House Education & Workforce Committee Issues Report on PROSPER Act (Part 10 of 10)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 -- The House Education and the Workforce Committee issued a report (H.Rpt. 115-550) on legislation (H.R. 4508) to support students in completing an affordable postsecondary education that will prepare them to enter the workforce with the skills they need for lifelong success. The report was advanced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, on Feb. 8.

Continues from Part 9 of 10

H.R. 4508 REPEALS VALUABLE REGULATIONS WHILE INTRODUCING NEW REGULATION TO PROMOTE IDEOLOGICAL VIEWS

Throughout the markup, Committee Republicans characterized oversight and accountability over IHEs as "burdensome overregulation." In contrast, Committee Democrats offered amendments and discussed the need to adhere to the original intent of the HEA--to improve access to higher education for capable students, regardless of income level.

Relaxing institutional drug prevention requirements during a national opioid crisis

H.R. 4508 sought to remove the current-law Program Participation Agreement (PPA) provision that requires IHEs receiving federal funds to implement drug and alcohol abuse prevention programming found in Title IV, while maintaining a corresponding requirement in Title I that carries no federal enforcement. The bill also repeals current-law authorization of grant funds to assist IHEs in developing and implementing effective prevention programs. This action ignores the data: approximately 64,000 Americans died from drug overdose last year, and the non-medical use of prescription drugs was highest among college-aged individuals.65

65Catherine Morris, Experts: Colleges Have Role in Battling Opioid Epidemic, Diverse! (Oct. 24, 2017) available at http:// diverseeducation.com/article/103785/.

Approximately 150 institutions are already responding by offering collegiate recovery programs and a growing number are offering substance-free or recovery-centered housing and other health interventions and support services to students struggling with or affected by addiction.66 Rep. Shea-Porter offered an amendment to keep the PPA requirement for drug and alcohol abuse prevention programming as a condition of federal funding--a provision that has been in the HEA for the last 30 years--and strengthened the requirement to ensure that programs offered by the IHE are evidence-based and have a focus on opioid misuse to help combat the opioid epidemic. After some debate, this amendment was adopted by voice vote.

66Mariah, Bohannon, The Opioid Crisis Comes to College, Insight into Diversity (Oct. 17, 2017) available at http:// www.insightintodiversity.com/the-opioid-crisis-comes-to-college/.

Removing campus voter registration requirements while Republicans work to limit ballot access

H.R. 4508 weakens a current-law provision that requires colleges receiving Title IV funds to distribute voter registration information to students by moving the provision out of the PPA section and into a different title; thus, removing institutional accountability for failure to distribute voter registration information to students. Committee Democrats recognize that institutions of higher education, having long- served as places of civic engagement, play an integral role in supporting students to pursue civic engagement and participate in the democratic process. Rep. Krishnamoorthi introduced an amendment to strike H.R. 4508's harmful changes that dilute the current-law requirement that institutions distribute voter registration information. Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted as it was opposed by Committee Republicans.

Regulations limiting the use of postsecondary data pass Committee Republican muster

The federal post-secondary data infrastructure is a complex, duplicative maze of federal reporting requirements that often leaves students and families without access to complete information. H.R. 4508 increases institutional burden by requiring institutions to report new program-level debt and earnings metrics. Although this is a step toward better data, H.R. 4508 does not overturn the outdated ban on a federal student-level data network, which would reduce institutional burden by eliminating the duplicative, inefficient, and incomplete data infrastructure currently in place. Additionally, H.R. 4508's new reporting requirement fails to address a current-law impediment to data quality by maintaining the limitation that data only be collected and reported for students receiving federal financial aid, omitting 30 percent of all students, and painting an incomplete picture of the nation's higher education system.

Committee Democrats believe that too many students remain missing from key college outcome metrics today. For example, even with recent updates to data on college completion, the updated measure does not disaggregate by race/ethnicity, nor does it measure completion after transfer.

Because Committee Democrats support a student-level data network that would allow for more complete reporting while reducing institutional burden, Rep. Polis introduced an amendment to strike the student unit record ban from HEA. Despite the cosponsorship of six Committee Republicans on stand-alone legislation to strike the student unit record ban, Committee Republicans collectively rejected the Polis amendment.

Unnecessary Speech Code Provisions

H.R. 4508 requires the disclosure of any policy related to protected speech on campus, including policies limiting where speech can occur for IHEs in receipt of Title IV funds. During markup, Committee Republicans passed, on a party line vote, an amendment expanding this provision, creating an office at the Department of Education tasked with responding to student complaints regarding IHE compliance with free speech policies. Committee Democrats objected to this amendment as we believe the purported "free speech crisis" underway on college campuses is more political rhetoric driven by conservative ideologues rather than reality.67 The amendment passed on a party-line vote.

67See e.g., Chris Ladd, There is No Free speech Crisis on Campus, Forbes, Sept. 23, 2017, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ chrisladd/2017/09/23/there-is-no-free-speech-crisis-on-campus.

H.R. 4508 CREATES TROUBLING EXEMPTIONS TO FEDERAL LAW FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

H.R. 4508 prohibits any Federal, State, or Local government entity from taking any adverse action (including withholding of funds) against an IHE in receipt of Title IV funds for failure to comply with HEA requirements, so long as the IHE's justification for noncompliance rests with the institution's religious mission or affiliation. This overly broad provision effectively exempts institutions, including for-profit institutions, from federal oversight in the name of religion.

Committee Democrats believe that religious institutions play a vital role in the U.S. system of higher education. Data from the ED Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) show that during the 2015-2016 Academic Year, there were 7,180 main campuses of Institutions of Higher Education that participated in HEA, Title IV. Of those, 901 main campuses, or 12.5 percent, were religiously affiliated. These institutions are able to execute the responsibilities and requirements of the law while successfully maintaining their religious identities and missions, suggesting that the religious provisions of H.R. 4508 are a solution in search of a problem. H.R. 4508 creates an unnecessary carve out for religious institutions that want access to federal funding without abiding by federal civil rights laws or the federal oversight and accountability that accompanies acceptance of taxpayer funds.

This exemption is just one of many provisions addressing religion in H.R. 4508. The bill also exempts religious student organizations at public institutions from adhering to nondiscrimination protections for all students. It codifies a loophole in current regulations that exempts religious institutions from State licensing and authorization procedures and fraud oversight if State law allows the exemption, thereby encouraging additional States to adopt such an exemption. The bill expands the deference that must be given to religious institutions by accreditors by broadly defining what is included under the pretext of religious mission and expressly permitting institutions to self-define their missions. It establishes a complaint procedure for religious institutions against accreditors that is heavily and unfairly weighted to the benefit of such institutions. And although it does not carry the weight of law, H.R. 4508 expresses the sense of Congress that individuals should be free to profess and maintain their own opinions in matters of religion without curtailing their civil liberties or rights on IHE campuses. Additionally it expresses the sense of Congress that no public IHE receiving federal funds under HEA should limit religious expression, free expression, or any other First Amendment rights, without noting a Title IV-receiving institution's obligations to comply with federal civil rights laws.

Taken in total, the religious provisions in H.R. 4508 go far beyond the jurisdictional scope of HEA. As written, the bill permits an institution's religious mission to supersede several federal civil rights statutes, such as: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965; Title VII laws against discrimination in employment based on sex, race, color, national origin, or religion; ADA employment laws to protect the disabled; Title IX laws against gender discrimination in a program or activity receiving federal financial aid; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Section 117 of H.R. 4508 essentially creates a limitless exemption for religious institutions to act in any way affecting any issue under the pretext of religion. In this sense, the provision has more in common with the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)68 or Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)69 than higher education policy, as this broad exemption attempts to position freedom of religion as the pre-eminent first amendment right.

68https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr2802/BILLS- 114hr2802ih.pdf.

69Pub. L. No. 103-141

Aside from being broad in scope, the language of the religious provisions in H.R. 4508 is overly vague, and, as such, is open to dangerous interpretation. The bill broadly defines "religious mission" to include "religious tenets, beliefs, or teachings, and any policies or decisions related to such tenets, beliefs, or teachings (including any policies or decisions concerning housing, employment, curriculum, self- governance, or student admission, continuing enrollment, or graduation)." This broad language ensures that any action or failure to act on the part of an institution fits under the umbrella of "religious mission". It similarly defines "adverse action" equally broadly. In a final confounding turn, it appears that any attempt to enforce this provision would violate the provision on its face, by requiring the Department of Education to become involved in assessing a school's religious mission.

Almost 1,000 religious institutions currently receive funding under HEA while successfully complying with the law's present requirements. Moreover, several of the civil rights laws mentioned already contain their own limited religious exemptions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 permits religious employers to consider religion in employment decisions although they may not consider other protected classes. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allows religious institutions to request an exemption to consider religion in admission and certain other contexts within education, but it requires a determination that the institution is in fact controlled by a religious organization. The Americans with Disabilities Act includes an exemption for religious organizations.

Religious institutions can either follow federal education and civil rights laws and access federal funds, or they can choose not to follow such laws and forego access to federal funding. That is the prerogative of each institution. HEA as it currently stands is not an impediment to religious institutions receiving federal funds, nor does it require them to abandon or disregard their religious missions. Committee Democrats believe religious IHEs must continue to follow the same civil rights laws and be subject to the same oversight provisions as other institutions, which they successfully do now.70

70Standing with Committee Democrats are 50 civil rights, faith, religious freedom, LGBTQ, and reproductive rights organizations strongly opposed to provisions of H.R. 4508 that permit discrimination based on religion.

Ranking Member Scott offered an amendment repealing H.R. 4508's provisions that exempt religious institutions from civil rights laws and appropriate federal oversight. The amendment also repealed the other provisions of H.R. 4508 that attempt to place the religious rights of institutions or individuals on campus above other civil rights and legal requirements. This amendment failed due to a party line vote.

H.R. 4508 FAILS TO ADDRESS SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER CAMPUS SAFETY

College campuses should be havens for students to focus on education free from concerns for their safety. We know this is not the case, as incidents of campus sexual assault, racial violence, and hazing have all garnered national attention recently. The recent investigation into Title IX violations in the wake of the Larry Nassar scandal at Michigan State University are an example of what can happen when schools put their image above their student's safety and well-being. Similarly, the nation watched in horror when a mob of torch- wielding white nationalists descended on the University of Virginia (UVA) and marched through university grounds chanting racial epithets and intimidating students and faculty, in complete disregard of the Title VI and Equal Protection right to a safe learning environment.71 On each of these issues, H.R. 4508 offers policies that fail to adequately address, and in some cases would exacerbate the underlying problems. H.R. 4508 undermines protections for survivors of campus sexual assault, which could undermine the ability of IHEs to combat this pervasive issue. At markup, in an attempt to preempt a vote to express a sense of Congress condemning racial violence on campus, Committee Republicans adopted a hollow amendment offered by Rep. Garrett to support 'diversity and inclusion' that fails to speak to the growth of incidents of racial violence. And, despite adoption of the Thompson Amendment, the reported bill fails to treat the issue of campus hazing as a true threat to public safety.

71"White Nationalists March on the University of Virginia." The New York Times, August 11, 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/ 2017/08/11/us/white-nationalists-rally-charlottesville- virginia.html?mcubz=0.

H.R. 4508's inadequate approach to campus sexual assault

H.R. 4508 contradicts the intent of the Clery Act. The Clery Act is designed to ensure IHEs report crimes on campus to give policymakers and the public a complete picture of student safety and security. As part of guidance to schools on campus sexual assault issued to IHEs in 2014, the Department of Education clarified which individuals on a campus had a duty to report an allegation of sexual violence for purposes of Clery reporting. This would not trigger an investigation automatically, but would require the IHE to report the incident. The definition of responsible employee included, any employee who "has been given the duty of reporting incidents of sexual violence or any other misconduct by students to the Title IX coordinator or other appropriate school designee, or whom a student could reasonably believe has this authority or duty."72

72Catherine E. Lhamon, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence, U.S. Department of Education, April 29, 2014, available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404- title-ix.pdf. (Emphasis added).

Under H.R. 4508, IHEs must hire at least one sexual assault survivors' counselor for victims of sexual assault. Counselors must be trained specifically in sexual assault, and each IHE must make a good faith effort to advertise the availability of sexual assault counselors. Most students would reasonably believe that a counselor mandated by their school to help them deal with the aftermath of a sexual assault would have the authority or duty to report the assault. Instead, H.R. 4508 prohibits counselors who provide services to victims of sexual assault from reporting the incident(s) and bars the consideration of such information as part of the Clery Act. This frustrates the Clery Act's purpose, which requires the collection and reporting of such incidents. Mandating counselors but not requiring them to report incidents of sexual assault for inclusion in campus crime statistics, will compound the problem of underreporting of sexual assault, allowing schools to misrepresent the nature of sexual violence on campus. With regard to provisions contained in H.R. 4508 that could amend or change the intent of Clery, at markup Chairwoman Foxx made a commitment to Rep. Davis to "before the bill is brought to the floor make absolutely certain, there is no misunderstanding of what we are trying to accomplish here."

H.R. 4508 would allow schools to assess sexual assault claims using varying standards of evidence. Prior to 2014, IHEs used varying standards of evidence in sexual assault proceedings. While some schools used the preponderance of the evidence standard (the standard used in most civil cases), some schools used the more stringent clear and convincing evidence standard. As part of the Department of Education guidance in 2014 to standardize compliance expectations, schools are to use the preponderance of the evidence standard in resolving Title IX complaints.73 Under H.R. 4508, each IHE would be allowed to set its own standard of review, so long as it is consistently applied throughout the institution. The result will be that the same actions on different campuses, possibly even between campuses in the same city, could be judged differently. Committee Democrats are concerned that allowing for varying standards will result in inequitable results on many campuses and note that enactment of this provision would result in Title IX violations held to a different standard than other violations on campus.

73Id. at 13.

H.R. 4508 encourages IHEs to delay sexual assault investigations. Section 488 (f)(18) of H.R. 4508 allows IHEs to delay their own investigation into an allegation of campus sexual assault if the matter is also being investigated by law enforcement. This contradicts Title IX and related guidance, which finds that once a school "knows or reasonably should know of possible sexual violence, it must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred."74 Schools are obligated to promptly address the alleged incidents, regardless of the whether the allegation is addressed through the criminal justice system. In the words of the American Association of University Women,

74Id. at 2.

"Under the provisions of H.R. 4508, schools would have an excuse not to investigate sexual assaults on campus at the request of law enforcement, possibly undermining students" ability to seek justice and accommodation at their schools. In addition, this bill would give schools a pass on accurately disclosing annual crime data. The last thing students need is for schools to return to the days of sweeping sexual violence under the rug."

Committee Democrats believe this provision will frustrate survivors' attempts at resolution and could result in fewer victims coming forward to report to the institution due to inaction by the school to adequately address instances of campus sexual assault and impose institutional penalties to ensure student safety.

H.R. 4508 requires confusing campus climate surveys and prohibits data from being used to address Campus Sexual Assault. Section 162 of H.R. 4508 would require IHEs to conduct climate surveys and to use such surveys to improve the school's response to sexual harassment and assault. However, the bill fails to require institutions to share survey findings with the students. Further, H.R. 4508 prohibits the Secretary of Education from creating uniform survey standards, using survey findings as a tool for comparisons among IHEs, and issuing regulations or technical assistance as a means to address the problem of campus sexual assault. According to a leading advocacy group for survivors of campus sexual assault, "The data [from proposed climate surveys], therefore, does not educate the public regarding the climate at any particular school, nor does it incentivize accountability."75

75Letter to Reps. Foxx & Scott from Gaylynn Burroughs, Director of Policy and Research, Feminist Majority Foundation, Dec. 11, 2017.

To address the regression made by H.R. 4508 on campus sexual assault, Reps. Davis and Bonamici offered an amendment to strike this language in the underlying bill. This amendment was defeated on a party line vote.

Campus racial harassment and violence

As introduced, H.R. 4508 was silent on the issue of racial and homophobic harassment and violence on college campuses. At markup two amendments were considered on this issue: one offered by Mr. Garrett (R-VA), and one by Ms. Wilson; The Garrett Amendment passed on a voice vote, the Wilson amendment failed on a recorded party-line vote. Committee Republicans intended the Garrett amendment to preempt a presumably uncomfortable vote on the Wilson amendment, as evidenced by the fact that the two amendments were similar, but with three distinct and substantive differences that render the language of the Garrett amendment, and H.R. 4508 as reported out of Committee, hollow. The adopted language fails to recognize the documented increase of racial and anti-LGBTQ violence and harassment, the rise of extremist organizations deliberately targeting college campuses to spread hostile hate speech that may violate an institution's obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the lack of legal protection for issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Committee Democrats note that the Garrett amendment (and the Thompson amendment referenced below concerning campus hazing) was drafted by the majority less than 15 minutes prior to the start of markup, a breach of the Committee's good-faith practice of bipartisan exchange of amendments 24 hours prior to the start of Committee proceedings.

Committee Democrats recognize that all harassment and violence targeted at students should be condemned. But it is equally important to recognize both that specific types of incidents are increasing, and that there are specific organizations actively inciting harassment and violence targeted at specific student groups on college campuses. The Anti-Defamation League has documented the rise of incidents of propaganda targeting "minority groups, including Jews, Blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants, and the LGBT community."76 While Rep. Wilson's amendment mentioned only 5 campus incidents, the ADL has recorded 346 incidents of white supremacist propaganda appearing on 216 different campuses since September of 2016.77 290 of those 346 incidents occurred in 2017 and 18 have already occurred in 2018.78 This documented increase in on-campus violence and harassment of minority student groups is not addressed in the amendment adopted by the Committee. There is a credible documented rise both in incidents of harassment and violence and in organized white supremacist outreach on campus and H.R. 4508 is silent on these emerging and troubling trends.

76Anti-Defamation League, White Supremacist Propaganda Surges on Campus, last updated January 29, 2018, available at https:// www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/white-supremacist-propaganda- surges-on-campus.

77Id.

78Id.

While the adopted text of the Garret Amendment to H.R. 4508 fails to clarify what "sex" means in the context of section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on discussions with Committee Republicans, Committee Democrats believe it is the position of the Committee that "sex" includes an individual's sex, gender, and sexual orientation, and the right to be free from harassment and violence extends to individuals targeted for being, or being perceived as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or non-gender binary.

Failure to meaningfully address campus hazing

Given that 55 percent of students experience some form of hazing and yet 95 percent of those incidents are never reported to faculty or staff, Committee Democrats believe reauthorization of HEA should do more to help students fight the persistent problem of campus hazing.79 Although institutions of higher education already submit some data on campus safety to the Department of Education, policymakers and the public lack information about hazing. Schools are required to report incidents of assault, however incidents of hazing in and around IHEs remain a factor in some student activities. To better understand hazing on college campuses, Rep. Fudge offered a common sense amendment to require colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to disclose incidents of hazing in their Annual Security Report and to report statistics of referrals for discipline and arrests specific to hazing. Additionally, to curb these incidents from happening, the amendment requires institutions to implement a hazing education program for students. Similar to the tactic employed by Majority members of the Committee to avoid an uncomfortable vote that would condemn racial and anti- LGBTQ violence, Rep. Thompson first offered an amendment that expressed a sense of Congress in opposition to campus hazing, but failed to include any meaningful reporting or training requirements. Rep. Fudge spoke against the disingenuous nature of the Thompson amendment before withdrawing her amendment.

79Allan, E.J. & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk. Initial findings from the National Study of Student Hazing. Retrieved from https://www.stophazing.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/06/hazing_in_view_web1.pdf.

H.R. 4508 DOUBLES DOWN ON UNPROVEN PROGRAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, AT THE EXPENSE OF STUDENTS

Rather than investing in effective programs, H.R. 4508 gives unfettered access to financial aid, to any institution for competency-based education (CBE), defined loosely in the bill. While quality CBE is a new, innovative, and flexible model that makes higher education more accessible for today's student, Committee Democrats fear that an expansion of CBE without strong accountability provisions to accompany such an expansion could result in poor outcomes for students and higher risk for waste, fraud, and abuse to taxpayers. While advocating for a full-bore expansion of CBE, H.R. 4508 does not similarly increase access to other programs with a proven track record of increasing access to higher education.

While many traditional higher education programs are based on time, CBE allows students to advance through their degree requirements upon demonstration of competency mastery. CBE is still in the early stages of its development, and while there are high-quality programs that are working, the best practices for what constitutes an effective program at scale and how certain requirements and regulations affect these programs are still unknown. This lack of information underscores the need to closely monitor, oversee, and evaluate limited expansion of CBE programs that are accountable to taxpayers before unchecked expansion of this untested model.

H.R. 4508 loosely defines CBE and makes all programs that meet the definition eligible to receive financial aid, while removing consumer and student protections to ensure program quality. For example, decisions about what constitutes a competency unit and amount of time required for an academic year are left entirely up to the school and the accreditor, making meaningful evaluation at-scale impossible. This irresponsible expansion of CBE carries huge potential for abuse that is likely to hurt students and working families.

Committee Democrats believe HEA should support innovation, but not at the expense of students. Congress needs to have data and evidence before creating a broad and unaccountable expansion of an untested model of delivery. For this reason, Rep. Polis offered an amendment to strike the bill's changes and, instead, provides demonstration authority for up to 100 CBE programs to access federal student aid dollars. Unlike the GOP bill, this amendment would require an annual evaluation of each CBE program in the demonstration project to determine program quality, the progress of participating students toward degree completion, and a students'ability to repay their loans and find employment upon graduation. The amendment would provide necessary information about the students served in these CBE programs, how their success compares to similarly situated students in traditional programs, and the types of waivers needed to implement quality CBE programs with fidelity. Despite the amendment's genesis in bipartisan standalone legislation supported by the Majority and passed by the full House of Representatives in the 114th Congress, the Polis amendment was not adopted.

Higher education programs proven-effective and deserving of expansion

While the percentage of individuals enrolling in college is higher than ever before, traditionally underserved students continue to enroll in college at lower rates than their peers. According to the What Works Clearinghouse, dual enrollment programs have a positive effect on college enrollment, credit accumulation, and degree attainment.80 Early college high school programs also have a positive impact--almost all students participating in early college high school programs earn free college credit before the end of senior year, including 30 percent who graduate high school with a college degree or credential.81 Given that at least two out of three early college high school students are students of color, nearly three out of five are low-income, and almost half are the first in their families to enroll in college, expanding these programs can help close gaps in college enrollment.82 Democrats believe dual enrollment and early college high school programs are part of the solution to increasing access to higher education, tackling college costs, and improving graduation rates--particularly for the students who need the most help.

80What Works Clearinghouse, Dual Enrollment Programs, Inst. For Educ. Stats., available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ InterventionReport/671

81Reinventing High Schools for Postsecondary Success, Jobs for the Future, available at http://www.jff.org/initiatives/early-college- designs

8282 http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/publications/ Unconventional--Wisdom--PDF--033011.pdf

Although H.R. 4508 includes a 10 percent carve out from TRIO programs for a new grant program called "innovative measures promoting postsecondary access and completion (IMPACT)" that may be used for dual enrollment and early college high schools, the available funding is woefully insufficient.

Rep. Espaillat (D-NY) offered an amendment that would create a competitive grant program funded at $250 million per year for colleges and universities that partner with local educational agencies to expand dual enrollment and early college high school programs that primarily serve low-income students. Funding would also be provided to States for the development and implementation of a statewide strategy for increasing access to dual enrollment programs. This amendment would invest in strategies and programs that are proven to significantly increase high school graduation rates, college readiness, access to college, and college completion. Given the important role dual enrollment can have on college access, Rep. Polis also offered an amendment that would encourage IHEs to create and expand opportunities for dual and concurrent enrollment. The proposed grant would help cover the cost of tuition, books, fees, or transportation. However, both amendments failed on a party-line vote.

H.R. 4508 also fails to significantly invest in international and foreign language programming. According to the National Research Council, a pervasive lack of knowledge about foreign cultures and languages in the United States threatens the security of our country and our ability to compete in the global economy.83 Additionally, defense, intelligence, and diplomatic agencies have an established and growing need for Americans with international knowledge, advanced foreign language skills, and cultural awareness.84 The lack of qualified individuals for these in-demand positions also leads to a lack of instructional leaders and teachers who can adequately provide a robust international education experience for undergraduate and post-baccalaureate students. In an attempt to address these issues, the United States invests in several domestic and international language-, cultural-, and business-focused programs authorized under Title VI of the HEA. H.R. 4508 ignores the demonstrated need for investment in these programs, and cuts funding to Title VI. It eliminates programs that help provide students with quality foreign language and area studies, and programs that provide teachers with resources and training to deliver quality instruction.

83https://www.nap.edu/read/11841/chapter/2 84https://languagepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Gail- McGinn-Paper-govt-language-shortages.pdf

Rep. Davis (D-CA) offered an amendment to strike the changes to Title VI made by H.R. 4508 and instead, increase the authorization for funding to $125 million, indexed to inflation for each successive fiscal year. The amendment sought to extend authorization of six currently funded programs and align five existing programs into two consolidated programs to better address the 21st century needs for educational opportunities that promote language, cultural, and professional competencies for students, teachers, and employers. Even though this amendment continues our nation's investment in language, cultural, and regional education and expertise so that we can compete economically and maintain robust defense, intelligence, and diplomatic communities, the majority voted against the amendment.

H.R. 4508 POSES SIGNIFICANT RISK TO VULNERABLE STUDENT POPULATIONS

Committee Democrats believe H.R. 4508 will negatively affect military recruitment and veterans. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), more than 200,000 members of the military owe more than $2.9 billion in student loan debt. The CFPB also indicates that military members are worried about paying off their student loan debt and losing Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). By creating one less generous income-driven repayment plan and eliminating PSLF, we worry that H.R. 4508 has the potential to curb military interest and harm veterans paying off their student loans.

For decades, for-profit colleges have targeted veterans for recruitment. By giving for-profit colleges increased access to taxpayer funding, repealing the gainful employment rule, the 90/10 rule, the borrower defense rule, State authorization, and weakening oversight mechanisms of for-profit colleges, including accreditors' ability to assess recruiting and admission practices, H.R. 4508 only makes it easier for for- profits to abuse our service members. This is why Rep. Bonamici introduced an amendment that would delay implementation of H.R. 4508 until the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Education, in consultation with the OIG of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, certifies that implementation of the legislation does not lead to fraud and abuse of veterans.

H.R. 4508 also places low-income students at risk. The GOP bill eliminates grant programs for needy students, ends subsidized loans for low-income individuals, and creates uncertainty during loan repayment. By eliminating these programs, H.R. 4508 raises the price of college for millions of students. To ensure low-income students are not hurt, Rep. Bonamici introduced an amendment that would stop H.R. 4508 from taking effect until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that such implementation does not result in decreased availability of federal grant aid and increased student loan debt for low-income students.

H.R. 4508 caps borrowing and drives more borrowers to private student loans, which Congressional Democrats fear will lead to an increase in private student loan debt for borrowers and cosigners. In an effort to determine if this is in fact the case, Rep. Bonamici also offered a separate amendment that would require GAO to certify that H.R. 4508 does not increase total student loan debt.

Committee Republicans assert that H.R. 4508 will meet the needs of today's students and improve college access, affordability, and completion. Yet, despite these unfounded claims, Committee Republicans rejected all four amendments offered by Rep. Bonamici to require good government watchdog agencies to study and confirm that the policies of the underlying bill do no harm to vulnerable student populations prior to enactment. If Republicans believed in the policies of H.R. 4508, there should be no hesitation to prove the legislation's positive impact prior to subjecting students and families to the bill's untested proposals.

H.R. 4508 IS SILENT ON BARRIERS TO EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION FACING VULNERABLE STUDENTS

While H.R. 4508 is a comprehensive rewrite of HEA, there are many barriers to equity in higher education that the bill fails to address. Committee Democrats believe that many of these issues deserve consideration in a comprehensive rewrite of HEA.

Status of DREAMers

In 2012, the federal government asked undocumented immigrants who were brought here at a young age to turn themselves in to the federal government in exchange for work authorization and temporary relief from deportation. Since then, nearly 800,000 undocumented young people received temporary permission to live and work in this country through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. According to the Center for American Progress, DACA recipients stand poised to contribute more than $460 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product over the next decade.85 However, in 2017, President Trump announced the arbitrary end of DACA and exposed these hard-working individuals to fear of deportation and uncertainty about their future.

85Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Tom Jawetz, and Angie Bautista Chavez, A New Threat to DACA Could Cost States Billions of Dollars, Ctr. for Am. Prog., Jul. 21, 2017, available at https:// www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/07/21/436419/new- threat-daca-cost-states-billions-dollars/.

Using data from the Migration Policy Institute on DACA- eligible individuals to estimate educational attainment among DACA individuals, we calculate that there are approximately 160,000 DACA students enrolled in college. Further, the analysis leads us to believe that roughly 88,000 DACA individuals have completed some college and an additional 40,000 have at least a bachelor's degree.86 DACA recipients are current and future social workers, teachers, engineers, lawyers, doctors, small-business owners and more. They are integral to our communities and economies.

86Analysis by House Education and the Workforce Committee Staff using Migration Policy Institute data available at https:// www.migrationpolicy.org/research/education-and-work-profiles-daca- population.

Committee Democrats believe Congress must pass a permanent solution so that these individuals no longer have to live under the threat of deportation. Multiple stakeholders in the higher education community, including several hundred colleges and universities, have expressed their support for such a solution. Rep. Grijalva offered the Dream Act--a bipartisan and widely supported bill that would create a path to citizenship for undocumented individuals who moved to the United States as children--as an amendment. This amendment sought to ensure that these individuals could reach their full potential as legal citizens and allow them to more fully contribute to their communities and our economy. Unfortunately, Republican Committee members ruled the amendment non-germane.

Rep. Espaillat introduced an amendment to allow undocumented individuals who meet certain requirements akin to DACA to become eligible for federal student aid. While this amendment would stop short of the full DREAM Act, it highlights the value of these individuals to our higher education system and national fabric. The government already invests in their K- 12 education and allowing them to enroll and complete college so that they can continue to contribute with higher earnings is not only sound economic policy, but also it is the human and moral thing to do. However, this amendment failed on a party line vote.

Improving the financial aid process for low-income students

Data show that students who complete the FAFSA are more likely to attend and complete college than students who do not complete the form.87 Unfortunately, only three out of five high school graduates (61 percent) from the Class of 2017 completed the FAFSA--leaving approximately $2.3 billion in unused Pell Grants.88 Although H.R. 4508 takes positive steps to increase access to the FAFSA by directing the Department of Education to make the FAFSA available using a mobile "app," the Department already has the authority to create such a tool. In fact, the Department of Education announced its plan for this app in November 2017.89

87FAFSA Completion Challenge, National College Access Network, available at http://www.collegeaccess.org/FAFSAchallenge.

88National FAFSA Completion Rate for High School Seniors, National College Access Network, available at http:// www.collegeaccess.org/FAFSACompletionRate.

89Joelle Fredman, FSA COO Unveils Mobile FAFSA App, Nat'l Assn. of Stud. Fin. Aid Admin. (Nov. 30, 2017) available at https:// www.nasfaa.org/news-item/13799/FSA_Unveils_Mobile_FAFSA_App.

Rep. Blunt Rochester offered an amendment that reduces the complexity and length of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and increases support for vulnerable populations. The amendment would restructure the FAFSA to better fit each student's financial situation and create a three-pathway model that asks fewer questions to students with less complex financial situations. The amendment also prohibits the Secretary of Education from burdening the lowest-income students with difficult financial questions that lead to confusion and produce unnecessary barriers to FAFSA completion. To verify the information, the Secretary of Education is directed to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Treasury to allow for the exchange of information needed to verify receipt of eligible federal benefits.

For FAFSA applicants who did not receive one of the means- tested Federal benefits outlined in the amendment but who have simple tax returns, this amendment would reverse cuts to the income threshold at which a student receives a zero-dollar estimated family contribution (EFC) back to $34,000 and pegs it to inflation. It also removes the requirement that independent students have dependents to be eligible for an automatic zero EFC. Unlike the expansion of the Simplified Needs Test created in H.R. 4508 that only helps middle-income families qualify for aid, the provisions in Rep. Blunt Rochester's amendment would allow low-income students to benefit from a maximum Pell Grant award.

Additionally, because one in 10 Pell students who do complete the FAFSA and persist past their first year of college fail to re-file despite the overwhelming likelihood of maintaining eligibility for Federal student aid, this amendment asks high school seniors who qualify for Pell to only fill out the FAFSA once, as opposed to filing annually. The amendment also sought to codify the use of prior-prior year (PPY) income data and increase support for working students by shielding more income (35 percent increase) from any offset to financial aid. Further, the amendment sought to require the FAFSA to be available in multiple languages, allows DREAMers to afford college, reinstates Pell Grant eligibility for students with drug-related offenses, and creates a standardized financial aid award letter. Committee Republicans voted against the Blunt Rochester amendment.

College Access for American Citizens of the Outlying Areas

Graduates from high schools in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa have no accredited four-year IHEs to attend in their Territories. This leaves students with no affordable option, forcing them to move from home and suffer significant personal cost in order to pursue a college degree beyond two years. To address this problem, Rep. Sablan introduced an amendment modeled after the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program (DC TAG) that sought to authorize $5 million dollars to cover the difference between the cost of in-State and out-of-State tuition for these students. The amendment failed along a party-line vote.

Remedial Education Reform

Our nation's current system of remediation in higher education is failing working families by increasing the cost of college and, all too often, leaving students without a meaningful degree. In 2010, fifty-one percent of students entering public two-year colleges and more than one in four students (29 percent) entering public four-year universities were required to take remedial coursework during their college experience. Unfortunately, only 50 percent of students in remedial education will ever complete a credit-bearing course, with even a lower percentage of students achieving a degree.90

90Laura Jimenez, Scott Sargrad, Jessica Morales, and Maggie Thompson, The Cost of Catching Up, Ctr. For Am. Prog. (Sept. 2016) available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 09/12082503/CostOfCatchingUp-report.pdf.

Rep. Norcross offered an amendment to provide competitive grants to a geographically diverse set of colleges and universities of various sizes to develop or improve remedial education based on five models that have shown success during small-scale implementation. Aside from implementing evidence- based models to improve remediation, students in programs funded under this grant may also use federal student aid dollars to support up to two years of remediation, removing another barrier to on-time completion for remedial students. The amendment requires evaluation of program effectiveness in order to determine the best systems of support that lead to college degree completion. The amendment was not adopted and failed by party-line vote.

Improving Access for Students with Disabilities

Rep. DeSaulnier (D-CA) offered an amendment to improve services for students with disabilities. Committee Democrats believe that reauthorization of HEA must recognize the fact that we are graduating more students with disabilities from high school than ever before. Yet, very few students with disabilities enter higher education and even fewer make it to completion. Rep. DeSaulnier's amendment would strike H.R. 4508's repeal of a program to train faculty to deliver accessible instruction; establish an Office of Accessibility in every IHE; provide a grant for university-wide implementation of universal design for learning; and expand higher education options for students with intellectual disabilities. The DeSaulnier amendment also strikes H.R. 4508's repeal of Title VIII, restoring a program that trains individuals to provide closed captioning services. The amendment was rejected with all Committee Republicans voting "no."

Foster and Homeless Youth

A report produced by the National Working Group on Foster Care and Education indicates that although 84 percent of 17-18 year olds in foster care want to go to college, less than 20 percent of those who graduate high school attend college. Furthermore, less than 10 percent of those that attempt college will eventually complete a postsecondary credential by the age of 25. This is why increasing access to and completion from college for these youth is important. To increase access, these youth need assistance when applying to and enrolling in college and targeted support while in college.

Rep. Krishnamoorthi offered an amendment that sought to improve college access, retention, and completion rates for foster and homeless youth by substantially improving State capacity to support these students as they transition to and attend college. In addition to these State formula grants, the amendment would help develop "Institutions of Excellence" committed to serving foster and homeless youth through robust support services, in collaboration with organizations skilled at helping these student populations, and substantial financial assistance. However, the amendment was voted down by Republican Committee Members.

Increased Funding Authorization for On-Campus Child Care

Committee Democrats believe that it is important to provide the necessary tailored supports to help students from all walks of life succeed in college. Since 2000, the number of student parents enrolled in higher education programs has increased by 50 percent. Today, more than one in four undergraduate students have children.91 In order to attend class, these students need childcare during the day. However, childcare can be cost prohibitive. According to the Economic Policy Institute, infant care is more expensive than the average in-State college tuition at public 4-year universities.92

91https://iwpr.org/issue/special-websites/student-parent-success- initiative/

92http://www.epi.org/files/2015/child-care-is-out-of-reach.pdf

In 1998, Congress authorized the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program to help institutions provide campus-based childcare services for low-income student parents. Although there has been an increase in college enrollment by student parents throughout the years, the appropriation amounts for CCAMPIS has decreased. Currently, CCAMPIS is appropriated at just over $15 million, which is a steep cut from its original appropriated level of $25 million. In H.R. 4508, Committee Republicans propose flat funding this vital program's authorization level.

Rep. Norcross introduced an amendment to increase the CCAMPIS authorization to $67 million, which is equal to the original authorization level of $45 million in FY 1999 adjusted for inflation. The amendment also adjusts the authorization level in future years by inflation. More student parents are going to college, and childcare costs are increasing. Committee Democrats believe Congress should be helping parents earn their degree, not penalizing them because they have children. Committee Republicans opposed the Norcross amendment.

Additional Supports for Vulnerable Student Populations

Committee Democrats also offered amendments to authorize grants to ensure institutions have the resources necessary to support students who are veterans through degree completion (Rep. Grijalva) and provide tuition assistance for Native American Students (Rep. Polis). The Grijalva amendment was defeated along a party-line vote. The Polis amendment was defeated and only received one Republican vote.

DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING MARKUP OF H.R. 4508

Committee Democrats put forward 40 amendments to improve the bill. These amendments would have expanded the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, reformed the federal student loan and campus based aid programs to serve students and institutions better, and provided Dreamers with both permanent status in the country and access to federal student aid. Additional Democratic amendments sought to ensure fiscal and programmatic accountability for for-profit institutions, allow for student- level data to improve higher education outcomes and policies, and restore the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. Democrats also offered proposals to simplify and improve the FAFSA, improve competency-based education programs, restore funding for teacher preparation programs and prospective teachers, and invest in communitycolleges, MSIs, foster students, homeless students, and students with disabilities. Committee Republicans rejected thirty-seven of the thirty-nine Democratic amendments that were considered.

(TABLE OMITTED)

CONCLUSION

The Committee, as recently as last Congress (114th) worked on a bipartisan basis to develop, introduce, and pass bills addressing discrete issues in higher education such as FAFSA simplification, enhanced student financial counseling, data transparency, and MSI program reform. Committee Democrats feel there are other policy areas in higher education of consensus that are ripe for bipartisan agreement, including loan servicing and accreditation reform. As evidenced by the policy proposals comprising H.R. 4508, Committee Republicans prioritize the delivery of financial aid to for-profit institutions and simplification of federal student aid that would make college more expensive for students and working families. Committee Democrats, as evidenced by the amendments offered during markup, prioritize increased investment in students and under-resourced institutions through the availability of more generous federal student aid products and institutional grants. While stark differences in policy approach to reforming and reauthorizing the HEA remain, Committee Democrats remain firm in their belief that there exists a bipartisan path forward to comprehensive HEA reauthorization that improves services and supports to ensure increased access to an affordable degree that leads to a good- paying job. Committee Democrats encourage the majority to abandon the hyper-partisan policies of H.R. 4508 and engage in bipartisan negotiations.

For the reasons stated above, Committee democrats unanimously opposed H.R. 4508 when the Committee on Education and the Workforce Committee considered it on December 12, 2017. We urged the House of Representatives to do the same unless there is a drastic revision of H.R. 4508.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott,

Ranking Member.

Susan A. Davis.

Raul M. Grijalva.

Joe Courtney.

Marcia L. Fudge.

Jared Polis.

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.

Frederica S. Wilson.

Suzanne Bonamici.

Mark Takano.

Alma S. Adams.

Mark DeSaulnier.

Donald Norcross.

Lisa Blunt Rochester.

Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Carol Shea-Porter.

Adriano Espaillat.

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE: Myron Struck, editor; 703/304-1897; [email protected]; https://targetednews.com