[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 117 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6969-H6970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL AID ANTITRUST PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1866, to continue 
favorable treatment for need-based educational aid under the antitrust 
laws.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Page 2, strike out lines 4 through 17 and insert:

     SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF FAVORABLE TREATMENT FOR NEED-BASED 
                   EDUCATIONAL AID UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 568 of the Improving America's 
     Schools Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--

[[Page H6970]]

       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Temporary''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (4) and and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) to exchange through an independent third party, 
     before awarding need-based financial aid to any of such 
     students who is commonly admitted to the institutions of 
     higher education involved, data submitted by the student so 
     admitted, the student's family, or a financial institution on 
     behalf of the student or the student's family relating to 
     assets, liabilities, income, expenses, the number of family 
     members, and the number of the student's siblings in college, 
     if each of such institutions of higher education is permitted 
     to retrieve such data only once with respect to the 
     student.''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2001''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect immediately before September 30, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].

                              {time}  1415


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House concurs in the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1866, the Need-Based Educational Aid Antitrust Protection Act of 1997, 
which I introduced last June. Mr. Speaker, I want to pause here to give 
special thanks to Joseph Gibson of the House Committee on the Judiciary 
for his good work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, beginning in the mid-1950's, a number of private 
colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid; 
that is, aid from the school's own funds, solely on the basis of 
demonstrated financial need. These schools also agreed to use common 
principles to assess each student's need and to give essentially the 
same financial aid award to each of the students admitted to more than 
one member of the group.
  From the 1950's through the late 1980's, the practice continued 
undisturbed. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges engaging in this 
practice. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a final 
settlement in 1993.
  In 1994, Congress passed a temporary exemption from the antitrust 
laws that basically codified the settlement. It allowed agreements to 
provide aid on the basis of need only; to use common principles of 
needs analysis; to use a common financial aid application form; and to 
allow exchange of the student's financial aid information to a third 
party. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. It 
provided for this exemption to expire on September 30, 1997.
  To my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing 
exemption. H.R. 1866, as introduced and passed by the House, would have 
made the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. It would not have made any 
change to the substance of the exemption.
  The Senate amendment provides for a 4-year extension of the exemption 
and makes some minor technical changes to the information-sharing 
provision of the exemption. I would have preferred that we pass this 
bill as originally introduced, particularly with respect to the 
permanency of the exemption.
  Despite my disappointment with the other body's shortening of the 
exemption, I am encouraged that they kept the provision of the original 
bill that struck the word ``temporary'' from the heading of the 
provision. I believe this represents an understanding that we will make 
the exemption permanent if no problems are reported with it during this 
4-year extension. It is with that understanding that I am willing to 
accept the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the need-based financial aid system serves social goals 
that the antitrust laws do not adequately address; namely, making 
financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on 
the basis of financial need. Without it, the schools would be required 
to compete, through financial aid awards, for the very top students. 
Those very top students would get all the aid available. That would be 
more than they need. The rest would get less or none at all.
  Ultimately, such a system would serve to undermine the principles of 
need-based aid and need-blind admissions.
  No student who is otherwise qualified ought to be denied the 
opportunity to go to the colleges involved because of the financial 
situation of his or her family. H.R. 1866 will help protect need-based 
aid and need-blind admissions and preserve that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to suspend the rules and concur in the 
Senate amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I agree with 
the legislation that the gentleman has introduced, and I share his 
regret that the Senate made it only a 4-year extension. There was no 
good reason for that.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I also share the gentleman's view that the best 
thing for us to do is to concur, so we can at least keep it going. The 
colleges deserve to have been supported by the Federal Government, not 
interfered with when this first came up.
  As the gentleman from Texas very accurately explained, what we are 
talking about here is an effort by the colleges to put their 
scholarship money where the need is the greatest. Absent this kind of 
antitrust exemption, there would be pressures on them to bid for a few 
students, regardless of whether or not need existed, and that would 
take money away in a limited-resource universe that we live in, from 
students in great need.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a serious error when the Department of 
Justice years ago interfered here. Congress did the right thing by 
stepping in to protect the right of the universities to do this. We 
should be making it permanent, and the gentleman from Texas has taken 
the lead here in a very good way. Given that the Senate did not want to 
go along with the permanent extension, this is the best we could do and 
so we should do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for his comments and for his support, since 
the gentleman was an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the motion of 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1866.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment to H.R. 1866 
was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________