Later this afternoon week, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.R. 3211, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a piece of legislation that would end subsidies for companies participating in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. This vote will also be the last chance for House members to amend the bill until a conference report is completed between the two chambers.

So what changes might be made to the bill before it is voted on for House passage? A look at the proposed amendments provides some indicators.

One amendment almost certainly to pass is the manager’s amendment from Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee. Miller’s amendment largely deals with small changes, such as re-ordering information and fixing typos. It does, however, include a few changes that are worth noting.

Inclusion of not-for-profit servicers. The manager’s amendment expands the areas in the bill through which nonprofit student loan servicers can receive funds. According to the changes, these agencies, which are solely focused on loan-related services, such as helping with repayment or maybe teaching financial literacy, would now be eligible to receive grants for improving college completion rates through the College Access Completion and Innovation Fund (CACIF). Giving these entities potential access to these funds would assuredly weaken the completion focus of the fund and instead direct resources toward ill-defined financial literacy activities that are already paid for through an existing funding stream. The amendment does at least stipulate that nonprofit servicers can only receive CACIF grants from their home state.

Paying more for default aversion. The bill already guarantees existing loan volume for small, nonprofit servicing companies. These companies will increase program costs since per-borrower servicer fees are larger if the number of accounts overseen is smaller. The manager’s amendment adds to these costs by stipulating that the servicing rate paid to nonprofit companies must include enough additional money so that “in the Secretary’s judgment, the eligible not-for-profit servicers can reasonably provide any additional services, such as default aversion or outreach.”

While default aversion activities are seemingly worthwhile, the bill contains no mechanisms to measure their success or judge their importance. Such questions are worth addressing given that the default rate among students already receiving these services in the FFEL Program, is much higher than students in the Direct Loan Program that do not get this support. Without further proof that default aversion actually helps borrowers stay in repayment, why should the government set aside additional funds for this purpose?

Longer time to study nonprofit servicers. Not only will nonprofit servicers receive greater funding than previously allotted, but the manager’s amendment also extends the time frame to measure their effectiveness from three years to five years. It will thus be half a decade before Congress and taxpayers have a sense of whether these companies should continue receiving their guaranteed volume.

Default aversion is not due diligence. One welcome change to servicing contracts is a clarification that prevents servicers from counting due diligence activities, like contacting a borrower, as default aversion activities. This separation should at least ensure that the added money for default aversion at least goes to some additional type of programming.

New programs with no money. The manager’s amendment includes new programs for veteran’s assistance and teacher excellence, but neither one receives any funding. As a result, it’s unlikely that these initiatives will come to fruition.

While the manager’s amendment largely address small-scale changes, some amendments tackle bigger issues. Reps. John Carter (R-Texas), Pete Hoekstra (R-Minn.), Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Tom Price (R-Ga.), and Mike Castle (R-Del.), all introduced amendments that would either stop the termination of FFEL subsidies, or put in triggers based upon participation rates or job losses that would prevent it from going through. Given how different these amendments are from the existing bill, it’s unlikely that they would get much traction.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, also has an amendment that would stop the FFEL termination. Instead, his amendment would extend the expiration date on an existing loan purchase program that has helped provide liquidity for lenders to continue making loans during the recession. In the meantime, Kline’s amendment would create a study group that would suggest new models for a student loan program. While less extreme than the other amendments in that it recognizes the current FFEL Program is fatally flawed, this amendment too marks a significant departure from what is already in the bill’s text.

While the Kline and the other large-scale amendments likely will not pass, an amendment offered by Rep. Bob Etheride (D-N.C.) and several other Democratic representatives may have a better chance. This amendment explicitly adds loan counseling and default aversion as allowed activities under state innovation completion grants. It also adds these same activities to those expected of student loan servicing companies.

Not only would these changes create duplicative funding streams for the same activities (seriously, how much can financial literacy possibly cost?), but they could also weaken the more important reform efforts that are supposed to be funded by the state innovation completion grants. The move is also naked self-interest—the amendment sponsors all come from states with politically powerful guaranty agencies.

With the exception of a few amendments that are unlikely to be passed, most of the proposed amendments will not lead to significant changes in the bill. While this ensures the overall cost-saving mechanism—eliminating lender subsidies—will remain, it also means that it won’t touch any of the bill’s existing flaws, such as a lack of emphasis on completion, overly complex and confusing Perkins Loan formulas, and the need for better reporting requirements from institutions. Rather than tackling these difficult and nuanced issues about improving graduation and retention rates, these amendments promise to fund financial literacy six ways from Sunday. Too bad you can’t graduate with a degree in balancing your checkbook.

UPDATE: The rules surrounding SAFRA passed on the House floor by a vote of 241-179 on Wednesday. When the bill comes to the floor there will be 24 amendments considered, including a revised Manager’s Amendment. The major changes in the new amendment include:

• some new language surrounding multi-year Pell Grants
• $50 million to help the Department provide technical assistance to help schools switch loan programs.
• Within the national activities section, which includes open online courses, the learning and earning center, and state systems, $1 million is reserved to fund an evaluation by the National Research Council of the activities covered in that section.
• The amendment also allows for the Secretary to create a model that would help students determine if courses funded by the national activities section can be transferred to other institutions.