College Transparency Act requires, an institute utilize the latest Federal data security standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We require that they implement those on an ongoing basis and they maintain those. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not commonplace in the Federal Government at this point. We are going a step beyond what happens every day in many agencies. Further, your personal information, Mr. Smucker's or anybody else's, will never be available to the Department of Education or to the public. Your employment status will never be available. What will be available is whether all of us who took a program in Michigan State University--come on up, you would love the school, some time--whether or not you graduated, you got a job, and whether you are gainfully employed and making money. Now, wouldn't that be a great idea for the money you put into a college education? All the aggregate information is available on the programs and institutions we are talking about here. The data developed by the Treasury Department on income and employment, once it is transmitted to NCES, is literally blown up. The file no longer exists. You can't hack what isn't there. So I would ask, at this point in time, rather than continue to extol the virtues of the College Transparency Act, I would ask all the Members to look at the act. We have a number of cosponsors at this point in time that I am very proud of. It is a bipartisan bill. I would ask them to look at the act, look at what it is achieving, and if they have questions, let's hear those questions, and let's make an effort to move this forward. We are already well into the decisionmaking process for young people to go to a postsecondary education program next year. It is too late for them to get this information, but, you know what, we can get it the following year. And the question I would ask is: How long are we going to wait while we are spending $160 billion in direct student aid alone hoping to get an outcome when we can do better and the ability to do that is at our fingertips? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.