The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce on July 22 wrapped up its work on H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005. The bill—the House version of legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act—moved out of committee on a party line vote of 27-20. It now goes to the House floor for a vote in September.

During markup, AFT's allies on the committee addressed some objectionable aspects of the bill. They offered numerous amendments to increase the maximum Pell Grant, lower the interest rate cap on student loans, allow consolidation at fair and reasonable rates, protect students from fraud and abuse at the hands of the for-profit education industry, and strike so-called "academic bill of rights" (ABOR) language threatening the academic freedom of faculty.

For the most part, however, Republican leaders handily deflected most of the amendments, just as they had managed to sideline many of the objections and concerns raised by education groups and student aid advocates in the two years leading to this markup.

"Usually, reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is a bipartisan process," says Gabriella Gomez, AFT assistant director of legislation. "This time, it was not."

"For the first time, we are facing a bill that goes backwards on grant availability, backwards on loan affordability and backwards on academic freedom," says AFT president Edward J. McElroy.

From the start of the drafting process, the AFT and student advocates had been concerned that the priority of subcommittee chair Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) was to lift restraints on the for-profit education industry, to the detriment of the primary mission of the Higher Education Act: broadening student access to college.

In its Hill advocacy work, the AFT followed priorities set two years ago by the higher education program and policy council. These priorities were to strengthen and expand financial aid programs serving lower- and middle-income families and to ensure that federal programs were protected from the kind of fraud and abuse that occurred before the current regulations were put in place.

More recently, two more priorities emerged. One was to block a right-wing move to insert the ABOR language. Faculty feel that the measure, which deals with campus hiring and curriculum processes, would open the door for government intrusion and have a chilling effect on academic freedom. “Government doesn’t belong in the classroom, and students are better served by a free flow of ideas without fear of intimidation or reprisals,” says William Scheuerman, an AFT vice president and president of United University Professions at the State University of New York. The other battle was to counter the Republican leadership’s marching orders to fight the swelling budget deficit by making $11 billion in cuts to the major higher education programs.

The AFT shaped its response by participating in coalitions, by concisely summarizing the issues in papers and information sheets it provided to Congress, and by activating members. In the months and days leading up to finalizing H.R. 609, the AFT and NEA worked jointly on a statement outlining their positions and on visiting Congress to talk about priority issues. In February, the union announced that a coalition called “Keep Integrity” had been formed to fight the potential for fraud and abuse in the aid program. This coalition includes students, faculty, consumer advocates and professionals in the student aid admission and enrollment fields. In the week before full committee markup, AFT members generated more than 500 letters to the Hill through the AFT Legislative Action Center.

While the Republicans mostly prevailed, the AFT and the Keep Integrity coalition’s work paid off on some fronts. The for-profits still have some restrictions—albeit watered down—in the form of the 90/10 rule (stipulating that at least 10 percent of their income must come from nonfederal aid sources) and the definition of what kinds of institutions shall have access to federal education programs outside of the aid programs.

A setback to faculty came when the American Council on Education and other groups, including the American Association of University Professors, submitted compromise language on ABOR, instead of standing with the AFT and NEA in striving to get the language removed. The AFT and NEA consider this compromise to be an unwise strategy and will fight to keep it out of the Senate bill, expected in September.

Right now, the AFT is gearing up for an intensive effort in the next few weeks to influence both the Senate process of producing a bill and the floor vote in the House. During this time, it will be crucial for AFT members to call and write their representatives. The union will be communicating more on this strategy through legislative action alerts and through local leaders. [Barbara McKenna]

July 29, 2005