Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 90 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 90 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7784-S7797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1998

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, There are few pieces of legislation as
important to American families as the bill we take up today--the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998.
I have been pleased and honored to work with the chairman and the
ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and with
Senator Coats of Indiana to put this bill together over the last year.
I appreciate the tremendous effort of Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy
and Senator Coats on this bill, which is going to move I think rather
expeditiously. There will be some amendments, but it is a tribute to
the efforts of the membership of this group and their staff that we
have reached a point where we have this very, very important piece of
legislation that has achieved as much harmony as it has. So I begin
these brief remarks by commending them and the staff members who have
put this bill together. And, together, we bring to the floor today a
strong, bipartisan bill--a bill that American families need and
deserve.
Mr. President, America has long been known as the land of promise. We
take great pride in that as Americans. Those words are used at every
national holidays--``a land of promise.'' I think the foundation of
that promise has been, during the more than two centuries of our
existence as a nation, education. A democracy as complicated, as
sophisticated, and as subtle as ours could not succeed without an
educated population. Education is also the root of our economic
strength. Without an educated population, you cannot remain on the
cutting edge of industry and business.
I think any successful national endeavor you talk about, Education is
a critical factor in its success. It is the central theme that has
created the kind of opportunity and success this Nation has enjoyed for
so many years--particularly, I would add, higher education. This is no
secret. Parents recognize that their child's success is, in no small
measure, dependent on his or her educational achievement. Statistics
bear this out. A person with a college degree earns twice as much as
one with just a high school education.
But this issue is not only a concern of families. Higher education
has also, as I said a moment ago, defined and shaped America's economy
in the post-World War II era. Our economy has grown on the strength of
knowledge-based, highly skilled industries and workers. This would not
have been possible without our unparalleled network of universities and
colleges and our Federal commitment to ensuring access to these
institutions of higher learning.
Since the GI bill, millions of Americans have been able to attend
college because of the assistance of their Federal Government. Today,
in fact, 75 percent of all student aid is Federal.
Unfortunately, families increasingly worry that college is slipping
beyond their grasp as college costs rise and student debt mounts.
Studies suggest that even with the nearly $35 billion of Federal aid
available each year, affordability is a significant factor for those at
all income levels. For middle-income families, college costs are
shaping students' decisions about where to attain their higher
education and what type of careers they intend to pursue. For the
neediest of students in our country, affordability of education is
already affecting the fundamental decision of whether to attend higher
education at all.
We cannot discuss the Higher Education Act, which is centrally about
ensuring access to higher education, without discussing cost. I firmly
believe that the choice of an institution, the choice of a career, and
the choice of whether to attend college at all should not be based
alone on the issue of cost--and for too many families today, it is.
Let's face it. Families are increasingly unable to cope with the cost
increases that we see in higher education. According to a survey
conducted by the American Council on Education, the public worries a
great deal about the cost of attending college. They believe that
college is too expensive, and they think that the cost can be brought
down without affecting academic quality.
When asked what concerned them most about their children's well-
being, respondents across this country in all income groups ranked
paying for college as the second biggest concern. Their largest concern
was use of illegal drugs. But right behind that was the cost of a
higher education.
Today, 4 years at one of our Nation's leading colleges can easily
total well over $120,000. Estimates are that the family of a child born
today who might enter college at age 18 in the year 2016 could easily
be looking at a cost of well over $250,000 for 4 years of college
education at one of our nation's leading universities. In nearly all
families, a

[[Page S7785]]

letter offering financial aid is as, if not more, important than the
actual letter of accepting the student into the college of their
choice.
In the last 20 years, from 1977 to 1997, college costs--tuition, room
and board--rose by an astounding 304 percent. During the same period,
inflation rose by roughly half that figure, 165 percent. Let's look at
just the tuition over the last 10 years.
Mr. President, I want to refer to a chart that will maybe help
explain this a bit more graphically. As this chart indicates, while
inflation between 1987 and 1996 rose by 38 percent, public 4-year
college education rose 132 percent; private 4-year institutions went up
99 percent; and public 2-year institution's cost rose 85 percent.
Again, I come back to the Consumer Price Index. It went up 38
percent, and yet you see in tuition and fees rose at a significantly
higher rate in every area of higher education, public and private, 2-
and 4-year institutions as well.
As a result of these increases in the price of attending college,
more and more students and families are going into debt in order to
finance postsecondary education.
We take the first important steps in this bill, in my view, to make
sure that the serious problem of rising college costs does not create a
new class of haves and have-nots in terms of access to postsecondary
education.

In particular, we have adopted many of the recommendations of the
Cost of College Commission formed by Congress last year. We streamlined
regulatory requirements that may contribute to those costs. Most
importantly, we adopted strong new disclosure requirements to assist
families and policymakers with cost issues.
Mr. President, let me tell you, we come back year after year to this
bill and this issue. And we do what I think we ought to do--we increase
the financing for Pell grants, which has been of tremendous help to
millions; we try to deal with student loan issues and make these
necessary burdens easier to bear.
The Senator from Massachusetts, who knows this as well as anyone in
this chamber, will tell you that he recalls it was not that many years
ago when we had, in overall terms, 80 percent of our aid in grants;
most students did not acquire debt as well as a diploma. We assisted
students because we thought it was the right thing to do; there was a
direct investment coming back. And 20 percent of our assistance to
students was in the form of loans.
Today, those numbers are reversed. Students now rely on loans for
over 80 percent of their aid. And so we come back each year. We get
involved in the student aid issue, the Pell grant issue, a lot of other
factors. At some point, we have to come back to these institutions and
say: Look, how does it happen? How is it that the Consumer Price Index
goes up 38 percent and yet your public 4-year institution has risen 132
percent in the same 10-year period, in 20 years up 304 percent, as
opposed to a CPI number of 165 percent?
We can't come back here every 5 years and continue to monkey around
with the student loan issue and to continue to try to come up with ways
to meet the needs here as we watch debt accumulate and students making
the choice to not go to college. We are seeing that today with a lot of
needy students. They just decide they can't take on the financial
burden. What a great outrage, what a great loss to all of us.
So I am not suggesting there is any simple answer to this question,
but one of the things that I like so much about this bill we have put
together is that we are going to take a really hard look at this for
the first time. This is not to suggest there may be some very clear
answers as to why costs are rising. But this bill will finally help
answer this central question.
We take several specific steps in the key area. First, our bill
ensures that families will have the information they need to become
good consumers when it comes to higher education. Today, you may be
able to find cost figures for different institutions, but often times
they don't match up and are hard to compare. The American Council on
Education survey also revealed that the public does not know how much
financial aid is available to help pay college bills, where it does
come from, or how to get it.
These new disclosure provisions will provide families with timely,
reliable, and comparable information on college costs as well as the
availability of financial aid and educational loans for students who
attend each institution so that they can exercise their power as
consumers to choose institutions that are of high quality and of
reasonable cost.
Secondly, Mr. President, the bill requires new information for
policymakers on costs, including trends across and within sectors. Over
the next few years, the National Center for Education Statistics will
conduct a national study to examine how expenditures at institutions of
higher education change over time, how such expenditures relate to
college costs and ultimately the price of tuition for students. This
study will attempt to explain why the price to obtain a higher
education for each student has increased so much faster than the price
for the institutions to provide an education for each student. Let me
explain it in this chart here, if I can. From 1987-1997, the price for
a public institution to instruct each student increased by 57 percent,
but during that same period of time the price for each student to
attend a public institution increased by 132 percent.
It is critical that this grave disparity be explained before policy
makers can adequately address the issue of containing college costs.
Finally, we ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish a market
basket for higher education that will finally give us some clue as to
what costs are reasonable.
These are crucial first steps that will help fill the knowledge gap
on cost. But we must make sure these disclosure provisions work. The
committee adopted an amendment that I offered to ensure that there are
strong enforcement tools, such as a $25,000 fine to ensure that
institutions cooperate in providing accurate information. Again, I
don't have any reason to believe they won't. I am confident these
institutions will want to participate in this kind of analysis. But
just in case there are some who are reluctant, a little incentive is
not a bad idea.
These provisions on college costs put colleges on notice that we are
watching and we are not going to let pricing policies put college
beyond the reach of too many Americans. It is far too important to them
and, quite candidly, as has been said before, it is vitally important
to all of us in this Nation.
This legislation also strengthens Federal financial aid programs
which are lifelines to families who struggle with cost increases. We
authorize an increase in the maximum Pell grant award and hope the
appropriators and the budget committees will follow through with
adequate funds. We also adjust the treatment of the neediest students'
earnings to ensure that their families are not penalized in the award
of aid because the students work, as I recommended in earlier
legislation. We also expand campus-based aid programs like College
Work-Study and low-cost Perkins Loans, to reach more students. We
improve Federal student loan programs, providing extended repayment
periods for students with large loan balances and by giving colleges
more tools to help their students avoid expensive loans.
Most significantly, students are also guaranteed a substantially
lower student loan interest rate. As the average debt of a student
mounts to nearly $12,000 on average across the country, the relief that
this nearly 1 point reduction in interest rates offers should not be
undervalued. Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking Democrat,
Senator Kennedy, for being leaders on this issue and making a
difference here that is going to save each student borrower in my State
an average of $640. It could mean as much as $3,200 to those students
who borrow for graduate and professional degrees. But for a family
trying to make ends meet, $650 a year for a student loan is a lot of
money. This will make a big, big difference.
Not surprisingly, the issue of student loan interest rate has been
the most controversial and closely followed issue in this bill. I am
very pleased that the solution we put forward today ensures that
students will receive the long-term benefit substantially lower rates.
However, I am disappointed that this bill expects taxpayers to bear
much of the cost with a new subsidy to

[[Page S7786]]

banks. I am unsure whether subsidizing the banks' returns on student
loans is ultimately the best way to ensure affordability for our
nation's students.
The legislation also takes important steps to address the needs of
non-traditional students, whose participation in higher education is
rising at an impressive rate.
We include new authority for the Secretary to explore the potential
of distance learning. In the past, distance education too often meant
correspondence courses with little merit and high cost. Today, the
Internet, the World Wide Web and other emerging technologies offer new
opportunities for quality, interactive learning right from a student's
home. However, current law provides little opportunity for institutions
and their students to explore these exciting opportunities. This bill
broadly expands these opportunities and directs the Secretary to
undertake and carefully monitor a demonstration program in distance
education. I think this provision will be vitally important in meeting
the needs of nontraditional students pursuing higher education.
The bill also includes another important initiative to increase
access to post-secondary education--the Child Care Access Means Parents
in Schools Act, which I authored with Senator Snowe. This bill will
support campus-based child care centers meeting the needs of those
nontraditional students who have children of their own. The face of
college has changed. One of the key obstacles many of today's students
face is locating affordable, quality child care. Campuses are a key
place to meet this need. In Connecticut--I am sure it is true across
the country--when you visit good college campuses, you find they build
child care centers right into the campus design. This initiative will
help strengthen these efforts and expand the reach of these critical
programs.
Finally, this bill addresses the training of teachers. Colleges, of
course, are our Nation's laboratories for teachers. This bill offers
significant new support in this area. We have all worked hard to
resolve the competing concerns and differing approaches, and the
result, I believe, is a strong, comprehensive teacher training program
that support state level initiatives and local partnerships. This two-
track approach will ensure that colleges and schools that work together
to improve teacher training will be rewarded at the state level with
recognition for achieving higher standards. In another important
initiative for teachers, this bill offers loan forgiveness for teachers
working in high poverty schools. This effort will provide high
qualified teachers with a powerful incentive to share their talents,
skills and knowledge with the neediest children.
Beyond bringing student aid programs in line with today's realities,
we take a key step to modernize and to improve the crucial student aid
programs with the creation of a Performance-Based Organization within
the Department of Education. This office will administer and deliver
all Federal student aid. At nearly $35 billion a year, the complexity
of this undertaking demands talent, energy, experience, and
performance. This PBO, this Performance-Based Organization, will, I
believe, ensure the Secretary of Education can recruit the best people
for this job and retain them based on their performance.
It is not a perfect bill. That probably has been said by others. But
it really is a very sound effort to deal with cost and shore up federal
financial assistance, to deal with the issue of the nontraditional
students, and to deal with the issue of teaching in our country. It
sets us on the right road for the 21st century--putting in place strong
federal policy to help make the promise of higher education a reality
for more American families.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield for a brief
observation for a minute or two?
Mr. GREGG. Without losing the floor, I will yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. For purposes of Members' schedules--perhaps after the
Senator from New Hampshire, to indicate--we have a number of our
colleagues here who have been very, very cooperative, working with the
leadership to try to bring their amendments up. They have been working
with us so we could move this along. Now it will be set aside from 2
o'clock to 4. That includes the Senator from California, Senator
Feinstein, with whom we have worked. We want to be able to accept her
amendment; Senator Graham as well. Senator Wellstone is prepared to
move on ahead.
I hope, just without asking consent--I will, if I might, ask that, if
it is agreeable with the manager--I don't want to foreclose the process
of moving back and forth--but it would seem, if it was agreeable to the
floor manager, after the Senator from New Hampshire is recognized that
we move ahead with the Senator from California, the Senator from
Florida, and then the Senator from Minnesota, if that is agreeable?
Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senators who are managing the bill for
purposes of addressing this issue, but I note I am aware the Senator
from Indiana also wishes to speak.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would just say I want to expedite the
movement of the bill by all possible means.
The people who are here should be recognized in an appropriate order,
and I have no problem with the suggestion that was made. My good friend
from New Hampshire has worked so long and hard on this bill and has
been an important factor in getting this to a position where it can be
expeditiously passed. I look forward to listening to his statement
first.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire--
Mr. KENNEDY. Can I ask that as a unanimous consent request?
Mr. GREGG. I yield for purposes of propounding a unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from New Hampshire yield?
Mr. GREGG. Solely for the purpose of asking consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request made by the Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object. I withdraw it. I withdraw it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield
for a unanimous consent request for floor privileges?
Mr. GREGG. I will yield to the Senator from Florida to make a
unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire yields with the
understanding that he retains the floor.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a
congressional fellow in my office, Neymi Aponte, and three interns,
Gilberto Sanchez, Rachel Milstein and Jennie Beysolow, be allowed the
privilege of the floor for the duration of this speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill and also to
express my appreciation and respect for the leaders of this committee
in developing this bill. I know Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Coats and Senator Dodd have spent an immense amount of time on
this and have done an extraordinarily good job of pulling together a
strong bill which will ensure we continue a major commitment--a very
significant commitment--to those people in our Nation who are attending
school and use Federal resources to assist them in attending school.
We understand rather well that our Nation, especially in the New
England region, depends, for our energy and our productivity, on
basically people's creativity and their brain power. In New Hampshire,
for example, we don't have any natural resources that produce great
wealth, such as oil or large farmlands or mineral deposits. Our great
natural resource in our State, and much of this country, is the
wonderful minds of the people who work in our State and who produce
products and, as a result of producing those products,

[[Page S7787]]

which are competitive around the world, create prosperity, jobs and a
good lifestyle.
The key to that, of course, is quality education, and first-class
education depends on having students who have the ability to pick and
choose among colleges and are able to afford the college of their
choice to attend. In order to accomplish that, they have to have
support, in many instances.
As the Senator from Connecticut so precisely outlined, the cost of
quality education is going up dramatically, much faster than the price
of most products in this country; in fact, almost 100 percent faster
than the cost-of-living index over the last few years.
What is driving that cost, we are not absolutely sure. There are many
of us who have opinions on it, but we are not sure. One thing we know
is because those costs are going up quickly, it is becoming harder and
harder to pay for college education. This bill is an attempt to address
that and make sure students have available to them the resources
necessary for a first-class college education.
As has been alluded to--this bill is filled with a lot of excellent
ideas and many have already been outlined--but as has been alluded to,
the core issue, the most important provision in this bill is the change
in the student loan interest rates. Students who want to receive a
higher education but must take out loans to do so will have a better
chance in succeeding when they get out of school because the cost of
paying back those loans will be less because the interest rates will
have been cut, and that is a major step, a positive step in the right
direction.
In addition to cutting the rates, we also cut the amount the Federal
Government pays to support the lenders who supply the loans. As you
know, lenders currently make very little money on student loans--many
people know this, anyway--and the high cost of administration, however,
that is tied to student loans has been reduced in this bill and, as a
result, we not only cut the rate that it costs students to borrow money
to go to college but we also cut the actual amount that lenders are
going to make.

The big debate was whether or not we would cut it even further. The
issue really wasn't whether or not these costs of administration should
be cut further, the issue really came down to a question of whether or
not we were going to shift from a system which had two competing arenas
in which you could get a loan--a direct loan from the Federal
Government or private loan from a private lender, to a single provider
of loans--basically the Government.
For those of us who have seen the Government function under the
Direct Student Loan Program, we have seen a dramatic and considerable
risk to the entire loan portfolio, the ability of students to get loans
if they were only given the option of going to the Federal Government.
We wanted to make sure that this adjustment in loan rate was done in a
way that maintained the viable private market.
In New Hampshire, for example, 96 percent--96 percent--of all the
students go through a private loan process rather than through the
direct loan process. So you can see that if a direct loan is their only
avenue, it will actually create chaos. We know that to be a fact. Just
last year when the Direct Loan Program was gearing up and was supposed
to be ready and able to take care of the amount of activity that was
being applied under the Direct Loan Program, we in the Congress had to
pass an emergency bill to basically bail out the Direct Loan Program of
the Federal Government which was already in chaos even though it hadn't
even gotten up to, I think, much more than 25, 30 percent at that point
in student loans, which is approximately where it is right now.
We know for a fact that the Direct Loan Program has some serious,
serious problems. Not only that, but we are seeing that some of these
problems, independent of the fact that they simply can't handle the
volume of loans that will occur were the private sector driven out of
the market, part of these problems are tied to their administrative
activity.
The cost of the administration in the Direct Loan Program has gone up
dramatically. By ``administration,'' I am talking about compensation,
travel and operational costs. It has gone up almost 143 percent, I
believe is the number, even though the number of loans have only gone
up by something around 35 percent during this same period.
The increase in the administrative overhead is a classic example of
what happens, of course, when you have a Federal agency involved, when
there is very little accountability in the area of administrative
overhead and you have a huge bureaucracy which is dominated not by a
desire to be efficient, but by a desire basically to create work, in
many instances, and to be an agency which covers itself on every issue
and creates bureaucrats for purposes of watching bureaucrats.
The whole issue in this bill, or the core issue in this bill was how
we were going to balance private loan programs with the Direct Loan
Program. We did finally reach an understanding on that, and it is a
reasonable understanding. It is going to cost us money, but, in the
end, it will allow us to give to students the most important item,
which is a lower interest rate, and at the same time maintain a
competitive marketplace where there will be pressure on the Federal
Government's program, the direct lending program, to be more efficient
because it will be competing with the private sector programs which
have to be efficient in order to survive. That is a very big plus that
that decision was made in this way.
There are a couple of other issues that were put into this bill I was
actively involved in, and I want to address also one the Senator from
Minnesota brought to our attention. That was the violence on campuses,
especially directed at women. He had an amendment in committee that
addressed this and created a program authorizing, under the Violence
Against Women Act, $10 million to be set aside for the purposes of
looking at the problem we now have on colleges.

Unfortunately, it is a serious problem. It has been seen here in the
Capital region and the University of Maryland. I doubt there is a major
college in this country that has not experienced a series of violent
acts relative to women on campuses.
So not only did the Senator from Minnesota bring the idea forward,
but it seemed to me to be such a good idea in the appropriations bill
which I fund, we are going to be funding the idea. This may be the
fastest funded authorization that has happened around here in a long
time. But there will be $10 million spent relative to violence against
women on campuses.
Another issue which is in this bill that I think deserves some
mention is the fact that it addresses the issue of the use of drugs by
students. The Senator from Connecticut was accurate. He said, in
polling parents, the concern of the cost of education was listed as
their No. 2 concern relative to how they are going to handle their
children when they are growing up. He also mentioned that the No. 1
concern is if their children will become involved with drugs, and
illegal drugs specifically.
This bill reflects that concern. It says that taxpayers should not be
carrying the burden of supporting a student who has taken the
irresponsible activity of using and being found to be guilty of using
an illegal drug. Basically, it says that if you are caught using an
illegal drug, and you are convicted of using an illegal drug, then you
lose your eligibility for a student loan--on a first offense for 1
year; on a second offense for 2 years; and on a third offense
indefinitely.
You can avoid this if you, as a student, go through a properly
approved, satisfactory drug rehabilitation program. And the Secretary
has the capacity to set up the regulations as to what will be a
satisfactory drug rehabilitation program. So you can mute the effect of
this, but essentially it sends a very clear message to students that if
they are going to obtain the benefit--having the taxpayers of this
country support them when they are in college through giving them
basically a subsidized loan--then they are going to have to be
responsible in the manner in which they pursue their academic careers
and not use illegal drugs. This is, I think, a major step forward in
delivering the correct philosophical position on the question of using
drugs.

[[Page S7788]]

So this, on balance, is a good bill. It moves in the right direction.
It confirms and energizes and reinforces programs which have proven to
be extraordinarily successful. Again, I congratulate the leadership of
the committee for bringing it forward.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 3107

(Purpose: To provide the Secretary of Education with discretionary
authority to extend, on a case-by-case basis, Federal Pell Grant aid to
teaching students enrolled in postbaccalaureate courses required by
State law for teacher certification)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join with those who have
congratulated the committee for what I consider to be really a fine
higher education bill. I want to extend my personal congratulations,
representing Californians, both to the chairman and the ranking member
of this committee.
This is a bill that really meets the needs of the day with respect to
higher education. And I think we can all, hopefully, support it with
great pride and enthusiasm.
I have been very involved in education in California because I have
seen this great State, once in the lead, sink to below mediocrity in
terms of its K-through-12 education system. And there are many reasons
for it that the Federal Government cannot control, decisions that have
to be made by the State itself, such as eliminating social promotion,
setting specific standards of achievement for students in each of the
grades, no-nonsense tests, remedial programs, and so on. But one thing
the Federal Government can do is provide funds to help with the
development of good teachers. And that is what this bill does and does
so well.

I want to bring to the attention of the Senate one anomaly which the
amendment I am about to send to the desk seeks to address. And that is
that in the Pell grant program, there are two States that require a 5th
year of teacher education. One of those States is New Hampshire; the
other State is California. New Hampshire provides the 5th year before
the baccalaureate degree and California requires the 5th year after the
baccalaureate degree, ergo, California's higher education students are
not currently eligible for Pell grants. And so, if I may, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 3107.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 417, line 17, insert ``(i)'' after ``(B)''.
On page 417, line 19, insert ``or clause (ii)'' after
``subparagraph (A)''.
On page 417, line 23, strike the end quotation marks and
``; and''.
On page 417, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
``(ii) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), the Secretary may
allow, on a case-by-case basis, a student to receive a basic
grant if the student--

``(I) is carrying at least \1/2\ the normal full-time work
load for the course of study the student is pursuing, as
determined by the institution of higher education; and
``(II) is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a
postbaccalaureate program that does not lead to a graduate
degree, and in courses required by a State in order for the
student to receive a professional certification or licensing
credential that is required for employment as a teacher in an
elementary school or secondary school in that State,

except that this subparagraph shall not apply to a student
who is enrolled in an institution of higher education that
offers a baccalaureate degree in education.''; and

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the clerk.
Mr. President, this amendment is sent to the desk on behalf of
Senator Boxer and myself. Essentially, what this amendment would do is
authorize the U.S. Secretary of Education to award, on a case-by-case
basis, Pell grants for students taking a 5th year of postbaccalaureate
teacher education courses in order to get a teaching credential in a
State that requires a 5th year.
This was brought to my attention, Mr. President, by the new
chancellor of the California State University, Dr. Charles B. Reed. I
want to just read an opening paragraph.

When I came to the California State University in March of
this year, I established as a top system priority
strengthening and improving the quality of our teacher
preparation programs. Over the next decade, in California
alone, we will need an additional 250,000 new K-12 classroom
teachers. In addition to our changing demographics, the
shortage of teachers in California is particularly acute due
to the State's classroom size reduction initiative. . . .

The Governor of our State has quite rightly determined that K through
3 should have class sizes of not more than 20 students per teacher.
This is a real improvement and, of course, it will mean that more
teachers will be necessary in the future. Additionally, there is an
extraordinarily large number of teachers who are due to retire over the
next 10 to 20 years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in
the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So the amendment simply authorizes the U. S.
Department of Education, on a case-by-case basis, to award a Pell grant
to a needy student that wants to get a teaching credential, but needs
that 5th year required by the state. We all know that even 4 years of
college is costly, and many students cannot afford it. That is the
rationale, the purpose, and the foundation of the Pell Grant program.
Well, if you cannot afford 4 years, you likely cannot afford a 5th
year. Therefore, we lose teachers because young people cannot afford
that 5th year. And it is one of the reasons why today in California we
have 21,000 teachers who are not credentialed. This would permit, on a
case-by-case basis, a Pell grant to be granted to a needy student for
that 5th year.
These students in California would get a bachelor's degree in an
academic subject, such as biology or French or whatever it is, and then
take a 5th year in teacher education. That 5th year consists of
learning teaching methods and of student or practice teaching.
The American Council on Education, a consortium of all the higher
education groups, has said, ``These students [in California] who want
to teach are unfairly caught in a state requirement `catch-22' and
should not be penalized as a result.''
One of the central purposes of the higher education bill is to
strengthen teacher education. And it is long overdue; and it is well
met by this bill. I think we can all be very proud of the vote we will
cast.
Title II authorizes new grants to States and to institutions to
reform and toughen teacher training. Once again, California may well be
leading the way because requiring this fifth year is also a good way to
strengthen teacher education.

According to the National Commission on Teaching, each dollar spent
on improving teacher qualifications nets greater gains in student
learning than any other use of the education dollar. This study and
others have found that teacher quality is very uneven through this
country. Just last week, in the ranking member's State, Massachusetts,
the state Board of Education said that 56 percent of their teachers
failed the State's first basic reading and writing test for teachers.
Nationwide, over one-quarter of newly hired teachers lack the
qualifications for their jobs according, again, to the Teaching
Commission.
Studies also show that unprepared or underprepared teachers simply
don't stick it out. They are more likely to leave teaching after a few
years. In my State, California, 30 percent of the teachers leave after
their first 2 years; after 5 years, almost half of California's
teachers have left. A November 1997 report of the California Advisory
Panel on teacher education found in hard-to-staff schools as many as
half of all beginning teachers leave teaching permanently after only 3
years in the classroom. That is shocking to me. Among underprepared
teachers, this attrition rate climbs to two-thirds. What this is saying
is that if a teacher isn't prepared, doesn't have the qualifications,
doesn't have the teaching skills and aptitude, two-thirds of them leave
within 3 years. This undermines education.
There is a precedent for the approach of this amendment. Congress
gave the Secretary the authority to award year-long Pell grants,
similar to what this amendment does, in 1992.
I want just quickly to make a few other comments on the teacher
shortage and why this amendment is important. We have, as I said,
21,000 teachers

[[Page S7789]]

in California on emergency credentials. That is 1 out of every 11
teachers. Half of California's math and science teachers didn't minor
in those subjects in college, but they are still teaching. That is
wrong. In Los Angeles, according to a U.S. News & World Report article
last October, ``New teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a former
clown, and several chiropractors.''
This is a situation that shouldn't exist. It exists because there are
not enough teachers. Therefore, emergency credentials are granted and
these credentials can go on for 10 or 15 years and be granted to people
who are really not qualified to teach. They are certainly not
credentialled to teach.
The need for good teachers is exacerbated by the fact that we need
these new teachers in the next decade because public school enrollment
in California is growing at triple the national rate. In California,
the need for new teachers is triple the national rate.
I am hopeful that this amendment would be accepted by this Senate.
The amendment is going to be particularly helpful to prospective
teachers enrolled at California State University. This is an
institution today which prepares 60 percent of my State's teaching
force. At this university, 48 percent of the students are Pell-grant
eligible and the average Pell grant is $1,200 to $1,500. The University
of California has 1,200 candidates for a teaching credential each year,
and one-third are eligible for Pell grants. Thus, 400 UC students could
benefit from a fifth year Pell grant each year.
Essentially, this amendment is going to encourage more needy students
to stick it out, to get that teaching credential, to do that fifth year
at the university. That means that our young elementary and secondary
students are going to be better served because they will have a teacher
in the classroom who is qualified to teach. I, frankly, believe and
would propose and urge the California Legislature to eliminate all
emergency credentials by the year 2005 and be able to provide that the
California teacher corps, K-12, is essentially 100 percent
credentialled. But they will not be able to get there unless this body
is willing to pass this amendment today.
Again, in summary, California requires a fifth year. These students
are not eligible for Pell grants for the fifth year. Forty-eight
percent of the students who would go into teaching need these grants.
We need 250,000 new teachers. We currently have 21,000 teachers
teaching who are not qualified to teach, who are teaching on so-called
emergency credentials. The quality of education, its excellence and its
accountability, I believe, will be heightened by this amendment.
I thank both the chairman and the ranking member. I am hopeful you
will accept the amendment.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit No. 1

The California State University,

Long Beach, CA, July 8, 1998.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: When I came to the California State
University in March of this year, I established as a top
system priority strengthening and improving the quality of
our teacher preparation programs. Over the next decade, in
California alone, we will need an additional 250,000 new K-12
classroom teachers. In addition to our changing demographics,
the shortage of teachers in California is particularly acute
due to the State's classroom size reduction initiative,
together with the large number of teachers who are expected
to retire over the next 10-20 years.
As you know, one in eleven California teachers is teaching
under an emergency certificate or waiver. Although the State
of California requires that prospective teachers complete a
5th year of classroom preparation and pedagogy following
receipt of their baccalaureate degree in order to become
fully credentialed, these 5th-year students--who are
considered neither undergraduate nor graduate students--lack
access to federal grant aid. Your Pell Grant amendment to S.
1882 would go a long way to encourage financially needy
students to persist in their studies so that they may become
fully certified to teach in California's K-12 schools--rather
than deferring completion of their requisite 5th year while
teaching under an emergency certificate.
Indeed, those who enter the classroom without the necessary
preparation are more likely to permanently leave the
profession. In its November 1997 report to the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Advisory Panel on
Teacher Education, Induction and Certification for Twenty-
First Century Schools states, ``In many hard-to-staff
schools, as many as half of all beginning teachers leave
teaching permanently after only three years in the classroom.
Among under-prepared new teachers, this attrition rate climbs
to two-thirds.''
On behalf of the California State University, which
prepares more than half of the 18,000 new teachers
credentialed in California each year, I wish to express my
appreciation for your efforts to ensure that California's
21st Century teachers have access to the federal financial
assistance they need to become fully prepared to provide all
of California's children with the quality education they
deserve.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Charles B. Reed,
Chancellor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. First of all, I thank the Senator from California for
working closely with us in order for us to help out the State. I
understand the special circumstances involved in the State of
California makes it different than the other 49 States in this regard,
but the amendment has been carefully crafted so that it is acceptable
to this side of the aisle.
We believe they should have the opportunity to provide Pell Grant
assistance in the fifth year, which is generally seen, perhaps, now, as
a necessary aspect of getting the teachers fully qualified for many of
the areas they teach.
I have no objections on this side of the aisle to the amendment. It
is accepted as far as the majority is concerned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge we accept this amendment. It is
basically completely consistent with what we are attempting to do with
the legislation; that is, to put a high priority on enhancing teacher
training and the qualification of teachers and enhance educational
background for teachers. That is what this program is directed towards
with the program that has been fashioned and shaped in California.
This is basically not a graduate school program. It is just a
continuation of a program that happens to take 5 years. There is an
issue of whether we want to use the Pell funding for graduate
education. I think those are policy issues that deserve a good deal of
consideration, but this really doesn't fall in that category. It falls
into a category where we are getting a very advanced kind of training
program for young people who are going into teaching. This lasts over
more of an extended period of time than in other parts of the country.
This amendment is fashioned and shaped on a case-by-case method to make
sure the program is going to be contained and targeted in ways that are
absolutely consistent with the legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to urge our side to accept the amendment,
and I thank the Senator from California for bringing it to our
attention. Obviously, we didn't want those young people disadvantaged.
We are, again, talking about needy students who will have gone to
school for a long period of time. These are extraordinary young men and
women who will continue over the fifth year to be eligible for Pell
Grants. These are people who are really dedicated and committed. In
terms of teaching, I think they are a unique group of young people. We
certainly should not discourage them from their careers in education.
I urge the Senate to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3107) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3109

(Purpose: To amend section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
to increase public awareness concerning crime on college and university
campuses)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Specter,
proposes an amendment numbered 3109.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 550, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

[[Page S7790]]

(4) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by
amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: ``(A) For
purposes of this section the term `campus' means--
``(i) any building or property owned or controlled by an
institution of higher education within the same reasonably
contiguous geographic area of the institution, including a
building or property owned by the institution, but controlled
by another person, such as a food or other retail vendor;
``(ii) any building or property owned or controlled by a
student organization recognized by the institution;
``(iii) all public property that is within the same
reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution,
such as a sidewalk, a street, other thoroughfare, or parking
facility, that is adjacent to a facility owned or controlled
by the institution;
``(iv) any building or property (other than a branch
campus) owned or controlled by an institution of higher
education that is used in direct support of, or in relation
to, the institution's educational purposes, is used by
students, and is not within the same reasonably contiguous
geographic area of the institution; and
``(v) all dormitories or other student residential
facilities owned or controlled by the institution.'';
On page 553, line 25, strike the end quotation marks and
the second period.
On page 553, after line 25, insert the following:
``(10)(A) The Secretary shall report to the appropriate
committees of Congress each institution of higher education
that the Secretary determines is not in compliance with the
reporting requirements of this subsection.
``(B) The Secretary shall provide to an institution of
higher education that the Secretary determines is having
difficulty, or is not in compliance, with the reporting
requirements of this subsection--
``(i) data and analysis regarding successful practices
employed by institutions of higher education to reduce campus
crime; and
``(ii) technical assistance.
``(11) For purposes of reporting the statistics described
in paragraphs (1)(F) and (1)(H), an institution of higher
education shall distinguish, by means of separate categories,
any criminal offenses that occur--
``(A) on publicly owned sidewalks, streets, or other
thoroughfares, or in parking facilities, that are adjacent to
facilities owned by the institution; and
``(B) in dormitories or other residential facilities for
students on campus.
``(12)(A) Upon determination, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for a hearing on the record, that an institution
of higher education--
``(i) has violated or failed to carry out any provision of
this subsection or any regulation prescribed under this
subsection; or
``(ii) has substantially misrepresented the number,
location, or nature of the crimes required to be reported
under this subsection,

the Secretary shall impose a civil penalty upon the
institution of not to exceed $25,000 for each violation,
failure, or misrepresentation.
``(B) Any civil penalty may be compromised by the
Secretary. In determining the amount of such penalty, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of the
penalty to the size of the institution of higher education
subject to the determination, and the gravity of the
violation, failure, or misrepresentation shall be considered.
The amount of such penalty, when finally determined, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any
sums owing by the United States to the institution charged.
``(13)(A) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to--
``(i) create a cause of action against any institution of
higher education or any employee of such an institution for
any civil liability; or
``(ii) establish any standard of care.
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence
regarding compliance or noncompliance with this subsection
shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any
court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to
an action to enforce this subsection
``(14) This subsection may be cited as the `Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act'.''.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
Senator Specter. I believe it is an excellent amendment.
First of all, I commend Senator Specter for the tremendous work he
has done in the field of education. And as chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee that handles education as well as many
other very difficult subjects, he has done an extremely capable job of
ensuring a good balance in all of the programs he handles. I commend
him and I am pleased to have him back with us in the Senate. He was
unable to be here at this particular time, so I am offering this
amendment on his behalf.

Mr. President, since the last reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act, crime on our college and university campuses has continued to be a
major concern. In a 1997 report on campus crime, the National Center
for Education Statistics noted the following:

During each of the 3 years between 1992 and 1994,
institutions reported a total of about 10,000 violent crimes
and up to 40,000 property crimes. For 1994, the individual
crime composition for violent crimes was about 20 murders,
about 1,300 forcible sex offenses, 3,100 robberies, and 5,100
cases of aggravated assault. In the property crime category,
institutions reported 28,800 burglaries and 9,000 motor
vehicle thefts in 1994. In 1994, institutions reported about
20,400 arrests for liquor law violations, and about 7,200
arrests for drug abuse violations, and about 2,000 arrests
for weapons possession.

From 1995 to 1996, for example, reports of murder, sexual offenses,
and liquor- and drug-related violations for large universities
increased substantially. It is not necessarily the case that crimes
have gotten worse but perhaps that reporting has gotten better. Reports
of crimes have continued to grow, but some institutions have still been
less than diligent in accurately reporting campus crime statistics.
Every Member should be greatly concerned by these campus crime
statistics. I am pleased that the Senate Labor Committee has made what
I think are great strides in improving campus crime provisions in the
1998 Higher Education Act amendments. We have added to the list of
crimes to be reported. We have enabled information about students'
criminal records to become publicly accessible. We have required
institutions of higher learning to maintain daily logs of crimes on
campuses. With the help of Senator Torricelli, we have strengthened the
reporting of hate crimes on campuses.
With the assistance of Senators Gregg and Wellstone, we created a
competitive grant program to help institutions of higher education
develop and strengthen the effective security and investigation
strategies to combat violent crimes against women on campuses.
The amendment being offered by Senator Specter today provides an
absolutely essential addition to the campus crime provisions in the
Higher Education Act. His leadership on this issue is much appreciated.
With his meticulous crafting, he has substantially improved the
definition of ``campus'' for the purpose of reporting campus crime
statistics. When Senator Specter held his campus crime hearing, he
discovered that if a crime was committed on a sidewalk within the
perimeters of a university, that institution was not required to report
the incident in their campus crime statistics. Obviously, the law
needed clarification, and I applaud Senator Specter in his superb
efforts. His efforts create a careful balance.
This amendment minimizes additional reporting burdens to institutions
of higher education while at the same time providing students and other
members of campus communities with needed information to help improve
their awareness about campus security issues. Such information, for
example, can be used to help people make more conscious decisions about
walking alone in particular areas or making sure to walk with a friend
on or near a campus at night.
This amendment makes four changes in the statute. As I mentioned, it
modifies the definition of ``campus'' to include additional areas that
must be included in campus crime statistics. It requires the Secretary
of Education to report to Congress when institutions of higher
education are not in compliance with campus crime reporting
requirements. It gives the Department of Education the explicit
authority to impose fines if institutions substantially misrepresent
information about campus crimes. And it renames the campus crime
section of the bill after Jeanne Clery, the woman who died tragically
at Lehigh University in 1986 as a result of a brutal campus crime. The
Clery family has been instrumental in creating a national awareness and
focus on campus crime over the past decade. Both Senator Specter and I
are indebted to their service in helping Congress craft these
provisions.
Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer this on behalf of Senator
Specter. I ask for its adoption.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in urging adoption of this
amendment. The original campus security amendment was offered by
Senator Bradley of New Jersey and myself some 6 years ago. This
recognizes some of the areas where there have been loopholes in the
interpretation of that amendment. Senator Specter has done good work in
helping all of us to make sure that

[[Page S7791]]

we are going to have safe campuses. Students cannot learn unless they
are have safe campuses. There are important loopholes that Senator
Specter has identified and additional kinds of reporting requirements
and a small enforcement mechanism, but an effective one. This is a
good, solid amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to thank the
Managers for agreeing to accept my amendment on campus crime reporting,
which is based on legislation (S. 2100) I introduced on May 20, 1998.
As a lead sponsor of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of
1990, I have been very concerned about what I perceive as the
Department of Education's ineffective implementation of the Act's crime
offense reporting requirements. On March 5, 1998, I held an oversight
hearing on campus security issues as Chairman of the Senate Labor,
Health, and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee.
At that hearing, Assistant Secretary for postsecondary Education David
Longanecker testified that the Department does not require colleges to
report offenses occurring on sidewalks, streets and other public lands
within what ordinarily would be considered a ``campus.'' He also
testified that buildings which are owned by a college but used for
commercial purposes (such as a leased food court) do not fall within
the Department's interpretation of ``campus.''
I believe that the omission of such information violates the spirit
of the law and is a disservice to parents and students because
commercial property such as food shops and retail stores and streets
thread through a campus and must be visited or traveled in the course
of one's studies. I was further troubled to hear testimony at the
hearing that the Department has not imposed civil penalties on any
school for failure to comply with the Act.
The best means of improving the implementation of the 1990 law is the
enactment of the statutory clarifications included in my amendment,
which redefines ``campus'' and requires the imposition of civil
penalties where applicable.
I am grateful that the Managers have agreed to name these provisions
of law in honor of Jeanne Clery, the daughter of Howard and Connie
Clery of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, who was brutally raped and
murdered at Lehigh University in 1986. After that tragic incident, the
Clerys founded Security on Campus, Inc., a non-profit dedicated to
improving safety on our nation's college campuses. The Clerys brought
the campus crime reporting issue to my attention in 1989 and it is
highly fitting that after so many years of being inspired by their work
on this issue, Congress will recognize Jeanne Clery in this manner.
I am hopeful that my amendment will be preserved in conference with
the House and again thank my colleagues for their efforts on this
issue.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to make some brief comments to
commend the work of Senator Specter with regard to the inclusion of
language in the bill to improve public safety on college and university
campuses. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation Senator Specter
introduced on May 20, 1998, the Campus Crime Disclosure Act.
My involvement in this important legislation began earlier this year,
when I met with the Clery family of Palm City, Florida. Their personal
tragedy, whereby Howard and Connie Clery's daughter Jeanne was brutally
murdered in her college dormitory in 1998 at Lehigh University,
saddened me. Since her death, her family has kept her memory alive by
working to provide parents and students with more and better
information about crimes occurring on college campuses. The result is
the important changes to federal law which we are considering here
today.
These changes include a modification to the Department of Education's
definition of a ``college campus''. This definition will now include
sidewalks and other areas adjacent to schools but not owned by the
school. The Department had previously interpreted the term ``campus''
to exclude these areas. I, like Senator Specter, believe this is an
incorrect interpretation. The result was that schools were not
reporting crimes that had taken place on a sidewalk used by students to
get to class. This legislation will correct that problem.
Furthermore, the legislation sets up a stronger but flexible
enforcement mechanism which provides that the Department can fine
schools that are not complying with federal reporting laws dealing with
campus security. Congress has given the Secretary of Education
enforcement discretion when a school is found to be in non-compliance
after a public hearing is conducted.
Mr. President, I am pleased that we are taking these important steps
to ensure safer campuses for college students. I appreciate the fine
work of the Chairman, Mr. Jeffords, in including these important
provisions. I commend the work of the Clery's in increasing the
public's awareness about campus crime, although I realize that this day
must be bitter-sweet. I look forward to continuing to work with them in
the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3109) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now that we
have adopted the Specter amendment, Senator Graham be recognized to
offer his amendment and that there be 30 minutes of debate on the
amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that I may follow Senator Graham.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Wellstone be permitted to follow Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Amendment No. 3110

(Purpose: To amend the need analysis calculation regarding certain
veterans' educational assistance, and to provide an offset)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment
numbered 3110.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 537, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

SEC. 476. TREATMENT OF OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Section 480(j)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(j)(3)) is amended by
inserting ``educational assistance after discharge or release
from service under chapter 30 of title 38, United States
Code, or'' after ``paragraph (1),''.
In section 458(a)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended by section 454 of this Act, strike
``$617,000,000'' and insert ``$612,000,000''.
In section 458(a)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended by section 454 of this Act, strike
``$735,000,000'' and insert ``$730,000,000''.
On page 514, line 9, strike ``$770,000,000'' and insert
``$765,000,000''.
On page 514, line 10, strike ``$780,000,000'' and insert
``$770,000,000''.
On page 514, line 11, strike ``$795,000,000'' and insert
``$785,000,000''.
On page 446, line 6, strike ``section 428(c)(6)(A)(i)'' and
insert ``section 428(c)(6)(A)''.
On page 450, line 6, strike ``section 428(c)(6)(A)(ii)''
and insert ``section 428(c)(6)(B)''.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise before you today to offer an
amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan, Coverdell, Murray,
and Hagel. I offer this amendment to correct an injustice in our
current student financial aid policy. Since June 1 of 1987, the
Montgomery GI bill has guaranteed basic educational assistance for most
persons who are or have been members of the Armed Forces or the
selected reserves for significant periods of time.
This legislation was created in 1987 to achieve a number of important
national objectives. It was to assist veterans in their readjustment to
civilian life, to aid in the era of an all-volunteer military, in the
recruitment and retention of qualified personnel in the Armed Forces,
and to develop a more highly educated and productive workforce.
Unfortunately, currently, the Montgomery GI benefits are considered

[[Page S7792]]

``other financial aid'' in the determination of a student's need. In
other words, when a veteran applies for financial aid, colleges and
universities are required to take into account any benefits received
under the Montgomery GI bill program in arriving at a judgment as to
what resources that student would be entitled to receive.
The ultimate result is that the total financial aid award is
substantially reduced.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an analysis of three typical cases of student aid requests and the
impact that the requirement to consider Montgomery GI benefits as a
resource has on their financial aid.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Student A
Student is an unmarried male born in 1972 and is
independent due to his age and his status as a veteran. With
an adjusted gross income of just under $8,000 and having
turned down work-study but accepted loans, the student has a
budget of $10,100, a student contribution of $1,998, and
unmet need of $0. His award package is shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award
Award with without
Program Montgomery Montgomery
GI bill GI bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pell Grant...................................... $750 $750
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant...... 1,200
Institutional Grant............................. 2,588 3,100
Federal Direct Subsidized Loan.................. 1,972 3,172
Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan................ 2,138 2,138
Montgomery G.I. Bill............................ 2,912 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics from the University of Florida's Office of Financial Aid.

Student B
Student is a married male born in 1972 and is independent
due to his age, marital status, and his veteran status. The
couple's adjusted gross income is just under $12,000 and the
student declined loans. His budget is $10,100, student
contribution of $2,493, and unmet need of $1,465. His award
package is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award
Award with without
Program Montgomery Montgomery
GI bill GI bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pell Grant...................................... $400 $400
Florida Student Assistance Grant................ 1,092 1,092
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant...... 906 1,200
Institutional Grant............................. 0 3,558
Montgomery G.I. Bill............................ 3,744 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics from the University of Florida's Office of Financial Aid.

Student C
Student is a single male born in 1970 and is independent
due to his age. His adjusted gross income is just under
$8,500. His budget is $10,230, student contribution is
$2,222, and unmet need is $0. His award package is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Award
Award with without
Program Montgomery Montgomery
GI bill GI bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pell Grant...................................... $225 $225
Federal Work Study.............................. 962 1,474
Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan................ 1,181 1,181
Institutional Grant............................. 2,000 2,300
Montgomery G.I. Bill............................ 812 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics from the University of Florida's Office of Financial Aid.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this penalty, which is currently subjected
to veterans' benefits, does not apply to other analogous benefits.
For instance, the current law states that those persons who receive
benefits under the National Service Program Educational Award Program,
which is generally known as the AmeriCorps Program, will not have their
financial assistance treated as a deduction in their eligibility for
other forms of student financial aid.
In fact, Mr. President, the amendment I offer is an amendment to
precisely that section of the law adding the Montgomery GI bill to the
current exemption for AmeriCorps as the basis of calculating student
financial aid.
Mr. President, this unjust treatment of veterans' benefits has had a
number of perverse affects. Although over 80 percent of persons in the
military today are applying to become eligible for the Montgomery GI
benefits--in fact, the latest statistics from the Department of Defense
are that 94 percent of veterans are signing up for this program--less
than 40 percent are actually using the program. And this discriminatory
treatment is cited as a significant reason for that low level of
utilization. It also is undercutting the ability of those who are
attempting to recruit persons into the volunteer armed services by
having to state that the real value of these benefits is substantially
reduced and, therefore, this major inducement--in fact, the major
inducement for many young people to come into the military--is diluted.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment today, which has been costed at
$85 million over the next 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office,
and is offset by reducing accounts in the Secretary's discretionary
fund as a step towards achieving the objectives that this Congress
sought when it first adopted the Montgomery GI bill in 1987.
Mr. President, our country has had a long experience, particularly
the experience since the end of World War II, in encouraging returning
veterans to continue their education. I believe that the GI bill of
1944 ranks with legislation that has already been referred to by the
chairman of the committee, the Morrill Act, that established the Land
Grant College system, and Social Security as premier examples of
congressional legislation that has had a positive effect on our Nation.
I urge the adoption of this amendment which will assure that the full
benefits of the Montgomery GI bill, our current national statement of
appreciation to those who have served in our armed services, that the
injustice that is currently attached to that program be eliminated, and
that the full benefits of the program be available to not only the
veterans but to all Americans.
Mr. President, that concludes my statement. If there are no other
statements, I ask for the consideration of this amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a brief moment on
the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida to the Higher
Education Reauthorization Act. This amendment is a common sense
correction of a barrier veterans face when applying for financial aid
from colleges and universities.
Currently, educational benefits veterans receive under the Montgomery
GI bill count as a financial resource when they apply for financial
aid. The ultimate result is a reduction in the total financial aid
award a veteran receives to pay for college. I find it ironic, Mr.
President, that the benefits intended to help veterans pay for higher
education end up counting against them. Furthermore, the National
Community Service Act of 1990 does not treat a national service
educational award or post-service benefit as financial assistance. To
present a contrasting case, Americorps education benefits are not
counted as a resource in financial aid calculations.
Veterans who pay for the Montgomery GI bill through paycheck
deductions and dedicated service to their country should not be
penalized when applying for financial aid. Mr. President, we all
understand the value of higher education, and we should work to
eliminate the barriers that prevent people from moving on to college.
This was the intent of the Montgomery GI bill, Mr. President--assist
veterans in their pursuit of higher education. We should honor the
intent of this bill.
Mr. President, I am proud to be a part of this effort to help our
nation's veterans and pleased to serve as an original co-sponsor to the
bill Senator Graham introudced last evening. I urge my colleagues to
adopt this important measure.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have one Member who would like to
talk in support of the amendment who is on his way.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for
bringing this matter to our attention and for presenting it here on the
floor of the Senate.
As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I was there at the time
the Montgomery educational programs were advanced as a part of the
expanded opportunity for young people in the military services. That
has been an enormously important program. It has been a vehicle for
continuing education for those that are in the armed services. We have
been encouraging that program for those people in the armed services.
There is an incentive program for matching funds from the Federal
Government for those young people who put aside and save their rather
limited salaries. It has been very important and very effective.
Now we have the accumulation of some of those benefits after the
young people come out and save for themselves and have served in the
Armed Forces, many of them in very perilous

[[Page S7793]]

conditions, called to serve overseas. Their GI Bill benefits have been
part of the contract of service. Unless we accept this amendment, we
are really unduly penalizing young people who have served in the Armed
Forces and set aside some savings of their own in order to carry on
their education.
It seems that we ought to take this very reasonable step, as the
Senator from Florida has suggested, to make sure that those cumulative
funds will not reduce the financial aid that these young people are
eligible for.
I think that this makes a great deal of sense. I certainly support
it.
One aspect of the proposal seriously concerns me. That is about how
the amendment is paid for, because the amendment takes the money from
the Department of Education's administrative funds. These funds are
used for both the Direct Lending Program and the FFEL Program.
Last year's bipartisan budget agreement included major cuts in the
Department's administrative fund, and the Department has already had to
terminate a number of major contracts to live within these reduced
funding levels. Funding cuts undermine the Department's efforts to
modernize the student aid delivery systems and to address the year 2000
computer problems.
This can potentially hurt students and lenders.
We must work in the conference to find a better way to offset the
cost of this important benefit for veterans. I will work with all of
our colleagues in the conference to do so.
On the substance of the amendment, it makes sense. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will make the remarks in support of
Senator Graham's amendment, and I support him.
I believe that this takes care of really an important problem which
some of our service people have had. Thus, I do not object to it. I did
have a problem with the way the offset was chosen originally, which
would have put the bill out of balance with the Congressional Budget
Office and, therefore, we worked with the Senator from Florida to find
a more acceptable way.
I sympathize with the comments of Senator Kennedy in taking it from
the discretionary fund of the Secretary. But it is better to do it this
way and not put the bill out of balance, and to spread it over a number
of years so that it is not a big hit.
I commend him for bringing this to our attention. I thank him for
allowing us to include in the managers' package language that ensures
that in the aggregate, all types of Federal aid for education will not
exceed the cost of the required levels. The inclusion of this provision
expresses the concerns I had, and, therefore, I support it.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask my colleague if
I might make general comments about the bill as we are waiting.
Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator from New Hampshire has arrived to comment
on the pending amendment, and then we will be moving to the amendment
after that.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator in
allowing me to proceed.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from
Florida and to talk a little bit about the payment process on this
amendment--how we pay for this idea, which is an excellent idea, to
make sure that the people benefiting from the GI bill don't end up
being penalized for having participated in our military. Ironically, as
has been mentioned, we treat people who participate in the AmeriCorps
better than we treat the people who participate in the military.
The Senator from Florida corrects this problem. In order to pay for
this, he suggested that we reduce the overhead administrative costs
within the 458 account of the direct lending program, and there is
great justification for doing this--great justification for doing this.
One of the concerns I think many of us had when the Federal
Government got into the business of lending money for education was
that we would end up with a bureaucracy that would end up spending a
lot of money and maybe not be as efficient as the private marketplaces
are. That is just inherent in government; government at all levels does
not have a profit motive, and therefore efficiency is always
questionable, and in many instances efficiency is poor. There are few
exceptions to that, but for the most part you can say almost as a Black
rule of law that a government program is going to be less efficient
than a private program that is subject to competition.
In the instances of direct lending, we are seeing that that appears
to have been borne out again. We know that the workload, casework load,
is up from 1992 by about 29 percent. But we see that the administrative
overhead is up by 143 percent, which is an increase of 120 points more,
or 115 points more than the workload going up. And we are not talking
here about things which are directly student related; we are talking
more about things which are tied to inefficiency, in my opinion.
We see that, for example, in the data processing area, the cost has
gone up about 222 percent; in the payroll roll area, the cost has gone
up 351 percent; in the training area, the cost has gone up 480 percent;
in the staffing area, the cost has gone up 429 percent--this in
comparison, again, to a workload which has only gone up 29 percent.
So clearly there is a great deal of expansion in overhead costs here
which is questionable on its face and on a statistical evaluation. So
the Senator from Florida has included within his amendment an attempt
to address this by reducing in the outyears the amount of increase
which will be allowed in the area of administrative costs.
I congratulate him for that because I do think that is the right
approach, and I think it is the way that this amendment should be paid
for. I believe it is going to end up benefiting not only the GIs and
the members of the service who benefit from the underlying amendment,
but I think it is going to benefit the taxpayers generally, because we
will be saving money out of administrative costs which are very
questionable and applying it to getting people educated, which is the
key.
So I congratulate the Senator from Florida for his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to close, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record a letter dated July 7 from Mr. Steve A.
Robertson, director of the National Legislative Commission of the
American Legion, in which he states, ``The American Legion urges you to
support the Graham amendment to S. 1882, the Higher Education
Reauthorization Act.''
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, July 7, 1998.
Dear Senator: The American Legion urges your support to the
Graham amendment to S. 1882, the Higher Education
Reauthorization Act,, which will exempt Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) benefits from being counted as resources when veterans
apply for financial aid.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, over 95
percent of servicemembers entering the military elect to
participate in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). Sadly, less
than 50 percent of eligible veterans have used their earned
MGIB benefit. Because of the high costs associated with
college, counting MGIB benefits as resources when applying
for other types of federal financial aid, penalizes veterans
and prevents many from enrolling in an educational program.
Ironically, counting earned benefits as resources only
applies to the MGIB and not other federal education programs
like AmeriCorps. Under existing law, many non-veterans
entering college actually have a larger monetary budget and
still receive more financial aid than veterans receiving MGIB
benefits. Penalizing veterans for receiving an earned
individual benefit sends the wrong message to America's youth
and is illogical and counterproductive. The Graham amendment
to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act corrects this
injustice and helps to restore the integrity and purpose of
``earning an education.''
Young servicemembers have long understood the meaning of
earning educational benefits and the concept of working,
contributing and patiently planning to improve their economic
situation. Historically, the MGIB has served as a tremendous
recruiting tool for the Department of Defense. Unfortunately,
young men and women are less likely to join the military
today because of other

[[Page S7794]]

federal education assistance programs that require little, if
any, up front commitment, sacrifice and out of pocket
expenses. Your efforts to help correct this trend will
provide much needed financial relief to young veterans and
their families when trying to transition from the military to
the civilian work force and help them realize their
educational potential.
Once again, The American Legion urges you to support the
Graham amendment to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act.
The American Legion appreciates your continued leadership and
commitment to veterans and their families.
Sincerely,

Steve A. Robertson,

Director, National
Legislative Commission.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be included
as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to conclude by recognizing
the person who first brought this issue to my attention, Mr. Ron
Atwell, who is the director of veterans benefits at the University of
Central Florida in Orlando, FL. While participating in graduation
ceremonies at the university in May, Mr. Atwell raised with me the
inequity of this circumstance of veterans having effectively the
benefits that they deserved to receive, that they had made a partial
contribution towards, be diluted by the manner in which other student
financial aid was calculated.
I thank Mr. Atwell. This is an example of a citizen with a legitimate
concern who has made a difference in the lives of potentially many
thousands of future veterans who will get the benefit of this removal
of an injustice from our student financial aid program.
With that, Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3110) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am going to very shortly send an amendment to the
desk. I want at the very beginning to just take a couple of minutes to
thank my colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, for their
very fine work. To me, it is a labor of love to be on the Labor and
Human Resources Committee, and I want to very briefly talk about the
Higher Education Act which was first passed in 1965.
I want to highlight at the beginning the Pell Grant Program, and I
want to pay my respects to one of the Senators whom I have most enjoyed
getting to know and to work with. I think he is a giant. I think he
represents civility. And that is Senator Claiborne Pell. When we talk
about the Pell Grant Program, I would say to the pages, as you go to
apply for higher education, the Pell Grant Program will be critically
important. This was Claiborne Pell's great contribution.
I do believe that eventually--and I think my colleagues agree with
me; and I am really disappointed that we haven't done this--we ought to
fully fund the Pell Grant Program. We have bumped it up now to about
$3,100 or thereabouts, but, frankly, we ought to take it up to $5,000.
It is the most cost-effective approach. You reach the most students in
need. You reach well into the middle-income range as well. Students
don't graduate in such debt. It is absolutely critically important, and
that would remain for me kind of the major priority in higher
education.
I also want to just at the very beginning remind colleagues that I
still think, on the Hope scholarship tax credit proposal, we have got
our work cut out for us, because if it is not refundable, those
students, many of whom are in community colleges, Mr. President, in our
State of Minnesota, who come from families under $28,000 a year, just
simply have no help at all. So the promise of a tremendous amount of
assistance for 2 years of higher education is not being realized.
The average college student today is just so different--I mean is
really so different. I sometimes believe the nontraditional students,
students who are older and going back to school, many of them with
children themselves, have become the traditional students. Over 57
percent of college students are female--it certainly wasn't that way in
1965 when we passed the Higher Education Act--37 percent are students
of color. The average age of a student today in higher ed is 27, and
more than 25 percent of college students are over 30. About 1 in 5 are
married, and 1 in 10 are single parents. So it is not just 18- and 19-
year-olds living in the dorm any longer. Really, we are talking about a
very different situation.
I wanted to highlight this, and I will just take a few moments and
then get right to the amendment by just some profiles of some of our
Minnesota students.
Tony Rust is a senior at Southwest State University at Marshall, MN,
and the Minnesota State University Student Association State Chair. He
received the Pell grant his freshman year, only the Perkins loan his
first 3 years, and the Stafford loan all 4 years. During his 4 years of
college, Rust has worked at least 20 hours per week in order to pay for
tuition and other expenses. His parents have not helped him
financially, but he did, however, receive scholarships during his
sophomore year. ``I wouldn't have been able to attend college without
the Federal financial aid programs,'' Rust said. ``I wouldn't be
graduating this weekend if it wasn't for federal programs.'' Rust's
loan debt will be approximately $20,000.
That weekend, of course, goes back to the beginning of June. By the
way, Southwest State University is one great university. And the thing
I like about it best, Mr. President--you have probably visited it as
well--is the accessibility for those students who are developmentally
disabled. It is just an incredible place; it really is.
Paula Heinonen, after working for years in a rural hospital and
raising four children, decided to return to school to enhance her
skills. A nontraditional student, Paula is a junior at the Center for
Extended Learning at Bemidji State University at Bemidji, MN. Paula is
a wife, mother, worker, and student.
And we have a lot of students like that today on our campuses.
Then, finally, Troyce Williams. Troyce is a single mother of four
children who is working hard to complete her studies at Minneapolis
Community and Technical College within the one-year education
requirement--which I will come back to in the amendment. Affordable
housing and child care are critical to her graduating.
Mr. President, there are a couple of things in this bill I
appreciate. There was an amendment I was proud of that we introduced,
we did extend the Pell award for summer semesters, and that will help a
lot these nontraditional students. I think that was terribly important.
We did have increases, not all that we should have, in the Pell grants
and in the TRIO Program. I don't think I heard a lot of discussion
about the TRIO Program, but talk about a heart-and-soul program, I love
the TRIO people in Minnesota. It is an effort to reach down in the
public school system and attract students of color or ``disadvantaged''
students, low-income students, to higher education. And then, once
there, once they are in our colleges and universities, to provide them
with the kind of additional support services that they need. It is just
wildly successful and, actually, we have strong bipartisan support for
the TRIO Program. There was a time when we were fighting for the
survival of the TRIO Program. I am really glad that both parties have
united behind it.
Senator DeWine and I--and I have enjoyed working with Senator DeWine
from Ohio--we have an amendment in this bill that I feel very good
about. What we essentially say is that for those men and women who
graduate who go into early childhood development, there will be loan
forgiveness. That is a really positive incentive. We keep saying we
have to get it right for students before kindergarten, but we pay men
and women in child care miserably low wages. You make half of what you
make working at a zoo, if you are working with children.
By the way, I think people who work at zoos do very important work. I
love zoos. Actually, I think they are precious. But the point is, why
in the world do we say, ``These early years are so important for the
development

[[Page S7795]]

of the brain, as shown in all of the studies, and we have to get it
right for these children, it has to be intellectually stimulating,''
and we have so many people who work for $6 or $7 or $8 an hour, many
without any health care benefits and all? Senator DeWine and I have a
loan forgiveness provision in the bill which I think at least helps.
We have a mental health package which will provide those who are
choosing careers in mental health to have research work and internships
on the campus to be considered as study.
We have an effort with Senator Kennedy in an area that has
languished, recruiting women into the fields of math and science.
We do some things that I think are important with the Fair Play Act,
which would require the university data--I say to the chair of the
committee, don't worry, I am not going to get started on this today, at
least--but we have expenditures on all sports to be shared with the
Department of Education, so we can try to figure out why some of these
minor sports, be they men's sports or women's sports, are being cut.
My colleague, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, is great to work
with. I am proud of the amendment we did on campus safety. We want more
accurate reporting. We have an issue with the Senator from
Pennsylvania, and we have a $10 million grant program for collaboration
between campus police, local law enforcement, and those women who are
working in battered women shelters, which I think is extremely
important.
Finally, we are going to have an GAO study just look again at some of
the cuts in college sports, some of which I think have been arbitrary
and capricious, and to try to have a little bit more accountability.
I thank my colleagues for their work on this bill. I am proud of the
amendments I was able to contribute. I think this is a very good piece
of legislation.
I now will send an amendment to the desk. This amendment I introduce
on behalf of myself, Senator Wendell Ford, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator
Dick Durbin, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator
Carol Moseley-Braun. A number of these Senators are going to be out on
the floor speaking on this amendment. I think it is an extremely
important amendment, colleagues. I believe we can pass it. I hope we
can pass it.

Amendment No. 3111

(Purpose: To expand the educational opportunities for welfare
recipients)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Levin, Ms. Mikulski
and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 3111.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the
following:

SEC __. EXPANSION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WELFARE
RECIPIENTS.

(a) 24 Months of Postsecondary Education and Vocational
Educational Training Made Permissible Work Activities.--
Section 407(d)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(d)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) postsecondary education and vocational educational
training (not to exceed 24 months with respect to any
individual);''.
(b) Modifications To the Educational Cap.--
(1) Removal of teen parents from 30 percent limitation.--
Section 407(c)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(c)(2)(D)) is amended by striking ``, or (if the month is
in fiscal year 2000 or thereafter) deemed to be engaged in
work for the month by reason of subparagraph (C) of this
paragraph''.
(2) Extension of cap to postsecondary education.--Section
407(c)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(c)(2)(D)) is amended by striking ``vocational educational
training'' and inserting ``training described in subsection
(d)(8)''.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, most of my colleagues who support this
amendment, and I believe there will be bipartisan support, supported
the welfare bill. This is not about the welfare bill. Most colleagues
who support this amendment were strongly in support of the welfare
bill.
I want to say at the beginning, a few words about that welfare bill
which is a little counterintuitive to what I think people have been
reading about or hearing about. I want to say, and unfortunately I
believe I can marshal a lot of evidence for this point of view, that
the reduction of welfare rolls by some 4 million plus people will be a
good thing if what we are talking about is a reduction of poverty. The
question is whether or not it has led to a reduction of poverty. There
is precious little information out there and we need to understand,
when we say to a family--a single parent, almost always women with
small children--you now are off the rolls, you will be working, the
question becomes what kind of jobs at what kind of wages can they
support their families on? And, when they lose their health care a year
later, are they worse off or better off? We have to make sure that
these women and these children will be better off and that this will
lead to a reduction of poverty, economic independence and all the rest.
I am not at all sure that is happening. As a matter of fact, I think
if we were ever to get the data State by State, we would find that many
of these others and these children are worse off. First point. Then I
will get to the amendment.
Second point--child care. There are too many stories that too many
people are now telling about how, yes, they are working, but it is a 3-
to-11 job. Where is the child care available for their 3-year-old or
their 4-year-old? There are too many of these families that talk about
very ad hoc arrangements, one week it is a cousin, another week it is
an older brother, but they never know from week to week how they will
be able to find the child care.
There are too many long waiting lists for affordable child care for
working families. Now, you have another group of people who are coming
into the workforce. There are too many first and second graders who are
going home alone with no one there at all, and too many 3-year-olds and
4-year-olds also who are at home alone. That is the truth. Somebody has
to look at that. I just want to say it on the floor once and then I go
right on to the amendment. Someone has to look at that.
If we are going to say that children are so precious--and we say
that--and if we are going to say the children are 100 percent of our
future--and we say that--then these children, even if they are poor
children, matter as much as any other children. They are, all of these
children, are a mother's child and a father's child, and they should
matter. Somebody, somewhere, sometime, someplace has to get beyond the
hype and look at exactly what is happening.
Now, for the amendment supported by many colleagues who have a very
different view about the welfare bill; this amendment is
straightforward. What it does is it allows States to permit 24 months
of vocational and postsecondary education as work activity. I will
explain what this means. And, in addition, it removes teens from the 30
percent education cap.
Two issues: The States have a cap as to how many citizens they can
count as working if they are going to school, and teenagers are
included. In a way, the teenagers should not be included because the
given is we want teenagers to complete their high school education. I
think that is pretty simple and straightforward, and that will help a
lot of our States out as they try to work through the work
participation requirements.
The second thing this amendment says is, for any State that wants
to--and there is no mandate at all--for any State that wants to, you
can allow a mother to be able to complete 2 years of education.
This is extremely important. Senator Levin began this effort last
summer when he offered a similar amendment to the Balanced Budget Act.
His amendment would have expanded the current law to permit 24 months
of vocational education. I commend his efforts.

I remind colleagues that there were 55 votes in favor of the
amendment. Since that time, more data, more reports, more anecdotal
evidence has emerged reinforcing the need to make this modification. In
other words, we want to give States more flexibility with their welfare
plans.

[[Page S7796]]

We have to make this modification, because right now what is
happening is that in too many cases States don't have the flexibility
and, therefore, women, single parents with small children who are on
the path to economic self-sufficiency because they are going to school,
are essentially being driven out of school. This is crazy. We shouldn't
do this.
If we can at least put into effect this modification, which I think
will have strong support, we will enable these women and these mothers
to go on through the 2 years of education. We will enable the States to
have the flexibility. No State is required to; it is up to the States.
These women will be in a much better position to be economically
sufficient.
I will provide a lot of data, I say to my colleagues. If the Senator
from Illinois is here to speak on the amendment--I know he is an
original cosponsor. Has the Senator come to speak on the amendment? I
will give an introduction and then defer to my colleague because we are
going to finish up soon.
Mr. President, what I am simply saying to colleagues is, I think this
modification just makes all the sense in the world. Right now what
happens is you have a State that is under pressure with all the work
participation requirements. The State doesn't feel like it has the
flexibility to give these mothers this option. And so you have this
kind of bitterly ironic situation where a mother, a single parent, with
two small children in college is forced out of college. She gets a $6-
an-hour job with no benefits. One year later, she loses her medical
assistance, and she and her children are far worse off, as opposed to--
and I will provide a lot of data to support this--as opposed to what
happens when this woman, this mother can complete her education.
There is no mandate. What we are saying is that if my State of
Minnesota or the State of Illinois or the State of Vermont or the State
of Massachusetts or the State of Alabama so desires, or the State of
Kentucky--my colleague, Senator Ford, has been very active on this--
then they can do so.
The question is, When these mothers are on the path to economic self-
sufficiency, why do we want to take them off that path? I recently
heard from a mother, Camille Martinson, who is a single mother with two
children on the verge of completing a nursing degree. But fearing she
will be unable to do so--her words best express the frustration she is
now feeling and highlights, I think, the importance of the amendment. I
quote from the letter that Camille sent me:

With this infant program--

That is our welfare program in Minnesota--

They are forcing me to work a $5.15 per hour job. But if I
was to graduate as a nurse, I will work for pay of over $10
per hour or higher. I am almost ready to graduate but it's
damn near impossible with all these demands on me. If I
didn't love my children so much that I want to provide them
and give them a good life, I would have quit school and
flipped burgers for eternity. I guess that's what the State
may be forced to have me do. It sure seems like it. I want to
make something out of my life for me and my children and
succeed in life but won't at this rate.

These are her words, a direct quote:

Please help me with these issues as I see no other way out.
It is hell for me. I guess you have to be in my shoes to know
exactly how I feel and what I'm going through. I don't like
the way this program is set up. It is a lose-lose situation.
I can't win no matter what I do. The system I'm currently
working on will make me fail no matter what I do. When I
speak on these issues I'm not only speaking for myself, but
many thousands of others are having similar problems that I
do.

I have a lot to lay out on this amendment. I yield the floor to my
colleague from Illinois who was gracious enough to come down and speak
on this.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for recognition in support of his
effort. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, we have, in the course of
the century, embarked on major undertakings at the Federal level.
Probably the most historic was the New Deal. The New Deal, which goes
back some 65 years-plus, was an effort to bring this country out of a
terrible situation. It was initiated by President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, and he tried very many different ideas to try to get America
moving again.
I thought the hallmark of the New Deal was the willingness to concede
that every new idea in the New Deal didn't work. Some of them had to be
junked; some of them had to be changed substantially.
I was one who voted in favor of the welfare reform legislation. I
believed that we needed to change the welfare system in this country,
to change the mentality of welfare, to break the generational
dependency that was repeating and repeating.
I said as I voted for it, and I repeat today, that bill, as drafted,
was not perfect law by a long shot. It didn't reflect the reality of
change that would take place across America. So since then, on four or
five different occasions, we have modified welfare reform in order to
be more responsive to the actual needs of Americans.
What the Senator from Minnesota is asking us to do is to open our
eyes, go beyond the stereotypes, go beyond the cliches, look at the
real people who are now making the life struggle to come off welfare
and into an independent state and a state where they can raise their
families in dignity.
I have met women like those who have written to Senator Wellstone.
One I can recall is in Springfield. She is coming off welfare,
attending the community college. Bringing her 12-year-old daughter to
class with her because she had no one to watch her, keeping that
daughter in class with her during the course of the day, and trying to
find her way home in the evening by public transportation was making
the ultimate sacrifice. She was going to get that associate degree and
use it to improve her life and to help her daughter no matter what. We
should never stand in the way of that.
What the Senator from Minnesota is saying is let us have the
flexibility to recognize when people are making an honest and
determined effort. Let us not set up these barriers and walls to
progress. Let us join in a partnership and hold our hand out to help
these people come up that ladder to success. I think when it comes to
education, it should go out without debate and really without
controversy here; that if we have people who are moving on the track to
training and education which liberates them from welfare dependency, we
shouldn't constrict them with rules or with our laws or our legal
stereotypes.
I gladly support the Senator from Minnesota, and I hope that we can
provide this flexibility, and with this flexibility, we can give more
people an opportunity to succeed.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I know we are going to take a
break in a moment. I say to my colleagues, if you don't have debate and
want to support this amendment, I won't talk that long. I am ready to
go forward with it. I don't know what my colleagues have heard. I
believe both of them are supporters.
I will simply summarize right now. There is a lot of data I can
present later on about the difference an associate degree makes in
terms of an economic situation for a family.
I want to pick up on one comment my colleague from Illinois made. I
can't even begin to recount the number of community colleges I have
been at where maybe there are 300 students. I know about 20 percent are
single parents, many welfare mothers. Over and over again, the plea
that I hear is, ``Please let me finish my education; please let me get
my 2-year degree, because I will be in such a better position to
support myself and my children.''
I think if a State wants to allow a mother to do so, and her family
will be much better off, we ought to give States that flexibility. I
believe our States are saying that, I believe the community colleges
are saying that and these families are saying that.
I have a list of about 70 different organizations--120
organizations--that are saying that. So I hope we will adopt this
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask the manager, my colleague, the chairman, I have
much to say if we are going on and there is debate. If there is support
for this, I am prepared to urge its adoption. Does my colleague know?
Is there opposition?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am not at liberty to say at this time. I don't know.
I suspect there is opposition, but I haven't

[[Page S7797]]

had anyone come forward who wishes to speak at this point. But since we
have reached the magic hour of 2 o'clock, it is best we proceed under
the unanimous consent agreement.

____________________