Comments on H.Res. 72, Directing House Committees to inventory and review existing, pending and proposed federal regulations

I thank the Chairman for yielding me time and I rise today in support of H.Res. 72 which directs certain House Committees to review the impact of federal regulations on job creation and economic growth. 

Last year, the Department of Education published a proposed regulation that sets a federal definition of “gainful employment” and requires certain institutions of higher education to seek the Department’s approval before creating new educational programs. 

This regulation will likely eliminate hundreds of course offerings and degree-granting programs at proprietary and non-profit institutions of higher education, preventing students from receiving access to these programs and, often to careers that will ensure that the United States remains competitive. 

Access and affordability remain important pieces of the higher education discussion.  As voters resoundingly underscored in November, the federal government should be focused on accountability for taxpayer money but that responsibility should not come at the expense of educational opportunities for students. 

Thomas Donohue, the President and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce in a recent speech on the ‘State of American Business,’ listed the gainful employment regulation as a prime example of federal overreach. He pointed out that, if permitted to become final, the regulation would deny students access to colleges and universities across the country.

Fewer students receiving the education and gaining the skills necessary to get a high-skilled, high-paying job means fewer people entering the workforce. 

While the proprietary school sector is a diverse group of institutions, many of these colleges and universities serve individuals who are looking for short-term education or seeking certifications that can be obtained in a year or less.

These are exactly the types of educational programs that provide individuals with new skills that can immediately be put to use in today’s dynamic workplace.

One of the many benefits of the proprietary school sector is its ability to create quickly new programs to train students to help the local population meet the labor shortages of a particular area.  Many of these institutions have advisory boards composed of key business leaders in the program areas offered by the institution.

The proposed gainful employment regulation will take away that flexibility by requiring the federal government’s approval for every new program created at a proprietary institution.

While we can all agree that we do not want “bad” programs to exist, this regulation paints an entire sector of higher education with the same brush and does nothing to give incentives to institutions to improve their student outcomes.

This regulation could also have a disproportionate impact on programs that serve low-income students who may need to borrow more funding under federal student loan programs to pay for their education.  In either case, colleges and universities will have difficulty enrolling students into educational courses that prepare them for careers.

The gainful employment regulation is the exact opposite of what the federal government needs to be pushing during an economic downturn.