Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.