[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 155 (Saturday, September 27, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10264-H10265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL AID ACT OF 2008

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1777) to 
amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent the 
favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the antitrust 
laws.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       On page 2, strike lines 5 and 6 and insert the following: 
     ``Section 568(d) of the Improving America's Schools Act of 
     1994 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended by striking `2008' and 
     inserting '2015'.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Need-Based Educational Aid Act, sponsored by our colleagues Bill 
Delahunt of Massachusetts and Ranking Member Lamar Smith of Texas, 
extends an antitrust exemption that permits colleges to agree to award 
financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of 
needs analysis in making their determinations. This exemption also 
permits the use of a common aid application form in exchange of student 
financial information through a third party.
  In 1992, Congress passed the first exemption. It has expired several 
times, and it is now set to expire in 4 days. We hope to avoid that by 
passing this bipartisan legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H10265]]

  With the current antitrust exemption for need-based educational aid 
expiring on September 30, our timely action is necessary. Congressman 
Delahunt, the sponsor of this bill, has successfully guided it through 
Congress, and without his efforts, we might not have extended this 
extension before it expired.
  I appreciate Mr. Delahunt's leadership because this issue has long 
been of interest to me. I was a sponsor of the bill that extended the 
exemption in 1997 and in 2001, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
this bill as well.
  The bills in 1997 and 2001 were like the bill that passed the House 
last April, a permanent extension of the moratorium. Both times, the 
Senate amended those bills, as they did again this year, to a term of 
years. This exemption originated because Congress disagreed with a suit 
brought by the Department of Justice against nine colleges for their 
efforts to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need. 
Twenty-seven colleges and universities currently are members of the 568 
Presidents' Group, which utilizes this antitrust exemption.
  They include Amherst College, Boston College, Brown University, 
Claremont McKenna College, Columbia University, Cornell University, 
Dartmouth College, Davidson College, Duke University, Emory University, 
Georgetown University, Grinnell College, Haverford College, MIT, 
Middlebury College, Northwestern University, Pomona College, Rice 
University, Swarthmore College, the University of Chicago, the 
University of Notre Dame, the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt 
University, Wake Forest University, Wellesley College, Wesleyan 
University, and Williams College.
  Several other colleges, including Yale and Harvard, participate as 
advisory members of this group.
  To my knowledge, there are no complaints about the existing 
exemption. In fact, a recent GAO study of the exemption found that 
there has been no abuse of the exemption, and it stated that there has 
not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the 
exemption.
  This bill, as amended by the Senate, would extend the exemption for 
another 7 years. It would not make any change to the substance of the 
exemption. I had hoped that Congress would have been able to extend the 
exemption permanently, but I'm aware that some in the Senate objected.
  The need-based financial aid system serves a worthy goal that the 
antitrust laws do not adequately address--making financial aid 
available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of 
demonstrated need.
  No students who are otherwise qualified should be denied the 
opportunity to go to one of these schools because of the limited 
financial means of their families. This bill helps protect need-based 
aid and need-blind admissions. It has been noncontroversial in the 
past, and it is supported by a number of higher educational groups. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the exemption that we are 
renewing today has worked well. It makes sure that schools don't have 
to compete for the very top students, which could result in some 
students, the top students, getting excess aid while the rest of the 
applicant pool receives less or, in some cases, none at all.
  As mentioned by Mr. Smith, it was sent back to us by the Senate. The 
exemption is extended to 2015. Enacting this today protects need-based 
aid and need-blind admissions, and it will help preserve the 
opportunity for all students to attend one of the Nation's most 
prestigious schools. As Mr. Smith has noted, we hope someday to have a 
permanent extension, but for now, we need to pass this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support the legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1777, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2007.'' This bill is 
co-sponsored by Representative Delahunt. This bill makes sense and it 
should be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this very 
important bill.
  H.R. 1777 would make permanent an exemption to the antitrust laws 
that permits the Ivy League schools to agree to award financial aid on 
a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in 
making their determinations. The exemption also allows for agreement on 
the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the 
student's financial information through a third party. Without this 
legislation, the exemption will expire on September 30, 2008. I support 
this bill.
  Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of prestigious private colleges 
and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid, i.e., aid 
from the school's own funds solely on the basis of demonstrated 
financial need. These schools also agreed to use common principles to 
assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid 
award to students admitted to more than one member of the group. This 
practice remained undisturbed until the late 1980s.
  In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought 
suit against the nine Ivy League schools to enjoin this practice. In 
1991, the eight Ivy Leagues, except MIT, agreed to a consent decree 
that ended this practice.
  In 1992, Congress passed a temporary antitrust exemption to allow the 
schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to 
use common principles of needs analysis. This temporary exemption 
prohibited any agreement as to the terms of a financial aid award to 
any specific student. It was to expire on September 30, 1994.
  In 1994, Congress passed another temporary exemption from the 
antitrust laws. This exemption, similar to the 1992 exemption, allowed 
agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only and to use common 
principles of needs analysis. It also prohibited agreements on awards 
to specific students. Unlike the 1992 exemption, it allowed agreement 
on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the 
student's financial information through a third party. The exemption 
was to expire on September 30, 1997.
  In 1997, Congress passed a law to extend the expiration date until 
September 30, 2001. In 2001, the exemption was extended to September 
30, 2008.
  H.R. 1777, introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt and Ranking 
Member Lamar Smith, would make the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. 
It would not make any other change to the substance of the exemption.
  This is a good bill because need-based financial aid serves social 
goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making 
financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on 
the basis of demonstrated need.
  But for the existence of financial aid, and laws like this one, many 
of us today in Congress and in America, generally, would not have 
benefited from a post-secondary school education. We must pass this 
bill today to ensure that Americans continue to benefit from need-based 
financial aid at institutions of higher learning.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) that the House suspend 
the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1777.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________