Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1777) to amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent the favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the antitrust laws, as amended.

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

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

First, I want to thank the Chair of the Judiciary Committee for allowing this important piece of legislation to move forward. I particularly want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith, for the opportunity to work with him on this significant legislation and for

his outstanding work on this issue throughout the year.

The Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2008, as its name suggests, is aimed at making college more affordable and accessible to qualified students, something that this Congress has repeatedly shown its commitment to. With overwhelming bipartisan majorities, we have passed such legislation as the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, and just last week, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. We have also increased transparency in the higher educational financial aid system by passing the Student Loan Sunshine Act.

H.R. 1777 will further that commitment to enhance educational opportunities. These successes are rooted in clear recognition on both sides of the aisle that access to higher education is vital to our national economy and central to America's promise.

However, the Need-Based Educational Act differs from those bills I just enumerated in two important aspects. First, this bill addresses institutional aid only. That is, aid provided to students from a college or university's own funds, not Federal dollars. Second, this bill is about increasing access to grants, as opposed to loans. Given the current cost of higher education, the financial sacrifices families make to send their children to college, and the amount students owe when they graduate, grants, as opposed to loans, play a vital and unique role in maintaining access to higher education.

This act will permanently extend the current antitrust exemption for colleges and universities that admit all students on a need-blind basis, without regard to a student's ability to pay, and provide institutional aid that is strictly need-based. This safe harbor from the antitrust laws allows two or more of these schools to agree on a common aid application in a common system of analysis of financial need, and to exchange information on commonly admitted students. It does not permit discussion or comparison of institutional awards for individual students. The current exemption expires on September 30 of this year.

Why is this bill necessary? Beginning in the 1950s, a substantial number of our most prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid to students solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. The schools recognized that, without such an agreement, and without a uniform analysis of ``need,'' the schools would spend all of their money competing with each other to offer the largest aid package to a small select group of elite students. As a practical matter, the schools would be unable to fill the available spots in each incoming class because the select top students, who may or may not need such aid, were few in number. In addition, though, there would be many highly meritorious students who would be forced to forego their admission because of limited economic circumstances and insufficient financial aid.

The schools' decision was made in service of a social goal that the antitrust laws do not address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest pool of students solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. Congress responded quickly, passing the first temporary antitrust exemption in 1992, and we have reauthorized the exemption three times, each time improving and extending the exemption over the previous iteration.

The current exemption allows the schools to agree on this system of need-blind admissions and need-based aid, and allows a one-time exchange of student financial information through a third party. However, any further information-sharing is prohibited.

Since the last extension, both the GAO and the Antitrust Modernization Commission have examined the exemption and have found it consistent with antitrust principles. The schools themselves have lauded the exemption for increasing access to need-based aid and for bringing greater transparency to financial aid allocations. However, without this safe harbor, the schools fear that their collaboration on financial aid policies would subject them to prosecution.

Many studies show that our Nation's poorest students benefit the most from attendance at a prestigious school and, conversely, stand to lose the most from lack of access. Fortunately, these schools were empowered to continue and expand upon this truly American ideal that no individual should be denied a real chance to succeed because he or she was born poor.

I urge my colleagues to join myself and Mr. Smith in passing the Need-Based Educational Aid Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding my time back, I want to suggest that the eloquence of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee will result in a more significant margin this year than that 410-0. Again, I sincerely appreciate his fine work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question, Madam Speaker.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad we are considering this timely legislation tonight, H.R. 1777, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2008. I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his tireless efforts in promoting this legislation, and also for his leadership, because if it were not for his leadership, we would not be here tonight considering this important bill. It was good working with him and I appreciate the success that he has had in getting us to this point. This issue has long been of interest to me personally as well. I also sponsored the bill that extended the exemption in 1997 and 2001.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need. These schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of that group of schools. In the 1950s to the late 1980s, the practice continued.

In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges. After extensive litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree in 1991 that all but ended the practice. In 1992, Congress passed the first exemption to the antitrust laws for these colleges as part of the Higher Education Amendments. That temporary exemption codified the settlement and allowed colleges to provide aid on the basis of need only, to use common criteria to determine need, to use a common financial aid application form, and to allow the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party.

In 1994, Congress extended this exemption as section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act. Congress has extended the exemption twice since 1994, in 1997 and 2001. Twenty-seven schools currently are members of the so-called Presidents' Group which utilizes this antitrust exemption. Several other colleges, including Yale and Harvard, participate as advisory members of the group. This exemption expires on September 30, 2008.

Common treatment of these types of issues makes sense and, to my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing exemption. In fact, a recent GAO study of the exemption found that there had been no abuse of the exemption and stated that there had not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the exemption. The Antitrust Modernization Commission studied this exemption and found that it provides ``limited immunity for limited conduct.'' That is, it is narrowly tailored to meet its goals of promoting access to need-based financial aid.

This bill would make the exemption passed in 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2001 permanent. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption itself. The need-based financial aid system serves worthy goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. No student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of the colleges involved because of the limited financial means of his or her family. This bill helps protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions.

Mr. Speaker, the last time the House considered a permanent extension of this antitrust exemption, it passed by a vote of 414-0. The bill is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the National Association for Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the Presidents' Group. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Mr. Delahunt for his work on this legislation and for getting us to the point where it is being considered tonight.

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1777, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2007.'' This bill is co-sponsored by Representative Delahunt. This bill makes sense and it should be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

H.R. 1777 would make permanent an exemption to the antitrust laws that permits the Ivy League schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in making their determinations. The exemption also allows for agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. Without this legislation, the exemption will expire on September 30, 2008. I support this bill.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid, i.e., aid from the school's own funds solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. These schools also agreed to use common principles to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of the group. This practice remained undisturbed until the late 1980s.

In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against the nine Ivy League schools to enjoin this practice. In 1991, the eight Ivy Leagues, except MIT, agreed to a consent decree that ended this practice.

In 1992, Congress passed a temporary antitrust exemption to allow the schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis. This temporary exemption prohibited any agreement as to the terms of a financial aid award to any specific student. It was to expire on September 30, 1994.

In 1994, Congress passed another temporary exemption from the antitrust laws. This exemption, similar to the 1992 exemption, allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only and to use common principles of needs analysis. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. Unlike the 1992 exemption, it allowed agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. The exemption was to expire on September 30, 1997.

In 1997, Congress passed a law to extend the expiration date until September 30, 2001. In 2001, the exemption was extended to September 30, 2008.

H.R. 1777, introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, would make the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. It would not make any other change to the substance of the exemption.

This is a good bill because need-based financial aid serves social goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need.

But for the existence of financial aid, and laws like this one, many of us today in Congress and in America, generally, would not have benefited from a post-secondary school education. We must pass this bill today to ensure that Americans continue to benefit from need-based financial aid at institutions of higher learning.