Mental Health Security for America's Families in Education Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the other side, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

For years, Republicans have fought on behalf of students and families to make college more affordable. Now our cause is bipartisan and our vision for reform is the centerpiece of comprehensive Higher Education Act reauthorization.

For students and families grappling with rising college costs, this bill establishes college affordability comparison tools to help put cost increases into perspective. Students will be able to search, sort, and compare key cost indicators for every school in the country. We will identify institutions that are the most costly, the least costly, and those with the fastest rising costs. And for schools engaging in a pattern of extraordinary high cost increases, we demand greater disclosure and concrete steps to identify inefficiencies and fix them. This legislation reflects Republican principles for reform, including financial aid simplification, protection of student privacy, safeguards for taxpayer dollars, emphasis on competitiveness, and many more positive reforms.

We would not have this bill before us today without the hard work of staff on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Amy Jones in particular for her tireless efforts to ensure this bill includes meaningful college cost reforms. I also want to recognize Brad Thomas and Susan Ross on my staff, along with outgoing staff director Vic Klatt and his successor, Sally Stroup, a higher education policy expert in her own right.

I would also like to recognize Chairman Miller's staff, including Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel.

Throughout the day, we will consider a number of amendments. Some would make the bill stronger, while others are unquestionably bad policy that would send us backward. However, it is the give-and-take of a bipartisan legislative process that has produced the strong bill before us, and I am hopeful that at the end of the day we will be able to secure strong, bipartisan passage of this bill, to make our higher education system more accessible and affordable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, from the outset of this process, Chairman Miller has recognized that by working together we can make this bill stronger. Just as he worked with us on the underlying bill, he also invited our input and involvement in the development of this manager's package. I believe the amendment is stronger because of it, and I want to thank him for his bipartisanship.

Anyone who has studied the college cost issue recognizes that there are no easy or obvious solutions. It has taken 5 years of refining to produce the proposal we are voting on here today.

When this process began, we identified three key principles to guide our proposals. First, we saw the need for sunshine and transparency in college costs. Students and families do not have access to accurate, useful, and comparable information about college costs.

Second, we recognized that colleges and universities were not being held accountable to consumers. There were no consequences for schools that engaged in massive unexplained tuition increases year after year.

Third, in our effort to identify solutions, it became abundantly clear that Congress could not do it alone. We realized that all stakeholders must come together. That includes the Federal Government, State government and local communities, institutions of higher education, students, and parents.

States have scaled back their investment in higher education, and the Federal Government has been expected to make up the difference. While some of the details have changed over time, the bill before us adheres to these same three principles.

I want to thank Chairman Miller for allowing me to take the lead on these college cost provisions. After years of listening to stakeholders, seeking the advice of experts, and studying potential unintended consequences, I believe this proposal strikes the right balance on the cost issue.

I also want to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to prevent this bill from limiting access for low-income, first-generation, and nontraditional students. An amendment offered during committee consideration of the bill changed the way cohort default rates are calculated. While the proposal did spur an important conversation about how to get a more accurate understanding of default rates in order to protect students and taxpayers, the consequences of the proposal would have done far more damage than was intended. I am pleased that, in this manager's amendment, we were able to forge a compromise that achieves our goal of a more accurate cohort default rate calculation without putting financial aid in jeopardy for the students who need it most.

On these and other issues, Chairman Miller has worked closely with me to ensure the final bill reflects the priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank him for his willingness to cooperate, and I urge the majority to continue this spirit of cooperation to address other flaws that remain in the bill, so that when this legislation is signed into law, it is as strong as it can be.

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

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

We are here today addressing the college cost crisis, a problem that has reached epic proportions in this country. There are many who believe, me among them, that we should never have allowed this challenge to reach a crisis point.

I am pleased to be acting today, but this bill serves as a reminder that Congress often fails to recognize challenges in our higher education system and act quickly to solve them. I am afraid we may be making the same mistake by failing to recognize the brewing problems in our Federal student loan programs.

Since 2006, Congress has cut nearly $30 billion from the Federal Family Education Loan Program. While many of these reforms were needed to improve program efficiency, I am afraid we may have gone too far, cutting not just the fat but straight through to the bone.

The impact of these cuts has yet to be fully realized; but already borrower benefits have been curtailed, lenders have left the program, and workers have lost their jobs. The consequences of program cuts are being exacerbated by a crunch in our financial markets that has produced a loss of liquidity, an increase in financing costs, and uncertainty about the future viability of the Federal loan program.

Just a few short months into this time of market turmoil, already 1,200 jobs have been lost and eight lenders have left the Federal student loan program or severely limited participation. This includes the departure of the seventh largest lender in the program. Major lenders have significantly scaled back or ended their borrower benefit programs.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid this is only the tip of the iceberg. I had hoped to offer an amendment today that would help ensure Congress does not ignore these challenges until they, too, reach a crisis point.

My amendment was nothing more than a sense of Congress, but I believe it would have signaled our commitment to averting a student loan crisis before it happens. Unfortunately, I was blocked by the majority from offering this amendment. It seems we have not yet learned from past mistakes.

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

May I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Castle from Delaware.

If the gentleman is prepared to close, I am in strong support of the manager's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Before this reauthorization even began, I was involved in an innovative, bipartisan effort known as the FED UP project that laid the groundwork by reducing red tape, eliminating outdated rules, and streamlining Federal financial aid programs.

The late Representative Patsy Mink and I joined together to solicit input from the higher education community to increase the effectiveness of our Federal financial aid programs by cutting through the red tape and regulations. We did this because over the years, colleges and universities have become subject to an increasing level of Federal regulation. Unfortunately, when new regulations are layered on top of the old, we often end up with duplication and confusion.

Today, as we contemplate another set of new programs, regulations, and requirements, I believe we need to renew that commitment to less red tape. That's why I am proposing a comprehensive study of the regulations that impact higher education. Under my plan, the National Research Council will undertake a governmentwide review to identify regulations that are duplicative and unnecessary.

Particularly in a bill with so many duplicative and unnecessary new programs, there is a danger that we may be exacerbating the college cost crisis by burdening colleges and universities with excessive new reporting and compliance costs. With this study, I hope we can move in a different direction.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I wish to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Hinojosa for their support and for the hard work that they have put into this bill, and let them know how much I have appreciated working with them not just on this bill but over the years. And I hope that all of our colleagues will support this amendment.

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

We are discussing all four amendments at this time en bloc?

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I support the amendments, with a couple of caveats. The Inslee amendment, while we are not objecting to this amendment, we do have some concerns about the consequences of the amendment. The requirement that these sustainability grants provide for greenhouse gas emissions reductions will increase operating costs for colleges and universities. If that happens, the result will be still higher tuition and fees for students at a time when we're trying to lower the cost of the higher education.

And some comments on the Susan Davis amendment. I appreciate the amendment. I served with Mrs. Davis on the Armed Services Committee, and I appreciate her efforts. There are some questions that I do have.

First, what her amendment does, it says that an individual that is serving on active duty during a war, performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war, military operation or national emergency and is serving in the area of hostilities in which service qualifies for special pay, I'm hopeful that that includes everyone that we're trying to reach in the service, and I'm not sure that that is totally inclusive for what she's trying to cover.

And then the next concern I have is that the borrower must have obtained their loan through the government-run direct loan program. Currently, the direct loan program only provides about 20 percent of the loans, so that would mean that if one of these military personnel got their loan through one of the other programs, they would be excluded from this. I believe her intention would be to grant this benefit to all serving in the military in wartime. So I'm hopeful that we can clean that up, make changes in that during the conference, because I believe that that's probably her intent on that.

And, finally, I would like to also say to my good friend, Mr. Kildee, the 10 years have gone quickly. But he looks just as young as he did 10 years ago, and I appreciated working with him then, as I do now.

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

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment essentially requires a feasibility study on market mechanisms that could then be used to determine lender returns when making student loans. Had we not just adopted an auction process for student loans in the recently passed budget cutting bill, this might make sense.

This amendment may be couched in terms of a study; however, it's difficult to see how the Secretary would study something like this without actually implementing a broader pilot, and that is the main concern that we have.

The Department of Education conducted a market mechanism study several years ago with the GAO and others. That extensive study did not find auctions to be a workable mechanism for administering the student loan program. Taking another look several years later may have shed new light on the subject.

We need the Department to focus on the creation and evaluation of this auction before we decide to push for studies or implementations of other auctions.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, it pains me to oppose the amendment of my good friend from Wisconsin. We've served now on the Education Committee together for almost 16 years, and he's always concerned about protecting the taxpayer and the taxpayer dollars.

I think that I'm not so concerned about the study. It's the way the amendment is drafted that looks like it will impose the full program before the study so that the study could be made complete. And I understand that auctions are taking place all the time, but they're not generally done by the Department of Education. They're done by the Department of the Treasury and other branches. I'm not sure the Department of Education has that expertise.

But as we move forward on this, hopefully, maybe in conference, this could be cleared up and the intent of the gentleman could be carried out. That would be my hope.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Davis amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment changes the Bankruptcy Code in a way that will add uncertainty and additional risk to student lending. And I can't help but think that this will further restrict students' access to loans at a time when they're already finding it harder to obtain loans due to the current instability of the credit market.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member of Commercial and Administrative Law that has jurisdiction for the Bankruptcy Code, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

And we have the right to close?

Madam Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the subcommittee ranking member of Higher Education, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, at this time we will continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just compare where we are today in Pell Grants versus where we were in 2000 when I was elected to show you why I have so much optimism about the good things being done in this bill and others.

In 2000, there were 3.9 million students getting Pell Grants. This year, 5\1/2\ million students are getting Pell Grants. In 2000, the maximum award was $3,300 per student. This year, it is about 4,800 per student, and based on the College Cost Reduction and Access Act that President Bush signed into law in September, it is going to go up to $5,400 in the next couple years. In 2000, our overall Pell Grant funding was $7.6 billion. Now it is double that amount.

We have made a substantial investment in the lives of these young people to make sure that every single child in America, rich or poor, has the opportunity to get a college education. We have reason for optimism. We are working together in a bipartisan manner on these higher education issues, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I know what Mr. Davis is trying to do here, and I'm sympathetic. He realizes, like we all do, that people are hurting and they're paying higher costs for mortgages and health insurance and gas prices and college tuition. And so for those folks who can't make their student loan payments, let's give them some relief in bankruptcy court. The challenge is, this is going to help a small number of people, but hurt a larger number of people.

If you allow this to go forward, then what you have is a much higher risk loan that will result in the lenders having no choice but to charge higher interest rates for new students getting loans, higher origination fees. They will require a higher credit score. Now, since most 18-year-old kids don't have good credit scores, you would have to look to their parents as cosigners. What does that mean? The kids from wealthy families, whose mom and dad have a high credit score and have lots of assets to back up as collateral, nice home, Mercedes, are going to get student loans. The poor kids in the future who you're trying to help whose parents don't have a high credit score are going to have to pay a lot higher interest rate for loans and origination fees. And their mom and dad may not have the collateral to get them a loan if that's required in these private loans.

So it's going to have the unintended consequences of restricting credit in the future. It's also very unfair to lenders who made loans 10 years ago to have this applied retroactively.

Now, what is a better way? The better way is the current system. You get out of school, you've got 10 years to make your payment, and if you can't make it, you work with the lenders for more flexible options, let you pay over 25 years. The Bankruptcy Code already provides a provision for undue hardship for those people who truly need it.

Let's go with the better approach. And that's why it would have been better to have the Judiciary Committee have jurisdiction over this issue, because we could have flushed it out. That was skipped in this process. And while the intentions are good, the consequences are bad. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. Davis' amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment. I don't have any objection to it. But at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not personally opposed to this amendment.

I just want to briefly address the subject matter of articulations and the free flow of credit. And while that's important, many people listening to us, our colleagues, may not be familiar with the term ``articulation agreements'' if they do not serve on the Education Committee, for example. Let me give them an idea of what that is.

If you go to a community college in my district, let's say one called Valencia Community College, and you get your associate's degree, there is an articulation agreement that exists with the local 4-year university that's called the University of Central Florida. That agreement says if you graduate from Valencia Community College, we guarantee you admission and acceptance into our 4-year university. That is a wonderful thing for low-income kids who want to get a 4-year education, because it only costs 2 grand a year to go to this community college, and you know that based on this articulation agreement and the transfer of credits you will then go to a prestigious 4-year school for an additional 2 years and be guaranteed admission. It's really the only silver bullet I see out there right now at a time when we see the public 4-year universities increasing their tuition by 31 percent over the past 5 years. The one bright spot that exists is so many partnerships that exist between community colleges and 4-year schools in the forms of articulation agreements.

Whatever we can do in Congress to make it easier to have more of these articulation agreements and a freer

flow of transfer of credit can only help those children from low- and moderate-income families achieve their dream of a college education. That's why I am going to support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it as well.

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

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.

Let me just clarify for our colleagues what this amendment is about, at least from my perspective.

If you are a high school special education teacher, you are probably familiar with autism and dyslexia, and by virtue of your training and daily experience, you know how to relate to the children with these special needs pretty well. But what if you are a 10th grade history teacher trained in, obviously, teaching history? It may be a little more challenging for you to teach children who have autism or dyslexia unless you have some special training to help you teach them history. So what this amendment does is to provide funding for these general education teachers to partner up with their 4-year universities to get some extra training in teaching children with special needs.

That seems like a commonsense approach to us. So I will be voting for this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I claim the time in opposition although I am not opposed to this amendment. We have seen a skyrocketing problem, at least in my home State of Florida, with the rise in violent juvenile crime. In my area, central Florida, we have seen juvenile robberies over the past 2 years of kids of 15 and under increase by 311 percent.

When I talk with the experts about this problem, I am told that we do need a holistic approach, as my colleague, Congressman Hastings, says; and that for the worst of the worst offenders, the repeat violent offenders, people who slit other kids' throats, you have got to lock them away. But on the front end when you can still have hope to catch some of these kids and turn them around, we have to make every effort to do it.

The reason I say that is because when we look at the statistics in Florida we find that 80 percent of the inmates in our jails and prisons are high school dropouts. If we deal with them holistically, we say, hey, if you're going to stay in school, we will give you a Pell grant to pay for a college education so you can have a nice car and a home. If you are willing to stay in school but you can't read, we will get you a reading coach to help you read, even if you are in high school. We are going to get you a mentor to get you through it.

We have to give these young people hope in educational and job opportunities and approach it holistically. Yes, that means prevention, but you also need tough enforcement. I think this amendment recognizes you need all of it. And so we are pleased to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, one of the most frustrating things that Members of Congress have had to deal with over the past 5 years on a bipartisan basis is the skyrocketing cost of tuition. Over the past 5 years, tuition at public 4-year universities has gone up 31 percent. And we are frustrated because you want to rein in the tuition costs, but at the same time you are hesitant to implement any sort of cost control or micromanaging of these universities.

What this amendment says essentially is that we are going to ask the college to tell us what your endowment is and how much of it you spent on helping kids with their aid to go to your college. Sometimes that will mean that gives us an opportunity to really thank these colleges for doing a great job. For example, Harvard University has a $34 billion endowment. They recently received nationwide publicity, well deserved, for using that endowment to say, if you are accepted to Harvard and you are from a low-income family, we are going to use our endowment to pay for you to come here. If you are from a middle income family, we are going to pay for you to come here. If you are from an upper-middle-income family, all the way up to

$180,000, we are still going to help you with tuition. I think that is wonderful. And you have seen other schools, Yale and others, follow suit.

We would like to see exactly what schools across America are doing on the positive front to use their endowment to help low- and moderate- income kids go to college, and on the flip side what schools with substantial endowments are not making any efforts to help these low- and moderate-income kids get a college education.

So for these reasons, I will be voting for this amendment, and I will urge my colleagues to also vote for the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. This legislation will help break down the barriers, particularly the ever-rising costs of higher education, for Americans to obtain a college degree.

I am extremely excited about the provision from my legislation, the Campus Fire Safety and Prevention Act, that is included in this bill. This legislation would establish a demonstration incentive program within the Department of Education to promote installation of fire sprinkler systems, or other fire suppression or prevention technologies, in qualified student housing or dormitories, and for other purposes.

Fire safety and prevention is an issue that needs to be addressed across this country. Over these few years we have seen many tragedies involving fire at colleges, places of business, entertainment venues and places of residence.

Nationwide, 126 people have been killed in student housing since January 2000, as identified by the Center for Campus Fire Safety, a non-profit organization that compiles information on campus-related fires.

Almost 83 percent of the fire fatalities have occurred in off-campus occupancies such as rented houses and apartments. Common factors in a number of these fires include: lack of automatic sprinklers, disabled smoke alarms, careless disposal of smoking materials, and alcohol consumption.

We must begin to put in place suppression measures against fires and increase support and resources for our fire fighters to ensure that no more lives are lost to fires that could have been prevented.

I encourage my colleagues to pass the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. This legislation would reform our higher education system so that it operates in the best interests of students and families.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, as reported by the Education and Labor Committee under the able leadership of the gentlemen from California, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon.

I want to commend the chairman specifically for including in the bill a provision requiring the Government Accountability Office to examine the impact that law school accreditation requirements and other factors have on the costs of law school and student access to law school, including the impact of such requirements on racial and ethnic minorities. I would also like to thank my colleague Representative Bobby Scott for his efforts to have this amendment included.

This provision is important and timely in light of a 15 year decline in minority law school enrollment documented by a Columbia Law School web site created in conjunction with the Society of American Law Teachers. As described in the National Law Journal and other publications, the site uses 12 graphs and nearly 200 data points to illustrate an 8.6 percent drop in law school enrollment among African American and Mexican American students between 1992 and 2006. This disturbing trend has occurred even while overall law school enrollment numbers have increased and admissibility indicators for minority applicants have improved.

in addition, 2007 statistics from the Law School Admissions Council suggest that high shutout rates may be discouraging African American and Mexican American students from applying to law school in the first place; data show that the number of African American and Mexican American applicants has fallen significantly since 2004.

One certain factor in the trend is the over-reliance of law schools and accreditors on L.S.A.T. scores as an admissions criterion and I expect the GAO study to bear that out.

In the meantime, Madam Chairman, this trend threatens great harm to minority and disadvantaged communities throughout the United States where the consequences will include reduced access to quality legal services and less economic opportunity and empowerment. It is therefore critical that Congress understand and take active steps to counteract the various factors that have contributed to the decline.

Realizing the promise of ``equal justice under the law'' requires that we ensure equal opportunity to legal education for students who come from, and intend to serve, our Nation's neediest communities. Despite the remarkable progress that has been made, many obstacles to opportunity remain. We cannot stand idle as minority underrepresentation in the legal profession increases.

So, as we await the results of the GAO study, I respectfully urge my colleagues on the Education Committee to conduct hearings that will illuminate the problem, its causes, and expert recommendations for alleviating it.

In closing, I will insert into the Record the aforementioned articles. There are current efforts underway by members of the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses to formally request a hearing on this subject and to urge the ABA Section of Legal Education to adopt law school accreditation standards that are consistent with the goal of increasing minority representation in the legal profession.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

[From the National Law Journal, Jan. 21, 2008]

Minority Enrollment Is Faltering

(By Leigh Jones)

A web site recently established by an elite law school

paints a dismal picture of enrollment among certain minority

groups in law schools generally--a picture that may well

become still bleaker.

Enrollment of blacks and Mexican-Americans has fallen by

8.6% in the past 15 years, according to a Web site created by

Columbia Law School and the Society of American Law Teachers

(SALT).

The decline has occurred as applications to law schools

among those two groups have remained constant and as law

school enrollment overall has increased since 1992.

With law schools continuing to revere U.S. News & World

Report rankings and with anti-affirmative action initiatives

possibly being on the ballot in five states in November, it

appears that the situation may only worsen.

``It's not a pipeline problem,'' said Conrad Johnson,

clinical professor of law at Columbia. Johnson and two law

students working with the school's Lawyering in the Digital

Age Clinic helped create the Web site, along with SALT. He

said that the statistics, compiled from information provided

by the Law School Admission Council, dispute the notion that

the low enrollment numbers among blacks and Mexican-Americans

are due to dwindling applications from those groups.

Eye on rankings

From 1992 to 2006, the number of blacks and Mexican-

Americans enrolled in the nation's law schools accredited by

the American Bar Association (ABA) fell from 3,937 to 3,595.

During that same time period, the number of ABA accredited

law schools grew from 176 to 195.

Johnson acknowledged an uptick in African-American

enrollment in 2006, the biggest increase in 10 years, but he

said that a combination of both groups showed a continuous

decline during the 15-year period.

Vernellia Randall, a professor at University of Dayton

School of Law and creator of the The Whitest Law School

Report, said that law schools, concerned about their U.S.

News & World Report rankings, are requiring higher scores

from applicants on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT),

which has resulted in lower admission numbers among people

from the two minority groups.

In the rankings, a school's median LSAT score is part of a

larger score designed to measure a school's selectivity in

choosing applicants who enter an incoming class. Selectivity

accounts for 25% of a school's ranking.

The Columbia Law School Web site notes that LSAT and grade-

point average scores have increased among African-American

and Mexican-American applicants. But more demanding

requirements from law schools continue to outpace

improvements in scores, Randall said.

``It's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets

better,'' she said.

U.S. News & World Report does not include diversity as one

of the factors in the rankings, but it does publish a

separate ranking of law schools that have high minority

enrollment numbers. Revamping the general law school rankings

to include diversity as a factor would be difficult, said

Robert Morse, director of data research at U.S. News & World

Report.

Not only would the standard need to account for the

difference in minority populations in various parts of the

country, but the rankings would require a value judgment

regarding which minority groups' enrollment ``improved'' a

school, he said.

Part of the concern about the low numbers relates to

efforts in five states to ban race- and gender-based

preferences. Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and

Oklahoma all have initiatives under way to place questions on

November ballots that would end programs that increase

minority and female numbers in education and in government.

The effort is led by Ward Connerly, president of the American

Civil Liberties Institute, which led successful efforts to

ban such preferences in California, Michigan and Washington.

``Preferences are morally wrong,'' said Connerly, who is

black.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 in Grutter v.

Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, that the University of Michigan Law

School's race-preference admissions policy served a

compelling interest in maintaining a diverse student body.

Marquette University Law School Dean Joseph Kearney said

his school relies heavily on affirmative action to recruit

minorities. Marquette was ranked No. 8 among Randall's latest

ranking of the "Whitest Law Schools." Its student body is

89.5% white, with black enrollment equaling 2.7% and Mexican-

Americans making up 0.7%, according to the 2007 ABA Official

Guide to ABA Approved Law Schools.

Kearney, who challenges the validity of Randall's list,

attributes his school's low numbers to competition from its

state competitor, University of Wisconsin Law School, which

has lower tuition and is aggressive on minority recruitment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

I have 1 minute and I just have one speaker left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to thank Mr. McKeon and the minority for working on this manager's amendment. With this, it makes additional changes to the Pell Grant program, additional changes to strengthen the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, adds a master's program for the Historical Black Colleges and Universities, and includes changes to encourage colleges and universities to adopt energy efficient sustainable practices in their campuses, and it enhances teacher training and development so we can place qualified teachers in every classroom.

It is a bipartisan amendment that has been worked on by the staffs and Members on both sides of the aisle in the committee and Members of the House, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to say that we did respond in this manager's amendment by making this process more transparent, encouraging greater communication and cooperation between the students, faculty, college bookstores, and publishers in providing an accurate description of what the revisions in the textbooks, what the new edition really means.

Very often we have been told by students and faculty and those concerned with this, as you are, that sometimes these changes are de minimis, but you have to have the new textbook; you can't use a used textbook.

We think this will be an improvement, and I thank you so much for hounding the committee on this subject. I think this is the beginning of increased transparency and concentration on this problem of rising textbook and educational material cost increases.

Madam Chairman, I also rise in support of this amendment and commend Mr. McKeon. He has been working on this for a considerable period of time.

I think it makes sense even more so now, it was envisioned in an earlier reauthorization, because it will include the programs that survive the conference committee and become law. It will also compare those new programs against existing programs, and I ask our colleagues to support this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to rise and I think support this amendment. I think in the context of going to the conference committee, where we know the Senate has an auction provision, I think, well given even there, where we've done, we have this provision in the reconciliation bill to look at an auction to see whether we can do it and make it feasible, this may be helpful in us making some determinations about how we proceed on that effort and how the Department proceeds on that effort. So I would support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment. I think having these parallel audits, these are two programs that, for the sake of the taxpayer, compete with one another, and I think that that's important.

I was encouraged to see in the President's 2009 budget that, for the first time, the taxpayer costs for student borrowing through the FFEL program are closer to the more efficient direct loan programs, taking into account what we did in the reconciliation bill. I was also interested to see that still we see that it costs only one-fourth as much to make a direct loan as it does to make a FFEL loan program.

So I think that we should be encouraged and we should be prepared to have these audits, because I think the taxpayer is winning this discussion, thanks in large part to the efforts of Mr. Petri over many years, to have this kind of comparison, this kind of discussion. Many of the recommendations that we made in the reconciliation bill were, in fact, the recommendations of the Bush administration from the office of OMB about the cost of that program. We were able to take that money out, recycle it in favor of students and families borrowing the money to drive down the cost of borrowing that money and increase the Pell Grants. Now we see that we are still 25 percent cheaper for the taxpayers than the FFEL program.

Madam Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would simply rise in support of the amendment. I think that the effort that is being made here by Mr. Castle will, in fact, add to some understanding by the public and some transparency for those of us who have to make policy as to exactly what's going on with the increase in college costs. I think these kinds of explanations will be important for all of us, and we welcome the amendment.

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

I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

We now see that, almost like the subprime home mortgages, that these private student loans have been offered to a great number of people who it's questionable about whether or not they can pay it back. And we now see these private lenders retreating from this market because they know they've now made loans that they're not going to be able to sell off to others. They've made questionable loans.

These loans look more and more like consumer loans because there's no requirement that the people who take out these loans in the direct marketing to students, a student signs up, gets a loan, they don't have to pay their tuition, they don't have to pay their books, they don't have to pay their dormitory fees. They're consumer loans. They can buy beer and pizza, they can buy flat screened TVs, and they ought to be treated like those consumer loans. That's why this amendment is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the United States Students Association, the U.S. Public Interest Groups, because they all recognize that this is far different than the public loans that families and students take out where there's arrangements to work out and help those students if they get into trouble. That's not the case with the private loans.

Let the marketplace work. They are now charging these students 18 and 20 percent, and we ought to understand what that means to the future of these students. We ought to support the Davis amendment.

I rise in support of Mr. Welch's amendment and thank Mr. Keller for his support of this amendment. Mr. Keller has laid it out quite correctly.

We have been struggling with this for a number of years. I think that this amendment helps with the transparency and with the information that we need to know as we continue to consider public policy. I say that because growing numbers of Members of Congress come up to me every week after they go home and talk about they have been asked the question about the increased costs of college. We know it is complex. We know it is difficult. And we know that it is not easily given to the idea that one policy fits all, one size fits all, whatever cliche you want to use.

But it must be addressed when we are asking the taxpayers to continue to step up and to provide the assistance to these families so that we can create a strong Nation and a strong economy and well-educated individuals that are critical to maintaining the democracy in a complex world. So I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, my alternative market study mechanism, which is before us, this amendment would significantly advance our understanding of market-based reforms to the guaranteed student loan program that were begun last year during our consideration of the College Cost Reduction Act. This Congress has demonstrated significant interest in developing some type of comprehensive market-based reform in order to overhaul the guaranteed loan program and make certain that taxpayers' interests are better served.

Last year, I had the opportunity to offer an amendment in the Education and Labor Committee to the College Cost Reduction Act to study and pilot a market-based reform, such as an auction, to determine how the Federal Government may better determine lender yields to reduce wasteful spending in the guaranteed loan program. This amendment was adopted in the committee and included in the bipartisan House-passed bill last summer.

Well, I was pleased that an auction pilot was included in the final law. There is growing concern among reformers, the lending industry, and the administration that the Senate model which was adopted may have significant implementation and logistical challenges.

However, this bill presents us with an opportunity to further study and consider an effective market-based reform proposal. So the amendment before us would simply amend the current auction pilot evaluation language included in this bill to require the Secretaries of Education and the Treasury, in conjunction with the Government Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative market-based reform to the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The alternative should reduce Federal costs to taxpayers and use savings to increase need-based grants to lower-income students.

I'd urge Members to support this amendment to further our understanding of market-based reform options. The study would mark an important step toward fully understanding market-based reforms of the program and would build on reforms incorporated in the College Cost Reduction Access Act. And again I'd ask my colleagues to support an alternative market mechanism study amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we'd just say that it's important for us to get informed, knowledgeable advice as to how to operate the student loan programs, the direct program, and the guarantee program better. In the past, we've adopted pretty much a political-based approach of Congress setting the amount of the guarantee that private lenders receive for making student loans. In the reform act this summer, we cut that and tried to put in place a pilot approach coming from the Senate for a market-based mechanism. This would broaden the study; and, I think, would, in fact, be something that will end up saving the taxpayer money if it works. And if it doesn't work, we're no worse off. It's a study.

So I don't understand the reluctance to try to get the Treasury Department and experts in this area. We have auctions for loans weekly to finance the debt of our country. And we certainly can do a better job of pricing the guaranteed student loan program.

I certainly do.

I thank the chairman.

I certainly would urge the chairman and the ranking minority member on the committee, as they go to conference, to keep an open mind on this proposal so we can do the best job with the taxpayers' money and help students get their loans in a cost-effective manner.

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

Madam Chairman, this amendment should be much less controversial than the one that just passed. As you're aware, the Federal Government runs two Federal student loan programs that provide the same affordable loans to American students: the Federal Family Education or Guaranteed Loan Program, and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program.

In the past year, a significant amount of attention has been paid to the scandal-ridden and wasteful guaranteed loan program. Reducing excessive subsidies was the primary goal of the bipartisan College Cost Reduction and Access Act that was enacted last September, and we have seen some success. But this program was so embroiled with illegal and unethical activity between lenders and financial aid officers that sweeping new rules are included in this higher education reform act aimed at ending these relationships and providing much greater transparency for students and for taxpayers.

Given all of the abuse that's occurred in the guaranteed program, imagine my surprise when an amendment ended up being adopted which had the effect of targeting the direct loan program and a seemingly innocuous amendment to audit the direct loan program contained a series of reporting requirements applied only to the direct loan program which were designed to make it appear the program was performing more poorly than the tarnished guaranteed program.

I should note that despite the scores of improprieties documented in the

guaranteed loan program, the direct loan program has had no similar ethical abuses. Further, it has been scored as significantly cheaper by the Office of Management Budge, CBO and GAO, since its inception in the early 1900s.

Now it will be one thing if the amendment applied these new reporting provisions equally to both the guarantee and direct programs, and I'm encouraged that the author of the amendment, my respected colleague from the State of Georgia (Mr. Price), has indicated that that is his intent, and I'm hoping that we can, in fact, adopt this amendment to apply requirements to both programs.

But this language currently in the bill has the effect of undermining the direct loan program, boosting the guaranteed loan program's performance in comparison, and the amendment before us addresses the language.

Madam Chairman, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The amendment would maintain the audit and most of the reporting requirements added to the direct loan program but would also require comparable audits in reporting for guaranty agencies in the Guaranteed Loan program. I have no doubt the direct loan program will pass the audit with shining colors, and I look forward to the report. I hope the same can be said of the Guaranteed Loan program.

I would ask support for the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield to the chairman of the full committee such time as he may consume.

Madam Chairman, I just have to say, this is important, because, on the one hand, if you treat a direct loan as adding to the debt with no offset because it is a loan which will be repaid, the loan is an asset, there should be some offset, you can get a very misleading picture. If you are cosigning a note, you are liable on the note, and that's what we do when we guarantee these private loans.

So zero costs in the direct program and outlay. And it misleads, too, because unless you compare apples and apples, you can have a badly distorted picture.