[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5751-S5752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRESIDENT CLINTON'S HIGHER EDUCATION PROPOSALS

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as one who has spent much of his Senate 
career seeking to broaden and expand educational opportunity, I want to 
commend President Clinton for the education proposal that he today 
placed at the forefront of his domestic agenda. I also take special 
pride in the fact that he set forth his proposals in his commencement 
address at Princeton University, which is my alma mater.
  While we have not had the opportunity to examine the package in any 
detail, I am particularly drawn to two of the President's proposals. 
The first of these is the Hope scholarship plan. Its thrust and purpose 
is most certainly consistent with my longstanding belief that we ought 
to guarantee 2 years of education beyond high school to every student 
who has the drive, desire, and talent.
  As I have said many times, the idea that 12 years of education is 
sufficient education for our young people is, quite simply, an 
outmoded, turn-of-the-century concept. As we approach the turn of a new 
century, it is truly high time that we discarded that notion. The vast 
majority of leaders in the growth industries of our Nation recognize 
that a skilled work force requires at least 2 years of education beyond 
high school. But while we have talked about trying to change an 
outdated policy, it is President Clinton who has brought the talk to an 
end and laid out a plan to make the concept of 14 years of education a 
reality.
  The Hope scholarship plan would provide a $1,500 tax credit for the 
first year of education after high school, and another $1,500 for the 
second year if they worked hard, stayed off drugs, and earned at least 
a ``B'' average. It is a plan that would reward efforts and 
achievement, twin objectives with which I strongly concur.
  It is a plan that would make a tuition-free education possible for 67 
percent of all community college students. For students with financial 
need, it would work in concert with the Pell grant and further ease the 
burden of paying for a college education.
  While it would have its most profound impact on students attending 
community college, it would also be of immense help to students 
pursuing a 4-year degree. Students and their families could opt for 
either the $1,500 tax credit or a $10,000 tax deduction. It would be 
their decision as to which option better suited their needs.
  With respect to the proposed $10,000 tax deduction, I am especially 
pleased that the administration has refined its original proposal. It 
will now be targeted to hard-pressed middle-income wage earners. These 
are the very families who today find that paying for their children's 
education is increasingly beyond their financial reach.

  The other proposal to which I am drawn is the President's proposed 
33-percent increase in the maximum Pell grant over the next 7 years. 
For fiscal year 1997, the President has already proposed increasing the 
maximum grant from $2,470 to $2,700, a 1-year increase of almost 10 
percent. And, according to today's announcement, the maximum grant 
would continue to receive yearly increases, and would reach a maximum 
award of $3,128 by fiscal year 2002.
  Unfortunately, the proposal will not redress the terrible imbalance 
between grants and loans that has become so pronounced over the past 
decade and a half. Where a deserving student's financial aid package 
was once 75 percent grants and 25 percent loans, today it is the 
opposite--almost 75 percent loans and only 25 percent grants. Yet, even 
though the President's proposal may fall short of the mark, it is 
certainly a welcome step in the right direction. It also stands in 
stark contrast to the budget resolutions approved by both the House and 
Senate. They would freeze the budget authority for the Pell Grant 
Program.
  In all candor, however, we should take the President's Pell grant 
proposals as only the first step. We ought to give it our careful and 
thoughtful consideration, and then do him one better by enacting 
legislation that truly addresses the enormous and growing debt burden 
incurred by literally millions of college students as they struggle to 
pay for a college education. While I realize I may sail against the 
political winds, I continue to believe deeply that the Pell grant ought 
to be made an entitlement, which would free it from the pitfalls of 
yearly appropriations.
  Mr. President, I believe deeply that education is a capital 
investment. What we put into the education of our children is returned 
to us many times over. Every study we know shows that there is a direct 
relationship between more education and higher personal income. Better 
education means better jobs, and better jobs mean a stronger and more 
vibrant economy. We must be careful, however, that the cost of an 
education and the debt undertaken in getting it do not overtake us.
  I welcome the President's proposals. I applaud the initiative he has 
taken. I congratulate him for placing a priority on education. While we 
had little advance notice of these proposals and virtually no time in 
which to mull them over, I hope very much that we will

[[Page S5752]]

give them careful and thoughtful consideration, and that they will not 
be overwhelmed by election year politics.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________