Calling for a peaceful resolution to the current electoral crisis in Kenya.

I thank my distinguished friend from Washington State.

A little bit of irony here. I had an amendment that we fully debated in committee on students' free speech, and I wanted to offer it today. But isn't it ironic that while I was trying to argue for a student bill of rights and free speech, that we're not allowed to have free speech and a bill of rights in the United States Congress. How in the world, when we're having 27 amendments, and this amendment was overwhelmingly supported by our party, we only have, out of 27, four from Republicans, and two of those are Republican opposed. If we have time for 27 amendments, why can't we have an amendment for free speech? I just don't understand.

I never understood the opposition to the amendment, but what an insult to the American people that when we want to debate whether there should be a student bill of rights on campuses, which is being adopted and introduced in many places around the country, that the United States Congress can't even debate on the House floor a free speech amendment and protection for speech in colleges. This is an outrage, an embarrassment, and a humiliation to the Rules Committee. Why 27 amendments, but not one on a student bill of rights? Could it be that it's a difficult vote?

David Horowitz, and I will insert into the Record an article, ``In Defense of Intellectual Diversity,'' has been a champion of this problem. Now, we had a very interesting debate in committee. The chairman of the committee said that some of these students who have been complaining should grow up, and cited a case of where he struggled. And certainly when I was a college student in the late sixties and early seventies and wore a button ``I'm proud to be a square'' when most of America wasn't proud to be a square, I certainly had my share of debates, my share of harassment, my share of being yelled down, trying to offer a differing view than the view that was popular in the late sixties. And some of that goes with being on a college campus, but there are examples all over this country where intellectual diversity, intellectual alternatives are being stymied in academia. This amendment would try to protect those rights.

Some of it's from the far left; a lot of it is on the conservative side right now. In fact, next Tuesday Ben Stein has a movie coming out, ``Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,'' that will debut about one of those debates in science. Where there is an effort to stamp it out, particularly when you get into government, economics, sociology, philosophy, and so on, increasingly there is a rigidity; and if you disagree you are harassed, your grades can be altered, your papers can be given back to you, speeches and alternative speakers are shouted down. And, yes, there are nominal processes to do it, but if there are nominal processes to do it, what is wrong? This amendment says, for example, ``Individual colleges and universities have different missions and each institution should design its academic program in accordance. Within the context of institutional mission, the college should promote intellectual pluralism and facilitate free and open exchange of ideas.'' Well, that's not very controversial.

``D, Students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from speaking out, discriminated against, or subject to official sanctions because of their personal, political, ideological or religious beliefs.'' Isn't that a terrible, risky, difficult vote?

``Students should be treated equally and fairly, including evaluation and grading, without regard to or consideration of their personal political views or ideological beliefs.'' That's just awful. How could we vote on that in the United States Congress to say there would be no persecution? There is no ``whereas'' clauses here. There's nothing in here that says campuses are liberal, campuses are conservative. We don't have any ``whereas'' clauses that are insulting in here. There is nothing in here that's partisan; I just read you the guts of the bill.

Why can't we vote on this? Why is this opposed? Why is it opposed so much that we're not even allowed to debate it on the floor of Congress? How can we say, in a higher education bill, that we believe in inquiry, that we believe in searching for knowledge, but when we had an amendment to protect students who might have a difference of opinion that we wouldn't even allow a vote?

[From the Chronicle Review, Feb. 13, 2004]

In Defense of Intellectual Diversity

(By David Horowitz)

I am the author of the Academic Bill of Rights, which many

student governments, colleges and universities, education

commissions, and legislatures are considering adopting.

Already, the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a

version as legislation, and the Senate should soon follow

suit.

State governments are also starting to rally around efforts

to protect student rights and intellectual diversity on

campuses: In Colorado, the State Senate president, John K.

Andrews Jr., has been very concerned about the issue, and

State Rep. Shawn Mitchell has just introduced legislation

requiring public institutions to create and publicize

processes for protecting students against political bias.

Lawmakers in four other states have also expressed a strong

interest in legislation of their own, based on some version

of the Academic Bill of Rights. Students for Academic Freedom

is working to secure the measure's adoption by student

governments and university administrations on 105 member

campuses across the country (http:// www.studentsforacademicfreedom .org).

The Academic Bill of Rights is based squarely on the almost

100-year-old tradition of academic freedom that the American

Association of University Professors has established. The

bill's purposes are to codify that tradition; to emphasize

the value of ``intellectual diversity,'' already implicit in

the concept of academic freedom; and, most important, to

enumerate the rights of students to not be indoctrinated or

otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in the

classroom or any educational setting.

Although the AAUP has recognized student rights since its

inception, however, most campuses have rarely given them the

attention or support they deserve. In fact, it is safe to say

that no college or university now adequately defends them.

Especially recently, with the growing partisan activities of

some faculty members and the consequent politicization of

some aspects of the curriculum, that lack of support has

become one of the most pressing issues in the academy.

Moreover, because I am a well-known conservative and have

published studies of political bias in the hiring of college

and university professors, critics have suggested that the

Academic Bill of Rights is really a ``right-wing plot'' to

stack faculties with political conservatives by imposing

hiring quotas. Indeed, opponents of legislation in Colorado

have exploited that fear, writing numerous op-ed pieces about

alleged right-wing plans to create affirmative-action

programs for conservative professors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual intent

of the Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics

from the classroom. The bill that I'm proposing explicitly

forbids political hiring or firing: ``No faculty shall be

hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of

his or her political or religious beliefs.'' The bill thus

protects all faculty members--left-leaning critics of the war

in Iraq as well as right-leaning proponents of it, for

example--from being penalized for their political beliefs.

Academic liberals should be as eager to support that

principle as conservatives.

Some liberal faculty members have expressed concern about a

phrase in the bill of rights that singles out the social

sciences and humanities and says hiring in those

areas should be based on competence and expertise and with

a view toward ``fostering a plurality of methodologies and

perspectives.'' In fact, the view that there should be a

diversity of methodologies is already accepted practice.

Considering that truth is unsettled in these discipline

areas, why should there not be an attempt to nurture a

diversity of perspectives as well?

Perhaps the concern is that ``fostering'' would be

equivalent to ``mandating.'' The Academic Bill of Rights

contains no intention, implicit or otherwise, to mandate or

produce an artificial ``balance'' of intellectual

perspectives. That would be impossible to achieve and would

create more mischief than it would remedy. On the other hand.

a lack of diversity is not all that difficult to detect or

correct.

By adopting the Academic Bill of Rights, an institution

would recognize scholarship rather than ideology as an

appropriate academic enterprise. It would strengthen

educational values that have been eroded by the unwarranted

intrusion of faculty members' political views into the

classroom. That corrosive trend has caused some academics to

focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon

their responsibilities as professional educators with

obligations to students of all political persuasions. Such

professors have lost sight of the vital distinction between

education and indoctrination, which--as the AAUP recognized

in its first report on academic freedom, in 1915--is not a

legitimate educational function.

Because the intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to

restore academic values, I deliberately submitted it in draft

form to potential critics who did not share my political

views. They included Stanley Fish, dean of the College of

Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at

Chicago; Michael Berube, a professor of English at

Pennsylvania State University at University Park; Todd

Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia

University; and Philip Klinkner, a professor of government at

Hamilton College. While their responses differed, I tried to

accommodate the criticisms I got, for example deleting a

clause in the original that would have required the

deliberations of all committees in charge of hiring and

promotion to be recorded and made available to a ``duly

constituted authority.''

I even lifted wholesale one of the bill's chief tenets--

that colleges and professional academic associations should

remain institutionally neutral on controversial political

issues--from an article that Dean Fish wrote for The

Chronicle (``Save the World on Your Own Time,'' January 23,

2003). He has also written an admirable book, Professional

Correctness (Clarendon Press, 1995), which explores the

inherent conflict between ideological thinking and

scholarship.

Since the Academic Bill of Rights is designed to clarify

and extend existing principles of academic freedom, its

opponents have generally been unable to identify specific

provisions that they find objectionable. Instead, they have

tried to distort the plain meaning of the text. The AAUP

itself has been part of that effort, suggesting in a formal

statement that the bill's intent is to introduce political

criteria for judging intellectual diversity and, thus, to

subvert scholarly standards. It contends that the bill of

rights ``proclaims that all opinions are equally valid,''

which ``negates an essential function of university

education.'' The AAUP singles out for attack a phrase that

refers to ``the uncertainty and unsettled character of all

human knowledge'' as the rationale for respecting diverse

viewpoints in curricula and reading lists in the humanities

and social sciences. The AAUP claims that ``this premise . .

. is anti-thetical to the basic scholarly enterprise of the

university, which is to establish and transmit knowledge.''

The association's statements are incomprehensible. After

all, major schools of thought in the contemporary academy--

pragmatism, postmodernism, and deconstructionism, to name

three--operate on the premise that knowledge is uncertain

and, at times, relative. Even the hard sciences, which do not

share such relativistic assumptions, are inspired to continue

their research efforts by the incomplete state of received

knowledge. The university's mission is not only to

transmit knowledge but to pursue it--and from all vantage

points. What could be controversial about acknowledging

that? Further, the AAUP's contention that the Academic

Bill of Rights threatens true academic standards by

suggesting that all opinions are equally valid is a red

herring, as the bill's statement on intellectual diversity

makes clear: ``Exposing students to the spectrum of

significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined

in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty.''

(Emphasis added.)

As the Academic Bill of Rights states, ``Academic

disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to

unsettled questions.'' That is common sense. Why not make it

university policy?

The only serious opposition to the Academic Bill of Rights

is raised by those who claim that, although its principles

are valid, it duplicates academic-freedom guidelines that

already exist. Elizabeth Hoffman, president of the University

of Colorado System, for example, has personally told me that

she takes that position.

But with all due respect, such critics are also mistaken.

Most universities' academic-freedom policies generally fail

to make explicit, let alone codify, the institutions'

commitment to intellectual diversity or the academic rights

of students. The institutions also do not make their policies

readily available to students--who, therefore, are generally

not even aware that such policies exist.

For example, when I met with Elizabeth Hoffman, she

directed me to the University of Colorado's Web site, where

its academic-freedom guidelines are posted. Even if those

guidelines were adequate, posting them on an Internet site

does not provide sufficient protection for students, who are

unlikely to visit it. Contrast the way that institutions

aggressively promote other types of diversity guidelines--

often establishing special offices to organize and enforce

all sorts of special diversity-related programs--to such a

passive approach to intellectual diversity.

At Colorado's Web site, for example, one can read the

following: ``Sections of the AAUP's 1940 Statement of

Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure have been adopted

as a statement of policy by the Board of Regents.'' Few

people reading that article or visiting the site would

suspect that the following protection for students is

contained in the AAUP's 1940 statement: ``Teachers are

entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their

subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into

their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to

their subject.''

Is there a college or university in America--including the

University of Colorado--where at least one professor has not

introduced controversial matter on the war in Iraq or the

Bush White House in a class whose subject matter is not the

war in Iraq, or international relations, or presidential

administrations? Yet intrusion of such subject matter, in

which the professor has no academic expertise, is a breach of

professional responsibility and a violation of a student's

academic rights.

We do not go to our doctors' offices and expect to see

partisan propaganda posted on the doors, or go to hospital

operating rooms and expect to hear political lectures from

our surgeons. The same should be true of our classrooms and

professors, yet it is not. When I visited the political-

science department at the University of Colorado at Denver

this year, the office doors and bulletin boards were

plastered with cartoons and statements ridiculing

Republicans, and only Republicans. When I asked President

Hoffman about that, she assured me that she would request

that such partisan materials be removed and an appropriate

educational environment restored. To the best of my

knowledge, that has yet to happen.

Not everyone would agree about the need for such restraint,

and it should be said that the Academic Bill of Rights makes

no mention of postings and cartoons--although that does not

mean that they are appropriate. I refer to them only to

illustrate the problem that exists in the academic culture

when it comes to fulfilling professional obligations that

professors owe to all students. I would ask liberal

professors who are comfortable with such partisan

expressions how they would have felt as students seeking

guidance from their own professors if they had to walk a

gantlet of cartoons portraying Bill Clinton as a lecher,

or attacking antiwar protesters as traitors.

The politicized culture of the university is the heart of

the problem. At Duke University this year, a history

professor welcomed his class with the warning that he had

strong ``liberal'' opinions, and that Republican students

should probably drop his course. One student did. Aided by

Duke Students for Academic Freedom, the young man then

complained. To his credit, the professor apologized. Although

some people on the campus said the professor had been joking,

the student clearly felt he faced a hostile environment. Why

should the professor have thought that partisanship in the

classroom was professionally acceptable in the first place?

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a

required summer-reading program for entering freshmen stirred

a controversy in the state legislature last fall. The

required text was Barbara Ehrenreich's socialist tract on

poverty in America, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in

America (Metropolitan Books, 2001). Other universities have

required the identical text in similar programs, and several

have invited Ehrenreich to campus to present her views under

the imprimatur of the institution and without rebuttal.

That reflects an academic culture unhinged. When a

university requires a single partisan text of all its

students, it is a form of indoctrination, entirely

inappropriate for an academic institution. If many

universities had required Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal

Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (Vintage

Books, 1992) or Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery From

the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003) as

their lone freshman-reading text, there would have been a

collective howl from liberal faculties, who would have

immediately recognized the inappropriateness of such

institutional endorsement of controversial views. Why not

require two texts, or four? (My stepson, who is a high-school

senior, was required to read seven texts during his summer

vacation.)

The remedy is so simple. Requiring readings on more than

one side of a political controversy would be appropriate

educational policy and would strengthen, not weaken, the

democracy that supports our educational

system. Why is that not obvious to the administrators at

Chapel Hill and the other universities that have instituted

such required-reading programs? It's the academic culture,

stupid.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

We're gathered here today to debate or support H.R. 4848, a bill which extends that which Congress has passed before, and that was an important bill for its time. It's an important bill to extend for, in doing so, we acknowledge the innate value of helping those suffering from mental illness. We acknowledge in Congress that for those who suffer these afflictions, they may be relieved of that suffering through receiving necessary treatment.

In compassion, we as a body extend our hand in support of those who suffer the pains of mental illness. We acknowledge that their illnesses are real, and that the appropriate treatments give them hope to slough off the yoke of their illness and again become a fully productive member of our Nation, our workplace and our family.

The significance of this act may be overshadowed by other events of the day, but it is essential that we not fail to appreciate the value of this moment, not only in terms of what this bill does but what it does not do and, moreover, why we need to enact this law at all.

First to the reasons for this bill. As John Adams said, ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

He made that comment not because our Constitution is a vehicle to support any particular religion; rather, he noted the inherent inadequacies of any body of laws, and that they cannot replace the moral light that should guide us when no law has yet been writ to define that path.

Indeed, we cannot legislate common sense, we cannot mandate morality, and we cannot litigate compassion. We can, however, establish laws to define the limits of what can be tolerated. And where the laws do not apply, we hope that the goodness and faith that guides our hearts is sufficient to drive us to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, when it comes to dealing with mental illness, our society, our culture and our government has failed to do the right thing. We have spent billions, hundreds of billions, I dare say, over the years to help those with mental illness, but we have remained short-sighted at best, or blind at worst as to what we truly must do.

It is my wish that people would be personally guided by their own sense of justice and compassion to do the right thing in the treatment of mental illness. Instead, we remain willfully and woefully ignorant to the causes, the diagnoses, and the treatment of mental illness. We have denied its very existence, perhaps wasting our hope in the hope it would go away. We have instead tried to wish away its effects. We have minimized the impact, trivialized the causes, and criticized the patients. We have used words to make mental illness the butt of cruel jokes. We have used words like ``crazy'' or ``retarded'' or ``idiot,'' as if attaching a derogatory label would free us from the responsibility for helping or treating those with these illnesses.

I ask you: Would we use such disparaging remarks to describe persons with cancer, with diabetes, with heart disease? Could demeaning words make any of those diseases disappear or less painful? Can derisive words motivate someone to seek help? No, instead they drive the person further into the shadows to deny their own illness, to avoid treatment and not even help themselves.

In many ways, we have not advanced very far beyond the days of the Salem witch trials when those with mental illness were ignorantly tried as criminals, sentenced to death, or cruelly treated with torture.

Think this is not true today? Well, think again. Our prisons are filled with persons who suffer from mental illness. Our courts are packed with victims of child abuse or sex abuse. Our churches are filled with those who are praying to be relieved of the terrible strains befalling them. Families break up. Jobs are lost. Children fail in school and lives are lost from untreated mental illness. And yet we continue to deny it is there and place barriers between the patient and the cure.

In my many years of practicing psychology, I have never, never met a patient who was cured by denial. But denial is the common treatment for so many when it comes to acknowledging or treating mental illness.

Listen, you cannot whisper it away, for even in the silence, even in the darkness, mental illness cries out for help.

One in five Americans will suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. One in 10 young people suffer from mental illness severe enough to cause some form of impairment.

Untreated drug and alcohol addictions cost Americans $400 billion each year. A Rand study estimated that depression alone cost employers $51 billion per year in absenteeism and lost productivity.

Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. More years of life are lost to suicide than any other single cause except heart disease and cancer.

Thirty thousand Americans commit suicide annually, and half a million attempt it. Among college students, three die each day from suicide.

The Federal Government estimates that about 12\1/2\ million people have alcohol problems. It costs businesses $134 billion a year in lost productivity.

Does treatment work to help people with mental illness? Yes, it does. Studies of depression in the workplace have shown thousands of dollars of savings per employee when they receive treatment.

We note that when 80 percent of health care costs are used to treat chronic illness, that the risk for depression doubles among those who are chronically ill and not receiving treatment. The cost doubles as well.

The combination of appropriate medication and treatments have been very effective in treating anxiety, depression, bipolar illness and behavior disorders. But when health plans do not pay for appropriate professional care, where does the treatment come from?

Seventy-five percent of psychiatric medications are prescribed by non-psychiatrists. Now look at that in the context of other illnesses. Would we tolerate it if 75 percent of insurance plans said that most babies would be delivered by people with minimal training? How about requiring that brain surgery is done by those who only had a few weeks of training in medical school. Would we accept that? We would not.

This bill extends what we have done before. It helps in a small but important way. But it does not move us to where we need to be. Perhaps the lesson here is that there are many things we need to do for ourselves, many things we need to do to reach out to others and help. But it does not cure the barriers. It does not identify which diagnoses need to be treated. We will need to do more. Eventually we as a Nation need to come to terms with what needs to be done. The cost savings of providing the right treatment are huge. The costs of continuing to provide the wrong care, or denying care, are massive.

As Benjamin Franklin said, ``By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compassion and passion of my friend from Rhode Island who has been such a leader in mental health parity.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), another great leader whose heart goes out to those in need of mental health issues.

Madam Speaker, I am just inquiring how much time we have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, one of the important points that we need to recognize as we address these issues of mental health and mental illness today are the causes. For so often, as I described earlier, when people are thinking about or talking about mental illness, we oftentimes do not understand that it really

is a problem of brain functioning. It's written off too often as the worried well of people complaining or malingering, when really we need to understand the following.

When we're talking about problems with heart disease, it's easy to look upon those problems, to look at X-rays and other tests and MRIs and see if the function of the heart is appropriate, if the valves are working, if the arteries and veins are blocked or free.

When we look at other illnesses throughout the body, there are so many tests which we have grown accustomed to, MRIs, CT scans, EKGs, et cetera. And we look at those things and we're able to see that something is wrong based upon the results of those tests.

One of the problems with mental illness, leading to the prejudices about mental illness, is that there are no tests like that. One cannot take an X-ray of the brain and say that the person has depression or anxiety disorder or bipolar illness. There have been multiple studies looking at patterns that may show up on some tests. But my point is this: Just because we cannot see it on a medical test like that does not mean it does not exist.

Back in the 1800s, Louis Pasteur described the microbes that finally led us to understand about germs and diseases. Before that, no one had any tests to look at that. It did not mean they didn't exist. That merely meant that we did not know that they were there. But it was a full century later before we found that one could treat diseases with antibiotics, and we're still learning more about it.

So, too, it is important we understand that so often when discussing these issues of mental illness treatment, people raise the question that you cannot really test for it. Now, those are areas that science and research are still needed to determine what we can do, but it does not mean they don't exist just because we cannot find those.

Instead, what we rely on is the comments made by persons themselves or watching the behavior of persons because, indeed, those are the indicators that tell us something is wrong with the function of the human brain. It is a neurological problem. It is a neurobehavioral exhibition of those problems. It is those problems that we have to understand that sometimes are treated with medication and sometimes are treated with counseling and sometimes both, but we have to make sure we understand that we cannot write these off with treatments just by ignoring them or just saying that someone else without treatment because an insurance plan will cover that is enough.

Many times cardiologists will tell us that they recognize when they give someone a diagnosis that it's terminal or severe, that many of those patients will themselves exhibit symptoms of depression, so they automatically write a prescription for an anti- depressant drug. That's not enough.

The comments I made before about how, when a person has a chronic illness, their health care costs can double if they have untreated depression, that alone should wake us up to understand that we need to be treating mental illness, not ignoring it. That alone should wake up employers to understand that improved productivity and lowered health care costs should be enough to motivate us to do that. That alone should be information that the Congressional Budget Office, who scores these bills, should tell us that there are scores that are important in terms of savings. Unfortunately, they don't tell us scores for prevention. And so it goes on.

These are things we need to be continuing to do, and that's why we will continue to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, many important things have been said by several Members, and passionately, on this bill. What we also have to remember, as we wrap this up, is somewhere in America there are people who are suffering in silence, there are children who are facing abuse, angry spouses who are attacking one another, anxious mothers struggling to care for their children, and, of course, throughout the workplace, as has been so carefully documented here, so many problems. It is important that we not only pass this bill strongly but also continue to work together.

I commend my colleague, Chairman Pallone, and the work that he does and to continue the work that he does in leading this. Myself and many Members from our side of the aisle continue to stand ready to make sure we work out any issues with regard to expanding issues of mental health parity. We know that all of us care deeply about those in need and all of us remain committed to helping those in need from our side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 956 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 956.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 956 provides for consideration of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor.

The rule makes in order the Education and Labor Committee reported substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule makes in order the 27 amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes, except the Miller manager's amendment, which is debatable for 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last year Congress passed the College Cost Reduction Act to increase college financial aid by $18 billion, the single largest increase in aid in over 60 years. That legislation significantly increased the maximum amount that Pell Grant recipients can receive at no new cost to taxpayers and was a strong start to this Congress' efforts to make higher education a reality for America's students. But that, Mr. Speaker, was just the beginning.

I'm proud to rise today in strong support of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. This will continue our efforts to make college more affordable and more accessible for America's students, while making investments in critical areas to strengthen our workforce.

Our Nation is blessed to have the finest system of higher education in the world. There is a breadth of opportunities available to our graduating high school seniors: vocational and technical school, 2- and 4-year colleges, and graduate and professional schools.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge we face today is to ensure that our institutions of higher education are accessible to all, and the legislation we are passing today will make it easier for low-income and middle-class families to achieve the benefits of higher education as they climb up the ladder of success.

Investing in our students not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and strengthens our competitive edge in the global marketplace. This bill continues this Congress' efforts to strengthen America's workforce by creating programs to improve teacher training and bolster student interests in science, math, and technology.

We must also recognize and applaud our nontraditional students, those members of our workforce who are seizing the opportunity to continue their education while holding down full-time jobs and sometimes raising families. These students are often attending school less than half time, and thus, they sometimes benefit very little from traditional student aid. That's why I support my colleague Congressman Baird's amendment, which I hope will be incorporated into this bill, to require the Secretary of Education to study and recommend how best to design a loan program targeted at less than half-time students.

One of the keys to expanding access to our institutions of higher learning is to bring down the exorbitant cost of attending college. Tuition hikes in recent years have been stunning, amounting to a 31 percent increase at a 4-year public college in the last 5 years alone.

This bill enhances transparency in college tuition by requiring colleges to report their reasons for tuition hikes and the plans they have for lowering costs. It also requires the Secretary of Education to publish a higher education price index, providing students with the opportunity to compare institutions by State, sector, and change in tuition and fees from one year to the next. This will allow students to make wiser decisions in choosing institutions that are a good fit for them and the dreams to which they aspire.

A more immediate way to make the possibility of attaining a college degree a reality is to increase the aid available to our students, and I'm proud that this bill does that, doubling the maximum Pell Grant amount to $9,000.

Beyond the sticker price of tuition, any student will tell you that the cost of textbooks is also a challenging cost they incur. The average student spends about $1,000 per year on textbooks, which is nearly 20 percent of tuition and fees at a 4-year public institution. Such high costs for textbooks can be the deciding factor which dashes or delays the dream of obtaining a college degree and a better life for many.

This legislation requires publishers to provide specific information about pricing so that faculty has full information when making purchasing decisions so students can help plan for expenses.

And in addition, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support an amendment offered by my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan, along with Representative Jason Altmire, which will create a pilot grant program to assist colleges in setting up textbook rental programs. These programs already exist in 25 schools, and a pilot test at Bowling Green State University in Ohio last spring saved 151 students $11,000.

We must also continue to strive to reduce the achievement gap in higher education between low-income and minority students and their peers. We can do this by ensuring that all students are prepared for the rigorous demands of higher learning. This bill strengthens the proven TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support programs for low- income and first generation students. I have seen firsthand, Mr. Speaker, the great things that these programs can do in Elyria in my district, which is a GEAR UP site, and the University of Akron, which has received TRIO funding. I look forward to the expansion of these proven programs so that more students in Ohio and around the country may benefit.

This legislation also addresses the disappointment we saw last year as the student loan scandal unfolded. Those financial aid directors that received kickbacks and payoffs and luxury gifts from private lenders exhibited a spectacular abuse of power and betrayal of the students they serve. This legislation cracks down on that abuse and restores accountability by requiring institutions and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct and protect students from aggressive marketing by lenders. Institutions will also be required to provide students with information about Federal and private borrowing options.

This bill will also encourage and make it financially feasible for students to become public servants by authorizing up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness for military servicemembers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, first responders, nurses, educators, prosecutors, and public defenders.

This bill also continues the work this Congress has undertaken to support our troops by creating new scholarship and support programs for active duty military personnel, their family members, and veterans. It also establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college and ensures fairness in student aid and housing aid for veterans to make it easier for them to go to college while also fulfilling their military service duties.

I'm also proud to support an amendment being offered by my colleague Congresswoman Susan Davis that is based on legislation of which I'm a cosponsor. Her amendment will prevent interest from accruing for active duty servicemembers and qualifying National Guard members for the duration of their activation up to 60 months when serving in a combat zone.

Mr. Speaker, the dream of a college education is moving further and further out of reach for middle- and low-income families. We need to put this prospect of a college education and a brighter future back in reach. Passing H.R. 4137 and building on the work we started last year is an important and priceless investment in the future of our children, our communities, and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to refresh the memory of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on past rules.

The last time the higher education reauthorization bill was considered in the House was just 2 years ago, in the 109th Congress. It, too, was done under a structured amendment process using two rules. Those two structured rules allowed a total of 22 amendments out of the 113 submitted, fewer than the rule we are offering today.

This is a very fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the bill. The rule makes in order 27 amendments on a wide variety of important issues relating to the higher education of our Nation's youth and others seeking a post-secondary education. Members on both sides of the aisle will be able to offer amendments that they believe will further improve this already very bipartisan bill.

This bill is one of the most bipartisan products of the 110th Congress, reported from the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 45-0. There is no arguing with those facts.

And, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of higher education are undeniable for students, their families, and for our country and society at large. As a nation, we recognize this, having always been a global standard bearer and our high regard for the merits of higher education. Reaching the American Dream of leading a secure and fulfilling life is a goal that we can make achievable when we open the doors of college to all.

The fact that this bill passed 45-0 out of the Education Committee is a testament to the great work that the committee has done on this bill and to the fact that we care tremendously about the future of our children.

Listening to parents from my district, Mr. Speaker, and across the country, I hear about how the ability to send their children to college weighs on their minds. And talking to professors, counselors, and administrators at the University of Akron, Loraine County Community College, and other schools across Ohio, I also know that student debt is a tremendous factor in determining which professions our students are choosing to enter.

Nearly two-thirds of all students at 4-year colleges nationwide graduate with loan debt these days, with the average amount of debt surpassing $15,000. This bill we're passing goes a long way to changing that distressing fact.

By increasing aid and encouraging colleges to rein in tuition, this legislation will enable more students to pursue their passions and give back in service to their communities and our country.

I am proud that this bill continues the work of this New Direction Congress in making necessary improvements for the workforce of tomorrow. We have seen the necessity of investing in stem education, and this legislation continues the effort we began last year in passing the innovation agenda by improving teacher training and development programs and focusing on recruiting teachers into high-demand science and technology fields.

In today's global economy, it's essential that America's workforce remain competitive at an international level.

Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education Act has not been reauthorized in a decade. The Senate has already passed a reauthorization, so we must act expediently to pass this vital bill so the President may sign it into law.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this bill and supporting a brighter future for our students, our families, and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker who will close debate for this side. Because we have the right to close, I will reserve the time until the gentleman has closed and yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations (Mr. Obey), who will close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 283) calling for a peaceful resolution to the current electoral crisis in Kenya, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, ``Kenya is at a crossroads.'' Those are the words spoken this morning by the chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Kenya in a hearing that I chaired on the current crisis today.

Kenya had been considered a linchpin on economic and political stability in the East Africa region for decades. We always were proud of the accomplishments and the achievements of them, and we often pointed to Kenya as a beacon of how other African countries and countries throughout the developing world should move towards democracy. However, we have seen very sad occurrences during the past month or two. H. Con. Res. 283 seeks to address the unfortunate and still unfolding political crisis in Kenya.

I went to Kenya last month to assess the situation and to encourage political, religious, community, and civil society leaders to find a peaceful resolution to the current situation. I visited thousands of displaced children in Jamhuri showground and met with volunteers from diverse backgrounds. It was remarkable and encouraging to see Kenyans coming together to help their fellow citizens, donating food and material to those in need.

Indeed, witnessing the violence and meeting the young victims was deeply troubling. Yet, I am confident that Kenyans will come out of this crisis united. Kenyans must put Kenya first.

Kenyans of different religious, ethnic, and economic backgrounds live together peacefully in a region long marred by civil war and political chaos. Unfortunately, like the millions of Kenyans, the more than 170,000 refugees from the Ogaden and Somalia regions in Kenya will also be affected, because when the central government is affected, those other people, refugees and other groups in need, are also affected, as will be the lives of so many others in the countries surrounding Kenya. Many depend on Kenya for economic and industrial progress for their countries to survive.

On December 27, 2007, the citizens of Kenya went peacefully to the polls to elect a new parliament and a new president, despite the logistics challenges and long lines. More than 14 million Kenyans registered to vote. That is 82 percent of the eligible voters. An estimated 2,547 parliamentary candidates were qualified to run in the 210 constituencies, a clear indication of the desire and the determination of Kenyans to participate and to be a part of the political process in their country.

Incoming President Mwai Kibaki was hastily declared the winner by the Electoral Commission of Kenya, after a series of highly irregular events which cast significant doubt on his so-called victory. Let me be blunt: The election results announced by the ECK do not reflect the wishes of the Kenyan people. The people of Kenya voted for change. What they were given was more of the status quo.

In reaction to what occurred, Kenyans went to the streets to express their frustration and anger. The protests soon turned violent, and it is still unfolding as we speak. More than 1,000 people have been killed and over 300,000 displaced as a result of unrest, including an estimated 80,000 children under the age of 5, and these young lives are being traumatized as we speak. Millions more have been adversely affected. Two members of the parliament from the opposition ODM were killed in

January, reducing a five-member lead to three.

The instability in Kenya continues to threaten and affect the economies of neighboring countries, imposing serious threats to regional stability, a fragile region in the first place. But this is going to make it even more fragile. The Kenyan economy has been hit hard and recovery may take a long time.

H. Con. Res. 283 does several critical things. One, it strongly condemns the ongoing violence in Kenya and urges all parties concerned to immediately end the use of violence as a means to achieve their political objectives. It also calls for all parties to participate in good faith and dialogue mediated by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, and asks President Bush to consider imposing asset freezes and travel bans on leaders in the Party of National Unity, the Orange Democratic Movement, and other relevant actors who refuse to engage in this dialogue to end the current crisis.

Additionally, the resolution calls for the international community to respond to the grave humanitarian needs of the people of Kenya and all neighboring countries to provide assistance to those affected by the violence.

At the same time, it calls for a review of our assistance to Kenya and restrict any nonhumanitarian assistance.

Before concluding, though, I would like to point out that U.S. diplomatic efforts in the wake of the election have not been stellar. Indeed, the response to the Kenyan election crisis proves beyond a doubt that some of the administration officials are too quick to embrace a government that engages in electoral abuses and overlook rather than condemn its electoral and human rights abuses.

We saw this happen in the 2005 elections in Ethiopia. We must proceed carefully and thoughtfully and work with our partners in the EU and AU to help resolve this crisis. I also want to emphasize a very critical point. Despite statements by some to the contrary, what is happening in Kenya is not an ethnic conflict. It is a political conflict with ethnic overtones.

We must look closely at the historical and political context to really understand and to avoid making additional mistakes on how we characterize what is happening today in Kenya. However, if political leaders in Kenya do not make a serious effort to stop the violence now and address the systemic problems that exist in their political structures, the violence we are seeing could certainly reach a point of no return.

Once that happens, it will be very difficult to stop. It is critical that a transitional coalition government is established with a clear mandate to implement necessary reforms such as a new constitution, a new electoral law, a new electoral commission, and address the root causes of the crisis and prepare the country for transparent Presidential elections within 2 years. The people of Kenya deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentleman from California and commend him for the outstanding work that he did as chairman of this subcommittee and his continued interest in the subcommittee's activities.

I would like to say that I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey cosponsoring this resolution, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wolf, who has been a true real leader on issues in Africa, too. One of the things that I must say, as I already mentioned about Mr. Royce, that our Subcommittee on Africa, regardless of which political party tends to chair it, has worked in a bipartisan manner for the 20 years that I have been a member of the committee, sometimes in the majority, sometimes in the minority.

But the thing that has been very encouraging is that in 95, 96 percent of the time, I would say we are on the same page. We see things the same way. We might have to tweak a word or two here, but by and large, we have been able to move forward on so many important issues because of the bipartisan spirit.

Once again, Mr. Royce, I appreciate your continued support, and, of course, Ranking Member Smith, who is not only doing a tremendous job here but with the Helsinki Commission, and for the fact that he is very interested in the situation in China, I appreciate your continued human rights efforts. It's a pleasure to work with you.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Let me thank you very much. Let me also commend you for the work that you continue to do in Cape Verde and other developing countries, and your work in Haiti certainly makes all of us proud.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must do all that we can to make education more affordable so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. This year alone over $90 billion in Federal financial aid is available to students. However, with tuition costs on the rise, students and their families continue to face the inevitable question of how to pay for a college education. I believe a balanced approach is needed, one that increases transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while simplifying the financial aid process and addressing the growing

number of burdensome reporting requirements colleges and universities face.

I share the goal of increasing access to higher education, but I have a number of concerns with the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, and I believe improvements to the bill are needed. Mr. Speaker, apparently Members on both sides of the aisle also share this view because over 60 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee before the deadline.

The last time that this House considered a comprehensive higher education reauthorization bill was in 1998. At that time, the Rules Committee reported a modified open rule, and as a result, all Members of the House had an opportunity to preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record and offer them on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this time the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose a closed process to consider a long overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, by reporting out a closed rule, Democrats on the Rules Committee once again chose to deny over 400 Members of Congress the opportunity to offer amendments to improve the bill. Furthermore, this rule makes in order five times as many Democrat amendments as Republican amendments.

Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is important, but by adopting this closed rule, an opportunity will be missed to make the underlying bill even better. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), also a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Utah, the gentlelady made the point in her initial remarks when she was talking about the reauthorization 2 years ago that it was done in a bipartisan way and it was done successfully. We know that this process, the administration already has some problems with it. And while they haven't issued a veto threat, they have some concerns.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), also a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, much has been talked about about this unfair closed rule dealing with this underlying issue, and that seems to be a recurring pattern, and I wish that it would change, but I don't hold out any hope that that will happen. But, Mr. Speaker, since House earmark rules were changed just last year, loopholes and concerns have been raised. Questions remain such as what is and what is not an earmark; when do earmark rules apply and how are earmark rules enforced? We have seen examples of Members trying to enforce earmark rules only to be told they can't because the rules don't apply, and we have seen earmarks repeatedly air-dropped into bills at the last minute that were not subject to transparency or scrutiny.

Time and time again, Republicans have come to the floor advocating for additional earmark reforms, including stronger transparency and enforceability. Taxpayers also recognize the earmark process is broken and are outraged with wasteful spending. This has lead to an erosion of public confidence in Congress and could explain part of the reason why Congress' approval ratings are so low. It is clear Americans want Congress to act now and fix the broken earmark process. An earmark timeout is needed in order to get our fiscal house in order and restore public confidence.

In January, House Republicans united together and called on House Democrats to join us in an immediate moratorium on earmarks and the appointment of a bipartisan, bicameral joint committee to reform the earmark process and eliminate wasteful spending. House Democrat leaders were invited to join with Republicans and take the sensible bicameral course of action and reform a broken earmark process, but Democrats have remained silent and chosen to continue the broken status quo. So, today, I am going to give all Members an opportunity to show their support for a bipartisan solution.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Concurrent Resolution 263, which would establish a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. The Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform would hold hearings and make recommendations for the comprehensive reform of the earmark process. The resolution would also prohibit bills, resolutions, and conference reports containing earmarks requested by Members of Congress or the administration to be considered until the joint select committee has filed its report.

Considering and adopting House Concurrent Resolution 263 today is a sensible, bipartisan solution that will bring genuine accountability and transparency to the spending process and will restore taxpayer trust and the integrity of Congress.

Let me be clear: with my motion, every Member of this House will have a chance to publicly vote and take a stand and end earmark abuse and earmark secrecy. Every Member will vote on whether they believe the earmark process must be reformed.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will do all that we can on our side to challenge the

leaders to adopt this resolution. Until a moratorium or bipartisan committee is in place, House Republicans have adopted already a series of earmark reforms standards that we will adhere to, including barring Members from using taxpayer money named after themselves and prohibiting earmarks from being air-dropped into bills at the last minute to avoid transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, the letter sent from the Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi on January 25, 2008, and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in acting to permanently change the way in which Washington spends taxpayers' money. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address this very important House concurrent resolution.

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

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