[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2860-H2920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 411 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 6.

                              {time}  1545


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 6) to extend the authorization of programs under the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, with Mr. Ewing (Chairman 
pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, title VII was open for amendment at any point.


     Limiting Debate on Amendment No. 75 and All Amendments Thereto

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
the amendment numbered 75, and all amendments thereto, be limited to 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by Representative Hastert of 
Illinois or his designee and Representative Roemer of Indiana or his 
designee.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title VII?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VIII.
  The text of title VIII is as follows:

                   TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 801. STUDY OF TRANSFER OF CREDITS.

       (a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Education shall 
     conduct a study to evaluate policies or practices instituted 
     by recognized accrediting agencies or associations regarding 
     the treatment of the transfer of credits from one institution 
     of higher education to another, giving particular attention 
     to--
       (1) adopted policies regarding the transfer of credits 
     between institutions of higher education which are accredited 
     by different agencies or associations and the reasons for 
     such policies;
       (2) adopted policies regarding the transfer of credits 
     between institutions of higher education which are accredited 
     by national agencies or associations and institutions of 
     higher education which are accredited by regional agencies 
     and associations and the reasons for such policies;
       (3) the effect of the adoption of such policies on students 
     transferring between such institutions of higher education, 
     including time required to matriculate, increases to the 
     student of tuition and fees paid, and increases to the 
     student with regard to student loan burden;
       (4) the extent to which Federal financial aid is awarded to 
     such students for the duplication of coursework already 
     completed at another institution; and
       (5) the aggregate cost to the Federal Government of the 
     adoption of such policies.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate 
     detailing his findings regarding the study conducted under 
     subsection (a). The Secretary's report shall include such 
     recommendation with respect to the recognition of accrediting 
     agencies or associations as the Secretary deems advisable.

     SEC. 802. STUDY OF MARKET MECHANISMS IN FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Study Required.--The Comptroller General, in 
     consultation with interested parties,

[[Page H2861]]

     shall conduct a study of the potential to use auctions or 
     other market mechanisms in the delivery of Federal student 
     loans in order to reduce costs both to the Federal Government 
     and to borrowers. Such study shall include an examination 
     of--
       (1) the feasibility of using an auction of lending 
     authority for Federal student loans, and the appropriate 
     Federal role in the operation of such an auction or other 
     alternative market mechanisms;
       (2) methods for operating such a system to ensure loan 
     access for all eligible borrowers, while maximizing the cost-
     effectiveness (for the Government and borrowers) in the 
     delivery of such loans;
       (3) the impact of such mechanisms on student loan 
     availability;
       (4) any necessary transition procedures for implementing 
     such mechanisms;
       (5) the costs or savings likely to be attained for the 
     Government and borrowers;
       (6) the feasibility of incorporating income-contingent 
     repayment options into the student loan system and requiring 
     borrowers to repay through income tax withholding, and the 
     impact of such an option on the willingness of lenders to 
     participate in auctions or other market mechanisms and on the 
     efficiency of Federal management of student loan programs;
       (7) the ability of the Department of the Treasury to 
     effectively auction the right to make student loans; and
       (8) other relevant issues.
       (b) Recommendations.--Within 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Congress a report on the study required by subsection 
     (a) and shall include with such report any legislative 
     recommendations the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 803. IMPROVEMENTS IN MARKET INFORMATION AND PUBLIC 
                   ACCOUNTABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) Improved Data Collection.--
       (1) Development of uniform methodology.--The Secretary 
     shall direct the Commissioner of Education Statistics to 
     convene a series of forums to develop nationally consistent 
     methodologies for reporting costs incurred by postsecondary 
     institutions in providing postsecondary education.
       (2) Separation of undergraduate and graduate costs.--Such 
     consistent methodologies shall permit the Secretary to 
     collect and disseminate separate data with respect to the 
     costs incurred in providing undergraduate and graduate 
     postsecondary education.
       (3) Redesign of data systems.--On the basis of the 
     methodologies developed pursuant to paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall redesign relevant parts of the postsecondary 
     education data systems to improve the usefulness and 
     timeliness of the data collected by such systems.
       (b) Data Dissemination.--The Secretary shall publish, in 
     both printed and electronic form, of the data collected 
     pursuant to subsection (a). Such data shall be available in a 
     form that permits the review and comparison of the data 
     submissions of individual institutions of higher education. 
     Such data shall be presented in a form that is easily 
     understandable and allows parents and students to make 
     informed decisions based on the following costs for typical 
     full-time undergraduate or graduate students--
       (1) tuition charges published by the institution;
       (2) the institution's cost of educating students on a full-
     time equivalent basis;
       (3) the general subsidy on a full-time equivalent basis;
       (4) instructional cost by level of instruction;
       (5) the total price of attendance; and
       (6) the average amount of per student financial aid 
     received, including and excluding assistance in the form of 
     loans.

     SEC. 804. DIFFERENTIAL REGULATION.

       (a) GAO Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study of the extent to which unnecessary costs are imposed on 
     postsecondary education as a consequence of the applicability 
     to postsecondary facilities and equipment of regulations 
     prescribed for purposes of regulating industrial and 
     commercial enterprises.
       (b) Report Required.--Within one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report to the Congress on the results of the study required 
     by subsection (a).

     SEC. 805. ANNUAL REPORT ON COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) GAO Report Required.--The Comptroller General shall 
     conduct an on-going analysis of the following:
       (1) The increase in tuition compared with other commodities 
     and services.
       (2) 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.
       (3) 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.
       (4) 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.
       (5) 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.
       (6) The extent to which Federal, State, and local laws, 
     regulations, or other mandates contribute to increasing 
     tuition, and recommendations on reducing those mandates.
       (7) 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.
       (8) The extent to which student financial aid programs have 
     contributed to changes in tuition.
       (9) Trends in State fiscal policies that have affected 
     college costs.
       (10) Other related topics determined to be appropriate by 
     the Comptroller General.
       (b) Annual Report to Congress.--The Comptroller General 
     shall submit to the Congress an annual report on the results 
     of the analysis required by subsection (a).

     SEC. 806. REPEALS OF PREVIOUS HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) Higher Education Amendments of 1986.--Title XIII of the 
     Higher Education Amendments of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 1091 note, 
     1121 note, 1221e-1 note, 1011 note, 1070a note, 1071 note, 
     1221-1 note, 1091 note) is repealed.
       (b) Higher Education Amendments of 1992.--
       (1) Title XIV.--Title XIV of the Higher Education 
     Amendments of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 1071 note, 1080 note, 1221e 
     note, 1070 note, 1221e-1 note, 1070a-21 note, 1134 note, 
     1132a note, 1221-1 note, 1101 note) is repealed.
       (2) Title XV.--Parts A, B, C, D, and E of title XV of the 
     Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (29 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., 
     20 U.S.C. 1452 note, 1101 note, 1145h, 1070 note) are 
     repealed.

     SEC. 807. LIMITATION.

       None of the funds appropriated under the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 or any other Act shall be made available by any 
     Federal agency to the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards.


          Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 70 offered by Mr. Miller of California:
       Page 334, after line 19, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 806. EDUCATIONAL MERCHANDISE LICENSING CODES OF CONDUCT.

       It is the sense of the Congress that all American colleges 
     and universities should adopt rigorous educational 
     merchandise licensing codes of conduct to assure that 
     university and college licensed merchandise is not made by 
     sweatshop and exploited adult or child labor either 
     domestically or abroad and that such codes should include at 
     least the following:
       (1) public reporting of the code and the companies adhering 
     to it;
       (2) independent monitoring of the companies adhering to the 
     code by entities not limited to major international 
     accounting firms;
       (3) an explicit prohibition on the use of child labor;
       (4) an explicit requirement that companies pay workers at 
     least the governing minimum wage and applicable overtime;
       (5) an explicit requirement that companies allow workers 
     the right to organize without retribution; and
       (6) an explicit requirement that companies maintain a safe 
     and healthy workplace.

  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, today all across America, 
consumers are taking a closer look at how products that they buy are 
made. There are some things consumers have always wanted to know: How 
much does it cost? Where is it made? What is it made of? And was it 
made with union labor? Was it made with recycled products?
  For many years, there have been labels on these products to provide 
consumers this information. Today, however, on the heels of a number of 
embarrassing incidents involving high-profile personalities and well-
known companies, consumers want to know more about the products they 
buy. They want to know under what conditions were these products made. 
They want to know, for example, whether the T-shirts, the baseball 
caps, the sweatpants, and the soccer balls they buy for themselves and 
for their children were made by children. They want to know if the 
products they are buying with their hard-earned money were made by 
workers who were exploited in sweatshops or by child labor. There are 
no labels to tell consumers that kind of information.
  Until there is a better way to inform consumers about labor 
practices, about the methods of production, we think that one of the 
best ways to do this is for purchasers of these items to engage in 
voluntary codes of conduct, codes of

[[Page H2862]]

conduct that are backed up by independent monitoring.
  We now have some of these voluntary codes of conduct with members of 
the apparel industry. Some of the big names in the apparel industry, 
the designer labels, have agreed to voluntary codes of conduct to 
monitor under what conditions their garments are made, how they are 
made, who made them, and whether or not it is exploited labor.
  What we now see on our university and college campuses is that many 
goods are sold on college campuses in the bookstores, sports 
memorabilia, college educational memorabilia items, such as this, a 
baseball cap. A simple baseball cap that might be sold on the 
university campus, it turns out that it is made in a sweatshop. It is 
made by exploited labor. In some cases it is made by child labor.
  Some universities, when they have learned this information, have 
immediately taken the items off of their shelves. They refuse to sell 
them. Cornell University just did this. Other universities have said, 
if we had known that, we would never have purchased them. Duke 
University and Brown University have just entered into voluntary codes 
of conduct for the purchasing of these materials.
  Duke University and Brown University sell a lot of this memorabilia. 
Alumni go there, the students go there, they buy it for gifts for their 
brothers and sisters. They have no way of knowing it was made with 
exploited labor or made with child labor. So now they have a voluntary 
code of conduct to protect the purchasers, to protect their student 
body from this kind of condition.
  The code stipulates that the companies must certify, if they are 
going to sell to these universities, that this is not made with child 
labor, that this is not made in sweatshops, that the minimum wage in 
the area was paid. Different universities have different approaches, 
but it is to try to raise the awareness and to make sure that the 
university could protect its consumers.
  This is a market that is over $2 billion. Over $2 billion of these 
sweatshirts and sweatpants and T-shirts and baseball caps and other 
paraphernalia are purchased. Some universities sell a huge amount of 
this, Harvard University, Duke University, University of Southern 
California, Notre Dame, and others. Duke University estimates that it 
sells about $20 million of this licensed merchandise. Cornell says it 
receives about $15,000 in royalties.
  What my amendment does is express the sense of Congress to encourage 
the adoption of these voluntary codes of conduct by colleges and 
universities governing the merchandise that they license for 
manufacture. By passing this measure, Congress will lend a helping hand 
to a growing private sector movement to restore a sense of integrity 
and decency to our marketplace.
  As one indication of the growing importance of this issue, the 
Association of Collegiate Licensing Administrators will convene their 
annual meeting later this month, and this topic of discussion is on 
their agenda to discuss such codes as were adopted by Duke University 
and Brown.
  In addition, the Collegiate Licensing Company, which represents 160 
schools, including Cornell, is in the process of writing a code of 
conduct for its clients. When we asked Duke, which had adopted its code 
in March, ``Why did you do so?'' they said for two reasons: One, on 
moral grounds, it was absolutely the right thing to do; and it was also 
smart economically.
  The universities have come to recognize, as pointed out both again by 
people at Duke and by the provost of Harvard University, that the 
university has to protect the integrity of its name. If its name is 
associated with sweatshop merchandise, if its name is associated with 
child labor, exploited labor, it cheapens the name and integrity of the 
university.
  So they have a reason to do this, and yet, these very same 
universities in a recent report found that a company named BJ&B is 
running sweatshops in the Dominican Republic making baseball caps for 
leading American universities, Harvard, Cornell, Notre Dame, 
Georgetown, Duke, and others and they did not know it. So now they are 
moving in this direction.
  I would hope that the Congress would support this effort with this 
sense of Congress resolution for these voluntary codes of conduct. 
These are baseball caps that sell for about $20, for about $20. The 
university gets about $1.50 in royalty and licensing fee. The worker 
gets 7 cents. So, obviously, there is improvement that can be made here 
in terms of compensating the people who are making these products.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Many of these workers work up to or in 
excess of 56 hours a week. Very often they are not compensated for 
overtime, they are not paid the minimum wage that is required by law in 
the country, and very often they are hired for short periods of time 
and they are forced out of the job because they prefer to have younger 
workers and they force people out after the age of 25.
  Many of the workers are given quotas that are almost unachievable. It 
means that they then have to come in and work off of the clock so they 
can start their new day of work.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud Duke University and Brown University 
and Cornell University, who is now in the process of considering these 
codes of conduct and those who have already passed codes of conduct, 
because I think that they are returning to the roots of the university 
system and demanding the excellence and integrity and dignity of their 
name and of those things that are associated with them. I would hope 
that all schools of higher education would support this effort.
  Let me also make it clear that I do not believe that code of conduct 
is enough to ensure honest wages and safety from exploitative 
workplaces. But our committee has a number of those topics under 
discussion and those are topics for another time. These voluntary code 
of conducts, finally let me say, do work.
  Over 2 years ago an effort was started in both the public and private 
sector to ask questions about soccer balls. Soccer balls were made in 
Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and elsewhere using very, very young 
children because they had tiny hands that could sew the soccer ball; 
and they used them until they could no longer do it, and then they were 
thrown out on the streets.
  We started a campaign that was started by young children, a school-
aged boy from Canada, a young boy from India that started this 
campaign. And today, today the International Soccer Federation will not 
give its consent to its name being put on a soccer ball if it is made 
with child labor.
  Nike and Reebok, when they learned of this, completely reorganized 
how they construct these balls. They brought it in house. They do not 
allow labor to be exploited.
  So a voluntary effort can make a big difference, as we are starting 
to see in some parts of the apparel industry, as we saw in the Soccer 
Federation, and I hope we will start to see on the university campuses. 
I would urge all of my colleagues to support this.
  I would like to thank so many of the students across the country who 
have taken up this effort, have brought this to the attention of the 
university administrations. And I would hope that we would soon have a 
university-wide voluntary code of conduct with respect to the purchase 
of this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record several 
additional items, including: my complete floor statement; the list of 
the members of the Apparel Industry Partnership; a copy of the report 
of the Apparel Industry Partnership to President Clinton that includes 
the code of conduct that has become the basis for codes being used by 
other universities and colleges; and, three editorials on the Apparel 
Industry Partnership's report.

       Participants in the Apparel Industry Partnership include: 
     Liz Claiborne Inc.; Nike; Phillips-Van Heusen; Reebok; L.L. 
     Bean; Patagonia; Tweeds; Nicole Miller; Karen Kane; UNITE; 
     the Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union; Business for 
     Social Responsibility; the Interfaith Center on Corporate 
     Responsibility; the International Labor Rights Fund; Lawyers 
     Committee for Human Rights; the National Consumers League; 
     and the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights.

                 Report of Apparel Industry Partnership

       The members of the Apparel Industry Partnership hereby 
     report to the President and to the public on:

[[Page H2863]]

       The announcement of the attached ``Workplace Code of 
     Conduct'' as a set of standards defining decent and humane 
     working conditions;
       The individual determination of each company participating 
     in the Partnership to adhere to the Code and to implement as 
     soon as reasonably practicable a monitoring program 
     consistent with the attached ``Principles of Monitoring,'' by 
     adopting an internal monitoring program consistent with such 
     Principles and utilizing an independent external monitor that 
     agrees to conduct its monitoring consistent with such 
     Principles; and
       The Partnership's commitment to work together to form, 
     during a six-month transition period, a nonprofit association 
     that would have the following functions intended to provide 
     the public with confidence about compliance with the Code:
       To determine the criteria for company membership in the 
     association and for companies to remain members in good 
     standing of the association;
       To develop criteria and implement procedures for the 
     qualification of independent external monitors;
       To design audit and other instruments for the establishment 
     of baseline monitoring practices;
       To continue to address questions critical to the 
     elimination of sweatshop practices;
       To develop means to maximize the ability of member 
     companies to remedy any instances of noncompliance with the 
     Code; and
       To serve as a source of information to consumers about the 
     Code and about companies that comply with the Code.
       The association would be governed by a board whose members 
     would be nominated by companies, labor unions and consumer, 
     human rights and religious groups. The Partnership would work 
     together during this transition period to further determine 
     the governance of the association.


                       workplace code of conduct

       The Apparel Industry Partnership has addressed issues 
     related to the eradication of sweatshops in the United States 
     and abroad. On the basis of this examination, the Partnership 
     has formulated the following set of standards defining decent 
     and humane working conditions. The Partnership believes that 
     consumers can have confidence that products that are 
     manufactured in compliance with these standards are not 
     produced under exploitative or inhumane conditions.
       Forced Labor. There shall not be any use of forced labor, 
     whether in the form of prison labor, indentured labor, bonded 
     labor or otherwise.
       Child Labor. No person shall be employed at an age younger 
     than 15 (or 14 where the law of the country of manufacture 
     \1\ allows) or younger than the age for completing compulsory 
     education in the country of manufacture where such age is 
     higher than 15.
       Harassment or Abuse. Every employee shall be treated with 
     respect and dignity. No employee shall be subject to any 
     physical, sexual, psychological or verbal harassment or 
     abuse.
       Nondiscrimination. No person shall be subject to any 
     discrimination in employment, including hiring, salary, 
     benefits, advancement, discipline, termination or retirement, 
     on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, disability, 
     sexual orientation, nationality, political opinion, or social 
     or ethnic origin.
       Health and Safety. Employers shall provide a safe and 
     healthy working environment to prevent accidents and injury 
     to health arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the 
     course of work or as a result of the operation of employer 
     facilities.
       Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. Employers 
     shall recognize and respect the right of employees to freedom 
     of association and collective bargaining.
       Wages and Benefits. Employers recognize that wages are 
     essential to meeting employees' basic needs. Employers shall 
     pay employees, as a floor, at least the minimum wage required 
     by local law or the prevailing industry wage, whichever is 
     higher, and shall provide legally mandated benefits.
       Hours of Work. Except in extraordinary business 
     circumstances, employees shall (i) not be required to work 
     more than the lesser of (a) 48 hours per week and 12 hours 
     overtime, or (b) the limits on regular and overtime hours 
     allowed by the law of the country of manufacture or, where 
     the laws of such country do not limit the hours of work, the 
     regular work week in such country plus 12 hours overtime and 
     (ii) be entitled to at least one day off in every seven day 
     period.
       Overtime Compensation. In addition to their compensation 
     for regular hours of work, employees shall be compensated for 
     overtime hours at such premium rate as is legally required in 
     the country of manufacture or, in those countries where such 
     laws do not exist, at a rate at least equal to their regular 
     hourly compensation rate.
       Any company that determines to adopt the Workplace Code of 
     Conduct shall, in addition to complying with all applicable 
     laws of the country of manufacture, comply with and support 
     the Workplace Code of Conduct in accordance with the attached 
     Principles of Monitoring and shall apply the higher standard 
     in cases of differences or conflicts. Any company that 
     determines to adopt the Workplace Code of Conduct also shall 
     require its contractors and, in the case of a retailer, its 
     suppliers to comply with applicable local laws and with this 
     Code in accordance with the attached Principles of Monitoring 
     and to apply the higher standard in cases of differences or 
     conflicts.


                        principles of monitoring

     I. Obligations of Companies \2\
       A. Establish Clear Standards
       Establish and articulate clear, written workplace 
     standards; \3\
       Formally convey those standards to company factories as 
     well as to contractors and suppliers; \4\
       Receive written certifications, on a regular basis, from 
     company factories as well as contractors and suppliers that 
     standards are being met, and that employees have been 
     informed about the standards; and
       Obtain written agreement of company factories and 
     contractors and suppliers to submit to periodic inspections 
     and audits, including by independent external monitors, for 
     compliance with the workplace standards.
       B. Create An Informed Workplace
       Ensure that all company factories as well as contractors 
     and suppliers inform their employees about the workplace 
     standards orally and through the posting of standards in a 
     prominent place (in the local languages spoken by employees 
     and managers) and undertake other efforts to educate 
     employees about the standards on a regular basis.
       C. Develop An Information Database
       Develop a questionnaire to verify and quantify compliance 
     with the workplace standards; and
       Require company factories and contractors and suppliers to 
     complete and submit the questionnaire to the company on a 
     regular basis.
       D. Establish Program to Train Company Monitors
       Provide training on a regular basis to company monitors 
     about the workplace standards and applicable local and 
     international law, as well as about effective monitoring 
     practices, so as to enable company monitors to be able to 
     assess compliance with the standards
       E. Conduct Periodic Visits and Audits
       Have trained company monitors conduct periodic announced 
     and unannounced visits to an appropriate sampling of company 
     factories and facilities of contractors and suppliers to 
     assess compliance with the workplace standards; and
       Have company monitors conduct periodic audits of production 
     records and practices and of wage, hour, payroll and other 
     employee records and practices of company factories and 
     contractors and suppliers.
       F. Provide Employees With Opportunity to Report 
           Noncompliance
       Develop a secure communications channel, in a manner 
     appropriate to the culture and situation, to enable company 
     employees and employees of contractors and suppliers to 
     report to the company on noncompliance with the workplace 
     standards, with security that they will not be punished or 
     prejudiced for doing so.
       G. Establish Relationships with Labor, Human Rights, 
           Religious or Other Local Institutions
       Consult regularly with human rights, labor, religious or 
     other leading local institutions that are likely to have the 
     trust of workers and knowledge of local conditions and 
     utilize, where companies deem necessary, such local 
     institutions to facilitate communication with company 
     employees and employees of contractors and suppliers in the 
     reporting of noncompliance with the workplace standards;
       Consult periodically with legally constituted unions 
     representing employees at the worksite regarding the 
     monitoring process and utilize, where companies deem 
     appropriate, the input of such unions; and
       Assure that implementation of monitoring is consistent with 
     applicable collective bargaining agreements.
       H. Establish Means of Remediation
       Work with company factories and contractors and suppliers 
     to correct instances of noncompliance with the workplace 
     standards promptly as they are discovered and to take steps 
     to ensure that such instances do not recur; and
       Condition future business with contractors and suppliers 
     upon compliance with the standards.
     II. Obligations of independent external monitors
       A. Establish Clear Evaluation Guidelines and Criteria
       Establish clear, written criteria and guidelines for 
     evaluation of company compliance with the workplace standards
       B. Review Company Information Database
       Conduct independent review of written data obtained by 
     company to verify and quantify compliance with the workplace 
     standards
       C. Verify Creation of Informed Workplace
       Verify that company employees and employees of contractors 
     and suppliers have been informed about the workplace 
     standards orally, through the posting of standards in a 
     prominent place (in the local languages spoken by employees 
     and managers) and through other educational efforts.
       D. Verify Establishment of Communications Channel
       Verify that the company has established a secure 
     communications channel to enable company employees and 
     employees of contractors and suppliers to report to the 
     company on noncompliance with the workplace

[[Page H2864]]

     standards, with security that they will not be punished or 
     prejudiced for doing so.
       E. Be Given Independent Access to, and Conduct Independent 
           Audit of, Employee Records
       Be given independent access to all production records and 
     practices and wage, hour, payroll and other employee records 
     and practices of company factories and contractors and 
     suppliers; and
       Conduct independent audit, on a confidential basis, of an 
     appropriate sampling of production records and practices and 
     wage, hour, payroll and other employee records and practices 
     of company factories and contractors and suppliers.
       F. Conduct Periodic Visits and Audits
       Conduct periodic announced and unannounced visits, on a 
     confidential basis, of an appropriate sampling of company 
     factories and facilities of contractors and suppliers to 
     survey compliance with the workplace standards.
       G. Establish Relationships with Labor, Human Rights, 
           Religious or Other Local Institutions
       In those instances where independent external monitors 
     themselves are not leading local human rights, labor rights, 
     religious or other similar institutions, consult regularly 
     with human rights, labor, religious or other leading local 
     institutions that are likely to have the trust of workers and 
     knowledge of local conditions; and
       Assure that implementation of monitoring is consistent with 
     applicable collective bargaining agreements and performed in 
     consultation with legally constituted unions representing 
     employees at the worksite.
       H. Conduct Confidential Employee Interviews
       Conduct periodic confidential interviews, in a manner 
     appropriate to the culture and situation, with a random 
     sampling of company employees and employees of contractors 
     and suppliers (in their local languages) to determine 
     employee perspective on compliance with the workplace 
     standards; and
       Utilize human rights, labor, religious or other leading 
     local institutions to facilitate communication with company 
     employees and employees of contractors and suppliers, both in 
     the conduct of employee interviews and in the reporting of 
     noncompliance.
       I. Implement Remediation
       Work, where appropriate, with company factories and 
     contractors and suppliers to correct instances of 
     noncompliance with the workplace standards.
       J. Complete Evaluation Report
       Complete report evaluating company compliance with the 
     workplace standards.

     Endnotes:
     \1\ All references to local law throughout this Code shall 
     include regulations implemented in accordance with applicable 
     local law.
     \2\ It is recognized that implementation by companies of 
     internal monitoring programs might vary depending upon the 
     extent of their resources but that any internal monitoring 
     program adopted by a company would be consistent with these 
     Principles of Monitoring. If companies do not have the 
     resources to implement some of these Principles as part of an 
     internal monitoring program, they may delegate the 
     implementation of such Principles to their independent 
     external monitors.
     \3\ Adoption of the Workplace Code of Conduct would satisfy 
     the requirement to establish and articulate clear written 
     standards. Accordingly, all references to the ``workplace 
     standards'' and the ``standards'' throughout this document 
     could be replaced with a reference to the Workplace Code of 
     Conduct.
     \4\ These Principles of Monitoring should apply to 
     contractors where the company adopting the workplace 
     standards is a manufacturer (including a retailer acting as a 
     manufacturer) and to suppliers where the company adopting the 
     standards is a retailer (including a manufacturer acting as a 
     retailer). A ``contractor'' or a ``supplier'' shall mean any 
     contractor or supplier engaged in a manufacturing process, 
     including cutting, sewing, assembling and packaging, which 
     results in a finished product for the consumer.

            [From the San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 17, 1997]

                   ``No Sweat'' requires Sweat Equity


 A code of conduct pledged by Nike, Reebok and others is only a first 
           step toward ending international sweatshop abuses

       With strong caveats, we endorse the creation of a code of 
     conduct to fight sweatshop practices around the world. It is 
     a good first step if the participating shoe and apparel 
     manufacturers are serious about making it work.
       Agreement was announced Monday by several companies--
     including Nike, Reebok, Liz Claiborne, Patagonia and L.L. 
     Bean--along with human rights and labor groups that joined 
     together as members of a presidential task force. Some 
     critics, however, said the code would only lead to ``kinder, 
     gentler sweatshops.''
       Required under the new code are the elimination of child 
     labor, a guarantee of pay at the minimum wage prevailing in 
     the country of manufacture, a maximum 60-hour week, the end 
     of abusive working conditions and protection of workers' 
     right to organize. Unsettled are details of inspections and 
     sanctions, which are critical to success of the code.
       In exchange, companies that comply will be able to emblazon 
     merchandise with a ``No Sweat'' label, a signal to buyers 
     that sweatshop labor was not used in its manufacture.
       The responsibility of American manufacturers toward workers 
     in their foreign plant--in Indonesia, Vietnam, Haiti and 
     other countries--has been a controversial issue. Now, at 
     least, the companies are publicly pledged to uphold minimum 
     standards and to fight abusive conditions.
       ``This is a breakthrough agreement that really stands to 
     benefit workers around the world,'' said Michael Posner, a 
     task force member and executive director of the Lawyers 
     Committee on Human Rights.
       To prevent the code of conduct from becoming merely a 
     public relations device--a coverup for continued sweatshop 
     activity--we beleive two additional steps are necessary.
       First, manufacturers must agree to factory inspections 
     carried out by truly independent groups, not just auditors 
     hired by the companies. Inclusion of internationally 
     respected groups such as Amnesty International or Human 
     Rights Watch would clinch the effort's credibility.
       Second, violations must be announced publicly and quickly. 
     This carries two beneficial effects: Consumers will be 
     resurred that the inspections aren't a sham, and companies 
     will be prodded to correct deficiencies without delay. 
     Companies that don't must be stripped of their ``No Sweat'' 
     logos.
       The code will not solve all the world's problems. Nor 
     should it be expected to do so. No realistic, economically 
     sophisticated person should expect Nike or Reebok to pay 
     workers far above their country 's prevailing wage, no matter 
     how ``just'' that may seem to U.S. critics.
       What's more important is halting abuses such as those 
     reported by USA Today earlier this year in plants run by Nike 
     subcontractors in Vietnam. One factory floor manager was 
     convicted of beating Vietnamese workers with a shoe. Another 
     Nike subcontractor was cited for making 58 Vietnamese women 
     employees run laps as punishment until some dropped from 
     exhaustion and had to be taken to a hospital.
       Such revelations are not good news for Nike or any other 
     manufacturer that basks in an all-American image. Self-
     interest, if not humanitarian zeal, ought to be an impetus to 
     just do the right thing.
       American companies that manufacture abroad are sometimes 
     portrayed as economic pirates. Left unsaid is that they 
     benefit hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, who, after 
     all, are not coerced to work for Nike or Reebok but line up 
     for the chance. They know that a job that pays even a few 
     dollars a day is better than no job.
       Nothing should absolve American companies of their wider 
     social responsibilities. The code is a beginning. The debate 
     will continue.
       As long as it's sincere, this joint effort by companies and 
     human rights groups can accomplish more than rhetorical 
     campaigns to improve the lot of international workers. But 
     the ``No Sweat'' labels must mean a real commitment and not a 
     public relations gimmick. Over time, cheaters never win.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 16, 1997]

                         A Big No to Sweatshops


 clinton plan for a code and ``no sweat'' label on clothing is laudable

       The president of the United States has the ability to do 
     many things but so far not to erase sweatshop labor practices 
     in American and overseas clothing factories. Bill Clinton, 
     however, at least is trying.
       This week he proposed a voluntary code under which U.S. 
     clothing companies would accept the presence of independent 
     auditors to monitor compliance with a minimum set of 
     workplace labor laws. The code would apply whether the work 
     was done in the United States or abroad. Companies that pay 
     at least the legal minimum wage in the country where the work 
     is being done, use no child labor, have a workweek of no more 
     than 60 hours and give workers at least one day off each week 
     would be permitted to apply a ``No Sweat'' label to their 
     clothes. Cute, and potentially effective.
       Some critics will argue that the code merely sets forth 
     standards that every company in the world should be observing 
     anyway. But in fact few companies in the clothing industry 
     or, for that matter, in some other handwork industries adhere 
     to these minimum legal standards.
       Another objection to the presidential initiative deals with 
     the composition of the independent panel that would monitor 
     compliance. Some American union leaders insist that non-
     governmental, religious and human rights organizations, plus 
     union representatives, perform the process. Employers who 
     have agreed to the code want an international firm of 
     auditors to do that job.
       This should not be an issue. As long as the auditors do not 
     have any conflict of interest, there should be no problem. 
     The program should have a grievance procedure, however. And 
     there is no doubt that under a grievance process the workers 
     would use their voice to complain about any injustice, 
     whether covered in the code or not.
       The real test for the presidential initiative will be 
     whether consumers make the ``No Sweat'' label the decisive 
     element when they go shopping for clothes. That will make all 
     the difference.

                   [From the New York Times, Apr. 16]

                      A Modest Start on Sweatshops

       A newly proposed code of conduct for domestic and overseas 
     sweatshops makes useful pledges to improve the appalling 
     working conditions of apparel workers around the world. But 
     the code is so littered with loopholes its impact will 
     probably be limited unless public and press attention remains 
     fixed on the problems of sweatshop workers.

[[Page H2865]]

       The Presidential task force that developed the code 
     included industry giants like Nike, Reebok, L.L. Bean and Liz 
     Claiborne, as well as representatives of labor and human 
     rights groups. It got industry pledges to provide abuse-free 
     factories, hire children at least 15 years old, limit 
     workweek to 60 hours and protect the right of workers to 
     organize without fear of retaliation by their employers. The 
     code also calls for companies to hire independent monitors 
     that would work with local human rights groups. This 
     provision is vital, since in oppressive societies workers 
     would only voice discontent to groups that have gained their 
     trust.
       Identifying and publicizing abuses is essential to 
     improving conditions. The coverage of inhumane conditions at 
     Central American factories turning out clothes for Wal-Mart 
     under the name of Kathie Lee Gifford led to creation of the 
     task force. Two years ago, the industry would have brushed 
     off any proposal to monitor its third-world factories.
       The weakness of the code is its lack of precise 
     commitments. The accord suggests but does not require local 
     independent monitoring of working conditions or public 
     disclosure of infractions. The 60-hour limit on the workweek 
     can be waived for what are called ``extraordinary'' 
     circumstances.
       Even if a follow-up commission strengthens the wording, the 
     code cannot work unless American consumers penalize non-
     participants. Some companies will not sign the code. Warnaco, 
     which makes Hathaway shirts, withdrew from the task force 
     because the company fears that the public disclosure of 
     monitors' reports will reveal trade secrets to competitors. 
     If consumers flock to lower-priced clothes produced by 
     companies that ignore the code, the effort will fail.
       The task force correctly rejected the idea of imposing a 
     ``living'' wage, calling instead for companies to pay only 
     the locally prevailing minimum wage. An externally determined 
     wage would almost surely victimize the world's worst-paid 
     workers. Manufacturers would close shop in countries like 
     Haiti and Vietnam where workers produce too little to cover 
     the higher wage employers would be required to pay, and 
     reopen somewhere else where factories are more productive. 
     The more humane course is to rely on competition to drive up 
     productivity and wages, as has happened in South Korea and 
     other Asian economies.
       At best, a voluntary accord that includes industry can only 
     accomplish so much. The task force may help reduce the 
     political heat on Mr. Clinton, labor unions and industry to 
     deal with the working conditions in faraway factories. 
     Whether third-world workers will ever see a benefit depends 
     on sharpening the code and intensifying disclosure of 
     companies that violate its provisions.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I do not plan to oppose the Miller amendment. It is a sense of 
Congress resolution. But I do want to make a couple of comments about 
it.
  First of all, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) to delete from his original amendment the list 
of findings that I think were problematic both from a germaneness point 
of view and in terms of some of the specific items that were included.
  Secondly, I have a concern that the amendment urges American colleges 
and universities to do something that neither they nor we have much 
guidance on what is intended.
  It is my understanding there are some universities that have adopted 
some type of codes of conduct for their licensed apparel. But we do not 
know how well these codes work at this particular time. It is unclear 
since it is a rather limited experience.
  I understand the resolution basically says that codes of conduct are 
generally a good idea. Beyond that, we really do not have much 
information on how they work in the context of colleges' and 
universities' licensed apparel. I would particularly make the point 
with regard to the issue of monitoring. This has obviously been the 
most difficult issue with regard to voluntary codes of conduct.
  On the one hand, there are those who believe that only independent 
monitoring is effective; on the other hand, there are always questions 
about who would do the monitoring, who would choose the monitors, what 
would the monitors use as a baseline, and so on. Because these 
questions remain, I believe it would be premature to endorse 
independent monitoring in terms of any direction we give to colleges 
and universities.
  A few weeks ago, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and I 
traveled to New York City and saw firsthand some of the most horrendous 
working conditions I have ever seen and certainly conditions that I did 
not expect ever to see in this country. And I know that sweatshops 
exist not just in other parts of the world but in this country.
  So I do not oppose this amendment. I think it is important to 
emphasize that what it is saying basically, is that we think codes of 
conduct may be a good idea in helping to deal with them; and what we 
recognize is that it is much more difficult to actually implement a 
code of conduct and have it make a difference than it is to pass the 
resolution.
  So we accept the Miller amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, we all like to cheer for our favorite 
teams, and a lot of us proclaim our loyalty by wearing T-shirts and 
caps with the team logo.
  Unfortunately, millions of these items are being produced overseas 
using child labor, in unsafe factories and at slave wages.
  Take those baseball caps for example, the ones sporting names of 
major universities. They sell for $20 apiece all across America.
  A lot of them are made in the Dominican Republic by people who get 
paid 8 cents a cap.
  That's right--for each $20 cap a person sews, they get paid 8 cents.
  Eight cents.
  According to the New York Times, these hats are marketed under famous 
brand names such as Champion and Starter.
  Well, I say it's time we start to champion a basic code of conduct.
  A code of conduct to ensure that unscrupulous contractors are not 
exploiting people while profiting off the prestige of our great 
universities.
  A code of conduct that enables fans to buy these shirts and caps and 
wear them with absolute pride.
  A code of conduct that puts a premium on our principles, not just 
profit.
  A code of conduct that will make a real difference in the daily lives 
of thousands of people--people we will never meet, but people whose 
only desire is the chance to make a decent living for their families.
  The idea of a code of conduct is both creative and concrete.
  It is a practical idea already in place at Duke University. Brown 
University is not far behind. Today I call on the universities in my 
state to follow their lead, especially the University of Michigan and 
Michigan State University.
  This amendment will send a strong message that we oppose sweatshops, 
and that we urge this nation's colleges and universities to do their 
part to eradicate such abhorrent conditions.
  Fans and consumers have a right to support their favorite schools 
without supporting sweatshops, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of H.R. 6, I'd like to draw 
your attention to part of the bill I helped author--the campus crime 
provisions.
  Despite our best efforts with the 1990 Campus Crime bill, parents and 
students still don't know how safe their campuses are.
  Colleges' typical reports of 3 or 4 burglaries, sexual assaults and 
alcohol violations are far too small to be believed by anyone--even the 
colleges themselves.
  The bill we're considering today will bring us one step closer to our 
goal of making sure that parents have the information they need about 
campus safety.
  The bill expands the people obligated to report crimes, expands the 
types of crime to be reported and, for the first time, opens up campus 
crime reports to the public through a campus crime log.
  The log documents where, when and what crimes occur on campus.
  Making these crime reports public will hold schools accountable for 
their accuracy.
  Parents deserve to know how safe their children's campus is. And the 
campus security provisions of this bill will help them make that 
determination.
  I want to thank the U.S. Students' Association, Chairman Goodling and 
Representative Duncan for all their hard work on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there any further amendments to title VIII?

                              {time}  1600


                 Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.

[[Page H2866]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Kildee:
       Page 334, after line 19, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 806. STUDY OF CONSOLIDATION OPTIONS.

       No later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the 
     desirability and feasibility of possible new Federal efforts 
     to assist individuals who have substantial alternative 
     student loans (other than direct student loans and federally 
     guaranteed student loans) to repay their student loans. The 
     report shall include an analysis of the extent to which the 
     high monthly payments associated with such loans deter such 
     individuals from jobs (including public-interest and public-
     service jobs) with lower salaries than the average in 
     relevant professions. The report shall include an analysis of 
     the desirability and feasibility of allowing the 
     consolidation of alternative student loans held by such 
     individuals through the Federal student loan consolidation 
     program or the use of other means to provide income-
     contingent repayment plans for alternative student loans.

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), who unfortunately is hospitalized 
with an emergency appendectomy. I know that everyone in the House 
wishes him a very speedy recovery.
  The Skaggs amendment would require the Secretary of Education to 
examine the very serious and substantial debts that students are 
amassing because of loans, other than those authorized in this 
legislation, they must obtain in order to pay for a college education. 
Specifically, the Secretary would be charged with the responsibility of 
determining the desirability and feasibility of new Federal efforts to 
assist such individuals repay these loans.
  I understand this amendment has been agreed to by the other side. I 
would urge its adoption.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we do 
support this amendment. Likewise, we wish the best to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and hope he is able to join with us quickly. 
This amendment will improve the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 334, strike lines 20 and 21 and insert the following:

     SEC. 806. REPEALS AND EXTENSIONS OF PREVIOUS HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   AMENDMENTS PROVISIONS.

       Page 335, line 7, strike ``D, and E'' and insert ``and D''; 
     and after line 7, insert the following:
       (3) Olympic Scholarships.--Section 1543(d) of the Higher 
     Education Amendments of 1992 is amended by striking ``1993'' 
     and inserting ``1999''.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment which 
reauthorizes the Olympic Education Scholarship program. This valuable 
program was first authorized in the 1992 Higher Education Act. It is 
designed and its purpose is to assist Olympic athletes continue their 
pursuit of education while training at the various Olympic training and 
education centers by authorizing up to $5 million for college 
scholarships.
  Olympic athletes train at four Olympic centers in the United States, 
Marquette, Michigan; Lake Placid, New York; Colorado Springs, Colorado; 
and San Diego, California. More than 450 athletes train full time at 
all of the training sites to prepare for the Olympic games and 
thousands more train there part time. Many of these athletes 
participated in the Nagano games just 3 months ago.
  Last week the President hosted our Winter Olympic athletes from the 
1998 games at the White House. Except for a very few sports, there is 
no post-Olympic professional athletic career for most Olympians. As a 
result, Mr. Chairman, education becomes a critical factor in the lives 
of these young people. But as so many of our American Olympians will 
attest, too often they must postpone or even forgo an education in 
order to prepare to represent the United States in the Olympic games. 
Many of the athletes would have greater access to college because of 
the Olympic scholarship, and the education they receive while training 
provides them with an excellent opportunity to prepare them for post-
Olympic life.
  Some athletes currently attend college while training. Many others, 
however, do not have the resources to pay for tuition and are unable to 
take classes. Unlike college athletes, many Olympic athletes spend 
thousands of dollars annually on equipment and travel to major events. 
The only way they can attend school is if scholarships are provided. 
That is why we need to reauthorize the Olympic scholarship program.
  One example of this need of the Olympic education scholarship is Mark 
Lenzi, a gold medal winner diver at the Barcelona games in 1992. Mr. 
Lenzi announced on network television that he would sell his Olympic 
gold medal to help him pay for his college tuition.
  Mr. Chairman, I am tremendously impressed with the dedication, 
determination and work ethic of our Olympic hopefuls. Given the 
opportunity, they apply the same dedication to their academic 
endeavors. Balancing a schedule of rigorous training and education is 
very difficult for any person. We should not, however, put our Olympic 
athletes in a position where they have to sacrifice an education in 
order to represent our country in the Olympic games.
  Last week we had the Olympic dinner. Many of us attended and many of 
us patted the athletes on the back for a job well done. But what about 
an education? Last week when we were here, many Members had their 
photograph taken with the Olympic athletes. In fact, I was walking over 
on the other side and there were many of them out on the steps of the 
Capitol taking their picture with the Olympic athletes. But more than 
photo opportunities with congressional representatives and more than a 
dinner and more than a pat on the back, they need a helping hand and 
not a handout.
  This is an opportunity to compete in the education field. Each Member 
in this House can help each Olympic athlete by reauthorizing this 
invaluable program. I know that there will be the other side who may 
say, well, we are not going to authorize new programs. This is a 
reauthorization of an old program. I know our job is only half done, 
that we still have to go to the Committee on Appropriations to get 
appropriations. Olympians know how to fight, they know how to compete. 
What we are asking for is to give them the opportunity to compete to 
reauthorize the Olympic Education Scholarship Program.
  This amendment will simply give us a chance to continue the Olympic 
education scholarship to provide a commitment to our Olympic athletes 
beyond their performances in the games. I urge my colleagues to vote 
with me to reauthorize the Olympic Education Scholarship Program.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, one of the good things that we have done in this bill is we 
have eliminated 45 unfunded programs and 11 studies and commissions. 
This is an attempt to bring one of these programs back before we have 
even finally moved final passage.
  This program is unfunded and repealed in H.R. 6 along with all of the 
other unfunded programs I mentioned. This is pursuant to an agreement 
between the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee with 
jurisdiction. We have worked this out in a bipartisan way. We are happy 
with the product that we have produced. We think we are doing the best 
for students and for the most possible people with the money available.
  Students pursuing a postsecondary education may receive Federal 
student aid if they qualify under the Higher Education Act. There is no 
need for a separate program and the increased administrative costs 
associated with the new program when student athletes are already 
eligible just like any other student.
  In this reauthorization we have tried to eliminate unfunded programs 
and limit the number of new programs created so that the appropriators 
have a clear understanding of the priorities of the committee when it 
comes to funding the higher education programs.

[[Page H2867]]

Available funds should be committed to the programs which will work and 
serve the largest number of students. I urge a no vote on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to title VIII?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IX.
  The text of title IX is as follows:
                   TITLE IX--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS

                   PART A--EDUCATION OF THE DEAF ACT

                    Subpart 1--Gallaudet University

     SEC. 901. BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEMBERSHIP.

       Section 103(a)(1) of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 
     (20 U.S.C. 4303(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``twenty-one'' and inserting ``twenty-two'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the liaison designated under section 206, who shall 
     serve as an ex-officio, nonvoting member.''.

     SEC. 902. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Compliance With Certain Requirements Under the 
     Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.--Section 
     104(b)(3) of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 
     4304(b)(3)) is amended by striking ``intermediate educational 
     unit'' and inserting ``educational service agency''.
       (b) Additional Requirements.--Section 104(b)(4)(C) of such 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 4304(b)(4)(C)) is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) through (iv) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Paragraph (1) and paragraphs (3) through (6) of 
     subsection (b).
       ``(ii) Subsections (e) through (g).
       ``(iii) Subsection (h), except the provision contained in 
     such subsection that requires that findings of fact and 
     decisions be transmitted to the State advisory panel.
       ``(iv) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (i).
       ``(v) Subsection (j), except that such subsection shall not 
     be applicable to a decision by the University to refuse to 
     admit or to dismiss a child, except that, before dismissing 
     any child, the University shall give at least 60 days notice 
     to the child's parents and to the local educational agency in 
     which the child resides.
       ``(vi) Subsections (k) through (m).''.

     SEC. 903. AGREEMENT WITH GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY.

       Section 105(a) of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4305(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``within 1 year 
     after enactment of the Education of the Deaf Act Amendments 
     of 1992, a new'' and inserting ``and periodically update, 
     an''; and
       (2) by amending the second sentence to read as follows: 
     ``The necessity of the periodic update referred to in the 
     preceding sentence shall be determined by the Secretary or 
     the University.''.

               Subpart 2--National Institute For The Deaf

     SEC. 911. AGREEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR 
                   THE DEAF.

       Section 112 of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4332) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``under this 
     section'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``under this section--
       ``(A) shall periodically assess the need for modification 
     of the agreement; and
       ``(B) shall also periodically update the agreement as 
     determined to be necessary by the Secretary or the 
     institution.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``Committee on 
     Education and Labor'' and inserting ``Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce''.

                     Subpart 3--General Provisions

     SEC. 921. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 201 of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4351) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``Palau (but only 
     until the Compact of Free Association with Palau takes 
     effect),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and Palau'' and all that follows and 
     inserting a period.

     SEC. 922. AUDITS.

       Section 203(b) of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4353(b)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, including the 
     national mission and school operations of the elementary and 
     secondary programs''.

     SEC. 923. REPORTS.

       Section 204 of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4354) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) 
     by striking ``Committee on Education and Labor'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Education and the Workforce''.

     SEC. 924. MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND REPORTING.

       Section 205(c) of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4355(c)) is amended by striking ``1993, 1994, 1995, 
     1996, and 1997'' and inserting ``1999 through 2003''.

     SEC. 925. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LIAISON.

       Section 206 of the Education of the Deaf Act (20 U.S.C. 
     4356) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the'' and inserting 
     ``The''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) serve as an ex-officio, nonvoting member of the Board 
     of Trustees under section 103; and''.

     SEC. 926. FEDERAL ENDOWMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Federal Payments.--Section 207(b) of the Education of 
     the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4357(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary shall make payments to each Federal endowment fund 
     in amounts equal to sums contributed to the fund from non-
     Federal sources during the fiscal year in which the 
     appropriations are made available (excluding transfers from 
     other endowment funds of the institution involved).''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Withdrawals and Expenditures.--Section 207(d)(2)(C) of 
     such Act (20 U.S.C. 4357(d)(2)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``Beginning on October 1, 1992, the'' and inserting ``The''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 207(h) of 
     such Act (20 U.S.C. 4357(h)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     years 1993 through 1997'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``fiscal years 1999 through 2003''.

     SEC. 927. SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 208 of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4358) is hereby repealed.

     SEC. 928. OVERSIGHT AND EFFECT OF AGREEMENTS.

       Section 209 of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4359) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Committee on Education 
     and Labor'' and inserting ``Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce''; and
       (2) by redesignating such section as section 208.

     SEC. 929. INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

       (a) Enrollment.--Section 210(a) of the Education of the 
     Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4359a(a)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Enrollment.--A qualified United States citizen 
     seeking admission to the University or NTID shall not 
     be denied admission in a given year due to the enrollment 
     of international students.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 210 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 4359a) is amended by redesignating such section as 
     section 209.

     SEC. 930. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 211 of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4360) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 1993 through 1997'' 
     and inserting ``$83,480,000 for fiscal year 1999, $84,732,000 
     for fiscal year 2000, $86,003,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $87,293,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $88,603,000 for fiscal 
     year 2003'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 1993 through 1997'' 
     and inserting ``$44,791,000 for fiscal year 1999, $46,303,000 
     for fiscal year 2000, $50,136,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $50,818,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $46,850,000 for fiscal 
     year 2003''; and
       (3) by redesignating such section as section 210.

   PART B--EXTENSION AND REVISION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 951. TRIBALLY CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Extension to Colleges and Universities.--The Tribally 
     Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``community college'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``college or university'';
       (2) by striking ``community colleges'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``colleges and universities'';
       (3) by striking ``COMMUNITY COLLEGES'' in the heading of 
     title I and inserting ``COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES'';
       (4) by striking ``community college's'' in section 2(b)(5) 
     and inserting ``college's or university's'';
       (5) by striking ``the college'' in sections 102(b), 
     113(c)(2), and 305(a) and inserting ``the college or 
     university'';
       (6) by striking ``such colleges'' in sections 104(a)(2) and 
     111(a)(2) and inserting ``such colleges and universities'';
       (7) by striking ``community colleges'' in the heading of 
     section 107 and inserting ``colleges and universities'';
       (8) by striking ``such college'' each place it appears in 
     sections 108(a), 113(b)(2), 113(c)(2), 302, 303, 304, and 305 
     and inserting ``such college or university'';
       (9) by striking ``such colleges'' in section 109(b) and 
     inserting ``such college or university'';
       (10) in section 110(a)(4), by striking ``Tribally 
     Controlled Community Colleges'' and inserting ``tribally 
     controlled colleges and universities'';
       (11) by striking ``COMMUNITY COLLEGE'' in the heading of 
     title III and inserting ``COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY'';

[[Page H2868]]

       (11) by striking ``that college'' in sections 302(b)(4) and 
     305(a) and inserting ``such college or university''; and
       (12) by striking ``other colleges'' in section 302(b)(4) 
     and insert ``other colleges and universities''.
       (b) Title I Eligible Grant Recipients.--Section 103 of the 
     Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 1804) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) has been accredited by a nationally recognized 
     accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary 
     of Education to be a reliable authority as to the quality of 
     training offered, or is, according to such an agency or 
     association, making reasonable progress toward such 
     accreditation.''.
       (c) Eligibility and Accreditation.--Section 106 of such Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 1806) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and 
     accreditation program'' after ``studies'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) The Secretary of Education shall assist tribally 
     controlled colleges and universities in the development of a 
     national accrediting agency or association for such colleges 
     and universities.''.
       (d) Amount of Title I Grants.--Section 108(a)(2) of such 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 1808(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``$5,820'' 
     and inserting ``$6,000''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--Section 109 of such Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1809) is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as 
     subsection (c).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations for Title I.--Section 
     110 of such Act (25 U.S.C. 1810) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1993'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``1999''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``$30,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$40,000,000''.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations for Titles III and 
     IV.--Sections 306 and 403 of such Act (25 U.S.C. 1836, 1852) 
     are each amended by striking ``1993'' and inserting ``1999''.

     SEC. 952. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROVISIONS FROM HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   AMENDMENTS OF 1992.

       Title XIII of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (25 
     U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) is amended by striking ``1993'' each 
     place it appears in sections 1348, 1365, and 1371(e), and 
     inserting ``1999''.

     SEC. 953. REAUTHORIZATION OF NAVAJO COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACT.

       Section 5(a)(1) of the Navajo Community College Act (25 
     U.S.C. 640c-1) is amended by striking ``1993'' and inserting 
     ``1999''.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Foley

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Foley:
       Page 346, after line 24, insert the following new part (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

                Part C--General Education Provisions Act

     SEC. 961. ACCESS TO RECORDS CONCERNING CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 444(h) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1232g(h)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h) Disciplinary Records.--(1) Nothing in this section 
     shall prohibit an educational agency or institution from--
       ``(A) including appropriate information in the education 
     record of any student concerning disciplinary action taken 
     against such student for conduct that posed a significant 
     risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other 
     students, or other members of the school community; or
       ``(B) disclosing such information to teachers and school 
     officials, including teachers and school officials in other 
     schools, who have legitimate educational interests in the 
     behavior of the student.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any post-
     secondary educational agency or institution from disclosing 
     disciplinary records of any kind which contain information 
     that personally identifies a student or students who have 
     either admitted to or been found to have committed any act, 
     which is a crime of violence (as that term is defined in 
     section 16 of title 18, United States Code), in violation of 
     institutional policy, either as a violation of the law or a 
     specific institutional policy, where such records are 
     directly related to such misconduct.''.

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998, H.R. 6, and want to commend the fine work 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his efforts and 
labor of love on this important issue facing Americans, and that is 
higher education. This legislation will certainly go a long way to 
ensure that higher education remains an affordable option for our 
Nation's families.
  I also want to commend the members of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce for including in H.R. 6 important provisions of a bill 
that I cosponsored, the Accuracy in Crime Reporting Act. These 
provisions in H.R. 6 will improve the accuracy of information that 
parents and students receive about the dangers that exist on many of 
our college campuses.
  I would like to take a moment to read from my hometown newspaper's 
editorial, the Sun-Sentinel, which appeared April 10, 1998. The 
editorial is titled Demand Accurate Crime Statistics From Colleges in 
Return for Funds.

       College campuses are supposed to be sanctuaries of vigorous 
     inquiry and quiet contemplation where truth and knowledge can 
     be pursued in an atmosphere of security, dignity and mutual 
     respect. But that academic ideal has become the exception 
     rather than the rule at far too many contemporary colleges 
     and universities, where the current epidemic of drug abuse, 
     underage drinking, illegal gambling, sexual assault and 
     violent crime have been one of the best-kept secrets in 
     American society. Statistics compiled by Security on Campus, 
     Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to making 
     institutions of higher learning more accountable to the 
     public, indicate that nationwide, 65 percent of fraternity 
     members and 55 percent of sorority sisters can be 
     characterized as binge drinkers, 15 percent to 20 percent of 
     all students are recent users of illegal drugs and student-
     on-student offenses account for 80 percent of campus crime. 
     Many, if not most, of these crimes never make it onto the 
     police blotter or into the news media because of college 
     officials' overly expansive definition of student privacy and 
     law enforcement authorities' reluctance to infringe on the 
     tradition of academic freedom. Increasingly, however, campus 
     violence is reaching a point where it cannot easily be 
     ignored or swept under the rug by the colleges' internal 
     disciplinary systems. Students are dying of drug abuse, 
     overdose and alcohol poisoning at an alarming rate. Rapes and 
     murders on campuses are growing national problems.

  However, by providing this amendment, I do want to clarify certain 
provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as 
FERPA. By preventing postsecondary institutions from disclosing 
education records to the public without the consent of students, FERPA 
guarantees that student academic and financial information remains 
confidential. This important protection should continue. However, the 
Department of Education has wrongly concluded that FERPA prevents 
universities from releasing to the public the results of campus 
disciplinary actions or proceedings. Under this interpretation of 
FERPA, student criminal activities like aggravated assault and rape are 
protected along with legitimately protected grade and financial aid 
information. This interpretation is wrong.
  Escalating violence on college campuses across the Nation require 
that Congress clarify the intent of FERPA. I fully believe, Mr. 
Chairman, that every student has the right to privacy. But when a 
university finds through its own disciplinary proceedings that a 
student has committed an act of violence, such as sexual assault, the 
university community has a right to know about it. While I believe that 
campus disciplinary proceedings should be open to the public, I can 
appreciate the concerns many have raised against such a course of 
action.
  Therefore, the amendment I am offering today simply removes the FERPA 
protection of disciplinary records that personally identifies a student 
who has either admitted to or been found to have committed any act of 
violence either as a violation of law or specific institutional policy. 
My amendment does not require any new obligation to disclose these 
records. On the contrary, it deregulates the issue from Federal purview 
and allows State public record law and common sense to take over.
  When violence occurs on campuses, the university community needs to 
know about it. Only then will students be able to take appropriate 
precautions. I appreciate the leadership's willingness to work with us 
on this issue. I offer the amendment in the spirit of allowing parents, 
children and students to have access to this very vital and important 
information.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The 
Clery family from Pennsylvania lost a beautiful daughter some years ago 
who competed in tennis against my daughter because of a violent crime 
on the campus of Lehigh University. They have dedicated the rest of 
their lives to preventing other families from suffering the same 
tremendous loss. This is our continuing effort to help the Clerys in 
their fight to make college campuses crime-free.

[[Page H2869]]

  The amendment continues the long-standing policy of protecting 
personally identifiable information included in a student's education 
record. However, it does not protect disciplinary records of students 
who have admitted to or been found to have committed any act that is a 
crime of violence. Information related to crimes of violence should not 
be protected from disclosure if we truly want our college campuses to 
be safe environments for all students. If students do not know about 
violent offenders in their college community, how will they know how to 
protect themselves? The records which may be disclosed under the 
gentleman's amendment are those which are directly related to a crime 
of violence which the offender has admitted to or been found to have 
committed. A crime of violence means an offense that has as an element 
the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the 
person or property of another; or any other felony offense that by its 
nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the 
personal property of another may be used in the course of committing 
the offense.
  We should not be protecting these acts of violence simply because 
they occur on our Nation's college campuses. I support the gentleman's 
amendment. As I have said many times, up until recent years, I always 
thought that this violence was perpetrated by those who were coming 
from the town or community around onto the college campus, only to find 
out that drugs and alcohol are causing many violent crimes, 
particularly against women, on college campuses. I support the 
amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I rise today in strong support of the 
Foley amendment as well as H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act 
of 1998. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for bringing this 
legislation to the floor and this amendment to the floor, as well as my 
colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their 
fine work on this very, very important issue.
  The amendment before us today will strengthen this higher education 
bill by rectifying an extremely troublesome situation regarding campus 
crime reporting.
  As my good friend from Florida has explained, in 1974 the Family 
Educational Rights and Privacy Act was passed to protect the privacy 
rights of students and their educational records. Unfortunately, 
colleges and universities are using this law to hide violent crimes 
statistics from their student body as well as prospective students and 
parents. This is outrageous. By hiding this information, students are 
put at risk because they do not know when a violent crime has been 
committed by a student or if that student remains even on campus. We 
need to give parents and students the information that accurately 
measures the dangers that are present on many college campuses today.
  We tried to solve some of this last year when we passed my 
legislation which made it a felony crime and threw the book at those 
that would use the drug Rohypnol against unsuspecting female students 
on campuses, and that bill has made a lot of difference. I do not think 
anyone is naive enough to believe that their campus is devoid of all 
crime. However, by trying to avoid bad publicity and hiding violent 
crime statistics, colleges and university administrators are playing a 
deadly game with the safety of their students.
  The Foley amendment lessens the danger on campuses by doing away with 
the Federal prohibition on informing the public when a student has 
committed a violent crime. By supporting this amendment we can make our 
colleges and universities a safer place for students. Mr. Chairman, I 
urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Foley amendment.
  Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I would 
like to commend my colleagues for supporting the Souder amendment, 
passed last night by a voice vote. This amendment strengthens the 
provision based on legislation that I had introduced which suspends 
Federal financial funds to students who have been convicted of any 
Federal or State drug use. The amendment offered by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) reinforces this language by 
requiring that along with rehabilitation, a student must test negative 
for two unannounced drug tests to be eligible for Federal education 
benefits. I supported this additional language and appreciate his 
invaluable support on this important issue to identify those students 
with drug problems and put them on the road to recovery.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, a number of years ago we passed 
the Solomon amendment which suspended the drivers' licenses of all 
people who were convicted of drug felonies, either selling or using 
drugs. As my colleagues know, that legislation now has swept the 
Nation. In New Jersey alone, they have revoked 10,000 drivers' 
licenses, which means we removed 10,000 drug users from the highways. 
Many of those people have been rehabilitated now because that license 
meant so much to them, and now they are obeying the law, they are drug-
free, and they have their licenses back. This is the kind of 
legislation that we need to focus these young men and women on to make 
sure we are going to have a drug-free society.
  Again I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for the excellent 
legislation. I hope we all come over and vote for the Foley amendment, 
and then let us pass this great bill.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for 
offering this important amendment to the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act.
  When a student makes the decision of what college or university to 
attend, this is one of the most important decisions in their lives. 
Unfortunately, our Nation's students are not able to make an informed 
decision about what college to attend because they do not have all the 
facts regarding each and every institution.
  The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act provides institutions of 
higher education a method in which they may hide crime statistics from 
the public. Criminal misconduct can be filed away in confidential 
student grade and financial records.
  The Foley amendment would seek to rectify this most serious abuse of 
the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act by permitting colleges and 
universities to tell their student bodies the names of students found 
to have committed violent crime. This knowledge would then be 
incorporated into the campus crime statistics. This will provide 
students with much needed information about the colleges they are 
attending or may choose to attend. Students and parents require this 
important information in order to make an informed decision about an 
institution as well as to empower them to make the necessary safety 
precautions when attending an institution.
  In Pennsylvania, this initiative has been led and championed by the 
Cleary family, whose daughter was tragically murdered on a campus in 
Pennsylvania. We certainly do not want to see a repeat of this, and I 
compliment the Cleary family and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) 
for their leadership in moving this forward nationally.
  The Foley amendment will not in any way expose victims or innocent 
students to the public. I believe that this is a well-balanced solution 
to the problem. The provisions will only apply to those who are found 
guilty by a university's plenary committee to have committed a conduct-
code infraction involving a violent crime. When a violent act is 
committed, the campus community and indeed the community in general 
have a right to know. This amendment will provide this knowledge to the 
community.
  Again I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) 
for his leadership in offering this amendment and to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.

[[Page H2870]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am here today in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), but I was troubled by a comment 
that was made, a statistic, even though it may be true, about a high 
number of incidents of fraternities and sororities engaged in drinking 
and drug use on campus. While I know there are incidents that happen on 
campuses today, as they did when I was in college, and I know they 
probably always will with regard to alcohol and abuse of alcohol, but I 
do not want the impression left, Mr. Chairman, that all sororities and 
all fraternities and all students on all campuses engage in this kind 
of activity unlawfully. There are a number of national fraternity 
organizations, national sorority organizations, and nonfraternity and 
sorority organizations, the dorm leadership, employees and others who 
are very concerned about the alcohol problem, and they are making a 
very concerted effort in a very proper way to stop this kind of abuse 
on campus.
  So while I do commend the gentleman for his amendment and realize 
that we need to have some statistical information that is appropriate 
under the circumstances I think we also have to recognize that on 
campuses today there is a very large group of students, Greek and 
nonGreek alike, who care very deeply about good conduct on campus and 
an anti-alcohol and antidrug abuse program. So I do not want the 
impression left that all Greeks and all, as my colleagues know, 
nonGreeks alike are abusive of alcohol and drugs, because they are not. 
And we have incidents around the country that show that there are 
problems with alcohol abuse and drug abuse, but there are an awful lot 
of good kids and an awful lot of good fraternities and sororities who 
are making a very strong effort to stop this kind of activity and 
speaking out very forcefully in favor of an antidrug abuse and anti-
alcohol policy.
  So with that, I would be happy to support the amendment.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington 
making those notations, and I think it is important to note when 
college fraternities and sororities have taken it upon themselves to 
change some of the behaviors among their peers, and I think it is 
laudable that we signal that there is a change on campuses now in that 
direction.
  And I also wanted to, if I could, intrude on your time just to thank 
a school board member from Palm Beach County, Diane Heinz, Security on 
Campus, Howard and Connie Cleary, and my own staffer, Shawn Gallagher, 
who have worked very, very tirelessly on bringing this amendment to the 
floor and including it in the bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Foley Amendment 
which would amend the federal academic privacy laws to exclude criminal 
actions.
  I think that most people would think that matters like grades and 
financial aid records should be private matters between a student and 
his or her parents and their college or university. These records 
should not be released to the public. However, I think it is wrong that 
some students and colleges use these privacy laws to hide criminal 
acts.
  This amendment is based on provisions of my bill H.R. 715, the 
Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act. Both USA Today and the New 
Republic have supported my bill in full length stories. Both 
publications especially liked this bill because it amended the academic 
privacy laws. They do not think that federal law should be used to 
protest murderers and rapists.
  At this time, the Department of Education is suing Miami University 
of Ohio to prevent them from obeying a Ohio Supreme Court ruling which 
ordered such criminal records to be released.
  USA Today summarized the issue of federal law being used to protect 
and hide criminal activity:

       The government argues that university criminal records 
     constitute `academic records' and therefore should be as 
     private as student grades.
       This outrage is just the [Education] Department's latest 
     attempt to protect colleges' reputations as the expense of 
     student safety. . . .
       The Education Department is supporting a last-ditch effort 
     by some universities to bury information about campus crimes. 
     Students involved in criminal acts are commonly encouraged to 
     use a college's private disciplinary board instead of the 
     public criminal justice system.

  USA Today concluded:

       . . . it's a sad state of affairs when an act of Congress 
     is necessary for the Education Department to protect 
     students' safety.

  I have been concerned about this issue for a long time and have been 
happy to work with Congressman Foley on this issue. I believe that this 
amendment will do a lot to make our campuses safer places by making 
students, their parents, and the general public aware of the dangers 
that exist on many college campuses.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments to title 
IX?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title X.
  The text of title X is as follows:
                 TITLE X--FACULTY RETIREMENT PROVISIONS

     SEC. 1001. VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(m) Notwithstanding subsection (f)(2)(B), it shall not be 
     a violation of subsection (a), (b), (c), (e), or (i) solely 
     because a plan of an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a))) offers employees who are serving 
     under a contract of unlimited tenure (or similar arrangement 
     providing for unlimited tenure) additional benefits upon 
     voluntary retirement that are reduced or eliminated on the 
     basis of age, if--
       ``(1) such institution does not implement with respect to 
     such employees any age-based reduction or elimination of 
     benefits that are not such additional benefits, except as 
     permitted by other provisions of this Act; and
       ``(2) with respect to each of such employees who have, as 
     of the time the plan is adopted, attained the minimum age and 
     satisfied all non-age-based conditions for receiving a 
     benefit under the plan, such employee is not precluded on the 
     basis of age from having 1 opportunity lasting not less than 
     180-days to elect to retire and to receive the maximum 
     benefit that would be available to a younger employee if such 
     younger employee were otherwise similarly situated to such 
     employee.''.
       (b) Construction.--
       (1) Application.--Nothing in the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall be construed to affect the application 
     of section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 
     1967 (29 U.S.C. 623) with respect to--
       (A) any employer other than an institution of higher 
     education (as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965); or
       (B) any plan not described in subsection (m) of section 4 
     of such Act (as added by subsection (a)).
       (2) Relationship to provisions relating to voluntary early 
     retirement incentive plans.--Nothing in the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall be construed to imply that a plan 
     described in subsection (m) of section 4 of such Act (as 
     added by subsection (a)) may not be considered to be a plan 
     described in section 4(f)(2)(B)(ii) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     623(f)(2)(B)(ii)).
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Effect on causes of action existing before date of 
     enactment.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not 
     apply with respect to any cause of action arising under the 
     Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prior to the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title X?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title XI.
  The text of title XI is as follows:

                       TITLE XI--OFFSETS REQUIRED

     SEC. 1101. ASSURANCE OF OFFSETS.

       (a) Declaration.--None of the provisions in this Act should 
     take effect unless it contains the mandatory offsets set 
     forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Enumeration of Offsets.--The offsets referred to in 
     subsection (a) are provisions that--
       (1) change the definition of default contained in section 
     435(l) to extend the period of delinquency prior to default 
     by an additional 90 days;
       (2) capitalize the interest accrued on unsubsidized and 
     parent loans at the time that the borrower enters repayment;
       (3) recall $65,000,000 in guaranty agency reserves, in 
     addition to the amount required to be recalled pursuant to 
     the amendments in section 422 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 contained in this Act;
       (4) eliminate the dischargeability in bankruptcy of student 
     loans made after the date of enactment of this Act for the 
     cost of attendance for a baccalaureate or advanced degree, 
     and for which the first payment was due more than seven years 
     before the commencement of the bankruptcy action; and
       (5) sell sufficient commodities from the National Defense 
     stockpile to generate receipts of $80,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1999 and $480,000,000 over five years.


[[Page H2871]]


  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title XI?
  If not, are there any amendments to the end of the bill?


        Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 80 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

                     TITLE XI--ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

     SEC. 1101. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that, in an 
     effort to change the culture of alcohol consumption on 
     college campuses, all college and university administrators 
     should adopt the following code of principles:
       (1) For an institution of higher education, the president 
     of the institution shall appoint a task force consisting of 
     school administrators, faculty, students, Greek system 
     representatives, and others to conduct a full examination of 
     student and academic life at the institution. The task force 
     will make recommendations for a broad range of policy and 
     program changes that would serve to reduce alcohol and other 
     drug-related problems. The institution shall provide 
     resources to assist the task force in promoting the campus 
     policies and proposed environmental changes that have been 
     identified.
       (2) The institution shall provide maximum opportunities for 
     students to live in an alcohol-free environment and to engage 
     in stimulating, alcohol-free recreational and leisure 
     activities
       (3) The institution shall enforce a ``zero tolerance'' 
     policy on the illegal consumption and binge drinking of 
     alcohol by its students and will take steps to reduce the 
     opportunities for students, faculty, staff, and alumni to 
     legally consume alcohol on campus.
       (4) The institution shall vigorously enforce its code of 
     disciplinary sanctions for those who violate campus alcohol 
     policies. Students with alcohol or other drug-related 
     problems shall be referred to an on-campus counseling 
     program.
       (5) The institution shall adopt a policy to discourage 
     alcoholic beverage-related sponsorship of on-campus 
     activities. It shall adopt polices limiting the advertisement 
     and promotion of alcoholic beverages on campus.
       (6) Recognizing that school-centered policies on alcohol 
     will be unsuccessful if local businesses sell alcohol to 
     underage or intoxicated students, the institution shall form 
     a ``Town/Gown'' alliance with community leaders. That 
     alliance shall encourage local commercial establishments that 
     promote or sell alcoholic beverages to curtail illegal 
     student access to alcohol and adopt responsible alcohol 
     marketing and service practices.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
express my thanks and gratitude to the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and as well as to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who has done a tremendous job on this 
committee for so many years.
  This amendment should not take long, because of the agreements 
between both sides of the aisle on the important issue of binge 
drinking that continues to plague college students. A recent Harvard 
study found that more than 40 percent of college students are binge 
drinking these days. As farfetched as it may sound, in 1991 students 
spent more money on alcohol, over $5 billion, than on books. In 
colleges all across this country, alcohol abuse has become the 
unofficial college sport, sometimes with deadly consequences.
  Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death, in fact the No. 1 
cause of death of young people under the age of 24. Students at schools 
with high levels of binge drinking are three times more likely to be 
victims of sexual assault and violence. In the latest report, the 
Chronicle of Higher Education found that alcohol-related arrests on 
college campuses jumped 10 percent in 1996 alone.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in offering an 
amendment expressing the sense of the House that college administrators 
should adopt a code of principles and practices to first offer alcohol-
free alternatives for students in terms of dorms, dances, concerts, and 
other kinds of activities; second, to work with local merchants to 
prevent alcohol sales to minors; third, to enforce a zero-tolerance 
policy for illegal alcohol and drug use on campus; and fourth, to 
provide alcohol and drug education and prevention and treatment on 
campuses and to discourage and limit alcohol sponsorship of on-campus 
events.
  With that I want to thank again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) who worked very hard with us on the committee for his hard work 
and his diligence, and I look forward to rapid movement on this 
amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing the program 
to our attention. Although it currently exists in the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, it is appropriate that we include it in the 
Higher Education Act.

                              {time}  1630

  Combating illegal drug and alcohol use on our college campuses is 
vital to the well-being of our Nation's college students.
  During the committee's consideration of H.R. 6, we adopted the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and long 
championed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) to prohibit 
students convicted of drug offenses from receiving Federal student aid 
until they have completed a rehabilitation program and get the help 
they need to fight their abuse problem.
  Encouraging institutions of higher education to develop and implement 
drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs should serve to help combat 
the ongoing problems this country faces related to drug and alcohol 
abuse and the violence often associated with both.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Livingston

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 64 offered by Mr. Livingston:
       Add at the end the following new title (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     TITLE XI--PROTECTION OF STUDENT SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION RIGHTS

     SEC. 1101. PROTECTION OF STUDENT SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) Protection of Rights.--It is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that no student attending an institution of 
     higher education on a full- or part-time basis should, on the 
     basis of protected speech and association, be excluded from 
     participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 
     to discrimination or official sanction under any education 
     program, activity, or division directly or indirectly 
     receiving financial assistance under the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965, whether or not such program, activity, or division 
     is sponsored or officially sanctioned by the institution.
       (b) Sanctions for Disruption Permitted.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to discourage the imposition of an 
     official sanction on a student that was willfully 
     participated in the disruption or attempted disruption of a 
     lecture, class, speech, presentation, or performance made or 
     scheduled to be made under the auspices of the institution of 
     higher education.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Protected speech.--The term ``protected speech'' means 
     speech that is protected under the 1st and 14th amendments to 
     the United States Constitution, or would be so protected if 
     the institution of higher education were subjected to those 
     amendments.
       (2) Protected association.--The term ``protected 
     association'' means the right to join, assemble, and reside 
     with others that is protected under the 1st and 14th 
     amendments to the United States Constitution, or would be 
     protected if the institution of higher education were subject 
     to those amendments.
       (3) Official sanction.--The term ``official sanction''--
       (A) means expulsion, suspension, probation, censure, 
     condemnation, reprimand, or any other disciplinary, coercive, 
     or adverse action taken by an institution of higher education 
     or administrative unit of the institution; and
       (B) includes an oral or written warning made by an official 
     of an institution of higher education acting in the official 
     capacity of the official.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, a number of colleges throughout this 
country are vigorously attacking their students' constitutionally 
protected right of free speech and association. The controversy centers 
on a decision by some private schools to ban all single-sex 
organizations like fraternities and sororities and restrict any student 
involvement with them, even if it is off

[[Page H2872]]

campus and on their own time. Punishments for such offenses range from 
possible suspension to expulsion.
  Mr. Chairman, disciplining students for attending a fraternity or 
sorority dinner, or a women's Bible study, or a YMCA event is obviously 
clearly a violation of the constitutionally protected rights of 
association and free speech. Public institutions are strictly 
prohibited from violating these rights, and they cannot bar single-sex 
organizations like fraternities and sororities without just cause.
  Private colleges argue that they are not subject to the same 
constitutional statutory restrictions as public institutions. The 
colleges cite court rulings dating back to the Supreme Court's 
Dartmouth College case in 1819. Unfortunately, though, unlike the 
Dartmouth College case of 1819, many of the private colleges are today 
not truly private.
  For example, many of these institutions receive State and Federal 
funding. Donations to them are exempt from taxation and, likewise, 
their property and income are often provided tax advantages, even 
though many private colleges own and operate businesses dealing 
directly with the public.
  The right of association is well established, Mr. Chairman, in the 
Constitution. In Healy v. James, the Supreme Court said that the 
vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital 
than in the community of American schools. The college classroom and 
its surrounding environment is the marketplace of ideas, and there is 
no new constitutional ground broken by reaffirming this Nation's 
dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.
  Now, this amendment will simply express the sense of the House on 
this matter. It does not force schools to officially recognize student 
organizations. However, it will put Congress on record defending the 
rights of students who face expulsion and other severe consequences by 
daring to enjoy their most basic constitutional freedoms of speech and 
association, often off campus and on their own time.
  This amendment of mine has the support of a number of organizations 
which reach across the political spectrum, including the Coalition for 
Freedom of Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, the ACLU, the 
National Interfraternity Conference, the U.S. Public Interest Research 
Group, the National Panhellenic Association, the Fraternity Executives 
Association, the Christian Coalition, and hundreds of local sororities 
and fraternities nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation has, since its inception, held that 
individuals have the right to associate and speak freely. In addition, 
our Nation has long recognized single-sex organizations, and we value 
their important contribution to our society. Students attending private 
colleges have the right to enjoy the same freedoms of association and 
speech that all of us hold everywhere else as American citizens. We owe 
it to them and to all of those who sacrifice so much for those freedoms 
to adopt my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Livingston), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
would express the strong sense of this body that colleges and 
universities which accept Federal funds under the Higher Education Act 
should not restrict their students' rights to free speech or 
association, as protected under the first and the fourteenth amendments 
to the Constitution.
  Recently, Members of this body have become concerned over efforts by 
some colleges and universities to restrict the actions of certain 
groups on these campuses. These efforts have included restrictions 
being placed on certain groups. In at least one instance, a school took 
action against students simply for wearing Greek letters on their 
clothing.
  Throughout the reauthorization process, we have tried to reduce the 
regulatory burden placed on institutions of higher education, and we 
have attempted to avoid leveling mandates from Washington on schools. 
The gentleman's amendment sends a strong signal to schools which 
participate in programs funded under the Higher Education Act that we 
intend for them to honor the rights of their students under the 
Constitution, but it does so in a way that does not create a new 
mandate or pit the rights of the institution against those of the 
students.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


        Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 81 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

                 TITLE XI--DRUG AND ALCOHOL PREVENTION

     SEC. 1101. DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION.

       (a) Grants and Recognition Awards.--Section 111, as 
     redesignated by section 101(a)(3)(E), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e) Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Grants.--
       ``(1) Program Authority.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     institutions of higher education and consortia of such 
     institutions and contracts with such institutions and other 
     organizations to develop, implement, operate, improve, and 
     disseminate programs of prevention, and education (including 
     treatment-referral) to reduce and eliminate the illegal use 
     of drugs and alcohol and their associated violence. Such 
     contracts may also be used for the support of a higher 
     education center for alcohol and drug abuse prevention which 
     will provide training, technical assistance, evaluation, 
     dissemination and associated services and assistance to the 
     higher education community as defined by the Secretary and 
     the institutions of higher education.
       ``(2) Awards.--Grants and contracts shall be made available 
     under paragraph (1) on a competitive basis. An institution of 
     higher education, a consortium of such institutions, or other 
     organizations which desire to receive a grant or contract 
     under paragraph (1) shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing or 
     accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require by regulation.
       ``(3) Additional requirements.--The Secretary shall make 
     every effort to ensure--
       ``(A) the equitable participation of private and public 
     institutions of higher education (including community and 
     junior colleges), and
       ``(B) the equitable geographic participation of such 
     institutions,

     in grants and contracts under paragraph (1). In the award of 
     such grants and contracts, the Secretary shall give 
     appropriate consideration to institutions of higher education 
     with limited enrollment.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(f) National Recognition Awards.--
       ``(1) Awards.--For the purpose of providing models of 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention and education (including 
     treatment-referral) programs in higher education and to focus 
     national attention on exemplary alcohol and drug abuse 
     prevention efforts, the Secretary of Education shall, on an 
     annual basis, make 10 National Recognition Awards to 
     institutions of higher education that have developed and 
     implemented effective alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 
     education programs. Such awards shall be made at a ceremony 
     in Washington, D.C. and a document describing the programs of 
     those who receive the awards shall be distributed nationally.
       ``(2) Application.--
       ``(A) In general.--A national recognition award shall be 
     made under paragraph (1) to institutions of higher education 
     which have applied to such award. Such an application shall 
     contain--
       ``(i) a clear description of the goals and objectives of 
     the alcohol and drug abuse programs of the institution 
     applying.
       ``(ii) a description of program activities that focus on 
     alcohol and other drug policy issues, policy development, 
     modification, or refinement, policy dissemination and 
     implementations, and policy enforcement;
       ``(iii) a description of activities that encourage student 
     and employee participation and involvement in both activity 
     development and implementation;
       ``(iv) the objective criteria used to determine the 
     effectiveness of the methods used in such programs and the 
     means used to evaluate and improve the program efforts;
       ``(v) a description of special initiatives used to reduce 
     high-risk behavior or increase low risk behavior, or both; 
     and
       ``(vi) a description of coordination and networking efforts 
     that exist in the community

[[Page H2873]]

     in which the institution is located for purposes of such 
     programs.
       ``(B) Eligibility criteria.--All institutions of higher 
     education which are two- and four-year colleges and 
     universities that have established a drug and alcohol 
     prevention and education program are eligible to apply for a 
     National Recognition Award. To receive such an Award an 
     institution of higher education must be nominated to receive 
     it. An institution of higher education may nominate itself or 
     be nominated by others such as professional associations or 
     student organizations.
       ``(C) Application review.--The Secretary of Education shall 
     appoint a committee to review applications submitted under 
     subparagraph (A). The committee may include representatives 
     of Federal departments or agencies whose programs include 
     alcohol and drug abuse prevention and education efforts, 
     directors or heads (or their representatives) of professional 
     associations that focus on prevention efforts, and non-
     Federal scientists who have backgrounds in social science 
     evaluation and research methodology and in education. 
     Decisions of the committee shall be made directly to the 
     Secretary without review by any other entity in the 
     Department of Education.
       ``(D) Review criteria.--Specific review criteria shall be 
     developed by the Secretary in conjunction with the 
     appropriate experts. In reviewing applications under 
     subparagraph (C) the committee shall consider--
       ``(i) measures of effectiveness of the program of the 
     applicant that should include changes in the campus alcohol 
     and other drug environment or climate and changes in alcohol 
     and other drug use before and after the initiation of the 
     program; and
       ``(ii) measures of program institutionalization, including 
     an assessment of needs of the institution, the institution's 
     alcohol and drug policies, staff and faculty development 
     activities, drug prevention criteria, student, faculty, and 
     campus community involvement, and a continuation of the 
     program after the cessation of external funding.
       ``(3) Authorization.--For the implementation of the awards 
     program under this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $25,000 for fiscal year 1998, $66,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and $72,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 4122 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7132) is repealed.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again, let me thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon), as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their 
support of this amendment.
  A recent Harvard study found that 95 percent of all violent crimes 
and 90 percent of all rapes on college campuses are alcohol-related. 
Alcohol on campuses is a factor in 40 percent of all academic problems, 
and almost one-third of all college dropouts.
  This should not come as any surprise to someone who has visited a 
college campus lately. From the very first day of school, students are 
bombarded with messages and promotions and peer pressure that encourage 
binge drinking. Local bars aggressively promote special offers like 
``ladies drink free'' or ``dollar pitchers'' or ``bladder bust.'' But, 
Mr. Chairman, colleges and universities around the country are trying 
to figure out how to deal effectively with excessive alcohol use.
  There are some terrific programs that should serve as models. For 
example, at Northern Illinois University in the district of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), binge drinking has dropped by 30 
percent as a result of a program that includes alcohol-free housing. 
Nonetheless, we need to ensure that every college and university can 
offer comprehensive and effective drug and alcohol programs.
  The amendment I am offering would provide grants for colleges to 
establish alcohol and drug treatment counseling and drug education and 
alcohol education. Secondly, this amendment authorizes the Secretary of 
Education to confer national recognition awards each year to 10 schools 
that successfully address alcohol and drug abuse on campus.
  Binge drinking robs the best and brightest of our children's futures, 
their health and too often their lives. Let us give parents and 
students and colleges the resources they need to effectively combat 
alcohol and drug abuse on campus.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) once said 
to me, ``Do not keep chasing a streetcar that you are already on,'' and 
in that regard, I will keep my remarks short.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


            Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mrs. MEEK of Florida

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:.

       Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
       Page 349, after line 9, insert the following:

 TITLE XI--EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

     SEC. 1101. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ENSURING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 
                   FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES.

       Subpart 2 of part A of title IV, as amended by section 405, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

   CHAPTER 6--DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ENSURING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR 
                 INDIVIDUALS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

     ``SEC. 412A. PROGRAM AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to, and 
     enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, not 
     more than 5 institutions of higher education that are 
     described in section 412B for demonstration projects to 
     develop, test, and disseminate, in accordance with section 
     412C, methods, techniques, and procedures for ensuring equal 
     educational opportunity for individuals with learning 
     disabilities in postsecondary education.
       ``(b) Award Basis.--Grants, contracts, and cooperative 
     agreements shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
       ``(c) Award Period.--Grants, contracts, and cooperative 
     agreements shall be awarded for a period of 3 years.

     ``SEC. 412B. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``Entities eligible to apply for a grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement under this chapter are institutions of 
     higher education with demonstrated prior experience in 
     meeting the postsecondary educational needs of individuals 
     with learning disabilities.

     ``SEC. 412C. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.

       ``A recipient of a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement under this chapter shall use the funds received 
     under this chapter to carry out each of the following 
     activities:
       ``(1) Developing or identifying innovative, effective, and 
     efficient approaches, strategies, supports, modifications, 
     adaptations, and accommodations that enable individuals with 
     learning disabilities to fully participate in postsecondary 
     education.
       ``(2) Synthesizing research and other information related 
     to the provision of services to individuals with learning 
     disabilities in postsecondary education.
       ``(3) Conducting training sessions for personnel from other 
     institutions of higher education to enable them to meet the 
     special needs of postsecondary students with learning 
     disabilities.
       ``(4) Preparing and disseminating products based upon the 
     activities described in paragraphs (1) through (3).
       ``(5) Coordinating findings and products from the 
     activities described in paragraphs (1) through (4) with other 
     similar products and findings through participation in 
     conferences, groups, and professional networks involved in 
     the dissemination of technical assistance and information on 
     postsecondary education.

     ``SEC. 412D. PRIORITY.

       ``The Secretary shall ensure that, to the extent feasible, 
     there is a national geographic distribution of grants, 
     contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded under this 
     chapter throughout the States, except that the Secretary may 
     give priority, with respect to one of the grants to be 
     awarded, to a historically Black college or university that 
     satisfies the requirements of section 412B.

     ``SEC. 412E. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     chapter $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 
     2001.''.

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committees and the 
people who helped to bring this piece of legislation and this amendment 
to the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); 
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon); and I want 
to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), who has sort of 
mentored me since I have been here; also, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling); and of course my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) and her staff, who have been 
very helpful in putting this amendment together.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here is trying to help college 
students who have learning disabilities, and this amendment will bring 
that help to college students which now is already

[[Page H2874]]

being received by students in K through 12.
  According to the National Institutes of Health, and I must cut this 
short because the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) said they would 
take away the votes if I did not cut this discussion, but according to 
the National Institutes of Health, more than 39 million Americans have 
some type of learning disability. People really do not understand the 
impact of this disability, these disabilities.
  The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) and I cochair the 
Reading Caucus. Thanks to the gentlewoman, we are working on many of 
these problems, and this particular amendment, added to the Higher 
Education Act, will certainly focus the attention of the Nation on the 
need of helping college students with learning disabilities.
  Many of these college students are very, very bright. They make 
excellent mathematicians, excellent academicians, but they do not read 
that well due to learning disabilities. Some of these learning 
disabilities are very well-known and others are not.
  What we are saying here is that there are many, many things that 
colleges and universities can be doing, Mr. Chairman, in the area of 
auditory and visual kinds of learning devices, helping teachers learn 
how to teach these students better; being sure that the whole universe 
of education and higher education will understand the kinds of 
modalities and the types of learning techniques that can be utilized in 
helping these students. We feel that the Federal Government, to a great 
extent, is going to help in doing this by providing free and 
appropriate education for students who are in higher education.
  Rather than break my vow, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that when 
we get this in the Higher Education Act, it will mean a lot to many 
students. Think of them. Either we help them now, or we help them 
later. Many of the students who come into college with poor reading 
ability never get anyplace, even though they are very bright students, 
but because of their lack of reading ability, they have a problem.
  So I appreciate so much the committee and the Members who have helped 
us put this together. It is a problem, and it is a modest step toward 
filling the gap. But we do know we are making a start here, the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Ms. Northup) and I, and we are encouraged by 
this inclusion in the Higher Education Act.


    Modification to Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
my amendment with the modification that is already at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification to 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 77 offered by Mrs. Meek of 
     Florida:
       In the matter proposed to be added to the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 by the amendment, strike proposed section 412D 
     and redesignate proposed section 412E as section 412D.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification to 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment of the lovely 
lady from Miami (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of this amendment and to 
thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for bringing it to the 
attention of this body.
  As the mother of six children, I understand the frustration of trying 
to ensure that one's child receives the very best education available. 
If one's child has a learning disability, we know the frustration and 
the hopelessness of searching for the answers to provide one's son or 
daughter with the tools necessary for him or her to succeed in this 
world.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and I have had an 
opportunity to work closely together to ensure that children that have 
learning disabilities have a better opportunity to receive early in 
their education an opportunity to learn to read and learn to read well, 
so that they can achieve at every level in their education.

                              {time}  1645

  But unfortunately, some children today do not receive that 
intervention and some children have gone through the early years of 
their schooling without having the opportunity to fully develop their 
talents in school in some areas in which they are disabled. But that 
does not mean that they may not be very talented and students that can 
do very well in college.
  Many colleges have struggled with giving these children better 
opportunities. They have set up programs for learning disabled kids and 
they are struggling to help them achieve at the highest level.
  What this bill does is create five demonstration projects so that 
schools can look to the best examples of remediation in areas that 
children are weak so that in areas in which they are strong they can 
still be high achievers. We need every talent in our workplace today. 
We need for every child to be able to realize their dreams and their 
goals and their talents.
  What this bill does is make sure that those children who have special 
needs and special talents receive the best opportunity at higher 
education levels so that they can become the chemists and the teachers 
and the people that are leaders in their areas tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek) for all the time and energy she has put into this bill. She has 
been a leader on it. She has brought to the attention of many people in 
this Congress the problem of our talented children who are in higher 
education that have learning disabilities.
  I believe this will not only help those kids that are being educated 
in these five institutions, but those other institutions around the 
country that are looking for the best examples so that they can pattern 
within their schools the best ways to help kids who are talented but 
struggling. I think this is good for a lot of children.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) in 
hoping that the Department of Education will seek out an institution 
that primarily serves minority students, since they are 
disproportionately represented in this population and ensure that one 
of those institutions will serve as an example.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
for his willingness to accept this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Unfortunately for many who suffer from a learning disability, there 
exists no cure. These serious impediments are a lifelong disorder for 
many and 15 percent of our population must learn to live with this 
disability. It is time that all of us as responsible Members of 
Congress address those 15 percent whose future in education depends on 
our actions here.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and 
the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) does just that. It will 
authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants, contracts, and 
cooperative agreements to institutions of higher education which 
competitively demonstrate methods, techniques and new approaches in 
educating students with learning disabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment will be the first step in 
ensuring equal opportunities in post-secondary education for 
individuals with learning disabilities. Serious disorders such as 
dyslexia and attention hyperactivity disorder are currently affecting 
2.6 million children who are diagnosed as learning disabled under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in elementary and secondary 
education.
  Congress has already found that ``2 percent of all undergraduate 
students nationwide report having a learning disability.'' In fact, we 
have already recognized that different teaching strategies are needed 
to enable those students to develop their talents and performance up to 
their capabilities.
  Let us help those students by passing the Meek-Northup amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Goodling), who has been very supportive and very cooperative on this 
serious issue.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my distinguished 
colleagues and

[[Page H2875]]

support their groundbreaking initiative to offer legislation which will 
provide continued support for college and university students with 
learning disabilities and this includes students who are attending 
community colleges as well.
  The most recent survey of college freshmen with disabilities reported 
that the number of students with learning disabilities is increasing 
and the percentage is now at 32% for college freshmen.
  These non-traditional college students deserve a chance, and we have 
the legislative strength to make a difference in their lives today, 
tomorrow, and in the future.
  Support for this amendment will send a message to America, that 
Members of Congress care and believe education is key for our nation.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Meek-
Northup learning disabilities amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education 
Reauthorization Act.
  According to the National Institute of Health, there are 39 million 
Americans with learning disabilities. This amendment would ensure that 
young people with the ability to be high achievers can accomplish their 
goals to be doctors, engineers, lawyers, and teachers.
  While there are Federal programs to help elementary and secondary 
school students with learning disabilities, there are none for college 
students. This vital legislation authorizes $10 million a year for five 
demonstration projects at colleges or universities. Each institution 
would be responsible for developing programs, strategies, and 
approaches for teaching individuals with learning disabilities at the 
college level. It would also ensure that teachers and institutions 
across this nation have access to a national repository of information 
on teaching the learning disabled student.
  As our global economy moves toward the 21st century, such efforts 
would create a level playing field for all children of this great 
nation. Our children are our future. It is our responsibility to ensure 
that their future is bright. There must not be any children left 
behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``YES'' on the Meek-Northup 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                 Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 75 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

                      TITLE XI--SPECIAL PROVISION

     SEC. 1101. TERMINATION OF EFFECTIVENESS.

       Notwithstanding section 4 of this Act, subparagraph (K) of 
     section 485(g)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended by this Act, shall cease to be effective on October 
     1, 1998.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of 
today, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in a bipartisan spirit with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), my friend, and I offer it to 
eliminate language in the bill that is a Federal mandate to our 
colleges and universities that is an intrusion into the way they 
conduct their business on a day-to-day basis and micromanages from 
Washington, D.C. schools across the country telling them how they 
should run their sports programs.
  Now, we have heard constantly through the last couple of years that 
Washington, D.C. does not know best. Why is there language in this bill 
telling colleges and universities throughout the country the Washington 
way of running their sports programs?
  Now, I encourage my colleagues and their staffs to read the language 
in the bill on page 246, and I quote from that language:

       We are requiring in this language a statement of any 
     reduction that may or is likely to occur during the next four 
     academic years in the number of athletes that will be 
     permitted to participate in any collegiate sport or in the 
     financial resources that the institution will make available 
     to any such sport, and the reasons for any such reduction.

  So we are saying they have to tell the Federal Government any 
reduction that may or it may be likely to occur and the reasons for 
that reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, we have received letters from all over the country from 
universities and colleges from all over the country saying this is a 
Federal mandate. We do not want this language in the bill. We have 
received letters from the National Collegiate Athletic Association that 
I will enter into the Record. This says from the NCAA, and I quote, 
``this provision represents an unparalleled federal intrusion into the 
decision-making process of our nation's colleges and universities.'' An 
unparalleled Federal intrusion.
  Now, I have, however, even with all of this, I have, I think, some 
understanding of why the language was put in the bill. When athletes 
and scholars at universities enroll in a university and then that 
wrestling program or that swimming program may be canceled, that leaves 
that scholar and that athlete in a very untenable situation and I have 
sympathy for that. But it is not sweeping the country. It is not 
something that is causing athletic departments and schools to shut 
down. And I point to the graph on my right where we have had a steady 
growth in the number of both men and women's programs, each of the 
ensuing academic years, more women participating, more men 
participating.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, here in 1996 and 1997, the number 
of programs added in that academic year in men and women's programs, 
added, 360 programs; dropped, 114. Added 360, dropped 114. Again, a 
steady growth in the number of men and women participating.
  So I think that the need for this amendment is just simply not there. 
I empathize and I sympathize with those athletes at schools that close 
or shut down a particular athletic program. But the Federal Government 
should not be telling each and every university in the country you have 
got to do a four-year report ahead of time if it is likely or may 
occur. I do not think that that is the way we should be running this 
country with a Federal mandate. I strongly oppose that.
  Mr. Chairman, I said I offered this in the spirit of bipartisanship 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), my friend. I offer this 
in the spirit of arguing against micromanaging our programs, against 
Federal intrusion, against ``Washington knows best'' and telling 
Indiana, Kentucky, California, Florida, Connecticut, telling all of 
those States and all of those schools how they should report to the 
Federal Government.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most compelling arguments is 
this. When we take the serious step in this country of shutting down a 
plant and employees lose their job, there is a 30-day notice for those 
employees that may lose their job. In this bill this language requires 
4 years, 4 years ahead of time if colleges are thinking of changing an 
athletic program.
  This is the higher education bill. We do not even say in this bill if 
they are going to shut down a French program, an abroad study program, 
or a mathematics computer program that they have to report to the 
Federal Government. But in this bill we say if they are thinking about 
canceling an athletic program they better report it. They better report 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, we did the Contract for America and everything in that 
bill said, ``No more Federal mandates.'' I encourage my colleagues to 
vote to strike this Federal mandate out of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from the NCAA 
referred to earlier.
                                           The National Collegiate


                                         Athletic Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the 933 NCAA member 
     colleges and universities, I am writing to urge your support 
     for an amendment to be offered by Representatives Riggs and 
     Roemer to the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 (H.R. 
     6). The Riggs/Roemer amendment will strike a provision that 
     was recently added by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce related to institutional program decisions, 
     specifically in the area of college athletics programs.
       The provision of H.R. 6 would require all postsecondary 
     institutions to report annually any changes that ``may or are 
     likely to occur'' in any intramural or intercollegiate 
     athletics program over the next four years and justify the 
     decision. This provision was added without the benefit of 
     hearings, discussion with the Committee's members or

[[Page H2876]]

     consultation with the higher education community. In order 
     for institutions to continue to be eligible for federal 
     student assistance, the provision requires the impossible--it 
     asks institutions to predict the future. In addition, this 
     provision represents an unparalleled federal intrusion into 
     the decision-making process of our nation's colleges and 
     universities.
       NCAA member colleges and universities have added thousands 
     of sports teams for men and women over the past 20 years. 
     During the same time period, relatively few teams have been 
     dropped. When a sports team is dropped, the welfare of the 
     student-athlete is the first priority. Although the sponsors 
     of the provision may have well-intended motives, this 
     provision will have the unintended consequence of actually 
     hastening the elimination of the very men's non-revenue 
     sports it is intended to protect. By placing them on a list 
     for possible elimination, it will serve as an early death 
     notice to those teams.
       The NCAA urges you to support the Riggs/Roemer amendment 
     related to collegiate sports teams. Please contact Doris 
     Dixon, NCAA director of federal relations (202-293-3050), if 
     you have any questions about this provision or the NCAA's 
     position.
           Sincerely,
                                                Cedric W. Dempsey.
       Enclosure.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to rhetoric. In fact, we 
need to understand what this provision in the bill really does. It is 
one of the foundations of our educational system that our kids should 
be taught the difference between right and wrong. Should we not teach 
our kids to be honest and forthright? And should we not teach our kids 
that rules apply equally to everyone?
  Answering these questions is what today's debate and the Roemer 
amendment is all about. The Roemer amendment says that it is basically 
okay for colleges and universities not to tell prospective students 
that they plan to eliminate or reduce the funding for sports programs 
that kids plan to participate in once they enroll.
  Mr. Chairman, I view this as a matter of honesty and simple fairness. 
I would ask anyone, should schools be able to hide from students the 
fact that they are planning to terminate their competitive sport, a 
sport that weighed heavily in their life decision about which school 
they should attend in the first place? And let me be clear, nothing in 
this provision prevents schools from eliminating sports programs nor 
does it require them to give 4-years' notice before they do so. I 
repeat, it does not require them to give 4-years' notice before they do 
so.
  All this language requires is that once a school knows it is going to 
eliminate a team, they must notify the affected athletes by giving 
notice; not notice to the Federal Government, just notice in a yearly 
report.

                              {time}  1700

  In effect, this notification could take place 1 or 2 or 3 years 
before the actual termination. The key point is, once they decide, they 
need to disclose.
  Colleges and universities enjoy a special position in this country. 
As parents, we entrust them with the education of our children. In 
return, we should expect that they act in a manner that justifies this 
trust, and that certainly does not include making decisions which 
affect our kids' lives without honestly disclosing those decisions to 
them.
  I, for myself, cannot believe that Congress will send the message to 
college students that it is all right for schools to knowingly not tell 
them and the athletes and students and prospective students about the 
status of the sport which they care about. If we allow this to happen, 
it would certainly send the wrong message that right and wrong does not 
apply if you are a college or a university.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2 short years, between 1994 and 1996, nearly 200 
colleges and universities canceled sports programs. That is thousands 
of kids who will never again have the opportunity to participate at the 
collegiate level, opportunities that many of us once enjoyed.
  I wonder how many of the kids who played on these teams were warned 
that their teams were slated for elimination? I wonder if any of them 
would have chosen a different school if they had known in advance that 
the school was planning to drop their sport?
  Many universities are doing the right thing, and I applaud them. But 
in some cases, the affected students are the last to know about the 
plans to drop their team.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues about the experiences of 
Scott Gonyo and his teammates. In 1993, Drake University decided to 
eliminate one of its, not a major sport, so it was either wrestling or 
track or soccer or swimming. When they eliminated their teams in 1993, 
did the school take the time to notify the team that they were being 
dropped? No. Did the athletic director take the time to notify them of 
the cancellation of their sport? No. Scott Gonyo and his teammates 
found out when the members of the media called them for reaction.
  I do not know about anyone else, but I think this sends a terrible 
message about how some colleges and universities are treating the very 
kids they are supposed to serve.
  What the Roemer amendment seeks to strike from this bill is the right 
of students to be informed about decisions which affect their lives, 
and that is all. We all know that kids and parents consider a number of 
factors before deciding which school to attend. Among these factors is 
the ability to participate in sports, for some students.
  I cannot believe that anyone would support a college's effort to keep 
pertinent information out of a student's hands. The fact that a school 
has decided to drop a sport is important information that kids and 
parents have a right to know before they decide which college they 
invest their time and their talents in.
  I would certainly prefer that the NCAA deal with this matter by 
seeking the voluntary cooperation of their member institutions. In my 
office last week, I met with representatives of the American Council on 
Education, ACE, the NCAA, and the small colleges. We agreed in that 
meeting that I would support removal of this provision in conference if 
the NCAA would simply urge members to embrace voluntary notification 
requirements.
  The next day, I received a letter from the president of the NCAA, the 
ACE, confirming that agreement, and was prepared to come to the floor 
and enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Member from California 
(Mr. McKeon) to that effect. But sadly, on Tuesday I received a letter 
from the NCAA actually breaking the deal. They simply want this 
Congress to go away and let them do whatever they please.
  Mr. Chairman, if the NCAA were a real estate agent trying to sell a 
house without disclosing leaky roofs or a used car salesman trying to 
sell flood-damaged cars without disclosure to the consumers, I dare say 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would demand action.
  A college education is one of the most important purchases any 
student and their parents will ever make. What is wrong with asking 
these universities and NCAA to simply tell the truth?
  A ``yes'' vote on this amendment is a vote against kids knowing what 
their future will be and the families' right to know. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we 
are constantly asked to make decisions on what is the appropriate role 
of the Federal Government. Today I rise in support of the Roemer 
amendment because I think it is absolutely clear that the Federal 
Government has no role in mandating and micromanaging the affairs of 
the universities and the higher institutions of education in our 
country.
  I find it ludicrous that we would even ask our universities, and by 
imposing on them a mandate, that they would have to notify people 4 
years in advance of a decision that they might have to make in order to 
eliminate or reduce an athletic program.
  This provision is absolutely insane in that it is, in fact, going to 
reduce the

[[Page H2877]]

ability of our universities to allocate their resources, to ensure that 
they are going to be investing those funds in the most cost-effective 
manner.
  We would be hamstringing the board of regents in California and the 
admission of our universities that have been appointed to make the 
decision to ensure that they can create the academic experience and the 
college experience which is in the best interest of the students that 
are going to be attending.
  As I was listening to the last speaker, I thought it was somewhat 
interesting that he feels it so important that we provide students and 
families with the information about a potential reduction in an 
athletic program, but there is absolutely no attention being given to a 
potential decision that might result in the reduction of an academic 
program.
  I also find it somewhat ironic that many of the people who are some 
of the strongest proponents of asking for this 4-year notification were 
some of the same people that were opposed to giving the working men and 
women of this country a 30-day notification of a potential plant 
closure.
  When we have working men and women and their families whose 
livelihoods, whose ability to keep a roof over their heads, whose 
ability to provide food for their families, when we are opposed to 
giving them 30 days' notification, and yet we think it is appropriate 
to give 4 years' notification on a university decision to reduce an 
athletic program, that is just wrong and it is irresponsible.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment. 
First of all, I think it is so amazing that the people that are 
sponsoring this amendment wish to talk about mandates on colleges and 
universities across this country. The fact is, almost all decisions 
being made about college sports today have everything to do with the 
Department of Education interfering and mandating on colleges about 
what sports requirements they are under. This is not something that 
will be initiated; this is something that is going on right now.
  We all believe that sports are great for women and for men that are 
in college. They serve a wonderful purpose. They provide these young 
people, first of all, an opportunity for scholarships, provide many of 
them an opportunity at institutions of education that they would not 
have if they were not able to receive these athletic scholarships. It 
also gives them an opportunity to compete on a higher level.
  Many of these students are very talented in athletics. Many will have 
opportunities to use these talents in other arenas. They go on and 
become our Olympic stars. They go on and compete internationally. They 
represent this country around the world. Many of them have careers if 
professional careers are available in their sports.
  Those opportunities are growing for women, as they have been for men 
for many years. That is all great, and a great opportunity for some 
very talented young people in this country.
  Athletics also teach us a lot of other things. It teaches kids about 
hard work. It teaches kids about sportsmanship. It teaches kids about 
learning to lose and to start over again, to pick themselves up when 
they are down. Those are lessons that help all of us for all of our 
lives. So when we look at athletics, I am thrilled to see colleges 
looking for the best ways to provide the most opportunities for the 
most students.
  Because of the Department of Education's accelerated or new pressure 
that they are applying on many athletic programs, there are an 
increased number of programs that are being jeopardized today. Many 
times, because the colleges have little time to act, they are being 
forced to eliminate men's teams and to add women's teams in order to 
try to equalize the opportunities.
  All of us applaud the new opportunities for women. It has made a 
wonderful difference in a couple of my daughter's lives.
  It has not made such a wonderful difference in my son's life, though. 
This year he is a junior in college. He is a champion swimmer. At one 
point, he was the second fastest swimmer in the butterfly in the 
country. Next year, it looks as though his school may not have 
swimming, so he loses his opportunity to ever go on and an opportunity 
to ever be the top in the country, ever be in the Olympics.
  So why does he not go to the another school? Because all of his 
credits are in one school. He loves that school. He has invested a lot 
of time, a lot of energy, a lot of effort in that team. The fact is 
that that school has no time to adjust because of the Department of 
Education.
  I am so sorry that our colleagues that are sponsoring this bill are 
not screaming about that sort of intrusion in colleges today. If we had 
a little more time, we could probably grow better women's sports 
opportunities and not endanger men's sports. But since we have this 
intrusion that exists today, and because nobody on the other side has 
talked about that, I think it is better, very important to understand 
why some teams are being eliminated.
  In the meantime, what my colleague is proposing is that students who 
are trapped at a school, who love that school dearly, they at least be 
informed as early as the school knows that it is about to drop a 
particular sport. That is the least we can do so that they have an 
opportunity to consider what this means in their lives, so that they 
have an opportunity to fulfill their talents and their dreams, even if 
changing schools is the only way to do it.
  This is, by no means, criticism of my son's school. They have treated 
him more than fairly, informed the students on that team of the 
crushing news that they are going to drop swimming next year.
  I think it is important that this body know that just 4 years ago, 
they built a $14 million swimming and athletic complex to accommodate 
this team that now they are being forced to drop. Is that a waste or 
what? What does the Department of Education think about that?
  In the meantime, let us leave the language in the bill. Let us get 
this bill to the conference committee. Let us see if between the Senate 
and the House we can figure out a way to make things better for all 
women athletes and all men athletes.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Palo Alto, California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out today obviously in 
strong support of the Roemer amendment, a proposal to restore the 
ability of colleges and universities to carefully design and budget 
their own athletic programs.
  I would like to add this for the record, because some of my 
colleagues on the other side of this issue are talking about NCAA 
sports: In 1996-1997, this represents men's and women's sports. I do 
not know where all of this is coming from of what has been dropped. 
Look at what has been added, 360, this is what has been dropped. I 
think that this is a very provocative number and something that our 
colleagues should pay close attention to.
  Without the Roemer amendment, H.R. 6 would force institutions to make 
irrevocable decisions about which programs will receive funding far in 
advance of current requirements. The Roemer amendment strikes a 
provision which represents, in unparalleled Federal intrusion, Federal 
micromanagement and Federal mandates.
  The NCAA supports this amendment. Their statistics further reveal 
that the original provision is unnecessary. I am very, very proud to 
represent Stanford University whose outstanding academic and athletic 
accomplishments can be matched by few.
  The university sponsors 17 varsity women's sports, and their list of 
championships is stunning. National volleyball champions 3 of the last 
4 years, national tennis championships 10 times in the last 20 years. 
In 20 years, the varsity women's swimming, they have won eight national 
titles.
  The Stanford women's basketball team has been in the final four six 
times in the 1990s and national champions in 1991 and 1992. Stanford's 
record offers compelling proof that women's success does not harm a 
college's athletic program.

                              {time}  1715

  Is the Congress going to require that universities and colleges 
submit to us

[[Page H2878]]

in a report as to whether they are going to drop their Japanese 
overseas programming? This is ludicrous. This is not being applied to 
anything that is academic but only that which is athletic.
  The Roemer amendment would ensure that Stanford University and the 
rest of our Nation's colleges and universities have the necessary 
flexibility to continue to develop such strong athletic and academic 
programs free of Federal intrusion, free of Federal micromanagement, 
and free of Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to vote for the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the previous speaker spoke about 
the rise of women's sports. And as the father of two daughters, and 
someone who enjoys watching my girls participate in soccer, basketball, 
or whatever, I am glad that there will be a lot more opportunities for 
them. But I also want to say, as I look at this bill, this is not a 
matter of what is convenient for Stanford University or for the 
University of Virginia or the University of Georgia or Berkeley or 
whatever. This is a matter of putting the kids before the system, 
putting the kids before the faceless institution.
  Think about the private sector a minute. We have so many people in 
our body who talk about disclosure in all aspects of the private 
sector; worker safety, materials used on job sites, what we eat, what 
is in the water. Whatever it is. What is in the air. What is being 
discharged. All of this has to be disclosed, and yet this body, who so 
readily puts such disclosure mandates on the private sector, now has 
Members saying let us not put that on the public sector.
  What is this horrible mandate that we are putting on the public 
sector? And let me clarify, it is not all public universities. There 
are private universities. But most of them get some sort of Federal 
funding in one place or another. Think about this, though. Here is a 
student who is 17, 18 years old; young boy or girl. They are going off 
to college. They have worked real hard to get in the school of their 
choice. Maybe they are going to play baseball, maybe wrestling, maybe 
lacrosse, maybe swimming, maybe volleyball. They have that opportunity 
and they are excited about it. And then they get there and find out 
that they are phasing out the volleyball program or the wrestling 
program. That was one reason that student chose university A over 
university B. And now we are saying that our kids are not important 
enough just to tell them that?
  Somebody had said, well, we cannot give them a 4-year warning. If my 
colleagues will read the Hastert proposal, what he is saying is all 
they have to do is notify the students once they make the decision to 
phase out a certain athletic program.
  This, as I said, maybe it is not pro-university, maybe it is not pro-
institution, maybe it is not pro-system, but it does become pro-child, 
pro-student, pro-athlete and, therefore, I think it is pro-sports.
  The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) talked with great pride 
about what sports meant to her six children, and the positive impact 
that sports programs can have to all of our children is very, very 
important. So why not be fair to America's kids; that if they enroll in 
a college or a university that has a sports program, should they not be 
notified when the college or university has made the decision to phase 
out that program? That is the only thing that the gentleman from 
Illinois is trying to get in the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Roemer amendment and vote 
for the children of the United States of America.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
State of Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I do rise in support of his amendment.
  I have a lot of sympathy with what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) is trying to do, and I have a lot of sympathy for those who 
played sports through high school and college. I did a little bit. I 
was not very good, but it was a great thing to do.
  I have listened to what others have said, but I do not know why we 
are getting involved with this and, hopefully, we can work it out some 
other way. I do not think this should be in our legislation, and I 
think the Roemer amendment should pass.
  For example, what if a college changes its academic courses? Do they 
have to give 4 years' notice of that, if someone is majoring in 
something? What if a college like mine becomes coeducational in the 
middle of it all? Is that something we should have to give notice for? 
My college got rid of fraternities. Believe me, fraternities were big 
deals at Hamilton College when I went there, and that was a major 
change, but nobody had to give notice then.
  A lot of things happen in colleges, and I do not think that we should 
be out there interfering with their right to govern themselves. As a 
matter of fact, I would think that would be a Republican principle that 
we would want to follow; that we should simply let them make their own 
decisions.
  I have read the language of this, which is part of the Student Right 
to Know Act, and it states: ``A statement of any reduction that may or 
is likely to occur during the ensuing 4 academic years and the number 
of athletes that will be permitted to participate in any collegiate 
sport or in the financial resources that the institution will make 
available to any such sport and the reasons for any such reduction.'' 
That is a tremendous burden and requirement to place on our colleges. I 
happen to think it goes too far. The gentleman from Illinois and I have 
talked about this.
  I have heard from the University of Delaware president. Used to be 
president of the University of Kentucky. And David Roselle writes and 
says,

       It is demeaning for the Congress of the United States to be 
     mucking about in the management of intercollegiate athletics.

I happen to totally agree with that particular statement.
  Why are we getting involved in micromanaging decisions at the college 
and university level? Do we not have better things to do here in this 
Congress?
  And then he went on to make the point,

       Schools simply do not know, and neither does the Congress, 
     what forces will come into play in the next 4 years that 
     would make program reductions on campus both necessary and 
     appropriate.

Again, I could not agree more with that particular point. It absolutely 
hits the nail on the head. Four years is a long time.
  I think for all these reasons, while the intent is good, this is not 
good to have in this legislation. We ought to take it out and we should 
pass the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to remind my good friend from Delaware that the language says anytime 
within that 4-year period. So the interpretation is if they decide in 1 
year, or 2 years, or 3 years, or 4 years, whenever that decision is, 
they just ought to come forward and let kids know.
  It does not say they cannot do this. It does not restrict them in any 
way. It just says there should be notice given, not a restriction of 
the Federal Government. And this is really kind of a red herring to 
cross this path. We are just saying notice ought to be given.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), a former university president who will speak 
to this issue.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in strong support of the Roemer-Riggs amendment 
to H.R. 6. The Roemer-Riggs amendment would eliminate the bill's 
language requiring higher education institutions to report 4 years in 
advance the planned elimination of college sports.
  Schools in my district have expressed their concern that the bill's 
current language poses an overreaching Federal intrusion in the way 
they operate their sports programs. As a former college president, I 
understand the importance of long-range planning, but it is

[[Page H2879]]

just that; planning. Who knows what new budget constraints might face a 
school from year to year? Forcing colleges and universities to 
formulate such far-reaching micromanaging of the athletic policies is 
simply short-sighted and surely not in the best interest of our 
colleges and universities.
  The chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), got a letter not long ago 
from the president of Belmont University, which happens to be in my 
Congressional District in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Troutt, who also 
had the opportunity to serve as chairman of the National Commission on 
the Cost of Higher Education, says this, and he says it so well:

       This type of congressional action is inconsistent with the 
     commission's recommendations that colleges intensify their 
     efforts to control costs and increase institutional 
     productivity. Because the commission stressed the need for 
     colleges and universities to consider questions of cost 
     effectiveness and efficiency within academic programs, it 
     would be inappropriate for Congress to ask schools to exempt 
     sports programs from similar rigorous scrutiny. I recommend 
     you eliminate this or any other related provision.

  That is why we all need to join forces and I encourage a ``yes'' vote 
on the Roemer-Riggs amendment and firm support for our Nation's 
colleges and universities.
  Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record a copy of the letter I just 
referred to.
                                          Office of the President,


                                           Belmont University,

                                    Nashville, TN, April 24, 1998.
     William F. Goodling,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Work Force, 
         House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodling: As you know, I was privileged to 
     serve as the Chair of The National Commission on the Cost of 
     Higher Education. Although we completed our work and 
     submitted our final report to Congress in January of this 
     year, I continue to work hard to ensure that college 
     presidents throughout the nation take the Commission's 
     recommendations seriously. I am pleased to report that many 
     institutions have committed to redoubling their efforts to 
     keep college affordable for all Americans.
       I am also following with interest Congress' reauthorization 
     of the Higher Education Act. Both the House and Senate 
     authorizing committees have reported fine bills that deserve 
     support. However, I would like to bring to your attention 
     several issues that are of particular interest to me as 
     former Chair of the Cost Commission. I hope you will find 
     these comments useful as you proceed in the process of 
     putting final legislation together.


                    1. INFORMATION ON COLLEGE COSTS

       One of the strong messages that the Cost Commission sought 
     to communicate is the need for greater clarity about the 
     basic financial structure of colleges and universities. 
     University administrators need better data to guide their 
     efforts to contain costs; the public needs better data to 
     make informed choices about obtaining a college education; 
     and policymakers at all levels need better data as they make 
     basic decisions regarding student aid, and regulation and 
     oversight of the nation's colleges and universities. I am 
     pleased that both the House and Senate bills have added 
     provisions to their reauthorization bills that recognize the 
     importance of achieving greater financial transparency. Based 
     on our experiences in attempting to gather and analyze data 
     for the Commission, however, I would caution against 
     expanding unduly the government's role in the information-
     clarification process. To the extent that the Senate bill 
     assumes a more limited and focused approach, I think it is 
     the stronger of the two measures. The process of developing a 
     better understanding of university finance includes, but is 
     not limited to, improved reporting to the federal government, 
     beginning with consistent definitions of cost, price, and 
     subsidy. The Commission, therefore, recommended measures to 
     strengthen IPEDS reporting and improve analysis by the 
     Department of Education of the relationship between tuition 
     and institutional expenditures. But we also took pains to 
     make clear that much of the clarification and communication 
     that needs to take place should take place through existing 
     non-governmental channels--between institutions and their 
     constituent families and students directly, through a public 
     awareness campaign sponsored by the higher education 
     community, through national accounting standards bodies such 
     as FASB (the Financial Accounting Standards Board) and GASB 
     (the Government Accounting Standards Board), and through the 
     reports and handbooks that are already widely distributed in 
     the higher education ``market.''
       Both the House and Senate bills adopt our recommendation 
     that IPEDS reporting be strengthened. To the extent that the 
     House bill goes beyond this and directs the Secretary to 
     develop a uniform cost reporting methodology outside of 
     IPEDS, I would question whether that is a productive step to 
     take. If any such effort is undertaken, it should involve 
     extensive, formal consultation with the higher education 
     community. Likewise, I question seriously the wisdom of 
     asking the General Accounting Office annually to recapitulate 
     the comprehensive study that the Commission was asked to 
     conduct on a one-time basis. As our report indicates, we were 
     not able to obtain meaningful data in many of the categories 
     listed as the focus of an annual GAO report in the House 
     bill. Under the circumstances, I would urge Congress to focus 
     on improving the data through an NCES study, as recommended 
     in the Senate bill.
       Whatever the process for developing improved reporting, I 
     urge you to consider two substantive points in particular. 
     Any redesign of reporting categories should include the 
     replacement value of capital assets, as the level of an 
     institution's general subsidy cannot be calculated without 
     taking that into account. Equally important, Congress should 
     not impose a requirement that the cost of educating graduates 
     and undergraduates be counted separately. Any such 
     disaggregation would be completely arbitrary, inaccurate, and 
     destructive of the organic education process that occurs on 
     campuses where undergraduates and graduates are taught 
     together.

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to ask the gentleman from Tennessee a question. I have great respect 
for the gentleman from Tennessee and I would ask him if this was a 
decision that was made in a year, or 2 years, or maybe 4 years, up to 4 
years, and the gentleman had students at the University of Tennessee, 
or some other university, would it not be proper to notify those 
students when that decision was made to drop the sport? It would not 
mean the gentleman would have to hold that sport.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. CLEMENT. I tell the gentleman that I was at a small college 
university and I had a tough time balancing that budget. If the 
gentleman were to put me in a stringent situation such as that, where I 
had to look 4 years out, and I could not adjust my budget, the 
gentleman would put me in a terrible predicament.
  Mr. HASTERT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the bill does not say 
4 years. Whenever the gentleman makes the decision, up to 4 years. So 
if the gentleman were to do it 6 months from now or 1 year from now, 2 
years from now, or 3 years from now, all I am saying is when the 
gentleman were to make that decision, is it not fair to notify that 
student that the gentleman or school has made that decision?
  Mr. CLEMENT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say to 
him that I love sports, but I think we are sending our students for 
academic purposes more than we are sports. That is the paramount 
importance.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's statement, 
but the fact is a lot of kids make that life decision on where they go 
to school based on things like athletics and other extracurricular 
activities. Here we are looking at athletics, but that is a major 
decision on young men and young women when they decide to go to school. 
If they made that decision based on that premise, then they should be 
notified of that decision or if that premise is going to change.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a valuable member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer 
amendment.
  These new requirements are misguided at best. I ask the gentleman on 
the other side of the aisle if a college does not drop a particular 
course if not enough people have enrolled in it after people have 
already started their school year?
  The reporting requirements added in H.R. 6 are nonsense. Hearings in 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce have clearly shown that 
men's minor college sports do not need this protection. Not only are 
reporting requirements not needed, they also will not work.
  Dr. Ruben Arminana, the president of Sonoma State University in my 
district, tells me that these requirements will have just the opposite 
effect.

[[Page H2880]]

President Arminana says that by forcing colleges to announce 4 years in 
advance when they plan to reduce or eliminate funds for a sport, we 
will restrict a school's flexibility in decision-making.
  I quote President Arminana's response to this provision. He said:

       Sports teams will suffer irreparable damage, and 
     institutions will be unable to retain the program should 
     circumstances change at a later date.

  These reporting requirements place unreasonable and inappropriate 
demands on institutions of higher education. It is an unwarranted 
Federal intrusion in college and university affairs and ignores efforts 
to curb college costs. Colleges and universities do not budget for 4-
year cycles, they budget 1 year at a time. They need the flexibility to 
make decisions that are in the best interests of their students and 
campuses that year.
  Who are we, here in this Congress, to insist that colleges justify 
their budget decisions to us?

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from the State of New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and classmate, the 
gentleman from Indiana, for yielding. I rise in support of the Roemer 
amendment.
  Tomorrow, my 5-year-old daughter Jacqueline is going to enroll for 
kindergarten, and when my wife and I look at the cost of paying for an 
education, we really have our fingers crossed that some day she will 
earn an athletic scholarship to play lacrosse or soccer or field hockey 
or some other sport. We are going to need it.
  The day that her mother started college, there were far fewer 
opportunities for women to play intercollegiate sports. When her 
grandmother was growing up, very few women went to college at all. 
There has been a lot of progress in opportunities for women over the 
years, and I believe that we should do nothing to turn back the clock 
on that progress. It is very important that we reaffirm our support for 
title IX, as I believe this amendment does.
  I also believe that no one on the other side of this question wants 
to downgrade women's sports, and I understand that. I believe that we 
have gotten in an unfortunate box where, somehow or another, we believe 
that we are choosing between men and women in intercollegiate sports 
opportunities, and we should not.
  I happen to believe that the record does show, particularly in the 
case of some sports like men's wrestling, that there have been some 
unjustifiable decisions made that have hurt student athletes. And I, 
for one, am looking for a tool to try and remedy those injustices.
  With all due respect to its author, who I know is very well-advised 
and well-intentioned, I do not believe this is the right tool because 
of the expanded time window that is in it. I do share his conviction, 
however, that there ought to be some guarantee that before an 
institution chooses to terminate a sport that it ought to say exactly 
how much money it is going to save, justify those numbers so that the 
dynamic of the campus-based, decision-making community can look at that 
argument and see whether it is true or false.
  So I will support the Roemer amendment tonight, but I will offer my 
willingness to cooperate in trying to find a way to resolve this very 
serious problem.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is interesting from time to time to take the floor. We try to 
reason out an issue and we try to decipher what is right and what is 
wrong, what is right and wrong for kids, what is right and wrong for 
our system of education, whether it be private or public, and what is 
the best course to take. And usually the common denominator when it 
comes down to it, especially in the area of education, is what is right 
for kids.
  I appreciate the gentleman on the other side, because easily we try 
to get into a battle between men's sports and women's sports. That 
certainly is not my intent, and that is not the intent of this 
legislation. What we really want to do is to treat kids fairly.
  Let me say that in my experience, and as most people know, I spent 16 
years as a public school teacher and a coach, and before that 
participated in football and wrestling and other sports both in high 
school and college, part of probably the opportunity to participate in 
athletics gave me the opportunity to get out from behind stoves of a 
restaurant or behind the dishwasher because it gave me an opportunity 
to participate, it gave me a little help along the way.
  I was in a private school; that was not a lot of glory, was not a lot 
of headlines. And contrary to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the whip over on the other side, I was not a 
quarterback, I was just in the line. So I did not get any glory at all. 
But it changed my life and it put me in public education, certainly 
something I did not intend when I was in high school, but the 
opportunity to do that.
  Now, today when I go back to a State tournament in Illinois and I 
look down on the floor of the tournament and I see coaches there that 
graduated from Southern Illinois University or graduated from Illinois 
State University or graduated from Western Illinois University. Those 
guys were never stars, they were never the quarterbacks, they were 
never the national champions, but they are guys or men at that time 
that pursued the sport because they loved the sport, and that sport 
changed their lives and they became teachers and coaches and people who 
have participated and have provided generations of leadership for young 
people who certainly need that leadership.
  Also, I, as my colleagues know, have tried to take the lead in some 
areas on drug issues. One of the things, I met with the mayor of 
Chicago and the new superintendent of schools for the City of Chicago, 
and he says, ``We cannot find enough people to be the role models for 
these kids.''
  One of the new innovations that they have done there and I think has 
been somewhat successful is to take students who are at risk, students 
that are ready to be bounced out of the public school system and keep 
them after school from 3:00 in the afternoon until 6:00 in the 
afternoon. Instead of suspending those kids, they have decided to keep 
those kids on Saturday instead of turning them loose on the streets.
  What they found out is that the incidence of success for those kids 
has increased, but they also have found out that the crime rate has 
gone down because the crime rate was after school. The highest 
incidence of teenage crime was the hours right after school and on 
Saturdays. So they have given those kids direction.
  Do my colleagues know who they depend on? They depend on the coaches 
to come in, the people who have the ability to be the role models, the 
people who have the ability to connect with these kids. They are not 
just exclusively coaches. Some of them are science teachers and some 
are art teachers, and some of them are English teachers. But they have 
given those kids hope.
  What we do and what has happened, and I have seen the charts up here; 
the story is, though, the people who have gained are women's sports, 
and that is great. The sports that have lost are men's sports. Two 
hundred universities across this country in 1996 and 1997 have dropped 
sports; almost all of those sports are men's sports. We are just 
saying, if they are going to do that, give those kids a chance to 
reclaim their lives, give those kids a chance to find another 
university or another program to get into if that is their wish.
  Now, we are not saying we cannot do it. I understand certainly the 
constraints of universities and colleges. I know the budget problems. I 
know that

[[Page H2881]]

we do not want extra interference from the Federal Government in these 
schools. But we are just saying, give these kids a chance. If they are 
going to drop the program, let them know. Give them a chance to change.
  Last week we had the roll-out of the For a Drug-Free America Act. 
That was an interesting experience. But one of the most interesting 
speakers that we had was a young lady from northern Illinois who was 
the goalie on the women's hockey team that won the gold medal in 
Nagano. The young lady is a premed student at Dartmouth University. She 
took 2 years out of her training to take the challenge to try to make 
the Olympic team. She did that.

  She had a great message for the kids of this Nation. The message is, 
``You can do anything you want with your life. You can do anything you 
want. If you put your mind to it and your will to it, you can do it.'' 
But do my colleagues know what? She also had a great message that ``If 
you get messed up with drugs, it probably is going to negate that.'' We 
need to have people's messages out there for our kids.
  Do my colleagues know where she got her experience? She was the only 
girl on the men's hockey team that won the State championship in 
Illinois, but she earned that spot. The next year, that hockey team was 
no longer a school sport.
  I am saying, when we take those opportunities for kids to excel, to 
try and reach out and get their dreams and some may be to be an Olympic 
champion or to be a State champion or to be a coach, when we drop those 
programs, we take away generations of leadership, leadership that we 
need to help our kids, boys and girls, to help our future, and to set 
the tone of what this country should be about.
  All I am saying in this amendment, in this notice, is that if we are 
going to take that opportunity away from those kids, tell them, tell 
them on a timely basis. If it is 4 years ahead of time that decision is 
made, tell them in 4 years. If it is 3 years, tell them in 3 years. If 
it is 2 years, tell them in 2 years. If it is 1 year, tell them in 1 
year. Give them a chance to make their own decision and to follow their 
goal in life.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say that the gentleman from Illinois has given a very 
eloquent and passionate statement about mentoring and after-school 
programs and leadership programs for children, but not a Federal 
mandate or intrusion into our sports programs on the part of Washington 
to every university in the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Riggs 
amendment.
  I think it would be an almost impossible challenge and task for 
universities and institutions of higher learning to be required to 
predict 4 years in advance changes that might be anticipated in their 
athletic program. We have enough problems here in Congress in trying to 
predict what is going to happen next year.
  Under the provision in the bill that has been included in H.R. 6, 
schools could lose their eligibility to receive Pell grants and higher 
education loans if they fail to predict and justify their decisions. 
This provision is intrusive, as has been mentioned, and I think it goes 
way beyond the limits of the Federal role in the development of higher 
education policy.
  In addition to the absurdity of having to prophesy future changes, I 
am also concerned that this provision would tend to weaken title IX. 
And I am concerned that this reporting requirement will lead colleges 
and universities to blame reductions in men's nonrevenue sports, such 
as wrestling, on compliance with title IX.
  I wanted to say, I also introduced that goalie and I introduced the 
captain of that winning hockey team in my district, and we were very 
proud of what they have done. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) is quite correct, but I just want to emphasize, the ultimate 
goal of title IX is to provide equal opportunities for boys as well as 
girls, men as well as women, and this is what we should do.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), 
a good friend of mine, I think, that there is no penalty in this bill. 
It does not take away or threaten universities with their Pell grants 
or anything.
  There is no penalty in the bill. It just says, within a period of 4 
years, up to 4 years, that if they decide in 4 years or 3 years or 2 
years or 1 year or 6 months from now that they are going to do away 
with a sport, they ought to tell the kids they are going to do that so 
they have some time to plan.
  So I understand that this is the understanding that my colleague has. 
It is wrong. We do not take away. There are no penalties in this bill. 
That is how benign this is. We are just saying, give kids a chance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis), the very talented freshman.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Riggs-
Roemer amendment and against the mandate we are debating here this 
afternoon. This is a well-intended provision in the bill. It has, as 
its sponsor has mentioned, the goal of encouraging students to 
participate in intercollegiate athletics, team sports that teach 
teamwork, individual sports that teach self-esteem and confidence. But 
the provision does not have the intended effect and indeed it will have 
the opposite effect; that is, it will risk hurting students.
  As has been mentioned, if enrollment were to drop at an institution, 
if student interest in participating in a particular sport were to 
decline and the budget dropped for that particular sport, this bill 
could have the effect of eliminating Federal funding that is needed to 
run that university or college and eliminating sorely needed financial 
aid.
  Let us focus on what the real issue here is. The real issue is that 
we should adequately fund our universities and colleges, not just 
intercollegiate athletics for women but for men as well. They should 
not have to compete against each other.
  Secondly and most importantly, as the sponsor of this provision 
alluded to, we need to strongly fund financial aid, because the 
greatest threat to participation in intercollegiate athletics is the 
time of our students who are increasingly being forced to work, as the 
sponsor was, and attend school and are robbed of the opportunity for 
extracurricular activities outside the classroom. By funding financial 
aid to meet these rising tuition increases around our country, by 
freeing our students up to have time to participate, this is what we 
should be focused on. This is why I would urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the reporting provisions in the Higher 
Education Act represent a highly inappropriate Federal intrusion into 
the affairs of our Nation's colleges and universities. I rise in 
support of the Roemer amendment to strike those provisions. Congress 
should not be in the business of interfering in the budgeting decisions 
of our Nation's colleges.
  The Higher Education Act contains important provisions to help our 
students pay for the rapidly rising costs of college. Yet the reporting 
provisions in the bill would make it even more difficult for schools to 
make the tough decisions that will help them to keep tuition costs 
down. That is why the NCAA supports the Roemer amendment. These 
reporting provisions are an attempt to force colleges and universities 
to blame any reductions in men's sports on increases of women's sports. 
This is a backdoor attempt to weaken Title IX. This is not about men's 
teams versus women's teams. We are all on the same team here. We all 
win when our young women have the opportunity

[[Page H2882]]

to challenge themselves, to strive to succeed to improve their 
confidence.
  I urge my colleagues to allow our colleges and universities the 
autonomy to make their own decisions. Vote for the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a freshman Member working hard on 
education problems.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-
Riggs amendment to correct a serious flaw in this bill. This provision 
is wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to remove it 
from the bill.
  Last week I met in my office with the president of the North Carolina 
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. She explained to 
me her concerns about the harmful effect that this provision of the 
bill would have on the institutions of higher education in our State. 
Without passage of the Roemer-Riggs amendment, this bill would usurp 
the administrative flexibility of colleges and universities that they 
absolutely need to run their universities in the most effective manner, 
a mandate that has been given to them by this Congress through a 
commission that they set up.
  The Federal Government should not be in the business of micromanaging 
our universities of higher education. But we should not as a process of 
trying to do it pit our academic institutions against the athletics and 
their struggle for resources. This provision would handicap colleges 
and subject them to a burdensome, restrictive and contentious process 
and send the wrong message to our Nation's schools.
  This provision is unnecessary, and the Roemer-Riggs amendment is 
supported by the NCAA and other major higher education organizations.
  My Congressional District contains several small colleges and 
universities. These institutions would be particularly hard hit by this 
bill. We must preserve the flexibility of these schools to continue to 
provide the excellent educational opportunities they are providing 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, as the first member of my family to graduate from 
college, I know firsthand that higher education holds the key to the 
American Dream. This provision of H.R. 6 would have very serious, 
negative consequences for our nation's colleges and universities. As 
the former Superintendent of my state's schools, I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting for the Roemer-Riggs amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. 
I just wanted to indicate that there is certainly a happy side to this 
debate this evening because as the new majority we certainly are making 
converts over there. I have heard so many times in this discussion from 
that side of the aisle, ``We should not be mandating, we should not 
micromanage.'' That is music to my ears. We are really making progress 
here as a new majority. I thank you for joining us.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to get that endorsement 
from the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), again from a university.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as a Member whose career 
has been in higher education, I would like to offer some observations 
in support of the Roemer amendment, which would strike the bill's 
provision requiring institutions to report annually and justify their 
reasons for any reduction in funding or in participation rates of any 
sports teams that might occur over the next 4 years.
  I understand the intent of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). 
We do need to use common sense in the implementation of Title IX, and 
the interests of all students in all sports need to be given 
consideration. But I think the Hastert provision is unwise policy for a 
couple of reasons.
  The provision does represent a micromanagement of the budgeting 
practices of colleges and universities. Colleges and universities must 
be able to manage their budgets, set their priorities, and make their 
plans with the maximum amount of flexibility and freedom. These are 
hard times at many colleges and universities. Managing these 
institutions is a difficult task. An unreasonable Federal burden such 
as this one strikes me as simply unwise. Simply put, universities do 
not and should not be required to initiate 4-year budgeting plans. They 
need far more flexibility than that would permit, which leads me to my 
second point.
  This provision might actually lead colleges to make hard and fast 
long-term decisions that would have the opposite effect of the intent 
of the bill. A requirement to announce decisions 4 years in advance 
could actually lead a college to signal the termination of a sports 
program, undermining its ability to recruit athletes, when in fact the 
program might be salvageable if circumstances change. It is hard to see 
any benefit in that for student athletes or for anybody else.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Roemer amendment in 
order to preserve the maximum amount of independence and flexibility in 
the operation of our Nation's colleges and universities.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with great reluctance to oppose the language in 
the bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who has really 
spent a good deal of his life in behalf of young people. I have 
listened carefully to his remarks and the sincerity and the passion in 
which he delivered them earlier.
  When I look at the bill, two things that stand out to me is what the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the 
committee referred to, and that is our concern about the micromanaging 
on our campuses, but also the issue that I want to address on the floor 
here is the question of Title IX and the great work that we have done 
over the years to get where we are, and that has been championed by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Title IX is the landmark civil rights legislation which has done so 
much to advance equality for women. Thanks to 25 years of it, we are 
experiencing a tremendous boom in women's sports. When I was at the 
University of Iowa in 1963, on an athletic scholarship, I might add, to 
my friend from Illinois, I did not receive much glory either as I spent 
too much time on the bench, there was not a woman in the university who 
was on an athletic scholarship. Only the men had athletic scholarships. 
Before Title IX, only one in 27 girls competed in high school sports. 
Today it is one in three. Back then, only 300,000 young women took part 
in interscholastic athletics nationwide. Today it is 2.25 million.
  This past winter, as has been said, we added women's hockey to the 
growing list of U.S. women's teams that are Olympic gold medal winners. 
We see young women turn out for NBA basketball games and they have got 
heroes like Rebecca Lobo and Lisa Leslie and soccer heroes like Mia 
Hamm. We should be proud of these new opportunities for our daughters.
  This provision that is in the bill would, I think, take a step 
backwards by pitting men's programs against women's programs. It is 
important to understand that we have had no court order that has ever 
forced a school to reach proportionality to comply with Title IX. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to pit small men's sports programs 
against struggling women's programs. I urge them to vote for the 
Roemer-Riggs-Mink amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the champion of equality and fairness.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very eloquent statements this 
afternoon arguing about the inability of institutions of higher 
learning to respond to this mandate to forecast 4 years in advance 
where they are going to eliminate or reduce athletic programs or cut

[[Page H2883]]

funding. More particularly, if you look at the language of the 
provision in the bill, it says, ``and to give reasons therefor.'' So 
while I fully subscribe to the arguments about university autonomy and 
what this provision will do to the universities, expecting them to be 
able to forecast 4 years in advance, I want to address those last four 
words of the amendment, ``and to give reasons therefor.''
  Arguments have been made on the floor this afternoon that one of the 
reasons, perhaps, that men's nonrevenue sports have had to be 
eliminated in a number of instances is because women's sports have been 
gaining. If you look at the statistics and you study the record, such 
accusations are absolutely, totally false. Twenty-five years ago when I 
had the privilege of serving in the Congress and advocating for the 
passage of Title IX, women were totally excluded. Now for the first 
time, they are coming up and participating in major sports, gaining the 
support of wide audiences, becoming in some cases even a revenue sport. 
It seems to me it is wholly unfair to now try to cause the universities 
to single out Title IX as a reason for having to cut back on nonrevenue 
sports in the men's area. I believe sincerely that this is what it is 
all about.
  I certainly agree with the gentleman from Illinois' argument that if 
we allow young people to participate in sports, it is going to change 
their lives entirely. That is exactly what has happened to women. It 
has changed their lives entirely. Title IX after 25 years has finally 
opened up opportunity in higher education, and one of the opportunities 
is in the sports area. It has given them the opportunity to find out 
what it is to be a competitor.
  Women have been winning, have been coming home with the gold medals. 
I never had that opportunity. I could not even get into the profession 
that I wanted to when I was going to college. I yearned for the 
opportunity to have that chance, to seek my chosen career 
opportunities.
  Title IX has opened up the way for women into law school, medical 
schools and all the professions. They have done well in the sports. Let 
us not add this language and compound the pressures upon Title IX and 
cause it to become the scapegoat for further accusations and further 
litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Roemer amendment 
to strike the onerous reporting requirement included in this bill which 
will force schools to report on potential reductions in athletic 
programs.
  This provision was included in the Committee bill at the 11th hour. 
Most Committee Members had no knowledge of the provision and there was 
no appropriate debate on the consequences or the practicality of what 
we are requiring schools to do in this provision.
  There are many reasons to oppose the reporting requirement, many of 
which have been outlined by my colleagues--it is extraordinarily 
intrusive in the decision making process of colleges and universities; 
it is impractical--it will be virtually impossible for colleges to know 
if they are going to cut or reduce certain athletic programs four years 
in advance and it will force colleges to make decisions prematurely 
about their athletic programs. Furthermore, this reporting requirement 
could actually prompt colleges to close the very programs the 
proponents of this provision are seeking to save.
  I oppose this provision for all these reasons, but most of all, I 
stand today with my colleague Tim Roemer urging the House to strike 
this reporting requirement because of the potential for severe adverse 
impact on the enforcement of Title IX.
  The reporting requirement in the bill was included by opponents to 
Title IX who want to force colleges to blame reductions in smaller, 
non-revenue men's sports on Title IX. They are hoping that colleges 
will say in their reports that compliance with Title IX is the reason 
they have to reduce men's sports, which is simply not true!
  Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972 prohibits all 
schools receiving federal funds from discriminating against women, 
including women's athletic programs.
  The success of Title IX in increasing athletic opportunities for 
girls and women is indisputable. We have all seen the success of Title 
IX through the increased strength and popularity of women's collegiate 
sports, the record number of U.S. women athletes winning Olympic 
medals, and the establishment of two professional women's basketball 
leagues.
  Thanks to Title IX, 110,000 college women and 2.2 million high school 
girls now compete in intercollegiate and interscholastic sports.
  Women who participate in sports now reap the benefits that men have 
enjoyed for decades--new economic opportunities, building team work and 
leadership skills that translate into marketable jobs skills. Girls and 
women who participate in sports are also healthier and involvement in 
team sports also reduces the potential for involvement in juvenile 
crime and teen pregnancy.
  Blaming women's sports for reductions in non-revenue men's sports is 
pitting the have-nots against the have-nots. While women's athletic 
programs have been increasing, female athletes still get the short end 
of the stick. Women still have only 37% of the opportunities to play 
intercollegiate sports, 38% of athletic scholarships, 23% of athletic 
operating budgets and 27% of the dollars spent to recruit new athletes.
  While women's athletics has been inceasing, so have men's athletic 
budgets--at an even greater pace. Since 1972 (passage of Title IX) for 
every new dollar spent on women's intercollegiate sports, two new 
dollars were spent on men's intercollegiate sports.
  From 1992-1997, men's athletic operating budgets have increased by 
139%. The increase in women's budgets was much less at 89%.
  The real problem is that the lion's share of total athletic resources 
goes to male athletes, but these resources are inequitably distributed 
among men's sports. Football and men's Basketball consume 73% of the 
total men's athletic operating budget at Division I-A institutions, 
leaving other men's sports to compete for the remaining funds.
  Of the $1.37 million average increase in expenditures for men's 
Division I-A sports programs during the past five years, 63% of this 
increase went to football.
  Minor men's sports that are threatened should turn their attention to 
the other major men's sports, and not take away from women's sports 
which only have 37% of the funds.
  Title IX should not be used as a scapegoat for decisions made by 
institutions because of fiscal difficulties, or their decisions to 
inequitably distribute funds among men's sports.
  We have come too far, we cannot turn our back on women athletes. 
Support Title IX and vote for the Roemer Amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) has 30 seconds and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 
the right to close.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, the committee position holds the right to 
close. The gentleman from Indiana opened debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
is not on the committee. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Certainly I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), 
who has worked with me to try to structure this language that made 
sense. I like to fish. I wish I had my pole here today because we have 
a lot of red herrings that have been floating around this place.
  Let me be very, very honest and straight. The gentlewoman from Hawaii 
talked about title IX. This is not about title IX. Some people say it 
takes 4 years' notice. It is not 4 years' notice. It is notice when a 
school decides up to 4 years to give notice to kids who are not going 
to have the opportunity to participate.

                              {time}  1800

  But let me talk a little bit about what has arisen here as far as men 
versus women, certainly not the intent of this gentleman to talk about 
that. As my colleagues may know, my wife started teaching about the 
same time I did. She is a women's athletic coach. At that time the only 
opportunity that women had was GA, Girl's Athletics; it was an 
intramural thing. Today women have all types of opportunities; as many 
in girl sports in this high school as there are in boy sports, and that 
is great because it has changed the way.
  All we are saying in this amendment is let us be decent, let us be 
honest, and let us tell our kids when their opportunities are gone that 
they have the

[[Page H2884]]

chance to go someplace else if that is the case. That is what we are 
asking about.
  But let me just say one more thing. As my colleagues may know, I had 
worked with the universities and small colleges, independent colleges 
and the NCAA. We had an agreement. An agreement was when this bill goes 
to conference let us work to make sure that this is a voluntary system.
  Now the Congress is going to work their will today, one way or 
another, but those who so vociferously stood up and said let us not do 
mandates, let us then talk to the NCAA and make sure that this does, 
win, lose, or draw, become something that is voluntarily encouraged by 
the NCAA to its members. That is the bottom line. Let us let kids have 
the understanding and the knowledge when their sport is terminated that 
they have the ability to make a choice. Let their parents have the 
ability to make their choice.
  Now, unfortunately, a lot of these kids are going to be vested in 
these schools, they are going to have hours. Maybe there will be 
sophomores or juniors and they cannot afford to change. What we are 
asking them, if they can, if they want to, if they are following their 
life's dream and this is part of what they want to accomplish with a 
college education, they need to have the opportunity of the knowledge, 
the same knowledge that the school has. It is not going to change their 
ability or their budgeting or anything else. It is common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, let us vote on the side of common sense in this 
Congress for a change.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion this side, in efforts to strike this 
language in the bill, we are for the students' right to know. We just 
think that the universities should do it in a voluntary fashion, not 
from a mandate from the Federal Government in Washington, D.C.
  If we were to bring a small business bill to the floor and have a 
provision in that bill saying that every small business in the country 
has to let us in the Federal Government know 4 years in advance if they 
are going to lay anybody off, that would be voted down.
  Vote down this provision. Do not put a half nelson of regulations on 
every university in the country. Vote for the Roemer-Riggs amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of a bi-
partisan amendment offered by my colleagues, Congressmen Tim Roemer and 
Frank Riggs. This amendment would eliminate a provision in H.R. 6, the 
Higher Education Act of 1998, that would require colleges to report 
four years in advance the possible elimination of athletics programs. 
This onerous provision would, in effect, gut the purpose of equality in 
athletics for men and women. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress 
prevails in adopting this amendment.
  As the team leader for the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues--
Title IX task force, I am often asked whether the Women's Caucus has a 
position on the elimination of sports opportunities for men as a method 
of complying with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Over 
the past five years, no less than 55 institutions nationwide have 
eliminated or downgraded to club status men's varsity intercollegiate 
sports or placed squad size limits on men's teams. Most schools cite, 
as the reason for their decision, the need to reduce expenditures in 
order to provide opportunities for women.
  The Women's Caucus is not in favor of reducing opportunities for men 
as the preferred method of achieving Title IX compliance. Title IX is 
one section of the Education Amendments of 1972. Though it is commonly 
associated with college athletic programs, it is, in fact, a wide-
ranging sex discrimination law that also applies to high schools and 
elementary schools. It states: ``No person in the United States shall, 
on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
participation in an educational activity.''
  The reporting requirement in H.R. 6 was included by opponents to 
Title IX who want to force colleges to blame reductions in smaller, 
non-revenue men's sports on Title IX. They are hoping that colleges 
will say in their reports that compliance with Title IX is the reason 
they have to reduce men's sports, which is not true. Since the passage 
of Title IX, in 1972, for every one new dollar spent on women's 
intercollegiate sports, two new dollars were spent on men's 
intercollegiate sports. From 1992-1997, men's athletic operating 
budgets have increased by 139%. The increase in expenditures for 
women's sports during this time period, 89% pales in comparison. 
Football and men's basketball consume 73% of the total men's athletic 
operating budget at Division 1-A institutions, leaving other men's 
sports to compete for remaining funds. Of the $1.37 million average 
increase in expenditures for men's Division 1-A sports programs during 
the past five years, sixty-three percent of this increase went to 
football.
  Blaming women's sports for reductions in non-revenue sports is 
pitting the have-nots against the have-nots. The lion's share or 
resources goes to male athletes, which are inequitably distributed 
among men's sports. Title IX should not be used as a scapegoat for 
decisions made by institutions because of fiscal difficulties, or 
because of decisions to inequitably distribute funds among men's 
sports.
  Instead of developing an acrimonious environment between men's non-
revenue sports and women's sports, we as legislators should be looking 
for solutions that will allow opportunities for all students to 
participate in activities. We need to explore the options of moving 
college athletic programs to a lower level of competitive division and 
using tuition waiver savings to athletics budgets to fund gender 
equity.
  Equality has always benefited all Americans. If we intended to 
compete on a global level academically and athletically, we need a 
strong Title IX. I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan 
amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Act.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment to H.R. 6.
  H.R. 6 contains a provision which requires colleges to report on any 
potential reduction in athletic programs four years in advance and the 
reasons for that proposed reduction.
  This provision is just another attempt to get colleges and 
universities to blame Title IX for reductions in smaller, non-revenue 
men's sports.
  Title IX has been very successful in increasing the visibility and 
strength of women's collegiate sports. Its success can be seen in the 
two newly formed professional women's basketball leagues.
  Title IX has been very important program, and it should not become a 
scapegoat for fiscal difficulties affecting the institution.
  Title IX is not the only problem with this bill.
  Congress should not restrict a college or universities ability to 
decide on its programs and budget.
  Colleges and universities do not set their budgets four years in 
advance, yet this provision would force them to make decisions while 
just guessing at what the future may hold.
  In a time when the cost of college is rising much faster than the 
cost of living, we must find ways to help colleges decrease costs; not 
create obstacles to suspending programs that the college or university 
can no longer afford.
  This provision intrudes into the decision making policies of 
universities and colleges, and it would force colleges to make 
decisions prematurely about their athletic programs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes to this amendment to 
delete this provision from the bill.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  This amendment strikes a provision of this bill that would have the 
federal government oversee and mandate the decisions of our nation's 
institutions of higher learning. I support this amendment because I 
believe it is inappropriate for Congress to interfere in a college or 
university's design of its own athletic programs or preparation of its 
own budget.
  The provision in question would require institutions to file annual 
reports with the federal government that specify and justify any 
planned reductions in funding or participation rates of any athletic 
programs that may occur over the following four years. This is a 
costly, unnecessary and unfunded mandate that would undermine Congress' 
previous efforts to ensure the affordability of higher education.
  The National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education, which 
Congress created, allowed institutions to make their own decisions 
about the best means for slowing the growth of college costs. This 
bill, however, would take away this authority and require postsecondary 
institutions to justify their budgets and long-range planning 
decisions. Most, if all, colleges and universities do not budget in 
four year cycles. This bill would require these institutions to revise 
budgetary practices and foresee the rise or decline in athletic 
programs several years in advance. This action will not only have an 
immediate, negative impact on the identified program, but it would 
severely restrict an institution's ability to recruit student athletes 
and take steps to save troubled programs.
  There is simply no need for this provision. In fact, NCAA data shows 
no evidence of a nationwide trend of eliminating college athletic 
programs. In the 1995-96 academic year, only two sports experienced a 
reduction in their team totals, with a net loss of only six teams. That 
is only six teams out of 15,141 men's and women's sports teams, with 
322,763 student-athletes, in NCAA member-sponsored institutions. In 
fact in 1995-96, 1,166 new sports teams were added.

[[Page H2885]]

  I am also concerned that this provision would force institutions to 
reduce participation in smaller, non-revenue Title IX sports programs, 
which are designed to expand opportunity for women in college athletic 
programs. The bill contains burdensome reporting requirements that 
would pit sports programs for men against those for women. If 
institutions are forced to forecast profitability when determining the 
future of athletic programs, I am concerned that less established, 
revenue-neutral womens programs will be easy targets for termination. 
The end result will be diminished level of opportunity for women 
athletes and diminished participation by women in intercollegiate 
athletics.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Riggs-Roemer amendment.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to support the Riggs-Roemer Amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher 
Education Act Amendments of 1998. Currently, H.R. 6 contains language 
that would require universities to give at least four years of advance 
notice if they plan to discontinue any sports programs. The Riggs-
Roemer Amendment would remove this language from H.R. 6, and prevent 
the federal government from micro-managing college sports in this 
dangerous manner.
  Once a college announces that one of their sports teams is being 
disbanded, immediately, that team becomes a lame duck. The program 
permanently loses its fan base, any potential recruits and also the 
support of its financial boosters. The potential thus becomes a 
reality.
  It would be a shame if a college were forced by law to announce the 
discontinuation of a sport four years early, only to find enough money 
to keep the program afloat a year later. By then, that program will 
have suffered irreparable and unnecessary damage to its reputation and 
viability.
  The government should not force colleges to announce four years in 
advance that they plan to discontinue a sports program. That rule would 
limit a college's options when it comes to possibly saving a struggling 
sport. I urge my colleagues to support the Riggs-Roemer Amendment to 
H.R. 6, so we can save college athletics from government over-
regulation.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Riggs-Roemer Amendment.
  I agree with my colleagues about the importance of ensuring autonomy 
for university administrators for their own athletic programs. I am 
astounded at the thought of the compliance issues associated with the 
provision in the bill this amendment proposes to strike. I am also 
concerned that this is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the gains 
that we have made through the Title IX program.
  The provision in H.R. 6 that the Riggs-Roemer amendment would 
eliminate would force recipients of Higher Education Act funds to 
justify cuts in college athletic programs.
  Forcing an institution to maintain a failed program for four years 
after they report the cut is ludicrous. Imagine if this requirement 
were imposed on Congress. We would not be able to cut a program even if 
an emergency demanded it. We would never accept such a restriction and 
should not impose one on university administrators.
  This provision is an attempt to allow colleges and universities to 
use Title IX as a scapegoat for cuts to other athletic programs.
  No one understands better the difficult decisions that balancing a 
budget brings than we do in Congress. Title IX, which creates equal 
access to important programs for young men and women, should not suffer 
because of painful budgetary decisions. Last year Title IX celebrated 
its 25th anniversary. Since that time, women's participation in school 
athletic programs has increased dramatically. This increase has 
benefited young women in many aspects of life. Young women who play 
sports are more likely to graduate from high school, and less likely to 
use drugs or have an unintended pregnancy. They reap multiple health 
benefits from athletic participation, including a 40%-60% decrease in 
their risk of breast cancer. In addition, athletic participation helps 
improve self-esteem and discipline.
  I urge my colleagues to support Title IX and preserve autonomy in 
decisions at institutions of higher education. Please support the 
Riggs-Roemer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


           Amendment No. 82 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 82 offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:
           TITLE XI--TEACHER EXCELLENCE IN AMERICA CHALLENGE

     SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Teacher Excellence in 
     America Challenge Act of 1998'.

     SEC. 1102. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to improve the preparation and 
     professional development of teachers and the academic 
     achievement of students by encouraging partnerships among 
     institutions of higher education, elementary schools or 
     secondary schools, local educational agencies, State 
     educational agencies, teacher organizations, and nonprofit 
     organizations.

     SEC. 1103. GOALS.

       The goals of this title are as follows:
       (1) To support and improve the education of students and 
     the achievement of higher academic standards by students, 
     through the enhanced professional development of teachers.
       (2) To ensure a strong and steady supply of new teachers 
     who are qualified, well-trained, and knowledgeable and 
     experienced in effective means of instruction, and who 
     represent the diversity of the American people, in order to 
     meet the challenges of working with students by strengthening 
     preservice education and induction of individuals into the 
     teaching profession.
       (3) To provide for the continuing development and 
     professional growth of veteran teachers.
       (4) To provide a research-based context for reinventing 
     schools, teacher preparation programs, and professional 
     development programs, for the purpose of building and 
     sustaining best educational practices and raising student 
     academic achievement.

     SEC. 1104. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' 
     means a public elementary school.
       (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' means an institution of 
     higher education that--
       (A) has a school, college, or department of education that 
     is accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary for 
     that purpose; or
       (B) the Secretary determines has a school, college, or 
     department of education of a quality equal to or exceeding 
     the quality of schools, colleges, or departments so 
     accredited.
       (3) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       (4) Professional development partnership.--The term 
     ``professional development partnership'' means a partnership 
     among 1 or more institutions of higher education, 1 or more 
     elementary schools or secondary schools, and 1 or more local 
     educational agency based on a mutual commitment to improve 
     teaching and learning. The partnership may include a State 
     educational agency, a teacher organization, or a nonprofit 
     organization whose primary purpose is education research and 
     development.
       (5) Professional development school.--The term 
     ``professional development school'' means an elementary 
     school or secondary school that collaborates with an 
     institution of higher education for the purpose of--
       (A) providing high quality instruction to students and 
     educating students to higher academic standards;
       (B) providing high quality student teaching and internship 
     experiences at the school for prospective and beginning 
     teachers; and
       (C) supporting and enabling the professional development of 
     veteran teachers at the school, and of faculty at the 
     institution of higher education.
       (6) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' means 
     a public secondary school.
       (7) Teacher.--The term ``teacher'' means an elementary 
     school or secondary school teacher.

     SEC. 1105. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--From the amount appropriated under section 
     1111 and not reserved under section 1109 for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary may award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     professional development partnerships to enable the 
     partnerships to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     providing teacher preparation, induction, classroom 
     experience, and professional development opportunities to 
     prospective, beginning, and veteran teachers while improving 
     the education of students in the classroom.
       (b) Duration; Planning.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     under this title for a period of 5 years, the first year of 
     which may be used for planning to conduct the activities 
     described in section 1106.

[[Page H2886]]

       (c) Payments; Federal Share; Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) Payments.--The Secretary shall make annual payments 
     pursuant to a grant awarded under this title.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs 
     described in subsection (a)(1) shall be 80 percent.
       (3) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the costs 
     described in subsection (a)(1) may be in cash or in-kind, 
     fairly evaluated.
       (d) Continuing Eligibility.--
       (1) 2nd and 3d years.--The Secretary may make a grant 
     payment under this section for each of the 2 fiscal years 
     after the first fiscal year a professional development 
     partnership receives such a payment, only if the Secretary 
     determines that the partnership, through the activities 
     assisted under this title, has made reasonable progress 
     toward meeting the criteria described in paragraph (3).
       (2) 4th and 5th years.--The Secretary may make a grant 
     payment under this section for each of the 2 fiscal years 
     after the third fiscal year a professional development 
     partnership receives such a payment, only if the Secretary 
     determines that the partnership, through the activities 
     assisted under this title, has met the criteria described in 
     paragraph (3).
       (3) Criteria.--The criteria referred to in paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) are as follows:
       (A) Increased student achievement as determined by 
     increased graduation rates, decreased dropout rates, or 
     higher scores on local, State, or national assessments for a 
     year compared to student achievement as determined by the 
     rates or scores, as the case may be, for the year prior to 
     the year for which a grant under this title is received.
       (B) Improved teacher preparation and development programs, 
     and student educational programs.
       (C) Increased opportunities for enhanced and ongoing 
     professional development of teachers.
       (D) An increased number of well-prepared individuals 
     graduating from a school, college, or department of education 
     within an institution of higher education and entering the 
     teaching profession.
       (E) Increased recruitment to, and graduation from, a 
     school, college, or department of education within an 
     institution of higher education with respect to minority 
     individuals.
       (F) Increased placement of qualified and well-prepared 
     teachers in elementary schools or secondary schools, and 
     increased assignment of such teachers to teach the subject 
     matter in which the teachers received a degree or specialized 
     training.
       (G) Increased dissemination of teaching strategies and best 
     practices by teachers associated with the professional 
     development school and faculty at the institution of higher 
     education.
       (e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this title, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to professional development 
     partnerships serving elementary schools, secondary schools, 
     or local educational agencies, that serve high percentages of 
     children from families below the poverty line.

     SEC. 1106. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Each professional development partnership 
     receiving a grant under this title shall use the grant funds 
     for--
       (1) creating, restructuring, or supporting professional 
     development schools;
       (2) enhancing and restructuring the teacher preparation 
     program at the school, college, or department of education 
     within the institution of higher education, including--
       (A) coordinating with, and obtaining the participation of, 
     schools, colleges, or departments of arts and science;
       (B) preparing teachers to work with diverse student 
     populations; and
       (C) preparing teachers to implement research-based, 
     demonstrably successful, and replicable, instructional 
     programs and practices that increase student achievement;
       (3) incorporating clinical learning in the coursework for 
     prospective teachers, and in the induction activities for 
     beginning teachers;
       (4) mentoring of prospective and beginning teachers by 
     veteran teachers in instructional skills, classroom 
     management skills, and strategies to effectively assess 
     student progress and achievement;
       (5) providing high quality professional development to 
     veteran teachers, including the rotation, for varying periods 
     of time, of veteran teachers--
       (A) who are associated with the partnership to elementary 
     schools or secondary schools not associated with the 
     partnership in order to enable such veteran teachers to act 
     as a resource for all teachers in the local educational 
     agency or State; and
       (B) who are not associated with the partnership to 
     elementary schools or secondary schools associated with the 
     partnership in order to enable such veteran teachers to 
     observe how teaching and professional development occurs in 
     professional development schools;
       (6) preparation time for teachers in the professional 
     development school and faculty of the institution of higher 
     education to jointly design and implement the teacher 
     preparation curriculum, classroom experiences, and ongoing 
     professional development opportunities;
       (7) preparing teachers to use technology to teach students 
     to high academic standards;
       (8) developing and instituting ongoing performance-based 
     review procedures to assist and support teachers' learning;
       (9) activities designed to involve parents in the 
     partnership;
       (10) research to improve teaching and learning by teachers 
     in the professional development school and faculty at the 
     institution of higher education; and
       (11) activities designed to disseminate information, 
     regarding the teaching strategies and best practices 
     implemented by the professional development school, to--
       (A) teachers in elementary schools or secondary schools, 
     which are served by the local educational agency or located 
     in the State, that are not associated with the professional 
     development partnership; and
       (B) institutions of higher education in the State.
       (b) Construction Prohibited.--No grant funds provided under 
     this title may be used for the construction, renovation, or 
     repair of any school or facility.

     SEC. 1107. APPLICATIONS.

       Each professional development partnership desiring a grant 
     under this title shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may require. Each such 
     application shall--
       (1) describe the composition of the partnership;
       (2) describe how the partnership will include the 
     participation of the schools, colleges, or departments of 
     arts and sciences within the institution of higher education 
     to ensure the integration of pedagogy and content in teacher 
     preparation;
       (3) identify how the goals described in section 1103 will 
     be met and the criteria that will be used to evaluate and 
     measure whether the partnership is meeting the goals;
       (4) describe how the partnership will restructure and 
     improve teaching, teacher preparation, and development 
     programs at the institution of higher education and the 
     professional development school, and how such systemic 
     changes will contribute to increased student achievement;
       (5) describe how the partnership will prepare teachers to 
     implement research-based, demonstrably successful, and 
     replicable, instructional programs and practices that 
     increase student achievement;
       (6) describe how the teacher preparation program in the 
     institution of higher education, and the induction activities 
     and ongoing professional development opportunities in the 
     professional development school, incorporate--
       (A) an understanding of core concepts, structure, and tools 
     of inquiry as a foundation for subject matter pedagogy; and
       (B) knowledge of curriculum and assessment design as a 
     basis for analyzing and responding to student learning;
       (7) describe how the partnership will prepare teachers to 
     work with diverse student populations, including minority 
     individuals and individuals with disabilities;
       (8) describe how the partnership will prepare teachers to 
     use technology to teach students to high academic standards;
       (9) describe how the research and knowledge generated by 
     the partnership will be disseminated to and implemented in--
       (A) elementary schools or secondary schools served by the 
     local educational agency or located in the State; and
       (B) institutions of higher education in the State;
       (10)(A) describe how the partnership will coordinate the 
     activities assisted under this title with other professional 
     development activities for teachers, including activities 
     assisted under titles I and II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., 6601 
     et seq.), the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5801 
     et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
     Applied Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); 
     and
       (B) describe how the activities assisted under this title 
     are consistent with Federal and State educational reform 
     activities that promote student achievement of higher 
     academic standards;
       (11) describe which member of the partnership will act as 
     the fiscal agent for the partnership and be responsible for 
     the receipt and disbursement of grant funds under this title;
       (12) describe how the grant funds will be divided among the 
     institution of higher education, the elementary school or 
     secondary school, the local educational agency, and any other 
     members of the partnership to support activities described in 
     section 1106;
       (13) provide a description of the commitment of the 
     resources of the partnership to the activities assisted under 
     this title, including financial support, faculty 
     participation, and time commitments; and
       (14) describe the commitment of the partnership to continue 
     the activities assisted under this title without grant funds 
     provided under this title.

     SEC. 1108. ASSURANCES.

       Each application submitted under this title shall contain 
     an assurance that the professional development partnership--
       (1) will enter into an agreement that commits the members 
     of the partnership to the support of students' learning, the 
     preparation of prospective and beginning teachers, the 
     continuing professional development of veteran teachers, the 
     periodic review of

[[Page H2887]]

     teachers, standards-based teaching and learning, practice-
     based inquiry, and collaboration among members of the 
     partnership;
       (2) will use teachers of excellence, who have mastered 
     teaching techniques and subject areas, including teachers 
     certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching 
     Standards, to assist prospective and beginning teachers;
       (3) will provide for adequate preparation time to be made 
     available to teachers in the professional development school 
     and faculty at the institution of higher education to allow 
     the teachers and faculty time to jointly develop programs and 
     curricula for prospective and beginning teachers, ongoing 
     professional development opportunities, and the other 
     authorized activities described in section 1106; and
       (4) will develop organizational structures that allow 
     principals and key administrators to devote sufficient time 
     to adequately participate in the professional development of 
     their staffs, including frequent observation and critique of 
     classroom instruction.

     SEC. 1109. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall reserve a total of not 
     more than 10 percent of the amount appropriated under section 
     1111 for each fiscal year for evaluation activities under 
     subsection (b), and the dissemination of information under 
     subsection (c).
       (b) National Evaluation.--The Secretary, by grant or 
     contract, shall provide for an annual, independent, national 
     evaluation of the activities of the professional development 
     partnerships assisted under this title. The evaluation shall 
     be conducted not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Teacher Excellence in America Challenge Act 
     of 1998 and each succeeding year thereafter. The Secretary 
     shall report to Congress and the public the results of such 
     evaluation. The evaluation, at a minimum, shall assess the 
     short-term and long-term impacts and outcomes of the 
     activities assisted under this title, including--
       (1) the extent to which professional development 
     partnerships enhance student achievement;
       (2) how, and the extent to which, professional development 
     partnerships lead to improvements in the quality of teachers;
       (3) the extent to which professional development 
     partnerships improve recruitment and retention rates among 
     beginning teachers, including beginning minority teachers; 
     and
       (4) the extent to which professional development 
     partnerships lead to the assignment of beginning teachers to 
     public elementary or secondary schools that have a shortage 
     of teachers who teach the subject matter in which the teacher 
     received a degree or specialized training.
       (c) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary shall 
     disseminate information (including creating and maintaining a 
     national database) regarding outstanding professional 
     development schools, practices, and programs.

     SEC. 1110. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       Funds appropriated under section 1111 shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended for the professional development of 
     elementary school and secondary school teachers.

     SEC. 1111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because 
we must improve the quality of teachers teaching our children. As a 
former educator in the Los Angeles Unified School District, I know the 
discouragement and despair that saps the morale and inspiration of our 
teachers, which directly impacts our children. I believe that we must 
restore the stature and importance of the profession of teaching. We 
must have the best-trained teachers if we expect our children to be the 
best.
  This is why I have offered the Teacher Excellence Amendment which 
will change the way teachers are trained and improve the quality of 
teaching in America's classrooms. The language implements some of the 
recommendations from the National Commission on Teaching in America's 
Future, of which I am the only Member of Congress who serves on that 
commission.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, will directly connect our teacher 
preparation system to our schools by establishing a competitive grant 
program for professional development partnership consisting of 
colleges, public schools, State and local educational agencies, teacher 
organizations, professional education organizations and others. If we 
are to make sure or to ensure that teachers are professionally trained, 
Mr. Chairman, we must make sure that we then have the type of 
professional development that will not just be weekend professional 
development but will be ongoing professional development.
  The amendment also provides for the continuing development and 
professional training of veteran teachers, and it also provides for 
mentorship of prospective and beginning teachers by veteran teachers. 
We recognize that beginning teachers must have pre-induction and post-
induction training and support systems. Therefore, this bill and this 
amendment would allow for that type of professional development of 
veteran teachers.
  The amendment also increases recruitment to outreach for more diverse 
students toward teacher discipline. It prioritizes awarding of grants 
to programs serving low-income areas. It promotes the use of teachers 
of excellence, who have master teaching techniques in subject areas, to 
come back and teach those beginning teachers, as well as teachers that 
are certified by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, 
to assist prospective and beginning teachers.
  Now some of the weaknesses of the underlying bill: It prohibits a 
national system of teaching certification, and we from the National 
Commission of Teaching in America's Future recognize it is the fact 
that we must have a national system of teacher certification so that we 
will ensure that teachers are certified to teach in those prospective 
disciplines.
  This amendment also authorizes $100 million as opposed to the 18 
million that the present bill has. We see this as a need, if we are 
going to encourage more professional development, that is sorely needed 
for qualified teachers.
  It also mandates governors to submit grant applications instead of 
allowing individual professional development partnerships to submit 
their own grant applications.
  Mr. Chairman, I do urge that my colleagues support this teacher 
excellence amendment as it ensures America's teachers be the best 
trained they can be to educate our children for the world of work; and 
for that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the approval of the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are working with 
the gentlewoman between now and conference time to see what we can do 
with her desires.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can work 
together because there are a lot of provisions in my amendment that are 
not in the present bill, and I think it is critical that we include 
these provisions if we are going to indeed talk about professional 
training for teachers and ensure that teachers are qualified to teach 
in that discipline. And for that reason, I sure hope that I have the 
understanding from the gentleman that we will work with the provisions 
that I have in concert with what the gentleman has.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) is withdrawn.


          Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: at 
     the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                  TITLE XIII--EARLY DYSLEXIA DETECTION

     SEC. 1202. EARLY DYSLEXIA DETECTION.

       Directs the Secretary to conduct a study and submit a 
     report to the Congress on methods for identifying students 
     with dyslexia early in their educational training, and 
     conduct such study in conjunction with the National Academy 
     of Sciences.


  Modification To Amendment No. 31 Offered By Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify my amendment with the modification at the desk.

[[Page H2888]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee 
     of Texas: in lieu of the matter proposed to be added at the 
     end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE XI--SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING DETECTION OF 
    LEARNING DISABILITIES, PARTICULARLY DYSLEXIA, IN POSTSECONDARY 
                               EDUCATION

     SEC. 1101. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     colleges and universities receiving assistance under the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 shall establish policies for 
     identifying students with learning disabilities, specifically 
     students with dyslexia, early during their postsecondary 
     educational training so they may have the ability to receive 
     higher education opportunities.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The modification is agreed to.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) the chairperson, for both 
cooperating with me on this sense of Congress, but as well 
acknowledging the many efforts that we have offered and constructed 
dealing with learning disabilities and, in particular, dyslexia. Let me 
thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for his kindness and 
cooperation as well, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their sensitivity to this 
issue.
  Fifteen percent of the U.S. population, about 1 of 7 or 39 million 
Americans, have some form of learning disability according to the 
National Institutes of Health. While some students come to college 
already identified as having learning disabilities, others may not be 
recognized or begin to understand their difficulties until they reach 
college, and in particular because the pace changes.
  Despite greater awareness of learning disabilities in elementary and 
high schools, children still slip through the cracks. Parents and 
teachers are understanding the reluctance to characterize their 
children's problems as disabilities, and therefore people with learning 
disabilities come as intelligent human beings and are as intelligent as 
the rest of the population, but a gap begins. Students with learning 
disabilities come to college with the same motivations as other 
students.
  An article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine said, 
``A treatment of reading disorder, dyslexia, demands a life-span 
perspective. Why do you say that we have not detected it in the earlier 
years?'' Well, sometimes that does not occur. Students go all the way 
through high school, come to college and find out at the moment when 
they are looking for their career, they cannot function.
  Mr. Chairman, this is destructive and devastating. If an adult has a 
learning disability, they may experience many problems, but they no 
longer spend their day in school and cannot turn to the public school 
system for evaluation and special instruction. Our colleges do have 
this ability.
  According to Dr. Sally Shaywitz, developmental dyslexia is 
characterized by an unexpected difficulty in reading in children and 
adults who otherwise possess the intelligence, motivation, and 
schooling considered necessary for accurate and fluent reading in order 
to be able to succeed. I could call off the roll, Mr. Chairman, of so 
many people of excellence throughout this Nation who will tell my 
colleagues, both quietly and publicly, ``I have dyslexia,'' only 
discovered, however, late in life. Dyslexia is the most common and most 
carefully studied of the learning disabilities, affecting 80 percent of 
all those identified as learning disabled. Many become aware of 
dyslexia later in life because of the more rigorous pace of college.
  So it is very important that this sense of Congress does acknowledge 
that education means excellence, and because of excellence we are going 
to work with the chairperson and demand that we focus on this very 
important element.
  Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, if I might step briefly aside to say 
as the Riggs amendment comes to the floor of the House, it has not yet 
come, but because I think these are so much intertwined and related, I 
simply want to acknowledge my strong opposition to the Riggs amendment 
and will revise my remarks; for it is evident that in Houston when we 
defeated Proposition A, it is very clear that in defeating proposition 
A, we in Houston and in Texas have said no to eliminating affirmative 
action.
  The Riggs amendment would propose to eliminate affirmative action in 
higher education. It is the same thing as holding someone back, not 
giving them the opportunity. We have seen the evidence of diminishing 
applications for Hispanics and African Americans in California and the 
devastation of Hopwood in Texas.
  I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we create 
opportunities at all levels. Vote down the Riggs amendment. And I hope 
that my sense of Congress on the issue of dyslexia dealing with 
learning disabilities will see more highlight and more light on this 
issue of making sure that those very bright and intelligent individuals 
with learning disorders and dyslexia be treated in such a way that our 
colleges detect it and give them the opportunity to succeed and have an 
effective and positive career.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling just for a moment, and I will yield on the dyslexia sense 
of Congress; I would appreciate it if we could work together on this 
idea of making sure that everyone who has a learning disability has an 
opportunity to learn.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentlewoman's sense of 
Congress resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a Sense of Congress Amendment to H.R. 
6, the Higher Education Amendment of 1998. This amendment directs the 
Secretary of Education to conduct colleges and universities to create 
policies for identifying students with dyslexia early in their college 
or university training.
  Fifteen percent of the U.S. population-about one of seven-or 39 
million Americans have some form of learning disability, according to 
the National Institutes of Health.
  While some students come to college already identified as having 
learning disabilities, others may not recognize or begin to understand 
their difficulties until they reach college. Despite greater awareness 
of learning disabilities in elementary and high schools, children still 
slip through the cracks; parents and teachers are understandably 
reluctant to characterize a child's problems as ``disabilities.''
  People with learning disabilities are as intelligent as the rest of 
the population. Their learning disability, however, creates a gap 
between ability and performance.
  Students with learning disabilities come to college with the same 
motivations as other students: to explore interests, broaden knowledge 
and understanding, satisfy curiosity, and prepare to contribute to the 
working world and to society.
  An article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine says 
the treatment of the reading disorder dyslexia demands a life-span 
perspective. Adults who have trouble reading or learning usually have 
had these problems since they were children. Their problems may stem 
from having a learning disability that went undetected or untreated as 
a child.
  If an adult has a learning disability they may experience many 
problems, but they no longer spend their day in school and cannot turn 
to the public school system for evaluation and special instruction.
  According to Dr. Sally E. Shaywitz, developmental dyslexia is 
characterized by an unexpected difficulty in reading in children and 
adults who otherwise posses the intelligence, motivation, and schooling 
considered necessary for accurate and fluent reading.
  Dyslexia is the most common and most carefully studied of the 
learning disabilities, affecting 80 percent of all those identified as 
learning disabled.

  The need to better understand the source of learning disabilities in 
adults is extremely important. Persons with learning disability may 
exhibit several of many behaviors.
  They may demonstrate difficulty in reading, writing, spelling, and/or 
using numerical concepts in contrast with average to superior skills in 
other areas. They may have poorly formed handwriting. They may have 
trouble listening to a lecture and taking notes at the same time. The 
person may be easily distracted by background noise. They may have

[[Page H2889]]

trouble understanding or following directions. Confuses similar letters 
such as ``b'' and ``d'' or ``p'' and ``q''. Confuses similar numbers 
such as 3 and 8, 6 and 9 or changes sequences of numbers such as 14 and 
41. This is only a short list of those things which may indicate 
dyslexia in an adult.
  The diagnostic process for adults with learning disabilities is 
different from diagnosis and testing for children. While diagnosis for 
children and youth is tied to the education process, diagnosis for 
adults is more directly related to problems in employment, life 
situations, and education.
  Adults becoming aware of dyslexia later in their educational career 
can be due to the change of pace that is found in colleges and 
universities as well as the volume of work required to compete in 
higher education.
  Policies by colleges and universities creating methods for 
identifying students with dyslexia early in their college or university 
training can allow us to provide assistance to the learning disabled as 
they work to obtain degrees or specialized training for careers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against the Riggs Amendment to 
H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Plainly stated, the 
Riggs Amendment, if passed, would end all affirmative action measures 
directed toward creating more ethnically diverse student bodies in our 
Nation's institutions of higher learning. The issue here is very clear, 
the Riggs Amendment is a threat to the very kind of inclusiveness that 
we Americans say that we unequivocally cherish. Currently, as it has 
been repeatedly clarified by the highest Court in the land, any higher 
education admissions program that takes into account ``race, sex, 
color, ethnicity or national origin'', can only do so in a narrowly 
tailored fashion to remedy a specific art of discrimination (Adarand v. 
Pena, O'Connor) or as a ``plus factor'' to a college or university 
seeking to create a culturally and ethnically diverse student body 
(Bakke v. California Board of Regents, Powell). Simply stated, 
affirmative action admissions programs in this country do not operate 
without clear legal constraints. Blind preferences are not given to 
women and minorities in our nation's higher education admissions 
programs; essentially, affirmative action is a means to an end. The end 
of making our colleges and universities resemble the beautiful multi-
ethnic diversity of our proud nation.
  There is no doubt that without the active participation of the 
federal government in promoting affirmative action programs, the 
ability of minorities and women to effectively compete and matriculate 
into institutions of higher learning will be dramatically reduced. 
According to information released by Boalt Hall at the University of 
California, Berkeley, the elimination of affirmative action has 
produced a substantial drop in the number of offers of admission made 
to minority applicants other than Asians for fall 1997 at UC Berkeley's 
school of law. Boalt Hall made 815 offers of admission last year; 75 
were made to African Americans and 78 were made to Hispanics/Latinos. 
However, under the elimination of affirmative action at Boalt Hall, of 
the 792 offers of admission, only 14 were made to African Americans and 
only 39 were made to Hispanics/Latinos.

  In response to these dismal numbers, Boalt Hall dean Kay Hill stated, 
``this dramatic decline in the number of offers of admissions made to 
non-Asian minority applicants is precisely what we feared would result 
from the elimination of affirmative action at Boalt.'' In Texas the 
numbers are no better. In the class that began at the University of 
Texas Law School last fall, of the 791 students admitted, only 5 
African Americans and 18 Hispanics were admitted. This is a striking 
contrast to the 65 African Americans and 70 Mexican Americans admitted 
last year.
  Additionally, undergraduate enrollment has dropped as well. 421 
African Americans and 1,568 Hispanics were admitted to the University 
of Texas in 1996. However, in 1997, only 314 African Americans and 
1,333 Hispanics received offers for admittance. The total enrollment at 
the four University of Texas medical schools has dropped from 41 
African Americans in 1996 to only 22 for 1997. The assault on 
affirmative action will have dramatic results in the number of doctors, 
lawyers, individuals holding advanced degrees in the African American 
and minority communities.
  There is no doubt that these dismal numbers in Texas are a direct 
result of the decisions in Hopwood versus Texas. Four white rejected 
applicants to the University of Texas school of law sued in Federal 
court, claiming that the law school's 1992 affirmative action program 
violated the U.S. Constitution. The court held that the state 
university's law school admission program which discriminated in favor 
of minority applicants by giving substantial racial preferences in its 
admission program violated equal protection.
  The panel of justices in Hopwood ruled that any consideration of race 
or ethnicity by the University of Texas law school for the purpose of 
achieving a diverse student body is not a compelling interest. The 
court reasoned that the use of race for diversity purposes was grounded 
in racial sterotyping and stigmatized individuals on the basis of race. 
Additionally, the court in Hopwood rejected consideration of race as a 
remedy for the present effects of past discrimination. The court 
refused to include prior discrimination by the undergraduate school of 
the university or discrimination within Texas' elementary and secondary 
schools as a reason for the law school to use a remedial racial 
classification.
  We seek affirmative action today because we are still suffering from 
the history of affirmative racism in this county. Even the court in 
Adarand acknowledged that the government has a compelling interest in 
remedying the ``unhappy persistence of both the practice and the 
lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in 
this country.'' I vehemently disagree with the court in Hopwood in 
saying that diversity is not a compelling interest. It is evident that 
the justices in Hopwood have not had the pleasure and experience of 
participating in a diverse setting. As Jonathan Alger of the American 
Association of University Professors wrote, ``diversity is not a dirty 
word.''
  Regents of the University of California versus Bakke is the law of 
the land. In the 1978 Bakke decision, Justice Powell found that a 
diverse student body in a university setting enhances the learning 
environment for all students and therefore is a compelling interest in 
support of affirmative action. The court held that the rigid 
reservation of 16 places on the basis of race was unconstitutional. 
However, Bakke concluded that the flexible consideration of race, as 
one of many factors used to obtain a highly qualified, diverse entering 
class as permitted by the constitution.
  Therefore, we must continue our commitment to prioritize diversity as 
an important and worthy necessity in achieving the goal of true racial 
inclusion in this country. As the great civil rights activist and 
former national director of the Urban League, Whitney Moore Young, Jr. 
Wrote in his 1964 book To Be Equal, ``only hopelessly insecure, 
tragically immature people need to surround themselves with sameness. 
People who are secure and mature, people who are sophisticated, want 
diversity. One doesn't grow by living and associating only with people 
who look like oneself, have the same background, religion, and 
interests.'' So please join with me and vote down the Riggs Amendment 
of H.R. 6.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Hall of Texas

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Did the gentleman from Texas have his 
amendment printed in the Record?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it was.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk has already read title VIII. Does 
the gentleman request unanimous consent for his amendment to be 
considered?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be considered at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 63 offered by Mr. Hall of Texas: At the 
     appropriate place in the bill to Title VIII insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.    TEXAS COLLEGE PROVISION.

       The Secretary may not consider audit deficiencies relating 
     to record keeping with respect to qualifying students for 
     financial aid at Texas College, located in Tyler, Texas, for 
     academic years prior to and including academic year 1994-1995 
     in determining whether Texas College complies with the 
     financial responsibility and administrative capacity 
     standards under Section 498 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, if Texas College has filed an affidavit with the 
     Department of Education stating that it has made a good faith 
     effort to furnish records to the Department with respect to 
     such audits.

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would preclude the 
U.S. Department of Education from imposing audit deficiencies on Texas 
College that result from records not maintained or retained by the 
college administrators for academic years 1990-1991 to the arrival of 
the current administration at the college in 1994.
  Although a very diligent effort has been made and is continuing to be 
made by the staff of the current administration to locate these 
records, it is to no avail due to failures of previous personnel. There 
has been an effort

[[Page H2890]]

made to produce these records, and they are just not available.
  They produced a number of answers to the questions, inquiries 
submitted by the Department of Education, I think enough to allow the 
department some leeway, and we are working with the department at this 
time in order to work this matter out.
  Texas College's current application for participation in the title IV 
student assistance programs is being, I think, needlessly delayed based 
on the absence of records and assertions that failure to produce such 
records means the current administration is financially irresponsible 
and administratively incapable.
  That is just not the situation. We have Texas College, which is a 
black college founded in 1894, affiliated with the Christian Methodist 
Episcopal Church. Bishop Gilmore serves as the Episcopal bishop in 
Texas. We have had a new president, Dr. Strickland, at Texas College 
since November of 1994.
  The members of the board and their associations have put millions of 
dollars into this college in order to keep it open. They have, against 
great odds, kept it open since the funds were cut off in 1994. We 
intend to keep on doing that. Although Texas College may be liable for 
certain deficiencies associated with the absence of these records, 
their absence should not bear on the present capacity to administer 
title IV funds with personnel, new personnel, new administrative 
policies, and new financial aid procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply relieves Texas College, if they 
make a good-faith effort to furnish such records, from having to 
produce records that may no longer exist as it seeks to reestablish its 
title IV eligibility.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing this issue because this 
has been an ongoing dialogue that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) 
and I have had with the Department of Education. We believe that our 
work on behalf of Texas College is not only very deserving, but what we 
are attempting to do here this evening is to reinforce to the 
Department of Education that we believe that Texas College is making 
every single effort that they can to comply with the Department of 
Education and, further, to make sure that they have provided to the 
Department of Education those things that are necessary for 
certification.
  The reason that we are here is because this discussion is taking 
place today about education, and we would wish at this time to make 
sure that the Department of Education knows that we are attempting to 
work with them; and that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and I, 
while we are offering this amendment, I believe that at this time we 
would wish not to go further with this amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman.
  Most of the issues have already been addressed by Texas College and 
the subject of repayment agreements have been satisfied by the college 
and are the subject of an appeal that is filed with the Department of 
Education. The Department of Education is working with us.
  I thank the Chairman and I thank my colleagues for their time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 75 offered by Mr. Roemer of Indiana;
  Amendment No. 70 offered by Mr. Miller of California;
  Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Stupak of Michigan.


                 Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 292, 
noes 129, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               AYES--292

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--129

     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brady
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette

[[Page H2891]]


     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Parker
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stump
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Weller
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Skaggs
     Spratt

                              {time}  1844

  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, REDMOND, SKEEN, DAVIS of Virginia, GILMAN, FOLEY 
and ROGAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. McDERMOTT, DUNCAN, CALVERT, JOHNSON of Wisconsin, BLUMENAUER, 
QUINN, McHUGH, DICKEY, PAXON, McCRERY, SALMON, BROWN of California, 
ADERHOLT, BAKER, MARTINEZ and SPENCE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 411, the Chair announces 
the he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


          Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 393, 
noes 28, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               AYES--393

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--28

     Barr
     Bonilla
     Cannon
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cubin
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Hall (TX)
     Herger
     Johnson, Sam
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Miller (FL)
     Packard
     Paul
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Skaggs
     Spratt

                              {time}  1855

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN and Mr. ROYCE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Stupak

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               AYES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Fox
     Frost

[[Page H2892]]


     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Upton
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     McNulty
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Spratt

                              {time}  1902

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order 
to announce what the proceedings will be for this evening.
  We now have a 2-hour window where there is a 2-hour debate on the 
Riggs amendment. We will then vote on the Riggs amendment. Then we will 
have the Campbell amendment. And then we will vote on the Campbell 
amendment. Then we will have final passage.
  So everybody knows, the next 2 hours will be general debate. We will 
finish the bill this evening.


                 Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 73 offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Add at the end the following new title (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

          TITLE XI--DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

     SEC. 1001. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND 
                   PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       (a) Prohibition.--No public institution of higher education 
     that participates in any program authorized under the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall, in 
     connection with admission to such institution, discriminate 
     against, or grant preferential treatment to, any person or 
     group based in whole or in part on the race, sex, color, 
     ethnicity, or national origin of such person or group.
       (b) Exception.--This section does not prohibit preferential 
     treatment in admissions granted on the basis of affiliation 
     with an Indian tribe by any tribally controlled college or 
     university that has a policy of granting preferential 
     treatment on the basis of such affiliation.
       (c) Affirmative Action Encouraged.--It is the policy of the 
     United States--
       (1) to expand the applicant pool for college admissions;
       (2) to encourage college applications by women and minority 
     students;
       (3) to recruit qualified women and minorities into the 
     applicant pool for college admissions; and
       (4) to encourage colleges--
       (A) to solicit applications from women and minority 
     students, and
       (B) to include qualified women and minority students into 
     an applicant pool for admissions.

     so long as such expansion, encouragement, recruitment, 
     request, or inclusion does not involve granting a preference, 
     based in whole or in part or race, color, national origin, or 
     sex, in selecting any person for admission.
       (d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``public 
     institution of higher education'' means any college, 
     university, or postsecondary technical or vocational school 
     operated in whole or in part by any governmental agency, 
     instrumentality, or entity.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Tuesday, May 
5, 1998, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) will each control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I hope we can approach 
debating this issue with open minds and open hearts, and that we can 
stipulate at the beginning of this debate that we are people of good 
will who can have genuine disagreements at times but who, because of 
the high elective offices and the public trust that we hold, have an 
obligation to debate issues such as the one that I put before the House 
this evening.
  I want to say at the beginning of my comments that I acknowledge that 
discrimination continues to exist in our society and that it is morally 
wrong, but I believe we will never end discrimination by practicing 
discrimination, and I believe it is time for the United States Congress 
to end preferences once and for all.
  Now, let me, at the beginning of the debate, explain what my 
amendment does and does not do. First of all, I should explain that my 
amendment is substantively different from the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), which will follow mine. And 
not to preempt that gentleman, but I am very pleased to have his 
support of my amendment and intend to reciprocate by supporting his 
amendment.
  My amendment is very simple and straightforward. In a way, I guess it 
would have been good for the Clerk to actually have read it, because it 
is concise enough. My amendment is patterned after California's 
Proposition 209, the California civil rights initiative, and it is 
intended to bring an end to racial preferences in college admissions.
  My amendment very specifically, very succinctly bans public, I say 
again, public colleges and universities that accept Federal funding 
under the Higher Education Act from using racial or gender preferences 
in admissions. My amendment does not in any way,

[[Page H2893]]

though, impinge on minority outreach programs or minority scholarships 
for qualified individuals.
  I am very proud of the fact that a couple of years ago I was 
recognized and honored by the TRIO organization for my efforts to 
expand the funding for TRIO, which is a minority outreach and minority 
scholarship program that encourages institutions of higher learning, 4-
year colleges and universities, to establish partnerships with 
secondary institutions of learning, high schools.
  So I want to say that I strongly believe in affirmative steps to 
expand the pool of qualified minority applicants at every public 
college or university as long as, as long as the school admission 
decision is not made on the basis of race or sex. I believe that we can 
achieve the twin goals of diversity in minority outreach without the 
need for preferences that favor one minority group over another, as has 
been the case in California, and as I will elaborate as the debate 
proceeds tonight.
  Now, I believe I have a chart here, and maybe we will get it up with 
the help of one of the pages. I would like to, as this chart goes up, 
tell my colleagues of some recent polling data that demonstrates, I 
think unequivocally, that Americans overwhelmingly support legislation 
to make hiring, contracting, and college admissions race and gender 
neutral.
  Here are the highlights of that polling data. Seven in 10 voters 
believe that California's Proposition 209 should not be overturned. But 
more importantly, nearly 9 out of 10, 87.2 percent of Americans, said 
race should not be a factor in admission to a public college or 
university. And that included more than 3 out of 4, 75.7 percent, of 
African-American voters who were surveyed and who said that race should 
not be a factor in admission to a public college or university. So I 
believe the time has come for this body to act.
  I realize that there are a lot of people who wish that this debate 
would go away or at least could be held for another date, preferably 
beyond this election cycle. But as our friend, my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. Watts), told me the other day, 
there is never a wrong time to do the right thing.
  I want to make it very, very clear that I intended to offer this 
amendment last year to the annual spending bill, the appropriations 
bill for the Department of Education, but waited for this debate and 
this day to offer this amendment so that it could be more appropriately 
discussed in the context of reauthorizing the Federal/taxpayer-funded 
higher education programs.
  I do not want my colleagues to be misled about my amendment. I have 
made modifications to this amendment to make it more acceptable to more 
Members of this body. First of all, with some reservation, I excluded 
private colleges and universities, even though almost all private 
colleges and universities receive substantial Federal-taxpayer funding 
for student financial aid under this legislation.
  Secondly, as I will point out in a later colloquy with our colleague, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I specifically excluded 
tribally-run institutions, colleges and universities on tribal 
reservations, or Indian lands, even though most of them are public, and 
my bill now applies only to public colleges and universities. But I did 
that because of the concerns that I heard, loud and clear, about treaty 
obligations, tribal sovereignty, and the government-to-government 
relationship enjoyed between the United States of America, the Federal 
Government, and tribal governments around the country.
  My amendment does not ban single-sex schools. In fact, it expressly 
allows them. It does not prevent courts from fashioning remedies to 
actual discrimination. There is ample authority for such action under 
current civil rights law dating back to the 1964 Federal Civil Rights 
Act.
  My amendment does not, as I said earlier, prevent schools from 
minority recruitment outreach or scholarships, and it does not, and I 
say this to my Republican brethren, my more conservative colleagues, it 
does not increase the role of the U.S. Department of Education in 
admissions oversight. In fact, it would stop the Department of 
Education's Office of Civil Rights' practice of telling public colleges 
and universities to grant admission preferences even where courts have 
expressly ruled against them, as in the case of the University of Texas 
Law School and the Hopwood case.
  So I want to make clear that people should not be dissuaded from 
doing what is right under the Constitution by erroneous arguments that 
opponents to my amendment may make during the debate a bit later.
  As the author of California's civil rights initiative, Proposition 
209, Ward Connerly pointed out, who is an African-American businessman 
who serves on the University of California's Board of Regents, granting 
an individual preference based on their race or gender means another 
individual has been discriminated against based on their race or 
gender. And that is as succinct and compelling an argument as I can 
make for my amendment this evening.

                              {time}  1915

  I think we all know that different groups suffer under affirmative 
action in admissions the way it operates in America today. Minority 
group members suffer because when they are admitted under lower 
standards; they oftentimes perform less well. They need remedial help. 
They are at risk of dropping out. Many of them do not complete a 4-year 
college education and obtain a college degree. And unfortunately, other 
people on that campus and in the college community all too often make 
that link between subpar performance and someone's skin color.
  That is wrong. That is as discriminatory in thought as racial 
preferences are in practice. Stereotypes are reinforced, not 
diminished.
  Secondly, individuals who are not members of minority groups but are 
otherwise academically qualified students are oftentimes excluded in 
order to admit individuals with lesser credentials.
  Let me just tell my colleagues one of the arguments that is being 
made here. I want to make reference to a recent article in the New 
Republic by a man, Nathan Glazer, who wrote a book back in 1975 titled, 
provocatively enough, ``Affirmative Discrimination,'' and who is now 
apparently reconsidering his position and comes to the conclusion that 
affirmative action is bad but banning it is worse.
  In the context of this article he says, ``I have focused on the 
effects of affirmative action, or its possible abolition, on African 
Americans. But of course, there are other beneficiaries. Asian 
Americans and Hispanics are also given affirmative action.'' Then he 
goes on to say, and I wonder if these words strike my colleagues as 
discriminatory as they strike me, ``But Asian Americans scarcely need 
it.'' He and others contend that most Asian Americans, most young 
people of Asian ancestry come from affluent communities and therefore 
have some sort of socioeconomic advantage that most African Americans 
do not have.
  Well, have my colleagues ever been to a Chinatown in a big city in 
America? Would we consider that to be an affluent community? Do we lump 
all Asian Americans together, including Cambodians, Laotians, the Mung 
population, all the recent immigrants to America, many of whom have 
struggled to obtain American citizenship, of Asian American ancestry?
  Those kinds of words are inherently discriminatory. We cannot, we 
should not allow a practice that pits one racial group against another. 
That is what has happened in California. That is part of the genesis, 
if you will, for Proposition 209. Asian Americans were being excluded 
from consideration for admissions because the University of California 
was practicing a policy that gave preference to other minority groups, 
namely African Americans and Hispanic Americans.
  Is that fair? Is it right? Will someone come down to the well tonight 
and argue that that practice should be continued? What would my 
colleagues say to those Asian American young people and to those 
families in California that have been blatantly discriminated against 
as a result of these practices?
  I also want to point out that colleges and universities are lessened 
by the hypocrisy of ostensibly being in favor of equal opportunity, but 
actually practicing discriminatory policies. And, colleagues, it is 
going on all over the country.
  Here is an article from USA Today dated November 28, 1997. It says 
how

[[Page H2894]]

Michigan admittance standards differed.
  Now, there is a chart here. My colleagues have to understand the 
background of this chart. This chart came to light through a Freedom of 
Information request filed by philosophy professor Dr. Carl Cohen, who 
is a former, and I quote from the article, former board member of the 
ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, and the author of a 1995 book 
called ``Naked Racial Preferences: The Case Against Affirmative 
Action.''
  Here is the chart, and this is the basis for current litigation filed 
by two students against the university, two white students charging 
bias by the University of Michigan. I quote from the article with 
respect to this chart.
  I just want to tell the young lady here, the page, that she will not 
find that chart in the charts we prepared. But I will make it available 
and I will make sure it is inserted later, when we rise from the 
Committee of the Whole and go back into the House, into the Record.
  But I quote from the article. At the heart of the lawsuit filed by 
these students is what opponents of affirmative action call ``the 
smoking gun.'' A chart, this chart, my colleagues, right here, and 
would I love to share this with my colleagues if they would like to 
come up and take a closer look, a chart that, according to the USA 
Today article is used by the university's admissions office to decide 
who gets in and who does not. This chart clearly, indisputably 
demonstrates that whites and minorities with identical grades and test 
scores meet different fates. The white applicants are rejected or 
deferred while minorities are automatically admitted. That is what this 
chart shows.
  And as Dr. Cohen points out, the point I just tried to make a moment 
ago, and he can make it better, I quote Dr. Cohen. ``I want the 
university,'' referring to the University of Michigan, ``to be a place, 
to live up to its ideals, not betray them to accomplish a short-range 
objective. Constitutions are designed to prevent taking shortcuts.''
  And lastly, the community as a whole suffers under affirmative action 
the way it now operates because the different or disparate treatment of 
racial groups breeds mistrust. The time has come to put an end to 
affirmative action. And while I say that as it is being practiced in 
college admission policies, I hasten to add that I have worked long and 
hard to try and create more opportunity, better opportunity, I hope 
some day equal opportunity for every American.
  And as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) said to me, if we want 
affirmative action in American society, and I know he signed on to a 
Dear Colleague with our good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis), but as my colleague told me the other day, if we want 
affirmative action, we have to start by approving the quality of 
primary and secondary education in America. That is where affirmative 
action begins, not in higher education. It starts in ensuring that 
every child in every elementary school around the country has the 
opportunity to receive a first-class, a world-class education. That is 
the very point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 
made in supporting my amendment.
  I want to quote from the statement that he sent out. He said that he 
supports my amendment and said, ``The continued use of preferences in 
admissions does nothing but pit one minority group against another, 
while building a society of legal and ethnic divisions. It is time to 
put a stop to this discriminatory practice.''
  He goes on to say that my amendment embodies the idea of a color-
blind society. Well, I am not the one that advanced the idea of a 
color-blind society. In modern times, that vision is the vision of Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. I think everybody knows that. He was the one 
that talked about a day when someone would be judged by the content of 
their character, not the color of their skin.

  But the chairman and I have, and I hope most Members of this body on 
a bipartisan basis, can agree that the best way to help women and 
minorities succeed in college and later in the workplace is by giving 
them a sound education at the primary and secondary level. Quality 
education is the key, not some system as has evolved at too many public 
colleges and universities around the country of contrived admission 
preferences or quotas for particular groups.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), I knew Martin Luther King, Jr., 
very well. I worked with him for many years. He was my friend, my 
leader, my hero, my brother. If he was standing here tonight, I tell my 
colleagues, he would say he believes in a color-blind society, but he 
would tell us that we are not there yet, and he would not be supporting 
the Riggs amendment.
  So I think that it is not right to use Martin Luther King in this 
manner.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I respect the opinion of 
the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, I will continue for just a moment to say that Martin 
Luther King, I think we can agree on this, he dreamed of the day, he 
spoke of the day, he preached of the day when all Americans would 
participate freely in the American dream.
  I cannot see how continuing institutionalized discrimination, or if 
we want to go one step further, institutionalized racism, and I do not 
use that word lightly because I know it is an explosive word, I cannot 
see how that moves us towards the realization of Dr. King's vision. 
Because I believe institutionalized discrimination is inherently 
unfair, it is undemocratic, and I think ultimately it is anti-American.
  With all due respect to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who 
obviously knew Dr. King well and worked with him, I would like to 
believe that Dr. King would agree that as we approach the dawn of a new 
millennium, now is the time to try to move our country in the direction 
of a post-affirmative action era where we really can build, working as 
individuals and human beings and as American citizens and as children 
of God, a color-blind society.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the Record. The 
previous speaker referred to the TRIO program as a minority outreach 
program, but it is not. It is a disadvantaged outreach program, and the 
majority of students enrolled in TRIO are white.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). His attempt to ban the use 
of affirmative action efforts by colleges and universities is nothing 
more than a scheme to return the system of higher education to the bad 
old days of racial segregation. If we follow that direction, our 
schools will again become a bastion of white, male, good old boys.
  In addition, this amendment completely shatters the bipartisan nature 
of H.R. 6, which has been successfully developed by the members of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce. It is a cruel hoax, Mr. 
Chairman, to declare that we live in a color-blind society in which 
only merit counts. Merit is only one criterion for college admissions.
  Children of alumni have always received special treatment. Children 
of wealthy donors have always been shown preferential treatment. 
Athletic ability and musical talents have always been major 
considerations when deciding whom to admit to colleges and 
universities. Colleges routinely seek to have classes which reflect 
geographical differences and other kinds of diversity in the belief 
that diversity is good educationally.
  Affirmative action was not designed to deny rights unjustly to those 
qualified, but to provide remedies for those qualified who are unjustly 
denied. For this Congress to now prohibit efforts by university leaders 
to correct centuries of inequitable admission practices is an arrogant 
abuse of Federal power. It has taken the Nation's colleges nearly 3 
decades to develop and implement admission policies which have begun to 
close the educational gap existing between minorities, women, and their 
white male counterparts.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to Proposition 209, passed 
by

[[Page H2895]]

California voters, and its effects on minority admission to 
institutions of higher learning will be just as devastating. Admissions 
of African American, Latino, and American Indian students for next 
fall's classes have plunged by more than half at the University of 
California at Berkeley; and admissions of minorities to the University 
of California's three law schools have dropped 71 percent for blacks 
and 35 percent for Latinos.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no validity to the argument that enrollment 
declines are indicative of previously ineligible students being 
admitted to these institutions of higher learning. The fact is that 
over 800 minority students with grade point averages of 4.0 and SAT 
scores of over 1,200 were denied admission to the University of 
California at Berkeley.
  The simple fact is that some believe women, blacks, and Latinos 
should not be afforded a higher education. The Riggs amendment would 
embody that belief in Federal law. It was bad policy during the awful 
period of Jim Crow laws in America, and it is bad policy now.
  Mr. Chairman, measured by any benchmark, access to equal educational 
opportunity remains a distant dream for racial minorities. I strongly 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Riggs antiaffirmative action amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I did not go to Harvard. I did 
not attend Yale. I could not. I could not even attend Troy State 
University, just a few miles from my home, because of the color of my 
skin.
  For 200 years, millions of African-Americans could not go to college. 
The doors of higher education, of opportunity, were shut simply because 
of the color of our skin.

                              {time}  1930

  Today African-Americans and other minorities are attending Troy 
State, Harvard, Yale, and nearly every institution of higher learning 
because of merit and because of affirmative action. Affirmative action 
opens the door for those who grew up with less hope and less 
opportunity, because of the color of their skin, because their parents 
did not go to college, because their family has yet to overcome 200 
years of government-sanctioned discrimination.
  Opponents of affirmative action say they want a colorblind society, 
but ending affirmative action is not colorblind. It is blind to 
centuries of discrimination, blind to the racism that is still deeply 
embedded in our society, blind to the barriers that continue to 
confront generation upon generation of African-American and other 
minorities.
  Mr. Chairman, we have fought too long and too hard and come too far. 
We cannot let affirmative action be destroyed. People have gone to 
jail. People have been beaten. People have lost their lives. Now we 
must fight one more time against those who wave the banner of fairness 
but really want to slam the door of opportunity in the face of young 
people across our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to stand up for diversity, hope 
and opportunity by defeating this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Riggs amendment.
  I want to talk for a moment about some truths and some myths, because 
here is the truth. When the door of opportunity is opened to students 
who are called special admits or affirmative action, they perform 
equally well to the other students. They perform equally well. The 
Chronicle of Higher Education recently published a study which compared 
the graduation rates of special admit medical students with non-special 
admit medical students. Ninety-eight percent of the non-special admit 
students graduated. Ninety-four percent of the special admit students 
graduated, an insignificant statistical difference. Once you open the 
door, everyone who is willing and able can walk through it equally.
  This amendment slams the door. Let us talk about the myth of merit. 
Let us perfect this amendment to make sure it does not perpetuate that 
myth. Let us have merit. Let us have a Federal law that says if your 
mother or father is on the board of trustees of the university, you do 
not get special treatment. Let us have merit. Let us say if your aunt 
or your uncle or your grandparents gave a lot of money to the school, 
you do not deserve special admission. Let us have merit. Let us say if 
you are the son or daughter of the member of the State legislature or 
the mayor or a Member of the United States Congress, you do not deserve 
special admission. Let us have merit. Let us say that if you are not 
someone from a special geographic region of the country or state of the 
world you do not deserve special treatment. Let us have merit. Let us 
say that if you are not someone from a different ethnic group that is 
not fully represented, you do not deserve special admission or special 
treatment.
  Merit is a concept that lives only in mythology. It does not live in 
the admissions offices. This amendment should be defeated for that 
reason.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, legislative language similar to the proposed amendment 
has been enacted in Texas and California. After the adoption of those 
policies, educational opportunities for minorities plummeted to their 
lowest levels since the 1960s and in some schools those opportunities 
disappeared altogether. You cannot change the known impact of this 
amendment by using glorious rhetoric or a misleading title or results 
of a slanted poll. We know what this amendment will do.
  Mr. Chairman, the admissions policies have never been totally fair. 
Those who are children of alumni get preferences, children of large 
contributors get preferences, those who can afford to pay tuition 
without a scholarship get preferences, those who can perform well on a 
culturally biased test get preferences.
  Mr. Chairman, affirmative action serves as a counterbalance to those 
disadvantages that minorities suffer. Without affirmative action we 
will return to the unlevel playing field and turn the clock back to the 
1960s.
  Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has limited the use of affirmative 
action to policies which are narrowly tailored to address the 
compelling State interest. So as the need for affirmative action drops, 
so will the practice of affirmative action.
  This amendment, however, will prohibit the use of affirmative action 
even in cases where there is a need to remedy proven cases of racial 
discrimination. Mr. Chairman, you can quote Martin Luther King, you can 
talk about dreams, but we know what this amendment will do. Minority 
opportunities will plummet if this amendment is adopted. That is why 
those of us who celebrate diversity in America are opposing this 
amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the Riggs amendment. This amendment would involve an unprecedented 
Federal intrusion into the admissions practices of colleges and 
universities. It would require an extensive apparatus to monitor 
admissions policies nationally. This seems monumentally unwise.
  Twenty years ago, the Bakke decision developed a careful and delicate 
balance for college admissions. Quotas were declared unconstitutional, 
as they should be. Gender and race can never be the sole or decisive 
factor in the admissions process. This made sense then and it makes 
sense now. But colleges and universities should be able to reach out to 
widen their pool of applicants, to bring previously deprived or 
disenfranchised people into higher education without fear of legal 
retribution.
  I know how this works from my years of experience as an admissions 
officer in a graduate department of a large university. Affirmative 
action offers a

[[Page H2896]]

way of taking into account the backgrounds from which students come, 
assessing their true potential, and opening the doors of opportunity. 
For the Federal Government to interject itself into these decisions, to 
reduce flexibility, to force the use of overly narrow or rigid 
criteria, would be most unwise.
  Affirmative action, Mr. Chairman, is about fairness and equal 
opportunity for individuals. But it is also about community: about the 
academic community itself, diversifying that community to make 
education a broadening and enriching experience. And it is about 
serving the wider community, recruiting a student body that reflects 
the society being served, and training doctors and lawyers and teachers 
and business people and others to serve all elements of that community.
  The Riggs amendment ignores this experience and threatens these 
values. For those reasons, it ought to be rejected.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we have worked hard in this country to 
create the best colleges and universities in the world. I have actually 
devoted much of my time in Congress to expanding access to higher 
education for every student in America. In fact, is that not what this 
higher education bill is supposed to be about, expanding education to 
every student in America?
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs). Quite simply, this amendment, which was 
modeled after California's Proposition 209, blocks opportunity to 
higher education for women and minority students across the country. It 
is not a mystery that dismantling affirmative action destroys needed 
opportunity for America's college campuses.
  Look at my own State and the State of Mr. Riggs, California, where 
the rollback has already begun. The University of California Boalt Law 
School, one of the best public law schools in America, enrolled only 
one African-American student in its freshman class last fall. Also at 
UC-Berkeley African-American admissions have plummeted by 66 percent. 
Latino enrollment fell by 53 percent. At UCLA, African-American 
admissions in the freshman class dropped by 43 percent while Latino 
enrollment fell by 33 percent. At California graduate schools, where 
the clock has already begun ticking and been turned back, both medical 
schools and law schools experienced a significant decline. This is what 
I call stepping backward in our goal, our goal to make higher education 
accessible to all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, women and minorities in America simply cannot afford to 
have this crucial support chipped away. Let me review a few simple 
facts with my colleagues. Women earn 71 cents for every dollar compared 
to a man. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to please not vote to roll 
back affirmative action.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. This is not repealing affirmative action. It is reforming it 
and making a giant step forward while preserving all civil rights 
requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to the Higher 
Education Act. This amendment eliminates arbitrary quotas and set 
asides and erases the reverse discrimination that has grown over the 
years.
  This amendment reaffirms our encouragement of affirmative action 
through expansion of the applicant pool and active recruitment of 
qualified women and minorities. At the same time this amendment makes 
it clear that such encouragement and recruitment does not involve 
granting a preference, or fulfilling a quota.
  This amendment has been changed from its initial form, in such a way 
that positively reaffirms our nation's commitment to affirmative 
action's goals and ideals.
  In other words we are reforming affirmative action as we know it, 
while protecting civil rights for all people.

                           Current Admissions

  We all know, admissions to colleges now involve preferences and 
quotas.

                         Reverse Discrimination

  This amendment reafffirms the original concept of affirmative action 
through vigorous and systematic outreach, recruitment and marketing 
efforts among qualified women and minorities.
  This amendment seeks to restore the colorblind principle to federal 
law by higher education institutions from granting any preference to 
any person based in whole or in part on race, color, national origin, 
or sex.
  When affirmative action and nondiscrimination were first enacted, 
through Kennedy's executive order in 1963 (establishing the President's 
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity) and through the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, the goals were: promotion and assurance of equal 
opportunity without regard to race, creed, color or national origin; 
encouragement of positive measures towards equal opportunity for all 
qualified people, and expansion and strengthening of efforts to promote 
full equality of employment opportunity.

               Maintains Current Antidiscrimination Laws

  Before opponents of this amendment raise their voices, let me also 
add that this legislation absolutely maintains this nation's existing 
antidiscrimination laws. If it did not, I would not be here.
  This amendment maintains existing Civil Rights Laws, which are there 
to remedy individuals who are victims of discrimination.
  Further, it is consistent with Civil Rights Laws by prohibiting 
discrimination.
  Over the course of time, I have been a strong supporter of 
affirmative action. Its goals of equal opportunity, diversity and a 
``colorblind'' society are laudable and supported by the vast majority 
of thinking Americans.
  However, over the course of my career, I have watched the 
implementation of affirmative action amount to the use of 
discriminatory quotas, set asides, preferences and timetables based on 
sex and race. This is evidence of the ``law of unintended 
consequences.''
  We should be reforming comprehensively affirmative action. But we 
have not been able to do that.
  If we have to, we will do this one bill at a time, one amendment at a 
time.
  Race and sex should not matter in college admission, but higher 
education institutions make it matter by counting, labeling and, 
ultimately, dividing Americans.
  Today's affirmative action is flatly inconsistent with our national 
commitment to the principle of nondiscrimination. Our founding 
principles, and I might add, our current laws, require that the 
government treat all of its citizens equally and without regard to race 
and sex.
  I know that discrimination exists in today's America. There's no 
denying it. But we cannot attack discrimination with a different style 
of discrimination. Discrimination in the name of equal treatment is a 
modern-day oxymoron.
  Mr. Chairman, affirmative action did its job in its day.
  But the day it became more quotas than opportunity is the day it 
became part of the problem and not part of the solution.
  Equal opportunity has always been at the core of the American spirit. 
It's time we return it to the core of federal law and practice.
  With the understanding of the recent court costs as Rep. Canady has 
annotated--the handwriting is on the wall. Tonight let us take this 
major step toward reform while maintaining affirmative action.
  I urge your support of this amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes to respond to the 
last speaker on the other side, my friend and northern California 
colleague who represents an adjacent district to me.
  She spoke a moment ago about the University of California's law 
school. I would like to refer her to an article in today's newspaper 
that is very timely to this evening's debate headlined Boalt Minority 
Admissions Up 30 Percent. I quote from the first paragraph of the 
article: ``In the school's second year of colorblind admissions, offers 
to black and Hispanic students are up 30 percent, Boalt Hall School of 
Law announced on Tuesday.'' It goes on to quote the dean of Boalt Hall 
as saying, ``I think the increase had to do with the efforts made at 
outreach that we were very welcoming of minority applicants.''
  Furthermore, I want to put to rest this misinformation regarding the 
University of California system. First of all, I will go ahead and 
quote from John Leo's column in U.S. News and World Report of April 27. 
He says, ``There is no white-out, closing of doors, or Caucasian 
University. In the eight-college University of California system, only 
two of five students are white. At the University of California at 
Berkeley, the figure is one in three.''

[[Page H2897]]

 Then he goes on to quote in the article the provost of the University 
of California, Judson King, who says, and I quote right from the 
article, ``In fact, the drive to raise minority numbers at the top two 
colleges in the system, Berkeley and the University of California at 
Los Angeles, UCLA, had the effect of creating racial imbalances at the 
other six. Judson King, provost of the University of California, 
acknowledged this by saying that the end of preferences was evening out 
diversity across the entire University of California system of all 
eight campuses.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my colleague 
that what I referred to is one African-American enrolled in Boalt Law 
School in the fall. One thing. There is a difference between inviting 
admissions and enrollment, because there are a lot of steps in between. 
Part of that step is feeling welcome.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentlewoman. It 
says, ``The school admitted 32 African-Americans for the fall of 1998, 
almost twice as many as 1997, but less than half the number accepted in 
1996, the last class admitted under affirmative action.'' Looking at 
how the pendulum now swings back, ``The number of Latino students held 
steady at 19, but Chicano, or Mexican-American students rose 34 
percent, to 41.'' It says, ``In 1996, a total of 78 Latino and Chicano 
students were admitted.''
  So here is a university that is focusing on outreach, affirmative 
steps to expand, as I said earlier, the pool of minority applicants. 
That is why we have included language in our bill suggested by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema) that very specifically spells out the recommended steps, 
the affirmative steps that public colleges and universities can do to 
expand the pool of minority applicants. We strongly encourage them to 
pursue these outreach efforts as the University of California Law 
School at Boalt Hall is doing.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) the leader to end racial preferences and discrimination in 
Federal Government programs and policies.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time to discuss 
this important issue, and I am pleased to rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). This is 
an important amendment, an amendment which deals with a fundamental 
question of justice in our society.
  In 1871, in the course of the debate over a civil rights bill 
designed to outlaw segregation in public accommodations, Senator 
Charles Sumner said this:
  Any rule excluding a person on account of his color is a indignity, 
an insult, and a wrong.
  Senator Sumner was right. It is wrong to classify individuals on the 
basis of race. If our history as Americans teaches us anything, it 
should teach us that any such practice is inherently pernicious. It is 
a violation of our fundamental principle as Americans to classify 
students by race; then to tell some students that they will be admitted 
to a school because they belong to a preferred group, and to tell other 
students that they will be denied admission because they belong to a 
nonpreferred group. Such a policy is discrimination, pure and simple, 
and it is wrong.
  It is wrong for many reasons. It is wrong because it imposes an 
unfair burden on innocent individuals on account of their race. 
Students who have worked diligently, including many students who have 
fought to overcome serious social and economic disadvantages, are 
denied admission to the school of their choice because other less 
qualified students gained admission based on a racial preference. 
Students are excluded not because of any wrong they have done, but as a 
part of an effort to redress historic wrongs. In the process, 
unfortunately, the fundamental requirements of justice are forgotten 
while the dreams and aspirations of the innocent are trampled 
underfoot.
  It is wrong because it sets students up for failure. In the name of 
providing opportunity, preferential admission policies produce 
disappointed hopes. Students who could have been successful in less 
competitive institutions are put in programs for which they are not 
prepared and in which they do not succeed. The evidence is clear. 
Dropout rates at competitive universities are in many cases 200 to 300 
percent higher among students admitted from preferred groups than among 
groups admitted from nonpreferred groups.
  At the University of California at Berkeley, for example, the 
undergraduate dropout rate among one preferred group has reached as 
high as 42 percent. Thus the effort to provide assistance to students 
through preferential admissions policies often backfires and harms the 
very students they were supposed to benefit.
  The law of unintended consequences has rarely been illustrated more 
clearly. It is wrong to utilize preferential admissions policies 
because it reinforces prejudice and discrimination in our society. 
Whenever public institutions of higher education sort, divide, and 
classify applicants for admission into racial groups, they send a 
powerful and perverse message that we should judge one another on the 
basis of race.
  Now that is exactly the wrong message for us to send. Colleges and 
universities should deal with students as individuals on the basis of 
their individual qualifications. Students should not be reduced to the 
status of mere representatives of various racial groups. Schools that 
employ racial classifications and preferences tell students in the 
preferred groups that they will be judged by a lower standard and will 
not be expected to meet the same standard that other students must 
meet. That sends a message that is corrosive of the respect owed to all 
students. It is a message that increases divisions and causes untold 
harm. It is a message that should not be supported by Federal tax 
dollars.
  Now the Members of this House should not be diverted from the truth 
by the barrage of attacks made against this amendment. There is nothing 
novel or radical about this amendment. On the contrary, this amendment 
reaffirms with respect to public universities and colleges the 
provisions of Title VI of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. That 
act provides in section 601 as follows:
  ``No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, 
or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
benefits of'', and I think it is important for Members to focus on 
this, ``No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, 
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied 
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or 
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.''
  Now that is the right policy; it was the right policy when the 
Congress adopted it in 1964, and it is the policy that this House 
should support this evening. Unfortunately, those plain words of the 
1964 Civil Rights Act have been ignored in a process of administrative 
change and in the courts. We need to reaffirm that policy tonight and 
get back to the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination in this 
country.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, how sweet it would be if what my 
colleague, who just spoke, said were true; that we are a society based 
on equality of the laws and application of those laws. But the reality 
is we are not yet there, and if my colleagues do not believe it, just 
talk to those FBI agents.
  Not too long ago, African Americans who sat down at a fast food 
restaurant to get some food never got served.
  Or talk to the two young ladies in California who went to an ice 
cream parlor not too long ago and asked for ice cream, and were asked 
for ID before they would get any service whatsoever because they looked 
Hispanic.
  We are not there yet, and that is the truth about it. It would be 
nice to base something on merit, but numbers do not give merit. And if 
my colleagues have seen our public schools and they see where most 
minorities and poor people are, they will understand why we cannot just 
base things on merit,

[[Page H2898]]

because someone can have a 4.0 in some of our inner-city schools and 
they cannot compete with a 3.5 from some of the suburban schools.
  That is where we are today. But worse than that, the amendment does 
not cure a real problem we have. My wife happens to be a physician, a 
professor of medicine at a university here, and if she stays there long 
enough, our three children, who are very young right now, will have an 
opportunity to go to that university, even if there are other children 
who grow up and get better grades and get better scores than my 
children do. Because my wife happens to work at that university, she 
will get her kids in. Great for me and my wife because now she is a 
professor there. But my parents and her parents were never professors. 
They were farm workers. My father was a laborer, my mother was a clerk 
typist; they could not have said that.

  We do not have the justice in this world that allows the children of 
everyone else to have parents who will be professors who can get their 
children into school. And as my father used to tell me when he was 
younger, that sign outside that restaurant that would not let me come 
in with the dogs, because it said ``No Mexicans or dogs allowed,'' and, 
by the way, my father was born an American citizen, are not there 
anymore, but they still affect us all. In the same way that he could 
not walk into a restaurant not long ago, we cannot still walk into some 
of those universities.
  Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Let us not stoop to nonsense in this, the people's House. Affirmative 
action was put in place to right historical wrongs, wrongs of sexism 
and racism. This amendment turns the clock back 30 years. Women and 
minorities were not underrepresented in colleges because we were 
stupid. We knew that we were underrepresented because of sexism and 
racism. And today we are not stupid. We know what this amendment does. 
It turns the clock back; back to a day that we should all have been 
quite ashamed of.
  We understand this issue; women and minorities, we know. We know why 
this amendment was put in place, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Riggs amendment which attempts to deny the existence of racial and 
gender history in this country. It overlooks the reality of 
discrimination and pretends that this country has made more progress 
than what it has actually experienced.
  The fact of the matter is that this amendment is a bold, 
unadulterated attempt to turn back the clock of inequity before there 
has been ample opportunity and ample time to experience the benefits of 
some modicum of affirmative action.
  I heard the gentleman earlier speak and talk about dreaming and 
mentioned Dr. King in his deliberations, and I thought to myself that 
if Dr. King had been dreaming about this amendment, he would have 
awakened quickly with a terrible nightmare.
  The fact of the matter is that amendments like this one provoked 
Langston Hughes to ask the question: What happens to a dream deferred? 
Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Fester like a sore and then 
run?
  We cannot allow the dreams to dry up, we cannot allow the clock to be 
turned back. We must defeat the Riggs amendment, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to correct the 
record.
  Mr. Riggs, the gentleman from California, stated that it was a great 
increase at 30 percent of blacks and Hispanics at Boalt Law. Let me 
explain to my colleagues what that increase was. It was an increase of 
14 students, black and Hispanics, from 37 to 51, out of a total of 857 
students that Boalt admitted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if there is a single Member of this House 
that believes that racial discrimination is nonexistent in America 
today, then I will vote for the Riggs amendment.
  That is what I thought.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray that I will live long enough to see 
racial discrimination ended in this country. Unfortunately, I doubt 
that I will live that long, and certainly that day has not yet arrived. 
Until that day has arrived, affirmative action is a necessary limited 
means of using, of ensuring that equal opportunity is more than a 
hollow phrase in a high school civics textbook.
  The fact is, the Supreme Court has limited affirmative action to be a 
tool to ensure equal opportunity where discrimination has been proven. 
That is a vital tool in today's society where the problem is hardly 
that we have too many minorities in our public and private universities 
and colleges of America.
  Under the Riggs amendment, if Mark Furman had been an admissions 
director at a major public university, the wrongs of discrimination 
could not be righted by affirmative action.
  In the name of ending affirmative action, the Riggs amendment would 
institutionalize discrimination; and that, Mr. Chairman, is wrong.
  If there is a single Member of this House who believes that 
minorities living in the third ward of inner-city Houston receive an 
equal education with children of the privileged families of Highland 
Park in the Dallas area, then perhaps I could understand why some would 
vote to end affirmative action.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to me that some of the same people 
who want to use tax dollars to subsidize elite private prep schools 
would also argue against leveling the playing field of opportunity for 
children attending low-income public schools. Where is the fairness in 
that?
  Mr. Chairman, until the 1960s, many colleges and universities 
excluded minorities for one reason and one reason alone: the color of 
their skin. Where is the fairness in allowing those same colleges to 
give privileges of legacy to the white children and grandchildren of 
those former white students, while legacy preferences simply do not 
exist for minorities? The doors were not open to them.
  Mr. Chairman, when Republicans took charge of this House, they 
appointed dozens and dozens of high school interns from all over 
America. And know what? Not a single one, not a single one was African 
American. And if that is the future vision of equal opportunity under 
Republican leadership, then I want no part of it.
  And finally, it is interesting to me that some of the very people 
supporting the Riggs amendment, the same people who have voted to cut 
spending month after month for the enforcement of laws in America 
against discrimination; where is the fairness in that?
  Rather than quoting Dr. Martin Luther King today, I wish some of the 
proponents of the Riggs amendment would fight every day for the ideal 
of equal opportunity for which Dr. King lived and died.
  Vote no on the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to 
the last speaker.
  The gentleman should not be throwing stones in his glass house. If we 
are going to examine our own internal practices in the United States 
House of Representatives, perhaps we could look at 40 years of control 
by the Democratic Party of this institution; how many female Members of 
Congress currently hold places in the Democratic Party leadership in 
the House of Representatives, versus the example that we have tried to 
set for America by advancing female Members in our ranks.
  But I want to specifically go to the comment of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards). He said if one person, one person could convince 
him that affirmative action, racial preferences in colleges admissions 
is wrong, that he might reconsider and vote for my amendment.

                              {time}  2000

  Well, let me suggest to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that

[[Page H2899]]

that one person is none other than the Attorney General of the State of 
Texas, the top Democrat.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield since he is 
quoting me?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to yield.
  The State's top Hispanic elected official. Now, what did the United 
States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decide in the Hopwood case? Hopwood 
v. The University of Texas, I quote: ``The 5th circuit ruled that 
diversity does not justify preferential admissions based on race.''
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. The ruling effectively ended racial preferences in 
admissions to the University of Texas.
  So, what do university leaders do now, according to two articles, the 
San Antonio Express News and another Texas newspaper furnished to me by 
our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lamar Smith). I quote from 
the San Antonio newspaper:

       Attorney General Dan Morales spurned a plea Tuesday of last 
     week by State university leaders to fight to restore 
     affirmative action. Morales said that he denied the request 
     by the University of Texas leaders on legal and policy 
     grounds.

  Now I quote to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards):
       Racial quotas, set-asides and preferences do not, in my 
     judgment, represent the values and principles which Texas 
     should embrace. I strongly believe that decisions based upon 
     individual merit and qualification are far preferable to 
     decisions based on race or ethnicity.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Since the 
gentleman used my name and misquoted me, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Regular order has been called for.
  The gentleman who has the floor has yielded time to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for the purposes of engaging in a 
colloquy with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs), 
my friend and the chairman of the subcommittee; and I am pleased to 
join my friend, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to discuss how this amendment may have been 
modified.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the Riggs amendment has been 
modified to exempt tribal colleges. Could the gentleman confirm that 
for me?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my good 
friend from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is correct. The deference to Native 
American sovereignty in the Riggs amendment was modified to alleviate 
concerns that Members had raised about tribal colleges and how the 
amendment would have affected Native American students seeking 
admission to those colleges. This applies as well to facilities 
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Native Americans.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his help in making this important change. I know the gentleman 
realizes how important our constitutional and treaty obligations are to 
Native Americans, and I believe with the changes that have been made, 
this amendment now protects the unique nature of tribal colleges, a 
unique nature reaffirmed in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution 
and in subsequent treaties.
  Accordingly, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three points in 
response to the gentleman's comments.
  First, he misquoted my statement on the floor. Secondly, what has 
happened in Texas with the ending of affirmative action is a perfect 
example of why we should oppose the Riggs amendment. Thirdly, if the 
gentleman wants to quote minorities on affirmative action, I would 
point out for the Record that the only African-American Member of the 
House, who is also a Republican, happens to be opposing the Riggs 
amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong opposition to the Riggs amendment. It is an 
extreme measure designed to deny access to higher education to members 
of minority groups and women.
  The fact of the matter is that education is fundamental to social 
advancement in our society. The difference in income is tremendous. 
Those with higher education, men make $16,000 on average more than men 
without higher education. For women, it is almost double when we 
compare women with a college education to those without.
  Affirmative action has served over the last 20 years to create 
opportunity for large numbers of African Americans, Latinos, Asians and 
women, to gain access to higher education, and in turn, to gain access 
to economic prosperity. However, the proponents of this amendment would 
deny that opportunity to these folks in minority groups.
  Why? Because they want to propagate to the American public that 
somehow we have reached a level playing field and that discrimination 
does not exist. On its face, that is ridiculous, but tonight I would 
like to look at this so-called level playing field.
  I think what we find is that, in fact, it is not level. According to 
EEO, there have been 80,000 discrimination complaints filed over the 
last 2 years. According to crime statistics, over 10,000 hate crimes 
were committed, including 12 murders of members of minority groups. The 
report of the Glass Ceiling Commission says that women occupy only 3 to 
5 percent of senior executive positions, and in Federal procurement, 
where hundreds of billions of dollars are spent, minorities and women 
get only about 5 to 7 percent.
  Clearly, the playing field is not level. That is why we need 
affirmative action; that is why it is worth it to address the problems 
of discrimination that exist today.
  Before I conclude, let me say this. I am tired of the patronizing by 
these folks who come up and say that this will allow unqualified people 
to gain admission to higher education. The fact of the matter is, even 
with affirmative action, the criteria for graduation remains unchanged. 
So anyone that comes in under a program such as this would not be 
unqualified or would not be compromising the quality of their 
education.
  I hope we address the reality of today's world, and that is that 
affirmative action is needed because discrimination continues to exist.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to just clarify that we are exempting Native American 
colleges out of a unanimous consent request to modify the amendment to 
also exempt historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic 
institutions. I ask unanimous consent to do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would entertain such requests only from the 
sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to ask the sponsor 
of the amendment to offer this modification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who yields time?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds to respond to 
several of the previous speakers on the other side.
  I just want to say again, from my heart, I believe affirmative action 
is outdated. Affirmative action, contrary to what several speakers have 
suggested, is no longer a black and white issue, certainly not in 
California, the largest, most diverse State in our Union. Because the 
cultural makeup of America is changing, the argument that affirmative 
action serves as some sort of reparation for past wrongs, as I think 
the gentleman from Maryland

[[Page H2900]]

(Mr. Wynn) and others have suggested tonight, no longer stands. Indeed, 
often, those most hurt by affirmative action are not white males, but 
rather Asian women.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The gentleman referred to me by name. Mr. Chairman. Will the 
gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I do not yield, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for regular order 
so that I might complete my comments.
  I was about to say, those most hurt by affirmative action, as has 
been the case in California, are not white males, but rather Asian 
women. Again, I hear the comment made aloud over there, but I do not 
believe that is justice, and I do not believe that is the kind of 
society we want in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus us, if I 
might, on the text of what is before us because, frankly, I find it 
difficult to disagree with much of what has been said on the Democratic 
side. I, too, like my colleagues on the Democratic side, support 
affirmative action. I certainly want to lead the fight, as we always 
have here in the Congress, against discrimination.
  A higher percentage of Republicans, in fact, than Democrats voted for 
the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, and for every landmark civil rights 
act this Congress has passed. This is a bipartisan effort, and it 
always has been in our Congress.
  Let us take a look at the language that is before us. Section A is 
titled Prohibition. What is prohibited? ``No public institution of 
higher education shall, in connection with admission to such 
institution, discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to, 
any person or group, based in whole or in part, on the race, sex, 
color, ethnicity or national origin of such person or group.''
  It also says this: ``Affirmative action encouraged,'' not abolished, 
not done away with, encouraged. ``It is the policy of the United 
States,'' reading from the language of the amendment, ``1, to expand 
the applicant pool for college admissions; 2, to encourage college 
applications by women and minority students; 3, to recruit qualified 
women and minorities into the applicant pool for college admissions.''
  If we can focus ourselves on what the amendment actually says and 
does, I think we can quickly see that this vindicates the very purpose 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which its chief Democratic sponsors 
were careful to point out, never, ever, ever was meant to require 
quotas.
  The Democratic floor manager of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the 
Senator from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey. He told a critic of the 
legislation, which as I said was supported by more Republicans than 
Democrats, ``If you can find anything in this legislation that would 
require people to hire on the basis of percentages or quotas, I will 
start eating the pages of the bill, one after another.'' Quotas, 
preferences, set-asides, are the antithesis of what the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act is all about and what affirmative action is all about.
  The use of racial preferences, moreover, is today in America, and has 
been for years, unconstitutional. The Supreme Court and the Federal 
courts of appeal have struck them down in virtually every contest, in 
contracting, in voting rights, and most certainly in education.
  Recently three Federal courts of appeal have struck down racial 
preferences in education, including the 5th Circuit in Hopwood v. 
Texas, the 4th Circuit in Podberesky v. Kirwan, and the 3d Circuit in 
Taxman v. Piscataway. In fact, the Taxman case was appealed to the 
Supreme Court, which was so clearly prepared to strike down these 
preferences nationwide that supporters of the preferences and set-
asides and quotas settled the case rather than risk certain defeat.
  All of these decisions had one thing in common: They all followed 
from the argument that Thurgood Marshall made to the Supreme Court when 
he argued Brown v. The Board of Education for the NAACP in 1955. He 
said that ``Distinctions by race are so evil,'' evil, ``so arbitrary 
and so invidious, that a State bound to defend the equal protection of 
the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.''
  Now, many of my colleagues, many people of goodwill, are troubled by 
racial preferences, set-asides, and gender preferences and set-asides. 
But they want to know, nonetheless, what would be the practical effects 
of returning to a policy of affirmative action, the most aggressive 
possible outreach and recruitment combined with merit-based admissions 
decisions. Fortunately, we now have some answers to that question.
  This amendment is very closely modeled on the California Civil Rights 
Act, the California Civil Rights Initiative which, in 1996 was passed 
by a significant majority of voters in the most populous State in our 
country; and CCRI, the California Civil Rights Initiative, is helping 
to make admissions at the University of California, which we have 
discussed here on the floor, color blind.

                              {time}  2015

  We have had some discussion and debate on the floor about what has 
happened in the UC system in the wake of the passage of CCRI. The 
number of African-American admissions after the passage of CCRI 
increased 34 percent at the University of California Riverside. The 
number of Asian-American admissions increased at four University of 
California campuses. The number of American Indian admissions increased 
at two University of California campuses. The number of Filipino 
admissions increased at three University of California campuses. The 
number of Hispanic admissions increased at two University of California 
campuses.
  This shift of students among the campuses of the University of 
California is good news because graduation rates are expected to 
increase significantly. When colleges accept students who are best 
prepared for the level of academic intensity required at the 
institution, the probability that the students will graduate increases 
exponentially. In the University of California system, graduation rates 
are expected to increase by almost 20 percent for blacks and Hispanics. 
UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale stated in the Orange County Register 
that UCLA has admitted the academically strongest class in its history. 
Students in the UC system are now being judged by their qualifications, 
by their own merits as individuals, not as members of a class.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of this amendment. Let us return to 
the purpose of affirmative action. Let us redouble our efforts against 
discrimination and let us vote indeed for this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I had a chance like my colleagues to read 
the amendment and I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my 
colleague on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it amazing that in the amendment that takes away 
the ability to have fairness, we have on page 2 that the gentleman from 
California quoted that it is the policy of the United States to do 
these things, but without any teeth in the amendment we might as well 
just throw it all away, and that is what should be done with this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress, I believe it is my duty to 
make sure that all Americans are served, and I believe that education 
for everyone is a key to our Nation's continuing success. That is why I 
rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Riggs).
  This amendment is an attack on the efforts to educate everyone in our 
Nation. In my home State of Texas we have a very diverse population, a 
population that is becoming more diverse with each generation. We 
cannot afford to implement a law that makes educating this diverse 
population more difficult.
  I heard tonight the quote from our Attorney General, who is not 
running for reelection in our State of Texas, saying that should not be 
done. We are not talking about reparations; we are talking about 
fairness. We are talking about making sure that the America of the 
future will have that opportunity for education no matter what color of 
the skin.

[[Page H2901]]

  In Texas, we have witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of 
Hispanic and black admissions to Texas higher education institutions 
after the Federal court ruling against affirmative action in the 
Hopwood case. We do not need to see a bleaching of America's higher 
education institutions. I do not need our college graduates to look 
like me. I want them to look like America. I do not want them to all be 
white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I want them to look like Americans.
  We must advance educational opportunity, not limit it. If the Riggs 
amendment only had the second part, then maybe all of us could vote for 
it because that is the policy of the United States: To educate 
everyone, no matter where they come from or what their ethnicity.
  The Riggs amendment would roll back the progress we are making. 
Affirmative action needs to be amended but not ended. I remember 
hearing Dr. King in 1963 say he had a dream. That dream has not come 
true. That is why this amendment needs to be defeated.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam 
(Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) to ban the use of affirmative 
action in colleges and universities. The purpose of affirmative action 
is to remedy past discrimination endured by many sectors of our 
society. Gender, racial, and ethnic discrimination in education is 
outlawed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1974 Education 
Amendments.
  Affirmative action is necessary to enforce these laws and to level 
the playing field for minorities. As an academic administrator and 
former professor, I know that colleges and universities are in the 
business of education and consequently in the business of creating 
opportunities for our young adults.
  Institutions of higher education diversify their student populations 
through affirmative action programs and, in fact, practice affirmative 
action for a number of purposes, including geographical balance and 
promoting international scholarship. Affirmative action gives students 
the opportunity to join their peers in intellectual discussions, in 
informed and broad debate, and these are the necessary ingredients for 
institutions of higher education to be fountains of knowledge.
  Higher education professionals understand this and use affirmative 
action to not only extend opportunities but to advance the institutions 
themselves.
  The Riggs amendment would effectively stifle university actions to 
create campus diversity. Passing the Riggs amendment means that college 
admissions would be based almost entirely on statistically 
insignificant differences in test scores, grades, and possibly 
connections.
  As an educator, I believe this proposal is preposterous with the 
experience our Nation has had, with the marginalization of certain 
sectors of our society. It is important to distinguish between 
affirmative action and past discrimination, a distinction which 
supporters of this amendment blur and avoid. Past discrimination made 
it impossible for otherwise qualified students to go to universities. 
Affirmative action gives qualified students a chance to go to a 
university. One says they could not go, no matter what their abilities 
were. Affirmative action says if they are qualified, we will give them 
a chance. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) has 24\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 30\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).


    Limiting Debate on Amendment No. 79, and All Amendments Thereto

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on Amendment No. 79, if offered and all amendments thereto, be limited 
to 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by myself, or my 
designee, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) or his designee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) for allowing me to speak on this subject. I did not 
come prepared to speak on this subject, but my life is preparation for 
this subject.
  Mr. Chairman, I decided I would speak out in strong opposition to the 
Riggs amendment, which is another verification of a dying system. The 
system is in its death throes. I thought that once it was lethally 
killed, but now I see that there are many who believe that by turning 
the clock back, that they may bring a change in America which they were 
unable to bring before.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to share something. My colleagues will not be 
able to bring that change. They will not be able to bring it by glibly 
reciting laws one by one. Many have quoted case law, Martin Luther 
King, Thurgood Marshall, and any number of people and incidents have 
been quoted.
  But, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues will be unable to turn this America 
back. This America is not the America that they knew or their 
forefathers knew. This is a different America. This is the America that 
is proud to have all races, ethnicities and creeds and sexes and 
everyone participate in this great manner which we have here in this 
country.
  So I want my colleagues to talk as much as they want to talk, speak 
in rhetorical terms as much as they want to speak, because it does them 
good. But I want to give my colleagues some reality, some reality 
therapy. And I will go back to the time when I was a very, very young 
girl and I want my colleagues to put themselves in my place. Then they 
will see why I know America will not be that America again.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to go to college. I could not go to the 
college of my hometown because I was black. I could not go to high 
school because I was black. I could not live where I wanted to live 
because I was black. I could not go to any State university. By the 
statutes of the State of Florida, I was eliminated from higher 
education.
  But guess what? It did not stop me and it is not going to stop any 
black person. It is not going to stop any Hispanic person. What my 
colleagues are saying now, I would say what they are doing is bringing 
up the insides of the hatreds which their forefathers set there. But it 
is not going any place. There is no one in this House that is going to 
allow this to happen, so they may as well fold up their papers, fold 
their little tents and go home because this is not going to pass.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is my daughter attends a 
public elementary school in Northern Virginia where she is a minority. 
She is a minority as an Anglo at that particular school.
  Secondly, I want to say, as I tried to stress earlier, that Anglos, 
Caucasian Americans are in the minority at the University of 
California. Two out of five students in the University of California 
system are white. That makes them minorities. At the University of 
Berkeley the figure is one in three.
  Mr. Chairman, I can honestly say to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, particularly the gentlewoman from Florida who just spoke, 
I really do not believe I have a racist bone in my body. And when I 
hear people talk about turning the clock back, I wonder if those who 
support race-based college admissions or racial preferences in college 
admissions, or really believe that that should be the primary if not 
sole factor considered in admissions, if they realized that they are 
talking about turning the clock back to before 1954 and the Brown v. 
Board of Education case, because that is exactly what they are 
advocating.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).

[[Page H2902]]

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there will be peace in 
the Middle East or Ireland or in Bosnia in my lifetime, and I do not 
believe that racism will be dead in the United States of America in my 
lifetime. I truly believe that.
  But I also believe that affirmative action creates a lot of negatives 
and that it is detrimental just like I think bilingual education is 
detrimental. And I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) 
that the best thing we can offer to all children and to all Americans 
is an equal opportunity, especially by focusing on kindergarten through 
12th grade.
  A large portion of our Hispanic population drops out of school. That 
is wrong. And what chance do they have at the American dream? A large 
portion of the African-Americans that attend college are in remedial 
education, so in both groups the best thing we can do is offer all 
children the best we can in K through 12. But yet in this country we do 
not do that good a job, even though we have good teachers and good 
schools. My wife is one of those. I was one of those.
  My dad, who died three years ago, he was a Democrat, and he said:

       Son, my ideal of the American dream is getting a good 
     education and working hard. And if you have those tools, you 
     can pursue happiness. It is not guaranteed. But if you pursue 
     happiness and you have those tools, not every day but most 
     days you can make tomorrow better than it is today.

  And I truly believe that.
  But I think turning the clock backwards, which many of my colleagues 
are trying to do, is wrong also. No, we are not to where we want to be, 
but I think the focus is on equality. Look at our colleges. Most of 
them are thick and strongly populated by the Asian community because 
they focus on education at a very young age. I have a large Asian 
population in my district and they focus on the family. They focus on 
education from the day that they are in kindergarten and those kids 
volunteer for every single event that will foster them an opportunity 
to go to school.
  And as I look at our inner cities, what chance do they have at the 
American dream, Mr. Chairman? Almost none, because of the welfare 
system that was set up, because of the problems that they had, and the 
lack of values, and the crime and the drugs, and on and on and on.
  So if we really want to help all children, let us do away with 
affirmative action and I truly believe that. The gentleman knows I 
worked with him on the committee. And I believe that if we do that, 
that then we are going to help this country, not hurt it. Is it a 
perfect country? Absolutely not.

                              {time}  2030

  But most of us, believe it or not, will work with you in that 
direction.
  Mr. CLAY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, affirmative action is not a 
perfect policy. In an ideal world, we would not need affirmative 
action; we would not even want it. We would admit everyone, regardless 
of past practices of discrimination, regardless of the need to promote 
diversity in higher education, regardless of anything but merit.
  We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a society and in an 
economy that has been shaped by our history. That history includes an 
economy that was based upon slavery. It includes, at one time, a 
definition of African Americans as being worth only a fraction of the 
value of white Americans. It is a history that includes an official 
policy of school segregation. It includes a denial of voting rights, of 
Jim Crow laws.
  In my own State of Virginia, it is a history that includes, in our 
own time, in our lifetimes, an official policy of massive resistance to 
integrated classrooms.
  The closest correlation with academic success of any student is the 
educational experience of their parents. But what if parents and 
grandparents and great grandparents were denied access to a decent 
education as the official policy of the government? Our government 
denied African American children access to a decent education. We 
cannot pretend that did not happen.
  While it may not be the fairest way, affirmative action is still 
probably the most effective way to overcome these official policies of 
denial of access. Even with the help of affirmative action policies, 
twice as high a percentage of whites have college degrees as African 
Americans, and only 9 percent of Hispanics have college degrees. 
Prohibiting affirmative action policies, as the Riggs amendment would, 
only worsens this disparity.
  The reverse of affirmative action policies in California and Texas 
public universities led to a dramatic decrease in the enrollment of 
African American students. All of those students that would have been 
admitted had high grades and were all fully qualified for admittance.
  Someday, we will not need affirmative action, but that is not this 
day. I urge that we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) and his extreme right-wing friends are 
attempting to polarize and divide this Nation by pitting citizens of 
this country one against another.
  The gentleman from California would have Members believe that somehow 
whites are being disadvantaged by affirmative action and African 
Americans and Latinos and others are at a great advantage, and they are 
getting all of the slots in these schools.
  Let me give the actual numbers that we have not heard for the 
University of California. In 1997, out of 44,393 students on nine 
campuses, guess how many were African Americans? 1,509. There were 
5,685 Latino students out of these 44,393. In 1988, 1,243 are African-
American, and 5,294 are Latino students. This is with affirmative 
action, nine campuses.
  He gave some figures, and he told us about UC Riverside, but what he 
did not tell us was this: that black undergraduate admissions dropped 
66 percent in UC Berkeley, 43 percent at UCLA, 46 percent at UC San 
Diego, and 36 percent at UC Davis. These are the prestigious campuses. 
Latino undergraduate admissions dropped by 40 percent at UC Berkeley, 
33 percent at UCLA, 20 percent at UC San Diego, and 31 percent at UC 
Davis.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and his supporters 
mischaracterized the admissions process and its reliance on race. 
Colleges and universities have always looked at a variety of factors, 
test scores, race, out-of-classroom experience, percentage achievement, 
and life challenges to determine who to admit to their institutions.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. 
As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, as a woman 
who never would have had access to a higher education in California's 
public universities had it not been for affirmative action policies and 
programs, and who, as a child, upon entering school, was not allowed to 
attend public schools or public facilities due to segregation, I urge 
Members to vote no on this amendment. Eliminating affirmative action 
denies equal opportunities to many of our qualified young people who 
deserve to have equal access to a college education.
  When the University of California Board of Regents considered ending 
the affirmative action program several years ago, as a member of the 
legislature, I pleaded with them not to take such a drastic action 
because of the fact that affirmative action, not quotas, which have 
been illegal since the Bakke decision, but actually affirmative action 
was the primary mechanism in place to assure that qualified students of 
color and women were afforded a public university education.
  Many of us, myself included, predicted that minority admissions, 
which what we have heard today in terms of the decline of the minority 
admissions, would be very stark, and it is more stark than what we had 
imagined.
  For example, this decline overall of 61 percent, that is outrageous. 
Only 191 black students were admitted out of a total of 8,034 into the 
University of California at Berkeley. Medical school admissions are 
equally alarming. There

[[Page H2903]]

are no African-American students and very few Latinos entering medical 
schools at several of our campuses.
  It has been shown, time and time again, that a large percentage of 
persons of color will return to provide medical services for 
underserved communities. We condemn these underserved communities to 
remain underserved when we do not provide admission to qualified 
applicants who have as their goal to provide health care services to 
these communities.
  In 2 years of the Regents' policy, we have begun to see the 
unraveling of 30 years of progress. Why would we want to subject the 
rest of the country to this ill-conceived experiment? Conventional 
wisdom says that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country. I 
ardently advise my colleagues to learn from the mistakes of my home 
State and vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Riggs amendment. This 
amendment will prohibit any institution of higher education that 
participates in any Higher Education Act program from using race, 
gender, ethnicity or national origin in its admissions process. Namely, 
the Riggs amendment seeks to eliminate affirmative action policies 
throughout the higher education system of this country.
  As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, as a woman 
who never would have had access to a higher education at California's 
public universities had it not been for affirmative action policies and 
programs, who as a child, upon entering school, was not allowed to 
attend public schools and public facilities due to segregation, I urge 
you to vote no on this amendment.
  America never has been nor is it a color blind society. Thirty years 
of affirmative action have helped change the landscape of our 
universities and colleges. However, it has not changed so much that we 
are in a position to abandon our efforts. While African Americans, 
Latinos, and Native Americans comprise 30% of the college-age 
population in the U.S., they only comprise 18% of college students. The 
percentage of women receiving doctorate degrees is 39%. However, in 
male-dominated fields like mathematics, engineering, and physical 
science, the percentage falls to 22%, 12% and 12% respectively. The 
percentages of African Americans receiving PhDs is 4%; Latinos and 
Asian Americans with PhDs are 2% and 6% respectively. These figures are 
dismal and while some progress has been made, now is not the time to 
impede this progress. It is inconceivable to me that individuals are 
arguing that we no longer need affirmative action programs. Eliminating 
affirmative action denies equal opportunities to many of our qualified 
young people who deserve equal access to a college education.
  When the University of California Board of Regents considered ending 
affirmative action programs several years ago, as a member of the 
California legislature, I pleaded with them not to take such a drastic 
action because affirmative action was the primary mechanism in place to 
insure that qualified students of color and women were afforded a 
public university education. Many of us, myself included, predicted 
that minority admissions and enrollment would decline precipitously. 
Results have been even more stark than we imagined. Let me tell you 
what has happened in California since the demise of affirmative action.
  The Fall 1998 class on the University of California's undergraduate 
campuses will be the first to have been admitted based on the new 
Regent's policy. Only 652 out of 3675 African American, Latino and 
Native American applicants were offered enrollment for next year--a 
decline of 61% from last year. A 61% decline in one year. African 
American enrollment fell by 66% and Latino enrollment fell by 53%. At 
UCLA African American enrollment fell by 43%, while Latino enrollment 
fell by 33%. One of my constituents was recently included in an article 
in the San Francisco Chronicle about the effects of the new policy. 
Jamese LaGrone is a 17-year-old senior at Oakland's Holy Names High 
School. LaGrone was the junior class president, an athlete, worked on 
the yearbook and took a number of advanced placement courses. She has a 
4.0 grade point average and scored 1390 on the SAT. Clearly, she is a 
well-rounded teenager who has worked in and out of the classroom to 
make the grade. I defy anyone to say that this student is not qualified 
to attend the University of California, Berkeley. Yet, she was rejected 
by the University of California, Berkeley. She is among 800 African 
American, Latino and Native American applicants with 4.0 averages and a 
median SAT score of 1170 rejected by the University of California, 
Berkeley.

  Medical school admissions are equally alarming. Only 3 Chicanos are 
registered at the University of California at Davis, one at the 
University of California at Irvine, and two at the University of 
California at San Diego. These numbers are only slightly better at the 
University of California at Los Angeles and the University of 
California at San Francisco. There is only one Puerto Rican registered 
in the entire University of California system. There are no African 
Americans among the freshman classes of medical school at either the 
University of California at San Diego or the University of California 
at Irvine. These admission numbers have implications for the delivery 
of health care services to underserved communities. It has been shown 
time and time again, that it is primarily persons of color who will 
return to provide medical services for these communities. We condemn 
these underserved communities to remain underserved when we do not 
provide admission to potential, qualified applicants who have as their 
goal to provide health care services to these communities.
  Only one year after the Regents decision to ban all affirmative 
action policies, the acceptance rate at Boalt Hall law school at 
Berkeley dropped 81%; at UCLA, the rate fell 80%. The message being 
sent to students of color is that they are not welcomed in the 
University of California system, so that even those few offered 
admission choose to go elsewhere. For example, no African American 
students who received admissions to Boalt Hall chose to attend; only 7 
of the Latino students who received admission elected to attend; the 
two Native American students accepted also declined admission.
  In two years of the Regent's policy, we have begun to see the 
unraveling of thirty years of progress. Why would we want to subject 
the rest of the country to this ill-conceived experiment?
  I have heard my colleagues on so many occasions talk about how the 
Department of Education should have less influence on education policy. 
Yet, here we are on the verge of putting the Department of Education in 
the business of dictating admission policy for our higher education 
community. Sixty-two presidents of the country's most prestigious 
universities have come out in opposition to the elimination of 
affirmative action policies. These presidents have attested to the 
importance of diversity in fostering a rich educational environment and 
how affirmative action policies play a key role in achieving this 
diversity. This amendment directly contradicts what the majority of 
educators throughout the country have said that they need. We cannot 
tie their hands on how they can achieve their mission.
  I cannot stress enough what a devastating effect and far reaching 
implications the Riggs amendment will have for the future of this 
country. It will only further widen the disparities in education and 
income between men and women, and whites and people of color.
  I cannot believe that Members of this House want to see the 
resegregation of America's colleges and universities. I urge a no vote 
on this measure to ensure that those qualified students, regardless of 
their race or gender, have an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams.
  Conventional wisdom says that as California goes, so goes the rest of 
the country. I ardently advise my colleagues to learn from the mistakes 
of my home state. I hope that in this case, that conventional wisdom is 
wrong. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs 
amendment, and I do so after numerous conversations with institutions 
of higher learning in my district.
  There are a lot of folks around that complain regularly that the 
Federal Government, specifically the Department of Education, exercises 
too much control over the education of our children. They claim that 
they are for local control in autonomy and education.
  My friends, this amendment promotes expanded authority for the 
Federal Government and takes away decision-making power from States and 
localities, as read by those who are responsible for education in my 
district.
  My office has been in discussion with university presidents from 
across my district. They represent a broad spectrum of schools, small, 
large, public, and private, those who are affected by this amendment, 
and those who are not immediately affected.
  In spite of the differences in their schools, though, all of the 
university presidents in my district that we spoke with were unified in 
their opposition to this amendment. They are worried about this latest 
potential intrusion by the Federal Government in instructing schools on 
ways in which they must conduct their business. They foresee an impact 
far more draconian and extreme than Proposition 209 and the Hopwood 
decision.

[[Page H2904]]

  The last thing that these folks and their universities that have done 
such a fine job educating young people of west Texas want is more 
intrusion and regulation from the Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to these voices, to vote no on the 
Riggs amendment, and help prevent a broad-based, far-reaching, 
intrusive Federal prohibition that universities do not support and 
students do not want.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I just again want to, for the benefit of all my 
colleagues, put matters in perspective in terms of what is taking place 
in the University of California system.
  The latest systemwide data released by the University of California 
shows that this fall's freshman class will contain 675 fewer non-Asian 
minority students spread over the entire eight campuses. So the new 
freshman admissions are 15.4 percent non-Asian minority, interesting 
that they actually exclude Asians from the minority classification, 
compared with 17.6 percent for the 1997 freshman class. That is a 
decline of 2.2 percentage points.
  The drop may be even smaller since the university does not know the 
ethnicity of the huge number of admitted students, 6,346, who declined 
to list their ethnicity on application forms this year.
  So I want to suggest to my colleagues we have to treat these numbers 
that people are throwing around with a little bit of caution. The 
decline of black and Hispanic freshman enrollment in the 2 percent 
range is a lot smaller than many people predicted, a lot smaller, of 
course, than those who are quite up in arms, even hysterical over the 
passage and implementation of Proposition 209.
  As I said earlier, what we have seen now is a spreading effect, more 
minority students at the other campuses in the University of California 
system, to the point where, as I quoted earlier, Judson King, the 
provost of the University of California, is acknowledging that we are 
actually achieving more diversity, better balance by the end of 
preferences in the University of California system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman form California 
(Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think that we are all talking about the 
fact that we want to address the fact that everyone who is 
disadvantaged should have access to their educational opportunities.
  California is a very progressive State. We have been way ahead of the 
curve so many times in America that now people have just basically 
expected us to do this. I would ask that we talk about working together 
on this issue.
  Californians have recognized that we are not talking about turning 
the clock back. We are talking about moving forward. The fact is, the 
days of trying to justify fighting prejudice by being prejudiced is a 
thing of the past. The assumption that there are only certain groups, 
by the color of their skin or their gender, who are disadvantaged when 
it comes to educational opportunities is an antiquated concept.
  Mr. Chairman, if you walked in my neighborhood, a community in south 
San Diego, along the Mexican border called Imperial Beach, we could 
walk down, and I could show you where there was a Latino, an African 
American, a Pan Asian, an Anglo. You could not tell me that this 
person's children are advantaged, this person's children are 
disadvantaged.
  The fact is that the great disadvantages in our society today follow 
more economic-social lines than any other single denomination; and that 
happens to have a large, large impact to those who are people of color. 
I agree with that. I think there are opportunities for us to have 
affirmative action.
  In my county, we had affirmative action, and it was declared 
constitutional because we did not have quotas and set-asides. We did 
not judge men and women based on their gender or people based on the 
color of their skin, but we did address the issue.
  There are a lot of people that are disadvantaged and need help. That 
does not necessarily always follow based on the color of someone's skin 
or somebody's gender.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we can work together on this, but we need 
to leave the old race-baiting approach and the gender baiting. We do 
not fight racism by being a racist. We are not going to end sexism by 
being sexist.
  Mr. Chairman, as somebody who has worked on affirmative action for 
over 20 years, we can do better. We do not need to deny a Filipino girl 
in San Diego access to the UC system because there happen to be so many 
more Asian Americans who qualify.
  I have three daughters and two sons who are alive. I hope to God that 
some day in the next century we can stand up and say that our daughters 
and our sons, no matter what their gender, no matter what their race, 
no matter their economic opportunities, will have equal rights under 
the Government of the United States.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Riggs 
amendment. This amendment would forbid public colleges and universities 
from considering race, color, national origin, ethnicity, or gender at 
all in the admission of students.

                              {time}  2045

  Now, I oppose quotas and reverse discrimination, but this amendment 
will not eliminate quotas or reverse discrimination because they are 
already illegal. And that is the point. This amendment would eliminate 
diversity in our Nation's public colleges and universities.
  We have seen what happens when affirmative action in higher education 
is eliminated. Minority enrollment plummets, plain and simple. For 
example, since the Hopwood case and the passage of Proposition 209, the 
number of racial minorities admitted to public universities in Texas 
and California has decreased dramatically.
  At the University of Texas Law School, admissions of Hispanic 
students is down 64 percent. Admission of African-American students is 
down 88 percent. And when minority admissions decrease so dramatically, 
there are so few minority students that those who are admitted do not 
choose to attend. At Boalt Law School last year, not one of the African 
Americans admitted elected to attend.
  Even minority applications are plummeting. Last year minority 
applications at the University of California at San Francisco Medical 
School fell from 722 to 493. Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl has 
said, ``We have got to take this seriously. Our future as a university 
and the future of the State of California is at stake.''
  The Association of American Medical Colleges has said of this 
amendment: ``HMOs and other large health care organizations are calling 
for greater numbers of physicians who reflect the diversity of the 
patient populations they serve. Today, black, Hispanic, and Native 
American doctors are a crucial source of care for the Nation's 
burgeoning minority communities as well as its poor populations. 
Ultimately this legislation will undermine decades of progress our 
Nation has made in educating underrepresented minorities for all trades 
and professions.''
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, America has always been about opportunity: 
the opportunity to work hard, the opportunity to get ahead, and the 
opportunity to achieve everything that our talent and our toil will 
allow. And in today's competitive economy, the key to that opportunity 
is a good education.
  That is what we are talking about this evening, ensuring that all 
Americans have an opportunity for a good education, even those who have 
traditionally been denied access to our colleges and universities.
  Most colleges and universities seek out students of various talents, 
perspectives, and backgrounds precisely because that diversity makes 
them stronger. They admit students on the basis of many subjective 
criteria. Some students are admitted because they are top scholars, 
some because they are good athletes, some because they are children of 
wealthy alumni, some because they are in-State students, some

[[Page H2905]]

because they help create geographic diversity.
  Factoring in an applicant's race and gender in the admissions process 
is no different except its purpose, ensuring equal opportunity for all 
Americans, is a whole lot more important than recruiting a winning 
football team or boosting donations of alumni. Student bodies that 
include men and women of all backgrounds help produce the diversity 
that we need in America.
  Now, there are those who argue that affirmative action is no longer 
necessary. And to them I say, let us look again, once again this 
evening, at the evidence.
  One year after the University of California prohibited all 
affirmative action programs, enrollment for African Americans dropped 
66 percent, Hispanic enrollment dropped 53 percent. The end of 
affirmative action at the University of Texas Law School caused 
Hispanic admissions to drop 64 percent and African-American admissions 
to drop and to fall by 88 percent.
  So what do these statistics tell us? That not all Americans are 
getting equal access to educational opportunities.
  Affirmative action is an effective tool to remedy this. The Riggs 
amendment would take this tool away from us. It would undermine 
opportunity. I strongly urge, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, one more inquiry as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) has 16\1/4\ 
minutes; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say to my colleagues that we have to look at the results of 
affirmative action as has been practiced by many institutions of higher 
learning around the country. That is why we have gotten the court 
ruling in the Hopwood case; that is why the courts upheld the legality 
and constitutionality of the California civil rights initiative.
  In fact, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals said in upholding 
Prop. 29 in California, and I quote, ``Where a State denies someone a 
job, an education, or a seat on the bus because of her race or gender, 
the injury to that individual is clear. The person who wants to work, 
study, or ride but cannot because she is black or a woman is denied 
equal protection'' under the law. ``Where, as here,'' and referring to 
the case of Proposition 209 in California, ``a State prohibits race or 
gender preferences at any level of government, the injury to any 
specific individual is utterly inscrutable.''
  Inscrutable. That is the word of the appellate court.
  No one contends individuals have a constitutional right to 
preferential treatment solely on the basis of their race or gender. I 
will turn the earlier argument of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) on its ear. Is there anyone on the other side of the aisle who 
is willing to stand up tonight, in fact, I think this is the argument 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) made as well, and contend that 
any individual American citizen has a constitutional right to 
preferential treatment solely on the basis of their race or gender? If 
so, I will hear from them now. I will yield to them.
  The court is clear. What has evolved is an unfair system.
  The court goes on to say quite the contrary. ``No individual citizen 
has that constitutional right to preferential treatment.'' And they go 
on to conclude and say, ``What then is the personal injury that members 
of a group suffer when they cannot seek preferential treatment on the 
basis of their race or gender?''
  So that, I think, is the crux of the legal argument. And I guess that 
is as good a segue as any, Mr. Chairman, to introducing my good friend 
and fellow Californian.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, what do we say, what do we say to the 
young Asian-American woman who received a letter in 1989 from the 
University of California Boalt Hall Law School. I saw the letter. It 
said that she was on the waiting list, and there was a blank, and the 
word ``Asian'' was written in; that she was on the lower third of the 
``Asian'' waiting list. What do we say to an individual who is told 
that her race is going to determine whether she has a good, better, or 
worse chance of getting into the law school of her State, the 
University of California? (The University agreed to stop this 
practice.)
  People of good will are on both sides of this issue tonight, Mr. 
Chairman. I recognize that. Every intelligent person does. And I cannot 
dispute that affirmative action, as practiced in this country, has done 
good for many people. I just cannot accept the price of the harm it 
does to those who are kept out. And that is what happens. We cannot 
logically include somebody, giving preference on the basis of their 
race, without saying that somebody else is excluded because they were 
not of that race.
  The University of California has been the subject of a lot of the 
debate tonight. Statistics about the test scores there were reported in 
the Wall Street Journal in April of this year. They say that the SAT 
for math was 750 for Asian students; for white students, 690; for 
Hispanic, 560; and for black, 510. What do we say to an Asian American 
who scores 740 on the SAT math and is told she cannot get into 
Berkeley, but that if her race were white, she could?
  The danger is, once the State begins to use race, it is very, very 
hard to do it right, to do it in a fair way, to do it in a 
constitutional way.
  I want to tell my colleagues something that happened to me 
personally. First of all, some background: Asians now are about 38 
percent of those admitted to Berkeley, 41 percent of those admitted to 
UCLA. They are the largest ethnic group at those two campuses. And if 
we look at people as members of groups, we could say, well, that is 
high enough. That group's percentage is high enough. But that is just 
not fair to the individual who is told that we have reached the limit 
of ``your type.''
  I had this personal experience, Mr. Chairman. When I was a member of 
the California State Senate, a high administration official of the 
University of California came to see me in my office. And he said, we 
need affirmative action at Berkeley because, otherwise, ``there would 
be nothing but Asians there.'' He said that to me, in my office. I said 
to him, what is wrong with that? They would be Americans. Not Asian 
Americans, not Caucasian Americans, not African Americans. Americans. 
But this university official was concerned that there would be too many 
of one particular race at the University of California.
  When California abolished the use of race in the admissions policy at 
the University of California, the group that increased in admissions 
was Asian. At the law school at UCLA, the numbers of Asians admitted 
grew 81 percent.
  During the time when affirmative action was practiced (and I know 
this because I interrogated the administration officials at the 
University of California) people of higher income were admitted over 
Asian-Americans of lower income. There was no affirmative action for 
Vietnamese, though they came to this country with nothing. No 
affirmative action for them.
  And the university actually argued that because they would admit 
students of lower income if they abolished affirmative action, they 
would have lower academic performance, because academic performance was 
correlated with income. That, to me, is so wrong, to say to somebody 
whose income is lower, that nevertheless they are just the wrong race, 
so they cannot come in.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a distinct honor to be law clerk to Justice White 
in 1978, when Bakke was decided. And I read every word of the civil 
rights history of the 1964 Act, and I read the briefs in the case. And 
I will never forget that the Sons of Italy and B'nai Brith submitted 
briefs in that case saying it is not just a generic Caucasian that we 
would be taking places from, it is us; in the two instances I gave, 
persons whose interests were represented by B'nai Brith and the Sons of 
Italy would be losing places in the class admitted to medical school.
  Four justices in that case ruled that there was no difference to the 
individual whether they are told they cannot get in because there is an 
absolute quota, or they cannot get in because

[[Page H2906]]

they do not have the racial plus factor of those who were admitted. Two 
of those four were Justice Stevens and Justice Stewart, nobody's far 
right wing members of the Supreme Court.
  The numbers at the University of California are not as good as we 
would all like. I admit that. But the University of California has not 
tried the alternative. What they should have done, from the start, is 
consider people who are willing to work in low-income neighborhoods 
upon graduation. Let us admit people to medical school who are willing 
to go into the neighborhoods that need them. Let us admit students 
taking into account a promise to do that; not on the basis of their 
race.
  We should consider income. We should consider whether your parents 
graduated from college. We should consider how many from your high 
school went on to college. The University of California never tried 
those factors. They used race because it was the most convenient; and, 
hence, the numbers now are as bad as they are. I suggest that it is 
time to try the alternatives, because using race has led to unfairness 
to people in my State.

                              {time}  2100

  I conclude with this. This is a matter of shame to me that my State 
kept Chinese from owning property at the beginning of this century; 
told Chinese they could not even litigate in civil courts up until the 
Second World War. They took Japanese Americans and said, ``Because you 
are Japanese, you will be deported from the State of California; your 
property and business will be seized.'' It is just not right for my 
State to tell them now, ``You are on the Asian waiting list.''
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot do good by doing bad. Let us do good and 
consider people as individuals, not as members of a class.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I mourn for the Chinese who were denied the 
right to own property. I mourn for the Japanese who were put in 
concentration camps. But I also mourn much more for those descendants 
of African slaves who were descendants of people who were not allowed 
to own property for 232 years. They were not even recognized in 
marriage. They could not get married. Laws were made to prohibit the 
teaching of reading to African Americans.
  All those injustices do not matter, I suppose. If we start with a set 
of wrong assumptions, we can make a profound argument about simple-
minded matters. But let us lay this aside for a moment and not discuss 
the need for affirmative action as a matter of justice that is long 
overdue. Let us just talk about how do we deal with the present 
situation and some of the things the previous speaker said.
  Why do we not let all high school graduates who qualify to go to 
college go to college? Why do we not open up the slots. Why do we not 
have open admission and have the Federal Government have a program 
where we expand the Pell grants and we expand all the Federal aid to 
the point where open admission would mean that every student graduating 
from high school who can reach a threshold can go on to college.
  Because the facts are that those students who have the lower SAT 
scores in the minority community, once they go to college, the results, 
the studies that are done about results in the medical schools and 
results in the law schools, they get the same results. They come out at 
the same level as everybody else.
  If we want an America which is meeting its needs for a large number 
of educated professional people, and we are missing the boat here, we 
have no vision as to what is coming. We have a great shortage of 
teachers right now. We do not seem to recognize what that means. We 
have a great shortage of information technology workers.
  Practically every profession is facing the shortage just to meet our 
domestic needs. Yet we are the indispensable nation that offers all 
kinds of assistance to the rest of the world, and our leadership in the 
world will have a lot to do with our prosperity; and we do not have the 
educated people in the hopper, in the pipeline, to do that.
  This amendment is going backwards. It is all wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Clay) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment. The amendment, although 
it has been altered, is still extreme. It is going to create a two-
tiered system at our Nation's institutions of higher education. Our 
private colleges and universities can continue their affirmative action 
programs, creating diverse and inclusive environments on their campuses 
nationwide. But students in public colleges and universities will be 
deprived of all of those benefits and enrichment that diversity brings 
to the educational experience.
  While the Riggs amendment would encourage the recruitment of women 
and minority students, there is little indication that this language 
would be implemented. Women and minorities have been historically 
underrepresented in many critical fields: science, engineering, 
technology. I could cite the statistics to indicate that among 
technology jobs computer programming attracts the most women, and that 
is 29 percent of female. Only 12 percent of physics doctorates and 22 
percent of mathematics doctorates are awarded to women. For minorities, 
its an even more bleak picture.
  Two-thirds of the new entrants into the workforce in the year 2000 
are going to be women and minorities. Let us train them. Let us give 
them the opportunity. Let us embellish affirmative action in terms of 
what our Nation stands for. The battle for equal rights is not yet won. 
I urge a ``no'' on the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding. 
And let me also concur that there are, I am sure, well-meaning people 
on both sides of this debate. But I think that this amendment would 
move this country in the wrong direction.
  Harvard University was founded for the sons of landowners, white male 
landowners, and sons of the clergy. And when we look at the 
circumstances of higher education in this country and we know that the 
greatest predictor whether a kid would go to college is the education 
of one's parents, and then we already have heard the history of how 
certain groups have been excluded, then we know by mere fact that 
therefore others would be in a deficit position in order to go forward 
and matriculate at a higher education institution.
  We know that income is a secondary factor, and we know where minority 
groups fall in the income distribution scale in this country. We also 
know that the third factor is the K-to-12 education. And everywhere we 
look in this country, we will see that minority students are in 
underfunded public education systems that disproportionately put them 
in a situation where they cannot compete adequately in some of these 
standardized tests.
  So if we look at those three factors that on their face are nonracial 
in their characteristics, they have in fact an impact. The other thing 
that is important is that the Riggs amendment, my colleague from the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, his amendment would allow a 
university like Penn State, where I served on the board of trustees, or 
Temple University, to admit, as many do now, foreign students based on 
preferences and all kinds of other considerations, giving them points 
in the admissions process, giving them headway over and above native-
born American students who come from groups of Americans who have been 
left out of the picture.
  Now, here in this Capitol, we have some 300 pictures, artistic 
pieces, renderings about our history. Not one picture is of an African 
American or a Hispanic American, a Latino. Is the kind of America we 
want to paint where we lock other people out? Do we

[[Page H2907]]

want to return to the day when in law school and medical school it is 
all males and no females?
  What does that suggest for this country as we would go forward into 
the 21st century?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Attack. Attack. Attack. Mr. Chairman, I rise 
before my colleagues today to express my opposition to this amendment.
  In fact, I am sick and tired of being sick and tired. Why is it that 
minorities in this country are constantly on attack? One year after the 
passage of Proposition 209, California's most select universities admit 
50 percent fewer African Americans and Latin American applicants? Why 
is it that every time we talk about affirmative action in education we 
are talking about race?
  What about the football player who gets affirmative action or the 
alumnus because of the family's connection? How about the banker who 
has influence with the admissions board? This amendment is a blatant 
attempt to keep minorities out of our colleges and universities so that 
they will never have the opportunity to be successful.
  Affirmative action has never been about favoritism. It is merely one 
tool to make sure that everybody in this country has an opportunity for 
education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I am very sorry that 
this amendment is before us today. It is really very divisive. It moves 
the country in the wrong direction. I do not think we want to go back 
to the good old days, which were not so good to begin with.
  I am really amazed because our Republican colleagues have 
traditionally said that the Federal Government ought not to intrude in 
the matter of education as far as the States go, and here we are 
mandating, intruding, and saying that the States cannot even have the 
ability to decide for themselves what is best for their universities. 
It makes no sense to me.
  If we do not believe that the Federal Government should come in with 
a sledgehammer, then why are we mandating this on States? The States 
are intelligent enough. They know what kind of programs they want and 
what kind of programs are best for their States. We ought to leave it 
alone.
  I was educated at public universities in my State. I think we do 
very, very well. I am not interested in theories. In the real world, 
this country moves forward when people of goodwill work together. We 
need to stop dividing people. We need to bring people together. People 
are benefited when they go to school with other types of people. That 
is best for the society as a whole.

  It is good for children to get to know other children, not only 
children of the same background, but children of different backgrounds. 
And what the Riggs amendment would do is it would resegregate public 
universities in this country. I do not see how that is good for 
America.
  I think it is good that we have all types of people getting to know 
each other so we can have a brighter future. It does not make sense. 
Private colleges, as many of our colleagues have stated, could continue 
to be diversified, whereas public universities would have a 
stranglehold.
  Let us not dictate to the States and tell them what they ought to do 
or what is best for them. We do not need Big Brother. The States know 
what is best for themselves. This amendment has constantly been worked 
and reworked and reworked and reworked, which means there has been a 
terrible problem with it.
  I wish it would be withdrawn. We have seen what happened in 
California and in Texas with Proposition 209. This slides the country 
backwards. Let us move forward and reject the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
and I hope that it will be defeated.
  This amendment would travel us down the retrograde road of racial 
divisiveness by offering legislation that would deny educational 
opportunity to minorities and women. The Members who support this 
amendment wanted America to end the era of diversity and integration in 
our public institutions of higher learning.
  The Riggs amendment would destroy the years of effort and commitment 
that this country has made to expand educational opportunity. All the 
progress that we have made, and it is considerable, could be lost and 
reversed with this one vote.
  The Riggs amendment is described by its proponents as an effort to 
eliminate preferential treatment and discrimination in admissions in 
public institutions that receive funding under the Higher Education 
Act. But make no mistake, the Riggs amendment is not about eliminating 
preferences and not about eliminating discrimination. It is about 
limiting the ability of public institutions to make their own choices 
about how to reach out to qualified students in their application 
process.
  Like its model, California's Proposition 209, supporters of this 
amendment know that the majority of American people support affirmative 
action remedies that seek to be inclusive and remedy past 
discrimination, that aim to increase the attendance of minorities and 
women at our universities and colleges. They use terms such as 
``preferential treatment'' and ``reverse discrimination'' in order to 
obscure what is really at stake here.
  I know that the American people support affirmative action. I have 
heard stories of countless individuals who have been benefited, who 
have been helped, who have been given an opportunity that they would 
not have had but for these programs. These are the success stories of 
affirmative action which we have not talked enough about.
  These people who had this chance overcame odds, surmounted the 
obstacles of discrimination, and they were allowed to fulfill their 
hopes and realize their potential, which they would not have been able 
to do without this help.
  The Riggs amendment will create a crisis, educational inequality on a 
scale which we thought we had left behind us when we passed the civil 
rights laws in this country. We need only to look at California's 
experience to know what happened when this new policy came into being.
  Under Proposition 209, the California State system has experienced 
the most significant drop in minority enrollment in its freshman 
classes in the past 2 decades. Proposition 209 has had such a 
devastating impact on educational opportunity for minorities in 
California, it has caused even long-time opponents of affirmative 
action to rethink their position.
  I remember what it was like in America before we had this kind of 
affirmative action that really brought people into opportunity. I 
graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1965. And in my 
class, there was one, one, African-American student. In fact, he was 
the only African American in the entire law school when I attended law 
school at the University of Michigan.
  That classmate was Harry Edwards, who is now Chief Judge Edwards of 
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

                              {time}  2115

  Last year in the entering class of the University of Michigan Law 
School, there were 25 African-Americans, and 22 percent of the entering 
class was comprised of students of color. Look how far we have come. Do 
we want to go back to 1965 when there was one African-American student 
in the entire law school at the University of Michigan Law School? Or 
do we want to continue what has been happening today because of 
affirmative action?
  I think I know the answer. I think I know the best answer for America 
and for our people. Let us not go back into the past, which was not 
successful. Let us stay with the present. Let us keep affirmative 
action. Let us keep America the land of opportunity. Vote against the 
Riggs amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H2908]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, just confirming that the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) has the right to close debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. As a member of the reporting committee opposing change 
in the committee position, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) will 
have the right to close.
  Mr. RIGGS. I would also like to confirm how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) has 7\1/4\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I just want to 
say, let us not get too hysterical about this debate. I go back for the 
third time in the course now of about 2 hours, I want to quote Judson 
King, provost of the University of California, who acknowledged that 
the passage and the implementation of Proposition 209 has evened out 
diversity across the University of California system, all eight 
campuses, or nine if we include the University of California at San 
Francisco Medical School. John Leo, who quoted Mr. King, goes on to say 
in this commentary, ``Though there is no real shortage of hysterical 
commentary about the end of preferences,'' and we have certainly heard 
and seen that here tonight, Mr. Chairman, ``very few people have 
bothered to talk about the strong positive aspects. For one thing, a 
great burden has been lifted from the shoulders of the University of 
California's black and Hispanic students. No longer can anybody 
patronize them or stigmatize them as unfit for their campuses. From now 
on, all students in the system make it solely on the basis of brains 
and effort and everybody knows it. The end of preferences will help 
make campuses far more open and honest places. The deep secrecy that 
surrounds the campus culture of racial preferences,'' whether we are 
talking about the University of California, the University of Texas, 
the University of Michigan or for that matter any other public college 
or university that engages in racial preferences in making their 
admissions, setting their policies and in making their admissions 
decisions today, ``has compromised many officials and led to much 
deceit and outright lawbreaking. Martin Trow, a Berkeley professor, 
spoke at a recent academic convention about all the coverups and lying 
that preferences have spawned, citing as one minor example an Iranian 
student at Berkeley who said he had been encouraged to list himself as 
Hispanic in order to qualify for a preference.'' You have academics 
themselves, Professor Trow at Berkeley, Professor Cohen at Michigan 
speaking up and saying this is deeply wrong. It is, as I said earlier, 
anti-American.
  Mr. Chairman, the other thing I want to say to the speakers on the 
other side of the aisle, they seem to be referring, if I understand 
their argument, to the continued existence of racial prejudice in our 
society as a justification for racial preferences. I find that argument 
utterly baffling. I cannot follow the reasoning there, because I do not 
understand how State-based, State-enforced discrimination based on 
race, which is exactly what my amendment is intended to ferret out and 
end, I do not understand how that State-based, State-enforced 
discrimination can help end discrimination and racism. I do not think 
the other side has addressed that argument tonight.
  The evidence is unmistakably clear. After 25 years of preference, 
racial preferences continue to be a powerful source of racism and 
racial resentment in our society. As I said just a moment ago, they 
have poisoned racial relations at universities and schools across this 
country. It is time for us to admit to ourselves, to our fellow 
Americans that race conscious State action is not a cure for racism. It 
is simply a reinforcement of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa).
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce. I strongly oppose the Riggs amendment. The elimination 
of affirmative action programs in California had a devastating effect 
on new minority student enrollment in the University of California's 
graduate and professional school programs in 1997. Equally devastating 
was the effect on the enrollment of the two flagship universities in my 
own State of Texas. Affirmative action policies have enabled colleges 
and universities to champion access and equal opportunity for a 
postsecondary experience for a generation of students. Achieving 
diversity on college campuses does not require quotas, nor does 
diversity warrant admission of unqualified applicants. However, the 
diversity colleges seek does require that colleges and universities 
continue to be able to reach out and make a conscious effort to build 
healthy and diverse learning environments appropriate for their 
missions and communities.
  The Nation cannot afford a citizenry unequipped to participate in the 
educational, social, political, cultural and economical processes of 
society. Until equity for all students is reached, these opportunities 
created through affirmative action must continue. It is vital that the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act ensure access to 
postsecondary education for qualified applicants. The Riggs amendment 
would effectively shut the doors of higher education to large numbers 
of minority students.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote no on 
the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in complete opposition to the Riggs amendment that 
brings affirmative action to a screeching halt in the admission offices 
in colleges and universities across this Nation. Although the language 
of this amendment sounds bland and nonthreatening, nevertheless the 
intent of this amendment is to end affirmative action, those actions 
which would overcome past discrimination. The sponsors of this 
amendment talk about affirmative action as if they are quotas, which is 
not the case. The goal we are trying to reach is equality of 
opportunity, not based on race. How can we reach this goal when we fail 
to give opportunities to women and minorities to overcome past 
discrimination?
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in order to achieve equality, we must 
not quit our past endeavors. California and Texas both enacted laws 
that prohibit universities and colleges from using affirmative action 
as a legal remedy in cases of discrimination, to use affirmative action 
to increase campus diversity. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
counterproductive. It puts us further away from the goal we are trying 
to achieve, equality. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
because discrimination does indeed exist.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, to simply say 
that as the gentlewoman herself has said, we must guarantee equality of 
opportunity in our society. But we cannot guarantee equality of 
results.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, for the purposes of closing 
debate on our side. No one has worked harder to create educational 
opportunity for minority children in this country than the majority 
leader, and he shares my concern, our concern, that we as a country 
cannot afford to lose another generation of urban school children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Chairman, let me begin by appreciating the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Riggs) for bringing this amendment to the floor. It is not a 
debate that most of us would want to join. It is a difficult subject, 
there is no doubt about it, but yet it is so important. To bring this 
subject out as the gentleman has done leaves him open to be easily 
misunderstood, even more easily misjudged and frankly more likely to be 
mischaracterized. His courage and commitment to fairness is to be 
appreciated.

[[Page H2909]]

  This has been an unusual opportunity for me. In these days I rarely 
get to listen to an entire debate on any subject. But I did get to hear 
this whole debate. It is important to me. You see, I do not believe 
there is anything that we can do as a culture of civilization that can 
be as important as educating our children. In that task, I believe 
there is no institution that is more important than the university, 
because the university gives us our final product and gives us all our 
inputs as it trains our teachers.
  Indeed, I labored in the university for 20 years, so I retain a great 
interest in it. Of all the things that I heard in this debate this 
evening, the thing that I found most unfair were the characterizations 
of American universities made by those in opposition of this amendment. 
I repeatedly heard people say, ``Oh, we can't do this, because 
universities will not be fair in their admissions policies.'' Do we 
think so little of our universities? Do we think so little of our 
professors? Do we think so little of our admissions officers that we 
think they will not be fair? Without this, it was argued, the 
universities will not pursue a policy of diversity.
  Well, I have been there. The universities invented diversity. They 
are committed to it intellectually and emotionally, and they are not 
going to walk away from it. I also heard a very discouraging assessment 
of this. How little is our imagination? How little is our courage? We 
have seen some testimony. Yes, there is progress. There is change. 
Things are better in America than they were. We have got shame, we have 
got embarrassment about the way we have treated one another in this 
Nation in the past, and things are changing.
  Now I think the time has come in this great Nation, can we dare, can 
we dare to move forward? I think this is what the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Riggs) is asking us to address. It is not a retrograde 
road. Do you have so little faith in the goodness of the American 
people as exhibited in the discussions of your lack of faith in 
American universities that you believe we will go back to the days of 
Jim Crow? Or maybe, maybe, America is a Nation that has grown enough in 
its goodness that the road that we are about to take may be a better 
road?
  The question I think that the gentleman from California is asking us 
to address, is America a Nation where we believe it is right and a 
Nation that is capable of living by the idea that every person, every 
person in this Nation, deserves to be treated the same as everybody 
else?
  One of my great privileges as a Member of Congress is to assist young 
people in obtaining appointments to the military academies. That is 
often misunderstood. I can appoint no one, but I can nominate. 
Repeatedly throughout that process to all the young men and women who 
come to me, I emphasize that I want them to know, and they need to know 
that if they get an appointment, they got it on their merits. There is 
no politics involved in this, no preference, nothing special. Why did 
they need to know that? Because it is a daunting task for a young 
person. They need to go to that task knowing that they will be 
respected by the others at the academy and that they have already 
proven in the selection process they have the ability and they can 
therefore go with the courage and the confidence they can succeed.
  Does not every young person in America that gains admission to any 
college, any university, any program deserve the right to know that not 
he nor anyone else can doubt that he did it on the basis of their own 
merit, their own intelligence, their own accomplishment? Or must they 
live with the shadow of worry and doubt that even if they themselves 
can get beyond it that others will not recognize these things and 
others will think you got it because somebody in the government defined 
you arbitrarily as a person in a class to be given preference?

                              {time}  2130

  No. A government that can give a child a preference in consideration 
of matters extraneous to that child's virtue and merit is a government 
that can give a child prejudicial treatment. Is America ready to have a 
government that will insist that each child is judged by the quality 
and the character the child has and the child has exhibited?
  I believe what the gentleman from California (Mr. Frank Riggs) has 
asked us to do now is to come to a fork in the road, a fork in the road 
that says: ``Mr. and Mrs. America, we have faith in your goodness. We 
believe that you are ready to travel the higher road, the road of 
fairness, decency, and respect; and we don't believe that we in 
Washington are either qualified or able to dictate to you the terms by 
which you should travel that road.''
  Let us vote yes for this out of consideration for the young people's 
right to be treated with decency and out of respect for the goodness 
that we find in the American people.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom we have reserved the 
right to close debate on this very critical and important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Riggs 
amendment, and I do so even in respect to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Riggs) who I work with on a host of issues.
  I would like to tell a more personal story, a personal story about 
growing up in Indiana where I am born and raised, a story about my mom 
and dad raising me and teaching me values, values about God and faith, 
values about giving back to the community and, therefore, my public 
service, and values about equality. And my mom and dad always said to 
me, ``Everybody pulls their pants on the same way, and you better treat 
people equally.''
  That was a value and a principle in my household.
  Now growing up in predominantly white Indiana in a rural community, I 
went to a predominantly white high school. But then I went to the 
University of California at San Diego where they value diversity, where 
most of the class was made up of people of color and different 
religions. And while I got a great academic experience, maybe the best 
experience was the exposure to this beautiful country, people from all 
different backgrounds and religions and races. And coming from rural 
Indiana, one of the best experiences of my lifetime.
  Now the UC system has declined its enrollment for African Americans 
by 65 percent; Hispanics, by 59 percent. As the U.S.A. is getting more 
diverse, some of our colleges are getting less diverse.
  Affirmative action, Mr. Chairman, should never be about quotas, it 
should never be about reverse discrimination, but it should be about 
what my dad and mom told me: equal opportunity for all. We should make 
this a value and a principle in this great country of ours.
  As the civil rights struggle in the 1960s was about protests, it was 
about changing laws, the struggle in the new century is going to be 
about access to education. Savage inequality exists in education in our 
inner cities. Colleges that consider race for admission should be a 
value and a principle in this great country.
  And let me close, Mr. Chairman, by this. ``E pluribus unum'' is 
written all over this great Capitol; from the many, one United States 
of America; from the many, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, one United States 
of America; from Catholics and Protestants and Jews; from the many, one 
United States of America for men, women, and children; from the many, 
one United States of America.
  Let us hold affirmative action that puts principle and value on 
diversity, on equality, on justice as a principle that is so vital to 
this great country. Let us defeat the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). Let us continue to reform and 
make affirmative action a value that works for all people in the United 
States of America.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the modified 
Riggs amendment. This anti-diversity bill would dismantle affirmative 
action policies in higher learning--by eliminating the ability of 
public colleges and universities to use gender and race as factors in 
their admissions decisions.
  It would also overturn the Supreme Court's Bakke decision, which 
allowed postsecondary

[[Page H2910]]

institutions to use race as one of the factors considered in an 
admissions decision.
  Another impact of the Riggs amendment would be the resegregation of 
public universities across the country. And, the development of a two-
tiered higher education system that would override the authority of 
states to decide admissions policy. As a consequence, large numbers of, 
otherwise qualified minority students, would be denied access to higher 
education.
  Despite the clever machinations of affirmative action opponents, 
affirmative action policies are not simple preferences based on race, 
sex, and ethnicity. Nor are they social engineering policies intended 
to artificially create a color-blind society. Rather, affirmative 
action policies are specifically tailored to remedy the compounded 
effects of discrimination and privilege--which have had a profoundly 
negative impact on minority communities. The elimination of these 
policies in higher learning would further exacerbate disparities which 
already plague disadvantaged minority communities.
  Affirmative action has allowed minorities and women to break through 
the many barriers of discrimination that have contributed to keeping 
them undereducated, unemployed, underpaid, and in positions of limited 
opportunity for advancement.
  The Riggs amendment serves no purpose for higher education beyond 
exacerbating existing wrongs while maintaining the illusion of true 
equality. We have already begun to witness what the dismantling of 
affirmative action policies can do. The precipitous decline in minority 
admissions and enrollment experienced by the California higher 
educational system after the passage of Proposition 209, is a good 
example of what can happen. As such, UCLA's law school has seen an 80 
percent drop in the number of African American students offered 
admission for next fall. This is the lowest number since 1970. And, of 
the 8,000 students offered admission to the University of California at 
Berkeley for next fall, only 191 were African Americans and 434 were 
Hispanic. This is in comparison to 562 African American and 1,045 
Hispanic students, respectively, last year.

  Eliminating affirmative action policies serves no purpose beyond 
fostering the development of a society based on privilege. Those 
privileged enough to have access to superior academic institutions are 
those deemed to have merit. Those who do not, are not. Disadvantaged 
minorities--due to a long history of systemic discrimination--are more 
likely not to have access to these structures. Ending affirmative 
action would simply assure the perpetuation of this already unfortunate 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
modified Riggs ``Anti-Discrimination in College Admissions'' amendment. 
The passage of this extreme measure would threaten the reauthorization 
of the Higher Education Act, as the President has indicated that he 
will veto H.R. 6 if this amendment passes. Support for the Riggs 
amendment would do more harm than good.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment would severely undermine efforts to provide 
opportunity for women and minorities, and its language is so broad and 
vague that it could even prohibit remedial action in cases of proven 
discrimination.
  This amendment goes beyond what even the courts have said on this 
issue. It would overturn the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Bakke 
versus California Board of Regents, which found it constitutional for 
schools to use affirmative action to advance diversity in education. It 
would even go beyond the 1996 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 
Hopwood versus Texas by prohibiting the use of affirmative action where 
there is proven discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, 
ethnicity, or national origin.
  This amendment's language is so vague and poorly-defined that the 
only safe course for colleges or universities would be to make no 
effort whatsoever to achieve a student body which mirrors the 
demographics of the communities they serve. The amendment fails to 
define ``preferential treatment'', leaving in doubt whether basic 
efforts such as recruitment, outreach, targeted financial assistance, 
mentoring, and counseling would be legal. This is not only bad social 
and educational policy, but a recipe for endless and costly legal 
wrangling.
  Recent experience in my state of Texas underscores how harmful this 
amendment would be to minority access to higher education. In the 1996 
Hopwood decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that race 
could no longer be used as the basis for affirmative action in 
admission to the University of Texas at Austin. Subsequently, the Texas 
Attorney General ruled that no colleges in the state could use race as 
a factor in admissions or financial aid programs.
  The result has been a devastating decrease in enrollment by minority 
students. Undergraduate enrollment by African-American freshman has 
fallen by 14 percent at the University of Texas at Austin and by 23 
percent at Texas A&M University. Hispanic enrollment has dropped by 13 
percent at the University of Texas and 15 percent at Texas A&M. At the 
University of Texas Law School, African-American and Hispanic 
enrollments have decreased by 87 percent and 46 percent respectively. 
Medical school enrollment for African-Americans has fallen by 40 
percent.

  Mr. Chairman, these dramatic declines are harmful not only to 
minority students, but to our society as a whole. African Americans 
currently comprise 11.5 percent of the Texas population, and Hispanics 
comprise 27.7 percent. In contrast, African Americans and Hispanics 
number only 9 percent and 18.8 percent, respectively, of the student 
bodies of state colleges and universities in Texas. Alarmingly, only 
2.9 percent of students accepted for undergraduate studies at the 
University of Texas in Austin for the 1998-99 school year are African 
American.
  Clearly, a large segment of society would be left behind if efforts 
to equalize opportunity and diversify the composition of student bodies 
are eliminated. When opportunity is eliminated, all students are denied 
the benefits of learning in a diverse environment, which is critical to 
succeeding in a diverse workplace and society. Minorities are already 
under represented in professions such as medicine and law. In an 
increasingly diverse society and global economy, we ignore this problem 
at our own peril.
  Like other Americans, I want a color and gender blind society. 
However, we cannot close our eyes and pretend that we live in a perfect 
world. Discrimination still persists. Too often, individual or 
institutional discrimination, intentional or not, precludes minorities 
and women from participating in many levels of our society. Not only is 
that detrimental to the individuals affected, it hurts our nation and 
our economy.
  Like most things in life, the battle against discrimination has 
sometimes resulted in reverse discrimination. This is 
counterproductive. I welcome the Administration's continuing review of 
existing affirmative action statutes. Government should always be 
willing to review existing laws. However, we must not reverse efforts 
toward achieving equality and advancement over the last 25 years.
  The Hopwood decision in Texas, as well as Proposition 209 in 
California, have slammed the door of opportunity for minorities. The 
Riggs amendment would only compound the damage that has already been 
done. The Congress of the United States should be working to create and 
expand opportunity, not to deny it. I urge a no vote on the Riggs 
amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, fundamentally this debate is about the 
refusal of my colleagues on the other side to give up their Band-Aid--
their fig leaf--their placebo for the failure of their great society 
social programs and the failure of the public education system in 
America. The poor in this country, white and black and Hispanic and 
Asian, were trapped for forty years in a dismal and dysfunctional 
welfare system that we have only now begun to dismantle. They are still 
trapped in a public school system that is betraying our nation's 
children--a public education system that we on this side of the aisle 
have tried again and again to reform. We've tried with education 
savings accounts, with parental choice in education, with shifting 
power and responsibility and accountability from Washington bureaucracy 
and powerful teachers unions to states and localities and families. And 
every one of our efforts--every one--has been resisted tooth and nail 
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and by the Clinton 
administration. They will do nothing to reform primary and secondary 
education: They did worse than nothing for twenty years to reform 
welfare. What they will do, is defend to the death the right of 
government to discriminate based on race and sex. Because that is their 
Band-Aid, their fig leaf, their placebo for a public education system 
that traps hundreds of thousands of young children in unsafe and 
underperforming schools. Our children deserve better. And this 
amendment is part of doing better for them and by them. Support my 
amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, today my colleagues and I have 
the opportunity to increase access to higher education for all 
Americans by supporting H.R. 6.
  However, a proposed amendment by Congressman Riggs promises to have 
the opposite effect by eliminating affirmative action and closing the 
window of opportunity that higher education offers.
  As Americans, we are committed to equal opportunity for all, and 
special treatment for none.
  All of us should have the opportunity to perform and prove our 
capabilities.
  Proponents of anti-affirmative action believe that we lower standards 
when we support these particular programs.

[[Page H2911]]

  On the contrary, I believe that we raise the standard by admitting 
individuals from diverse backgrounds.
  They in turn, will provide the role models to enrich and properly 
reflect the American fabric.
  We level the playing field by allowing the under represented 
population to compete in arenas historically closed to them.
  I am concerned about any legislation that eliminates state and local 
efforts which are designed to increase opportunities for women and 
minorities--services like counseling and recruiting programs to boost 
enrollment among minority youth, and math and science programs 
developed to help girls in secondary school.
  Higher education is filled with preferences. According to the Riggs 
amendment, it's OK to grant preferential treatment to sons and 
daughters of alumni, to athletes, to other special talents or one based 
on geography--they are considered legitimate areas for preferential 
treatment.
  But the Riggs amendment says that race, sex, color, and ethnicity are 
not legitimate.
  Eliminating affirmative action sends the wrong message.
  UC Davis, a university in my district, is seeing an alarming decline 
in enrollment from well qualified minority students.
  The campus now scrambles for outreach to properly reflect California.
  Meanwhile, private colleges in my state are more engaged than ever in 
seeking to diversify their student body.
  The Republicans preach local control--but only when it's to their 
advantage. Today they want Congress to be the Admissions Office for all 
of America's public colleges.
  Let's let educators decide what students they want, not politicians.
  Vote no on the Riggs Amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Riggs amendment which would ban colleges and universities that consider 
race and gender in the application process from receiving Higher 
Education Act funding.
  Many of America's educational institutions try to correct past 
discrimination or to achieve the benefits of a diverse student body by 
taking race and gender into consideration in admissions. This amendment 
would force these colleges and universities to choose between 
abandoning these important policies or their participation in any 
Higher Education Act Program.
  In the year after the University of California's Board of Regents 
approved a policy prohibiting all affirmative action measures in public 
universities, the number of African Americans admitted to UCLA law 
school dropped by 80%, and at UC-Berkeley law school by 81%.
  Next fall's UC-Berkeley incoming class has dropped 66% for African 
Americans and 53% for Hispanics.
  When affirmative action is done right it is fair and it words.
  It is not quotas.
  It is not, and I do not favor, rejection or selection of any person 
solely on the base of gender or race without considering merit and 
qualifications.
  I believe there will be a day when we do not need affirmative action, 
but we are not there yet. The statistics show that the job of ending 
discrimination in this country is not over.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my adamant opposition 
to Mr. Riggs' amendment. Congressman Riggs and his supporters believe 
that the days when affirmative action policies are needed are over. I 
suppose they believe that equality has been reached when only 18 
percent of those enrolled in colleges are minorities but African 
Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans make up 30 percent of the 
college age population. I guess they believe that diversity is reached 
when only 33 percent of all African American high school graduates 
attended college in 1993 compared to nearly 42 percent of whites.
  Affirmative action is still needed and without it the composition of 
our colleges and university campuses will be reminiscent of what they 
looked like 30 years ago. We have seen this very thing happen in States 
such as California and Texas where minority admissions have declined 
because of anti-affirmative action laws.
  This year the University of California campuses report they received 
more minority applications with stronger academic credentials than ever 
before. At the same time, UCLA's law school saw an 80 percent drop in 
the number of African-American students offered admissions for next 
fall which is the lowest number since 1970.
  This is a clear indication of how crippling anti-affirmative action 
laws can be to the education of minority populations. Many minority 
students in California are viewing this anti-affirmative action law as 
evidence that the University of California system does not value 
diversity on their campuses.
  Therefore, they are starting to consider going out of state for 
school which is much more expensive. By passing the Riggs amendment we 
will send the same message to all minority students nationwide. 
Additionally, the loudest battle cry I hear from opponents of 
affirmative action is that the practice of using quotas and set asides 
is wrong and needs to be eliminated.
  Congressman Riggs has chosen the wrong area to combat such a belief 
because under the Supreme Court Bakke (back-ee) decision, schools are 
not allowed to use quotas and set asides in their admissions process.
  They may, however, exercise their right to consider race and gender 
as ONE of the factors in their admissions decisions. This is not 
discrimination. This is not preferences. This ruling simply allows 
colleges and universities to have the freedom to choose the students 
who become part of their institutions.
  I believe that if this amendment passes it will have a dramatic and 
adverse effect on the minority student population at our colleges and 
universities. And that, Mr. Chairman, would be one of the biggest 
tragedies I can imagine. I ask my colleagues to consider this when they 
cast their vote on this amendment.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Riggs 
amendment. Even after being redrafted by its sponsor, this measure 
punishes minority students and shortchanges institutions of higher 
learning.
  The amendment assumes we are in a society that is free from 
discrimination, and that Hispanic and African American students have 
equal opportunity. The fact of the matter is that discrimination is 
alive in our society and that while much lip service is paid to 
equality--for minority students it is far from a reality.
  This is why our colleges and universities across the country have 
turned to affirmative action.
  Our institutions of higher education take race and sex into 
consideration because they know that a diverse student body benefits 
everyone and provides an educational setting for our students that 
mimics the real world.
  I think everyone in this chamber would agree that students learn as 
much from each other as they do from their professors and books--and 
this is all the more true when students are fortunate enough to be in a 
richly diverse campus.
  We must not revert to the days of the educational `haves' and `have 
nots' and keep some of our brightest minds from seeking out public 
colleges.
  If this ill-willed amendment is adopted, some students may be able to 
take the road to private campuses. But, what is most distressing is 
that many minority students may have no option at all--and that the 
cleavages in our society will continue to expand.
  The problem here is that the Riggs amendment does not really address 
the problem of discrimination or equality. What it really does is 
prohibit our public colleges from using the most effective tools to 
help remedy past discrimination.
  Surprisingly the Riggs amendment would dramatically expand the 
federal role of education in an area where states and localities should 
have control. We preach about limiting the federal government's role in 
education--but what we are doing here is in fact grossly expanding it.
  In a recent letter to members of Congress, both Attorney General Reno 
and Secretary Riley promised to call for a presidential veto to HR 6 if 
the Riggs amendment is included.
  Let us not be fooled by the new Riggs amendment. I urge my fellow 
colleagues to take a close look at the fine print in this amendment and 
see how detrimental it will be to our schools and to students.
  In my home state of Texas, where affirmative action has been killed, 
the University of Texas law school now has only four entering African 
American students, where former classes had more than thirty. The same 
holds true for the California schools where a similar proposal has been 
adopted--there has been a significant drop in the number of minority 
admissions. This is a step backwards and it must be stopped!
  We are talking about the future of an entire generation of students. 
We must offer our FULL support and help them pursue their educational 
dreams.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this measure and stand up for 
diversity and strength.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Riggs Amendment to eliminate affirmative action in 
higher education. This amendment would have a devastating effect on 
efforts to correct past discriminations on our college campuses and I 
would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The landmark Supreme Court decision Bakke v. California Board of 
Regents recognized the use of affirmative action as a constitutional 
means to advance diversity in higher education. The Riggs amendment 
would eliminate affirmative action even if the courts ordered it as a 
remedy where there is proven discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 
or ethnicity.

[[Page H2912]]

  I have been contacted by Yale University and the University of 
Connecticut in my home state, as well as many other academic 
associations, religious organizations and civil rights organizations 
from across the country who have joined together to express their 
strong opposition to the Riggs Amendment. It is intrusive and would 
dictate college admissions policies to public and private institutions 
by limiting their ability to select students based on the needs of 
those institutions. Our institutes of higher learning strive to provide 
the best educational experience possible for American's students. We 
should not hinder this effort by restricting a school's ability to 
promote a strong and diverse student body.
  The devastating impact of the Riggs amendment on minority enrollment 
is already evident in the California school system where enrollment by 
minorities has dropped significantly. As we move into the 21st century 
with a increasingly diverse and global economy we must ensure that 
access to higher education is not closed off to the young people of 
this nation. Rather we should welcome the talents of all our citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Riggs Amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I support the Riggs Amendment to Title XI 
of H.R. 6, the Higher Education Re-Authorization Bill, because I 
believe that it will make America a more fair country.
  I believe that America should be a place where people of merit can 
get ahead based upon their own capabilities, and ``not be judged by the 
color of their skin but by the content of their character'' in the 
words of the great Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
  The American people overwhelmingly oppose the use of racial quotas in 
higher education. Surveys show that 87% of all Americans, and a full 
75% of African Americans, feel that race should not be a factor in 
admission to a public university.
  Federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have 
repeatedly struck down racial preference systems used by college 
admission offices as unconstitutional.
  People of color deserve to be proud of their academic credentials. 
Racial quotas only diminish the significance of their accomplishments.
  The statutory law as it currently stands automatically presumes that 
a person of color grew up in disadvantaged circumstances, and deserve a 
``leg up'' in the admissions process. This is a hard message to accept 
for many of the voters in my district who come from families of modest 
means.
  I would like America to be a color blind society. Unfortunately, this 
is simply impossible when America's young adults are forced to confront 
the differences that the color of their skin bears upon whether they'll 
get into the college of their choice or not.
  This is a period in their lives when they form the opinions which 
they will carry with them throughout adulthood. I am afraid that the 
frustrations caused by racial quotas causes too many of them to be 
conscious of race in every setting.
  Racial preferences in college admissions violate the principles of 
freedom and equality on which the civil rights struggle is based. 
Racial preferences are both immoral and legally unconstitutional.
  The field should be level in college admissions. Race should not be a 
factor.
  For these reasons and others, I support the passage of the Riggs 
Amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Riggs 
amendment to H.R. 6, which would prohibit public institutions of higher 
education from receiving federal funding if they use race or gender in 
making admissions decisions.
  The status of admissions in California in the wake of Proposition 209 
illustrates the harmful way in which the Riggs amendment would impact 
the nation. Statistics already show a drop of over 50% in undergraduate 
admissions at UC Berkeley for African Americans, Latinos and Native 
Americans.
  Acceptance by students is not the only place where the elimination of 
affirmative action has had a crushing impact. It has an impact on 
acceptances by students as well. Many of the highest-scoring African 
American students are turning down the University of California in 
favor of private universities. African American faculty at the 
university are discouraging prospective African American students from 
enrolling because the faculty regard Berkeley as a divisive areas and a 
national laboratory for the dismantling of affirmative action programs 
in higher education. Enrollment of African Americans at UC Berkeley has 
dropped 66 percent this year, and enrollment of Latinos has dropped 53 
percent at that university. At the UC Berkeley Boalt Hall law school, 
none of the African-American students accepted into the class of 1997 
chose to enroll.
  Affirmative action programs are part of a larger commitment to 
student diversity which enriches the educational experience, 
strengthens communities, enhances economic competitiveness, and teaches 
our students how to be good leaders. This amendment is another 
opportunity to erode decades of progress in ensuring that diversity in 
higher education for all Americans. It is just another extreme effort, 
as we saw in the transportation bill, to eliminate federal programs 
that provide opportunity for women and minorities.
  This bipartisan Higher Education bill has many benefits for our 
nation's students. The Riggs amendment most certainly is not one of 
them. It will have a crushing effect on diversity in higher education. 
I urge my colleagues to support educational opportunity for all 
Americans and oppose the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Riggs 
amendment to H.R. 6 which would ban the use of affirmative action in 
admissions for public colleges and universities that receive funding 
under the Higher Education Act.
  The House should reject this amendment. It is another step down the 
road of educational segregation led by California Proposition 209, the 
University of California affirmative action ban, and the Hopwood 
decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Riggs 
amendment overturns the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Regents of the 
University of California v. Bakke, which for twenty years has allowed 
America's universities to provide opportunities for many disadvantaged 
minorities. This amendment is an unfair federal intrusion into the 
college and university admissions process and its passage will likely 
result in a veto of this important reauthorization legislation.
  Mr. Riggs says in his Dear Colleague letter that he wants to ``ban 
all preferences and quotas in college admission[s].'' My question is 
what quotas and preferences? His amendment fails to define them. Is the 
mere consideration of race as one factor in a complex admissions 
process considered a preference, even when there is no specific 
numerical goal for admission of a particular group? There have been 
``preferences'' for white Americans since this country was founded. It 
is only when universities engage in legal, valid attempts to provide a 
level playing field for minorities that people see a preference 
problem.
  Consider that while African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans 
make up 28 percent of the college-age population, they account for only 
18 percent of all college students. Only 33 percent of African American 
and 36 percent of Hispanic high school graduates ages 18-24 attended 
college in 1993, compared to 42 percent of whites in this age group.
  Recent evidence suggests that the anti-affirmative action initiatives 
of the past few years will only make this situation worse. A year after 
the UC Regents' decision to ban affirmative action in the UC system, 
the number of African Americans admitted to the UCLA law school dropped 
by 80 percent and the number admitted to the Berkeley campus dropped by 
81 percent. The fall 1997 semester at Boalt Law School of UC Berkeley 
witnessed the matriculation of only one Black student in a class of 
268. Out of the 468 students in the first-year University of Texas Law 
School class, only four are African American.
  Statistics on UC undergraduate admissions for the fall 1998 class--
the first class which will suffer the full brute force of Prop. 209--
are equally startling. The number of African Americans admitted to UC 
Berkeley and UCLA dropped 66 percent and 43 percent, while the number 
of Latinos dropped 53 percent and 33 percent.
  Supporters of the Riggs amendment may be quick to cite today's Los 
Angeles Times, which reports that Boalt Law School at Berkeley has 
admitted more than twice the number of African Americans--32--for fall 
1998 than were admitted last year. This is great news. However, it does 
not obviate the need to defeat this amendment. The numbers throughout 
the UC system are still paltry, and adoption of the Riggs amendment 
would replicate the UCLA and Berkeley minority undergraduate admissions 
decline nationwide.
  The UC admissions statistics provide incontrovertible evidence that 
the Riggs amendment would jeopardize educational gains for minorities 
made in the aftermath of the Bakke decision. In Bakke, the Court held 
that in certain instances a college or university may consider race in 
admissions. Examples include the consideration of race to remedy an 
institutional history of discrimination and the promotion of a 
university's mission to create a diverse student population. If passed, 
the Riggs amendment would force public colleges and universities to 
choose between providing opportunities for minorities and women and 
receiving funds under the Higher Education Act.
  The many schools across the nation that would be affected by this 
amendment generally have admissions processes based on an array of 
complex factors. These factors measure not only an applicant's 
potential for individual academic success but also an applicant's 
ability to contribute positively to the institution overall. The Riggs 
amendment represents an unfair federal intrusion into those

[[Page H2913]]

processes. We cannot afford to tie the hands of American's universities 
at a time when minorities still lag behind the rest of America in 
educational attainment.
  The Kerner Commission Report thirty years ago stated that ``Our 
Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate 
and unequal.'' A new report by the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation, 
``The Millennium Breach,'' suggests that the prediction has become a 
reality with minorities disproportionately represented among the poor 
and an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor. If, as I believe it 
is, education is the key to economic empowerment, then the Riggs 
amendment will only continue America's progress toward economic and 
social segregation.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Riggs amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support affirmative action 
programs in this nation and to oppose strongly this unfortunate 
amendment that the House is considering. This amendment is an 
outrageous assault upon the Constitutional responsibilities of American 
colleges and universities. If Amendment 73 is adopted, we would face 
debilitating nation-wide consequences which would destroy the years of 
progress our higher education system has made in compensating for past 
and present discrimination against women and minorities.
  Affirmative action programs are still needed. Years of past 
discrimination coupled with continued discrimination have deprived many 
women and minorities of equal access to higher education. The long 
shadow of historical legal discrimination is still visible in our 
country; this discrimination was propagated and enforced by the federal 
government.
  President Clinton has reminded us that there is still no level 
playing field for women and people of color. Mr. Speaker, now is not 
the time to forget that bigotry, inequality, and economic barriers 
still close doors everywhere for women and minorities. Mr. Riggs' 
amendment (Amendment 73) would prevent educational institutions from 
providing disadvantaged students with scholarships, financial aid, 
support programs, and outreach programs are essential if students from 
disadvantaged communities are to have access to higher education, which 
is the prerequisite to their economic and social advancement.
  In the Bakke decision, the Supreme Court upheld the use of 
affirmative action to advance diversity in education. Colleges and 
universities voluntarily administer affirmative action programs to 
comply with their statutory and Constitutional obligations to end 
discrimination in higher education. Certain institutions would be 
placed in the absurd position of being cut off from federal funding 
while attending to court-ordered desegregation plans. This legislation 
would create a serious backlash against current legal redress for past 
discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, if affirmative action admission programs are banned, we 
would lose a valuable tool for combating the existence of ignorance and 
prejudice. Attending a diverse campus gives students the opportunity to 
confront face-to-face the stereotypes and harmful assumptions about 
difference in our country. The college experience is one of peer 
exchange. There are few better ways to break down stereotypes of race, 
ethnicity, and gender in this country than allowing students to live 
and study together in a community of mutual respect and understanding.
  We cannot have an effective dialogue on racism and bigotry in this 
country unless everyone is given an equal chance to attend college and 
obtain a college degree. The economic divisions in this country are 
linked to education levels within any given group. It is not a tragedy 
of circumstance that those minorities with the lowest levels of higher 
education attainment are also the poorest people in our country. This 
ill-conceived amendment would not only re-segregate our colleges and 
universities, it would have a chilling effect upon the larger society.
  As a proud alumni of the University of California at Berkeley, I am 
appalled by the plunge in undergraduate admissions of minority students 
since the ban on affirmative action in California was approved in a 
state referendum. That unfortunate California referendum is the 
fundamental idea behind this amendment that we are considering, and its 
consequences in California have demonstrated why we must oppose it. In 
California, admissions of Chicano, Latino, and African American 
students for the coming freshman class have dropped by more than half. 
In the recent fall class of the Boalt Law School at Berkeley only seven 
African-American students were admitted, and only one chose to enroll.
  Mr. Speaker, this ill-conceived amendment by Mr. Riggs sends a 
message to women and minorities that they are not welcome in 
institutions of higher learning. This bill proclaims loudly that we do 
not want a just society, that we would rather turn our backs and not 
accept the existence and legacy of discrimination.
  I am not alone in decrying the effect of eliminating affirmative 
action. Mr. Speaker, sixty-two of our country's most prominent 
university presidents oppose this legislation and have placed 
advertisements in national papers to emphasize the importance of 
racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in contributing to a strong 
entering class.
  The students of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the 
finest public universities in this country and my alma mater, have 
taken it upon themselves to speak out against H.R. 3300 and to speak in 
support of affirmative action. H.R. 3300, introduced by Mr. Riggs, is 
the stand-alone version of Amendment 73 which we are now considering.
  Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 22, the Associated Students of the 
University of California (ASUC) unanimously approved a resolution 
opposing these provisions. I am proud that the students stand firmly 
united against this harmful measure. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the 
statement be included in the Record. Let us learn from them.

 A Bill of the Associated Students of the University of California in 
 Opposition to the ``Anti-Discrimination in College Admissions Act of 
                            1998'' (HR 3330)

       Authored and sponsored by: ASUC External Affairs Vice-
     President Sanjeev Bery
       Whereas: The misnamed ``Anti-Discrimination in College 
     Admissions Act of 1998'' (HR3330) would prohibit colleges and 
     universities from using affirmative action in college 
     admissions if they receive any federal funds; and
       Whereas: If any student at a university receives federal 
     loan money or Pell grant funds, the university would be 
     prohibited from using affirmative action in admissions; and
       Whereas: Representative Frank Riggs is the author of this 
     resolution, and is almost certain to offer it as an amendment 
     to the Higher Education Act when it is reauthorized on April 
     22, and
       Whereas: Affirmative action programs establish equal 
     opportunity for women and people of color, redress gender, 
     racial, and ethnic discrimination, and encourage diversity in 
     the workplace and educational institutions; therefore, be it
       Resolved: that the Associated Students of the University of 
     California oppose Congressman Riggs' ``Anti-Discrimination in 
     College Admissions Act of 1998'' and urge all California 
     members of the Congress to oppose this resolution.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of 
Representative Frank Riggs' H.R. 3330, the ``Anti-Discrimination in 
College Admissions Act of 1998'' which will be offered as an amendment 
during the House consideration of H.R. 6, The ``Higher Education 
Authorization Act'' of 1998. This amendment would prohibit colleges and 
universities that take race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin 
into account in connection with admission(s) from participating in, or 
receiving funds under any programs authorized by the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (HEA).
  This amendment will not only have a devastating impact on post 
secondary admissions at both public and private institutions, but also 
discourages institutions from considering race, even in instances where 
the purpose is focused on remedying past discrimination. This piece of 
legislation is far more sweeping than California's Proposition 209 in 
that H.R. 3330 aims to eliminate affirmative action in private, as well 
as public, colleges and universities. It will also constrain an 
institution's ability to satisfy constitutional and statutory 
requirements to eliminate discrimination in post secondary education.
  There is now evidence of what happens when universities are forced to 
drop their affirmative action programs. The University of California's 
board of Regents banned all affirmative action and the acceptance rate 
of African Americans to UCLA Law School fell by eighty percent. After 
the Hopwood decision, admission of African-Americans to the University 
of Texas School of Law dropped by eighty-eight percent. It is clear 
that with the passage of this amendment, there will be a resegregation 
of colleges and universities.
  In Mississippi the percent of the population 25 years and older who 
have a college degree is 14.7%. Moreover, Mississippi ranks 47th out of 
fifty states in relation to the percent of the population having a 
college degree and 47th out of 50 in comparison to other African 
Americans in the fifty states.
  The Riggs amendment is an unnecessary, regressive, and dangerous bill 
that would destroy the progress that has been achieved in the last 
thirty years. This amendment will merely serve as a tool to increase 
the disparities in education and income between men and women and 
whites and blacks. Affirmative Action in higher education has clearly 
established significant advances in the area of equal opportunity for 
ethnic minorities and women in admissions to colleges and universities 
and the workforce. I will continue to support programs which strengthen 
not tear apart equal opportunity. If the Higher Education Authorization 
Act (H.R. 6) contains the ``Anti-Discrimination in College Admissions 
Act of 1998'', I will vote against H.R. 6.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Riggs amendment. It is an extreme, vindictive political ploy

[[Page H2914]]

which will serve only to prevent innocent children from seeking a 
better quality of life through the pursuit of higher education--and it 
should be voted down!
  My colleagues, the Riggs amendment would say to Black and Latino 
taxpayers that even though you, because of these very same programs, 
help to pay for the cost of public education in your state, college 
administrators cannot design outreach programs to maximize 
opportunities for your children to attend their institutions. This is 
wrong.
  As an African American physician, I want you to know that the passage 
of this ill-conceived amendment would serve to reduce the already 
existing shortage of African-American physicians in this country.
  In an article entitled, ``Can Black Doctors Survive'', Dr. Jennifer 
C. Friday of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 
points out that even despite affirmative action programs instituted by 
medical schools in the 1960's and 1970's African Americans comprised 
only 3.1 percent of all the nations physicians in 1980 and still are 
only 3.6 percent of the total today. This is unacceptable.
  We all know that there is a shameful gap in the health status of 
minorities in this country. Increasing the number of minority 
physicians is critical to closing this gap.
  I am sure there are those among us who would say that the action by 
the Board of Regents of the University system in California and the 
ruling in the Hopwood case in Texas could have been mitigated by other 
policies that could be and were put in place in these two states.
  My colleagues, I want to make sure that you know that this has not 
been the case. The numbers of African Americans and Hispanic admissions 
in the California and Texas University system, as predicted, have 
dropped precipitously.
  I am totally confounded that anyone could think that discrimination 
no longer exists, or that educational opportunities are now equal for 
all races and ethnic groups in this country.
  This is clearly and unfortunately not the case. America's children 
who live in predominantly minority communities do not receive the same 
level of funding per student and their education is consequently 
shortchanged. That is why some of us are frequently on the floor 
arguing for repair, construction and support for our public school 
system.
  My colleagues the Riggs amendment should be defeated because it 
would: result in the re-segregation of public universities across the 
country; prevent public universities and colleges from remedying past 
discrimination; produce a two-tiered higher education system which 
would override the authority of state governments to decide admissions 
policy; and endanger targeted outreach and recruitment programs for 
women and minorities.
  This proposal is an outrage and flies in the face of all that America 
stands for. It is as was said in last Thursday's Washington Post, 
nothing more than political ``grandstanding'' which ``demeans the 
House'' and should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 249, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Schaefer, Dan
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Yates

                              {time}  2156

  Mrs. MYRICK, and Messrs. GILCHREST, SNYDER, STUPAK and RUSH changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COBURN, THUNE and GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2200


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Record reflect that I voted 
the wrong way on the Riggs amendment. I intended to vote no. I made a 
mistake and voted the wrong way.


                Limiting Debate Time on Amendment No. 79

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on Amendment No. 79 and all amendments thereto be reduced to 10 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by myself or my designee and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), or his designee, with an 
additional 90 seconds on each side for a wrap-up.

[[Page H2915]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Is it not customary to have the Reading Clerk read the 
amendment first?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the amendment will be considered as 
read. The gentleman is offering the amendment at this point?


                Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Campbell

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Campbell:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

                 TITLE XI--NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISION

     SEC. 1101. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--No individual shall be excluded from any 
     program or activity authorized by the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, or any provision of this Act, on the basis of race or 
     religion.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall 
     be construed to preclude or discourage any of the following 
     factors from being taken into account in admitting students 
     to participate in, or providing any benefit under, any 
     program or activity described in subsection (a): the 
     applicants income; parental education and income; need to 
     master a second language; and instances of discrimination 
     actually experienced by that student.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), or his designee, and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), or his designee, will each control 
6\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this is what my amendment provides. I 
would like to ask my colleagues' indulgence so I can read it, and I am 
also going to ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) to make the 
copies available over to the Democratic side so that they actually have 
the text, if he might assist me in that, or the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. Chairman, it reads: No individual shall be excluded from or have 
a diminished chance of acceptance to any program or activity authorized 
by the Higher Education Act of 1965, or any provision of this act, on 
the basis of race or religion.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a second clause which says that no one shall 
be excluded from a program or their chances of getting into the program 
diminished on the basis of their race or their religion. I list other 
things which might be considered as an alternative.
  Existing law prohibits exclusion of anybody on the basis of their 
race. And I want to say ``thank you'' to several colleagues on the 
Democratic side with whom I almost had an agreement that this be 
accepted. At the last minute it was not possible, but I want to thank 
the good faith that went into the effort on that behalf.
  The existing law says we may not exclude on the basis of race. I am 
saying that we may not exclude or have the chance of acceptance 
diminished on the basis of race. And I suggest this at least is what 
all of us could agree on is what good affirmative action is.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I too rise in opposition to this amendment. I would 
point out to our colleagues, I believe this is essentially the same 
issue we just defeated on the last vote and I would encourage them to 
do the same on this vote.
  I also oppose this because I believe it is a breeder of litigation. I 
believe that this amendment will not breed equality; I believe it will 
breed litigation. To understand why, imagine the case of a student who 
applies for a job under a Federal Work Study program, which is a 
program authorized under the act, and the student alleges that he or 
she has been denied the job on the basis of race. This amendment does 
not answer the following questions:
  One, must the student prove that there was discriminatory effect or 
discriminatory intent? Secondly, who has the burden of proof under this 
amendment? Does the student have to prove that he or she has been the 
victim of discrimination or is the burden on the institution to show 
that the student was not the victim of discrimination? And finally, 
what is the quantum of proof? Does the person carrying the burden have 
to prove this to a preponderance of the evidence? To a substantial 
degree? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Those are all questions that I believe are not satisfactorily 
answered in the amendment. I believe it captures the same spirit of the 
amendment we just defeated, but I also believe it breeds litigation and 
would cause considerable chaos in higher education programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat on that basis.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have 3 minutes remaining, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Just to clarify for the Clerk, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) is offering Amendment No. 79 or Amendment No. 
76?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the number. I am offering 
the amendment whose text I read and which was preprinted. Mr. Chairman, 
it is 76, I am informed. I am informed it is 76.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the benefit of all Members, it is the Chairs' 
impression that amendment intended to be considered now is Amendment 
No. 76 as preprinted.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time limit previously agreed to 
by unanimous consent will apply to this debate.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close in less than a 
minute. Existing law answers all of the questions that were put by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friend and colleague. 
Existing law says that no person in the United States shall on the 
ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from 
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance.
  My proposal says, in addition, it does not repeal that. It says no 
individual shall be excluded from or have a diminished chance of 
acceptance to any program or activity authorized by the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 or any provision of this act on the basis of race 
or religion.
  It then goes on to say that nothing in that subsection I just read 
shall be construed to preclude or discourage any of the following 
factors from being taken into account and admitting students to 
participation in or providing any benefit under any program or activity 
described in subsection A: Applicant's income, parental education and 
income, need to master a second language, an instance of discrimination 
actually experienced by that student.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying there is no one I think in this 
body who wants to exclude anyone from a Federal program on the basis of 
that person's race. That is what this amendment makes clear. It should 
have been noncontroversial. I am hoping that it is when the vote comes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really no different than the 
amendment that we have already defeated. It goes to the very heart of 
this country's obligation to people who have not had the same 
opportunities in education, to

[[Page H2916]]

open up their opportunities by allowing them entry into our 
universities.
  The Riggs amendment said we could not take into account the necessity 
of diversity in our campuses by giving an advantage to some group, some 
racial group, national origin group, so that they could create a much 
more diverse community in our universities.
  What this amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) says is not the question of admitting but excluding. We 
cannot exclude. What does exclude mean? We already have definitions in 
the law under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act that call for 
nondiscriminatory action. The gentleman is asking this House to 
interpret exclusion perhaps from a program as per se discrimination. 
That is wrong.
  If Members voted against the Riggs amendment, they must vote against 
this amendment also. It is much more mischievous. It creates a great 
confusion on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and I hope that Members 
will defeat this amendment.
  I know that my colleague in speaking earlier on the Riggs amendment 
broke my heart when he talked about Asian Americans scoring very high, 
not being able to get into the university. I feel for those 
individuals. But I as a human being, as an American citizen, I have an 
obligation to make sure that our public universities have an 
opportunity for everyone. This means to create a diverse university 
with the ability to create this we have to have an affirmative action 
program.
  So to adopt this amendment, to say that if we exclude someone it is a 
per se act of discrimination, we are creating a whole new legion of law 
and having to bring in the lawyers to interpret this. This is very bad. 
This is mischievous. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair seeks one last clarification. The Chair and 
the Parliamentarian are convinced that the author intended to offer and 
read to the Committee his Amendment No. 79 as preprinted; is that 
correct?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, we are now debating Amendment No. 79?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee has been debating Amendment No. 79 since 
it was offered.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this started out as a bipartisan bill designed to 
expand opportunities and I hope it ends up that way if we defeat this 
divisive amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this language either means nothing because Title VI 
already prohibits discrimination or it is different from Title VI and 
that will take years of litigation to interpret what it means. There is 
one interesting legal point in terms of discrimination on religion. We 
do not know whether that would mean that religious schools could or 
could not discriminate or prefer those of its religion.
  But there is one thing that we know, and that is we could not remedy 
notorious discrimination if this amendment would pass. Whatever it 
means, it would attack valuable programs designed to address woeful 
underrepresentation of minorities in certain fields. There are only a 
handful of minority Ph.D.'s granted in science every year and outreach 
initiatives to address this woeful underrepresentation aimed at 
minorities, such as the Ronald E. McNair program to encourage 
minorities to pursue doctorates in science. Those programs would be in 
jeopardy.
  Let us keep opportunity open. I urge Members to defeat this amendment 
just like we defeated the last amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) will each be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes to wrap 
up.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is recognized for 90 
seconds.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I merely want to thank everyone for their patience. I 
think we are probably completing one of the most important pieces of 
legislation that we will deal with this year. Millions of Americans, 
young people and old, who are going to colleges and postsecondary 
schools will certainly benefit dramatically.

                              {time}  2215

  I want to thank members of the staff.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their effort 
to bring this bipartisan legislation before us. I want to thank Vic 
Klatt, Sally Stroup, George Conant, Sally Lovejoy, Jo Marie St. Martin, 
Jay Diskey, Pam Davidson, Darcy Phillips, David Evans, Mark Zukerman, 
and Marshall Grisby for the tremendous job they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, who worked long and hard to 
put this legislation together.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, in thanking the members of 
the staff. He named all of the ones I was going to name. I want to 
thank all of you, plus my personal staff, Bob Cochran and Karen Weiss, 
for the great work they have done, for all of you for being patient 
with us throughout this day.
  This has been a real bipartisan effort. The underlying principle in 
all that we have done has been for students and their parents to see 
that they get a full, equal opportunity to get a college education. I 
think that is good for America, and I think we passed a good bill. I 
want to thank all of my colleagues for working to make this such a good 
effort.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we conclude debate on this, I would like to 
recognize the very hard work of the staff on this legislation over the 
last 16 months.
  On the Republican side, I want to acknowledge the excellent work of 
Bob Cochran and Karen Weiss, the personal staff of the gentleman from 
California, and Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy, Lynn Selmser, David Frank, 
D'Arcy Phillips, George Conant, and Pam Davidson of the committee 
staff.
  But most importantly, I want to recognize the absolutely superb 
efforts of Sally Stroup who spearheaded this work on this legislation. 
She is a gracious, thoughtful, and very competent staff person. 
Everyone in this Chamber owes her a great debt of gratitude.
  On the Democratic side, I want to express my appreciation to Chris 
Mansour and Callie Coffman of my own personal staff, and Gail Weiss, 
Mark Zukerman, Marshall Grigsby, Alex Nock, and Peter Rutledge of the 
committee staff, as well as Broderick Johnson, the former committee 
counsel, now at the White House.
  Further, while she has moved to the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services, I also want to thank Margo Huber, who, as a member of the 
committee staff, did exceptionally fine work in helping formulate this 
bill.
  Perhaps most important, I thank David Evans. For 19 years, David 
served Senator Pell, on the Senate Education Subcommittee, and I 
persuaded him over a year ago to come here and work on this important 
reauthorization bill. He and I have worked closely together, and I 
value very, very much the contributions he has made and the friendship 
we have forged.
  Finally, we are all grateful for the hard work of Steve Cope in the 
Legislative Counsel's office, Deb Kalcevic at the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the staff of the Congressional Research Service, 
particularly Margot Schenet, Jim Stedman, and Barbara Miles.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Campbell 
amendment. This measure is legal minutia that erodes existing statutes 
already established to address concerns about discrimination in higher 
education.
  In fact, in many ways, the Campbell amendment mimics Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act--which already prohibits institutions of higher 
education that participate in programs, receiving Federal financial 
assistance from the Department of Education, from discriminating 
against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin. As 
such, discrimination against individual students in the administration 
of Higher Education Act programs is already forbidden by law.
  The Campbell amendment takes an additional step in that it extends 
this ``anti-discrimination'' policy to include religion. The need for

[[Page H2917]]

this added dimension is rather confusing since there are no programs 
under the Higher Education Act in which religion is a consideration. 
Another issue of concern is that this amendment would prohibit 
religious educational institutions, which participate in Higher 
Education Act programs, from considering an applicant's religion in 
admission.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the nature and purpose of 
this initiative. It is extremely ambiguous and very confusing. My 
concerns about the extent of its impact raises questions about 
institutions that receive Higher Education Act funding will be 
prohibited from participating in affirmative action at any level where 
race or religion is an issue, including admissions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``No'' on the Campbell 
``nondiscrimination provision'' amendment. This is an obscure measure 
that serves only to raise more questions and puts current statues at 
risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 227, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--189

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Dickey
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Largent
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Schaefer, Dan
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Yates

                              {time}  2236

  Mr. ENSIGN and Mr. GIBBONS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GREENWOOD, SOLOMON, HYDE and UPTON changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Higher 
Education Reauthorization Act. As a longtime advocate of educational 
opportunities for Americans, I have advocated and fought to ensure that 
access to quality education and solid job training skills is more than 
a pipedream for working families. Although there are several facets of 
this legislation, there are a few issues in particular that I would 
like to highlight. As we prepare to enter the 21st Century, America 
needs smart tools, smart technology and most of all a very smart 
workforce to maintain our competitive edge.
  As we approach the turn of the century, it is more important than 
ever to ensure that students have access to the resources they need to 
pursue a postsecondary education. I worked my own way through college 
years ago, it was hard than and is more difficult today. I know that 
today times have changed and without adequate assistance through 
programs like work study, grants, and loans most students would not be 
able to complete their college education no matter their willness to 
work full time as many did in a previous experience. Added to this is 
the fact that today most entry-level jobs barely pay a living wage, 
which is not enough anymore to fund today's higher tuition rates, the 
costs of books, and living expenses. This legislation could and should 
ensure that monetary aid would be available to keep the doors open to 
all students who otherwise would not have the resources to fund higher 
education opportunities.
  The Pell grants increases and special loan programs included in this 
measure H.R. 6 are the vehicles which and have demonstrated their 
effectiveness and help to meet the need of today and tomorrow's 
students. Another special aspect to highlight and which I feel is 
crucial to the competitiveness of our nation is technology training. 
H.R. 6 speaks specifically to this goal by providing funding for 
programs designed to promote such initiatives. As technology advances 
and touches so many areas of our lives--from the workplace to the 
marketplace to the classroom--it is increasingly imperative that 
today's teachers receive the training to effectively teach students not 
only rudimentary computer skills, but how to employ these skills 
effectively in accessing educational resources.
  According to the Education Testing Service Assessment, most teachers 
have been in the workforce since before the computer age.

[[Page H2918]]

Shockingly, 90 percent of new teachers, the majority of whom one might 
assume have grown up with computers--particularly during their years of 
higher education--do not feel prepared to use or effectively teach 
technology skills in their classrooms. Just as a dictionary may not be 
used as a resource by someone who is unable to read, computers in our 
classrooms are only useful when teachers are able to understand how 
they work and confidently apply this know-how in the classroom. The 
Higher Education Act recognizes this problem and provides for programs 
designed to implement the integration of technology into teaching and 
learning. I'm pleased to have helped initiate this policy in 
legislation which I've co-sponsored this session.
  I specifically voice my opposition to the Riggs amendment which 
attempts to eliminate affirmative action this amendment over reaches 
and would bar any legal initiative to achieve diversity in our higher 
education institutions, its wrong and ought to be defeated. The bottom 
line is that Americans must have education and training they can 
afford, for the jobs and futures they merit and it must embrace the 
diversity of four US populace. Without educational opportunities, 
America's children face a future of lower employment, lower 
productivity, lower aspirations, and ultimately, a lower standard of 
living. This is certainly no way to prepare for a new Century. The 
federal government, prompted by Congress, can and will make a 
difference in meeting the challenge of change. By supporting higher 
education, we are investing in people, our nation's most valuable 
natural resource.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject HR 6, the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998 because it furthers the federal 
stranglehold over higher education. Instead of furthering federal 
control over education, Congress should focus on allowing Americans to 
devote more of their resources to higher education by dramatically 
reducing their taxes. There are numerous proposals to do this before 
this Congress. For example, the Higher Education Affordability and 
Availability Act (HR 2847), of which I am an original cosponsor, allows 
taxpayers to deposit up to $5,000 per year in a pre-paid tuition plan 
without having to pay tax on the interest earned, thus enabling more 
Americans to afford college. This is just one of the many fine 
proposals to reduce the tax burden on Americans so they can afford a 
higher education for themselves and/or their children. Other good ideas 
which I have supported are the PASS A+ accounts for higher education 
included in last year's budget, and the administration's HOPE 
scholarship proposal, of which I was amongst the few members of the 
majority to champion. Although the various plans I have supported 
differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows 
individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education 
rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them 
some percentage of their tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.
  Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because 
politicians cannot exist imposing their preferred solutions for 
perceived ``problems'' on institutions dependent upon taxpayer dollars. 
The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of 
federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead 
to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by numerous 
provisions in HR 6. Clearly, federal funding is being used as an excuse 
to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary 
education.
  Federal spending, and thus federal control, are dramatically 
increased by HR 6. The entire bill has been scored as costing 
approximately $101 billion dollars over the next five years; an 
increase of over 10 billion from the levels a Democrat Congress 
Congress authorize for Higher Education programs in 1991!. Of course, 
actual spending for these programs may be greater, especially if the 
country experiences an economic downturn which increases the demand for 
federally-subsidized student loans.
  Mr. Chairman, one particular objectionable feature of the Higher 
Education Amendments is that this act creates a number of new federal 
programs, some of which where added to the bill late at night when few 
members where present to object.
  The most objectionable program is ``teacher training.'' The Federal 
Government has no constitutional authority to dictate, or 
``encourage,'' states and localities to adopt certain methods of 
education. Yet, this Congress is preparing to authorize the federal 
government to bribe states, with monies the federal government should 
never have taken from the people in the first place, to adopt teacher 
training methods favored by a select group of DC-based congressmen and 
staffers.
  As HR 6 was being drafted and marked-up, some Committee members did 
attempt to protect the interests of the taxpayers by refusing to 
support authorizing this program unless the spending was offset by cuts 
in other programs. Unfortunately, some members who might have otherwise 
opposed this program supported it at the Committee mark-up because of 
the offset.
  While having an offset for the teacher training program is superior 
to authorizing a new program, at least from an accounting perspective, 
supporting this program remains unacceptable for two reasons. First of 
all, just because the program is funded this year by reduced 
expenditures is no guarantee the same formula will be followed in 
future years. In fact, given the trend toward ever-higher expenditures 
in federal education programs, it is likely that the teacher training 
program will receive new funds over and above any offset contained in 
its authorizing legislation.
  Second, and more importantly, the 10th amendment does not prohibit 
federal control of education without an offset, it prohibits all 
programs that centralize education regardless of how they are funded. 
Savings from defunded education programs should be used for education 
tax cuts and credits, not poured into new, unconstitutional programs.
  Another unconstitutional interference in higher education within HR 6 
is the provision creating new features mandates on institutes of higher 
education regarding the reporting of criminal incidents to the general 
public. Once again, the federal government is using its funding of 
higher education to impose unconstitutional mandates on colleges and 
universities.
  Officials of the Texas-New Mexico Association of College and 
University Police Departments have raised concerns about some of the 
new requirements in this bill. Two provisions the association finds 
particularly objectionable are those mandating that campuses report 
incidents of arson and report students referred to disciplinary action 
on drug and alcohol charges. These officials are concerned these 
expanded requirements will lead to the reporting of minor offenses, 
such as lighting a fire in a trash can or a 19-year-old student caught 
in his room with a six-pack of beer as campus crimes, thus, distorting 
the true picture of the criminal activity level occurring as campus.
  The association also objects to the requirement that campus make 
police and security logs available to the general public within two 
business days as this may not allow for an intelligent interpretation 
of the impact of the availability of the information and may compromise 
an investigation, cause the destruction of evidence, or the flight of 
an accomplice. Furthermore, reporting the general location, date, and 
time for a crime may identify victims against their will in cases of 
sexual assault, drug arrests, and burglary investigations. The informed 
views of those who deal with campus crime on a daily basis should be 
given their constitutional due rather than dictating to them the 
speculations of those who sit in Washington and presume to mandate a 
uniform reporting system for campus crimes.
  Another offensive provision of the campus crime reporting section of 
the bill that has raised concerns in the higher education community is 
the mandate that any campus disciplinary proceeding alleging criminal 
misconduct shall be open. This provision may discourage victims, 
particularly women who have been sexually assaulted, from seeking 
redress through a campus disciplinary procedures for fear they will be 
put ``on display.'' For example, in a recent case, a student in Miami 
University in Ohio explained that she chose to seek redress over a 
claim of sexual assault ``* * * through the university, rather than the 
county prosecutor's office, so that she could avoid the publicity and 
personal discomfort of a prosecution * * *'' Assaulting the privacy 
rights of victimized students by taking away the option of a campus 
disciplinary proceeding is not only an unconstitutional mandate but 
immoral.
  This bill also contains a section authorizing special funding for 
programs in areas of so-called ``national need'' as designated by the 
Secretary of Education. This is little more than central planning, 
based on the fallacy that omnipotent ``experts'' can easily determine 
the correct allocation of education resources. However, basic economies 
teaches that a bureaucrat in Washington cannot determine ``areas of 
national need.'' The only way to know this is through the interaction 
of students, colleges, employers, and consumers operating in a free-
market, where individuals can decide what higher education is deserving 
of expending additional resources as indicated by employer workplace 
demand.
  Mr. Chairman, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 expand the 
unconstitutional role of the federal government in education by 
increasing federal control over higher education, as well as creating a 
new teacher training program. This bill represents more of the same, 
old ``Washington knows best'' philosophy that has so damaged American 
education over the past century. Congress should therefore reject this 
bill and instead join me in working to defund all unconstitutional 
programs and free Americans from the destructive tax

[[Page H2919]]

and monetary policies of the past few decades, thus making higher 
education more readily available and more affordable for millions of 
Americans.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6 
which reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965.
  Like the G.I. bill which provided a college opportunity to the 
returning WWII vets, the Higher Education Act has done more to expand 
post-secondary education than any other factor in our educational 
system or in society. The decision by the Congress in 1965 to make a 
college education a national priority has contributed to the economic 
success of our nation. Literally millions of students have been able to 
attain a college degree because of the federal grant and student loan 
programs authorized by the Higher Education Act. Most importantly these 
programs are targeted to disadvantaged students who would have no 
alternative means of paying for a college education.
  H.R. 6 continues the goal of expanding educational opportunity for 
all students, it lowers the cost of borrowing under the student loan 
program, expands early intervention efforts and includes provisions to 
address the special needs of women students.
  The cornerstone of the Higher Education Act is the Pell Grant program 
which provides up to $3,000 to help low-income students pay for 
college. The bill continues the commitment to the Pell Grant program by 
raising the authorized level of the maximum Pell Grant award from 
$3,000 in the school year 1998-99 to $5,100 by the year 2002.
  The agreement reached on the student loan interest rate assures that 
the cost of borrowing student loans will be greatly reduced for 
students. The new interest rate will be around 5.83% in 1998 for a 
student in school and a rate of around 7.43% for a student in 
repayment. The agreement also assures that financial institutions will 
continue to participate in the student loan program so that students 
will have access to student loans through a variety of lenders.
  Early intervention is also a key component of this legislation. We 
all know the benefits of existing programs such as TRIO, which assists 
at-risk high school students in achieving the academic tools necessary 
to attend college and providing support services such as tutoring and 
mentoring once they are in college to assure that they will stay in 
school.
  H.R. 6 includes a strong commitment to the TRIO program by increasing 
the authorization to $800 million. Currently TRIO programs are funded 
at $530 million. We now have a goal to fund this program at its full 
$800 million authorization level, so that we can expand programs to 
reach those areas that do not have the benefit of TRIO.
  We also added an important component to our early intervention 
efforts in the adoption of the High Hopes program, a Clinton 
Administration initiative which will fund a variety of early 
intervention efforts in middle schools in low income areas. This 
program will help close the gap between college enrollment among higher 
income families and low income families.
  H.R. 6 also includes provisions designed specifically to address the 
needs of women students. The bill increases the allowance for child 
care expenses in a student's cost of attendance from $750 to $1,500. 
This provision recognizes the high cost of child care and the impact it 
has on the overall resources a parent has to attend school.
  In another effort to assist students with young children, the bill 
authorizes $30 million for a new program to establish child care 
centers on college campuses. Also, I understand the Chairman of the 
Committee has agreed to include in his manager's amendment a grants for 
campus crime prevention. Unfortunately, women on college campuses are 
victims of violent crimes all to often. It is the responsibility of the 
institution to assist in making college safe for women. This grant 
program will assist in that effort.
  Of particular concern to the University of Hawaii is the 
International Education programs in Title VI of this bill. I am pleased 
we were able to work out a compromise on the issue of including both 
the International Education and Graduate Education programs in the same 
Title. The International Programs appear in a separate Part to make 
clear that there is no intention of consolidation of these programs. 
International education plays an increasingly important role in our 
society and we must prepare our students to work in a global society.
  Though I am in support of this bill, there are provisions that cause 
grave concern--specifically the elimination of the Patricia Roberts 
Harris Fellowship which is designed to give women and minorities with 
significant financial need opportunities in graduate education, 
particularly in the fields of study that women and minorities have 
traditionally been under represented such as the engineering and 
sciences.
  Although the committee intends this program to be consolidated in the 
Graduate Assistance Areas of National Need or GAANN program, I note 
that the GAANN program as amended by this bill has no component which 
assists women and minorities in fields in which they are under 
represented. The GAANN program if focused on provided assistance to 
those individuals who pursue fields of study in which there is a 
national need for more students. It has no focus on women or minority 
students. This is something I hope we can work out in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill moves us forward in expanding educational 
opportunities for our students. There has been much effort to make this 
a bi-partisan bill that everyone can be proud of. I urge my colleagues 
to support the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998, H.R. 6, and the tremendous help this bill 
will provide to our nation's higher education system. The students of 
today will be the leaders of tomorrow, and we owe it to them to provide 
the best possible opportunities for furthering their education beyond 
high school. In the global economy of today, our children will need 
more and better skills to compete with their counterparts from around 
the world. Congress can significantly help this effort by providing 
low-cost loans, more scholarship opportunities, and programs that 
encourage partnerships among all levels of government and educational 
institutions.
  There are a few provisions in H.R. 6 I would like to mention 
specifically that relate to the third district of Oregon which I 
represent. First is the Urban Community Service Grant program. Under 
this program, funds are made available to institutions to help link the 
assets of institutions such as Portland State University, attended by 
many of my constituents, to the needs of urban communities. This 
program is the only one in the Department of Education that speaks 
directly to urban institutions and has made a real difference for those 
institutions throughout the country.
  PSU's project is community-based and focuses on urban ecosystems. It 
serves more than 1,000 schoolchildren and demonstrates that learning 
the basics about mathematics, science, and social studies can involve 
``real work'' experiences through community service learning. In this 
project, curriculum topics arise from real issues identified by people 
in the community. As a result, students perceive their classroom 
experiences as relevant and are more motivated to participate in 
educational activities.
  Some examples of the work students performed include:
  Building and monitoring bird boxes for the Oregon Department of Fish 
and Wildlife;
  Discussing Portland's infamous combined sewage overflow problem with 
residents and disconnection of downspouts to help alleviate the 
problem; and
  Planting and maintaining a butterfly and bird garden.
  Parents, the business community, local government, and nonprofit 
organizations are involved in and contribute to the program's success. 
Volunteers work with students in an urban ecosystems environment to 
apply the fundamentals of science and math to projects that make a 
difference to the community. This program is unique because it 
addresses middle school children--those who are at an age when they 
will either succeed or fail in school--and their families.

  Second, I strongly support the Federal Financial aid provisions in 
the bill. I am pleased the bill ``fixes'' the independent student 
eligibility for Pell Grant issue. Last year's revisions to the tax code 
made one thing clear--access to higher education is key to the nation's 
ability to maintain economic competitiveness. Even more needs to be 
done to encourage those without financial resources to attend college. 
As Oregon's primary urban university, Portland State University serves 
many students who are independent or who have little or no family 
resources for a college education. At PSU, Federal financial aid means 
access. About 8,000 of our students receive financial aid, that's more 
than half of the student population. Clearly, more financial aid will 
mean more students will attend college.
  I also support the bill's position on lowering the interest rate on 
Student loans. PSU students are increasing their indebtedness to get a 
college degree. Since 1986-87, student borrowing at PSU has increased 
from $7.7 million to $43.9 million. This is due to a number of 
factors--the cost of education has risen, funding for grants has not 
keep pace with inflation, and loans are now available primarily to 
middle and upper income students. Although loans are made available to 
families who don't have savings or other resources for higher 
education, soaring amounts of debt are still placed on our students. 
The high level of indebtedness now associated with attending college is 
of concern to both myself and my constituents.
  I also support continued funding of the State student Incentive 
Grants (SSIG) program. This

[[Page H2920]]

program is important because it provides needed financial aid dollars 
to low- and working class students and it leverages state funds. While 
the Federal SSIG funds have declined, the Federal match is needed to 
help states maintain their commitment to providing state aid for 
students. At a time when states are facing tight budgets, the Federal 
match has prevented cuts in the states' share of financial aid. It has 
often made the difference to state legislatures around the country 
looking for ways to trim budgets.
  However, I am concerned about any provision added to the bill which 
would have the federal government interfere with the ability of 
colleges and universities to choose students as they see fit, 
regardless of their racial or ethnic heritage. The Congress should take 
every precaution to not interfere into policies of this nature. 
Admissions policies that take into account racial, ethnic and gender 
actors have widely been recognized as constitutional by the Supreme 
Court, and should not be subject to further Congressional meddling. I 
am hopeful this bill is passed without such harmful provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will go a long way towards addressing many 
students' needs in their pursuit of a college degree. It is the least 
we can do to prepare our children for the demands they will face in the 
real world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6, and hope for the 
bill's speedy passage by the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to 
extend the authorization of programs under the Higher Education Act of 
1965, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 411, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 4, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--4

     Campbell
     Crane
     Paul
     Schaffer, Bob

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bateman
     Carson
     Christensen
     Doyle
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (CA)
     McNulty
     Neumann
     Radanovich
     Schaefer, Dan
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Yates

                              {time}  2255

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________