[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2541-H2546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONCURRING IN SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 914, TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN 
                 HIGHER EDUCATION ACT, WITH AMENDMENTS

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 145) providing for the concurrence of the House 
with the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 914, with amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 145

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
     bill (H.R. 914), to make certain technical corrections in the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to graduation data 
     disclosures, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendments thereto 
     be, and the same are hereby, agreed to with amendments as 
     follows:
       Insert before section 1 the following:
                     TITLE I--TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
       Redesignate sections 1 through 5 as sections 101 through 
     105, and at the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. 106. PAYMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 8002(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(i)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Priority Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B), 
     and for any fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 1997 for 
     which the amount appropriated to carry out this section 
     exceeds the amount so appropriated for fiscal year 1996--
       ``(A) the Secretary shall first use the excess amount (not 
     to exceed the amount equal to the difference of (i) the 
     amount appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year 
     1997, and (ii) the amount appropriated to carry out this 
     section for fiscal year 1996) to increase the payment that 
     would otherwise be made under this section to not more than 
     50 percent of the maximum amount determined under subsection 
     (b) for any local educational agency described in paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(B) the Secretary shall use the remainder of the excess 
     amount to increase the payments to each eligible local 
     educational agency under this section.
       ``(2) Local educational agency described.--A local 
     educational agency described in this paragraph is a local 
     educational agency that--
       ``(A) received a payment under this section for fiscal year 
     1996;
       ``(B) serves a school district that contains all or a 
     portion of a United States military academy;
       ``(C) serves a school district in which the local tax 
     assessor has certified that at least 60 percent of the real 
     property is federally owned; and
       ``(D) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     that such agency's per-pupil revenue derived from local 
     sources for current expenditures is not less than that 
     revenue for the preceding fiscal year.''.
               TITLE II--COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION REVIEW

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Cost of 
     Higher Education Review Act of 1997''.

[[Page H2542]]

       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to a report issued by the General Accounting 
     Office, tuition at 4-year public colleges and universities 
     increased 234 percent from school year 1980-1981 through 
     school year 1994-1995, while median household income rose 82 
     percent and the cost of consumer goods as measured by the 
     Consumer Price Index rose 74 percent over the same time 
     period.
       (2) A 1995 survey of college freshmen found that concern 
     about college affordability was the highest it has been in 
     the last 30 years.
       (3) Paying for a college education now ranks as one of the 
     most costly investments for American families.

     SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE COST OF 
                   HIGHER EDUCATION.

       There is established a Commission to be known as the 
     ``National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education'' 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 203. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 7 
     members as follows:
       (1) Two individuals shall be appointed by the Speaker of 
     the House.
       (2) One individual shall be appointed by the Minority 
     Leader of the House.
       (3) Two individuals shall be appointed by the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate.
       (4) One individual shall be appointed by the Minority 
     Leader of the Senate.
       (5) One individual shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Education.
       (b) Additional Qualifications.--Each of the individuals 
     appointed under subsection (a) shall be an individual with 
     expertise and experience in higher education finance 
     (including the financing of State institutions of higher 
     education), Federal financial aid programs, education 
     economics research, public or private higher education 
     administration, or business executives who have managed 
     successful cost reduction programs.
       (c) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The members of the 
     Commission shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson. 
     In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson will 
     assume the duties of the Chairperson.
       (d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (e) Appointments.--All appointments under subsection (a) 
     shall be made within 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act. In the event that an officer authorized to make an 
     appointment under subsection (a) has not made such 
     appointment within such 30 days, the appointment may be made 
     for such officer as follows:
       (1) The Chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce may act under such subsection for the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce may act under such subsection for 
     the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (3) The Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources may act under such subsection for the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate.
       (4) The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Labor 
     and Human Resources may act under such subsection for the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (f) Voting.--Each member of the Commission shall be 
     entitled to one vote, which shall be equal to the vote of 
     every other member of the Commission.
       (g) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       (h) Prohibition of Additional Pay.--Members of the 
     Commission shall receive no additional pay, allowances, or 
     benefits by reason of their service on the Commission. 
     Members appointed from among private citizens of the United 
     States may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem, in 
     lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving 
     intermittently in the government service to the extent funds 
     are available for such expenses.
       (i) Initial Meeting.--The initial meeting of the Commission 
     shall occur within 40 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 204. FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Specific Findings and Recommendations.--The Commission 
     shall study and make findings and specific recommendations 
     regarding the following:
       (1) The increase in tuition compared with other commodities 
     and services.
       (2) Innovative methods of reducing or stabilizing tuition.
       (3) Trends in college and university administrative costs, 
     including administrative staffing, ratio of administrative 
     staff to instructors, ratio of administrative staff to 
     students, remuneration of administrative staff, and 
     remuneration of college and university presidents or 
     chancellors.
       (4) Trends in (A) faculty workload and remuneration 
     (including the use of adjunct faculty), (B) faculty-to-
     student ratios, (C) number of hours spent in the classroom by 
     faculty, and (D) tenure practices, and the impact of such 
     trends on tuition.
       (5) Trends in (A) the construction and renovation of 
     academic and other collegiate facilities, and (B) the 
     modernization of facilities to access and utilize new 
     technologies, and the impact of such trends on tuition.
       (6) The extent to which increases in institutional 
     financial aid and tuition discounting have affected tuition 
     increases, including the demographics of students receiving 
     such aid, the extent to which such aid is provided to 
     students with limited need in order to attract such students 
     to particular institutions or major fields of study, and the 
     extent to which Federal financial aid, including loan aid, 
     has been used to offset such increases.
       (7) The extent to which Federal, State, and local laws, 
     regulations, or other mandates contribute to increasing 
     tuition, and recommendations on reducing those mandates.
       (8) The establishment of a mechanism for a more timely and 
     widespread distribution of data on tuition trends and other 
     costs of operating colleges and universities.
       (9) The extent to which student financial aid programs have 
     contributed to changes in tuition.
       (10) Trends in State fiscal policies that have affected 
     college costs.
       (11) The adequacy of existing Federal and State financial 
     aid programs in meeting the costs of attending colleges and 
     universities.
       (12) Other related topics determined to be appropriate by 
     the Commission.
       (b) Final Report.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission 
     shall submit to the President and to the Congress, not later 
     than 120 days after the date of the first meeting of the 
     Commission, a report which shall contain a detailed statement 
     of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, including 
     the Commission's recommendations for administrative and 
     legislative action that the Commission considers advisable.
       (2) Majority vote required for recommendations.--Any 
     recommendation described in paragraph (1) shall be made by 
     the Commission to the President and to the Congress only if 
     such recommendation is adopted by a majority vote of the 
     members of the Commission who are present and voting.
       (3) Evaluation of different circumstances.--In making any 
     findings under subsection (a) of this section, the Commission 
     shall take into account differences between public and 
     private colleges and universities, the length of the academic 
     program, the size of the institution's student population, 
     and the availability of the institution's resources, 
     including the size of the institution's endowment.

     SEC. 205. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this Act, hold such hearings and sit and act at 
     such times and places, as the Commission may find advisable.
       (b) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission may adopt such 
     rules and regulations as may be necessary to establish the 
     Commission's procedures and to govern the manner of the 
     Commission's operations, organization, and personnel.
       (c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) Information.--The Commission may request from the head 
     of any Federal agency or instrumentality such information as 
     the Commission may require for the purpose of this Act. Each 
     such agency or instrumentality shall, to the extent permitted 
     by law and subject to the exceptions set forth in section 552 
     of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     Freedom of Information Act), furnish such information to the 
     Commission, upon request made by the Chairperson of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Facilities and services, personnel detail authorized.--
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head 
     of any Federal agency or instrumentality shall, to the extent 
     possible and subject to the discretion of such head--
       (A) make any of the facilities and services of such agency 
     or instrumentality available to the Commission; and
       (B) detail any of the personnel of such agency or 
     instrumentality to the Commission, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, to assist the Commission in carrying out the 
     Commission's duties under this Act.
       (d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (e) Contracting.--The Commission, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, may enter 
     into contracts with State agencies, private firms, 
     institutions, and individuals for the purpose of conducting 
     research or surveys necessary to enable the Commission to 
     discharge the Commission's duties under this Act.
       (f) Staff.--Subject to such rules and regulations as may be 
     adopted by the Commission, and to such extent and in such 
     amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, the 
     Chairperson of the Commission shall have the power to 
     appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without regard 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and without regard 
     to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 
     53 of such title, or of any other provision, or of any other 
     provision of law, relating to the number, classification, and 
     General Schedule rates) of an Executive Director, and of such 
     additional staff as the Chairperson deems advisable to assist 
     the Commission, at rates not to exceed a rate equal to the 
     maximum rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5332 of such title.

     SEC. 206. EXPENSES OF COMMISSION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to pay any expenses 
     of the Commission such

[[Page H2543]]

     sums as may be necessary not to exceed $650,000. Any sums 
     appropriated for such purposes are authorized to remain 
     available until expended, or until one year after the 
     termination of the Commission pursuant to section 207, 
     whichever occurs first.

     SEC. 207. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is 60 
     days after the date on which the Commission is required to 
     submit its final report in accordance with section 204(b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Kildee] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 914. H.R. 914 was 
originally passed by the House of Representatives on March 11, 1997, 
under suspension of the rules. It made two simple amendments to the 
student right to know provisions of the Higher Education Act. These 
amendments changed the date for which schools had to report graduation 
rates in order to lessen the reporting requirements faced by schools 
while improving the quality of information that students would receive.
  On April 16, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 914 after adding impact aid 
technical amendments to the legislation. Those amendments would: extend 
the deadline for filing for equalized States which deduct impact aid 
revenue in their computation of general State aid for education; extend 
the hold harmless for section 8002 payments for property to cover 
fiscal years 1997 through the year 2000; and add expenditure data as a 
factor to be considered when determining a school district's financial 
profile under the section of the law, 8003(f), dealing with heavily 
impacted school districts.
  Today, we are again considering H.R. 914 under suspension of the 
rules. The legislation before us today includes the impact aid 
technical amendments passed by the other body and one additional impact 
aid technical amendment added by the House to clarify that 
appropriations over and above the amount appropriated for section 8002 
for fiscal year 1997 are to be distributed to all eligible school 
districts. However, it also includes one more very important piece of 
legislation. H.R. 914, as it is before us today, includes the Cost of 
Higher Education Review Act of 1997. I would like to focus my remarks 
on these very important provisions.
  In today's technology and information-based economy, getting a high 
quality postsecondary education is more important than ever. For many 
Americans it is the key to the American dream.
  Let me tell my colleagues how I see higher education in the future. I 
would hope that men and women, young and old, will have access to 
postsecondary education when they need it. Some would go to college for 
undergraduate or graduate degrees. Others would choose to go to school 
or go back to school for much shorter periods of time in order to 
improve or upgrade their schools for a better job and a better future. 
Many could just take a class or two from home over the Internet. But I 
want to see every American who so chooses have the option of receiving 
a quality education at an affordable price.
  As my colleagues know, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, 
Training and Life-Long Learning has already begun the process of 
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion 
in student financial aid this year alone. We have been holding hearings 
around the country on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 
and a consistent question we get from students and parents is why is 
college so expensive and why are college prices rising so quickly.
  However, my interest in higher education goes well beyond the role I 
play as chairman of that subcommittee. I am a parent and a grandparent, 
and I know students who are pursuing or will pursue a postsecondary 
education. I have constituents, students and parents, who are worried 
about their abilities to afford a college education.
  Historically, the cost of getting a postsecondary education has 
increased at a rate slightly above the cost of living. However, a 
recent General Accounting Office report tells us that over the last 15 
years the price of attending a 4-year public college has increased over 
234 percent while the median household income has risen by only 82 
percent and the CPI only 74 percent. A recent survey of college 
freshmen found that concern over college affordability is at a 30-year 
high. Parents and students across the country are understandably 
worried about the rising cost of higher education.
  In order to control the cost of obtaining a postsecondary education, 
parents, students, and policymakers must work together with colleges 
and universities to slow tuition inflation, or for many Americans 
college will become unaffordable.
  That is not to say that there are not affordable schools. There are 
some affordable schools and there are college presidents who are 
committed to keeping costs low. There are schools that are trying very 
innovative things to reduce tuition prices.

                              {time}  1515

  However, the trend in higher education pricing is truly alarming. 
This trend is especially alarming in that it only seems to apply to 
higher education. There are many endeavors and many businesses that 
must keep pace with changing technologies and Federal regulations. 
However, in order to stay affordable to their customers and stay 
competitive in the market, they manage to hold cost increases to a 
reasonable level.
  The Cost of Higher Education Review Act contained in H.R. 914 will 
establish a commission on the cost of higher education. This commission 
will have a very short life span. Over a 4-month period the commission 
will study the reasons why tuitions have risen so quickly and 
dramatically, and report on what schools, the administration and the 
Congress can do to stabilize or reduce tuitions.
  There is a great deal of conflicting information around the country 
with respect to college costs. This commission will be comprised of 
seven individuals with expertise in business and business cost 
reduction programs, economics, and education administration. Their job 
will be to analyze this information and give us a true picture of why 
costs continue to outpace inflation and what can be done to stop this 
trend.
  Members of the commission will be appointed by the House and Senate 
leadership and the Secretary of Education. The commission will have 4 
months to perform its duties. The commission will then sunset within 2 
months of finishing its job. The cost for this commission will not 
exceed $650,000.
  Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, this year we will be reauthorizing 
the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion this year 
alone in Federal student financial aid. As we go through this process, 
our goals will be to make higher education more affordable, simplify 
the student aid system, and stress academic quality.
  In order to update and improve the Higher Education Act in a way that 
truly helps parents and students, a thorough understanding of tuition 
trends will be essential. The Cost of Higher Education Review Act will 
give us that information and shed light on a topic which is of utmost 
concern to our constituents. I urge my colleagues to join me in this 
effort, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 914.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the hearing on the costs of higher education, I 
expressed deep concern over the rising costs of a college education. At 
that time I also expressed concern that we avoid Federal intrusion into 
the day-to-day operations of American higher education. As I see it, 
our job is to work with our colleges as they, and not we, seek to bring 
costs under control. I do not believe that the American people want the 
Federal Government to step into the management of our colleges and 
universities, and I for one would oppose any such move.
  I voted to report this legislation out of committee and shall vote 
for its passage today. I do so, however, with both concerns and 
misgivings.

[[Page H2544]]

  I believe, for example, that the executive branch should have equal 
representation on the commission. Examining the costs of a college 
education is not a partisan issue, and I fear that not giving the 
executive branch equal participation gives the commission a possible 
partisan tinge it should not have.
  I also believe that we are asking the commission to issue a final 
report in too short a time. The issues to be addressed by the 
commission are very complex, and I am not at all sure that we can get 
the substantive answers we are seeking in a 4-month period.
  Despite these and other reservations, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to 
give the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], my very good friend, 
and chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training 
and Life-Long Learning, the benefit of the doubt, and not to oppose 
adding this legislation to H.R. 914.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 914, which makes a technical 
correction to the student right-to-know provisions of the Higher 
Education Act, includes technical amendments to the impact aid program, 
and authorizes the timely creation of a commission to review the costs 
of higher education.
  The House passed the technical amendments to the student right-to-
know provision of the Higher Education Act in March. The Senate then 
added several amendments dealing with impact aid funds.
  The first provision amends the provisions of the impact aid law 
dealing with equalized States. Current law requires such States to file 
notices of intent to deduct impact aid revenue in their computation of 
general State aid by March 3, 1997. Several States missed the filing 
deadline, and the Department of Education does not have the authority 
to waive the statutory filing deadline. This amendment provides such 
authority, but I would caution States, all 50, not to miss the deadline 
again. It is entirely too expensive for States to take that risk.
  The second amendment extends the hold-harmless provision for section 
8002, Federal property payments, to cover fiscal years 1997 through 
2000. Due to a formula change in the 1994 Improving America's Schools 
Act, the Department of Education has not been able to determine exact 
payments. Extending the hold-harmless at the fiscal year 1997 level 
through fiscal year 2000 will allow this issue to be reviewed as part 
of the next review of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The third amendment adds an important factor to a school district's 
financial profile for purposes of payments to heavily impacted school 
districts. During the 104th Congress, we modified this section to allow 
schools to use data from 2 years prior instead of relying on current 
year data which delayed payments for an extended period of time. 
However, in revising this section, the use of expenditure data was not 
included accidentally. This provision simply adds that expenditure data 
to the financial pool.
  These are the impact aid changes contained in the Senate bill. One 
additional technical amendment has been added, and this amendment 
clarifies that funds over and above the amount necessary to ensure that 
the Highland Falls School District receives at least one-half of the 
amount they would receive under section 8002 if the program was fully 
funded is to be distributed to all eligible school districts.
  In addition to the impact aid amendments, we have added language from 
H.R. 1511 which the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported 
last week. The language we have included authorizes the creation of a 
commission to review college costs. This bipartisan effort reflects a 
common goal of Members of this body. We want college to be affordable 
for students and families across the country.
  The only answer we keep getting from the college presidents and 
university presidents is that they have to increase their costs because 
they keep giving more money of their own to students in need. That is 
called sticker price and discount price. I do not know what role we 
play in that on the Federal level. All I know is that when one college 
eliminated their discounted price and stuck to their sticker price, 
they lowered tuition for everybody, and in doing that, they had more 
students than they had room for. I think all colleges can take a hint.
  I am happy to see that we are finding that they are getting costs 
under control. I believe they are down closer to 6 and 7 percent. I 
think they can still do better.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the chairman of the full committee, clarify the intent of 
section 106? Am I correct in understanding that this section merely 
clarifies that the difference in funding for section 8002 between the 
amount appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 will first be used to 
pay 50 percent of the maximum amount for any school district described 
in paragraph 2 of section 8002(i), and that any remaining funds plus 
any additional amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding 
years will then be distributed to increase payments to other school 
districts which qualify under 8002?
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. Section 106 of the bill 
amends section 8002(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to 
clarify that, beginning in the fiscal year 1997, priority payments for 
amounts appropriated above the appropriated level for section 8002 for 
1996 shall be made to a local education agency which meets certain 
specified criteria, not to exceed 50 percent of their maximum payment. 
The Secretary shall then use any funds in excess of this amount, plus 
any additional amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding 
years to increase payments to each eligible school educational agency 
under this section.
  Mrs. KELLY. This section will in no way result in any reductions in 
funding to the local education agency described in paragraph 2 of 
section 8002(i)?
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The only way such payments 
would be reduced would be if appropriations fell to or below the amount 
appropriated in 1996.
  Mrs. KELLY. With that understanding, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam 
[Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 914 and in particular the 
inclusion of H.R. 1511 which establishes a commission to study the 
costs of higher education.
  As pointed out by the chairman, a recently released GAO report found 
that the price of a 4-year public institution has increased by 234 
percent in the past 15 years. I urge Members to support this commission 
so that as a body we are well informed about the many factors which 
contribute to the increased price of college.
  As a former college administrator, I can tell my colleagues that the 
issues surrounding the price of tuition are complex and establishing a 
commission dedicated to studying this issue will be very helpful. More 
importantly, this commission will report back to Congress and the 
administration to provide suggestions on how to stabilize tuition 
rates. Many proposals have come forth from this Congress to help 
families pay for these increasing costs, but few if any have attempted 
to deal directly with the institutions themselves. It is at the 
institutional level rather than in the Tax Code that I believe this 
problem will be successfully addressed. Extravagant tuition increases 
become not only an economic problem for individual families but a 
social problem for entire communities and our Nation as a whole. When 
tuition increases as drastically as it has, more and more students are 
left behind, students who otherwise would be attending college. If the 
current trend continues, only the very wealthy will be able to afford 
college and lower income families will not have the educational tools 
with which to compete in the work force of the 21st century, and we 
will all suffer. The commission will cost relatively little and provide 
valuable information which will help us address this growing

[[Page H2545]]

problem. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  As a former college administrator, I can help explain these tuition 
costs as needed and justifiable. As a parent, I feel helpless on the 
onslaught of tuition increases beyond inflation. But as Members of 
Congress, we must respond intelligently to this situation which impacts 
on our growth, and this legislation does exactly that.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, while this bill makes several technical corrections to 
already existing law, I want to speak to one provision that creates the 
National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. Normally I am not 
particularly thrilled with the establishment of new commissions since 
they tend to take a little too long to complete their work and very 
often their recommendations have little or no impact on our 
deliberations. However, in this case, the $650,000 expenditure of 
already appropriated funds for this commission and the fact that it 
must provide Congress with its recommendations within 4 months means 
that Congress will have an opportunity to review the recommendations 
during our consideration of the Higher Education Act. As the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon], the chairman, has already mentioned, 
since 1980 the cost of 4-year public colleges and universities has 
increased by 234 percent and the tuition at private 4-year institutions 
is already increasing at a rate of about 8 percent annually. Yet the 
causes for these increased tuition costs and whether the Federal 
policies or programs contribute are very complex and they deserve 
study. I recommend the study and I recommend the adoption of H.R. 914.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal], a member of the committee.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I commend the gentleman and the staff for their fine 
work in the bringing of this bill to the floor.
  I, too, like the speaker who preceded me, am not particularly fond of 
commissions, but this one is of short duration, 4 months, and will 
address some very serious issues that we need to be concerned about.
  We are spending $35 billion in Federal aid this year for student aid 
programs, but we also know that for many students who are graduating 
that the cost of loan repayments is a significant burden that they will 
face in the near future. This commission has some important questions 
to answer: What is the role of the Federal Government? Do we have a 
role? What can we do? Are there regulatory reforms that are called for 
that will slow down or reduce the cost of rising tuition?
  These are the kinds of questions that deserve our answers. These are 
the kinds of questions that must be answered before we reauthorize the 
Higher Education Act.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of H.R. 914 and 
would like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for bringing 
this legislation to the floor. Unlike the authorization of the seven-
member panel of experts to examine exploding costs of higher education, 
the work of this panel will provide important information as we strive 
to make a college education an affordable reality for American students 
and their families. This legislation also contains language which is 
necessary for the States of Kansas and New Mexico to count the Federal 
impact aid they receive as part of their overall State education 
budget. This will save the State of Kansas $6.5 million this year 
alone. This technical correction will result in no costs to the Federal 
Government. It simply allows Kansas to recognize the Federal impact aid 
it receives as part of the State's overall education budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision has been approved by the members of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and passed by unanimous 
consent in the Senate. I appreciate the assistance of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McKeon] for including this provision for the State of Kansas, and I 
urge the passage of H.R. 914.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McKeon] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for their 
excellent work on this legislation. Today Congress has the opportunity 
to take an important bipartisan step in addressing an issue which 
affects so many American families, the rising costs of higher 
education. There is perhaps no long-term issue more important to our 
Nation than providing Americans opportunities within our educational 
system.
  Shortly after I arrived in Congress just 2 years ago, I, along with 
other concerned Members of the House, made a bipartisan request that 
the GAO investigate the recent history of increases in college and 
university costs. The results of their report were disturbing: a 234 
percent increase in the cost of attending a 4-year public college over 
the last 15 years, placing a college education and the American dream 
out of reach for many Americans. The legislation before us today will 
allow Congress the benefit of expert recommendations by an independent 
nonpartisan commission on what can be done to address rising college 
costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow House Members to support H.R. 914.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong support for 
the Costs of Higher Education Review Act of 1997, a commission which 
will create a short-term commission to study the reasons for the 
constant increases in the costs of postsecondary education. As we 
embark upon a debate over the reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act, the hard work and findings of this commission could be invaluable 
to our efforts, Mr. Speaker. The inescapable reality is we need to find 
ways to ensure that colleges, universities, and vocational institutions 
remain affordable for all Americans. Anything less and this Nation's 
young people will not be prepared to confront and overcome the 
challenges of the high-technology skills-dependent workplace of the 
21st century.
  The need for cost containment is real. In fact, over the last several 
months I have had numerous students and parents, as I would surmise 
many of my colleagues around the Nation have had, in Memphis voice 
their concerns over the cost of college, the rising costs of college. 
Several young people in my district who have decided to pursue a 
postsecondary education and are doing extremely well in the classroom 
are nevertheless facing the prospect of having to take a semester off 
or drop out altogether because they cannot qualify for loans, and/or 
their Pell or school-based grants are insufficient to cover the costs 
of tuition, room and board, and books. It is our duty as public 
policymakers to do all that we can to make sure that young people like 
those in my district who have worked hard, played by the rules and 
stayed in school, that they have a meaningful opportunity to pursue a 
postsecondary education. I am confident that if we work together 
Congress, the President, higher education administrators, parents, and 
students can find the will and the way to open and keep open the doors 
of educational opportunity for all Americans.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding the time. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I am 
a strong supporter of higher education. The productivity and 
performance of our economy is inextricably entwined with the 
investments in education that we individually and collectively make as 
a nation. Clearly, higher education is a valuable commodity, and it 
behooves us to make it readily available to our young people, our 
veterans, and to all Americans.

[[Page H2546]]

  Put simply, I want everyone who possibly can to have the opportunity 
to pursue higher education, but I fear that college may be eluding many 
Americans because of the costs of attending. College tuition is one of 
the most important determinants of student access. Unfortunately, it 
has been rising at an astronomical rate. Over the last 3 years tuition 
costs have been rising at roughly 6 percent or twice the rate of 
inflation, which is a vast improvement over prior years. Years of 
unchecked growth and not entirely necessary growth have left a legacy 
of inefficiency in many of our colleges and universities which should 
be reviewed.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 914 authorizes a short-term commission to study the 
rising costs of higher education and to recommend possible solutions. I 
would hope that this commission focuses on identifying plausible 
solutions rather than identifying the problem. I think that anyone who 
has spent time looking at this issue knows what the problem is and 
could identify causes. That is the easy part. The tough part is asking 
the tough questions and developing creative and reasonable policies to 
fix the problem.
  Do colleges and universities need to examine and refine their 
mission? What is a critical mass of academic programs, of professors, 
of support staff and of students necessary to sustain a college or 
university as a viable institution? What can colleges and universities 
learn from the numerous examples of corporate restructuring in the 
1980's? Can they grow smaller without compromising the richness and 
depth of their academic programs? Should they carve out a niche and 
specialize in a few areas? What exactly are the components of a quality 
education?
  As a former Governor I know well the challenges facing presidents of 
colleges and universities who seek to restructure the system, make it 
more efficient and reduce costs while maintaining support from their 
constituencies professors, administrations, and students. It is no easy 
task, and I would urge us all to support the commission bill.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce].
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today higher education is a virtual 
necessity, but there is a tremendous difficulty in achieving that 
necessity, and that is the significantly increased cost of higher 
education. If my colleagues go back over either a 10-year or a 20-year 
period, they will see that the costs of higher education have increased 
at both public and private colleges and universities at a rate of 
approximately two to three times that of the rate of inflation. If my 
colleagues look at the increase in the cost of higher education and the 
increase in median income, they will see that higher education costs 
have again increased at about two to three times the increase in the 
median income.
  So how can individuals afford a higher education? They cannot afford 
to go to school; they cannot afford not to go to school. They are in a 
bind. What happens? More and more often, students are borrowing money, 
they are going into deep debt, and it is not unusual today for a 
college student to graduate with a minimum of $10,000 in personal 
indebtedness, but very, very frequently considerably more: $20, $30, 
$40, $50,000. This imposes a huge burden on their entire future.
  Mr. Speaker, at the very least we should examine a number of issues, 
and I congratulate the gentleman from California on his initiative. 
This is necessary. All we are doing by this commission is saying let us 
look at this problem, let us find out why costs have increased two to 
three times the median income, two to three times the cost of 
inflation, et cetera. We have got to do something.
  Who is we? Everybody. We in the Congress, yes, of course; in the 
States, yes, of course; administrators at school, yes; boards of 
trustees, faculties, yes. The easy answer is to just say, well, 
increase tuition to whatever it might be because the students must go 
to college and they will borrow more and more and more. They have been 
doing this. We must bring that to a halt. We must analyze the 
possibility of tying future financial assistance to some leveling off 
of these constant increases in the costs of higher education. That is 
further than the bill goes, but it might well be necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman once again for his initiative, 
and I urge everyone to support it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, but I yield 
myself such time as I may consume to take just a minute to thank those 
on the other side who have been so helpful in bringing us to this 
point. As my colleagues know, we have been working on this committee in 
a bipartisan nature. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the 
ranking member, has been very supportive, even though he does have some 
concerns on this. He has worked with us to make this bill better, to 
bring it to the floor, and supports it at this point. The gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] has been very helpful and very supportive 
on this bill, and I would like to thank him, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford], and others.
  Once one starts naming names, it is a danger because they always 
leave out some people that have been so helpful, but I would like to 
thank those Members and others who have been helpful, and especially 
our staff who have worked night and day to get this to this point, 
because it is urgent that we get this bill passed quickly so that we 
can get the results back in time to use them for the higher ed 
reauthorization.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Impact Aid 
Technical Amendments to H.R. 914. I have long been a supporter of the 
Impact Aid Program, and I believe these amendments add necessary 
clarifications to ensure the integrity of the section 8002 funding 
disbursement.
  As we all know, States and localities provide approximately 94 
percent of education funding in the United States. The largest source 
of this funding is local property taxes. When a school district loses 
10 percent of its taxable property, the local schools are severely 
impacted.
  In 1950, Congress responded to this problem by creating the Impact 
Aid Program. The 1950 statute requires that the Federal Government 
reimburse each section 2 school district for each year in ``such amount 
as * * * is equal to the continuing Federal responsibility for the 
additional burden with respect to current expenditures placed on such 
school district by such acquisition of property.'' The meaning of this 
language is very clear to me--the Department of Education should 
reimburse each section 2 school district by the amount which the 
Federal presence negatively impacts the school district.
  My district in Illinois is home to a number of school districts 
eligible for assistance under section 8002. These funds help guarantee 
that the quality education they provide to their students will not be 
adversely affected due to the loss of tax revenue on federally-owned 
property.
  Technical corrections authorization legislation enacted by Congress 
in 1996, had the impact of directing a large portion of the Impact Aid 
section 8002 funds to one school district. I am pleased at the way the 
House has chosen to address this inequity. Technical amendments enacted 
today will ensure that all funds appropriated to the Impact Aid section 
8002 program will be allocated on the basis of the formula, ensuring 
that schools are allowed to compete on a level playing field. I 
strongly support this provision which will ensure an equitable 
disbursement of funds to all eligible schools who receive funds under 
section 8002.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this bill 
and urge Members to support H.R. 914.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H.Res. 145.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________