Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

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.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative George Miller. This significant piece of legislation provides greater access to colleges and universities making higher education affordable for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This legislation will increase funding to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as Hispanic and other minority-serving institutions, and it will expand college access and support for low- income and minority students.

This legislation contains provisions allowing students to receive Pell Grant scholarships year-round, and it increases the Pell Grant maximum to $9,000. In addition, it strengthens college readiness programs, namely the TRIO and GEAR UP college readiness and support programs for low-income and first-generation students. These increases will expand college access for low-income and minority students. The amendment offered by my colleagues Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson and Representative Don Young, expands upon current Pell Grant eligibility allowing children who lost a mother or father to our wars in Iraq or Afghanistan eligible for the maximum amount of Pell Grant assistance. In this age of global war on terror, it is imperative that we ensure that those left behind by those who the ultimate sacrifice for our great nation are given the greatest opportunity our country can provide. As such, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university. The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of young people in college, particularly in the African-American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities. I strongly support the amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, Representatives Alcee Hastings and Representative Linda Sanchez, authorizing a nationwide program through the Department of Education to promote holistic community-centered partnerships aimed at mitigating gang violence and reducing recidivism rates among juvenile ex-offenders previously detained for gang-related offenses. This amendment a second- chance to America's most vulnerable youth, I fully support the vision of this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains important provisions opening up even wider opportunities for our veterans by increasing college aid and housing aid for not only veterans, but their families. This legislation creates a new scholarship program for active duty military personnel and family members, including children and spouses of active duty military service members or veterans. It establishes support centers to help veterans succeed in college and graduate. Finally, it ensures fairness in student aid and housing aid for veterans, making it easier for them to attend college while also fulfilling their military service duties.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my strong support for an amendment introduced by my distinguished colleague, Congressman Danny Davis, restoring safeguards to student loan borrowers. Mr. Speaker, students who take out loans borrow money as part of their pursuit to better themselves and contribute to the advancement of our nation and economy. However, current bankruptcy laws apply the same severe standards to student borrowers that it applies to those trying to escape child support payments, alimony, overdue taxes, and criminal fines. Under Mr. Davis's amendment, government student loans and loans made by nonprofit entities would remain non-dischargeable; other student loans, made by for-profit banks and other lenders, would continue to be non-dischargeable for the first five years after they come due, and after that time they would be treated like other unsecured consumer loans in bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and to work to restore bankruptcy protection to private student loans.

Understanding the federal application for Federal Student Aid can be challenging and complex even for the most knowledgeable parent. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act would streamline and simplify the application process giving families the tools they need to properly plan for their college expenses. This legislation will reform our higher education system ensuring students and their families have they information they need to understand their borrowing options when applying for federal and private loans.

Mr. Speaker, as an active Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am extremely supportive of the provisions in this legislation that boost campus safety and disaster readiness plans. Last year's tragedy at Virginia Tech has illustrated the horror to which students might be exposed, and natural disasters in recent years have underlined the necessity of having campus disaster plans.

This legislation helps all colleges develop and implement state-of- the-art emergency systems and campus safety plans, and it requires that the Department of Education to develop and maintain a disaster plan in preparation for emergencies. In addition, this legislation creates a National Center for Campus Safety at the Department of Justice to work in collaboration with the COPS program. Finally, it establishes a disaster relief loan program, to help schools recover and rebuild in the event of a disaster.

This important piece of legislation gives our youth, our veterans, and our families the opportunity to not only dream of attending college but actually realize that dream. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4137.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 956 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 7. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H.

Con. Res. 263) to establish the Joint Select Committee on

Earmark Reform, and for other purposes. The concurrent

resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution

to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for

division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion

to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, to listen to the last two speakers, one would think that they had Rip Van Winkled their way through the last year in this House. For the Republican Party leadership to belatedly give us lectures on earmarks is, in my view, akin to reformed alcoholics giving lectures on temperance.

The higher education bill being debated today is funded through the Labor-H appropriation bill. In fiscal year 1995, the last year I chaired that subcommittee, that bill contained virtually no earmarks. By the year 2000, that same bill contained 491 earmarks; and by 2006, that bill had 3,031 earmarks totaling $1.2 billion.

The previous Republican leadership was notorious for using earmarks as enticements in order to get their membership to vote for bills that individuals otherwise would not be inclined to vote for. For example, newspapers at the time reported that the previous Republican leadership used earmarks in the Transportation authorization bill as rewards for several Republican Members to switch their votes and agreed to support the Medicare part D provision that forbade the Federal Government from negotiating with the drug industry to provide lower costs for seniors under Medicare.

Under the Republican leadership, the cost of the earmarks quadrupled, and we were treated to stories about Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ney, Mr. Abramoff abusing the process, as well as several other.

When Democrats took over the House, until we could reform the process, we suspended earmarks for a year, over the fierce objections of as many Members of the Republican Party as we saw in my own party.

In response to demands from both parties, after we reformed the process, we then resumed the earmarking process with the expressed intention of cutting in half the cost of earmarks in non-project accounts. We made no such commitments for accounts that are by their nature project-based because to do so would gut the very purpose of the bills under consideration.

For example, the Army Corps budget is by its nature project-based. In fiscal 2006, the administration sent up a budget request for the Army Corps containing 984 projects. Of the final amount provided by the Corps, 86 percent of the projects were administration-requested earmarks. The Corps is an interesting example. The administration argues that they have a system for selecting projects and that they only select projects that score a 3 or better on their scale. However, in 2006, there were 16 projects requested by the administration that did not even qualify for funding based on the administration's own criteria.

After all the shouting was over last year, we essentially met our promise, cutting nonproject earmarks by 43 percent after negotiations with the Senate, cutting it from $16 billion down to $9 billion. So we came pretty doggone close to our goal. I would have preferred a larger reduction than 50 percent, but the 43 percent reduction is a 43 percent larger reduction than any Republican Congress ever produced, and we did it under a reform process.

At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new Democratic majority passed unprecedented new rules that required the listing of the sponsors of every earmark, that required that any Member of Congress requesting an earmark disclose in writing the name and address of the intended recipient, the purpose of the earmark, and required that Members certify that he or she had no financial interest in the project.

We also required that all matters before a conference committee including earmarks must be subjected to full and open debate and that no item might be added to the conference report after the conference committee had adjourned, as has happened many times in the past.

As we moved forward with earmarks last year, I brought a motion to the floor to see if Members wanted to eliminate all earmarks. That motion failed by a vote of 53-369, with a majority of both parties voting against it.

I am assuming they did that because an overwhelming number of honorable Members on both sides of the aisle believe that Members should not lose the ability to fund priority items for their districts because of the scurrilous behavior of a handful of renegade Members.

During House consideration of fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills, 71 earmark-related amendments were debated and voted on in the floor, including three amendments to eliminate all earmarks from the bill under consideration and 68 amendments to eliminate particular earmarks. Of the 48 amendments on which record votes were taken, only 13 received the support of more than half the Republicans who voted. On those 13, the percentage of Republicans voting ``yes'' never exceeded 57 percent.

Every Member knows that even if the House unilaterally suspends earmarks, the Senate will not follow suit. A firm majority on both sides will see to that. I have learned that lesson the hard way.

One last point: the resolution introduced by our friends on the other side calls for the suspension of earmarks for 6 months until yet another group offers their suggestions for change. It is ironic indeed that that delay would force us to do the same thing that the Republican leadership so roundly criticized me for last year when I proposed to delay earmarks 1 month until we had more time to review them. The practical effect of the resolution which our Republican friends want to bring up to date, even though it is nongermane to this bill, would be to require the air-dropping of every single earmark in the entire Federal budget. It would guarantee that no earmarks could be discussed or debated while the bill was on the floor of the House of Representatives. It would then give you in spades what our friends on the Republican side said last year they wanted to avoid.

I fail to see how requiring every single earmark in appropriation bills this year, I fail to see how requiring all of those earmarks to be air-dropped rather than debated when we consider the bills is reform. It moves exactly in the opposite direction of that which our Republican friends said we should move last year. So as far as I am concerned, the truth is this is not serious reform at all. It is a grandstanding attempt to escape the reputation of previous Congresses. If I had presided over those previous Congresses, I would be running away from their reputation just as fast as the minority appears to be today.