[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11065-S11067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S11065]]



                   AFFORDABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, yesterday some of my colleagues 
were debating the issue of student loans and performance of this 
Congress with regard to education. No issue is more central to our 
Nation's future and the 21st century than the availability and the 
accessibility of quality public education from kindergarten through 
college. The accessibility of higher education is threatened, Madam 
President, by the exploding cost of higher education, documented in a 
report released yesterday by the General Accounting Office.
  The General Accounting Office, having studied the cost of tuition in 
4-year public institutions of higher learning nationwide, documented 
that tuition has increased some 234 percent over the last 15 years. As 
a percentage of median household income, tuition has nearly doubled 
over the same period. In 14 States today, college tuition is more than 
10 percent of median household income. In 30 States, it is more than 8 
percent of household income. In all but one State, tuition as a 
percentage of household income is more than it was 15 years ago.
  What this means is that access to higher education is getting more 
and more out of reach for working and middle-class Americans. What this 
means is that our country is suffering a kind of brain drain, driven by 
the escalating costs of higher education.
  Madam President, that is exactly the wrong direction. By the year 
2000, the Department of Labor estimates that more than half of all new 
jobs will require an education beyond high school. The cost of college 
has a direct impact on access to college. The more tuition goes up, the 
more students will be priced out of their opportunity for the American 
dream. Our country as a whole will suffer the loss of talent and of 
training. We cannot as a Nation prepare for the 21st century by making 
it more difficult now for our children to access higher education.
  In the global economy, America must carve out the upper niche. We 
cannot and should not expect our workers to compete with 50-cents-a-day 
Third World labor. Our strength in the information-intensive 21st 
century will continue to be our people. Education is the key to that 
strength. Our community, our country as a whole, will benefit from a 
well-educated work force.
  A quality public education has always given poor and middle-class 
Americans economic opportunities. The link between educational 
attainment and earnings is unquestionable. The average earnings of the 
most educated Americans is, today, 600 percent greater than that of the 
least educated Americans. As we move nearer to the 21st century and 
into an information-driven economy, the gap between high school and 
college graduates will grow. A college graduate in 1980 earned 43 
percent more per hour than a high school graduate. By 1994, that had 
increased to 73 percent. When we reduce access to higher education, we 
reduce access to the American dream and we create strains on our 
community and on our social compact from which we may have a very 
difficult time recovering, even into the next generation.
  Madam President, we must improve the quality and the accessibility of 
education so that no American child gets a high school diploma without 
being able to read, subtract, add, or use a computer, and so that all 
Americans may have access to higher education, not just the wealthy 
elite. The rungs on the ladder of opportunity in America are crafted in 
the classroom. We cannot let higher education become so expensive that 
only a fraction of our society can afford it.
  Unfortunately, the GAO has documented that is exactly the direction 
in which we are now heading. For a typical family with more than one 
child in school, in the States at the bottom of the affordability 
scale--and there is an affordability scale included in the report--the 
cost of college can easily consume 30 percent to 40 percent of that 
family's annual income. For families with several children who attend 
college, tuition can become the most significant expenditure and 
financial burden of a lifetime.

  The 234-percent increase in tuition over the last 15 years compares, 
Madam President, to an 82-percent increase in median household income 
and a 74-percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. What that means 
is the cost of tuition is rising far in excess of the rises in the 
costs of other indicia of our economic well-being in this country.
  Madam President, I know for a fact that I would not be able to be in 
the U.S. Senate today were it not for quality public education and the 
accessibility and the affordability of higher education. The Chicago 
public schools gave me a solid foundation, and I was then able to 
attend the University of Illinois and later the University of Chicago, 
in spite of the fact that my parents were working-class people. One can 
only imagine, Madam President, how many Carol Moseley-Brauns, or the 
equivalent, of this generation did not have that opportunity. The 
exploding cost of college is closing the door of opportunity for them. 
I believe that our generation has an absolute duty to keep that door 
open and to preserve the American dream for the 21st century and for 
our children and for our community as a whole.
  Finally, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the GAO report so that Senators and private citizens who are 
interested in reading the report itself and exploring the methodology 
used by the General Accounting Office may do so.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         General Accounting Office, Health, Education and Human 
           Services Division,
                               Washington, DC, September 19, 1996.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: In August 1996, we reported 
     that there is widespread concern about the increase in 
     college tuition levels and that average tuition levels vary 
     widely among the states.\1\ In our earlier report, we showed 
     that tuition were rising faster than college expenditures and 
     that state funding and grant aid were not keeping pace with 
     these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Higher Education: Tuition Increasing Faster Than 
     Household Income and Public Colleges' Costs (GAO/HEHS-96-154, 
     Aug. 15, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Based on our report, you requested information on (1) the 
     states' public 4-year colleges' and universities' average 
     tuition as a percentage for median household income and (2) 
     comparative increases in tuition at these schools from school 
     year 1980-81 through 1995-95, with increases in other 
     selected consumer prices and median household income during 
     the same period.
       To determine schools' average tuition as a percentage of 
     median household income, we divided the average annual 
     tuition for in-state undergraduate students of 4-year public 
     colleges and universities for school year 1995-96 in each 
     state by the state's median household income for calendar 
     year 1994, the latest year for which such data were 
     available. For our comparison of tuition price increase with 
     changes in selected consumer prices and median household 
     income, we used the consumer price index (CPI) and other 
     information from the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United 
     States.
       We conducted our review in August and September 1996 in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards.
     Results in brief
       On a nationwide basis, our analysis shows that the average 
     tuition (including related fees) for in-state undergraduate 
     students of 4-year public colleges and universities for 
     academic year 1995-96 was about 8.9 percent of median 
     household income; however, there is a significant difference 
     among the states. On one end of the spectrum, Hawaii's 
     average tuition for the 1995-96 school year was less than 4 
     percent of median household income. In contrast, Vermont's 
     average tuition for 4-year public colleges and universities 
     was over 15 percent of median household income. In general we 
     found that state differences are more closely associated with 
     tuition prices than with income levels. That is, states in 
     which the average tuition was a low percentage of median 
     household income tended to be ones with low tuitions but not 
     high incomes.
       From school year 1980-81 through 1994-95, tuition charges 
     at 4-year public colleges and universities for in-state 
     undergraduate students increased nationally by 234 percent. 
     In contrast, other consumer prices and household incomes 
     increased at a much slower pace. Medical costs, for example, 
     increased 182 percent, and consumer expenditures for new cars 
     increased 160 percent. Household incomes rose 82 percent 
     during the same period.
     College tuition as a percentage of income varies widely among 
         States
       Our analysis showed that schools' average tuition as a 
     percentage of median household income at 4-year public 
     colleges and universities varies widely among the states. 
     Schools in Hawaii, for example, were found to have tuition 
     taking 3.61 percent of median

[[Page S11066]]

     household income.\2\ In contrast, 4-year public colleges and 
     universities in Vermont had a higher ratio--tuition was 15.42 
     percent of income. The national average was 8.88 percent. 
     Enclosure 1 shows the average tuition as a percentage of 
     median household income for 4-year public colleges and 
     universities in each state. This percentage tends to be 
     higher in the Northeastern states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ As we pointed out in our August report, however, Hawaii's 
     schools may not have the lowest tuition level in school year 
     1996-97. The state approved an 84.6-percent increase for in-
     state undergraduate tuition at the University of Hawaii's 
     Manoa campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In general, state differences in this percentage are more 
     closely associated with tuition prices than with income 
     levels. That is, states in which the average tuition was a 
     low percentage of median household income tendered to be ones 
     with low tuitions but not high incomes. For example, of the 
     15 states with the lowest percentages, 13 were among the 
     states with the lowest tuitions while only 5 of them were 
     among the states with the highest incomes. At the other end 
     of the spectrum, of the 15 states with the highest 
     percentages, 11 were among the states with the highest 
     tuitions but only 1 of them was among the states with the 
     lowest incomes.
     College tuition compared to selected consumer prices and 
         household incomes
       From school year 1980-81 through school year 1994-95, the 
     average annual tuition at 4-year public colleges and 
     universities for in-state undergraduate students increased 
     from $804 per year to 42,689, or 234 percent. Over 
     approximately the same period, median household income 
     increased by 82 percent, from $17,710 in 1980 to $32,264 in 
     1994. During this 15-year period, the prices and costs of 
     other consumer goods also increased, but not as fast as the 
     increases in tuition. For example, the average consumer 
     expenditure for a new car went from $7,754 in 1980 to $19,676 
     in 1994, an increase of 160 percent.
     Agency comments
       Information contained in this correspondence is consistent 
     with that in our August 1996 report in which the Department 
     was given an opportunity to provide comments.
       We are sending copies of this letter to the Secretary of 
     Education, appropriate congressional committees and Members, 
     and other interested parties.
       Please call me at (202) 512-7014 if you our your staff have 
     any questions regarding this correspondence. Major 
     contributors include Joseph J. Eglin, Jr., Assistant 
     Director; Charles M. Novak; Benjamin P. Pfeiffer; and Charles 
     H. Shervey.
           Sincerely yours,

                                           Carlotta C. Joyner,

                                           Director, Education and
                                                Employment Issues.
       Enclosures.

                     TUITION AT 4-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES COMPARED TO MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            State rankings      
                                                                            Tuition  ---------------------------
                                                      Average     Median      as a                      Tuition 
                       State                        tuition in  household   percent                       as a  
                                                      1995-96   income in  of income  Tuition  Income   percent 
                                                        \1\      1994 \2\     \3\                      of income
                                                                                                          \3\   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................     $2,234     $27,196      8.21        20      43        24 
Alaska............................................      2,502      45,367      5.52        25       1         5 
Arizona...........................................      1,943      31,293      6.21         9      30        10 
Arkansas..........................................      2,062      25,565      8.07        14      48        21 
California........................................      2,918      35,331      8.26        30      14        25 
Colorado..........................................      2,458      37,833      6.50        24       7        12 
Connecticut.......................................      3,828      41,097      9.31        43       4        33 
Delaware..........................................      3,962      35,873     11.04        45       9        43 
Florida...........................................      1,790      29,294      6.11         5      37         9 
Georgia...........................................      2,076      31,467      6.60        15      28        13 
Hawaii............................................      1,524      42,255      3.61         1       3         1 
Idaho.............................................      1,714      31,536      5.44         3      27         4 
Illinois..........................................      3,388      35,081      9.66        36      17        35 
Indiana...........................................      3,040      27,858     10.91        32      41        42 
Iowa..............................................      2,565      33,079      7.75        28      21        19 
Kansas............................................      2,110      28,322      7.45        16      39        18 
Kentucky..........................................      2,160      26,595      8.12        18      46        22 
Louisiana.........................................      2,139      25,676      8.33        17      47        26 
Maine.............................................      3,562      30,316     11.75        37      32        47 
Maryland..........................................      3,572      39,198      9.11        38       6        31 
Massachusetts.....................................      4,178      40,500     10.31        47       5        38 
Michigan..........................................      3,789      35,284     10.74        42      15        41 
Minnesota.........................................      3,108      33,644      9.24        34      18        32 
Mississippi.......................................      2,443      25,400      9.62        23      49        34 
Missouri..........................................      3,007      30,190      9.96        31      33        36 
Montana...........................................      2,346      27,631      8.49        22      42        28 
Nebraska..........................................      2,294      31,794      7.22        21      26        16 
Nevada............................................      1,830      35,871      5.10         6      10         2 
New Hampshire.....................................      4,537      35,245     12.87        48      16        48 
New Jersey........................................      3,848      42,280      9.10        44       2        30 
New Mexico........................................      1,938      26,905      7.20         8      45        15 
New York..........................................      3,697      31,899     11.59        41      24        46 
North Carolina....................................      1,622      30,114      5.39         2      34         3 
North Dakota......................................      2,211      28,278      7.82        19      40        20 
Ohio..............................................      3,664      31,855     11.50        40      25        45 
Oklahoma..........................................      1,741      26,991      6.45         4      44        11 
Oregon............................................      3,241      31,453     10.30        35      29        37 
Pennsylvania......................................      4,693      32,066     14.64        49      22        49 
Rhode Island......................................      3,619      31,928     11.33        39      23        44 
South Carolina....................................      3,103      29,846     10.40        33      35        39 
South Dakota......................................      2,549      29,733      8.57        26      36        29 
Tennessee.........................................      2,001      28,639      6.99        11      38        14 
Texas.............................................      1,832      30,755      5.96         7      31         7 
Utah..............................................      2,007      35,716      5.62        13      12         6 
Vermont...........................................      5,521      35,802     15.42        50      11        50 
Virginia..........................................      3,965      37,647     10.53        46       8        40 
Washington........................................      2,726      33,533      8.13        29      19        23 
West Virginia.....................................      1,992      23,564      8.45        10      50        27 
Wisconsin.........................................      2,555      35,388      7.22        27      13        17 
Wyoming...........................................      2,005      33,140      6.05        12      20         8 
Nationwide........................................      2,865      32,264      8.88   .......  ......  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average full-time, in-state undergraduate tuition and related fees at 4-year state colleges and universities
  weighted by the estimated number of full-time, in-state undergraduates at each institution. We obtained these 
  data from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System surveys.               
\2\ This is the latest year for which median household income data were available. We obtained median household 
  income data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.                                                               
\3\ the average tuition for in-state undergraduate students of 4-year public colleges and universities for      
  school year 1995-96 in each state, divided by the state's median household income for calendar year 1994, the 
  latest year for which such income data were available.                                                        

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. It is a very important study. It suggests that we 
need to begin to take up this issue and examine the cause of the 
exploding cost of college tuition so we can make cogent policy in this 
area. I feel confident that we have the ability, and certainly we have 
the will, to begin to address this question so that college is as 
accessible for this generation of Americans as it was for every Member 
of this body. I encourage my colleagues to examine the work done by the 
General Accounting Office. I thank the General Accounting Office for 
its investigation in this area and for its work in this area. I believe 
that it will provide the foundation for a very important debate in our 
country.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I commend the Senator from Illinois for her excellent 
statement. I think all of us understand that she has been a leader here 
in the Senate in pointing out not only the issues of quality that are 
so important in schools, but also the issue of physical facilities. She 
understands that if you have a dilapidated building with poor support 
facilities inside the building, it creates a climate that makes it much 
more difficult for children to learn.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, this is the case. We are one of the 
oldest States, and many of our schools are also quite old. Too often, 
our schools, both in the inner cities and in other areas, have 
deteriorated over the years. She has been a strong leader in 
challenging the Senate to make progress in this area and has challenged 
the President to take the initiative in this area. This is going to 
make a great deal of difference for students.
  And now, this report on rising costs of higher education is an 
important contribution. Like the Senator from Illinois, I am strongly 
committed to creating a package for young people of talent and ability, 
so that they have access to whatever they need--schools, 4-year 
colleges, community colleges, State colleges, or whatever it might be. 
They must be able to patch together different kinds of programs so they 
can go on to college.
  Tuition costs are a problem not just in private colleges and 
universities, but at public colleges as well. In my own State of 
Massachusetts this is certainly the case. In tuition as a percentage of 
family income, Massachusetts ranks 38th in the Nation, making it one of 
the more expensive States for families who want to help their children 
obtain a quality college education.
  So the cost of higher education is a key issue. As the Senator 
understands very well, today those decisions are often made based on 
the size of the pocketbook or wallet rather than the young person's 
abilities. It is important for us to ensure student access to higher 
education, and to look at the core reasons why these costs have gone up 
so much. Too often in the past, we have not watched that as closely as 
we should have.
  I think the Senator strengthens all of us who believe that education 
should be a major priority for this Nation. It leads to good 
employment, it is essential in training our doctors, scientists, and 
engineers, and it is key in so many areas of public policy. She 
reminded us of this by requesting this GAO study about the costs of 
higher education. It is helpful to all of us, not only in the Congress, 
but also in States and local communities, to understand this issue. I 
think it is a very important study, and we should build on it in the 
next Congress. It is timely and I think it can have an important impact 
as we begin to address needs in higher education.
  I commend the Senator for her continued interest in education. As 
someone who serves on the Education Committee, I have observed 
firsthand her very strong commitment in elementary, secondary, and 
higher education. I commend her for her initiatives and for her 
excellent statement.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you. Madam President, I thank the Senator 
from Massachusetts. The Senator from Massachusetts is being modest. He 
not

[[Page S11067]]

only serves on the Education Committee, but is the leader on that 
committee on the issues pertaining to educational opportunity for our 
young people. I thank him for his kind, complimentary remarks.
  I also thank him for pointing out how these issues link together. We 
just finished doing a television program about rebuilding our Nation's 
crumbling schools. The Senator is right. Fully a third of the schools 
across this country are in dilapidated condition and need extensive 
repair or replacement. The previous GAO study found this was a 
condition that expresses itself in all regions of the country and in 
all communities. In inner-city communities, 38 percent of the schools 
are crumbling; in suburban communities, 29 percent are crumbling; in 
rural communities, it is 30 percent. This is something that happens in 
cities, suburbs, and rural communities. That is a real challenge for 
us, because our children cannot learn if their schools are falling 
down. The report makes it clear that we are failing to live up to our 
responsibility as a generation to provide the generation of Americans 
coming into the school systems now with an environment in which 
learning can take place, and with the support that they will need to be 
competitive in the global economy.

  So looking at these issues, the General Accounting Office has been 
just wonderfully helpful because their studies give us the kind of 
intellectual and demographic base, if you will, because they have gone 
and actually counted and done the research and the surveys to find out 
what the true facts are in this area. So it is not just a matter of 
looking at what do we see when we drive past a school, but rather 
having actual documentation of what is going on with regard to 
crumbling schools all over the Nation.
  This last report on college tuition is really fascinating. I, again, 
encourage my colleagues to look at it, or anyone else who would like 
to. It is available from the General Accounting Office. A 234-percent 
increase in college tuition is stunning. Even medical care costs, which 
we have been talking about, rose about 182 percent. So this is 
outpacing even the increase in medical care costs. So it is very clear 
that families are having a difficult time coping with this. State 
support for higher education is declining at the same time costs to 
colleges are going up. The result is that young people are having a 
harder and harder time accessing higher educational opportunities.
  We have asked the Department of Education, as of yesterday, to make 
available information on scholarships and information on tuition on the 
World Wide Web, so that people can access that information through the 
Internet. It can be more accessible, and they can do the kind of 
shopping that may be particularly necessary given the escalating cost 
of higher education. Certainly, we have to get to the bottom of this 
and to the heart of this problem to find out what the reasons are. Why 
is the tuition going up so high and so quickly? What can we do to 
ameliorate the impact on working and middle-class families?
  I commend all of my colleagues who share a concern for education and 
these issues. I think nothing short of our Nation's national defense is 
at stake here. We will not be able to be competitive in this 21st 
century global economy, in an information age, unless we provide our 
young people with an opportunity to have the highest level of skills in 
the world. It is that challenge that compels us today.
  Again, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for one other point. Would she 
not agree that unless we are able to get a handle on escalating 
education costs, it is going to be very difficult to convince taxpayers 
to provide more support for education, if providing more will not lead 
to greater opportunity for the young people? For those of us that are 
strongly committed to expanding opportunities, if we see that what we 
do here does not work, it makes the task much harder.
  There are those who might say, ``If we provide more resources, they 
will just get swallowed up in tuition increases.'' That charge must be 
answered, and answered effectively. I think the work done on this 
committee and the report by the GAO should be helpful.
  Finally, I think the report that the Senator commissioned on the 
dilapidation of elementary and secondary schools creatively points out 
ways of obtaining scarce resources at the State and local level.
  Rehabilitating schools is a complex and difficult challenge. We at 
the Federal level are not going to be able to resolve all of these 
problems, but commitment at all levels is required, and I hope we will 
be able to deal with these issues in much greater detail in the next 
Congress.
  As I say, I am grateful to the Senator for her continued interest and 
very constructive work in this area.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I thank the Senator, my friend 
and colleague, from Massachusetts.
  Again, the first report, ``Profiles of School Condition by State'' is 
available. Similarly, the new one on college affordability ``Tuition 
Increasing Faster Than Household Income and Public Colleges' Costs'' is 
available.
  Again, I couldn't agree more with my colleague when he talks about 
the qualities because certainly it is going to require the cooperation 
of educators, of parents, of the kids themselves, and all of us in the 
National Government--and State and local governments--all are going to 
have to cooperate and carve out our respective responsibilities, our 
respective niche, if you will, in addressing these issues. The 
educators are going to have to address the equality issues and whether 
or not youngsters are getting the kind of quality education and skills 
they will need for this 21st century.
  We at the national level have to address the Federal support for 
education all the way through. The State and local governments may want 
to take a look at better ways to fund our schools so that they are not 
scaling down so that the opportunity is available.
  I look very much forward to working with my colleague from 
Massachusetts and the committee with as much compassion as it takes. 
Hopefully we can come up with, again, some cogent policy responses 
guided by the facts as produced by the General Accounting Office.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2098 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________