Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing the great State of Colorado, where we hope to have you visit my district and ski in Vail, or perhaps enjoy the comfortable, temperate summer weather in our mountain resort area. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills, H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, and H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act. These two so-called extender bills, which are among several that this body has considered, are all unpaid for. Instead of allowing amendments on these bills, they are brought before us under an entirely closed process that blocks efforts by either Democrats or Republicans to come up with new and better ways to improve the effectiveness of these tax cuts, or to provide offsetting cuts to expenditures or closing other revenue loopholes that would pay for these tax cuts. So, essentially, this is not a real proposal before us today. I think that the child tax credit and Student and Family Tax Simplification Act are widely popular on both sides of the aisle, but real policy discussion is how we pay for them. That is the real discussion. That is what the House and the Senate will need to negotiate. That is what the President will need to negotiate. I am happy to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come up with corresponding cuts so that these can be paid for. But, under this closed rule, we are not even able to have a discussion of that. We are considering yet another set of unpaid-for tax extender bills that will add to our deficit. Now, at the beginning of this year, Chairman Camp put forward a true, revenue-neutral comprehensive tax reform bill. That was a real attempt to not add to our ballooning deficit and reduce taxes. To be clear, this is not. While I oppose this bill, I certainly support the intention of the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is to provide incentives for people across the country to pursue higher education, and I look forward to the real discussion of how we pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees. Students can receive a maximum annual credit of $2,500 for pursuing college, vocational school, or a university to help them pursue their dreams of achieving a postsecondary education, which is more important than ever to have a chance at succeeding in the 21st century workforce. I am pleased the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized the AOTC to help both undergraduate and graduate students pay for their studies. I am thrilled the Republicans now support extending provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That is a positive development for families across our country. In my home district of Colorado, I am pleased to have two flagship research universities, Colorado State University and the University of Colorado at Boulder, which are leading the way in undergraduate and graduate education and research that benefits our communities and our health. Students at these universities shouldn't have to spend their time wondering how the Tax Code will affect their ability to pay for books and tuition. They should be learning. They should be engaged in research and innovation to grow our economy, and not have to play the guessing game about what Congress does, which this bill, unpaid for, only furthers. Now, while this legislation would extend the AOTC to help more traditional students, unfortunately, it would take away educational benefits from the majority of students today. By replacing the Hope Scholarship Credit and eliminating the Lifetime Learning Credit, we will harm adult learners and those who might have lost their jobs in one sector and are trying to get training to go into another growing sector so that they can improve their life station. Many students who use the Lifetime Learning Credit, which has no limit on the number of years it can be claimed for each student, are low-income Americans, out-of-work Americans, folks who we want to get back to work so they are not reliant on government programs. Madam Speaker, why would we remove a tax credit that provides incentives for adults to learn throughout their lives at a time in our economy where it is more important than ever to do so? We need to recognize the changing demographics and ensure that our tax system aligns with the real needs of 21st century learners. That is why the major higher education associations, including the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of American Universities all oppose this legislation. These colleges and universities want to make higher education more affordable, not just for traditional students but for lifelong learners as well. I applaud my colleagues for recognizing the challenge of college affordability. I applaud my colleagues for basing a program around expiring provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I was thrilled that just yesterday the House passed H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act, which I coauthored with Representative Salmon, by a vote of 414-0. How wonderful the Democrats and Republicans were able to come together around a practical method to reduce costs and improve the quality of college. While this legislation would provide much-needed relief for some students, it is far from making college more affordable for everybody. Unfortunately, the legislation called forth under this rule would actually increase our Federal deficit by approximately $96.5 billion over 10 years. Let's have a real discussion about making college more affordable. Let's have a real discussion about paying for it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a Walmart near where I live, so I don't have that same choice. I would add that I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I think the frustration around the process is we are open to any process of bringing forward the ideas that Mr. Pascrell talked about to the floor, and we are presenting them in this context. There is a growing frustration on a number of issues, whether it is fixing our broken immigration system, whether it is extending unemployment, or whether it is how we are paying for these tax cuts. We want to avail ourselves of every procedural opportunity for this House to consider the items that matter to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to take all this in. I certainly agree with his premise that we need to talk about mandatory spending. I think that there is a bipartisan desire to do that, and several years ago, there was a thoughtful Bowles-Simpson proposal that began to take on some of those issues. I think that it is a discussion that--particularly when nondiscretionary spending is the vast majority of Federal spending, you can only do so much on the discretionary side, so it is very important to do that. Clearly, all of these tax extenders and tax expenditures and mandatory spending through outlays and Social Security and Medicare, that is what that discussion is about. It is a very important one. This bill is yet another one that kicks the ball down the road, doesn't deal with any of those issues, and doesn't allow for any consideration of those issues. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill creates a new tax credit to provide an incentive for U.S. companies to move jobs from overseas back to America and will end the tax deductions for companies that outsource jobs. Instead of considering two tax bills that hurt American families and bloat the deficit, let's consider one that brings American jobs home. To discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill here before us today are yet another symbolic bill, and when this House only has another week in session before September, we are passing a bill that doesn't move here or there on the actual renewal of these tax credits, doesn't deal with the deficit or entitlement spending, and doesn't deal with immigration reform. It is a bill to presumably show the public that Republicans care about this particular tax credit as do, of course, Democrats. But there is no real effort to figure out how we are going to pay for it. We would all love to cut every tax. Why not cut every tax down to zero and not tax anybody? But where is the money coming from? It is the same with this. It is a feel-good, meaningless gesture that I, frankly, think the American people see through, which is why this body's approval rating hovers around 12 percent. The bill makes in order the child tax credit improvement and costs $115 billion over 10 years. Un-offset costs of this cost each taxpayer $2,600. Aside from the significant cost this imposes on the American people, there are also some substantive concerns that we talked about. While the bill would give some families a permanent tax break, it would actually harm our most vulnerable women and children. Specifically, the bill fails to extend a critical provision of CTC, which has helped low- income, working families lift themselves out of poverty. The bill also indexes the current maximum credit of $1,000 per child to inflation, which only benefits those with incomes high enough to receive the maximum benefit. Further, the bill extends the child tax credit up the income scale on a permanent basis, allowing only families who make over six figures to benefit. Ironically, on the same day that Representative Paul Ryan is unveiling his antipoverty plan, this particular proposal before us-- which we are not allowed to offer our suggestions to amend under this closed rule--would actually push 12 million more people, including 6 million children, into poverty. Unfortunately, there has been a provision added to this bill at the Rules Committee that would bar children who are American citizens but have immigrant parents from receiving the tax credit. This bill includes a provision that only allows the tax credit to be claimed if the taxpayer has a Social Security number, even if they are claiming the credit for children who have a Social Security number and are full American citizens. This impact is huge. It would deny 5.5 million poor American children from being able to receive this tax credit, deny millions of U.S. citizens much-needed assistance for being able to afford their rent, clothing, and food just because of who their parents are. That is not right and that is not just. It is no wonder that groups that care about this from across the ideological spectrum, including the National Women's Law Center, First Focus Campaign for Children, Half in Ten, Children's Defense Fund, National Immigration Law Center, and the National Council of La Raza, have all come out in strong opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, it would be disgraceful if one of the only votes we took on immigration this year was to roll back benefits for U.S. citizens who happen to have parents who violated our law. With 1 week left before the August recess, Republicans, unfortunately, have little time to introduce and pass a bill that actually deals with immigration and addresses the crisis at our border. President Obama sent a request to Congress to address the increased flow of families and unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala across our border. As you know, these families that I had the opportunity to visit with this last weekend in McAllen, Texas, in San Antonio, at Lackland Air Force Base, are fleeing horrific situations, often including gangs, rape, murder, trafficking, and extreme poverty, and are seeking refuge in this great country just as my own great-grandparents did, as well as that of many of my colleagues. This problem with the crisis at the southern border is only one of so many symptoms about our dysfunctional immigration system, which is why Congress needs to bring forward the bipartisan H.R. 15 bill for a vote and allow that to proceed to the Senate and President Obama's desk to resolve this crisis. It is unconscionable to think that the only immigration-related legislation that the House actually may pass in the 113th Congress could be one aimed at cutting off benefits to American children or deporting children. We continue to fail to move any immigration reform bills to the floor this entire Congress. This body has already had the opportunity to act on legislation that passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of more than two-thirds and that the President would sign. H.R. 15, our House bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which I am a proud sponsor of, would create American jobs, ensure we are more competitive in a global economy, lower the deficit, reflect our values as Americans, unite families, secure our border, and restore some sense of normalcy and law to the chaos that now surrounds our immigration system. The American people overwhelmingly support immigration reform, but, unfortunately, House Republicans continue to not allow a vote on reform and have failed to bring forward a bill to address the dire humanitarian crisis at our border. And here in this bill, we have another bill to cut off benefits to American kids just because of who their parents are. I cannot support this closed rule and these underlying bills. They will add to our deficit. They fail to address some of the most critical issues of our time, and they have significant policy flaws that make these particular programs worse for some of our American families that need the credits the most. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. There is no doubt that it takes both parties working together to dig the country into this much debt.

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the McNerney amendment. This amendment will require participating institutions to show how they are addressing the needs of veterans and members of the Armed Forces in their demonstration project. Americans with military experience, both present or in their past, stand to benefit tremendously from competency-based education because they leave the military with a wide range of practicable, demonstrable, and marketable skills. I have talked to so many veterans in my district who felt that they received excellent education within the military around a particular task, but get no credit for that with regard to the demonstrable skills that they have achieved. This amendment will help that occur. Ensuring that institutions report more on how veterans and members of the Armed Forces are performing in demonstration projects will help highlight those who have served our country to the Department of Education so we can better identify best practices and expand best practices to those who have served. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on this side. I reserve the right to close. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the Walberg amendment would allow institutions that have shown success with their demonstration projects to increase the number of students that can participate in their programs, helping to scale and allow more students to benefit. By increasing the number of students in successful programs, we can better get a sense of how successful programs can be brought to scale. Institutions should be rewarded with the ability to run a more robust demonstration project if their programs are reducing costs, improving quality, shortening time to degree. We should make sure that they are allowed to expand and remove any barriers to that. Therefore, I am proud to join my colleague in support of the Walberg amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so that institutions will be able to run more robust and scalable demonstration projects. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. McNerney, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas, I have an amendment at the desk, the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this amendment that Ms. Jackson Lee thoughtfully put together. This amendment would ensure that the Department of Education is reaching out to colleges and systems that educate minority, low-income, or students with special needs. Some of those who stand to benefit the most under this innovation are first-generation college goers for whom cost is a major barrier to success. Minority-serving institutions are a critical thread in the fabric of America, and they should be included when experimenting with promising new education models. Competency-based education programs are self-paced, helping ensure that students can work while they are in school, helping students who need a little more time to catch up or to learn concepts succeed and achieve at the highest levels. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is best characterized by missing opportunities, whether it is balancing our budget, whether it is immigration reform, or, in the context of education, which is the primary issue I work on here on the committee in this institution, the opportunity to reauthorize and replace No Child Left Behind with a Federal education policy that works for our country and to replace the Higher Education Authorization Act with a bill that makes college more affordable for American families. Today's considerations, while good bills--and I am particularly honored to have my bill with Mr. Salmon on the floor of the House, and I look forward to managing that and discussing its merits later and encourage a strong bipartisan vote of support--the tragedy is that we are nibbling around the edges and not dealing with the core of the issues that the American people demand that Congress deal with. When we look at congressional approval ratings of 12 percent, we need go no further in explaining that than the hesitancy of this body to solve or address any of the major issues that I hear from my constituents on a daily basis. If this Congress were serious, we could put H.R. 15, our bipartisan immigration reform bill, on the floor of this House. I am confident it would pass. If this body were serious, we could put the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a bipartisan bill, on the floor of this House to prevent companies across our country from firing Americans simply because of whom they date or love in their private lives, and it would pass. We could begin the not easy work but the worthwhile work of working together, Democrats and Republicans, on reauthorizing ESEA, No Child Left Behind, and replacing our broken Federal education policy with a constructive approach that works for kids across our country in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. What would be those principles behind reauthorizing the ESEA? I think there are a lot of good ideas from both sides of the aisle. When No Child Left Behind was signed into law by George Bush, it was a step forward for transparency and accountability; but even in the immediate aftermath, it was clear that Congress didn't get everything right. Rather than improving it and adjusting it, it has been frozen like a time capsule from 2001. Secretary Duncan has done what he can with the broad authority of waivers. I hope that my Republican colleagues agree that vesting any administration--not just this President--with that kind of ability should not be the intent of lawmakers. We should address the flaws in the act. I think any President, Democrat or Republican, is doing what they can with the law such as it is, but the real answer doesn't lie with an administration. It lies with Congress. It lies in Congress altering and changing the AYP formula. What does real accountability look like? Growth over time and how much students are learning. What should ESEA contain? It should promote innovation and excellence. It should expand and replicate what works in public education. The most promising thing we have is that we have examples of schools that work with at-risk kids from every demographic that outperform their peers and prepare kids for college and the workforce. Finally, we need to change what doesn't work in public education. So shining a light isn't enough. Having a broad stroke of AYP and policy levers and penalties that are unconnected to actually improving schools doesn't work. But we need to begin the difficult work of turning around persistently failing schools to ensure that every child across our country has access to a good education. That is the work we are not doing. It is the work we are not doing in this bill. It is the work we haven't done in committee in any meaningful way, and it joins the litany of issues that I hear about from my constituents on a daily basis. Has this Congress balanced the budget? No. Has the Congress resolved our immigration crisis as we have seen the temperature increase with the tens of thousands of young people on our southern border? No, we haven't taken a single step. In fact, this Congress hasn't even passed or brought to the floor or debated a single immigration bill. For a while, we were hearing that there would be a ``piecemeal approach'' to immigration reform. We are nearing the end of the 113th Congress, and we haven't seen a single piece. I don't know what kind of a meal that is, but it is not one that satisfies one's appetite, and it doesn't satisfy the appetite of the voters not to see Congress deal with immigration reform, secure our border and replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country. People in the education world--teachers, students, families, school board members, principals across our country--all know what I hope my colleagues know, which is that ESEA is broken, that No Child Left Behind doesn't work. It has flaws that aren't ideological--they aren't Democrats say this or Republicans say this. It has formulas that don't make sense to anybody. It is the formula, namely, that declares that nearly every public school in our country is a failure. Now, that can be something that some people might want to say rhetorically, but I don't think you will even find too many Democrats or Republicans saying that every public school in this country is a failure. I shouldn't say ``every.'' It is 99 percent or 95 percent of them. I think there are a few small ones that got through, but AYP sets up this apparatus that is nearly impossible for schools to meet, which is requiring that every student cohort achieve proficiency now. It sounded good. Congress mandated that every student become proficient, but it shouldn't be a great surprise that it didn't happen, so it is time to replace that with something that makes sense. If people rhetorically want to say all public schools are failing on either side of the aisle, they are welcome to it, but I think we all know that the reality is more nuanced in that there are good public schools and there are poorly performing public schools. The way that you treat and deal with a good public school and public policy is not to say it is a failing one. You can praise it. You can say they are doing a great job. You can pat them on the back. You can certainly challenge them to do more, but that is a very different policy response to a persistently failing high school where six out of 10 kids who go in the door in ninth grade don't even graduate. That school is doing their community a disservice and is only increasing the rampant inequality of opportunity that plagues our country. Instead of relying on temporary fixes and marginal improvements, I encourage this Congress to take on the real issues--to take on immigration reform, to take on balancing the budget, and, in this context, to take on ESEA: replace our broken education law No Child Left Behind with a bipartisan bill that we can be proud of and that will endure for the next decade; replace the Higher Education Act with a bipartisan bill that actually makes substantive progress around reducing the cost of college. I want to thank Ranking Member Miller and Chairman Kline. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the rule, and I would encourage them to vote ``yes'' on both of these bipartisan bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4582, Mr. Tierney's bill, to enable millions of students, graduates, and parents in middle class families to responsibly finance their existing student loans. To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the two underlying bills, H.R. 3136, the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act of 2013, and H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. I do rise in opposition to the rule for reasons that I will go into regarding preventing us from addressing many of the major issues within public education and higher education. While I am supportive of these two bills, I am disappointed that the House is not embarking on a full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We can nip around the edges in certainly a constructive way to reduce costs, as these bills do, to be helpful, but none of them are game-changers or, dare I say, even a substantial part of making college more affordable like we could through the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Since the last reauthorization in 2007, higher education has become more and more expensive. The cost of attending a university per student has risen by almost five times the rate of inflation since 1983. At the very time that an advanced degree is more important than ever for somebody to have a good job in today's increasingly complex global economy, it is getting further and further from the price range and affordability for American middle class families. While a 4-year university isn't always the best choice, some form of postsecondary education is increasingly important--whether that is community college, whether it is a certification program--to be able to ensure that young people, and people of all ages, have access to a good-paying job in the 21st century workforce. Only by pursuing a full scale reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, soliciting ideas from Democrats and Republicans across the aisle, can we truly be able to help put college more in reach for students. As many of my colleagues from across the aisle say, we need to examine how or if many of the student loan programs only contribute to the increasingly high cost of college education. We need to take ideas from our side of the aisle, including some that I cosponsor regarding reducing textbook costs or looking at new and better ways that we can look at income- based repayment for student loans. Through a comprehensive reauthorization, we can streamline payments by replacing our complicated student loan system with a simplified income-based program, which is part of a bipartisan bill that I sponsor with Congressman Petri called the ExCEL Act. We could also improve articulation and transfer agreements so that students can move quickly and efficiently towards a credential from less expensive community colleges, if necessary, to colleges that offer 4-year degrees. Furthermore, Representative Hinojosa's open textbook legislation would help keep costs down so students can concentrate on their studies rather than having to work additional jobs just to be able to afford the textbooks. Finally, we can make sure that we improve accountability for colleges and universities that are not serving students well so that our limited Federal resources are used in a way to provide incentives to States and universities that support public education and they keep public education, higher education, affordable. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Higher Education Act, which this Congress does not appear to be moving forward on and this bill does not allow amendments to, our Nation's landmark kindergarten through 12th grade education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sometimes referred to as No Child Left Behind, is long overdue to be replaced with a new reauthorization. And this week, I was pleased to hear the President signed another work product of this body, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, another long overdue, bipartisan bill to improve our workforce development system that many of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee have worked on for many years. That bill started in a partisan way. The first iteration on the House floor received zero Democratic votes. The compromise, however, received the support of every Democrat and nearly every Republican. It passed by a margin of 415-6. Just a few months ago, we passed bipartisan bills to substantially improve the charter schools program and Federal investment in education research with a strong bipartisan vote. So, Mr. Speaker, this body has shown it can pass bipartisan Education and Workforce bills. These two bills coming before us today are additional examples of that. So why haven't we undertaken the hard work to make a full-fledged bipartisan effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind? Like with the Workforce Investment Act, we had a partisan version come to the floor. Not a single Democrat voted for it, just as not a single Democrat voted for the first iteration of the Workforce Investment Act. Anybody can pass partisan legislation that no one else supports, but that is not a constructive step towards lawmaking. Lawmaking entails making the tough decisions, working with the other side to create a work product. Again, with WIA, we had a 415-6 vote. With No Child Left Behind, whether it is that high or not, let's get a majority of Democrats and Republicans working together to reauthorize it. They began that hard work in the Senate Health Committee, where they have a bipartisan education reform bill that they have not brought to the full floor of the Senate, but at least they began that work of working in a bipartisan manner towards replacing No Child Left Behind with a new Federal education law. This bill which passed the House, the Student Success Act, the Republican-only education bill, was opposed by Democrats for many reasons. First of all, it would have locked in education funding at sequester levels. Secondly, it would have locked many of our critical programs that support STEM, literacy, and the arts, support English language learners, and left students trapped in failing schools with little recourse for action. It was opposed not only by Democrats but also by the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and also every major education organization. This process was unlike all other previous efforts to reauthorize the ESEA, when under the strong leadership of my colleagues, like now- Speaker Boehner and Ranking Member Miller, Democrats and Republicans came together to strengthen and improve our education system. As Ranking Member Miller enters retirement, with his last year in the House, we need to learn from his success in building consensus and forging compromise, in keeping students across our country first to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck with our limited Federal investment and students and young people receive the skills they need to compete in the 21st century workforce. I urge my colleagues to recognize that our opportunity to build on the success of No Child Left Behind, which shined a light on the achievement gaps for minority and low-income students, is now, more than ever, critical. But just as it had successes, it also had failures that are recognized across the aisle. The superficial formula for adequate yearly progress is defended by nobody, and yet continues to be the law of the land. I hope that this body can come together, just as we have for WIA, for charter schools, for ESRA, just as we are doing for the bills we are considering today, to update and improve the ESEA. That is what our students deserve and what we were elected to do. Rather than let these bills we are passing today stand out as an aberration, let us build upon them, let them form momentum for higher ed reauthorization and ESEA reauthorization so we can begin the substantive work that the voters of this country have hired us to do. Despite the fact that we are not considering a full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, despite the fact that we are not considering a full reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I am nevertheless pleased that we are considering H.R. 3136, a bill that I coauthored with Representative Salmon. This bill allows innovative colleges and universities to shorten the time and cost of earning a degree through self-paced programs based on learning rather than seat time. This innovation, called competency-based education, allows students to work at their own pace and earn credit by mastering the knowledge, rather than sitting in a seat and, let's be honest, sometimes not even being awake. This growing trend of innovation around competency-based education is particularly important because it provides a way to increase innovation and reduce the costs of a college degree. Today's students come to college with different backgrounds and learn at different rates and different times of day. The competency-based education program allows an institution to tailor a program of study to an individual student. By measuring and assessing competencies, or what a student can demonstrate that they know, students are guaranteed to matriculate with the knowledge of the skills they need to master. Businesses will know what to expect upon hiring these students, and students will be incentivized to learn as quickly and as inexpensively as they can. While the Department of Education currently has some latitude to explore this model through the experimental sites' programs, the current regulations need to be updated and streamlined to better support these innovative programs, which is what this bill does. I am proud to say that in my district, institutions like Colorado State University's Global Campus are demonstrating that online public universities with competency-based programs can lead the way in attracting, educating, and graduating young learners and adult learners to succeed in the 21st century workforce. But CSU-Global and programs like it currently need to adhere to existing higher education structure, which limits the schedules of students and limits when students can achieve financial aid because traditional higher education is based on the Carnegie unit, or credit hour, rather than what the students learn. As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, this project, this innovation that this bill will unleash is more crucial than ever. In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the growing trend towards distance education and the opportunity for students to learn online. Now once again, we have the opportunity to learn from, to study, and to innovate around competency-based education, to learn about the changes that we need to make to maintain quality, to reduce costs, and to increase the number of students that have access to these programs. That is why I was proud to work with Representative Salmon, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Ms. Foxx on this legislation, which would permit institutions to waive certain regulations that stand in the way of them adopting a competency-based model. We will learn a lot. We will learn what works, and we will learn what doesn't work. They are both important as we seek to expand innovation across the higher education sector to reduce costs and increase quality. This legislation will allow Congress and the general public to learn more about the opportunities that competency-based education offers for students to increase access and opportunity in higher education. I am also pleased that the House is considering under this rule H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. Financial counseling is an important method for students to learn about the most effective and least expensive way for them to finance their higher education, both before, during, and after their college experience. Many students simply don't have the knowledge or the resources or the help to make sound decisions in their own interests about their opportunities to finance their postsecondary education. To the degree that we don't provide a high quality standard of counseling, first-generation students in particular are the students who stand to benefit the most from improving access to higher education and they often lose out. H.R. 4984 makes many improvements to our financial counseling obligations under current law. The bill ensures that all students and parents who participate in the Federal loan program receive proactive counseling each year that is personalized to meet their own financial needs. Students will receive information about the terms and conditions of Pell Grants and various other loan programs. The bipartisan bill also directs the Secretary of Education to create and disseminate online tools to provide annual loan counseling, helping to bring our financial aid counseling system into the 21st century and put useful, relevant information into the hands of students. One place in particular that financial counseling can play an important role is when determining whether to take out Federal loans or private student loans. Private student loans often have variable interest rates, as high or higher than 14 percent. They are not eligible for the important deferment, income-based repayment, or loan forgiveness options that come with Federal student loans, but half of private student loan borrowers borrowed less than they could have in Federal Stafford loans. So without realizing it in many cases, people are turning to the higher priced, less beneficial private market place when they still have unused capacity on the Federal student loan side. It is clear that there is an information gap and students need information about the terms and conditions of these loans. That is why I am thrilled that this underlying bill contains an important part of my Know Before You Owe Act, which I first introduced last session and reintroduced this session, along with Representative Bishop and Representative Schwartz, to ensure that financial counseling includes additional disclosures on private education loans, with information about college financing options and warnings about riskier private loans to help students make informed decisions about their choices so that they get the best deal that is available to them under current law. I am also pleased the underlying bill will improve exit counseling for student loan repayment. Unfortunately, many students default on what could otherwise be manageable levels of debt because they don't understand the payment options. The ExCEL Act, which I mentioned earlier and introduced with Representative Petri, would make simple income-based repayment the default option, which will reduce paperwork and administrative overhead and prevent this unfortunate occurrence and make payments more affordable for students. The bill will help students understand that they have many options to pay back their loans and help them make the choice that is best for them. These bills are a step forward, but affording college education requires a lot more progress than a full step. We need to make enormous progress to reverse the trend of the last few decades that have led to five times the cost of college inflation adjusted since 1983. I wish I could be here before you to say that these bills will fix that. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that they will help, but they alone will not turn around the alarming trend that is making college harder and harder for middle class families to afford. So while I support these bills as a step forward, I oppose the rule and call upon this body to allow a full and open debate on the Higher Education Act on ESEA. I reserve the balance of my time.