Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 55 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)

[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.

____________________