When the first U.S. Congress introduced the 10 amendments that formed our Bill of Rights, its supporters fought hard to ensure each addition they made increased individual entitlements rather than limiting them. That was before the age of earmarks allowed lobbyists to load popular bills with stealth agendas. Now, the well-intentioned college consumer’s bill of rights could be overshadowed by a single amendment that will have colleges riled for a while: a clause threatening to cut funding to colleges that fail to go after students on recording companies’ behalf.

For months, a growing movement of student-friendly legislation has rolled out of Congress as legislators seek to address growing anger over rising tuition costs and college corruption scandals. That trend continued this month after the House approved another round of measures directly tackling university costs through the College Opportunity and Affordability Act.

Many students will likely hear much more in the coming months about the record industry’s pressure on colleges to crack down on illegal student file sharing, however, which industry leaders say cuts into their profits. A provision in the act would use federal funds to force colleges to police students’ download habits, which has nothing to do with the rest of the bill’s efforts to help students. As the bill moves to the Senate, lawmakers should strip it of this needless addition to help worthy provisions pass.

The legislation now before the Senate is too important to lose attention because of over music files. With this latest bill, congressional lawmakers seem to have finally found a way to actually deliver on their promises to students. Past federal proposals aimed at helping students pay tuition and loans relied on voluntary initiatives that depended as much on schools’ cooperation as the government’s effort. As a result, they delivered little real change as tuition skyrocketed.

The proposals filed during the past year took a more effective approach to relieving this burden by cutting subsidies to private lenders, increasing government grants and mandating colleges fully reveal their relationships with “preferred” lenders in the wake of last year’s kickbacks scandal. The legislation approved last week goes even further by forcing colleges to accept loans from any lender and allowing students to pay off their loans early without suffering extra fees.

The bill also makes a realistic attempt to curb rising tuition costs by publishing a list of the most flagrant tuition-hikers online. If the government can’t control the most expensive institutions’ outrageous rates, it can at least shame them by exposing the hikes to prospective students. If advertised, the list could actually force colleges to limit costs by threatening the applicants who eventually form much of their bottom lines.

This is not the first time lawmakers have promised an inviolable bill that promised to empower people. U.S. Sens. John McCain, John Edwards and Edward Kennedy sponsored a patients’ bill of rights in 2001, but the proposal failed to pass. Bostonians have been nominally protected under the T rider’s bill of rights and a similar charter for taxi passengers.

Listing a citizen’s rights are no guarantee a group will respect them, though, as any commuter stuck on a train over the Charles Street Bridge will attest. The Senate should add strengthened enforcement measures to ensure the document amounts to more than a series of empty promises. Students need a strong legal basis to sue lenders if they engage in deceptive advertising or violate other rights guaranteed in the bill. Lawmakers could also add tougher measures to another round of university reform in the future if reasonable amendments fail to join this month’s House bill.

All this depends, however, on Senate approval of the measure. Senators should not weaken any provision of the bill other than the off-topic file sharing amendment, which should be removed altogether. Other provisions are vital to U.S. students’ ability to afford college. Without the law on their side, many young, first-time borrowers are forced to base their decisions on fine-print rules and downright deception from lending companies that have worked hand in hand with colleges to increase the revenues of both.

Increased financial aid and tougher measures should address exactly this problem. Aside from a needless Internet clause, all these measures side with students, which is important for a group lawmakers and the interest groups that lobby them traditionally neglect. The change must level the playing field between students and billion-dollar companies and institutions.