[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H8058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MAKING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week the College Board came out with 
its annual report on tuition costs at our Nation's institutions of 
higher learning. This year's average tuition increase of 5 percent 
represents a curb over the past decade of double-digit inflation in 
college costs. Nonetheless, it is still an increase above the national 
inflation rate.
  When we evaluate the information in this report, we do need to 
recognize that the overwhelming number of colleges, universities, and 
community colleges across the land are keeping their annual tuition 
increases within the 2 to 3 national percent average for inflation. 
Even some of our most elite colleges are attempting to keep increases 
in tuition within this national boundary.
  Last week the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
Dr. Charles Vest, visited my office and related how MIT has managed to 
keep its costs down to 2 percent of inflation. Dr. Vest said that he 
had taken a page out of the corporate handbook to contain operating 
costs. MIT has closed down its in-house office supply system and is now 
contracting with private supply companies. It has outsourced many of 
the publications it once handled in house as well.
  No one would argue that our colleges and universities could not do 
more to keep overall costs down so that those increases are not passed 
along as tuition increases. We should recognize, however, that like all 
institutions, colleges and universities have been having to adjust 
their operations to face a new century and a new future.
  The top three factors for tuition and fee growth have been: First, 
the need to make technological improvements on campus such as the 
purchase and use of computers, information technology, and more 
sophisticated laboratories and libraries, et cetera; second, the need 
for the institution to provide a greater share of student financial aid 
due in large measure to the decreases in Federal and State provided 
grant aid; and, third, increase in faculty salaries and benefits with 
health and retirement increases similar to those elsewhere in the 
Nation which, over the past decade, have also risen at rates greater 
than the national inflation rate.
  When we in Congress review the situation, we do need to demand fiscal 
restraint and accountability from our colleges and universities, but we 
must also recognize that we have not always played a helpful role and, 
indeed, that we might be part of the problem, not the solution.
  Federal investment in higher education, especially student financial 
aid, has shrunk significantly in constant dollars over the past 15 
years. In the decade between 1986 and 1996, the amount of Federal 
dollars invested in Pell grants fell by 16 percent. For work-study 
programs, Federal aid deceased 32 percent; for Perkins loans, funding 
decreased by 17 percent; and for the Federal SEOG program, funding fell 
by 33 percent.
  Whenever Federal dollars are taken away from student financial aid, 
those costs must be picked up by the institutions themselves. 
Institutional fund-raising that would normally have been used to cover 
the costs of faculty and staff benefits or upgrading technology are 
less available, so part of those costs are passed along to students and 
their families through tuition and fee increases.
  Once again, to use MIT as an example, in 1980 the Federal Government 
provided about 40 percent of financial aid grants to students based on 
economic need, with MIT providing about 50 percent. In 1996, the 
Federal Government provided 10 percent of need-based grants and MIT 
raised funds for 80 percent of those grants.
  If we are going to make a college education affordable for every 
student qualified to attend an institution of higher learning, then we 
must make grant funding a far greater priority for national spending.
  This year, the combination of increases in the Pell grant maximum 
award and education tax credits will provide financial support and 
relief for many American families. In spite of President Clinton's 
commitment to increase the Pell grant maximum to $3,000, an amount 
upheld in the House Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, we must 
still do more. We must do much more.
  If the Pell grant were to have the same value and impact this year as 
it did when it was created, then the Pell grant maximum would have to 
be increased today by $5,000, a level that would not only increase the 
average award amount but would also broaden the eligibility pool.
  I know many of my colleagues want to support legislation that would 
pledge a Pell grant award to every eligible child upon graduation. 
Well, if they want that grant to be worth the paper it is written on, 
they had better start supporting significantly greater increases in our 
appropriations for Pell grants each year.
  We must all do more to make a college education affordable to all. We 
must all do more to make every college accessible to those who qualify 
for admission to an institution of higher learning. Colleges and 
universities must do their part by controlling overall operating costs, 
and we here in Congress must do more to support our children's future 
by ensuring that Federal support for student financial aid increases 
substantially over the next 5 years.

                          ____________________