[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 90 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7815-S7873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1998
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of S.
1882.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1882) to reauthorize the Higher Education Act of
1965.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senate took
up this very important issue of agricultural sanctions and has acted on
it.
Now, of course, we return to the Higher Education Act. The managers
of the legislation have been making progress. We have at least a couple
of amendments that will still take some more time. I encourage Senators
to speak briefly and just go ahead and get a vote on the issues that
are involved. The plan is to stay on the Higher Education Act until we
complete it tonight, so we will need cooperation of all Senators. I
understand some Senators may have other events they would like to go
to, but you can't say, ``I want to offer amendments, but, by the way, I
have an event I have to go to.''
Please work with the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from
Massachusetts. This is important legislation that expired July 1. We
need to get it completed so we can get it in conference and get it done
before we go out at the end of the year. I believe with a little
cooperation, we can complete this very important Higher Education Act
tonight. It is my intent for us to stay in until we get it done
tonight.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
Wellstone amendment be set aside for a period not to exceed 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding that an amendment will be
offered by Senator Santorum. He believes he will take 10 minutes or
less. I know of no one that wants to speak on the other side.
I ask that Senator Santorum be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee
and also the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and other members of the
working group, including Senator Coats and Senator Dodd, for working
with me on this amendment. It is a very important amendment to
proprietary schools, career schools, who are doing the real lion's
share of the work in educating in the poor communities, with
disadvantaged people in our society. They are doing a great job in some
of the toughest settings to try to make up the skills deficit that we
have heard so much talk about in this country for the working poor and
for those, in many cases, coming off of welfare.
We are moving from welfare to work, and we are going to have to have
educational institutions in poor communities, in the cities, to be able
to educate the poor. As a result, I have worked with the working group.
And I will send the amendment to the desk I am offering with Senators
DeWine and Coverdell.
Amendment No. 3114
(Purpose: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve
accountability and reform certain programs)
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for himself,
Mr. DeWine and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered
3114.
[[Page S7816]]
Mr. SANTORUM. 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 466, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``proof that
reasonable attempts were made'' and inserting ``proof that
the institution was contacted and other reasonable attempts
were made''; and
(B) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``certifies to the
Secretary that diligent attempts have been made'' and
inserting ``certifies to the Secretary that diligent
attempts, including contact with the institution, have been
made''.
On page 494, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
SEC. 434. NOTICE TO SECRETARY AND PAYMENT OF LOSS.
The third sentence of section 430(a) (20 U.S.C. 1080(a)) is
amended by inserting ``the institution was contacted and
other'' after ``submit proof that''.
On page 501, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
(d) Publication Date.--Section 435(m)(4) (20 U.S.C.
1085(m)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) The Secretary shall publish the report described in
subparagraph (C) by September 30 of each year.''.
At the end, add the following:
SEC. __. LIAISON FOR PROPRIETARY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
Title II of the Department of Education Organization Act
(20 U.S.C. 3411 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 219. LIAISON FOR PROPRIETARY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
``(a) Establishment.--There shall be in the Department a
Liaison for Proprietary Institutions of Higher Education, who
shall be an officer of the Department appointed by the
Secretary.
``(b) Appointment.--The Secretary shall appoint, not later
than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998 a Liaison for Proprietary
Institutions of Higher Education who shall be a person who--
``(1) has attained a certificate or degree from a
proprietary institution of higher education; or
``(2) has been employed in a proprietary institution
setting for not less than 5 years.
``(c) Duties.--The Liaison for Proprietary Institutions of
Higher Education shall--
``(1) serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary on
matters affecting proprietary institutions of higher
education;
``(2) provide guidance to programs within the Department
that involve functions affecting proprietary institutions of
higher education; and
``(3) work with the Federal Interagency Committee on
Education to improve the coordination of--
``(A) the outreach programs in the numerous Federal
departments and agencies that administer education and job
training programs;
``(B) collaborative business and education partnerships;
and
``(C) education programs located in, and involving, rural
areas.''.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment does three things, all of
which will, I believe, aid career colleges in proprietary skills and in
their ability to hold down at-risk default rates. They are serving
populations who, as a result of being at risk, have a tendency to have
higher default rates. They want to work with the system to be able to
help hold down those default rates because, obviously, they want to
stay in business and continue to educate.
So the first provision that we put in this amendment is to require
the guaranty agencies and lenders to contact institutions when they are
doing skip-tracing of borrowers who have gone into default. In other
words, this will allow the schools to be notified when former students
of theirs are going into default because, in many cases, through their
placement offices they know where to locate these people and can, in
fact, aid the lending institutions and guaranty agencies in bringing
these people back on to a payment schedule, to avoid default, and to
keep the default rate low, but also to help the young people who are
out now in the working environment avoid a bad thing on their credit.
And, obviously, it will save the Federal Government some money.
Secondly, it sets September 30 of each year as the deadline for the
Department of Education to release its annual default rate for schools.
This will help schools in their planning process, giving more certainty
in how to deal with potential problems they may have with the default
rate down the road.
Third, it creates a liaison position at the Department of Education
for proprietary schools, similar to the liaison position created
several years ago for community colleges. Community colleges and
proprietary schools, in many cases, serve similar populations. There
have been problems in communicating, in getting information, and having
a voice at the Department of Education. This is a mechanism for those
who are sometimes considered somewhat of a ``stepchild'' in the higher
education community to get some real responsiveness from the Department
to their needs and to their concerns.
That is the sum total of the amendment. I believe it will help these
career and proprietary schools better serve an at-risk population that
is in desperate need of making up a skills deficit. It will put them in
a better position to keep the default rates down and improve the
program overall.
Again, I thank the chairman, the ranking member, Senator Coats, and
Senator Dodd for working with me and my staff in coming up with this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have an
immediate vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I just need 30 seconds, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think these are very good suggestions
and recommendations. I think they will improve the accountability in
the important areas of recovery of debt, and also give better
information on these default rates, and will help to assist some of the
proprietary schools. I think they are all very solid, good management
recommendations that can make the programs more efficient. I thank the
Senator for those initiatives.
I urge that we accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3114) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3111
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the pending amendment, I believe, is the
Wellstone amendment.
I move that we return immediately to the Wellstone amendment and
relinquish any time that was available.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think my colleague, Senator Dodd from
Connecticut, wants to speak on this amendment, and Senator Ford and
Senator Moynihan are going to come down. I believe my colleague from
Delaware also is going to speak.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew
Tourville, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor while
we debate the higher education bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will yield time to the Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rena
Subotnik, a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the
pendency of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Minnesota for
this amendment. I think it is a very thoughtful amendment, one that I
think most Americans would feel very comfortable in backing and
supporting.
There was a significant debate, as we all recall, in this Chamber not
that many months ago on the issue of welfare reform, and the desire to
have people who collect public assistance find meaningful work. All of
us supported the underlying principle of that concept. There were
disagreements on how it should be achieved and on final passage of the
bill. But the underlying desire to move people from welfare to work was
certainly a laudable goal.
[[Page S7817]]
What our colleague is suggesting here is that a person on welfare who
enters an educational program to learn skills and training--that
education experience ought to be considered on a par with a work
experience. For persons acquiring skills and trying to improve the
quality of their life, to enhance their opportunities, I think that
ought to be applauded and encouraged. If a person is engaged in that
effort here, certainly that individual deserves our support and
backing. A person who acquires skills is going to be a person who will
earn that income that will make him or herself independent, a good
provider at home, a better citizen. All of us know of the vital
importance of education.
I made note earlier in the day that we now know factually that a
person who earns a college degree today earns twice the income of a
person with only a high school diploma. That was not the case only a
few short years ago. A few short years ago, with a high school diploma,
a set of good hands and a good heart, you could provide for your
family, you could earn a good salary, a good wage, buy a home, educate
your children, provide for their health needs. But today that is no
longer the case. You have to have more education.
In my view, if a person who has been on welfare, on public
assistance, is entering an educational opportunity, as I said a moment
ago, then that ought to be supported. So I strongly urge our colleagues
here to support the Wellstone amendment. If there is one thing that we
know works to end the cycle of poverty, it is education. A person who
has those tools will be in a far better position to not only gain
employment, but to remain employed and to understand and support
democracy.
I have often cited this quote, and I can't resist because sitting
next to me is our dear friend and colleague from West Virginia. I have
often used it and said to my audiences in my home State of Connecticut
that Thomas Jefferson understood this concept 200 years ago when he
said in a speech--I think I have the quote pretty close--``Any nation
that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never
can be.'' He made those comments at the beginning of the 19th century.
We are just a few short days from the end of the 20th century.
Certainly, if it was true then, it is true today--that ``Any nation
that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never
can be.''
As expensive as education is, ignorance is far more costly. We
certainly know that people who are dependent on public assistance in
most cases are people who lack educational skills.
To strengthen our country, to create opportunity to improve an
individual's chance to succeed in this country, I think the idea should
be equating a person who is entering an educational process on the same
footing as someone who is entering into a work experience. For those
reasons, I support the amendment of our colleagues from Minnesota, and
urge adoption of it by a strong vote in this body.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Wellstone
amendment and am an enthusiastic cosponsor of it.
I come to the Senate floor as a professionally trained social worker.
I have been through seven welfare reforms in my career, both as a
social worker in the streets and neighborhoods, and now in the
corridors of the U.S. Senate. When we talk about reforming welfare, we
want to make sure that welfare is not a way of life but that it is a
tool to move to a better life.
Over the break I sat in a room in Baltimore meeting with welfare
mothers who wanted exactly to move to a better life and who were
practicing self-help. But the very cruel rules of government are going
to derail their hopes, dreams, and practical opportunities. And what is
that? They were enrolled in a community college program--one in
business, one as an addiction counselor, and one doing prenursing
courses to make sure they could get back to society and be able to give
an income to their family. But they were told they had to leave the
program. They had to leave the program and look for work rather than
complete the program so that they could have jobs that were truly self-
supporting and sustaining. Why were they told that? Not because of a
callous social worker. We are not callous. But the rules of government
said you can get some kind of temp training. You can get into a
training program where you can get some type of training that might or
might not take you to a livable wage.
That is not what welfare reform is all about. Welfare reform is to
end the culture of poverty. And yet the very rules that we now have
reinforce the culture of poverty. We are not giving help to those who
want to practice self-help--meaning those who want to go to school,
stay in school, and learn the skills for the new global economy,
whether it is in the service field, the nonprofit, or the private
sector.
The Wellstone amendment allows States, if they so choose--I happen to
have the type of Governor who would be eager to have this--to allow
these women to be able to go into a job training program or have 2
years of higher education.
There are people--there are women now on welfare who because of a bad
choice in marriage actually dropped out of college. They might be 18
credits away. If we could help them finish, they would be able to have
a job with benefits and be able to lead, indeed, a better life.
The Wellstone amendment is not about new rules. It is about
opportunity. The other side of the aisle, and this side of the aisle,
has said one of the most important functions of government is to create
an opportunity ladder. This is what the Wellstone amendment does. It
creates an opportunity ladder that doesn't necessarily take you to the
top but gets you over the top.
I support the Wellstone amendment. I want to compliment the Senator
from Minnesota for his steadfast commitment to children, but to know
that for the children, they need a parent who has the best social
program, which is a job that pays a living wage. And this is the best
way to get one.
I look forward to voting for the amendment, supporting the amendment,
and I look forward to seeing to it that those women I talked to are
able to get on with their life while we get on with doing our job.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from
Maryland. She always kind of takes these issues from the abstract and
connects them to people. I really thank her for her statement. I am
very proud to have her support. I hope we really get a strong vote for
this.
Mr. President, I think my colleague from Kentucky is on the floor and
wishes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Wellstone
amendment. I am honored to be able to add my name as an original
cosponsor to this important amendment.
Booker T. Washington wrote that ``success is to be measured not so
much by the position one has reached in life as by the obstacles which
one has overcome while trying to succeed.''
He might well have been talking about the single, uneducated parents
in this country trying to turn their lives around, while ensuring their
children grow up in a healthy, safe environment.
Things like child care, transportation, and education, become
obstacles of insurmountable proportions for these struggling parents,
putting jobs that can build secure futures further and further out of
reach.
As many of my colleagues know, I supported and voted for welfare
reform. It's been almost two years since Congress rewrote our welfare
laws in hopes of breaking the cycle of dependency that was trapping too
many Americans in poverty and despair. Much good has come of that law,
including substantial drops in the welfare rolls, saving states like
Kentucky $14 million.
But despite its good intentions, the new welfare law is penalizing
parents trying to improve their chances at getting good jobs. Under the
new law, a parent must work 20 hours to continue receiving aid.
That might not seem particularly onerous, but the law also limits
these single parents to just one year of education before requiring
them to find work.
[[Page S7818]]
Let me just repeat that. But the law also limits these single parents
to just 1 year of education before requiring them to find work.
As one of Kentucky community college wrote me, ``for even the best
prepared traditional students, our community college programs require
two years with a full load of course work. The best prepared
traditional student, however, doesn't represent our average student.
With over 70 percent of our students testing into developmental
English, reading or math courses, the extra time needed to prepare for
actual college course work is critical to their success. Twelve months
is inadequate time for a person to move from a life of dependence upon
government assistance to a life of independence and self-sufficiency.''
For most single parents, the burden of going to school full-time,
holding down a part-time job, all while trying to raise healthy
children, will simply become too much, forcing them to choose a low-
paying job with no future over the path to skilled, high-paying work.
Leaders in my home state of Kentucky, like Representative Tom Burch,
recognized this problem. But their efforts to change the policy have
been hampered by fears that the state will lose critical federal funds,
further short-changing those who need the aid most.
That is why I am pleased to join in offering this amendment which
will stop penalizing parents trying to improve their situation.
This amendment allows up to 24 months of post-secondary or vocational
education, removes the 30 percent limitation on education as a work
activity for teen parents, and clarifies that participation in a
federal work-study program is a permissible work activity.
In my state, nearly 4,000 parents could benefit directly from these
changes. But the truth is, they're not the only ones who stand to
benefit. With the economy growing in Kentucky, employers are having a
harder time finding qualified employees. With good-paying jobs, these
parents can provide a much better quality of life for their children,
and that adds up to success no matter how you measure it.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this worthwhile amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for
the Wellstone amendment from Kentucky's Secretary for Families and
Children, Viola Miller; the Honorable Tom Burch; Kentuckians for the
Commonwealth; and President Deborah Floyd of the University of
Kentucky's Prestonburg Community College be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary for Families and Children, Commonwealth of
Kentucky,
March 25, 1998.
Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: This is to express my support for the
amendment you and Senator Wellstone have proposed for S. 1133
to support education for welfare recipients. While we
understand that the goal of welfare reform is for recipients
to obtain employment, and fully support that goal, we need to
acknowledge that some recipients must acquire skills to be
employable.
Approximately one-half of our recipients do not have a high
school diploma or GED and less than one percent have any
postsecondary education. We want to provide assistance that
will not only help recipients get jobs, but also allow them
to keep jobs and to advance. Thus, we support this initiative
whether as an amendment to S. 1133 or through some future
action.
Sincerely,
Viola P. Miller,
Secretary.
____
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
House of Representatives,
March 19, 1998.
Senator Wendell Ford,
173A Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford. We appreciate your continuing interest
and support of education for Kentucky's low-income parents.
The General Assembly, the Kentucky Welfare Reform Coalition,
and Kentucky's low-income parents are working hard to
maintain access to educational opportunities. With the
cooperation of the Kentucky Cabinet for Families and
Children, progress has been made. Nonetheless, legislative
attempts to expand educational opportunities are being
stymied by the Cabinet's fear of incurring federal penalties
under TAN-F work requirements. Clearly, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky does not want to risk losing federal funds to assist
those most in need.
Getting off and staying off public assistance are directly
linked to educational attainment. The Urban Studies Institute
at the University of Louisville recently reported that 51% of
a sample of discontinued K-TAP recipients (Kentucky's version
of TAN-F) have less than a 12th grade education. The
University of Kentucky reports that 1996 average weekly
earnings of women with less than 12 years of education are
$176.00, far below the federal poverty level. With some
college, weekly earnings for Kentucky women more than double
to $371.00
This session we introduced 98 HB 434 to increase access to
educational opportunities for Kentucky's low-income parents.
The seed for this bill grew from K-TAP recipients struggling
to stay in school. We could only make small strides with this
legislation given the Cabinet's desire to comply with the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996.
Your proposed amendment to S. 1133 to allow up to 24 months
of post-secondary education or vocational education, to
remove the 30% limitation on education for teen parents, and
to clarify that education counts as a work activity will
potentially help nearly 3,700 low-income parents annually
continue on the road to economic independence. We strongly
endorse your support of this legislation for the people of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States of
America. Thank-you for the opportunity to support this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Tom Burch.
____
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth,
Prestonsburg, KY, March 20, 1998.
Dear Senator Ford, We were thrilled to learn that you will
co-sponsor an amendment to SR 1133 to expand educational
opportunities for welfare recipients.
As you know, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth has been
organizing to build support for state legislation addressing
this issue. In fact, several members of our organization met
with you in October 1995 to express concerns about access to
education and training in the welfare reform plans being
discussed by the Republican Congress. We haven't stopped
working ever since.
We applaud your efforts and look forward to lending our
support to this cause.
KFTC and Kentucky Youth Advocates co-sponsored a series of
public forums last fall in five locations across Kentucky.
During these events, hundreds of low-income Kentuckians,
teachers, social workers and concerned citizens shared their
concerns about the impacts of welfare reform on their
families and communities. Federal restrictions on educational
opportunities were mentioned more than any other issue at
these events. (Enclosed is a short video with excerpts from
people who spoke first-hand about the importance of education
in getting a living wage job and leaving welfare.)
Led by a remarkable group of low-income parents, KFTC
worked with a coalition of groups to develop legislation
which was eventually sponsored by Representative Tom Burch in
the Kentucky General Assembly. HB 434 sought to prevent
recipients from being pushed out of education and training
due to punishing federal work requirements and lack of
supportive services. The bill would have used state dollars,
not federal TANF money, to support students in post-secondary
education. We hoped this would allow student-parents some
relief from the time clock and 20-hour work requirements
while they got the training necessary to earn a living wage.
We found a great deal of support among legislators,
community college presidents, low-income Kentuckians and
others for our effort. In fact, the original version of the
bill was co-sponsored by 15 law-makers, including both
Democrats and Republicans. However, the administration
strongly opposed the bill because they feared that federal
penalties would harm Kentucky if we made such a commitment to
education and training. The ``flexibility'' states were
promised under federal welfare reform wasn't there.
Our bill (HB 434) was weakened and now simply requires the
Cabinet for Families and Children to fully inform recipients
of their rights to education and to convene an advisory board
to examine the issues further. We also won a commitment from
the administration to provide child care assistance to TANF-
eligible students who decline cash assistance. This may allow
some Kentuckians to leave welfare and get the supportive
services they need to stay in school. We've come a long way,
but not far enough for the 3,700 Kentucky parents who must,
starting July 1, 1998, work twenty or more hours in addition
to raising their families and attending school full time.
Clearly, a lasting and comprehensive solution to this
problem lies at the federal level. Thank you for your
leadership. We look forward to working with you to win
passage of this amendment. Please let us know how we can be
actively involved in support of your efforts.
Sincerely,
Sherri Barker,
Floyd County.
Daisy Johnson,
Union County.
On behalf of Kentuckians For The Commonwealth.
[[Page S7819]]
____
Prestonsburg Community College,
Prestonsburg, KY, March 20, 1998.
Senator Wendell H. Ford,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: It is with great optimism that I write
this letter in support of the Wellstone Amendment to S. 1133
on Education as a Work Activity in the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996.
For many people of our region, education and training
present them their only way to escape a lifetime of poverty
and/or dependence on public assistance. As you know,
Prestonsburg Community College has long been committed to
providing education opportunities to all citizens in the Big
Sandy region. In our 35-year history, this commitment has
often meant removing obstacles from the paths our students
take to success.
Rather than removing obstacles, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act actually presents a
serious obstacle.
For students at PCC and other post-secondary and vocational
educational institutions in the Commonwealth, this meant that
after the twelve months had expired, each student had to find
time in the day (1) to attend classes, (2) work a minimum of
20 hours per week to meet the countable work activity and (3)
raise the families that are the driving motivation behind
attending school.
For even the best-prepared traditional students, our
community college programs require two years (full load). The
best prepared traditional student, however, does not
represent our average student. With over 70 percent of our
students testing into developmental English, reading or
mathematics courses, the extra time needed to prepare for
actual college course work is critical to their success.
Twelve months is inadequate time for a person to move from a
life of dependence upon government assistance to a life of
independence and self-sufficiency.
The Wellstone Amendment--with its provision for up to 24
months of post-secondary or vocational educational
opportunities--is the chance our students have needed since
the passage of the original 1996 legislation. If our students
are able to remain actively engaged in the educational
process for a full 24 months, they will be able to
concentrate on their elected course of study without the
heavy burden of meeting an additional, sometimes unrealistic,
work requirement. With the completion of that course work,
these students are far more likely to move into meaningful
employment with opportunities for advancement and success
throughout their careers.
Thank you so much for your support of the Wellstone
Amendment. Despite the detriments of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, Prestonsburg Community College has remained committed
to helping all of our students successfully continue in
school. The Amendment is an opportunity for the Senate to
remove a roadblock that hinders the progress of institutions
and students alike in their effort to produce a society of
self-sustaining citizens. This is an opportunity to help not
only our students, but students across the Commonwealth and
the nation.
Sincerely,
Deborah L. Floyd,
President.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have one other item I would like to put in
the Record. It is an editorial from the Lexington Herald-Leader dated
July 1, 1998. I only quote a couple of paragraphs from that editorial.
It says:
We urge Congress to endorse such a change in a welfare
policy that right now insists on work first, education later.
It makes sense that work be the priority but not at the
expense of forcing the most motivated to choose an entry-
level job over a career track.
It is a shame we have to pass laws to mandate what is
common sense. A better education leads to career
opportunities and long-term self-sufficiency.
And they end that editorial with this paragraph:
One thing we do know. In this country, education is the
surest route out of poverty. And we shouldn't close off that
option by forcing people out of college into any old kind of
job just so we can proclaim that we made the transition from
welfare to work.
I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
End Welfare's Catch-22
Ford-Wellstone bill would allow more time for education
To address a problem, politicians often prefer the grand
gesture or the new proclamation rather than the less
glamorous work of just fixing what's wrong.
That approach was evident in the massive overhaul of
nation's welfare policies. Instead of changing the rules that
actually kept families dependent on monthly checks, Congress
imposed deadlines and ordered folks to either get jobs or
work for their benefits.
Spurred by this tough-love message and aided by a strong
economy, the welfare rolls have shrunk considerably in the
last two years. Now, Congress can finally look at changing
the rules that prevent folks from getting a leg up.
Proposals by Kentucky Sen. Wendell Ford and Minnesota Sen.
Paul Wellstone are a step in that direction. Their
legislation would increase from one to two years the time a
recipient can spend in vocational school or college and allow
participation in a federal work-study program to count toward
work requirements.
We urge Congress to endorse such a change in a welfare
policy that right now insists on work first, education later.
It makes sense that work be the priority, but not at the
expense of forcing the most motivated to choose an entry-
level job over a career track.
Kentucky is one of the few states that have agreed to count
some work study toward work requirements. But changing the
federal law would help ensure that the state would not lose
federal money for doing the right thing.
It's a shame we have to pass laws to mandate what is common
sense: A better education leads to career opportunities and
long-term self-sufficiency.
Yet, our national welfare policy has long snared poor
families in a Catch-22. For example, we bemoan single-parent
families yet force fathers out of the homes before giving the
families aid. We push folks to take low-pay, no-benefit jobs,
then cut medical benefits and food subsidies before they can
get on their feet, forcing them back on the rolls.
Over the last two years, those on welfare have proven that
they either want to work or will go to work if required. Now,
we may be ready to focus on what's needed to help them become
truly self-sufficient.
One thing we do know: In this country, education is the
surest route out of poverty. And we shouldn't close off that
option by forcing people out of college into any old kind of
job just so we can proclaim that they made the transition
from welfare to work.
Mr. FORD. I don't know how many of my colleagues have been to junior
colleges in the last year. I don't know how many of my colleagues have
been to universities and colleges that have these types of individuals
who have started. I go to my community college, and I talk to them. And
this young lady with tears in her eyes says, ``I finally am on the edge
of opportunity, and that edge is being sharpened by 1 year, and I have
to leave education and go to work.'' She said, ``I cannot handle a job,
I cannot handle education, I cannot handle my children, unless you give
me this opportunity.''
I have looked into the eyes of those who want to do better, who can
do better, and we must give them that opportunity so they can have that
better life. I hope that the 4,000 in my State have that opportunity
for that second year of education, that opportunity to find that job,
and that opportunity to make a better life for their children.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I thank the chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Wellstone amendment which
increases from 12 to 24 months the limit on the amount of post-
secondary education training that a state can count towards meeting its
work requirement under the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program. Under the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program,
recipients could attend post-secondary education training for up to 24
months. I support the new law's emphasis on moving recipients more
quickly into jobs, but I am troubled by the law's restriction on post
secondary education training, limiting it to 12 months. The limitation
on such advanced training raises a number of concerns, not the least of
which is whether persons may be forced into low-paying, short term
employment that will lead them back onto public assistance because they
are unable to support their families.
Mr. President, a majority of my colleagues in the Senate has
previously cast their vote in support of making 24 months of post
secondary education a permissible work activity under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program. A year ago, on June 25, 1997, a
Levin-Jeffords amendment to the Senate Reconciliation bill, permitting
up to 24 months of post-secondary education, received 55 votes--falling
five votes short of the required procedural vote of 60. I would also
like to make note of the fact that the amendment had the support of the
National Governors Association.
Study after study indicates that short-term training programs raise
the income of workers only marginally, while completion of at least a
two-year associate degree has greater potential of breaking the cycle
of poverty for recipients of public assistance. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, the median earnings of adults with an associate degree
is 30 percent higher than adults with only a high school diploma or its
recognized equivalent.
Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues some examples
of
[[Page S7820]]
jobs that an individual could prepare for in a two-year vocational or
community college program and the salary range generally applicable to
the positions. One very productive specialty area is information
technology. Graduates in this area are generally hired immediately
following or in some cases prior to completing their program.
According to a recent survey of the American Association of Community
Colleges, information technology programs that have exhibited the most
industry and labor force growth, with an average starting salary of
$25,500 are as follows:
(1) Computer Technology/Computer Information Systems.
(2) Computer Applications and Software.
(3) Computer Programming.
(4) Microsoft Operating Systems.
Other important two-year training programs that present opportunity
for growth and self-sufficiency include:
Accounting..............................................$14,000-$28,000
Law enforcement...........................................13,500-25,000
Dental hygiene............................................18,000-60,000
Resipiratory therapy/tech.................................21,000-32,000
Radiology technician......................................22,235-32,425
Legal assistant...........................................28,630-30,000
Child care development....................................23,590-29,724
Registered nurse..........................................24,400-38,135
Additionally, Mr. President, in an effort to further improve the
success of welfare reform, this amendment would remove teens from being
calculated in the 30% cap of those involved with work/education
activities, ensuring that teens complete high school while giving
states more flexibility in designing a welfare program that meets the
needs of welfare recipients.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will help
us reach the new law's intended goal of getting families permanently
off of welfare and on to self-sufficiency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just very briefly, I hope this amendment
will be accepted. I think in the study of welfare reform there are a
number of items which are necessary to help move people into meaningful
jobs. They have to have, one, by and large some help and assistance
with child care; secondly, they have to have the health care needs of
their children attended to. One of the reasons people are on welfare is
the fact that health care costs have depleted their resources and they
have ended up on welfare. Third, there has to be a job available; and,
fourth, there has to be some training or education. That is the key
element in terms of a successful movement. And taking all of those
elements with an expanding economy, they have the real opportunity of
promise for, I think, meaningful health care reform.
I did not believe in the last welfare reform bill we were really
addressing those kinds of issues and questions, and therefore I voted
in opposition to that particular program. The Senator from Minnesota
has offered, I think, a very important and significant amendment that
will really help to assist in terms of the medium- and long-term
interests of those individuals who have the ability to gain entrance
into educational institutions, obviously the commitment and the
dedication to be able to do so, and I think it will make a major
difference in terms of their lives.
I think it is very commendable. I hope the Senate will accept it.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Wellstone
amendment as it will halt the momentum of welfare reform which has
gained bipartisan acclaim for reducing the welfare rolls by 34 percent
from the peak level in 1994. This amendment is a step backwards, and it
will surely invite additional means of thwarting welfare reform.
The Wellstone amendment has little to do with education. It will
weaken the work participation requirements under welfare reform for
which the States are to be held accountable. The Wellstone amendment
will create three new loopholes through which States will be tempted to
avoid their responsibility for helping families gain the work
experience they need to achieve self-sufficiency.
First, the Wellstone amendment will double the amount of time in
vocational education from 12 months to 24 months that can be counted as
meeting the work requirement. Second, it allows postsecondary education
to be counted as work in the same manner as vocational education. And,
finally, it removes parents up to age 20 from the 30 percent cap on the
number of individuals who can be counted in educational activity. In
other words, it will expand the number of people who can be in
educational activities rather than in the workplace. This amendment
will significantly weaken the work requirements which deserve some of
the credit for the decline in the welfare rolls. And the effect of this
amendment is to keep individuals on welfare for a longer period of
time.
If this amendment passes, many more variations on this theme will
follow, and without restrictions on the number of individuals counted
in nonwork activities, there will be no meaningful work participation
rates. Raising these limits is another way of unraveling welfare
reform.
The grave injustice of weakening the work requirement is that it
takes the pressure off the States to assist the hardest to serve, and
it also requires an inequity among welfare recipients. A person who
does not have a high school degree must work first. Only after such a
person has worked 20 hours a week does any education count toward his
or her work requirement. But a person who is in postsecondary education
will not be required to work. Under this amendment, college will count
from the very beginning of the work requirement but reading, writing,
and arithmetic will not. One of the harshest indictments of the former
welfare system is that it shrugged its shoulders at the indifference to
welfare dependency. It did nothing to help those with little skills and
education to find the path to independence.
The key to forcing the States to serve this most needy population is
the work participation rate. Every time the work participation rate is
weakened, it simply makes it easier for the States to do nothing for
those who are hardest to serve, and that is the effect of this
amendment. And this we should not do.
The work participation requirement on the States is an issue which
the Senate has now acted upon four times in the past 3 years. The
Senate has debated this issue at length, and there is no demonstrated
need to reopen the bipartisan welfare reform agreement. The Wellstone
amendment simply does not belong on the higher education bill. Make no
mistake about this amendment, its purpose is not about providing
education to welfare recipients; it will begin to unravel welfare
reform.
The picture emerging from the states is crystal clear: welfare reform
is working and work is the key reason. In March 1994, a record 5.1
million families were on the old AFDC program. There are now 3.4
million families receiving welfare assistance, a decline of 34 percent.
As the General Accounting Office found in its recent report to
Congress on welfare implementation, the ``work first'' strategy has
been a central feature of states' efforts to shift the emphasis from
entitlement to self-sufficiency.
This strategy is working. States and counties which found the
education and training model to be unsuccessful in moving recipients
into work and self-sufficiency in the past are now helping more
families find employment.
GAO reports that more families are participating in work activities
than under the old JOBS programs and are able to keep more of their
earnings while maintaining eligibility.
Another sign of success is in growth in wages. Oregon is among the
states which are following the progress of families that have left the
welfare rolls.
By matching job placements with data on employer-related wages,
Oregon found that between 1993 and 1996, those former recipients who
remained employed experienced a wage growth averaging 14 percent per
year.
The states and the families are making progress. This is no time to
change direction.
This amendment is not about helping individuals get off welfare.
The Wellstone amendment is about keeping people on welfare, even
people who are seeking college degrees.
Let us make it clear that federal law allows a person to receive
welfare
[[Page S7821]]
while she is in vocational school or even in college. Under current
law, welfare recipients can participate in vocational education
training, job skills training, education directly related to
employment, or attend school to earn a high school diploma or GED. All
of these count as work activities.
Indeed, the new welfare law allows states to use welfare funds to pay
for expenses related to a person's education if they so choose.
There is plenty of flexibility already built into the new welfare
system if the states choose to make accommodations for individuals
pursuing post-secondary education. A number of states have already
created special programs to provide assistance to students while in
college, so models are available. And, because of the decline in the
welfare caseload, sanctions for failure to meet the work participation
rate is not really an issue for all but a couple of states.
From a very practical standpoint, the Wellstone amendment is not
really needed. But it sends the wrong message at the wrong time.
The Wellstone amendment is simply not needed to allow someone to
pursue her educational training she chooses to advance.
The evidence of this comes from the ``National Evaluation of Welfare
to Work Strategies'' which was recently released by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education.
This study, as conducted by the Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, tracks over 55,000 individuals in seven sites across the
country.
The first report examines the outcomes of welfare recipients in
Atlanta, Georgia, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Riverside County,
California.
The studies include both individuals who are directed toward a ``work
first'' approach and those who are assigned to educational activities.
MDRC found that many individuals pursued their educational interests
outside of the welfare programs which were offered. In Grand Rapids,
Michigan, for example, MDRC found that about 34 percent of those in
Grand Rapids ``work first'' approach reported they were already
enrolled in an education or training program at the point they were
randomly assigned to a research group.
Moreover, MDRC found individuals were almost as likely, or more
likely, to participate in basic education or college outside of the
JOBS program as they were as part of JOBS.
In other words, participation in basic education and college, was
self-initiated. People are going to pursue educational opportunities if
they believe that is in their best interest.
Mr. President, the Wellstone amendment is simply another attempt to
weaken the work participation requirements by excluding people from
being counted under the cap on educational activities.
Under the existing cap, no more than 30 percent of individuals
engaged in work may be included in the calculation of work
participation rates because they are in vocational training or in
educational activities.
The Wellstone amendment contains another feature which is troubling.
It sends a very mixed message among those on welfare who are the
hardest to serve.
In general, if an individual is going to college or is in a two-year
vocational educational program, that individual already has two
advantages many welfare recipients do not--academic success and some
means to support the pursuit of higher education. For these
individuals, school alone meets the obligation to work 20 hours per
week.
But if you do not have a high school degree, you go to work first.
For these individuals, the state receives credit for their basic
education only after they work 20 hours per week.
Mr. President, we have encouraging studies coming in which
demonstrate that work requirements work.
The ``National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies'' has found
that in terms of comparing a labor force attachment strategy to an
education and training strategy, work wins.
This study shows that an emphasis on employment leads to higher
earnings for the welfare family, is less expensive to operate, and
produces higher savings to the taxpayers.
So, there is evidence to suggest while the education approach is
good, work is better. But just as I do not believe that we should re-
open welfare reform to impose even tougher work requirements on the
states, neither should we adopt the Wellstone amendment. I simply do
not believe the rules should be changed at this point in time.
More importantly, by weakening the work requirements, we risk falling
back into the same trap of the old welfare system in which it was all
too easy for the states to do nothing for those who need the most
assistance in finding the pathway to independence. The Wellstone
amendment turns its back on the hardest to serve and should be
rejected.
Mr. Ford addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am surprised at the distinguished chairman
of the Finance Committee for objecting to an individual having the
opportunity to get an education. He ought to understand better than
anybody in this Senate Chamber that education is power, education
levels the playing field, education gives people an opportunity to do
things that they have always wanted to do. The employers will be able
to reach out to get individuals who are educated and trained. These
people we are trying to help here want to get out of welfare. They want
to be educated. They want better jobs. They want to take care of their
children. If education does not belong on a higher education bill, I
don't understand where it belongs.
The employers want better employees. Where do you get better
employees but educated employees? Where do you find them today? Those
who are on welfare, trying to get out of welfare, get out of Catch-22.
We have the American Association of Community Colleges that endorses
this amendment, the State Directors of Vocational Technical Education
Consortium, Career College Association, the Children's Defense Fund,
Center for Women Policy Studies, American Association of University
Women, the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, the
American Council on Education. I could go on and on, of the
associations that endorse this amendment.
So we are saying here this is going to destroy the welfare program?
How in the world are they going to buy a Roth IRA, if they don't have a
better job and have more money so they can save?
Mr. President, I hope the distinguished Senator would understand we
are trying to get them out of poverty, give them a good job, help the
employers--and higher education is where this amendment belongs. I hope
this doesn't destroy welfare. We have a bipartisan effort here. These
people are Democrats and Republicans who have endorsed this amendment.
So I am hopeful we would not look at this amendment as destroying the
welfare reform bill that I voted for and that I supported. I think this
is one place, now that it is in place, soon to be a 2-year anniversary,
that we would have an opportunity to correct those things that we made
a mistake on. This is one we made a mistake on. It belongs in the
higher education bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Moynihan addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and,
from the perspective, if I may, of someone who has been involved with
welfare dependency for a third of a century and more, and to make two
points, not each of which will give complete comfort to either side of
the debate.
First, to say that when we began to recognize that a different sort
of person was finding herself on welfare--which is to say the program
which began for widows, and was a temporary bridge program until
survivors insurance matured, as old-age insurance matured; and Francis
Perkins, who presided over the creation of the Social Security Act,
would describe the AFDC program, the typical recipient, as a West
Virginia miner's widow, someone who wasn't going to work in the mines,
this was a time of depression--this was a person who was left with
children and no other source of support. We began to recognize that,
more and more, we were getting younger mothers who had never been
married, who had never had,
[[Page S7822]]
either themselves or through a spouse, a relationship to the workforce;
and we began to think in terms of vocational education.
Vocational education was a Federal program. It began in World War I
with the idea of training persons for the elementary purposes of
providing the skills needed at the time in war industries. That has
turned out to be a problematic experiment. Too often it became a way of
providing jobs for teachers in vocational education programs, and with
no real cumulative effect upon the recipients it was designed to help.
However, in that interval I have been engaged in this, 33 years, we
have seen something quite remarkable in our educational system, the
development of a new level of education called the community college, 2
years after high school, to acquire some specific training, often in
complicated tasks for which there is a direct job relationship. That is
the way the community colleges have learned to work. They train you at
things for which there are jobs.
Last evening on the Jim Lehrer show we had a quarter hour segment of
a community college in Austin, TX, where they are running short of
high-tech computer producers and they are taking people in the
community college there and they are teaching them about as advanced a
degree of production skills as you could imagine--people who work with
masks over their mouths lest their breath contaminate the infinitely
complex circuitry of the computer chips they are making. This is done
with the support of local industries who want those people to be
employed and are in need of them and in a hurry for them.
This is exactly the sort of work program, training program, that
takes people off welfare permanently, as much as you can speak so of
any individual. It puts them, not just in jobs, but in jobs that
require high levels of training for which there is real demand in this
economy. To deny that opportunity to young women because they have been
on welfare is a form of injustice as well as a self-inflicted wound on
the society.
This is good sense. These are good training programs. These are
people who, as the Senator from Kentucky has observed--let them get
these 2 years behind them, get into the workforce, and buy Roth IRAs--
Roth IRAs. The more the better for the people and the more people with
this kind of education the more such purchases there will be.
Mr. President, I do hope in the interests of good common sense and
experience, that this amendment be accepted.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be brief. I am just going to
summarize.
I thank my colleague. I think Senator Ford and Senator Moynihan said
it well. Mr. President, I think this is eminently reasonable. I want to
be clear one more time, this just gives the States the flexibility to
allow a mother who is in college or wants to go to college for 2 years,
to be able to do that and not be penalized for it. No State has to
adopt this amendment. It is entirely up to the judgment of the States.
But right now we have a situation where States face penalties and they
are put in a position of having to drive some of these women out of
school where they could do so much better in terms of employment, so
much better in terms of jobs. There is a wealth of evidence that I
could go into, but I think we want to go to a vote.
This is the right thing to do. This is a terribly important
initiative supported by many Senators who supported the welfare bill,
and I hope there will be a very strong vote for it.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Center for Women
Policy Studies, that has over 100 signatures representing children,
women and education organizations in support of this amendment, along
with a letter from the National Urban League be printed in the Record.
Since I don't have time to go into other organizations of support I ask
that a list of these organizations from all around the country also be
printed in the Record. I would also like to include in the Record that
I have received letters in support for this amendment from the American
Vocational Association, the American Association of Community Colleges,
the Association of Community College Trustees, and letters from a
number of different legislators.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations from the
women's, children's civil rights, education, and human needs
advocacy communities urge your support for an amendment to be
offered by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) to S. 1882, the
Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The amendment would
expand educational opportunities and encourage economic self-
sufficiency for welfare recipients by doing the following:
Increase from 12 to 24 months the limit on vocational
education;
Allow 24 months of postsecondary education to count as a
``work activity'';
Remove teen parents from the vocational education cap so
more adults can; Pursue education.
Postsecondary education allows welfare recipients to pursue
careers beyond the low wage, short-term jobs usually
available to them.
Without an education, most women who leave welfare for work
will earn wages far below the federal poverty line, even
after five years of working (Weisbrot, 1997).
Nationally, the economy is projected to create only half as
many new low skill jobs as there are welfare recipients
targeted to enter the labor market (Weisbrot, 1997).
At least half of all new jobs by the year 2000 will require
a college-educated workforce (Kates, 1993).
Postsecondary education is a cost-effective strategy for
permanently moving welfare recipients from welfare to work at
a decent wage.
African American women holding bachelor's degrees earn
$2,002 a month, compared with $1,204 for those with only some
college education (Gittell, Vandersall, Holdaway, and Newman,
1996).
Among families headed by African American women, the
poverty rate for heads of households with at least one year
of postsecondary education is 21 percent, compared to 51
percent for those with only a high school education (Gittell,
Vandersall, Holdaway, and Newman, 1996).
Among families headed by Latinos, the poverty rate drops
from 41 percent to 18.6 percent with at least one year of
postsecondary education (Census Population Survey, as cited
in Sherman, 1990).
For white women, the poverty rate drops from 22 percent to
13 percent (Census Population Survey, as cited in Sherman,
1990).
On average, women with a college degree earn an additional
$3.65/hour (1997 dollars) over the wages of women with only a
high school diploma (Spalter-Roth and Hartmann, as cited in
Institute for Women's Policy Research, 1998).
Postsecondary education breaks the cycle of poverty for
women and their children.
Benefits extend to the children of educated parents, as
they are more likely to take education seriously and aspire
to go to college themselves (Gittell, Gross, and Holdaway,
1993).
There is a strong association between parental income and
the income of their children in future years (Gittell, Gross,
and Holdaway, 1993).
We urge you to support Senator Wellstone's amendment to
give TANF recipients the opportunity to pursue postsecondary
education and become economically self-sufficient.
If you have any questions, please contact Tanya Chin or
Kathleen Stoll at the Center for Women Policy Studies, 202/
872-1770, or Mikki Holmes in Senator Wellstone's office, 202/
224-5641. References cited above are available from the
Center for Women Policy Studies.
Sincerely,
ACES: The Association for Children for Enforcement of
Support.
ACORN: Association of Community organizations for Reform
Now.
African-American Women's Clergy Association.
All Families Deserve a Change (AFDC) Coalition.
American Association for Adult and Continuing Education.
American Association of Community Colleges.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
American Association of University Women (AAUW).
American College of Nurse-Midwives.
American Council on Education.
American Counseling Association.
American Friends Service Committee.
American Psychological Association.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Applied Research Center, Oakland, CA.
The Arc.
Association of Community College Trustees.
Big Brothers, Big Sisters, KY.
Blue Grass Community Action.
Bread for the World.
Business and Professional Women/USA.
The California State University.
Campaign for Budget Fairness/Community Action Board of
Santa Cruz County, Inc., CA.
Catholic Social Service Bureau.
Center for Advancement of Public Policy.
Center for the Child Care Workforce.
Center for Civil Justice.
[[Page S7823]]
Center for Community Change.
Center for Economic Options, Inc.
Center for Law and Social Policy.
Center for Policy Alternatives.
Center for Women & Enterprise.
Center for Women Policy Studies.
Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Child Care Council.
Children's Defense Fund.
Church Women United.
Clearinghouse on Women's Issues.
Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform (CEWR).
Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW).
Coalition on Human Needs.
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, KY.
Elizabeth Coalition to House the Homeless.
Elkhorn Middle School Youth Services Center, KY.
Family & Children's Service.
Florida Legal Services, Inc.
Frankfort/Franklin County Community Education, KY.
Franklin County Health Department, KY.
Franklin County Health Department (Home Health), KY.
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers).
Harry J. Cowherd Family Resource Center.
Housing Comes First.
J.E.D.I. for Women (Justice, Economic Dignity &
Independence).
Jewish Labor Committee.
Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Justice for Women Working Group, National Council of
Churches.
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth.
Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO.
Kentucky Youth Advocates.
LDA, The Learning Disabilities Association of America.
Legal Action Center.
Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, Employment Law Center.
LIFEtimE: Low-Income Families' Empowerment through
Education.
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, ELCA.
MANA, A National Latina Organization.
McAuley Institute.
Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office.
Metro Human Needs Alliance/Jefferson County Welfare Reform
Coalition, KY.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF).
Minnesota State University Student Association (MSUSA).
Mothers Mobilized for Economic & Social Justice.
National Alliance to End Homelessness.
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education.
National Association of Child Advocates.
National Association of Community Action Agencies.
National Association of Developmental Disabilities
Councils.
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities.
National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional
Children (NAPSEC).
National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Association of Social Workers, Nevada.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.
National Association of State Directors of Vocational
Technical Education Consortium.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges.
National Black Women's Health Project.
National Coalition for the Homeless.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of La Raza.
National Council of Senior Citizens.
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education.
National Council of Women of the US, Inc.
National Easter Seal Society.
National Education Association.
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
National Low Income Housing Coalition.
National Network to End Domestic Violence.
National Organization for Women.
National Parent Network on Disabilities.
National Partnership for Women & Families.
National Puerto Rican Coalition.
National Therapeutic Recreation Society.
National Women's Conference Committee.
National Women's Law Center.
NAWE.
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Nevada Empowered Women's Project.
New Ways to Work.
New York State Education Department.
Northeast Missouri Client Council for Human Needs, Inc.
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Oakland County Welfare Rights Organization, MI.
PUSH Early Childhood Development Center.
Resource Office for Social Ministries (R.O.S.M.).
San Luis Valley Welfare Advocates, CO.
SEIU 660.
Simon House, Inc.
Spina Bifida Association of American.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
Unitarian Universalist Association.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations.
United States Student Association.
Utah Issues.
VAW Local 2320, NY.
VOICES (Voices for Opportunity, Income, Child Care,
Education, & Support).
Volunteers of America.
Washington Welfare Reform Coalition.
Welfare Law Center.
Welfare Rights Initiative.
WeLISN (Welfare & Low-Income Support Network).
Wider Opportunities for Women.
The Woman Activist Fund, Inc.
Woman's National Democratic Club, Jewish Women's Caucus.
Women Employed.
Women and Poverty Public Education Initiative.
Women Work!
Women's Business Development Center.
Women's Resource Center, University of Nevada, Reno.
YWCA of the U.S.A.
____
National Urban League,
Policy and Government,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
Dear Senator: The National Urban League stands in strong
support of an amendment by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) that
would expand the educational opportunities for welfare
recipients. Senator Wellstone will be offering his amendment
to the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (S. 1882).
The Wellstone Amendment would address a critical flaw in
the 1996 welfare reform law (The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) that places unrealistic
limits on welfare recipients who seek economic self-
sufficiency through education. The Amendment would:
Make 24 months of postsecondary and vocational education a
permissible work activity under TANF (Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families). Under current law, states can only count
12 months of vocational education as a work activity.
Remove teen parents from the 30% limitation in the
educational cap so that more adults can pursue education.
If the goal of welfare reform is to place welfare
recipients into permanent employment, and we know from
studies that people with more education and training have
higher earnings and a greater likelihood of being employed,
then common sense dictates that access to quality higher
education is the key to an effective reform of our welfare
system. According to the 1996 Economic Report of the
President, by the early 1990s, the earnings differences
between high school and college graduates had nearly doubled
from 49% in 1979 to 89% in 1993. And presently, each
additional year of schooling after high school is worth about
5 to 15 percent in additional earnings.
Welfare recipients face the same changing economic
conditions as any other person seeking employment today.
According to a recent report, Education and Training for
America's Future (Anthony P. Carnevale, 1998), more skill is
not only necessary to get a job, but also to keep one as
well. The report notes that education and training
increasingly have separated the economic winners from the
losers in a global economy where economic and technological
change has been increasingly biased in favor of skill.
Therefore, our national welfare policy must not be
responsible for relegating welfare recipients into the
``economic losers'' category, when we know what it takes to
make them winners. If they join the ranks of ``economic
winners,'' then their children win and so does society at
large.
We should do no less for welfare recipients who seek to
make themselves permanently employable than what we seek for
all others in our quest for improving our national workforce
development system. We urge your support for the Wellstone
Amendment when it is offered.
Sincerely,
Milton J. Little, Jr.,
Executive Vice President and COO.
____
Groups in Support of the Wellstone Amendment to the Coverdell Bill
cosponsors: richard durbin (d-il), wendell ford (d-ky), tim johnson (d-
sd), carl levin (d-mi)
American Association of Community Colleges; American
Association for Adult and Continuing Education;
American Association of State Colleges and
Universities; American Vocational Association;
Association of Community College Trustees; Center for
Women's Policy Studies; Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities; National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges; National Council of State Directors of Adult
Education; New York State Education Department; United
Negro College Fund; United States Student Association.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has asked for the yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page S7824]]
Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how long it will be
before the vote? I can use this time that is being used in a quorum
call; I can use it in making some remarks. But I will be glad to
withhold my remarks.
Mr. JEFFORDS. If I can inquire, if the information required to go to
a vote is obtained, will the Senator mind being interrupted?
Mr. BYRD. Well, I am not accustomed to that, may I say. Washingtonian
magazine says when I start speaking, it is hard to stop me.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That may have prompted my question.
Mr. BYRD. Well, you got a courteous answer, but an answer that was to
the point, I guess. I saw this conversation going on over here, and I
thought I might as well be speaking.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from West Virginia
to see if this can be resolved briefly. If not, maybe we will want to
change course. I think we might be able to move to a vote briefly. Can
we wait for a few moments?
Mr. BYRD. How long is a moment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. How long is a moment? Sixty seconds. I prefer, since
the arguments are fresh in everybody's mind, to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I have the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. There is no point of order, so we are ready to go to a
vote.
Mr. BYRD. You are ready to go to a vote?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no other speakers on this side.
It is my understanding the yeas and nays have been ordered, and I
believe we are ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--42
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thompson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--2
Hutchison
Kyl
The amendment (No. 3111) was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Change of Vote
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 191, Senator Warner
voted ``nay,'' which was not his intention. He meant to be recorded as
``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that he be recorded as an ``aye.''
This would in no way affect the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sessions now be recognized for up to 10 minutes on his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the information of Senators,
following that, I know our friend and colleague from West Virginia has
been here for some period of time and is prepared to speak on an
amendment, which he has talked with us about. We are prepared to accept
the amendment, but he wants to comment about it.
In terms of our side, we have one more amendment by the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and then an amendment by Senator
Bingaman, and an amendment by Senator Harkin. That is where we are. We
haven't been able to get time agreements, but it gives you some idea
about the amendments. And then I expect we will have one or two other
Senators that want to speak on the measure. I think that gives us some
idea about the work that remains for the evening--at least from our
side. Is that your understanding?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. It is our intention to finish tonight and to have
the vote on final passage tomorrow morning at 9:30.
I just urge everybody to take Senator Sessions' example by getting a
time limit and disposing of the amendments. I think this side is
nearing completion. I don't believe we have any controversial
amendments that will take a great deal of time. So I am really
expecting that we can finish tonight, with the cooperation of all
Members. Certainly, I look forward to Senator Byrd's comments.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wanted to mention, as well, that I have
an amendment on a market-based study on interest rates, which we may or
may not be able to get to. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alabama is recognized.
Amendment No. 3115
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax incentives for education, and for other purposes)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mr.
Graham, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an
amendment numbered 3115.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 end add the following:
SEC. __. ELIGIBLE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS PERMITTED TO
MAINTAIN QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 529(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining qualified State tuition program) is
amended by inserting ``or by 1 or more eligible educational
institutions or any organization exempt from taxation under
this subtitle that consists solely of eligible educational
institutions'' after ``maintained by a State or agency or
instrumentality thereof''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The text and headings of each of the sections 72(e)(9),
135(c)(2(C), 135(d)(1)(D), 529, 530(b)(2)(B), 4973(e), and
6693(a)(2)(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by striking ``qualified State tuition'' each place it appears
and inserting ``qualified tuition''.
(2)(A) The section heading of section 529 of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 529. QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS.''.
(B) The item relating to section 529 in the table of
sections for part VIII of subchapter F of chapter 1 of such
Code is amended by striking ``State''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
[[Page S7825]]
SEC. __. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF EDUCATION
DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED STATE TUITION
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 529(c)(3)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to distributions) is amended
to read as follows:
``(B) Distributions for qualified higher education
expenses.--
``(i) In general.--If a distributee elects the application
of this clause for any taxable year--
``(I) no amount shall be includible in gross income under
subparagraph (A) by reason of a distribution which consists
of providing a benefit to the distributee which, if paid for
by the distributee, would constitute payment of a qualified
higher education expense, and
``(II) the amount which (but for the election) would be
includible in gross income under subparagraph (A) by reason
of any other distribution shall not be so includible in an
amount which bears the same ratio to the amount which would
be so includible as such expenses bear to such aggregate
distributions.
``(ii) In-kind distributions.--Any benefit furnished to a
designated beneficiary under a qualified State tuition
program shall be treated as a distribution to the beneficiary
for purposes of this paragraph.
``(iii) Disallowance of excluded amounts as credit or
deduction.--No deduction or credit shall be allowed to the
taxpayer under any other section of this chapter for any
qualified higher education expenses to the extent taken into
account in determining the amount of the exclusion under this
subparagraph.''.
(b) Additional Tax on Amounts Not Used for Higher Education
Expenses.--Section 529(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to distributions) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(E) Additional tax on amounts not used for higher
education expenses.--The tax imposed by section 530(d)(4)
shall apply to payments and distributions from qualified
tuition programs in the same manner as such tax applies to
education individual retirement accounts.''.
(c) Coordination With Education Credits.--Section 25A(e)(2)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
coordination with exclusions) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``a qualified tuition program or'' before
``an education individual retirement account'', and
(2) by striking ``section 530(d)(2)'' and inserting
``section 529(c)(3)(B) or 530(d)(2)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions made after December 31, 2003,
for education furnished in academic periods beginning after
such date.
SEC. __. QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN SECURITIES
EXEMPTION.
(a) Exempted Securities.--Section 3(a)(4) of the Securities
Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(4)) is amended by striking
``individual;'' and inserting ``individual or any security
issued by a prepaid tuition program described in section 529
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;''.
(b) Qualified Tuition Programs Not Investment Companies.--
Section 3(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-3(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Any prepaid tuition program described in section 529
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I intended to come to the floor today,
along with Senators Bob Graham, Mitch McConnell and Paul Coverdell, to
offer an amendment to the Higher Education Act that would have helped
more than 2.5 million students afford a college education.
I would like to particularly recognize the outstanding efforts of my
good friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. He has been a true
champion of this issue for quite a number of years. Senator Bob Graham
of Florida has done an outstanding job of guiding and helping us work
on this amendment and handle it in the proper way. His advice and
leadership have been crucial in gaining the support for this amendment
that we think is necessary for its passage. Let me take a few minutes
to discuss the concept of prepaid tuition plans and why they are
critically important to help America's families.
As a parent myself, who has put two children through college--I just
had my second one graduate in May, and another one is currently in
college--I know firsthand that America's families are struggling to
meet the rising cost of higher education. In fact, American families
have already accrued more college debt in the 1990s than during the
previous three decades combined. The reason is twofold: The Federal
Government subsidizes student debt with interest breaks and deferred
payments and penalizes educational savings by taxing the interest that
accrues on those savings accounts for college.
In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition
costs by taking advantage of prepaid college tuition plans. These plans
allow families to purchase tuition credits years in advance. Thanks to
innovative programs already established by at least 17 States, like my
home State of Alabama, parents can actually lock in today's college
tuition rates for tomorrow's education.
Congress has supported participating families in this effort by
expanding the scope of prepaid tuition plans and by deferring taxes on
the interest earned when students go off to college.
Recently, thanks to the hard work of Senator Coverdell and several
Members of the House of Representatives, including Chairman Bill
Archer, a provision was included in the Coverdell A+ Educational
Accounts bill, which would make all earnings in all prepaid tuition
plans tax free. That is, interest that accumulated on the savings would
accumulate without having to be taxed.
Unfortunately, President Clinton has promised to veto that bill on
his opposition to several other unrelated provisions--provisions that I
think are excellent, but the President has made clear his intention in
that regard.
Due to his anticipated veto, more than 2.5 million students and their
families planning to take advantage of prepaid tuition and savings
programs over the next decade will be denied the ability to invest in
their children's education using tax-free interest income.
Our amendment, modeled after Chairman Archer's and Senator
Coverdell's efforts during the A+ Educational Accounts conference
committee, would have made earnings in State and private prepaid plans
completely tax free.
Currently, most of the interest earned by families saving for college
is taxed twice. The parent is paying taxes on it when he earns it. Then
they set it aside in the college account--even the prepaid tuition
accounts--and they have to pay taxes on the interest that it earns. On
the other hand, the Federal Government subsidizes student loans by
deferring interest payments until after graduation and sometimes giving
low-interest rate loans. So it is no wonder that American families are
having a hard time saving for college and instead are having to go
heavily into debt to finance college at a later time. This trend must
not continue. As a matter of fact, it is not good public policy.
Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to make a very critical
point. I had an opportunity this morning to review a standard student
education loan agreement, which belongs to one of my staff members. The
loan, which was used to pay for the final 2 years of his college
education, was $13,674.02. My young staffer is currently 25 years old.
After the roughly 15 years it will take to pay off his loan, at which
time he will be 40 years of age, he will have paid a total of
$13,171.64 in interest alone. Mr. President, that will bring his total
payment for his 2 years in college to $26,845.65; that is nearly double
the original loan balance. This is the Federal Government's only
option, the only way it provides help to families to pay for their
children's education.
So in order to provide families a new alternative, the Sessions-
Graham-McConnell-Coverdell amendment would provide tax-free treatment
to all prepaid plans for public and private colleges and universities.
This would place all savings plans and all schools on an equal playing
field.
This bipartisan amendment would not only provide American families
with more than $1 billion in much-needed tax relief over the next
decade, but would also help control the cost of college for all
students. In fact, the track record of existing State prepaid plans
indicates that working, middle-income families benefit the most from
these prepaid plans.
Prepaid tuition plans must become law. The Federal Government can no
longer subsidize student debt with interest rate breaks and penalize
educational savings by taxing the interest earned by families who are
trying to save for college. Both public and private prepaid tuition
plans should be held equal by the Federal Government and must be
completely tax free.
If these goals are achieved, the Federal Government would be
providing families with the help they need to meet the cost of college
through savings rather than through debt. Indeed,
[[Page S7826]]
as a nation we ought to be reviewing all of our laws and all of our
public tax policies to make sure we are encouraging savings rather than
encouraging debt. Too often our policies have been just the opposite.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks several items in support of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Amendment No. 3115, Withdrawn
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, unfortunately at this point I will be
having to withdraw this amendment due to the fact that it appears it
may be in violation of existing rules governing the revenue proposals
which have to originate in the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
withdrawn.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I simply say with regard to the letters
that have been introduced, those are letters to me from the Independent
College Association and from the several other groups, such as the
American Council on Education, that say the steps referred to in this
amendment ``would make prepaid tuition plans more widely available and
more attractive for families. By doing this, families will have a
strong incentive to begin to save money for college when their children
are young. And, as with any investment, saving early is vitally
important.''
That is the American Council on Education, dated July 9, referring to
this amendment.
The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities is
likewise supporting this amendment. They say, ``On behalf of the over
900 independent colleges and universities that make up the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, I want to express
our appreciation of your efforts.
``We agree that students and families who want to utilize prepaid
tuition plans should be allowed to dedicate those funds to the
institution of their choice'' to be able to compete on a level playing
field.
The College Savings Plans Network has likewise supported this
proposal in a letter to Congressman Archer dated July 2, 1998.
The National Association of State Treasurers has adopted this
resolution. Many State treasurers have formulated this legislation in
the State--in fact, the Alabama State Treasury, and former State
Treasurer George Wallace, Jr., is the one who passed the legislation in
Alabama for the prepaid tuition plan.
Also, The Heritage Foundation has supported this effort.
Exhibit One
American Council on Education,
Government and Public Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sessions: I am writing with respect to the
amendment on prepaid tuition plans that you hope to offer
when the Senate considers S. 1882, The Higher Education
Amendments of 1998.
In recent years, states and private sector organizations
have begun to offer prepaid tuition plans designed to
encourage families to save money for higher education. The
American Council on Education supports these efforts. We
believe that your amendment would enhance these plans in two
important ways. First, it would exclude from federal income
tax the value of the plan when the student enrolls in higher
education. Second, the amendment would allow private colleges
and universities to establish these initiatives.
These steps would make prepaid tuition plans more widely
available and more attractive for families. By doing this,
families will have a strong incentive to begin to save money
for college when their children are young. And, as with any
investment, saving early is vitally important.
We understand that there may be a jurisdictional problem
with your amendment and we hope that this can be
satisfactorily worked out. If it proves impossible to fix the
jurisdictional issue, we will work with you to ensure that
your plan is enacted this year.
We are enormously grateful for your leadership on this
issue of such importance to families and colleges and
universities. We look forward to working on it with you.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Hartle,
Senior Vice President.
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities
Washington, DC, July 9, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sessions: On behalf of the over 900
independent colleges and universities that make up the
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities, I want to express our appreciation of your
efforts to allow private colleges and universities to
establish prepaid tuition plans that would enjoy the same tax
treatment and preferences as state sponsored plans. We agree
that students and families who want to utilize prepared
tuition plans should be allowed to dedicate the funds to the
institution of their choice. Allowing private colleges and
universities to compete on a level playing field in the tax
arena is absolutely necessary and fair.
We appreciate the parliamentary restrictions of including
this language in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, S.
1882, and look forward to working with you to see that this
issue is addressed in a manner that will be enacted into law
in the very near future.
Again, thank you for your efforts. Please do not hesitate
to contact me if and when I can be further assistance on this
or any issue of importance to independent higher education.
Sincerely,
David L. Warren,
President.
College Savings Plans Network,
Lexington, KY, July 2, 1998.
Hon. Bill Archer,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the College Savings Plans
Network, I am writing in support of the proposed amendment by
Senator Jeff Sessions to S. 1882, The Higher Education
Amendments of 1998. The amendment is designed to increase the
nation's saving rate and to improve access to higher
education. The College Savings Plans Network (CSPN), the
association of the state-sponsored college tuition programs,
strongly supports Senator Session's amendment which would
establish an exclusion from gross income for amounts
distributed from qualified tuition programs to cover
qualified higher education expenses. The enactment of this
provision would further the public policy of encouraging
parents to save for their children's college education, which
would provide long-term benefits to the U.S. economy. CSPN
urges you to support the amendment to S. 1882.
CSPN believes that the tax treatment of the qualified state
programs should be carefully crafted to account for the
unique design and circumstances in which the state programs
operate. The Network supports the amendment because it
provides clearer tax treatment for contributions to and
distributions from the state-sponsored plans. Clearer tax
treatment would encourage college savings, and would reduce
the need to borrow, which would provide long-term benefits to
over 700,000 families who participate in the state-sponsored
qualified tuition programs.
Thank you for your strong leadership on this proposal and
commitment to expanding the educational opportunities of
American families.
Very truly yours,
Marshall G. Bennett,
President, College Savings Plans Network
and Mississippi State Treasurer.
Resolution
Federal Tax-Exemption for College Tuition Programs
Urging the Congress and the President to enact bipartisan
legislation that will provide for the tax-free treatment of
qualified state-sponsored college tuition programs, including
both prepaid and savings programs.
Whereas, over the last several years, the constantly
increasing costs of higher education and decreases in state
and Federal funding of higher education have made an
affordable, high quality college education increasingly
difficult to obtain for everyday Americans; and
Whereas, in response, State legislatures created state-
sponsored college savings programs to help families afford
postsecondary education for their children; and
Whereas, the State sponsored programs are designed and
operated in a manner to account for the unique nature of each
state's educational system; and
Whereas, the programs are primarily directed to middle-
income working families and encourage and permit these
families to save for and send their children to college,
where otherwise they may not be able to access postsecondary
education without relying on significant borrowing to afford
spiraling tuition costs; and
Whereas, over the past five years borrowing for higher
education expenses has increased more than in the previous
three decades; and
Whereas, the State sponsored programs are accountable to
State-level policymakers, and are subject to close public
scrutiny and multiple levels of accountability, which
provides strong safeguards to the public's interest in these
programs; and
Whereas, the Congress, recognizing the unique role states
play in providing access to higher education for their
citizens, in 1996, passed legislation to improve the tax
treatment of State sponsored programs; and
Whereas, the Congress, further recognizing the unique role
states play in providing access to higher education for their
citizens,
[[Page S7827]]
has included provisions in the Revenue Reconciliation Act
that would further clarify and enhance the tax advantages
offered to families through qualified state tuition plans,
and
Whereas, under the proposed legislation, parents will be
given greater incentive to save for or prepay a major portion
of higher education costs in advance, in increments as little
as $15 or $25 a month, which fit easily within their budgets;
and
Whereas, this legislation is truly bipartisan and has been
widely supported by Democratic and Republican members of the
House and Senate.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That the National
Association of State Treasurers does hereby call upon the
Congress and the President of the United States to promptly
enact legislation providing for tax-free treatment of
distributions from qualified state-sponsored college tuition
programs.
____
The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC.
Another Chance to Help Families Afford College
Last year, Congress took a big step to help American
families save for the huge cost of their children's
education. Thanks to the Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-34) families are now able to establish
Education Individual Retirement Accounts (Education IRAs) and
deposit up to $500 annually for use later to pay for higher
education expenses without having taxes levied on the accrued
interest. But in passing this measure, Congress placed undue
restrictions on the amount of money families could place in
such accounts, and it favored public colleges over private
institutions.
Now, as the Senate moves to re-authorize the Higher
Education Act, and as Congress considers a tax bill, there is
another opportunity to help those families with college-bound
students while dealing with the deficiencies in current law.
An effective policy would:
1. Extend to all private tuition savings and prepaid plans
the same tax treatment public plans receive. Currently, 28
states have established special programs that allow resident
families to save for college costs. Federal income tax on the
accrued interest in these state-sponsored accounts is
deferred until the account is cashed in to pay for college.
However, there are drawbacks to these plans, including the
fact that they do not effectively meet the needs of families
interested in sending their children to private colleges and
universities since the plans are designed specifically to
benefit public institutions. Nearly 25 percent of families
choose to send their children to a private college or
university, yet few state plans serve the needs of this
population. Nor do state plans provide a nationwide network
of institutions from which participating families may choose,
yet 20 percent of students decide to attend an institution
outside of their home state. Congress can help fix these
deficiencies by giving the same tax treatment to private
colleges and universities--or nationwide consortia of these
institutions--that establish plans similar to those of the
states as it does to the state-sponsored accounts for public
colleges.
2. Make all interest earned through tuition savings and
prepaid plans tax-free. Not only should all tuition savings
and prepaid plans receive equal tax treatment, they also
should be relieved of the double taxation that currently
exists within the tax code (the money being saved is taxed
when earned, and the interest on the savings also is taxed).
In the case of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Roth
IRAs and similar retirement plans, Congress has ended double
taxation, but not on money placed in education accounts.
Ending the double taxation of money in education accounts
would both encourage savings for college and be consistent
with long term tax reform.
Although these two provisions would provide significant
relief to the more than two and a half million students and
their families who plan to take advantage of tuition savings
and prepaid plans, there would not be a significant revenue
loss to the federal government. The Joint Committee on
Taxation has estimated that granting state tuition savings
and prepaid plans tax-free withdrawals would result in a
loss to the federal government of just $339 million over
the next five years. Since even the most enthusiastic
industry estimates of the private market do not anticipate
greater participation than is anticipated in the state
plans, the total impact on federal revenues for both of
the above proposals would be well below $800 million over
five years. And even if it is assumed that families saving
in private plans were, on average, in a higher tax bracket
than those participating in state plans, the total revenue
loss would not exceed $1.2 billion over the next five
years.
But it is in any case erroneous to assume that tuition
savings and prepaid plans benefit mainly the wealthy. In
fact, the experience of existing state plans indicates that
it is working, middle-income families who benefit most. For
example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000
purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by
the state of Pennsylvania in 1996. The average monthly
contribution to a family's college savings account during
1995 in the state of Kentucky was $43.
Several Members of Congress have proposed tax-free savings
for college. Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA), House Ways and
Means Chairman Bill Archer (R-TX) and Representatives Dick
Armey (R-TX) and Kay Granger (R-TX), gained inclusion of a
provision in the Education Savings Act for Public and Private
Schools (H.R. 2646), also known as the ``A+ Education
Accounts Act,'' that would not only accomplish the above two
goals for good tax policy but would also make interest earned
on family savings for primary and secondary education tax-
free. However, H.R. 2646 would place a $5,000 annual
contribution limit on private tuition savings and prepaid
plans.
Recently, Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Bob Graham (D-FL),
and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have proposed an amendment to the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (S. 1882) that
would accomplish the two goals without any annual
contribution limit. The result of these tax measures would be
in line with the over-arching goal of the bill, to make
attainment of a college diploma a reality for more American
students.
American families accumulated more college debt during the
first five years of the 1990s than the previous three decades
combined. Recognizing that this trend cannot continue,
several states have established tuition savings and prepaid
plans. Now, a nation-wide consortium of more than 50 private
schools, with more than 1 million alumni, has launched a
similar plan for private institutions. These plans are
extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They
make it easier for families to save for college, and the pre-
paid tuition plans also take the uncertainty out of the
future cost of college. It is time for Congress and the
President to recognize the value of such plans and eliminate
the double taxation that exists on interest earned through
the programs and to end the disparity that currently exists
between public and private colleges.
Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.,
Vice President, Domestic and
Economic Policy Studies.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we believe we have a good plan. I want
to again say how much I appreciate the leadership, advice, and support
given by Senator Bob Graham of Florida. He is an outstanding Senator
and has been a great aid to this effort. I see him on the floor at this
time and would be glad to yield such time as I have remaining to
Senator Graham.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Has time been
allotted to the Senator?
Mr. SESSIONS. I asked for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 47 seconds left.
Mr. BYRD. He has yielded that to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Florida has
47 seconds.
Mr. GRAHAM. To my friend from Alabama, I express my appreciation for
the kind remarks in bringing this matter to the attention of the
Senate, even though, because of the rules of the two bodies, we cannot
consider it tonight. But I believe what he has essentially done has put
all of us on alert that we are going to be looking for another
opportunity to remedy this remaining tax issue with the State college
tuition plans and thus give to the families of America the assurance
that every dollar they invest in a prepaid college tuition contract
will go to the education of their children and thus encourage more
families to participate.
Mr. President, I hope that with the message the Senator from Alabama
has issued tonight we will soon be able to follow his clarion call.
Thank you.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Florida
need an additional 2 or 3 minutes or so? I will be glad to wait.
Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate, as always, the Senator's graciousness. I
anticipate that we will have an opportunity to discuss this issue
again, I hope soon, and at that time we can actually be making movement
toward legislative enactment. I will withhold any further comments
until then. But I express my appreciation to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from
Florida.
A TREND WORTH STOPPING
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I recently learned of an extremely alarming
riot which occurred on the campus of Michigan State University. On May
2, 1998, nearly three thousand students abandoned their dorm rooms and
various other corners of the university's massive campus to protest a
university
[[Page S7828]]
decision to end drinking at Munn Field, a popular campus spot where
students gather before and after football games. Outraged students tore
through a fence surrounding the field, thereafter charging into
downtown East Lansing, home to the university, to set ablaze one of the
area's busiest intersections. Police officers were pelted with flying
bottles, rocks, and bricks, and were only able to quell the scores of
protesting students with shots of tear gas.
Michigan State University does not stand alone. Both Washington State
University and Plymouth State College in New Hampshire have experienced
similar protests. Mr. President, our Nation has a serious problem,
which only continues to worsen with each passing day, yet, we in
Congress have all but ignored this epidemic plaguing our nation's young
people. Rather, we have stood on this floor ranting about the
pernicious effects of tobacco, while its evil twin continues to rampage
across college campuses throughout the country. I support the efforts
we have undertaken to crack down on youth use of tobacco, but is it not
time, I ask, to broaden the equally staggering problem of alcohol abuse
among our young people?
I hope that the President and the administration will engage in a
similar crusade against alcohol abuse--similar to that which they have
led with respect to the use of tobacco.
I hear nothing said about alcohol--not a word. The country seems to
be silent. It seems to have lost its voice when it comes to alcohol
abuse.
Alcohol, Mr. President, is the drug of choice--the drug of choice
among teenagers and college students--not tobacco, not marijuana, not
heroin, but alcohol. Surveys show that over 85 percent of all college
students imbibe alcohol. That is a disgrace.
Let me read that again. Over 85 percent of all college students
imbibe alcohol, whether it be a beer, wine, or some other potent
concoction tossed together at a fraternity party. More than 40 percent
consume five or more drinks at one sitting within a 2-week period,
otherwise defined as ``binge drinking.'' It really isn't the ``in
thing,'' Mr. President, and I hope that young people will learn that.
In the past year, the media have reported several incidents in which
college students have tragically died due to alcohol poisoning or
excessive inebriation, including deaths at Louisiana State University
and the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In Virginia
alone, five students died within a one-month timespan in alcohol-
related accidents.
If this were some new plague that was being visited upon the country,
people would be asking for a remedy.
The amendment I have included in the managers' package recognizes ten
universities, colleges, or community colleges across the nation that
have responded to this crisis with innovative and effective alcohol
prevention policies. Under my amendment, each institution receives a
grant of $50,000 in recognition of its efforts, subsequently to be used
to help maintain and improve each respective program. In addition, my
amendment requires the Department of Education to distribute a
publication identifying these schools and their policies to high school
counselors for the information of prospective college-going students
and their parents. It is my hope that parents and responsible
students--I should say responsible parents and responsible students--
will use this information to select schools that are most active in
helping students to be students, not drunks--students.
Mr. President, over the years, the culture of college has gradually
changed from one of academics and concentrated study to one consumed
with partying--partying, and nobody benefits from it. Gathering at the
library with classmates to prepare for an exam has taken a backseat to
sitting around swilling beers at keg parties or ordering a round of
shots at the closest bar.
Sadly, the process does not always begin in college. Often times,
experimentation with alcohol begins in high school, or even earlier in
the homes. That is where it begins many times. The examples are set by
parents.
According to the 1995 ``Monitoring the Future'' study conducted by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 55 percent of 8th graders have
experimented with alcohol--55 percent of 8th graders have experimented
with alcohol. When I was attending a little two-room school back in the
mountains of West Virginia, it would never have been thought of, nobody
would think of a student's going to school experimenting with alcohol.
According to the study, 71 percent of 10th graders and 81 percent of
high school seniors have experimented with alcohol. What are they doing
in school? What do their parents think about that? What are their
parents doing about it? Are the parents doing the same at home?
Even more alarming, perhaps, is the widespread occurrence of binge
drinking--measured by five or more drinks in a row at least once in the
prior 2-week period. As indicated by the Monitoring the Future study,
binge drinking stands at 15 percent for 8th graders, 24 percent for
10th graders, and 30 percent for high school seniors. What a shame.
Today, alcohol is infesting the lives of vulnerable young children at
the hands of irresponsible parents and schools, and students are not
just walking away from the empty beer bottle with a so-called ``buzz.''
In 1996, approximately 2,315 drivers between the ages of fifteen and
twenty lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic deaths.
Yet, all the rage is about tobacco. I don't have any criticism of
that rage, but why not alcohol also? Nobody hears a peep, not even a
peep, about alcohol abuse.
More than 40 percent of all 16- to 20-year-old deaths result from
motor vehicle crashes, about half of whom die in alcohol-related
crashes. Nobody reads about tobacco-related crashes. These are alcohol-
related crashes. Where are the administration speakers? Why don't they
speak out about alcohol as well? Where are the churches? Where is the
great moral force of the churches in this country anymore?
Alcohol is a factor in the three leading causes of death for 15- to
24-year-olds--accidents, homicides and suicides. There you have it. In
approximately 50 to 60 percent of youth suicides, alcohol is involved--
not tobacco, but alcohol--booze. That is stuff that inflames one's
mind. Furthermore, links have been shown between alcohol use and teen
pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
So, Mr. President, with the drinking onset age becoming younger and
younger, colleges each year face an influx of students who already know
this drug all too well. Students walk on to college campuses today with
booze on the brain--we have heard of water on the knee or water on the
brain; these students have booze on the brain--completely apathetic to
curriculum, major requirements, and freshman seminar choices.
Fraternity parties run amuck with students hankering to get their
hands on a beer or whatever may be the alcoholic beverage of the night.
According to a national survey recently released by researchers at
Cornell and Southern Illinois universities, nearly three of every four
fraternity leaders engage in binge drinking, averaging approximately
fourteen drinks per week. Fourteen drinks per week!
Student alcohol abuse is the number one problem on college campuses
across the nation, yet, precious little is being done to combat this
destructive trend. In 1989, as part of the amendments to the Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act, Congress passed a minimum set of
requirements for college substance abuse policies as a condition of
receiving funds or any other form of financial assistance under any
Federal Program. These regulations require institutions of higher
education to certify to the Department of Education that they have
implemented a policy that prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or
distribution of drugs or alcohol on college property, or as part of a
college activity, and to distribute to college students a document
describing campus policy on alcohol and other drugs.
While many schools reluctantly meet these minimum federal
requirements, there are a select few that go far beyond the call of
duty to combat alcohol abuse on campus. It is these schools, these
candles that are glowing in the darkness, that deserve recognition for
their efforts. I have read articles highlighting a northeastern school
which has implemented substance-free housing on campus, reducing binge
drinking
[[Page S7829]]
by as much as 30 percent in the past few years as a result of the
program. It is this kind of progress which must be sought by parents
and educators. However, such significant headway does not happen
overnight, and certainly requires much work and dedication.
Again, my amendment names ten institutions of higher education each
year with proven effective alcohol prevention policies and awards each
a grant of $50,000 to help get at the root of the problem. These awards
would not be conferred haphazardly to schools that craft a pretty
brochure on alcohol abuse, but do virtually nothing to enforce what has
been put down on paper. Vacuous words do not have much meaning, but
action does. There are some terrific programs out there, such as the
one at the aforementioned northeastern school, which should serve as
models for other schools still grappling with alcohol abuse problems.
My amendment awards those schools that make a difference.
Accordingly, my amendment lays forth explicit criteria which schools
must meet in order to be eligible to receive a National Recognition
award. Applicant colleges must have specific policies implemented on
campus, including restrictions on alcohol advertising in campus
publications and at sporting events, the establishment or expansion of
alcohol-free living arrangements for all students, and the development
of partnerships with community members and organizations to further
alcohol prevention efforts on campus. In addition, my amendment creates
a review board, with members to be appointed by the Secretary of
Education, to review and evaluate the applicant's implementation of
these policies on campus.
Earlier this year, Secretary Shalala urged members of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to sever their ties with the
alcoholic beverage industry, and called on colleges to eliminate
alcohol advertising from sporting events. I second that motion. After
all, this is simple common sense. It is unequivocally evident that
alcohol and sports do not mix, yet colleges continue to endorse
alcoholic beverage sponsorship of athletic events. One particular
school, until recently, actually herded basketball players from the
locker room onto the home court by way of an inflatable silver tunnel
resembling a can of beer!
My amendment included in the Higher Education Act begins to touch
upon some of the fundamental areas which must be addressed in halting
this deadly substance from further permeating college campuses. As we
have learned this year from the tragic deaths of several promising
young students at some of our finest universities just this past year,
the decision to drink alcohol can sometimes mean life or death, even
when an automobile is not involved.
Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge Senator Wellstone, and
thank him for his work on the Labor and Human Resources Committee in
addressing the issue of college drinking prior to S. 1882 coming to the
floor. Senator Wellstone was successful in including an extremely
important counterpart to my amendment which creates a grant program for
colleges to establish alcohol and drug treatment, counseling, as well
as alcohol and drug education. I want to commend Senator Wellstone for
his efforts and dedication to fighting alcohol abuse on college
campuses.
Mr. President, when I was a member of the West Virginia State Senate,
48 years ago, I was a witness to the execution of a young man named
James Hewlett at the West Virginia State Penitentiary, in Moundsville.
I asked to be a witness because the law at that time required a certain
number of witnesses, to an execution. I asked to be a witness and the
warden accepted me as a witness. Before the execution, I told the
warden that I wanted to talk with this young man who was going to be
executed at 9 p.m. He had shot a cabdriver in the back and left the
cabdriver to die by the side of the road after robbing him and then
drove off with the cab. This young man was later apprehended in a
theater at Montgomery, WV, and was convicted and sentenced to die in
the electric chair.
He did not wish to have a Chaplain in his cell. He scoffed at the
idea of religion. But, as the days and weeks wore on, he asked for a
Chaplain, because the Governor did not commute his sentence. And, so,
the young man knew that he was going to die.
I went into the doomed man's cell that evening and shook his hand. He
was perspiring. I said, ``I often speak to young people, 4-H groups,
Boy Scout groups and Girl Scout groups, and I thought that you might
have a message that I could pass on to these young people.''
He said, ``Well, tell them to go to Sunday school and church. If I
had gone to Sunday school and church, I probably wouldn't be here
tonight.''
I turned to go after a few more words. He said, ``Wait a minute. Tell
them something else. Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.''
Those were his very words. That was almost 50 years ago, but I have
told that story over and over to young audiences. ``Tell them not to
drink the stuff that I drank.''
I said, ``Why do you say that?''
The chaplain in his cell spoke up and said, ``Do you see that little
crack in the wall up there?''
I looked up at the wall and said, ``Yes.''
He said, ``If he were to take a couple of drinks, he would try to get
through that little crack in the wall. That's what alcohol does to
him.''
I said goodbye and left, went back over to the warden's office and,
at the stroke of 9, we were back in the death house where we watched
the execution. That was the story of Jim Hewlett, ``Tell them not to
drink the stuff that I drank.''
About 30 years later, I was visiting in the northern panhandle of
West Virginia and someone said to me, ``Why don't you pay a visit to
the home of Father so-and-so. He's very ill, and it might help if you
just stopped by and said hello.'' I personally did not know the
clergyman.
I said, ``Well, tell me where to go,'' and I went. And the priest was
there. He was very ill. I don't know how the subject matter arose, how
I came to tell this story to him, but I told this same story of having
talked with Jim Hewlett just before the execution.
I told it in greater detail than I am now telling my colleagues, and
the priest just sat and listened. He never said anything. When I
finished, he said, ``Yes. That's the way it was. You see, I was the
chaplain in that cell that night when you came to visit Jim Hewlett.''
That young man said to me--those words I will never forget --``Tell
them not to drink the stuff I drank.''
So I plead to our young people, those young pages who are here in
this great Chamber and those who are listening and watching on
television: Avoid alcohol. Stay away from it. There is nothing good in
it. And the point is, you may get into an automobile and kill an
innocent person--a woman taking her children to school, to the library,
to the hospital or to church. You may kill them. Smoking tobacco is
bad, but tobacco won't cause you to drive while drunk.
I am not upholding tobacco, but what I am saying is, in this country,
we have been engaged in a great crusade against tobacco, but nobody
lifts a finger, nobody says a word, there is not a peep said about
alcohol abuse.
I implore the young people in this country to stop, look and listen
before you ``drink the stuff'' that Jim Hewlett drank.
I thank the managers for accepting my amendment, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Let me just say to
my colleague from West Virginia that it was an honor to work with him
on this amendment. I thank him for his eloquence and for all that he
does in the Senate.
Mr. President, other colleagues are here--two colleagues. I am going
to be quite brief. I am going to speak briefly about an amendment I was
going to offer, and then I was going to ask unanimous consent my slot
be eliminated. I wonder if that will be in order.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is fine.
Mr. WELLSTONE. While I have the floor, I ask unanimous consent that
my slot be eliminated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will be very brief, because there are amendments
that we
[[Page S7830]]
have in the evening ahead of us. Let me simply talk about a
conversation I had with Nils Hasselmo, who was president of the
University of Minnesota and dropped by my office yesterday. He works
with the American Association of Universities. He said, ``Look, Paul, I
rather you not do this amendment. We in the higher education community
want to work with you.'' If so, fine.
I want to refer for a moment to a report. This was the Boyer
Commission on Educating Undergraduates titled ``Reinventing
Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research
Universities.'' This was dedicated in memory of Ernest Boyer, who had
been president of the Carnegie Foundation. Many of us knew Ernest Boyer
as a visionary concerning education.
What concerns me about this report that came out a few months ago--
and there were quite a few front-page stories about it--is the
findings.
To be very brief, the findings go as follows: That in all too many of
our large research universities, undergraduates go to these schools and
their tuition is applied, of course, to the finances of these
universities. They go in part because they hear about some of the
university professors who have excellent reputations, but they never
see them as teachers in their classes. It is not uncommon for
undergraduates, first-year students--basically in their first year--to
hardly have any professors--associate or full professors. It does seem
to me if our universities and colleges are going to say they have a
teaching mission, then there has to be some way that they live up to
that mission.
I could go on for hours and hours, but let me simply say that as an
undergraduate many years ago, I experienced this. I have been a rebel
about this forever. I think it is just simply unacceptable that in so
many of our large research institutions, the graduate students are the
priority, and the truth of the matter is, the undergraduates are not. I
think when parents send their children--women and men--to go to higher
education institutions, they have every right to expect that there will
be a real emphasis on teaching to go along with that emphasis on
research and that, indeed, in their first year, these students will
have a chance to have some of these professors as teachers. That is
what is wrong.
I was going to speak to this in an amendment. When I talked with Nils
Hasselmo and talked with others in the higher education community, we
agreed to bring some presidents together, bring some higher education
people together and go through this and see what kind of changes can be
made.
I know that Mark Yudof at the University of Minnesota is doing some
very good work to try and put more of an emphasis on what happens to
first-year students, and I think some of that is coming from the higher
education community.
I have to say, I didn't offer the amendment tonight, but I really
want to see some changes take place here, and I believe there are many
other Senators who will as well. The higher education community has to
be accountable. There is a whole lot of Federal grant money that goes
to these institutions. With all due respect, I think we have a right to
say, ``Look, we want to make sure that you don't just give lip service
to teaching.''
By way of conclusion, I want to mention what was in this Carnegie
report as a kind of, if you will, bill of rights for students which
gives us some direction, some sense of direction that I think the
universities can go on:
(1) By admitting a student, an institution of higher
education commits to providing the student maximal
opportunities for . . . including--
(A) opportunities to learn through inquiry rather than
simple transmission of knowledge;
(B) training in the skills necessary for oral and written
communication at a level that will serve the student both
within the institution of higher education and in post-
graduate, professional and personal life;
(C) appreciation of arts, humanities, sciences, and social
sciences, and the opportunity to experience the arts,
humanities, sciences, and social sciences at any intensity
and depth the student can accommodate; and
(D) careful and comprehensive preparation for whatever may
lie beyond graduation, whether it be graduate school,
professional school, or a first professional position.
(2) A student in a research university has the right--
(A) to expect to, and to have an opportunity for, work with
talented senior researchers to help and guide the student's
efforts;
(B) to have access to first-class facilities in which to
pursue research, including laboratories, libraries, studios,
computer systems, and concert halls;
(C) to have many options among fields of study, and among
directions to move within those fields, including areas and
choices not found in other kinds of institutions; and
(D) to have opportunities to interact with people of
backgrounds, cultures, and experiences different from the
student's own background, culture, and experience, and with
pursuers of knowledge at every level of accomplishment, from
freshmen students to senior research faculty.
Mr. President, I say to President Hasselmo and others, I look forward
to having discussions with the higher education communities. I see
several colleagues who are ``education'' Senators--the Senator from
Maine, the Senator from Vermont. I am going to get a letter out to
Senators saying if you want to be involved in a roundtable discussion,
let's do so. The Chair, the Senator from Utah, has a fierce interest in
education. I think he is one of the intellectuals in the U.S. Senate.
I hope that we can work with the higher education community. Tonight
won't be the debate on the amendment, but I say to my colleagues in
higher education, this was my background. I was a teacher, a professor
for 20 years. The fact of the matter is, it is time to be more
accountable. The fact of the matter is, you keep saying that teaching
is your mission, but with all due respect, there is plenty of evidence
that is not so much the case, and we ought to give these first-year
students and these undergraduates a fair shake.
I conclude by asking unanimous consent that a series of statements
and very powerful statements from students around the country in
relation to the higher education bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Student Profiles for Higher Education Floor Statement
distance learning
Amy Saeland: Amy is a 23-year old student at Northwest
Technical College in Bemidji, MN. The distance learning
program provides the flexibility she needs to schedule
classes around work. However, the current federal student
financial assistance restrictions prevent her from fully
benefiting from the advantages of distance education.
Sue Listerud: (Inver Hills Community College) ``Distance
learning is an ideal way for adults to go back to college.
Making time to come to campus is extremely difficult.
Education and development of new skills allows students to
enhance their employability. The non-traditional student
needs non-traditional instructing methods.''
Lu Schmidtke: (Inver Hills Community College) ``Distance
learning allows me to receive credit for knowledge I already
have in addition to teaching me a great deal more about the
subject. I can do this on my own time at my own pace with a
minimum amount of time in class.''
Gwen Borgen: ``I am a Dean of Students at Badger School in
Badger Minnesota. I am currently pursuing my Masters in
Educational Administration through Bemidji State University.
Working full-time and trying to obtain this degree is quite a
challenge. I am approximately 150 miles from Bemdiji so the
convenience of distance learning is phenomenal. I am able to
work full-time, raise a family, be involved in community and
church and still work on my degree.''
Jane Klaers: ``I live in the town of Wabasso, MN. We have
about 750 people in our town. I have been taking ITV classes
off and on for about 3 or 4 years now through West Community
College-Worthington campus. What I like most about these type
of classes is that I don't have to travel to a college to
take college level classes. To me that is a tremendous
advantage. I have 2 small children and having these types of
classes has allowed me to continue my college studies. This
system is a tremendous service to people such as myself that
can't go to the `traditional' classes.''
Karen Affinito: Karen was admitted to the Master's program
in Education in April 1997. Ms. Affinito works as an Early
Intervention Specialist with infants who are at high risk for
cognitive and physical developmental problems. She has
attempted to continue her education at local traditional
educational institutions but found the time constraints of
full-time employment and a family to be real barriers to her
education. TGSA's distance learning program is making her
education possible.
Keitha Hatfield: Keitha is an office manager for the Texas
Conference of Churches, entered the Graduate School of
America's Master's program in Organization and Management in
October 1997. Through faculty-guided, self-directed study and
the interactive capabilities of telecommunications and
computer technology, The Graduate
[[Page S7831]]
School of America is able to deliver an educational
experience that is personal, convenient and of the highest
quality. Her goal for her academic program is to develop
the skills and knowledge which will enable her to
establish a nonprofit foundation devoted to research on
social innovation, the public sector, and current social
systems. About her studies, Ms. Hatfield writes ``ideas
are the most important social force in history'' and ``all
these ideas started with one individual, one visionary,
one dreamer who knew how to say ``Why?''
Susan Arakawa: Susan was admitted to the Graduate School of
America's Master's program in Interdisciplinary Studies in
February 1996. Ms. Arakawa had worked as an English as a
Second Language (ESL) instructor for 10 year prior to
beginning her academic work with TGSA; for three of those 10
years, Ms. Arakawa lived, worked and studied in mainland
China. Ms. Arakawa has structured her academic program to
accomplish the research necessary to write and publish a book
about the relations (historic as well as current) between
China and the United States. Ms. Arakawa has made excellent
progress in her program and has begun work on the final
project for her degree.
Francis Jock: Francis is a Native American, admitted to the
Graduate School of America's Ph.D. program in Organization
and Management in June 1994. Previously, he had spent 22
years in military service, achieving the rank of Command
Master Chief Petty Officer and managing over 300 enlisted
personnel. It was very clear from Mr. Jock's application that
he was highly motivated to be a lifelong learner, he listed
as one of his personal goals ``to continuously improve my
personal growth through continuing education.'' Mr. Jock
withdrew from The Graduate School of America in March 1995
due to lack of funding.
Working Many Hours While Going to College
Eric Alleckson: (1997) Eric Alleckson, a junior and
President of the student government at Concordia College.
Eric works two part time jobs, received financial assistance
from his family, and will graduate with still large loans to
repay. ``Some money from loans is quite acceptable, if it is
a reasonable amount,'' Eric said, ``[But] the burden of
student debt can be as restrictive as no education at all.''
Despite his two jobs and the sacrifice his parents are making
financially, Eric says that his education would not be
possible if there was no external financial assistance.
Abbie Weiss: Abbie will be a junior at Concordia University
in St. Paul. She is in a one-parent, middle-class family.
With the help of her father and the federal grant program she
is able to attend college. She still needs to work three on
campus jobs and one off-campus job (25-30 hrs/wk) to pursue
her education. Without the help of financial aid, finishing
at Concordia will be threatened. ``Financial aid allows
students to attend the college of their choice and to excel
in their situation. My experience does not stand alone. Many
other students are in the same situation that I am in and
without help they may not be able to fulfill their dreams.''
high student loan debt
Sonja Lenk: (1997) Sonja Lenk, a junior at Moorhead State,
was attending college with financial help from MSU work study
and her parents' contributions, but will still graduate with
approximately $11,000 in student loan debt.
Michael Kurowski: Michael, a senior at Winona State
University and the MSUSA vice chair elect, received the
unsubsidized Stafford loan. He worked three jobs equaling
close to 50 hours per week. Michael will have a loan debt of
approximately $20,000. (PHOTO)
Mario Hernandez: Mario, a senior at Southwest State
University, in Marshall, MN, and the MSUSA MVP, received the
Pell grant, state grants, the subsidized and unsubsidized
Stafford loans. He worked approximately 30 hours per week.
Hernandez received scholarships to help dampen the costs. His
loan debt is $4500. (PHOTO)
Tony Fragnito: Tony, a senior at Bemidji State University,
in Bemidji, MN, received the Pell grant all four years of
college. He also worked between 35-40 hours per week.
Although Tony received one scholarship, most of his financial
funding is from loans. His loan debt will be $12,000.
Michael V. Nesdahl: Michael, a fifth year senior at
Southwest State University, in Marshall, MN, didn't receive
any financial aid throughout his five years of college. He
worked approximately 40 hours per week and was in the
National Guard. Most of his funding was from the military.
Nesdahl will have a loan debt of $7300.
Tony Rust: Tony, a senior at Southwest State University,
and the Minnesota State University Student Association state
chair elect, received the Pell grant his freshman year only,
the Perkins loan his first three years and the Stafford loan
all four years. During his four 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 receive scholarships during his
sophomore year. His loan debt will be approximately $20,000.
Kay Wendling: Kay, a senior at Winona State, received no
financial aid this year. However, in the past three years,
Kay received a subsidized Stafford loan. She worked at least
16 hours per week off campus and 10 hours per week on campus.
She will have a debt of $13,000.
Heidi deRuyter: Hedi, a senior at Moorhead State, and MSUSA
treasurer and operations officer, received federal loans
only. During her four years of college, deRuyter worked at
least 20 hours per week. She received some scholarships the
first year and her parents usually paid the interest on the
loans. She will have a debt of $18,000.
Francis Klinkner; Francis, a fifth year senior at Mankato
State, and the MSUSA state chair, received no financial aid
this year. However, he did receive the Pell and state grants
and the Stafford loans during his first four years in
college. Francis worked at least 40 per week throughout his
four years. His parents paid for his books, otherwise most
of his funds came from loans. His debts will be $23,000.
impact of welfare reform
Crys Hans: Crys Hans, 28 years old, is transferring to the
University of Minnesota from the Hibbing Community College
and has maintained a GPA above a 3.8 while raising her 3-
year-old daughter and working part time. Crys is determined
to achieve financial independence for her and her daughter.
However, under the new Welfare Reform legislation, Crys will
have ``even greater challenges.'' In six months, her one year
of approved education will expire; she will have to work a
minimum of 30 hours a week; and, she has to begin paying for
child care. Crys is concerned about the impact the new
welfare reform guidelines will have on her ability to finish
school, secure a good paying job, and support and spend time
with her daughter Tiana.
Colleen: Colleen, a divorced mother of two, dropped out of
high school when she became pregnant. She obtained her GED;
worked on a limited basis at a low wage office job; and
decided that she needed a college degree to be able to
support her family over the long term. She is enrolled in
liberal arts classes at Minneapolis Community and Technical
College and is doing very well. However, she would like to
enroll in the Registered Nursing program to earn an A.S.
degree. Because it takes 3 years to complete this degree (due
to prerequisites needed), Colleen has had to put her dream on
hold because of the welfare reform guidelines. The nursing
degree would help Colleen achieve economic self-sufficiency,
which office worker positions would not.
Camille Martinson: Camile is a single mother of 2 children.
She is currently on the Minnesota Family Investment Program
(state's new welfare reform program) and receiving AFDC, MA,
and food stamps, while attending North Hennepin Technical
College. New welfare reform requirements are pressuring her
to go to work now for $5.15 an hour, rather than finish her
education and be qualified to earn up to $20 an hour as a
nurse.
Jonia Stanfel: Jonia, a single mother majoring in computer
programming at the Minneapolis Community and Technical
College, will be finished with her A.S. degree in less than a
year. She is getting A's and should be able to support
herself and her 3 young children after she graduates.
However, last summer she was told by her Stride caseworker
that ``we are not supporting education programs.'' She was
then told her child care would be discontinued and she must
work 20 hours per week to receive her MFIP grant. Because the
computer curriculum is rigorous, she knew she could not work,
raise her kids and put in the time needed to get her computer
degree. So . . . she has taken out a $2,600 loan and is
funding her education on her own for the next 9 months. Her
question is, ``why wasn't funding available to someone who
wanted to earn a two-year degree in a field with guaranteed
jobs at high salaries?'' Jonia feels fortunate that her
college went to bat for her on the child care funding issue.
But what happens to those people who don't have such an
advocate?
Beth Frenette: Beth, a single mother of a two-year-old, has
a clear cut career path in place when the new MFIP guidelines
hit. Her plan was to earn a two-year degree and transfer
to finish a B.A. degree in Elementary Education. To offset
expenses, she was planning to get a job in Human Resources
while in school. She began her plan by appealing for MFIP
funding for her B.A. degree, but her appeal was denied.
The reason: ``if she can get a job now in Human Resources,
she doesn't need funding for additional education.'' She
then enrolled at Minneapolis Community and Technical
College to begin taking her general education
requirements, and appealed again for MFIP funding. Her
second appeal was also denied, for the same reason stated
before. She had submitted a clear education plan at each
appeal. With help from our Career Placement Director,
Beth's funding has been reinstated, although now she must
squeeze 30 hours of work per week into her busy school and
family schedule. She will graduate from MCTC in 9 months.
Crystal Visneski: Crystal, a single mother of two, is a
human services major at Minneapolis Community and Technical
College. She is juggling her studies, her children, a part
time job, and responsibilities as an MCTC student ambassador.
The new work requirement that came with the MFIP guidelines
has drastically reduced the amount of time she can spend on
her studies, as well as the time she can spend with her
children, ages 4\1/2\ and 20 months. She will have to miss
her son's graduation from preschool in June because she's
taking an extra class this summer to ensure that she will
finish her degree before the MFIP one-year clock runs out.
[[Page S7832]]
Taking extra classes each quarter and satisfying the work
requirement have created stress that has affected her
patience with her children and her ability to focus on her
studies. In addition, in the transition between her Stride
program and MFIP, she lost her bus passes, her mileage
reimbursement, and finally, her child care funding. She is
now paying $1,000 a month for the cheapest child care
available downtown, which is at the college's child Care
Center. She is not eligible for a sliding fee scale because
she receives welfare. Crystal is caught in the middle.
Latashie Brown: Latashsie, a single mother in her 30's,
decided to return to college to enhance her nursing skills
and improve her earning power. (PHOTO)
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. Affordable housing and child care are critical
to her graduating. (PHOTO)
How can my family afford college?
Jacqueline Maddox: Jacqueline is a single parent who is
concerned about how to pay for her daughter Bree's college
education next year. Her daughter was on the honor roll in
high school and is involved in extracurricular activities.
Bree's father passed away when she was 13 years old and did
not provide for her until he became terminally ill. Still,
she will lose Social Security benefits when she turns 18.
There is no money left after the rent, utilities and food. It
seems the only option is a student loan, but Jacqueline is
till paying back her own student loans.
Non Traditional Students
Paula Heinonen: After working for years in a rural hospital
and raising four children, Paula Heinonen decided to return
to school to enhance her skills. A non-traditional
student, Paula is a junior at the Center for Extending
Learning at Bemidji State University in Bemidji,
Minnesota. Paula is a wife, mother, worker, and student.
Karen Ackland: Karen Ackland is a non-traditional student
at Bemidji State University. Federal student financial aid
and the TRIO program helped Karen return to school so that
she could earn her baccalaureate degree.
Carla Barbeau: Carla started college at the age of 33 as a
single parent with three children ages 9, 11, and 12. It was
very difficult to support her family earning only $6 an hour
and no benefits so decided to attend college. She wanted to
enhance her skills in order to get a better job that paid
well and had good benefits. Not being able to attend summer
school because of financial aid restrictions is only delaying
her graduation with a computer science degree. The longer it
will take to finish school, the longer it will take to get a
better job. She has received support from financial aid and
federal TRIO programs.
trio
Mai Lor Yang: Mai Lor, (pronounced ``My Low''), who is an
immigrant from Laos, is graduating from high school in Duluth
this year, participated in the TRIO Upward Bound Program, and
plans to attend college in the Twin Cities next fall. (PHOTO)
Jeanie Kopf: 20 years ago, Jeanie, attended the U. of
Superior with the intention of obtaining a BA in Political
Science. This dream was brought to a close when, after the
second semester, her state grant was cut off and the only way
she could continue would be to take out student loans. Being
that she was a single parent with a new baby the idea of
compiling new amounts of financial debt was overwhelming. She
could see no way out and chose to drop out of school and
raise her child. She fully intended coming back to school
when her son was in school himself. When her son was 9, he
was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and she needed
to care for him full-time. Her second son was born and was
diagnosed with Tourette Syndrome in 1993 and is a strong
advocate for his proper education services to address his
needs. She was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1988 and
was injured in a car accident in 1995. It wasn't until the
accident before anyone mentioned the possibility of getting
financial aid through DRS. This program ran out of funds and
she then turned to the TRIO program. This program provided
her with the support she needed to compete with the updated
education field of today. The TRIO programs tutoring and
study skills have proved to be indispensable to her.
Shannon Ament-Yellowbird: Shannon Ament-Yellowbird, who is
a graduate of the University of Minnesota-Duluth, is pursuing
her dream of a career in medicine with the support from TRIO
Upward Bound and the McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement
program. While student financial aid programs help students
overcome financial barriers to higher education, TRIO
programs helps students overcome class, social academic and
cultural barriers to higher education. Shannon, a Lakota
Indian, is a registered member of the Pine Ridge Reservation
of South Dakota.
Celena Hopp: Celena ia single parent, a Mexican-American
female, welfare recipient and first-generation college
student. She joined the STRIDE program in 1995 and became an
active participant. She relies on financial aid, child care,
and transportation assistance from STRIDE in order to come to
school She also works part-time as a student worker in the
college library. This year the STRIDE caseworker told her the
new welfare requirements meant she could no longer pursue her
bachelor's degree and that she had enough education and
should immediately go to work. After three years of hard work
in college, she had to fight to get approved just to stay in
school for even one more year. STRIDE agreed to let her stay
in school to complete an associate degree, provided she
finished by spring of 1999. This was an extremely painful
blow to her, especially since she was clearly on the road to
transfer and a bachelor's degree.
binge drinking
Janice Rabideaux: On November 1, 1997 Janice, a 16-year-old
high school student, died from alcohol poisoning at a sleep
over party. She apparently drank a large amount of alcohol in
a short period of time. There were no adults present when the
police arrived, but an adult provided the alcohol and the
State District Court was looking into charges against her.
Scott Krueger: On September 29, 1997, Scott Krueger became
a victim of ``binge drinking.'' Scott was a freshman,
fraternity member at MIT. He went to a fraternity party on
September 25 where drinking was required in order to fit in.
He died with a blood alcohol level of .41--five times the
drunken-driving standard in Massachusetts. After Darlen
Krueger's comatose son left his frat house in a ambulance,
one of the brothers told her, `You have to understand--this
was a very big night at our fraternity house.' (Source:
Newsweek June 15, 1998)
Anonymous: A few years ago, an 18 year old freshman woman
at a college in Minnesota went with 4 girlfriends to a
``house party'' at the home of several male students. All of
the women engaged in binge drinking with a number of men at
the party. They all became intoxicated. The young woman
remembers the room spinning and she and one of her girl
friends were escorted to a bed-room by 2 men who lived in the
house. She recalls coming in and out of consciousness while a
number of men had sex with her and her friend. She recalls
seeing four different men, none of whom she knew. Her friend
remembers nothing.
Five die in car wreck in Winona: In 1997, five young people
who died when their vehicle plunged into the icy Mississippi
River in Winona, Minnesota were legally drunk. The drowning
victims were students and alumni at St. Mary's University in
Winona.
Anonymous: In 1995, a sophomore student at a college in
Iowa and other pledges of a fraternity were required to
attend a formal ceremony called the ``Big Brother/Little
Brother Ceremony.'' The ceremony is a required meeting all
pledges must attend in order to become an initiated member of
the fraternity. The pledges were taken downstairs together,
and after stating an oath, they left with their new ``Big
Brothers.'' The sophomore and other pledges were given a
variety of beverages which they were expected to drink. The
sophomore consumed a 40-ounce bottle of beer and a flask of
Southern Comfort liquor. As a result, he became intoxicated,
unconscious and unable to properly care for himself sometime
near 11 p.m. Then, he was taken upstairs by active members of
the fraternity. During various times in the night and the
next day, members of the fraternity observed the sophomore
student lying unconscious, and members of the Fraternity drew
on his skin including drawing a beard on his face. No one
could wake up the student as he lay snoring loudly and
gurgling. No one called for an ambulance either. After 12
hours of being left alone, another fraternity member went
upstairs to check on the sophomore and discovered he was not
moving or breathing. Paramedics were called to the scene. He
was pronounced dead immediately. The medical examiner
estimated his death at 7:00 a.m. He died of pulmonary
edema, caused by acute alcohol intoxication. His blood
alcohol level was measured to be .250 to .300 at its peak
(Iowa law considers a person to be intoxicated at an
alcohol level of .1 and .001 for under-aged drinkers. Most
of the active members and pledges at the ``Big Brother/
Little Brother Ceremony'' were under the age of 21.
other
Mary Brklich: Mary Brklich, a sophomore at Hibbing
Community College and single mother of three, will transfer
to Winona State College after the spring semester to complete
her bachelor's degree. The Student Support Services and
faculty at Hibbing Community College have assisted Mary and
other non-traditional students to set their academic and
professional goals, and the Support Services provide the
encouragement and resources to reach them.
Holly Spinks. Holly Spinks was a second year student at
Century Community and Technical College in White Bear Lake,
MN in 1997. She planned to transfer to the University of
Minnesota to finish a degree in psychology so that she may
become a counselor for diabetic children. Holly is diabetic,
and annually spends approximately $3,000 for medical
expenses. From two years of study as a full time student,
Holly has already accumulated $10,000 in debt, and her mother
is unable to help with the cost of school. She receives a
annual $420 Pell Grant award and about $5,000 in loans, as
well. The cost of school for Holly is roughly twice that
amount. Holly affirms that the Pell Grant program must be
fully funded and the minimum age for declaring independence
must be dropped from 24 to 21. ``I am not asking for a hand-
out,'' Holly said. ``I am actively working to take my place
in society as a producer and taxpayer.''
[[Page S7833]]
Rick Harvala: In 1997, Rich Harvala, a student in the
Marketing Program at Northwest Technical College in Moorhead,
MN, lives independently of his parents and works full time at
Pizza Hut to finance his education. Even though Eric receives
the Pell Grant and Minnesota Grant awards, he has already
accumulated $5,000 in debt. Eric is 19 years old. He worries
that he is not devoting enough time to his studies because of
his full time employment. Eric has managed to maintain a 3.87
GPA, but wishes he could focus on school more seriously and
wonders how the rising costs will affect him in the future.
``If financial aid increases do not keep pace with the ever
climbing costs of a college education,'' Eric explains,
``students will be forced out of college and the pool of
educated employees will dwindle.''
wrestling
Steve King: Steve was a national wrestling champion at a
small Minnesota high school. he decided to attend Notre Dame
for the academies. But then the school eliminated the
wrestling program just before finals week at the end of
King's junior year. ``It was devastating,'' said King.
Student athletes were not consulted about the decision, he
added. ``We're informed, boom, the program's dropped,'' he
said. He transferred to the University of Michigan, but he
lost so many credits in the move that he had to go to summer
school on his own money to be eligible. (Source: AP and Steve
King)
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Indiana, who is on the
floor, my understanding is that we reached an accommodation or
compromise when it comes to higher education and ``minor sports.'' We
will have the GAO study that will go forward. And, in addition, we
already have language in the bill that does call for a disclosure of
financial information as to what is spent on different sports on the
campuses. I think that is really important to a lot of us who were
involved in some of these ``minor sports.'' And I see those sports
being cut right now in our institutions of higher learning.
I thank my colleagues for their accommodation. They seem ready to
speak. I said I would be brief. I am done, I say to the Senator from
Maine.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the bill's
manager, Senator Jeffords.
In Title II, Improving Teacher Quality, the bill authorizes the
Secretary of Education to award grants to states to reform teacher
preparation and, on page 363, lines 13-15, ``to ensure that current and
future teachers posses the necessary teaching skills and academic
content knowledge in the subject areas in which the teachers are
assigned to teach.''
In (1) beginning on lines 18, the bill includes as an authorized
activity that can be funded by a grant, ``reforms that hold
institutions of higher education with teacher preparation programs
accountable for preparing teachers who are highly competent in the
academic content areas in which teachers plan to teach, which may
include the use of rigorous subject matter competency tests and the
requirement that a teacher have an academic major in the subject area,
or related discipline, in which the teacher plans to teach.''
I commend the committee for these provisions and believe they will be
very helpful in training good teachers.
Could the gentleman clarify a point for me?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would be pleased to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The bill uses the language, ``academic content areas
in which the teachers plan to teach.'' I am concerned that this would
limit grants to programs that train teachers pursuing certain academic
majors, such as biology or history or French.
My concern is that individuals in teacher preparation courses
preparing to teach in the elementary grades might be excluded. Students
in preparation to teach at the elementary level would not have an
academic major, in the traditional sense that is directly related to
the subject that they plan to teach, in part because elementary
teachers teach all subjects.
Yet, I'm sure we all agree that strong teaching, particularly the
teaching of reading and math at the elementary level, in the primary
grades, is critical. It is fundamental to a student's educational
success in the subsequent grades.
Do you not agree?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Absolutely. I agree.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And so, could you clarify that these funds could be
used for teacher preparation programs preparing teachers to teach in
elementary and secondary schools, in particular elementary reading and
mathematics?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, clearly, that is the intent. We do not intend to
exclude the preparation of teachers for teaching at the elementary and
secondary level and we agree that good instruction in how to teach
reading and elementary mathematics should be a major emphasis because
giving students a strong foundation in reading and math in the early
years is critical to giving them a solid foundation for learning
throughout their entire lives.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
speak about a provision that has been included in the managers'
amendment of the higher education legislation that we are considering.
Specifically, I have some reservations about a provision, offered by
Senator Craig of Idaho, which expresses a sense of Congress regarding
the protection of student speech and association rights.
I value highly the protections guaranteed to our nation's citizens
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Freedom of
speech and association are cherished rights. They are foundational
rights, in that the ability to speak freely and criticize the
government are necessary to ensure that other constitutional rights are
guaranteed and that the system of government erected in the
Constitution functions well.
However, it must be remembered that the First Amendment was targeted
against government oppression and designed to protect against
censorship by the government--not by private individuals or
institutions. The Bill of Rights was adopted to address the concern
that the new federal government would not accord sufficient respect for
the rights of individual citizens. It protects the citizens from the
government, not from other citizens. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a
December 20, 1787 letter to James Madison, ``a bill of rights is what
the people are entitled to against every government on earth.'' The
protections of the Bill of Rights were designed to check specific
abuses that can flow from government power; they were neither designed
nor intended to be a general code of conduct applicable to all
citizens. Indeed, a wholesale application of the Bill of Rights to all
private citizens would turn these key protections on their head--
provisions designed to safeguard individual liberty would become the
instrument for limiting individual liberty.
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the unique role
of the Bill of Rights as a limitation on government action through the
state action doctrine. With the exception of limited circumstances in
which some heavily regulated quasi-private entities are deemed state
actors for limited purposes, the Supreme Court has refused to treat
private entities as state actors to which the Bill of Rights apply. Two
cases, Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks from 1978, and Jackson v.
Metropolitan Edison Co., from 1974, articulate the Court's position in
this area.
The notion that the Bill of Rights is directed exclusively at
government action is implicit in the First Amendment itself. The First
Amendment protects citizens not only from government regulation of
speech, but also limits the government's ability to interfere with the
right of individuals to join together to form private associations and
organizations, including private educational institutions. A private
college or university may choose to remain private in nature so that it
can maintain control over its educational mission and policies.
Wholesale application of the First Amendment protections to private
institutions does not vindicate the First Amendment right to speech,
but rather ends up restricting the First Amendment freedom of
association.
None of this is meant to suggest that the federal government should
never impose conditions on private institutions that receive federal
funds. Although there has been an excessive tendency toward applying
such mandatory conditions, there are situations in which Congress can
properly insist that organizations receiving federal funds maintain
certain minimum standards or not use the funds for questionable
purposes. Even in the specific context of federal funds directed to
private institutions of higher learning, it
[[Page S7834]]
may be appropriate for Congress to insist that beneficiaries afford
some rights to their students.
My concern is not that the Craig provision favors imposing some
conditions on these institutions, but that it imports wholesale the
limitations and restrictions developed over two centuries of cases
interpreting the First Amendment. There is no reason to think that
liberties designed to protect private individuals and entities from the
government will strike the appropriate balance in the very different
relationship between a student and a private college or university.
Fortunately, the measure before the Senate today is not legislation
that would impose the First Amendment directly on private educational
institutions, but rather a sense of the Congress resolution that these
constitutional limitations should apply to private institutions. I do
not share that sense, and if the measure before the Senate were binding
legislation, I would exercise my rights in an effort to change the
legislation. However, in light of the non-binding nature of the Craig
provision, I am content to note my views and concerns for the record.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1882, the
Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which is perhaps the most
important piece of legislation Congress will pass this year to ensure
that more Americans have a shot at the American Dream.
This legislation makes important strides both in improving the
education students receive within colleges and universities and in
increasing access to higher education.
For example, the bill makes significant improvements in teacher
training. It authorizes $300 million for competitive grants to states
improve teaching, and it also authorizes $37 million for grants to
institutions with teacher education programs working in partnership
with school districts in underserved areas in an effort to recruit
teachers to communities that are most in need of assistance.
It also provides support for institutions that serve large numbers of
low-income students. In particular it creates a new authorization for
tribal colleges, which play an important role in educating students in
my state of Nebraska.
But most importantly, this legislation is important because it opens
the doors of higher education to more individuals. It helps more
individuals acquire the knowledge and skills that will help them make
better lives for themselves and their families.
Approximately $45 billion in this bill is devoted to postsecondary
grants and loans for students. This is wise investment for all
Americans because this financial assistance to obtain higher education
helps individuals increase their earning power once they graduate. When
we increase the income of Americans, we reduce spending and in turn
reduce the tax burden on our citizens.
According to the U.S. Census, college graduates make an average of
$600,000 more over their lifetime than do individuals without a college
degree. That differential has doubled in the last 15 years.
An individual with a bachelors degree can expect to earn $1.4 million
over the course of a lifetime. With a professional degree, that person
can earn over $3 million in a lifetime.
But currently, on 60% of high school graduates go on to college, and
by the time they are 25 years old, only about 25% have a college
degree. Many young people have the intellectual ability to succeed in
college, but they do not have the financial ability.
We still have much work to do as we try to figure out how to make
higher education more affordable.
Nationwide we have about 10 million students enrolled in four-year
and two-year public colleges and universities. About 83,000 of those
students are in school in Nebraska.
We have about 2.5 million in private institutions--19,000 in
Nebraska. About 36% of students nationwide receive some form of Title
IV assistance: 22% receive Pell Grants; 22% receive subsidized loans;
10% receive unsubsidized loans; not to mention a smaller percentage who
receive PLUS loans, Federal Work Study, Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants, and Perkins loans.
In public institutions in Nebraska, the number of Pell grants is
about 20,000. The dollar volume is $27.4 million. And the number of
loans made to Nebraska students in public institutions is about 40,000.
That dollar volume is $137 million.
This $137 million is a substantial increase over the 1990-91 loan
dollar volume, which was $43.5 million. We must figure out how to bring
student loan debt under control.
At the same time, we must remember that Title IV assistance goes to
those most in need. 91% of Pell recipients have incomes of $30,000 or
less. 65% of all recipients of subsidized loans have incomes of $30,000
or less.
This bill is a step in the right direction. It increases the
authorization for maximum Pell Grants to $5,000 for 1999-2000. But it
also calls for more reporting by institutions on college costs.
Reducing college costs and increasing access to higher education must
be a joint effort. I am pleased to be a part of this effort.
I am also pleased to contribute to this legislation in a number of
other ways. The bill includes a Web-based education commission to
determine the Federal role in helping parents, students, and teachers
identify high-quality educational software.
With Senator Wellstone and others, I encouraged the expansion of
distance-learning opportunities through the Learn Anytime Anywhere
partnerships.
We must also continue to stress the need for substantive partnerships
between higher education institutions, K-12 institutions, and business
communities.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass S. 1882 so that all
Americans will have a shot at achieving the American Dream.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, we have before us the important task of
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act for the next five years. I rise
today in support of reauthorization, and I want to congratulate my
friend, the Chairman, Senator Jeffords, for his efforts to bring the
Senate a bill that makes a higher education more affordable to all
Americans.
The Higher Education Act of 1998 continues a vital component of our
nation's commitment to providing the very best education possible to
our citizens. In particular, it is the programs reauthorized in this
bill that to a great degree determine the shape of our federal presence
in postsecondary education. In fact, nearly all of the available
federal student aid, and about 70 percent of all financial aid awarded
to postsecondary students, comes as a result of this act. And overall,
Higher Education Act programs are responsible for an estimated $35
billion in grant, loan, or work-study assistance.
As we all know, the principal objective of the HEA is to expand
postsecondary education opportunities, particularly for low income
individuals, as well as increasing the affordability of postsecondary
education for moderate income families. Since 1966, the Guaranteed
Student Loans Program within the Higher Education Act--now called the
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)--has provided over $143 billion to
students. In 1993, the program reached an all time high of $16.5
billion in new loans.
Today, at a time when 71 percent of Americans--71 percent--think a
college education is not affordable for most families, building on
these successes is all the more pressing. That is why, throughout the
reauthorization process, I have expressed the belief that it is
critical we ensure the student loan program is strengthened in ways
that will increase access.
I have always said that there is more to balancing the budget than
making our debits equal our credits. Rather, it's about leadership,
fiscal responsibility and being visionary in our investments. In order
to survive the many multi-faceted challenges of the 21st century, we
will have to invest heavily --more than ever before--in giving the
essential tools to our country's greatest natural resource: today's
students who are tomorrow's workforce.
That's why, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have
continuously fought to make education a priority during the balanced
budget debate, and--specifically--have fought to preserve funding for
the Student Loan program. In a world of increasing global competition,
now is NOT the time to be reducing the Federal commitment to higher
education!
[[Page S7835]]
The fact is, education is the great equalizer in our society that can
give every citizen of our nation--regardless of race, income, or
geographic background--the same opportunity to succeed in the global
economy of the 21st century. This point is especially important when
one considers that of the new jobs that are being created--and will be
created--more than half of the new jobs that are being created will
require education beyond high school.
Education is also the biggest single factor in the so-called ``income
gap''. Consider these statistics from the Census Bureau: In 1990, for
example, the average income for high school graduates was almost
$18,000. But those who had 1 to 3 years of a college education, earned
on the average $24,000. And those who graduated from college and
received a college diploma received an average salary of $31,000. We
simply must ensure that our young people have access to our system of
higher education if they are to succeed in the changing global
environment and maximize their earnings potential.
That's why the bill we're considering is so important. It maintains
and improves the various grant, loan, and work study assistance
programs already available under the Higher Education Act. It reduces
the interest rate on student loans. It increases the maximum Pell Grant
award by $200 per year, up to $5,800 by 2004. It removes various
barriers for independent students seeking financial assistance. And it
cancels loans for students who agree to teach for at least three years
in high-need areas.
This is a significant step forward in our commitment to building a
brighter future for the generations that will succeed us. I want to
thank the members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
for their work on this bill, and in particular the Committee Chairman,
Senator Jeffords, for accommodating some of my concerns in his
manager's amendment. Because the federal role in higher education
extends beyond loans, I believe that the changes which were
incorporated have made for a stronger bill, and I appreciate his
willingness to work with me on their inclusion.
The first provision increases the personal liability and
responsibility of owners of proprietary schools to ensure their
students receive the education that they were promised and purchased.
This is important when you consider what happened to students at the
Maine Academy of Hair Design, where the school was closed and the
students left without recourse--or the education they paid for. I am
pleased that the House bill already contains this provision, and its
inclusion in the Senate version will ensure that it will be adopted in
the upcoming House-Senate conference.
The second provision requires the General Accounting Office in
consultation with the Inspector General at the Department of Education
to issue a report to Congress outlining changes in federal law, and
changes in administrative procedures at the Department, that would
ensure property transfers, such as the recent one involving Nasson
College and its former owner in my home state of Maine--could be
prevented in the future. In the case of Nasson, the Department of
Education conducted an auction in which purchaser and seller
represented the same individual--the person ultimately responsible for
paying on the mortgage, who for ten years had failed to make payments
toward the $600,000 he owned to the Department, or to pay $28,500 in
back property taxes to the community. It is an outrage--but, according
to the Department of Education, perfectly legal. The language in the
bill will help us in rewriting the law to prevent this from happening
again.
And finally, I am pleased that the Committee, during markup, included
a provision I authored along with Senator Dodd to address the needs of
low-income students who are parents. The ``Child Care Access Means
Parents in Schools'' provision, or ``CAMPUS'', authorizes three-year
grants to institutions of higher education to support or help establish
a campus-based child care program serving the needs to low-income
student parents. The Secretary will award grants based on applications
submitted by the institution, and the grant amount will be linked to
the institution's funding level for Pell Grants, in order to assure
that the program reaches low-income students.
Senator Dodd and I have worked together before on child care issues
and I want to thank him for his leadership on the CAMPUS Act.
The bottom line is, students are more likely to remain in school, and
to graduate sooner and at a higher rate, if they have CAMPUS-based
child care. These services are particularly critical for older students
who go back to school to get their degree or to improve their skills
through advanced education. This is especially important in today's
economy, where people need to continuously train and retrain in order
to meet the demands of high-tech jobs.
Mr. President, this has been a carefully crafted bill that fulfills
one of America's most important needs as we close out this century and
look to the next. I wholeheartedly support this reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support S. 1882,
the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill.
The bill has several important features:
It authorizes $300 million for reforming and strengthening teacher
training so that teachers will be better prepared to teach elementary
and secondary students.
It continues student loans and increases the maximum authorized Pell
grant from $4,500 to $5,800 in 1999 to help students regardless of
income level get a college education.
It continues federal support for colleges and universities, such as
science and engineering programs and graduate fellowships.
Education, particularly a college education, can open many doors in
our society.
Today, approximately 22 percent of all jobs in the U.S. require at
least a bachelor's degree, up from 15.8 percent in 1996, according to
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. People with bachelor degrees have
median incomes about 60 percent higher than for those with only a high
school education.
In California, shifts in the economy make higher education more
important than ever. Service-related jobs, such as those in high
technology, have displaced many traditional manufacturing jobs. These
new jobs require a level of knowledge and skill that can for the most
part only be gained by a college education.
There are at least three specific factors that make this bill
important to my state:
First, California has 21,000 teachers on emergency credentials and
will need up to 300,000 in the next decade.
Second, California has many first generation, bilingual and
``nontraditional'' students, that this bill will assist.
Three, the bill provides for increases in several student assistance
programs. Californians receive $1.7 billion in federal student
financial aid. Over 400,000 Pell grants go to California students.
5th year Pell grant. The Senate today unanimously accepted my
amendment to authorize the Secretary of Education to award on a case-
by-case basis Pell grants for disadvantaged students for the fifth year
of teacher education required in California to get a teaching
credential. This will enable many disadvantaged students to become
teachers, at a time when we are facing a severe teacher shortage and
have 21,000 teachers in the classroom on emergency credentials.
Distance learning. I am also grateful that the managers have accepted
two of my amendments to the distance learning demonstration (teaching
away from the traditional campus via a computer, teleconferencing or
other technologies). The manager's amendment includes a clarification
that university ``systems'' (e.g., UC system, CSU system) would be
eligible and the bill now authorizes 15 sites, up from 5 authorized in
the committee bill.
Limited English Proficient Students/School Districts: The bill
authorizes state grants for innovative ways to reduce teacher shortages
in high poverty areas. At my suggestion, the bill includes as eligible
or target areas, school districts with disproportionate numbers of
limited English speaking children. This is especially important in
California, where 1.3 million students have limited English
proficiency,
[[Page S7836]]
a tripling since 1986, and where 87 languages are spoken.
Study of Few Borrowers: The bill provides that schools whose student
loan default rate exceeds 25% for three years will be ineligible to
participate in the student loan program. For schools like California's
community colleges, that have just a few borrowers, this method gives
the appearance of having a very high default rate. For example, if the
school has only four borrowers but two defaulters, they would have a 50
percent default rate. The manager's amendment includes my suggestion of
a study of the effectiveness of this measurement method by September
30, 1999.
Enrollment in California's public schools, the college generation of
the future, is growing at three times the national rate. Enrollment in
the three major segments of higher education will increase by 28.9
percent, or by 549,144 students, between 1996 and 2006, according to
the state's Department of Finance.
California will have this surge in college applicants because (1) the
number of high school graduates has increased by 22 percent since 1993;
(2) many adult workers are changing careers by choice because of
organization restructuring, or to enhance their employment skills; (3)
migration to California from other states and countries is continuing;
and (4) more Californians over 40 are pursuing lifelong learning.
California's higher educational system has four components: the
University of California system, the California State University
system, the community system, and private colleges and universities.
The University of California (UC) consists of nine campuses that
served 129,257 undergraduate students and 40,605 graduate students in
fall 1997. UC educates approximately one in twelve of all postsecondary
students in California, and includes the top one-eighth of high school
graduates. Total enrollment at UC is projected to grow by about 36,500
students by fall 2006.
In addition to providing instruction in liberal arts and the
sciences, UC has exclusive public responsibility for doctorate, law,
medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine degrees. The UC campuses,
especially Berkeley and UCLA, are some of the most prestigious public
or private institutions in the nation and the world.
The California State University System (CSU) consists of 22 regional
campuses with 276,054 undergraduate students, and 67,725
postbaccalaureate and graduate students enrolled in fall 1997. This was
one in six of every student enrolled in higher education in California.
Enrollment is expected to grow by 31.4 percent or 105,809 students by
year 2006.
Another characteristic of the CSU system is its large number of
``nontraditional'' students, students who are older than the usual
college age. This is because many community college graduates transfer
to CSU and many CSU students are working people seeking to progress
professionally or maintain technical proficiency.
CSU's primary function is to provide instruction in the liberal arts
and sciences and CSU prepares 60 percent of the state's teaching force
with 21 teacher preparation programs.
The need for new teachers in my state is especially critical because
there are currently 31,000 elementary and secondary classrooms being
taught by men and women without full teaching credentials.
A major emphasis of the bill to which I give my full and enthusiastic
support is to increase support for teacher education and to emphasize
reform, accountability, and competency. Funds are provided to both
states and postsecondary institutions for strengthening teacher
training.
Another important element of higher education in California is the
California Community system, the largest community college system in
the world. Its 106 campuses provided vocational, academic, and
community service programs to over 1.4 million students of varying
ages, income levels and educational backgrounds in 1997. Roughly three
of four public postsecondary students were enrolled in community
colleges. The system is expected to increase by 28.9 percent as its
attendance is projected to be over 1.8 million by fall 2006. A notable
increase between 1990 and 1997 has been in the age group 50 and older,
which grew by 21 percent.
Students at community colleges are older and tend to be employed
full-time, many supporting families. Approximately 41 percent of
community college students are in the 20-29 age group. Older students,
particularly those over 40, are seeking postsecondary education for
several reasons, including career enhancement, job displacement,
divorce (especially for women), personal growth, and reforms in
government assistance programs.
The student aid provisions of the bill will be particularly helpful
to these students.
The bill also helps three specific types of institutions: Hispanic-
serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and
historically Black colleges and universities. Although California does
not have any historically Black universities, more than 2,000 students
do attend Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges and
universities. DQ University in Davis serves Native Americans from
California and other states; and the National Hispanic University is a
California higher education institution with a 25 percent or more
Hispanic enrollment. This reauthorization bill strengthens these
institutions by providing special grant awards to help them serve these
populations and to become financially stable.
Student financial aid is a critical component of higher education in
California. Expenses for tuition and supplies at California's
postsecondary institutions, public and private, averaged $19,500 during
the 1997-98 school year. The California Postsecondary Education
Commission estimates that 50-55 percent of students at California's
public and private institutions are receiving some form of state,
federal or institutional financial assistance.
Federal student grant and loan programs since 1973 have enabled
people to go to college. Tuition at higher education institutions
throughout the United States is increasing at rates higher than the
consumer price index (CPI) and the growth in family incomes. This is
particularly troubling for California, a high cost state. In 1993 the
CPI was 2.7 percent and average undergraduate fees for the University
of California system was $3,044.00. The CPI in 1997 was 1.7 percent
while the UC fees rose to $4,166, an increase of 136.9 percent!
Total expenses during the 1997-1998 school year to attend the
University of California at Berkeley were $13,169 a year; at UC San
Diego, $13,400; at California State University, Chico, $10,000. For
private schools, the costs are more than $20,000 a year--at Occidental,
$26,000; University of the Pacific, $25,000; and Stanford, $30,000.
College affordability is becoming more difficult.
By continuing federal grant and loan programs, this bill will be a
big help to many California families.
I strongly support S. 1882, the Higher Education Act Reauthorization
of 1998 because it continues the federal commitment to an important
endeavor of our society, the pursuit of a college education,
increasingly the gateway to economic self-sufficiency. It will also
revamp and toughen federal support for teacher training, a dire need in
my and most states.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
support for the teacher training amendment that Senator Bingaman has
offered. I am proud to be his prime cosponsor, and I want to thank the
Committee leadership for agreeing to accept this provision as part of
the managers' amendment.
The proposal we have put forward addresses an issue critical not just
to the future of our public schools but to our nation as a whole--the
quality of teachers who will be preparing our children to be productive
21st century citizens and to compete in the Information Age economy.
There is growing evidence that many of the education schools charged
with developing the next generation of teachers are failing at their
fundamental mission. Our amendment seeks to focus attention on this
problem, to push these seedbeds of teaching to set higher standards for
their graduates, to hold them accountable when they don't, and
ultimately to raise up the quality of the next generation of American
teachers.
[[Page S7837]]
To understand the importance of this problem, it is important to
first put it into the context of today's education debate. We all
recognize that we have many outstanding public schools and many
outstanding teachers working in them, men and women who are heroes in
every sense of the word, for their dedication to helping America's
students to fulfill their potential and realize their dreams. But it is
becoming readily apparent that there are also many schools that are not
meeting our expectations, that are failing to provide many students
with the academic skills they need to succeed in an increasingly
knowledge-based labor market, and that in particular are denying a
distressing number of inner city children any chance of escaping the
poverty and hopelessness that surrounds them.
We hear this over and over from parents, who tell us that they are
deeply concerned about the health of our education system and who list
improving our schools as their top priority. And we see this over and
over in the mounting number of alarming studies and surveys that have
been released recently, which taken collectively indicate that we
remain a nation at risk even 15 years after that landmark report was
issued.
One of the most publicized and compelling warning signs came from the
latest results of the TIMSS test, which showed that our 12th-graders
ranked near the bottom of the world in their knowledge of math (19th
out of 21 nations) and science (16th out of 21). Our advanced students
did even worse, scoring dead last in physics.
Another troubling indicator came from a broad Public Agenda survey of
employers and college professors, the prime consumers of K-12 education
in this country, which found profound dissatisfaction with the way
public schools are preparing students. More than 60 percent of
employers and three quarters of professors said they believe that a
high school diploma is no guarantee a student has learned the basics,
and nearly 7 out of 10 employers said the high school graduates they
see are not ready to succeed in the workplace.
With this heightened scrutiny, it is becoming clear that a big part
of the problem is the caliber and performance of many of the teachers
we count on to help our children meet the increasingly high standards
we are setting for them. The fact is that many college students who
choose to go into teaching today fall near the bottom of their peer
group academically--a survey of students in 21 different fields of
study found that education majors ranked 17th in their performance on
the SAT. For those that go on to become secondary school teachers, a
stunning member lack any expertise in their core field of instruction--
one national survey found 36 percent did not major or even minor in
their main teaching subject.
Also alarming is the dismal performance of many teaching candidates
on state licensing and certification exams and other assessments of
their qualifications. In Hawaii, for example, more than half of the 986
hires made in this past school year either failed to pass or complete
certification tests that by all accounts have generous cut-off scores.
In Long Island, only one in four teaching candidates in a pool of 758
could pass an English test normally given to 11th-graders. And most
recently in Massachusetts, in a case that has received national media
attention, 59 percent of the 1,800 candidates who took the state's
first-ever certification exam flunked a literacy exam that the state
board of education chairman rated as at ``about the eighth-grade
level.''
The situation in Massachusetts has generated real outrage, and for
good reason. Studies have shown conclusively that the quality of
teaching is one of the greatest determinants of student achievement,
and also that low-performing students make dramatic gains when they
study with the most knowledgeable teachers. So we should be deeply
troubled by the trends we are seeing, especially when we consider that
the surge in student enrollment we're expected to face over the next
decade will necessitate the hiring of up to 2 million new teachers. If
we do not confront this problem now, we could be facing an incompetence
boom in our schools that would doom our hopes of true education reform.
A number of states have begun to respond to the crisis in teacher
quality and reevaluate their standards for certification and the tests
they use to judge subject knowledge. Texas in particular has been at
the forefront of this movement, implementing a comprehensive teacher
quality and accountability plan that among other things will crack down
on education schools that continually churn out unqualified graduates.
But this is truly a national problem that demands a national
response, and the legislation we are considering today offers us a
valuable opportunity to do something concrete to fix this problem. The
underlying bill makes an important step in that direction through the
new teacher training title it creates, which will encourage states and
local school districts to: set tougher standards for their
certification exams; expand efforts to recruit top-notch teachers in
high-need content areas like math and science; improve their
professional development programs for veteran teachers and mentoring
programs for newcomers; and to create new partnerships that will draw
on the expertise and resources of the business and higher education
communities to produce better, more knowledgeable teachers.
The amendment that Senator Bingaman and I have proposed, and that the
Committee leadership graciously accepted, is meant to be a complement
to that new title, in that it targets the problem of teacher quality at
its source, the nation's education schools. While there are many
excellent training programs interspersed throughout the country, there
are also a surprising number of schools that are routinely graduating
inept teaching candidates. Many of these aspiring instructors are
incapable of passing even the most watered down certification or
licensing exams--in fact, the pass rate at more than a few schools is
below 50 percent. This situation is simply unacceptable, given the
children's lives involved, and we believe our amendment will go a long
way toward fixing it.
Among other things, our proposal would force the states, local school
districts and the general public to confront the severity of this
problem. The truth is that most people don't know how poor some of
these teacher training programs are, in large part because most ed
schools do not disclose their pass rates as other professional schools
generally do. Our amendment would change that by requiring education
schools to widely publicize the results of their graduate's performance
on state certification and licensing exams. It would also require each
state to collect a broad array of data to produce a report card on
teacher quality, which in turn would be forwarded to the Department of
Education to compile a national report card, allowing us to measure for
the first time the caliber of America's teaching force.
But this amendment, which is comparable to a provision the House
passed overwhelmingly, is not just about opening our eyes to bad
programs. It's about closing the door on the worst of them, and holding
those chronic underperformers accountable. Under our plan, states that
receive funding under the Higher Education Act would be required to
identify those teacher training programs that are failing and to then
take action against them if they do not improve, including withdrawing
state approval and terminating financial support. To show that we mean
business at the Federal level, our amendment would disqualify any
education school from participating in the Federal student aid programs
if a state goes so far as to sever its ties with that program.
Mr. President, we recognize that this legislation on its own will not
magically turn every new teacher into Socrates. It is going to take a
lot of hard work in each school district and each individual state to
change the way we have been operating for many years. We are convinced
that this plan will help to lay the groundwork for a new national
effort to improve teacher quality, and will thereby make a significant
contribution to our broader goal of lasting education reform. Our
optimism has been reaffirmed by the broad bipartisan support this
amendment has received here in the Senate and the House and by the
welcome endorsement we received from both major teachers unions.
Again, I want to express my appreciation to the bill managers for
their
[[Page S7838]]
willingness to accept our amendment, and I look forward to its passage.
Thank you.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to
thank my colleague, Senator Jeffords, for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. President, I believe the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act reestablishes our commitment to the young people of our Nation by
focusing on one of our Nation's founding principles--opportunity.
By improving the quality of teacher training and recruitment,
increasing the purchasing power of students through Pell grants and
other forms of student assistance, and by improving access to higher
education for students with disabilities, this legislation provides
opportunity for the young people of our Nation to seek a higher
education.
While I could continue to talk about the many merits of this bill,
there is one issue that has been of great concern to me and to the
students and parents of my State, and that is the rapidly rising cost
of tuition. Even as we battle--successfully-every year to give more and
more of our Nation's children an opportunity to seek a higher education
by expanding Federal financial assistance, the cost of tuition
continues to increase far beyond the Consumer Price Index--thus
offsetting out efforts to expand education opportunities. We are
winning the yearly battle but faring not nearly so well in the war.
In the 1997-98 school year, average undergraduate yearly tuition and
fees for public 4-year institutions of higher education were $3.111,
representing a 97-percent increase from the 1988--89 school year. For
private 4-year institutions, tuition and fees that same year were
$13,664, representing an increase of 71 percent. As a result, students
and families have become increasingly dependent on Federal financial
aid in the form of grants and loans. In the 1996-97 academic year,
Federal loan programs provided over $30 billion in financial aid to
students.
Even as we have continued to provide assistance to our students over
the last 10 years, a troubled trend has developed. Student financial
aid in the form of loans is disproportionate to the amount of financial
aid received through grants. In the 1996-97 academic school year, 60
percent of Federal, State and institutional students financial aid was
distributed through loans.
The combination of a decline in Federal grants and an increase in
tuition cost for both public and private institutions has forced many
students and families to seek Federal loans to pay for a higher
education. I believe our goal in expanding the availability of student
loans can't be simply to replace disappearing grants and subsidize vast
tuition increases. Our goal is to expand opportunity. And so, providing
money is not enough; we must control costs. Some have suggested that
Federal incentives may be one way to control rising tuition rates.
While this may not be a popular suggestion, we cannot afford to
continue this cycle and this game of cat and mouse with our Federal
education dollars.
Earlier this morning, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd,
addressed this issue in great detail and made some excellent points
with respect to access and affordability. Basically, we're pricing
parents and students out of the education marketplace by limiting the
number of Federal grants. It is my hope that we can work together to
change this disparity in the ratio of loans to grants and to find ways
to streamline the existing student financial assistance structure so
that the good we do here on a bill like this isn't undermined by
tuition rates which increase even more quickly than our ability to
adequately meet the financial needs of our students.
However, in the meantime, I am pleased that the chairman, Senator
Jeffords, has included a sense-of-the-Senate provision in this bill on
behalf of myself and Senator Wyden that expresses these concerns.
Mr. President, it was once said that ``education is a social process.
Education is growth. Education is not preparation for life; education
is life itself.'' I believe this bill represents our commitment to our
students by providing them with the access, assistance, and the
opportunity for a higher education. Education--the process of
learning--is what drives us, fulfills us, and inspires us to achieve,
and I believe it is our collective responsibility as legislators, and
as citizens of this country, to sustain it. Again, I thank my
colleague, Senator Jeffords, the members of the committee and their
staff for their work on this important legislation.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Higher
Education Reauthorization Act of 1998 (S. 1882). I commend my
colleagues, Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, for their hard work
and leadership on this most important legislation. There are few pieces
of legislation in this Congress that are as important to American
families.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Senators Jeffords and
Kennedy for including in this bill two amendments I authored and which
I think are critically important for students across the nation.
The first, the Torricelli Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act, would
expand the campus security information available to the over 14 million
students and their parents who apply to college every year.
In 1990, the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act, was enacted in
response to a steady rise in violent crime on some college campuses.
This legislation paved the way for families to obtain vital security
information about their college campuses. However, it is clear the law
needs strengthening. Currently, the Campus Security Act requires
colleges to report only those hate crimes motivated by race, religions,
national origin, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and those that
result in murder, rape, or aggravated assault. This dual reporting
requirement severely limits the ability of prospective students to gain
information about the safety of a campus.
Our nation's college campuses should be a refuge from crime,
particularly heinous attacks motivated by hatred and bigotry. The
disturbing truth, however, is that college campuses are often fertile
ground for bigotry. Twenty-five percent of minority college students
attending predominantly white colleges have been victims of a hate
crime. In 1996, 90 incidents of anti-Semitic activity occurred on
college campuses.
Students and their parents have the right to know about any crimes,
particularly those involving hatred and bigotry, that were committed on
a college campus they will call home for four or more years. My
legislation, which is now part of the Higher Education Act, will ensure
they get that information.
The Torricelli Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act lists hate crimes
as one of the reportable offenses and expands the definition of a hate
crime to include those that result in robbery, burglary, arson, motor
vehicle theft, vandalism and simple assault. The legislation also
expands the definition of a hate crime to include gender and
disability.
I am grateful to my colleagues, Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for
including this language in the Higher Education Act to provide students
and their parents with vital information so that they may better
protect themselves against such crimes.
Mr. President, I would also like to express my gratitude to the
managers of this bill for including another piece of legislation I
introduced.
This legislation undoes a travesty. We are inadvertently penalizing
student reservists who are called to active duty and deployed overseas
in places like Bosnia. While these courageous individuals are enduring
great personal sacrifice in the service of their country, we are
putting them at a financial disadvantage by starting the clock on the
six month grace period for paying back their federal student loans.
Since the average call-up for a student reservist now lasts for 270
days, the grace period on their loans expires. Instead of returning
home to a hero's welcome, they are coming home to a mailbox full of
default notices. Although the Department of Education can grant
deferments to these students upon their return, federal law prohibits
reinstating the six month grace period, so interest continues to accrue
whenever they are not attending classes. It is unfair and inconsistent
with our increased reliance on the Reserve forces to call up these
students to serve in
[[Page S7839]]
harm's way, and, at the same time, to keep the clock running on their
six month grace period for paying back their student loans.
This amendment, which is based on legislation I have introduced with
Senators Sessions, Hutchison, DeWine, Cleland, D'Amato and Bingaman,
will not provide these veterans with any special treatment or benefit.
It will simply guarantee that the repayment status on their student
loans will be the same when they return as when they left.
These selfless Americans are helping to maintain a tradition that is
over 350 years old, and extends back in time to before the founding of
our Republic. Historically, militia and National Guard units have
fought with honor in all major U.S. military operations from 1637 to
the present. Today, these dedicated individuals represent all fifty
states and four territories, and truly embody our forefather's vision
of the American citizen-soldier. Reservists are active participants in
the full spectrum of U.S. military operations, from the smallest of
contingencies to full-scale theater war, and no major operation can be
successful without them.
Since the start of operation Joint Endeavor almost 1,000 New
Jerseyans have served with the New Jersey Air National Guard in Bosnia,
and right now there are New Jerseyans on the ground in the Balkans
fulfilling the requirements of the Dayton Accords. It is important for
us to acknowledge their sacrifice so that we never forget what it means
to be truly selfless.
In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Jeffords
and Kennedy and their staffs for all of their hard work on the Higher
Education Reauthorization Act and for their assistance with these two
amendments.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S.
1882, the ``Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1998. This
important piece of legislation provides the authority for a litany of
education programs which are intended to provide low and moderate
income families with opportunities for postsecondary education.
It is my firm belief that our nation's colleges, universities, and
post-secondary institutions have been and will continue to be the key
to equal opportunity and economic advancement in our society. Each
year, enrollment increases in postsecondary institutions around the
country as more and more people realize the important role education
plays in their economic future as well as the personal fulfillment and
growth which can be achieved through higher education. It is imperative
that we continue to encourage students of all ages to continue their
studies and take advantage of the opportunities available for them at
our nation's colleges, universities and postsecondary institutions,
which are the finest in the world.
The rising cost of college and higher education continues to be a
major concern for American families. Tuition for college continues to
skyrocket, making it harder and harder for working families to save and
pay for their childrens' education. Over the last twenty years the
average tuition at public 4 and 2 year educational institutions has
increased by 400% while tuition at private 4 year institutions has
increased more than 440%. These are unnerving statistics for parents
just starting their families, but terrifying to families with college-
bound children.
This bill addresses these financial concerns of American families by
increasing the availability of grants and loans to students and their
families. It also provides students with the lowest loan interest rates
in nearly two decades. These programs work together to help make
college affordable for millions of Americans and alleviate their
anxieties about incurring excessive debts.
In addition to making college more affordable for all Americans, this
piece of legislation includes many programs which help strengthen
educational opportunities for millions of low income or high risk
students. This bill expands early intervention programs such as TRIO.
As many of my colleagues know, the TRIO program reaches out to high
risk students in high school and provides them with the encouragement,
tools and personal training necessary to succeed in college.
Personally, I have seen the success of the TRIO program in my home
state of Arizona where this program has played an important role in
encouraging Native American and Hispanic children to finish high school
and to go on to receive their college degree and often their masters
degree.
Another important component of this bill is the establishment of a
comprehensive program promoting statewide reforms to enhance the
performance of teachers in the classroom by improving the quality of
teacher training. Having professional, well-trained teachers is an
essential component for ensuring that our children achieve high
educational standards. These new teacher training programs will be held
to high standards and accountability to ensure that meaningful training
is occurring. Finally, in our concerted effort to increase the number
of students entering the teaching profession and serving our nation's
underserved urban and rural areas this bill provides financial
incentives for individuals who enter the teaching profession.
By passing this piece of legislation, Congress is strengthening our
nation's education system while helping students get a college
education, which is an important and essential investment for our
country. This is why I am proud to support this bill and commend my
colleagues on the Labor Committee for their dedication to this
important matter.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for
his leadership in bringing the important Higher Education Act
Amendments bill to the floor of the Senate. The bill reflects a great
deal of hard work and difficult compromises on a number of issues,
particularly with regard to the FFELP, the Federal Family Education
Loan Program.
However, there remains an issue of importance to my home state of
Texas regarding state secondary markets that I and my colleague from
Texas, Senator Hutchison, are concerned about. While I understand that
you did not include a provision in the bill addressing this issue, I
would nevertheless ask that you and the other members of the Committee
continue to review the matter and seek an acceptable provision to
address it.
As you know, each state is authorized to designate one state
secondary market that may also act as an eligible lender under the
FFELP. For most states, which have only one state secondary market,
this is not a concern. However, Texas and several other states have
multiple state secondary markets. The multiple secondary markets in
these states are the only state secondary markets in the country that
are not considered under the law to be either eligible lenders or
eligible holders of student loans. Rather, these secondary markets must
go through the costly and burdensome exercise of utilizing an eligible
lender bank trustee in order to effectively hold and originate loans.
This is inconsistent with the intent of the FFELP--to ensure maximum
access to student loan capital, and does not appear to meet any
significant policy objective of the FFELP. Particularly at a time when
lender yields and the number of lenders under the FFELP are declining,
it is becoming increasingly important that these multiple secondary
markets have the same ability to add capital to the student loan system
as the secondary markets in single-market states now have.
Moreover, if the multiple secondary markets in Texas and other states
were granted eligible lender status, it is my understanding that there
would be virtually no change in the level or type of government
regulation and oversight that these multiple secondary markets would be
subject to. In Texas, this regulatory oversight includes a variety of
state and federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the state guarantee agency, the
state attorney general, the state bond review agency, state auditors,
private bond rating companies, private auditors, municipal governments,
and individual boards of directors and corporate officers. While the
exact type of regulation of multiple secondary markets varies somewhat
from state-to-state, my understanding is that the granting of eligible
lender status would again not reduce or otherwise change that
oversight.
Thank you very much for your willingness to continue to consider this
[[Page S7840]]
issue, and I look forward to working with you in this regard.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate your support for
higher education in Texas and your interest in this particular issue. I
certainly understand your concern and your desire to ensure that all
state secondary markets are treated equitably and that they are able to
fully participate in the FFEL Program. I, too, want to see this
important program and all its participants succeed so that students
continue to have adequate access to affordable loans for their post-
secondary education goals.
While this specific issue is one that we have not yet held hearings
on in the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I am interested in doing
so in order to thoroughly review the merits of granting eligible lender
status to all state secondary markets. As this process continues, I
will certainly seek the input and suggestions of you as well as Senator
Hutchison.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair. I yield the
floor.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this bill represents a strong bi-partisan
consensus on the Labor Committee to ensure that students maintain
access to post-secondary education through vital student opportunity
programs, such as TRIO; healthy, stable, and streamlined loan programs;
and a simplified student aid process. I am pleased to have contributed
to this important bill and look forward to its quick passage today and
on the floor.
This bill was developed using several guiding principles. First, we
strove to maintain the primary focus of the Higher Education Act since
its inception in 1965, which is to ensure that students have access and
opportunity to pursue higher education. We have strengthened the major
student opportunity programs in the Act by focusing more on the needs
of low-income students through an expanded Pell Grant program, and
making needed reforms to the TRIO programs.
In an effort to ensure continued access to higher education programs
for all students, these amendments also include a new, low interest
rate for student loans. This legislation sets a student loan repayment
rate of 7.43 percent which represents a significant reduction in the
interest rate for students. The interest rate that was scheduled to
take effect on July 1, 1998 would have destabilized the successful
Federal Family Loan Program by causing thousands of lenders to stop
making student loans which would have left students without loans for
the school year. The interest rate included in these amendments
provides a significant reduction to students while maintaining the
long-term viability of the student loan programs and ensuring that
students will continue to have access to private loans at the lowest
interest rate in 17 years.
Another vital principle for these amendments was the improvement and
modernization of the student aid delivery system. This legislation
creates a Performance-Based Organization (PBO) within the Department of
Education aimed at providing quality service to students and parents.
The utilization of this PBO which will incorporate the best and most
successful practices in the private financial sector, coupled with
other reforms aimed at streamlining the student aid regulatory
requirements will result in a better managed and higher quality federal
student aid system.
A third principle which guided these amendments was the need for
much-needed reform of teacher preparation programs. A recent report
found that 36 percent of teachers in the core subjects, such as math
and science, neither majored nor minored in those subjects. Annually,
more than 50,000 under-prepared teachers enter the field, which means
about 1 in 4 new teachers are not prepared to meet the enormous
responsibilities of teaching. This shortage of qualified teachers is
the only real shortage of teachers in this country, and it most
seriously impacted inner-city students who are often taught by teachers
who lack a degree in their subject matter. This problem is growing--
between 1987 and 1991, the proportion of well-qualified new teachers
entering the field declined from 74% to 67%.
I am very pleased that these amendments include a new initiative for
teacher training and professional development aimed at addressing the
shortage of qualified teachers in this country which replaces most of
the existing teacher preparation programs with a two-pronged approach.
This initiative encourages state level reforms intended to produce well
trained and highly competent teachers, and local level partnerships
intended to improve under-performing teacher education programs.
States will compete to receive some of these teacher training dollars
and can use the grants to strengthen their teacher certification
requirements, create or expand alternative certification programs to
attract highly qualified people from other occupations to the teaching
profession, to decrease the shortage of highly qualified teachers in
high need areas, or to develop programs which reward excellent teachers
and remove unqualified teachers.
This reauthorization was also guided by a strong desire to streamline
and consolidate the many programs and activities which are found in the
Higher Education Act. This Act has become increasingly complex over the
years and these amendments make great strides in simplifying the Act
and better targeting its programs and activities.
I would like to thank the staff who have worked on this important
legislation for the last year: on Senator Jefford's staff, Susan
Hattan, Jenny Smulson, Scott Giles, Cory Heyman, and Pam Moran have
done excellent work on this bill. In addition, Marianna Pierce with
Senator Kennedy and Suzanne Day with Senator Dodd have worked
diligently to ensure that this bill represents a strong bi-partisan
consensus. Thank you all so much for your long hours and excellent
work.
Again, I am pleased to have been a part of crafting this important
legislation.
olympic education scholarship
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Jeffords, in a colloquy
on an important measure which will be a subject of discussion during
the House-Senate conference on the Higher Education reauthorization
Act.
It has been observed that America does not send its athletes to the
Olympic Games, Americans do. Indeed, the U.S. Olympic Committee, whose
responsibilities include the support for training and selecting
athletes to represent the United States in the Olympic and Pan America
Games, is the only major national Olympic Committee from among the 197
participating nations that receives no funding whatsoever from its
federal or state governments. All funds for training U.S. athletes must
come from private sources, including an individual's personal
resources.
In September 2000 more than 800 young American men and women will
gather in Sydney, Australia to represent their countrymen in the XXVII
Olympiad. They will join more than 10,000 other athletes from nearly
200 nations to engage in friendly competition. Many will have spent
more than a decade preparing for what Jesse Owens once referred to as
``fifteen seconds of glory.''
As they have since the modern Olympic Games were instituted in 1896,
Americans back home will follow with great pride the accomplishments of
the U.S. athletes, and will vicariously share in each triumph. But when
the Olympic flame is extinguished and our American heroes return home
most will leave forever the athletic careers to which they have devoted
so much of their lives.
The greatest homecoming we can prepare for our U.S. athletes is
assistance in obtaining the educational foundation that will enable
them to pursue productive lives outside of their athletic arenas. We
can achieve this by reauthorizing the Olympic Education Scholarship
program. Originally authorized in 1992, this important program recently
expired; however, reauthorization language has been included in the
House version of the Higher Education Act and it is my hope that our
Senate conferees will support the House reauthorization of this
important Olympic Education Scholarship program. The $5 million
authorization level for this program would be an important step toward
allowing these
[[Page S7841]]
young men and women to simultaneously advance themselves on the
training field and in the classroom.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to say to the Senator from
Michigan that I am tremendously impressed with the dedication,
determination, and work ethic of our Olympic hopefuls. Given the
opportunity, the same ethic suggests that they would apply similar
dedication to academic endeavors. Balancing a schedule of rigorous
training and education is very difficult for any person. Our Olympic
athletes should be in the position to acquire post-secondary education
after representing our country in the Olympic games. For these reasons,
I pledge to the Senator from Michigan my efforts in the conference to
consider the House language which reauthorizes the Olympic Education
Scholarship.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters to
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor Committee, signed by
myself, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Wayne Allard, Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Spencer Abraham, Senator Alfonse
D'Amato, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Barbara Boxer, be
included in the Record following this colloquy.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington, DC,
June 26, 1998.
Hon. James M. Jeffords, Chairman,
Hon. Edward Kennedy, Ranking Member,
Labor and Human Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Jim and Ted: We write to request your support for an
amendment reauthorizing the Olympic Education Scholarship
(OES) program which we wish to have included in your
manager's amendment to the Higher Education Reauthorization
Act of 1998 (HEA). Originally authorized in 1992, this
important program recently expired. Reauthorization language
has been included in the House version of HEA. A copy of our
proposed amendment is attached.
The OES program will help America's athletes advance their
education while training at U.S. Olympic Training Centers
through a targeted educational scholarship program. Without
such a program, many American athletes have been forced to
put aside higher education as they deal with the
extraordinary demands of Olympic training. Sadly, once their
Olympic careers are over, many of these athletes find
themselves without the educational tools necessary to move
forward. The $5 million authorization level for this program
would be an important step toward allowing these young men
and women to simultaneously advance themselves on the
training field and in the classroom. This is particularly
true for the Olympic athletes who train at the USOC training
centers in Lake Placid, New York; Colorado Springs, Colorado,
San Diego, California; and Marquette, Michigan.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Spencer Abraham.
Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Wayne Allard.
Alfonse D'Amato.
____
Washington, DC,
July 8, 1998.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Ranking Member, Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
Dirksen Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to request that you
include in your manager's amendment to S. 1882, the Higher
Education Act of 1965, support for the Olympic Training
Scholarship Program.
The program provides financial support for American
athletes with their education while they train for the
Olympics. Many of our Olympic athletes have had to either
postpone their education while they train or forego
opportunities to participate in the Olympics. Unfortunately,
many who postpone their education often find themselves
without sufficient education to establish professional
careers. The $5 million authorization level for this program
would allow these young men and women to simultaneously study
and train for the Olympics.
I appreciate the support of the committee and look forward
to working with you to address California's needs. Please do
not hesitate to call on me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
____
Washington, DC,
July 9, 1998.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Chairman,
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request your support for
including a reauthorization of the Olympic Education
Scholarship (OES) program in the manager's amendment to the
Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1998.
The OES program helps America's athletes advance their
education while training at U.S. Olympic Training Centers
through a targeted educational scholarship program. Without
this program, many American athletes may be forced to
postpone higher education due to fiscal restraints. Once
their Olympic careers are over, many of these athletes are
without the educational background necessary to move into
professional careers. The $5 million authorization level for
the Olympic Education Scholarship program would be an
important step toward allowing these young men and women to
advance themselves both on the training field and in the
classroom.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senator.
faculty retirement incentive provision
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today along with my friend and
colleague, Senator Moynihan, to address the faculty retirement
incentive provisions contained in the House-passed version of the
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. This provision amends the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to allow the use of
age-based incentives for the voluntary retirement of faculty at
colleges and universities.
In the House, Congressman Fawell worked to include this provision in
the Higher Education Act, and we thank him for his leadership on this
issue. Here in the Senate, Senator Moynihan and I have introduced an
similar provision in the last two Congresses. I am please that Congress
and the President will have an opportunity this year to pass this
important legislation.
This legislation, called the Faculty Retirement Incentive Act, will
clarify that institutions may establish plans that give faculty who
wish to retire early financial assistance in doing so. Further it would
help to ensure that academic institutions will be able to make
necessary new hires, particularly in expanding disciplines and new
fields. For those who are concerned about potential recrimination if a
faculty member would choose not to retire early, the double protections
of the ADEA and the tenure system provide effective safeguards against
coercion. It is also important to note that current law expressly
permits the type of age-based benefit for employees participating in
defined-benefit plans. Most colleges and universities, however,
maintain defined-contribution retirement plans for tenured faculty.
In January, the bipartisan National Commission on the Cost of Higher
Education included this legislation initiative in its recommendations
to check the skyrocketing cost of a college education. The Commission
recommended that ``Congress enact a clarification to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act to ensure that institutions offering
defined contribution retirement programs are able to offer early
retirement incentives to tenured faculty members.''
The Faculty Retirement Incentive Act has the active support of a
number of organizations, including the American Association of
University Professors, the American Council on Education, the American
Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Universities,
the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Association
of Community College Trustees, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and
Universities, the University Personnel Association, the Council of
Independent Colleges, the National Association of Independent Colleges
and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges, and the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators.
I feel it is important that Congress enact this important legislation
and I know my colleague from New York shares this same belief.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from
Missouri on the Faculty Retirement Incentive Act. Before I discuss the
specifics of our bill, however, I would just like to commend the
Chairman, Senator Jeffords; the Ranking Minority Member, Senator
Kennedy; and the other Committee members for the bipartisan way they
have gone about the business of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.
I think they have done an outstanding job.
It has taken us several years to address the need of institutions of
higher education to offer age-based incentives for the voluntary
retirement of faculty. In 1990, Congress passed the Older
[[Page S7842]]
Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBRA) which made early retirement
incentives permissible in the context of defined-benefit retirement
plans, but did not address the status of such incentives in the context
of defined-contribution retirement plans. Defined-contribution
retirement plans are most popular with tenured faculty due to their
pension portability. The OWBRA did not preclude defined-contribution
retirement plans, but by not addressing them at all, it added to the
ambiguity surrounding the matter. Functionally, early retirement
incentives operate in the same manner for both types of plans. There is
continued uncertainty, however, whether early retirement incentives
with an upper-age limit that are offered to tenured faculty conflict
with the purpose of the ADEA of prohibiting arbitrary age
discrimination.
Inclusion of the Faculty Retirement Incentive Act in the
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act will provide a safe harbor
for colleges and universities by clarifying that the early retirement
incentives are permitted by the ADEA. Senator Ashcroft and I believe
that the faculty retirement incentive provision will benefit colleges
and universities, as well as those faculty who choose to participate.
As officials for the American Association of University Professors have
stated, this provision will ``provide greater flexibility in faculty
retirement planning, offer a substantial retirement benefit to those
professors who choose to retire under the terms of an incentive plan,
and leave other professors whole in their choice to continue their
careers.''
Senator Ashcroft and I intended to offer our bill as an amendment to
the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, but the Chairman
informed us that there is broad support among Committee members for the
House-passed provision, and that this issue can be resolved in the
Conference Committee.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to thank both Senators Moynihan and
Senator Ashcroft for their diligent work on tenured faculty retirement
incentives, and for their cooperation. I want to assure my two
colleagues that there is, indeed, broad support for the measure and
that I am confident that Senate conferees will give the House-passed
provision the consideration it is due.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, included in the manager's package of
amendments to the higher education bill is a resolution I introduced
last March on binge drinking on college campuses.
This was the same resolution that was introduced in the other body by
Representative Joe Kennedy--and virtually the same as what was adopted
by the other body in its version of the Higher Education Act.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about my resolution--and why
this issue is so important. But, first, let me thank Senators Kennedy,
Dodd, Jeffords, and Coats for accepting the resolution.
Let me also thank Representative Joe Kennedy, who came up with the
idea for this resolution and has long been trying to bring alcohol-
related problems to the attention of Members of Congress.
And, finally, let me thank the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, which endorsed the resolution early on and has worked
tirelessly to get it passed.
Mr. President, I think every one of my colleagues has heard or read
about college students across the country--from Louisiana to
Massachusetts to Virginia--who fell drunk out of dorm room windows or
consumed so much alcohol, so fast that it literally poisoned them.
There were at least 18 such deaths this last academic year.
And, Mr. President, I think every one of my colleagues saw the news
reports from this past spring on the riots--yes, riots--on several
college campuses across the country--from Washington to Michigan to
Ohio.
We saw police wearing riot gear; carrying shields; and firing tear
gas into throngs of drunk college students.
These riots were either alcohol-induced--parties that got out of
control--or were based on a peculiar notion--that underage college
students should have a right to get drunk.
That's what binge drinking is. There is a technical definition for
the academics who study this problem--and I'll talk about that in a
minute. But, in layman's terms, binge drinking is simply the idea that
you drink to get drunk, or, as a recent article in the Washington Post
magazine put it, it is where ``drinking isn't part of the party; it is
the party.''
And, binge drinking is, according to many university presidents, the
biggest problem facing America's colleges today.
Let me repeat that. The biggest issue facing America's colleges--
according to many college president's themselves--is not raising money
for the university. Not ensuring high academic standards. Not finding
top quality faculty. No, it's binge drinking.
There is a reason for that. And, it has to do with more than just the
18 college students who died this last year--tragic as that is.
According to a study by Harvard University, 44 percent of college
students are binge drinkers--that is, technically, for men, consuming
five drinks in one sitting during a 2-week period, and for women,
consuming four drinks in one sitting.
Again, 44 percent of college students are binge drinkers.
Nearly one in every five college students is a frequent binge
drinker--that is, binge drinking three or more times in a 2-week
period.
And, almost half of all freshmen--18 year olds--binge in their first
week at school.
But, it even goes deeper than that--deeper than the 18 deaths; deeper
than the 44 percent of students who are binge drinkers.
The reason that binge drinking is the most important issue facing
colleges today is because binge drinking affects everyone on campus--
even those college students who do not during--and even the majority of
college students who are not binge drinkers. They are all affected by
those who are.
Talk to a student who lives in a dorm room next to someone who drinks
a lot, and I can guarantee you that he or she does not get many
peaceful nights of sleep--and does not get many peaceful moments to
study.
The greater the number of binge drinkers at a school, the greater the
chances are that a student will be hit, pushed, insulted, assaulted--
and of being the recipient of an unwanted sexual advance.
And, alcohol is involved in most campus rapes, violent crimes,
student suicides, and fraternity hazing incidents. Many of the victims
of these crimes are not the ones doing the drinking.
You know, we have heard a lot in the last decade or more about the
connection between alcohol and car accidents, where those who die or
are injured are often innocent victims who were not drinking.
And, there has been a great effort--led by Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, a group for which I have the highest respect--to educate the
public and prevent the tragedy.
But, there is also a growing body of evidence showing a link between
alcohol and other crimes and irresponsible behaviors.
There is a link between alcohol and unsafe sex; between alcohol and
suicide; between alcohol and rape; between alcohol and violence.
And, nowhere is this link more prevalent than on college campuses.
Unfortunately, there are many people out there--including many
officials on college campuses--who look at binge drinking by college
students as just part of the ``campus experience''--as just some ``rite
of passage'' to adulthood.
Well, I make no apologies for saying that drinking yourself to death
is no ``rite.'' It's just plan stupid.
And, I make no apologies for saying that those who overlook the
problem are contributing to it.
It is time for the culture on college campuses to change--before
someone else's son or daughter becomes another statistic.
We need to bring the problem of binge drinking among college students
to the attention of the American people--to educate them and to prevent
the tragedies associated with it--just as we have done with drunk
driving.
So, Mr. President, my resolution would call on all college and
university presidents to recognize and acknowledge the problem--and
then to find solutions.
[[Page S7843]]
Specifically, my resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that
every college and university president should carry out six specific
activities to reduce alcohol consumption on college campuses.
(1) To appoint a task force to establish a policy on reducing alcohol
and other drug-related problems;
(2) To provide students with the opportunity to live in an alcohol-
free environment;
(3) To enforce a zero tolerance policy on the consumption of alcohol
by minors;
(4) To eliminate alcoholic beverage-related sponsorship of on-campus
events;
(5) To enforce vigorously a college's disciplinary codes against
those who violate campus alcohol policies; and
(6) To work closely with the local officials in the town in which the
college is located.
Mr. President, these activities are very similar to what is currently
happening at the University of Delaware under the leadership of
President David Roselle.
They need to happen on every college campus in America.
Now, there are some who say that this is just a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution--it just expresses our opinion. True. But, Mr. President, we
must start somewhere.
I believe that if we begin to take the problem seriously--and if
colleges begin to seriously address the problem--we can begin to make a
difference.
The lives of students can be saved--and the quality of life on our
college campuses will be better.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their support and for including my
resolution in the bill.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators
Jeffords, Kennedy, Coats, and Dodd for their efforts in putting this
bill together, and thank them for working with me to include several of
my priorities in the bill.
No issue is as important to our future as education. When I was
growing up, it was possible to graduate from high school and get a job
as a police officer, a firefighter, or a clerk, and earn enough to
raise and support a family. Mechanics used to train for their work on
the job. The nursing profession used to consist of women who
apprenticed in hospitals.
Times have changed. Now, if you want to be a airline mechanic, you
need four years of college. Nursing is a degree program, and there are
sub-specialities of nurses who are highly and scientifically educated.
One recent advertisement for a maintenance technician stated the job
required an understanding of ``basic principles of electricity,
mechanical systems, and fluid power.'' By the year 2000, the Department
of Labor estimates that more than half of all new jobs will require an
education beyond high school.
A higher education has never been as important as it is today.
Unfortunately, while the value of a higher education is increasing, so
is its cost. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, tuition
as a percentage of median household income has nearly doubled over the
last 15 years--from 4.5 percent in 1981, to 8.9 percent in 1995. In 14
states, tuition is more than 10 percent of median household income. In
30 states, tuition is more than eight percent of household income. In
all but one state, tuition is 1995 was more than it was 15 years ago.
The GAO reports that tuition at public, four-year colleges and
universities increased 234 percent in 15 years. By contrast, the cost
of medical care has gone up 182 percent, new cars by 106 percent, new
houses by 101 percent, median household income by 82 percent, and food
by 66 percent. The Consumer Price Index has risen 74 percent.
The exploding cost of college means that access to higher education
is getting more and more out of reach for working- and middle-class
Americans. The more tuition goes up, the more students will be priced
out of their opportunity to pursue the American Dream.
That is exactly the wrong direction for our country. As President
Clinton said in his 1997 State of the Union, ``education is a critical
national security issue for our future.'' He is absolutely right. In
order to compete with cheap, third-world labor in a global economy, and
to maintain the rising standard of living to which we have grown
accustomed, America will need a workforce even better trained than it
is now.
Last year in Davos, Switzerland, world economic leaders met to
discuss the effects of technological change on the global market. They
noted that if education and training policies do not keep pace with
technological innovation, the gap between the ``knows'' and the ``know-
nots'' will grow, increasing the disparities in wealth and capacity,
and the ability of industrialized nations to remain competitive will
shrink.
It that is the case, we should be working overtime to ensure that no
student is barred from college because of a lack of financial
resources. The legislation before us today goes a long way toward
achieving that goal. It will standardize and make available information
about college costs, so we will know exactly why costs are increasing
at a rate so out of proportion with every other indicia of inflation.
It will help us solve the mystery of the case of the Incredible Rising
Tuition Bill. It will help American families and students make better
decisions about where to go to college.
The legislation tells schools that the time has come to come clean
about why their prices are climbing so rapidly, and to answer the
question of whether the massive tuition increases are really necessary.
Schools who opt to not comply with the requirements of the bill will be
fined $25,000. I want to thank Senator Dodd for this provision. I
believe it is particularly important, because it puts the schools on
notice that we are serious about these requirements.
I also want to thank Senator Dodd and the other managers of the bill
for including an amendment of mine directing the Secretary of Education
to study the impact of student debt. Unfortunately, the trend in
student aid over the last 20 years has been to move away from grants in
favor of loans. Combined with the increasing cost of college, this
trend has meant that more and more students are graduating with more
and more debt.
According to the GAO, the percentage of undergraduate students who
took out loans shot up 41 percent between 1993 and 1996. The percentage
of graduates of four-year colleges who borrowed more than $20,000 rose
from 9 percent in 1993 to 19 percent in 1996.
The General Accounting Office was not able to determine, however, the
effect of this increasing debt burden on students and graduates. Under
this legislation, the Secretary of Education will, within 18 months,
determine how this increasing burden affects students' decisions about
whether and where to go to school, how much to borrow, how long to stay
in school, what kind of employment to seek, and whether burdensome debt
payments impede graduates' ability to save for retirement or invest in
a home.
The legislation will provide for the first time a comprehensive
picture of exactly what is happening to college costs, why it is
happening, and what the effects are.
Mr. President, I also want to thank the managers of the bill, as well
as Senator Wellstone, for incorporating the provisions of the Fair Play
Act into this higher education legislation. The Fair Play Act, which I
introduced last year with Senators Snowe and Kennedy, builds upon the
extraordinary success of Title IX and promotes the continued expansion
of athletic opportunities for women.
Colleges and universities are currently required to collect
information about their men's and women's athletic programs, including
participation rates, operating and recruitment budgets, the
availability of scholarships, revenues generated from athletic
programs, and coaches' salaries, and are required to make this
information available upon request.
The Fair Play Act directs colleges and universities to send this
information, which they already compile annually, to the Department of
Education, and directs the Department to issue an annual report and
make the information available through a variety of mechanisms,
including the Department's World Wide Web site.
[[Page S7844]]
The Fair Play Act will provide prospective students and prospective
student athletes with the kind of information they need to make
informed decisions about where to go to school. I will give the
Department of Education valuable information to aid its enforcement of
Title IX in the area of athletics, and it will encourage schools to
continue to expand their athletic programs to meet the interests of
women nationwide.
Over its 25 year history, Title IX has been directly responsible for
expanding the athletic opportunities available to millions of women and
girls. The Fair Play Act builds on this legacy of success, and provides
the information needed to ensure that the expansion of athletic
opportunities available to women continues into the 21st century.
I am grateful for the support of my colleagues on the Labor
Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on this
important issue.
Mr. President, I also want to thank the managers of this bill for
accepting an amendment of mine creating a Faculty Development
Fellowship Program. The program will enable institutions of higher
education to award graduate fellowships to talented students from
groups under-represented in the American professoriate.
In many respects, colleges and universities are our nation's paragons
of diversity. They understand the importance of having a student body
made up of men and women of different races, ethnicities, and
backgrounds. When I talk with university presidents from Illinois and
elsewhere, they invariably tout their school's diversity.
The diversity appears to stop, however, after the undergraduate
level. There is a disturbing dearth of diversity among graduate
students and professors. In 1993, African-Americans received only 3
percent of all doctoral degrees conferred in the United States, and
women received only 38 percent. According to the Department of
Education, only 14 percent of full-time instructional faculty at
colleges and universities are minorities, and only one-third are women.
We can do better than that. The problem is not a lack of talent among
minorities and women, but a lack of opportunity. My amendment
authorizes $30 million per year to encourage talented students from
under-represented groups to pursue studies and become professors. The
program will help us tap the talents of all our children, and therefore
make us a stronger society. A community that gives all its members a
chance to contribute to the maximum extent of their abilities is a
stronger community, because it benefits from a broader range of
contributions. As we head into the 21st century and a truly global
economy, we cannot afford not to tap the talents of all our children.
Mr. President, that is really what this whole bill is about, making
sure that every American has the chance to go as far as his or her
talents will allow. This bill is about making sure that wealth and
class are not obstacles to education. It is about giving more students
more opportunities to receive a better education. I congratulate the
leaders of the Labor Committee for their bipartisan efforts to put this
bill together, and I look forward to its imminent passage.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for S. 1882, the Higher Education Reauthorization bill. This bill is a
major victory for students and teachers across America. As a member of
the Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear from countless
witnesses from across the nation who have testified on everything from
default rates to job hunting, campus crime to child care. With a
daughter entering college this fall, this issue has provided me with
some very interesting insights into the higher ed challenges, millions
face each year.
Throughout the Labor Committee's effort on this bill, I worked to
strengthen our nation's commitment to providing the strongest training
possible for school teachers. I am most pleased with the bill's focus
on teacher training and in particular its emphasis on technology
training. A year ago, I introduced the Teacher Technology Training Act
to add technology to the areas of professional development and teacher
training included in current law. S. 1882 now contains my legislation,
and I thank Chairman Jeffords, Senator Kennedy and Senator Warner for
their cooperation and support in adding this critical piece to the
bill.
The work of the committee on the teacher education provisions is
really quite historic and a drastic overhaul of the previous teacher
training section. The bill provides Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
that will institute state-level reforms to ensure both current and
future teachers possess the skills and academic knowledge to teach
children effectively in their assigned area. As a member of the Labor
Appropriations subcommittee, I will fight to ensure that this section
is finally funded at a level that does make a difference in the
classroom.
This teacher quality section particularly highlights training in the
effective use of technology in the classroom. All of us have witnessed
the tremendous impact that technology now plays in our daily world. It
affects the way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and the
way our children learn in school.
Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that
has opened up limitless possibilities in the classroom. In order for
students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st
century, they must learn how to use new technologies. But all too
often, teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their
instruction without being given the training to do so. Many students in
our public schools have told me they know more than their teachers
about how to use computers.
We can not continue to rely on students to teach teachers in the
rapidly expanding area of technology. I have toured several teaching
schools and found them well supplied with up-to-date equipment.
However, student teachers are often not provided adequate instruction
in the use of that technology beyond simple communication purposes. It
is not enough for a teacher to be able to email or use computers merely
for administrative reasons, they must be able to use this education
technology to advance their curriculum and provide their students
resources along the information highway.
Last year, just 10 percent of new teachers reported that they felt
prepared to use technology in their classrooms, while only 13 percent
of all public schools reported that technology-related training for
teachers was required by the school, district, or teacher certification
agencies. Currently only 18 states require pre-service technology
training.
This act will significantly turn these numbers around and provide our
teachers with the training so critical to harnessing new technologies.
I again thank Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their
leadership on this effort. This technology training for teachers has
been supported by a wide array of interests including the National
Education Association, PTA, Society for Technology in Education,
National Association of Secondary School Principals, National School
Boards Association, Information Technology Association of America,
Washington State School Directors, the Software and Digital Alliance,
the Colleges of Teacher Education. I also would like to thank Senator
Wellstone for his work on the TANF amendment, so important for literacy
instruction and lifelong learning.
With increased Pell Grants and decreased interest rates on loans,
students can begin to think about their future rather than paying for
their past. I believe this first generation of the new millennium will
benefit immensely from the efforts put forth over this past year. From
simplifying the financial aid process to campus security improvements
to technology instruction, S. 1882 will stand as a proud trademark of
this Congress.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S.
1882, the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998, reauthorizing the
Higher Education Act for 5 years. The Higher Education Act, enacted in
1965 to provide disadvantaged students with greater educational
opportunities, recognized the shared benefit of providing every
American a chance to maximize his or her potential. As a result of the
passage of this legislation, doors have been opened to millions of
citizens who
[[Page S7845]]
otherwise would not have had the access or the resources to obtain a
higher education. Although the act has been amended over the years
through the reauthorization process, the central purpose of the
legislation has remained the same--to ensure access, choice and
opportunity in higher education.
First, and foremost, this measure reauthorizes all postsecondary
grant and loan programs which have allowed so many of our citizens to
obtain additional education and training. It lowers the in-school
interest rate on student loans from the current 7.6% to 6.8% and for
the years after school from the current 8.2% to 7.4% to make higher
education more affordable for more students. Most notably, the bill
includes an increase in the maximum Pell Grant from $3,000 for the
1998-1999 academic year to $4,500 for 1999-2000, and increases that
award by $200 a year for the following four years and further expands
eligibility to include more students who are financially independent of
their parents.
I am pleased that the bill also reinforces our continued support of
the TRIO programs which have been so successful in serving
disadvantaged and first-generation college students. I have been a
longstanding supporter of TRIO which has served more than 700,000
through 1,900 programs nationwide. The impact of the outreach and early
intervention services provided by TRIO become even more profound
considering that more than two-thirds of the students benefitting from
the program come from families with incomes under $24,000. No one set
of Federal programs captures more completely the American ideal that
fostering educational opportunity for all citizens benefits both the
individual and the society as well.
Title II of the bill consolidates teacher training programs and
refocuses Federal efforts to more efficiently and effectively train and
recruit new teachers for our Nation's schools. It also provides for
greater loan forgiveness for those who choose to dedicate their lives
to the teaching profession. Now those who agree to teach for at least
three years in high-need areas can see up to $8,000 in their student
loans forgiven. In my view, this is an important step in relieving the
heavy loan debt many graduates find themselves burdened with upon
graduation to allow some of our best and brightest to enter the
teaching profession independent of this financial pressure.
I am also pleased that legislation I introduced to establish the
Thurgood Marshall Legal Opportunity Program has been incorporated into
the bill before us. This program would identify socially and
economically disadvantaged law school students and provide them with
the opportunity to hone their skills through summer institutes, mid-
year seminars and support services. Working within the framework of the
highly successful Council on Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO), this
program will provide the necessary resources to ensure that those who
have proven themselves at the undergraduate level of study are able to
maximize their potential as they move on to law school. Investing in
the promise of these talented individuals is a worthwhile endeavor and
I am pleased that this legislation has been included in this
reauthorization.
Mr. President, passage of this legislation sustains our Nation's
longstanding commitment to access, choice and opportunity in higher
education. Every society places a premium on education in terms of
fostering a skilled and trained work force in the next generation, and
the more complex economically the world becomes, the more critical it
is to address this aspect of developing our human resources. In our
society, however, education carries two other very important
responsibilities which make the legislation we are talking about today
essential to the health and vitality of our society.
The first is that we are one of a handful of countries that has
maintained a democracy over a sustained period of time. Obviously,
education is essential to a literate citizenry capable of making a
democracy work. The other dimension is that education in America
represents a ladder of opportunity. We take great pride in being an
open society in which people can move up and forward, and the way they
do that is essentially through the educational ladders provided in the
programs we are reauthorizing today. In a Nation which believes that a
person's merit and talent should take them as far as they can go, we
must continue to foster a path which allows them to maximize this
potential. Many of us here today have benefitted from this philosophy
and have achieved certain levels of success as a direct result of the
opportunities afforded by such principles. However, all of the programs
we address in this bill are not solely for the benefit of the
individual, as important as that aspect is. These programs are part of
our national effort to include people in our society rather than
exclude them, an essential concept in my view to the harmonious working
of American society.
In passing this legislation, it is important to understand that the
value of programs authorized by this bill cannot be measured simply in
terms of dollars spent. Without Federal support, millions of Americans
would not have been able to attend college or receive the advanced
training required to make them contributing, productive members of
society. If this Nation is to continue to thrive in an ever-evolving
global economy, we must not underestimate the value of the Federal
government's commitment to higher education.
The Senate's approval of the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act is a critical step in our on-going efforts to maintain access and
choice in higher education. We must continue to acknowledge the vital
importance of education in this country, to sustain the educated base
we have created, and to commit ourselves to a quality education for all
our Nation's citizens.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1882, the
Higher Education Amendments of 1998. I commend my colleagues,
especially Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Coats and Dodd, for all their
hard work in putting together a bi-partisan education bill to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act. I congratulate you for producing
a package aimed at the needs of our students in paying for college and
getting a quality education. This bill truly helps us to get behind our
kids and our students. It lays the groundwork for the future in working
toward a strong economy by educating our citizens and future leaders.
This bill contains may important provisions reauthorizing the range
of student financial assistance. I support this bill for three reasons,
in particular. First, it contains important provisions that expand our
teacher training programs. Second, it increases the maximum amount
needy students can receive under the Pell Grant program. Third, it
encourages new teachers to serve elementary and secondary schools in
low-income areas by providing loan forgiveness for their Stafford
loans.
Training our teachers is one of the most important steps we can take
toward improving education today. Our children deserve to be taught by
well-qualified teachers in every classroom. We need more teachers, but
we need more quality teachers. That is why I cosponsored Senator
Kennedy's and Senator Reed's proposals to provide grants to local
partnerships for teacher training. I am happy to see that many of the
provisions in these two bills were included in this legislation. These
grants will be made to local partnerships and are designed to encourage
the reform and improvement of education at the local level.
Second, I am very pleased that this bill increases the amounts
available to students for Pell Grants. This bill continues the historic
commitment of our government to grant aid to the neediest students by
increasing the Pell Grant to $5,000. Education should be an opportunity
for all people, regardless of their financial status. Education should
be both accessible and affordable. We have an obligation to make sure
that every single citizen of our country has the chance to go to
school, get an education, get a good job and a boost up the opportunity
ladder.
Third, this bill provides loan forgiveness for Stafford loans to
teachers who choose to teach in elementary and secondary schools in
low-income areas. It authorizes the Secretary of Education to repay
certain loans made to borrowers who become full-time teachers for three
consecutive school years in a high-poverty area. This section combines
our commitment to a quality
[[Page S7846]]
public education for all students with our commitment to also target
the areas in highest need. It provides incentives for well-trained
teachers to teach in areas that really need committed and well trained
teachers. This bill helps ensure that we are meeting the needs of all
of our students by targeting funds to those high need areas.
Let me briefly mention two other provisions of this bill that are of
special importance to me. I am very pleased to see that the Thurgood
Marshal Legal Education Opportunity Program, legislation that I
cosponsored with Senator Sarbanes, was included in the manager's
package of this bill. This amendment will help qualified disadvantaged
students gain admission to law school and help prepare them for their
legal education. It identifies socially and economically disadvantaged
law students and provides them with both financial and academic support
services. This program has a 29 year record of assisting these
disadvantaged students and I am proud to have been a strong supporter
of this program.
Mr. President, I would also like to thank Senator Jeffords and
Senator Kennedy for including language in the manager's package that
doubles the authorization of federal funds that do not have to matched
by the Historically Black Colleges and Universities graduate programs.
This will greatly help our HBCU graduate programs increase their
quality of programs. It follows our important commitment to support our
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am particularly happy
that both HBCU graduate programs in my state at Morgan State University
and Eastern Shore will benefit from this important amendment.
Mr. President, this bill represents a real investment in the
education of our youth. It represents, as it should, a bipartisan
effort to ensure the quality and affordability of education for all.
Education can and should be something that we can all agree on. We will
all have to live in the future with the decisions we make now on
education. We are responsible for our future, and that means we are
responsible for making sure that our children are equipped to deal with
the issues they will be facing.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the legislation before us today, the
Higher Education Act, is an example of what can happen when the
majority makes an effort to work together with Senators from this side
of the aisle to do something for the good of the country. I commend
Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their good work on this bill.
Unfortunately, we have seen too few examples of this type of bipartisan
cooperation this year.
The Higher Education Act is very important, and I am pleased we are
making good progress in renewing and strengthening it. As we are all
well aware, access to higher education can help unlock the door to a
better future for our students and for our Nation, and this legislation
provides the key for many students. Pell grants, student loans, campus-
based aid and other programs have helped millions of students afford a
college education. Through these programs, we provide $38 billion in
financial assistance to more than 19.4 million students in
postsecondary education institutions.
The bill we are adopting today makes a number of important
improvements in this law. First, and most important, it continues the
effort to make a college education more affordable by continuing
current programs, increasing the maximum Pell Grant, reducing interest
rates on student loans, improving repayment options for students, and
increasing the information available to families about the cost of a
college education while encouraging institutions to minimize cost
increases.
The bill includes important incentives to improve the quality of
teacher training and recruitment and to expand professional development
opportunities. I commend the Committee, and in particular the Senator
from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and the Senator from Rhode Island,
Senator Reed, for their efforts to consolidate and strengthen these
provisions into a more logical, coordinate system. We know that putting
students in a classroom with a well-trained, qualified teacher is one
of the most effective ways to help them achieve to the best of their
abilities.
I am also pleased that the bill establishes a demonstration program
to expand post-secondary opportunities for distance learning. This will
help many people, especially those in rural areas, those with
disabilities and nontraditional students, gain access to programs in
which they might not otherwise be able to participate. The Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, has been a strong supporter of these
provisions.
The bill also includes a proposal offered by the Senator from
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, which I cosponsored, to encourage colleges
to establish campus-based child care for low-income students. I also
support provisions in the bill that will help reduce binge-drinking on
college campuses and reduce campus crime levels.
Finally, I strongly support the provision creating a new grant
program for Tribal Colleges and Universities. These institutions, most
of which struggle financially, do a remarkable job of creating
educational opportunities for Native Americans. They need and deserve
federal support.
I would like to note that while I did not support the Kennedy
amendment, I do support the study called for in the managers' amendment
to determine whether there might be ways to move toward a more market-
based student loan system to improve the efficiency of the student loan
system. While I did support the Harkin amendment because it reduced the
cost of student loans, I would note that I strongly believe we must
take care to maintain a strong Federal Family Education Loan program.
The evidence is strong that competition between the Direct Loan program
and the FFEL program is good for both programs and ultimately good for
students, and I believe it is important that we work to maintain this
balance.
Mr. President, the Higher Education Act is yet another example of the
positive impact the federal government can have in helping our Nation
invest in our future. By helping to lower the cost barriers to higher
education, we help millions of young people gain the skills they will
need to be contributing members of society while we build a strong work
force, encourage the development of our intellectual capital and
nurture the leaders of the next generation. I urge my colleagues to
join me wholeheartedly in supporting this very important piece of
legislation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that the
official CBO scoring of the Graham amendment adopted earlier today
shows a slight mismatch in outlays relating to the new spending and
offset contained in the amendment. This technical drafting error has
resulted in a small paygo problem for this legislation.
It is my intention that this bill be in full and complete compliance
with all relevant budget rules and I intend to ensure that the bill as
it comes out of conference will meet this standard.
section 632 of title vi
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to raise the issue of
Section 632 of Title VI of the Higher Education Act, the so called
``hold harmless'' provision as the Senate discusses this very important
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
It is my understanding that Section 632 was first enacted in the
Higher Education Amendments of 1992 in order to prevent the Department
of Education from funding new or expanding existing Title VI,
International Education Programs unless existing Title VI programs were
funded at their FY 1992 level. However, the bill before us removes the
provision, so as to give the Secretary of Education greater
flexability.
The University of New Mexico's Latin American Institute has contacted
me to raise its concerns about the removal of Section 632 from the
Higher Education Act. I also understand the international programs at
Ohio State and the U. of Michigan have contacted their respective
Senators with similar concerns.
However, I also understand the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act does not create any new programs within Title VI, so is
it your understanding that since no new programs are created within
Title VI that Section 632 is unnecessary?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I understand the concern of the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico in protecting the funding of international programs
such as the Latin American Institute at the
[[Page S7847]]
University of New Mexico. I would concur with my colleague from New
Mexico in what he has said and I would urge the Secretary of Education
to allocate funding to international programs in a fair manner.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his
consideration of this important matter.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be
recognized to speak on the bill for up to 15 minutes, and that
following her remarks, Senator DeWine be recognized to speak on the
bill for up to 15 minutes, and that following their remarks, Senator
Bingaman be recognized to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
important legislation, and I want to commend the Senator from Vermont,
the chairman of the committee, for his work in bringing this very
important legislation to the floor.
Mr. President, today we continue a historic commitment which began 40
years ago when Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act.
In 1958, the NDEA provided that: ``The security of the Nation
requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical
skills of its young men and women.'' At that time, Congress was
thinking of security in terms of the cold war and was reacting to the
Soviet Union's stunning achievement in launching Sputnik.
Although the cold war is behind us now, the sentiments expressed in
1958 remain valid today. The threat may no longer be as dramatic as the
threat posed by the technological advancements of a hostile superpower;
instead, the threat that we face today is a quiet threat of lost
opportunity--economically, culturally, and socially--a threat that will
be realized if we fail to provide educational opportunities to our
citizens.
As a Senator from a State with a very high rate of high school
completion but a very low rate of participation in higher education, I
am particularly concerned about the threat that the lack of access to
higher education poses to the future well-being of many of our lower-
income citizens.
We know, Mr. President, that fewer people from lower-income families
enroll in postsecondary education. The problems caused by the lack of
access, however, do not stop once we get students to campus. Another
challenge is keeping them there and encouraging them to graduate.
The disturbing truth, Mr. President, is that students who find
college least affordable are much less likely to complete college than
their financially more secure counterparts. As the Educational Testing
Service's Policy Information Center has reported, ``The education
staircase . . . is getting steeper and harder to climb, particularly
for those in lower income groups.''
The center has reported the alarming fact that students from lower-
income backgrounds, in addition to having much lower rates of entrance
into college, have much higher dropout rates than those from higher-
income families.
In 1979, a student in the top quartile of family income was four
times more likely to obtain a baccalaureate degree by age 24 than a
student from the bottom quartile.
By 1994, Mr. President, this problem, this gap, had gotten much
worse. Individuals from the top quartile were 10 times more likely to
attain a 4-year degree by age 24.
When you couple this statistic with the well-established relationship
between educational attainment and lifetime earnings, the consequences
of the education gap are obvious. We keep reading about the gap between
the rich and the poor in this country and that that gap is growing.
That gap is, by and large, an education gap.
If we are able to provide educational opportunities to lower-income
families, we will help close that gap, because the differences in the
lifetime earnings of people who complete only high school versus those
who go on to postsecondary education are enormous. We are at risk of
creating a permanent underclass of people without the skills that open
the gateways to economic opportunity, the skills that allow entry into
a job market demanding a higher-educated and better-trained workforce.
In fact, Mr. President, it is estimated that in the State of Maine more
than 80 percent of the new jobs being created require some sort of
postsecondary education.
Unless steps are taken to close this educational gap, a gap rooted in
economics rather than in intelligence or ability, we are locking the
children of America's lower-income families into a self-perpetuating
cycle of inadequate education and low-income status. Without
educational opportunities, a significant part of American society will
never have the chance to participate fairly in America's bright
technology-based future.
Mr. President, the legislation before us, the Higher Education Act
reauthorization, will help provide these educational opportunities. I
would like to highlight some specific provisions in this legislation
that I worked on and believe are critical. These provisions increase
access to education by focusing on two components--first, helping
families afford education; and, second, increasing the aspirations of
our young people, particularly those who come from families where
higher education is not a tradition.
Mr. President, the Pell Grant Program has been one of the Federal
Government's greatest contributions to the success of higher education.
Over the last 25 years, this program has provided invaluable assistance
to tens of millions of our neediest students.
The Pell Grant Program has, however, had some flaws. Most notably,
under its current formula, the program creates a disincentive to work.
This was brought home to me when I talked to a young person who had
decided to take a year off between high school and college in order to
earn more money for her education. She worked at McDonald's and lived
at home, saved every penny. The consequence was that she lost her Pell
grant when she went to school the next year.
We have created, in the current formula, a disincentive, because we
have a very low cap on allowable earnings which penalizes students who
are trying to pay for their education through work rather than relying
solely on loans.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Working Students Income
Protection Act to address this problem. I am very pleased that the
Labor and Human Resources Committee has incorporated my bill into the
final version of the legislation before us today. It will increase by
$1,000 the earnings allowance for students who receive Pell grants.
Another important provision improving the Pell grant that is included
in this legislation is the elimination of the dependent care cap that
had been included in the formula in the past. Again, I introduced
legislation to make this change because I was concerned that as we
increase the maximum level of aid, we end up limiting Pell grant awards
to some of the most needy students, those who have child care expenses.
Often these are single parents who are balancing raising children,
going to work, and attending college. The changes that are included in
this bill will make it a little bit easier for these students.
Another provision of this bill includes legislation that Senator Reed
of Rhode Island and I have authored to strengthen the State Student
Incentive Grant Program. This program provides assistance to 12,000
Maine students who come from families whose average income is under
$12,000.
Mr. President, as important as all this financial assistance is--and
I know from my experience working in a Maine college that it is
critical--there is another significant barrier to higher education for
a lot of our young people.
If students come from a disadvantaged social or economic background,
and come from families where there is no experience with higher
education, they may look at college as being beyond their reach. It may
be a frightening experience for them or something they simply do not
consider, despite having the ability to succeed.
In reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, we are continuing one of
the Federal Government's most successful efforts, and that is the TRIO
[[Page S7848]]
Programs. In my home State, TRIO Programs such as Talent Search and
Upward Bound have identified and reached out to promising young people
who otherwise never would have considered postsecondary education but
for these terrific programs. Two-thirds of the students benefiting from
the TRIO Programs come from families where neither parent has any
higher education and whose families' incomes are below $24,000.
One such student, Mr. President, recently visited me. She was a young
woman from Greene, ME, who talked with such excitement about the
benefit of the Talent Search Program to her aspirations. She said that
the program had convinced her that she wants to go to college. This
young woman comes from a low-income family. Neither of her parents went
to college. In fact, her mother was a teenage mother who dropped out of
high school to raise her children. This young woman put it very well.
She said, ``But for this program, but for the Talent Search Program, I
would have been too frightened to go to college. I would have just
assumed that it wasn't for me.'' This program, by exposing her to a
college environment, by giving her the counseling, the mentoring, and
the encouragement that she needed, has convinced her that higher
education will be part of her future. I am convinced that it will be a
bright future indeed.
It is difficult for me to think of a more worthwhile investment of
Federal funds than these important programs. The Federal Government
cannot guarantee equal educational attainment for every student, but we
can certainly take steps that will guarantee equality of access for
every student. We can help eliminate the barriers of cost and
inadequate aspirations that prevent students from lower- and middle-
income families from pursuing postsecondary education. We can give them
equal opportunity by providing the access through the important
programs in this legislation.
The Higher Education Act that is before the Senate today will help
our citizens overcome economic and social barriers, take advantage of
education, and reach their full potential. That not only benefits them
as individuals, it benefits our Nation as a society, as well.
Today I encourage my colleagues to join in affirming and extending
the commitment for access to education that we began 40 years ago.
I thank the President for the time, and I thank the chairman for his
efforts, as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will offer a few brief comments in
regard to this very important piece of legislation that the Senate is
now considering. In my work on the Labor Committee, one of the things I
have been focusing on is the issue of quality teaching in our
classroom. Really, there is nothing more important in regard to
education than the teacher. Our children deserve to be taught by
teachers who really understand their subject, understand the subject
matter.
I have worked hard to incorporate measures concerning good teaching
into this bill. I want to thank Chairman Jeffords for the assistance
that he has given me and the cooperation in getting these sections
incorporated into this very good bill.
Title II of this legislation is entitled ``Improving Teacher
Quality.'' Here are some of the measures that I have been promoting
that I am pleased to say have been included in this bill. One, the bill
funds programs that establish, expand, and improve alternative routes
to State certification for highly qualified individuals from other
occupations and for recent college graduates with records of academic
distinction.
Two, this bill would develop and implement innovative efforts aimed
at reducing the shortage of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty
urban and in high-poverty rural areas. These efforts might include the
recruitment of highly qualified individuals from other occupations--
again, through alternative certification programs.
Three, this bill would provide prospective teachers with alternatives
to traditional preparation for teaching, through programs at colleges
of arts and sciences or at nonprofit educational organizations.
I am pleased that this bill has a strong focus on alternative
certification or licensure of teachers. I introduced S. 1742, the
Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act back in
February of this year. I introduced it because I wanted to give highly
qualified people who like to teach, who want to teach, a chance to do
so. These are people who can serve as mentors and who can serve as role
models, real life examples of how a good education can make a huge,
positive difference in a student's future. These are the types of
individuals that we should be encouraging to become teachers and to get
into education.
I also take a moment to talk about the commonsense Quality Child Care
Loan Forgiveness Act, which I introduced last July. I am pleased that
this provision has also been included in this bill. Members can find it
incorporated in title IV of the bill before the Senate.
Now, Mr. President, the Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act
provides school loan forgiveness to individuals who earn a degree in
early childhood education or in related fields and who then obtains
employment in a child care facility. I think we must recognize the
extraordinary need that exists today for quality child care. Recent
studies have shown that more than 80 percent of child care centers
provide mediocre or poor quality services. The indications are that a
mere 14 percent of the centers surveyed met levels of quality that were
high enough to adequately support a child's development. The Quality
Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act will help ensure that our children get
higher quality child care. It will do it by encouraging more people,
better qualified people, to teach in these facilities. It will
encourage students who are in college to major in this area and to make
their lifework early childhood development. Again, I don't know what
could be more important.
Finally, let me say I am glad that this bill includes important
legislation I sponsored having to do with the underground railroad. The
Underground Railroad Education Culture Act will provide for the
establishment of programs to research, display, interpret, and collect
artifacts and other items relating to the history of the underground
railroad. The history of the underground railroad is important to this
country. It is important to Ohio, and it is important to me personally.
In the 20 years prior to the Civil War, it is estimated--no one will
ever know what the true figure is--but it is estimated that more than
40,000 slaves, 40,000 human beings escaped bondage and made their way
to free soil on the trail of the underground railroad.
This is a great story. It is a great story that every schoolchild in
America should know about. More than 150 underground railroad sites
have been identified in my home State of Ohio alone. We are sure there
are many, many more besides that. These are sites that symbolized at
the time freedom for thousands and thousands of enslaved Americans.
When I visit these places, as I have with my family, it gives me real
pause for hope about the future of our country.
When we talk about race relations in this country, we would do well
to remind ourselves that at one of the darkest points in our history--
maybe our darkest point, the period of slavery--some blacks and some
whites took immense personal risk to work together for freedom, to work
together for liberty. It is a great story. This is a part of the
American story that we should be proud of and we should build on. In
Ohio, we are very proud of the part our ancestors played in this great
story. This is why I think this legislation is so very important.
I want to again thank my colleague, Senator Jeffords, the chairman of
our committee, and my other colleagues on the Labor Committee, for
agreeing to place this legislation in the managers' amendment. It was
very important to recognize this period in our history.
Let me conclude, Mr. President, by mentioning briefly what I believe
to be the next step on education policy. I have introduced legislation
that would provide assistance for the creation of nonprofit teacher
training facilities across the United States, facilities that would
help train teachers--teachers who are already in the classroom, or
individuals who are about to enter this great profession. S. 1742, the
Teacher
[[Page S7849]]
Quality Act, which I have introduced, is a commonsense piece of
legislation that would assist school districts in their struggle to
maintain the highest possible academic standards for their children. I
hope that in the weeks ahead we will consider this bill as well.
Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan effort and will
vote in favor of its passage. Again, I congratulate Senator Jeffords
and the other members of our committee who have worked so long and hard
to bring this very good and comprehensive bill to the Senate.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank both of my
colleagues from Maine and from Ohio, Senator Collins and Senator
DeWine, for a very eloquent and pertinent statement and for all the
work they did in committee in helping us to put together this bill.
Mr. President, I now believe that, under the previous unanimous
consent order, Senator Bingaman is to be recognized. I don't believe
there is any time agreement.
Would the Senator be willing to accept an hour equally divided?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am not certain that a half hour on my
side will be adequate. I have two other speakers in addition to myself.
I would like to allow each of them to speak first. I don't expect that
it will take much more than that on my side.
Mr. JEFFORDS. We will wait on that.
Amendment No. 3116
(Purpose: To ensure that secondary school teachers are sufficiently
prepared during their pre-service training to have sufficient academic
knowledge to be able to help their students reach high academic
standards)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Hollings, proposes an
amendment numbered 3116.
Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:
Insert at the end of Title II, Part A (page 237, after line
14)
``SEC. 237. ACADEMIC MAJORS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
``(a) States and postsecondary programs that prepare
secondary school teachers and receive Federal funds under
this Act excluding aid provided under Title IV, shall, unless
they have already done so, adopt within 3 years after the
date of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998
a policy that all undergraduate candidates preparing to be
secondary school teachers be required to successfully
complete an academic major, as defined by the institution of
higher education at which the student attends, in the
academic area in which they plan to teach.''
``(b) Nothing in this Section shall affect the eligibility
of an individual student or an institution of higher
education to receive Federal grants or loans under Title IV
under this Act.''
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this Higher Education Act that we are
engaged in discussing and debating here is a very important act. We
only get around to it every 6 years, so this is not a subject like a
lot of subjects around here that come up every year and we go through a
dog and pony show here on the Senate floor. This issue comes up once
every 6 years. The last time we reauthorized the Higher Education Act
was in 1992. The next time we are expected to reauthorize the Higher
Education Act will be 2004. So it is important that we get it right and
do it right this year.
I join with others who have spoken in congratulating Senator Jeffords
and Senator Kennedy for the leadership they have provided. We have a
bipartisan bill. There are a number of incentives in this bill to
streamline and strengthen the ways in which we deal with the issue of
higher education in the country and the ways that we license and place
teachers, including several provisions that I have recommended.
But there is some unfinished business, Mr. President, and that is
what my amendment tries to address. Let me go on and describe a little
of the background before I describe the amendment itself.
Teaching, of course, is our largest profession. We have close to 3
million people employed in teaching. To maintain and even increase the
supply of teachers, the teacher preparation programs need to generate
thousands of teaching candidates every year as we move ahead. The
Federal Government is a major support for the students who go through
these training programs. We provide $1.8 billion in student loans. Yet,
we all know that the quality of these programs, in many cases, is
inadequate, and we need to question this large Federal investment when
we look at the quality of some of the teaching programs we are
supporting.
How is it that some universities can condone a rate of only 40
percent of their teacher education students passing licensing exams?
How do I, as a Senator, explain to my constituents the investment of
Federal tax dollars going to these institutions when they fail to
prepare students to meet the exams that the States themselves are
providing for people who want to teach?
For this reason, I propose an amendment to the Higher Education Act
to require accountability on the part of education schools and the
universities that house those education schools. The amendment requires
that States develop criteria to identify low-performing teacher
preparation programs, including a State-determined pass rate on State
licensing exams.
It also proposes that States make a public list of the teacher
preparation programs that meet the criteria for being labeled low
performing; that States develop a list of suggested ways in which local
teacher preparation programs can improve; and, finally, after a 4-year
period--4 years into this 6-year reauthorization bill--if the State
removed its approval from a teacher preparation program that the State
itself felt had not made adequate improvement, then the Federal
Government would support the State by withholding Federal funds from
that program as well.
That is what I have proposed. The education school accountability
amendment was designed to ensure that teaching candidates have the
baseline knowledge that they need before they go into the classroom.
The amendment included a section on reporting. States and institutions
would collect and publish the information needed by potential students
to make informed decisions about enrollment in teacher preparation
programs.
I must say, Mr. President, that we have been able to work out a
provision on accountability of schools of education, which is being
included in the managers' amendment, which I think is a substantial
step forward. It does not include many of the provisions I had urged,
unfortunately. And I must say that I have been baffled by the response
of the higher education community to this effort to impose a little
more accountability for low-performing teacher preparation
institutions--those institutions existing nearly in every State.
In all the literature that has been distributed by that community in
response to this amendment and the amendment Congressman Miller offered
on the House side, I have not seen any attempt by the higher education
community to take any responsibility or come up with any suggestions
for how to deal with the problem, which we know is a real one. The
entire substance of their argument was one that they opposed
interference by the Government; they certainly didn't want the Federal
Government involving itself in the role of the States, and they didn't
want the States involving themselves in higher education programs any
more than they presently do. Basically, they were saying that the
higher education programs need to be left as they are, in spite of the
problems that clearly exist.
Most troubling to me was the lack of willingness even to report pass
rates of teacher preparation programs. In a letter dated June 9, the
American Council on Education indicated that reporting is too
burdensome--the reporting that we were urging be accomplished. I don't
really understand why it is possible for law schools and medical
schools to publish their student pass rates, but not schools of
education. Obviously, the question needs to be raised and answered: Is
there something to hide? Is there some information they don't want out?
I fear that that may be the case.
[[Page S7850]]
Together we can help the colleges and universities to raise the
status of teacher education to ensure that students enrolling in
teacher education programs get the return on their investment that they
expect and deserve. But we can't forget that the most important
constituency for us to be concerned about is the children who are going
to be served by the graduates of these education schools. I think we
can make real progress if we impose some accountability there.
Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered and sent to the desk
is in addition to what has been agreed to in the managers' amendment. I
commend the managers of the bill for agreeing to what I have already
described.
But the amendment that I am proposing says if you are training people
to teach at the high school level--just at the high school level, not
the elementary school level--if you are training people to teach at the
high school level, give those people an academic major. Give them any
education courses you want. Certainly courses in methods and courses in
technique are fine, but don't turn out people to teach in our high
schools who have only taken education courses. We are not saying that
you have to have a major in the academic subject in which you wind up
teaching. We are not putting in any kind of requirement like that in
the law, only that you have to have some kind of academic major.
This is not, let me make it very clear, Mr. President, an amendment
which intends to bash teachers. It is just the opposite. The amendment
is intended to support the good teachers we have in our education
system today, to give them more good teachers to work with them in
improving education.
In my State we have many extremely well-qualified and committed
teachers who do a wonderful job for very little pay. In my own family,
both my parents devoted their careers to teaching. My sister is a
teacher. I am a great believer in the value of good teachers.
I believe the amendment I have offered will strengthen our ability to
turn out good teachers and have those teachers in the classroom. We
give a lot of speeches here about accountability. We need to make
people more accountable. We need to make government more accountable.
We need to make the institutions of government more accountable. I
agree with all of that. The amendment I sent to the desk tries to do
that very thing. It says to the schools that are training our
teachers--give the new teachers that are coming out a good academic
background.
The problem has been discussed extensively. There has been a great
deal of publicity about the recent testing that has occurred in
Massachusetts, of course, and the inadequate percentage of people there
who are able to pass the exam, the people who are getting ready to go
into teaching. Similar problems exist in other States. The simple fact
is you cannot teach something if you do not understand it. You have to
have more than technique in order to be a good teacher. You have to
also know the subject matter. You have to have good academic skills
provided to the teachers or else the students cannot be expected to
have good academic skills themselves.
According to a recently completed analysis of State level student
achievement data, students in States with more teachers holding
certification plus a major in their field do significantly better on
the national assessment of educational progress on reading and math
exams than in States where this requirement is not available. Students
of teachers who completed undergraduate activity majors and appropriate
professional course- work achieve better than peers their own age whose
teachers completed education majors. That is true no matter how poor
the students are, no matter what their ethnicity, no matter whether
English is their first language or their second language.
Mr. President, let me start with two charts that I want to call to
people's attention. This first chart makes the obvious point that there
are 32 States that require teachers to complete an academic major for
high school teaching, 30 that explicitly require that you have an
academic major if you go into high school teaching, two others that
require the equivalent of that.
If any Senator wants to know whether his or her State already has
this requirement in State law, they need to look at this chart. We have
tried to provide copies of it. I am told we are not able to put copies
on the Republican side of the aisle because there is some kind of a
breakdown in our efforts to be bipartisan around here and we are only
able to give them to the Democrats. But the chart is here. If anyone is
willing to walk across the aisle, I would like to show them the chart.
It is the same on both sides of the aisle. It makes the point, very
clearly, that 32 States are now requiring the exact thing that we are
trying to get done through this amendment.
I have been asked to break the discussion so that the Senator from
Iowa may speak.
Privileges of the Floor
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern in
my office, Michael Pratt, and Lloyd Horwich, a detailee from the
Department of Education, be given floor privileges during the duration
of the debate on the Higher Education Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, very much.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make another point--that
requiring an academic major saves money. Let me show this second chart
which makes this point, I think, very graphically.
This chart makes the point that entry and retention rates of teachers
of teacher preparation programs that allow beginning teachers to
complete a major in their subject and require a firm grounding in
teaching skills is substantially higher than those programs, the
traditional programs, that only have education courses in them. For
every 100 candidates who are just in teacher education, 3 years after
they complete their education only 28 of the 100 are still in teaching.
We are training 72 of the people out of those 100 candidates in teacher
education who don't stay in teaching more than 3 years. Those are the
programs where they don't have an academic major. In the case where
they do have an academic major, if you start with 100 candidates, after
3 years 75 of those candidates are still in teaching.
Mr. President, it is clear to me that this is a good deal for the
taxpayer to give these people an academic background, keep them in
teaching, and don't wind up spending a lot of money to train people who
are going to drop out of the teaching profession very quickly. So I
think it is very important that we try to do this.
Teachers with academic majors feel significantly better, are better
prepared for their work, and they are significantly more likely to
enter teaching following their preparation. Over 90 percent do enter
teaching following their preparation, and they are much more likely to
remain in the profession for more years.
The Higher Education Act, which we are considering on the floor,
encourages State and higher education institutions to implement an
academic major requirement. But it does not make it a priority for
deciding who gets funding.
Given the evidence that directly links the acquisition of a major
with student achievement, we are arguing with this amendment that the
language of the bill should provide that those States that do not
require a major for high school teachers would be required to develop a
plan for implementation of that kind of requirement over the next 3
years. Requiring a major will help raise standards for entrance into
the teaching profession.
According to a recent study by the National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988, in the field of math, only 35 percent of women attending
a major in education scored in the top two of the five proficiency
levels in the subject. Male education majors are almost three times as
likely to be below the lowest level of reading proficiency as their
peers going into other majors.
Professional organizations are weighing in on this issue in favor of
what we are proposing in this amendment. The October 1997 Conference of
the National Council of History Education conferees recommended that
the colleges' education faculty be given the authority to reduce the
number of generic methods courses in order to present team-taught
courses with subject matter of scholars and seasoned teachers from the
field.
[[Page S7851]]
The National Science Teachers Association supports all efforts that
encourage science teachers to major in the subject that they plan to
teach and at the same time receive a teaching credential.
If we expect higher standards of our students, as we all do, we need
to provide them with teachers who have the content area preparation to
help them meet those standards.
That is an impossible task when 39.5 percent of science teachers do
not even hold a minor in the subject that they are teaching. Thirty-
four percent of math teachers and 25 percent of English teachers were
similarly teaching outside their field. In many high-poverty schools,
the percentage of out-of-field teachers can rise above 50 percent.
Increasing the number of teachers with an academic major is one way to
alleviate the problem. We owe our children a quality education, a
quality teacher in every classroom, and this higher education amendment
is a place to start in that effort.
This bill, as I indicated earlier, only comes up once every 6 years.
It is important, I believe, that we take this action tonight before we
complete action on the bill. It is not enough to say we are going to
study this for another 6 years. Either we believe that upgrading the
quality of teaching is important or we do not. Let's not put off action
until we are well into the next century. This is a chance to quit
cursing the dark and to light a single candle. I do not think people
who decide they should vote against this amendment should spend the
next 6 years complaining about the poor quality of teaching in our
schools. This is a chance to deal with that poor quality of teaching in
a concrete way, and I hope people will support the amendment.
Let me defer. I see my colleague and cosponsor, Senator Cochran from
Mississippi, has risen to speak. Let me yield the floor so he can do
so, Mr. President.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend
from New Mexico in sponsoring this amendment and urging the Senate to
approve it.
I ask unanimous consent that I be shown as a cosponsor of the
amendment, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. There has been some misunderstanding, I think, in
conversations I have had with fellow Senators about this amendment.
What it does not purport to do is to tell the States how to certify or
what criteria to use in the certification process for secondary school
teachers. This amendment is directed to the universities and the
colleges that have departments of education and that grant degrees in
education, and it seeks to insist that as a part of the education of
secondary school teachers there be a requirement that there is a
subject matter major included as part of the learning experience for
these teacher candidates. So it doesn't purport to set out new rules to
impose on States in the certification process.
That is another subject, and we could talk about that in a separate
debate. But this subject talks about what kind of quality learning
experience do we want our secondary school teachers to have. Some can
go through the education departments in colleges and universities--at
least in 18 States, or 16 States. Thirty-two require that there be
subject matter majors of education degree candidates. But the other
States, you can go through an education department learning experience
and get a degree and then be a candidate for certification and teach in
the secondary schools of the State without ever having a major field of
study in an academic subject like English or history or math or
science.
It seems to me that it makes eminently good sense to suggest as a
matter of national policy that our education schools throughout the
country insist upon an academic major for the graduates in the
education schools. And that is all this amendment does.
The Senator from New Mexico talked about a number of other subjects
that he thought ought to be considered by State governments, and they
deal in large part with certification items. But the committee has
already sorted through those suggestions. They have included some in
the managers' package before the Senate, and they have not included
some. But this is a very narrow amendment.
Of all the suggestions my friend from New Mexico makes, this one, to
me, is one that ought to be approved by the Senate without any question
whatsoever. It is certain that those who teach in the high schools of
our country ought to be well versed, well grounded in some academic
subjects, not just in teaching methods or teaching techniques or other
courses--the relationship of the school with the community.
We have all, in our common experience, had knowledge of the courses
that are taught in many of the education schools. Many of them are
important, and they are valuable. But we do not want teachers coming
through those colleges and universities with only courses in method and
technique and the relationship of the school to the community and the
other subjects that they are taught in the education departments. And
we are not being critical. I am certainly not. My State of Mississippi,
I am glad to see, is one of the 32 States where the academic major is
required of teacher candidates who are graduating from the departments
of education in our college and university system.
So I hope Senators will look at this amendment carefully and support
it. To me, it is a very important step in the right direction of
improving the overall quality of all of our teachers in secondary
schools throughout the country.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I reluctantly rise in opposition to this amendment. I
do so reluctantly because the Senator from New Mexico and certainly the
Senator from Mississippi have been very active in trying to accomplish
the goals which are intended by this amendment. The bill itself
already, with the assistance of the Senator from New Mexico--in many
cases his own language--has provided incentives and has carefully
outlined programs to reward the States for accomplishing the role of
making sure that the teachers, the new teachers, have a major in the
area that they intend to teach.
So I applaud him for those, but I just think it goes too far, and I
think it is counterproductive if you order the States to do something,
which I agree they should do, but I think it will be counterproductive
for the purposes of getting States to understand why they should and to
do it not because they are told to but because they want to. On the
``want to'' side, also, States are rewarded when they do so by grants
and funding, and those that do not will not be eligible for some of the
funds that would be eligible to those that do. So there are incentives
built in already to accomplish the goal.
This provision just goes too far and will result not in improving
teacher preparation programs but will instead provide little or no
incentive for States to reform teacher preparation or for schools of
arts and sciences to work with their schools of education. Mandating at
the Federal level that States or partnerships require academic majors
for prospective teachers in order to be eligible for title II funds is
counterproductive to the goals of that title.
Title II requires that schools of arts and sciences work with schools
of education to improve and expand the academic rigor of these
programs. By excluding these States and partnerships from competing for
title II money, we are discouraging change in the very States and
schools that need it the most.
About 20 States do not currently require students to have majors in
academic content areas, and 30 do. So we should not exclude those that
are not presently doing it from getting funds to help them do it. In
other words, those of us who oppose it believe that the carrot is much
more effective in this area than the stick. Title II will demand much
of these grantees that receive the funds. Grantees will be required to
show that they have increased the number of courses taught by teachers
with academic majors in a particular field of study or they will lose
their grants.
It is important to note that the amendment would deny States or
institutions other Federal funds provided
[[Page S7852]]
under this act, excluding title IV assistance.
This, too, is of concern to me. Requiring a major is not an issue
that the Federal Government should be mandating. It is an issue that
has historically been decided by States and institutions of higher
learning. And while we encourage it in title II, it is not appropriate
for the Federal Government to mandate it, as a prerequisite for
participation in the title II grant program.
Finally, many States are moving towards requiring majors and
increasing the academic content knowledge of prospective teachers. It
does not seem at all sensible to deny funds to the folks who are now
moving in the right direction.
This is a very, very critical area, and this is an important
amendment, and it should be carefully reviewed. It has some support,
but I believe the bill is well balanced as it presently is written,
that this amendment will be counterproductive of the goals of the bill,
and therefore I must reluctantly oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to inquire, I have some questions of
my colleague from New Mexico. I have not formulated a final position
myself on it. I was listening here to the debate and read some of the
material about this.
First of all, let me say I commend my colleagues from New Mexico and
Mississippi. Even having a discussion of how we can improve the quality
of our teachers who are working in our elementary and secondary schools
is worthy. I compliment the chairman and managers. We do some major
things in this bill to really try to assist teaching, such as loan
forgiveness for people in the teaching professions, extended payment
periods--a lot of things that really try to recognize the value of
teachers.
I see my colleague from Connecticut has arrived on the floor as well.
I was going back over, in my own State of Connecticut, what criteria
we have. On the list, we are listed as one of the States that requires
a major. That is true, but only in a limited degree. We require majors
in certain subject matters, not in every subject matter. For instance,
in languages we do not require that you have a major in a language,
English or a foreign language, in order to teach; the assumption being,
if you were Hispanic or Latino and had acquired that skill, to major in
it would require that you have teaching skills on how to teach the
language, but not necessarily require a major in the field.
We do in other areas. In the science and math areas we do require
majors. The general sciences, history, social studies, business, we do
require majors; in foreign languages and English we do not. We have a
requirement here of a minimum of 30 semester hours of credit in the
subject for which endorsement is sought. I don't know whether or not
that constitutes a major or not. But it seems, here, we have sort of a
mixed approach.
We have some very fine teachers. Mr. President, 80 percent of our
teachers have advanced degrees in Connecticut, and are normally rated
as some of the best educated teachers in the country. So my first
inquiry would be, I guess, if we do not require majors in every subject
matter, would we be subject here? For instance, if someone did not have
a major in a language, would Connecticut now have to require a major in
that language, or would the 30 semester hours meet the standard? Or
would the fact that we do in some and not in others meet the standard?
Or would we be faced with having our program dollars cut unless we
changed?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from
Connecticut, I would have to learn more of the detail precisely of what
is done in Connecticut before I could answer the question. The source
of the information that is reflected on this chart and that he has
referred to as to which States already require this was Education Week
magazine. They did interviews with the departments of education this
last year, in September of 1997, and published this list.
Our amendment does not say that you have to have a major in the
subject you wind up teaching. It says you should have a major in a
subject you intend to teach. Maybe there should be an exception in
there for foreign language. I would be glad to entertain that
modification, if the Senator thinks that is a problem. But the notion
that you should go into high school teaching without ever having
majored in anything, any academic subject, is the concern I have. We
have schools around the country--and they are not the schools the
Senator is thinking of generally, and that I generally think of when I
think of teacher preparation--but there are schools around the country
that are not requiring people to take academic course work before they
turn them out to teach in our high schools. So you have people going
through, with very good intentions, who want to become teachers, want
to become high school teachers, who take a whole raft of education
courses and then are turned out to teach, and they do not have the
academic training that they need in order to properly prepare students.
Mr. DODD. I appreciate the response on that. I do not have an
amendment to offer because I don't feel competent to suggest what my
State ought to require that there be major studies in. They have
excluded certain areas. We require 3 semester hours in certain subject
hours, 30 semester hours in others, a major in some and not in others.
They have made a decision to have sort of a multiple approach to this
thing, a varied approach on it. Far be it from me to stand here this
evening and say Connecticut ought to require a major in certain areas
where they don't require it. I have enough confidence in the people who
have designed the program there to give them some flexibility.
What I do not want, if I am supporting my colleague's amendment, is
to find out if my State loses financial assistance because we have not
provided major fields, or required a major in every subject matter
although we have in others. Then I would feel remiss in terms of a
number of areas.
As I understand it, you would lose funding in international
education, graduate education, funding for historically black colleges
and universities, strengthening institutional grants that go to mainly
community colleges. I don't want to be in the position, if I vote for
this, to go back and find out I have just deprived my State of funding
in those areas because the amendment, as crafted, would deny my State
those benefits because in some areas majors are not required. That is
my concern.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. COATS. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor, I
believe.
Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to my colleague.
Mr. COATS. It is right on this very point, because on the list the
Senator from New Mexico placed, I think, on the desk here--at least I
have that list; I think it is the same as his chart--Indiana is also a
State listed that requires secondary teachers to acquire academic
accreditation. I think the States ought to do that, or at least ought
to make that decision. I don't think the Federal Government ought to
mandate it for the same reasons the Senator from Connecticut stated.
However, I am concerned now that the Senator from Connecticut has
indicated that his State is one of the States you listed under the
``Yes'' column, as requiring that, as is Indiana, yet it doesn't
require it in the sense that the Senator's amendment requires it in
order to receive funds. We just learned of the amendment half an hour
or so ago and have not had an opportunity. Our department of education
is closed in Indiana now. I haven't had the opportunity to call and say
does this conform? Is this across-the-board? Does this conform with the
amendment of the Senator, or are there exceptions like there are in
Connecticut where, for certain disciplines, you require the academic
major?
I am in the same position, I think, as is the Senator from
Connecticut. I cannot vote to support that if I don't know whether or
not my State is going to be penalized. Does the Senator know the answer
to that question relative to the State of Indiana?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Are you asking me or the Senator from Connecticut?
Mr. COATS. I am pretty sure the Senator from Connecticut doesn't
[[Page S7853]]
know. If he does he knows more about the education in my State----
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would respond in the same way I would
respond to the Senator from Connecticut. The basis for the list is
Education Week, which published this based on interviews which they did
with departments of education around the country last September. I do
not know the detail of the department of education's requirements there
in Indiana, any more than I know the detail of the department of
education requirements in Connecticut.
Mr. COATS. I join the Senator from Connecticut in saying I think the
Senator's efforts are laudable. I do think, as the Senator from Vermont
has enumerated, there is a lot of language in this bill which I think
reflects what the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from
Mississippi are attempting to do, yet it does it in an encouraging way
rather than a penalizing way. Given the fact there is a lot of
confusion about how this amendment applies to these States, and there
is no way we could determine that this evening, I wonder if the Senator
wouldn't be interested in withdrawing his amendment--at least working
with us to try to accomplish these goals, but not in a way that puts us
in a position where we will penalize our State.
Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to that question, I would say the amendment
by its own language says the requirement doesn't take effect for 3
years.
There is a period of time in which to adjust the language if we were
to adopt the amendment. There is plenty of time to adjust it if it is
onerous on a particular State. Of course, I would not want to withdraw
the amendment because, quite frankly, I think we have a tendency--every
6 years when we get to this thing, the education schools around the
country lobby heavily against any change in the law or in the
requirements imposed on them. We will be here in the year 2004--at
least some of you will be here in the year 2004--once again trying to
decide whether it is appropriate to require anything of these schools.
I do not want to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield the
floor?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I pointed out earlier, I have not formed a
final opinion on it. I raised the question because this was raised to
me by my State. I am concerned--and I didn't expect this, so my
colleague from New Mexico doesn't have a definitive answer--that there
might be some criteria left open to the States to determine whether or
not something classifies as major. It is not his intention to say to
some State that he thinks falls into this category unwittingly they may
be deprived of these funds because we didn't realize certain subject
majors were not required. That is my concern.
I reluctantly may have to vote against the amendment, but I am not
enthusiastic about doing it because I like the idea behind it. I think
it makes a lot of sense. John Silber, the distinguished former
president of Boston University, wrote an article the other day, one of
the op-ed pieces in one of our national papers that makes the case. We
are turning out people really not qualified to be teaching in our
classrooms.
I am sympathetic to the idea to increase the teacher skills and
knowledge base. I want to make sure in doing so, in our enthusiasm for
that, we are not doing harmful things along the way. I share the
enthusiasm. I share the appetite for it.
It is almost 8 o'clock here, east coast time. I want to make sure
that in voting for something like this I am not saying to 32 States
that may have very differing views on what classifies as a major that
we have to turn around and undo something here that would otherwise
deprive these States of funds they need and are clearly moving in the
area of improving content as well as teaching skills.
I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I will listen to the debate.
Maybe there will be something enlightening on this. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I think all of us on the
Education Committee know of the enormous commitment and perseverance
and persistence and wisdom of our friend from New Mexico in the
development of education policy, particularly the quality of our
teachers. It is a very important record. When he speaks about these
issues, I think all of us take these very seriously. I do think,
however, that in this particular situation, on this particular
amendment, I must say that I differ with the Senator from New Mexico.
Let me be very brief about the reasons.
First of all, in the various education programs and recruitment and
retention programs--and I won't take the time to go on through them,
but as one who is a supporter and an author of a fair amount of them,
they never were funded over a period of time or funded very lightly:
The Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship, Christa McAuliffe Teacher
Corps, National Board for Professional Teachers, Standards class size
demonstration, middle-school demonstration, new teaching careers, all
the various mini-corps programs, foreign language instruction, small
State teaching initiative--none of these effectively were funded. None
of these were funded, and we had, as the Senator from New Mexico said,
no evaluation of the few that were funded.
He makes a very good case about the past. I take some exception, and
I ask our friends to review the parts of the legislation--I know the
hour is late. We don't spend as much time in going through the
particular provisions of the legislation. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2, I believe, that many of the 18 States are just the kinds
of States that need this help and assistance. I will go into the
various details of the programs, and many of the comments the Senator
from New Mexico has made are actually the kinds of criteria which are
included in the various competitive grants. I don't want to exclude
these 18 States. In many instances, they need the help and assistance
the most. We all need it. We have to have 2 million teachers over the
next 10 years, and we have to strengthen the opportunities for teachers
to teach better and give our teachers additional training programs so
they can do it and hold them to a higher accountability. We are in
complete agreement with that.
The question is how you get there. I am not for excluding 18 States
from being able to participate. When we were considering the Goals
2000, we were told that in making available resources that were going
to be available to States on a voluntary basis that there were many
States that said, ``We don't want to do it because we do not want to
have participation of Federal programs in here.'' I do not want the
States that may need this the most denied it.
Let us look at the question--I will take the part of the Senator's
evaluation first. If you look in the legislation on page 373, you see
``Accountability and Evaluation.'' After a State receives a competitive
grant under this section, it ``shall submit an annual accountability
report to the Secretary''--the Secretary of Education--but also to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, our committee, and as well as
to the House.
Such report shall describe the degree in which the State is using the
funds to, what? Student achievement: ``Increasing student achievement
for all students, as measured by increased graduation rates, decreased
dropout rates, or higher scores on local, State or other assessments.''
Second: ``Raising Standards.--Raising the State academic standards
required to enter the teaching profession . . .'' That is going to be
part of the criteria. It will be part of the application for States if
they want to participate in this program. They may have to, as part of
their evaluation, have programs that will encourage the States to raise
academic standards ``required to enter the teaching profession,
including, where appropriate, incentives to incorporate the requirement
of an academic major in the subject, or related discipline, in which
the teacher plans to teach.''
This is a positive incentive. We are trying to, with the scarce
resources that are going to be included in this bill, to say, yes, we
want to see movement toward an academic major in the subject area and
related discipline in which the teacher plans to teach. That is written
right in the evaluation program.
[[Page S7854]]
It continues with regard to the core academic subjects, and it talks
about the efforts that will be made to decrease shortages for
professional development in poor urban areas and rural areas and
communities, and it does an evaluation of these.
What it does find out, as it says on page 377:
``Each State or teacher training partnership''--that is either the
State or local community--``receiving a grant . . . shall report
annually on progress toward meeting the purposes of this part [upon
which the grant was given] . . .. If the Secretary, after consultation
with the peer review panel . . .''--and that has been spelled out--
``determines that the State or partnership is not making substantial
progress in meeting the purposes, goals, objectives and measures, as
appropriate, by the end of the second year of the grant, the grant
shall not be continued for the third year of the grant.''
I think that is pretty good, Mr. President, if we have a Secretary
who we are going to hold accountable to this. I think that is pretty
good. That is a tough evaluation. It identifies many of the points--
virtually all of the points--that the Senator from New Mexico has
identified. Whether it will be enforced, whether we will be serious
about seeing that it is enforced is going to be the challenge that is
going to be placed upon us.
Look at page 372 where it talks about the responsibility of the local
partnership in encouraging teachers at the local partnership. The
application will:
describe how the partnership will restructure and improve
teaching, teacher training, and development programs, and how
systematic changes will contribute to increased student
achievement;
describe how the partnership will prepare teachers to work
with diverse student populations, including individuals with
disabilities and limited English proficient individuals;
Some might say that is too prescriptive in terms of establishing at
least criteria where there will be competition for these resources.
Describe how the partnership will help prepare teachers to use
technology. We can have all the technology in the world in our
classrooms, but if our teachers do not know how to blend it into
curriculum, that is very significant to mention.
The point is, Mr. President, that I believe that in this program we
have the most effective kind of evaluation and criteria and
accountability that I have seen in higher education. We do not do as
well as we should in most programs, I will agree with that. But it does
seem to me that the committee has given very substantial consideration,
first of all, in recognizing that so many of these programs here just
did not measure up, did not have the support, and was not the way to
go.
And the best way we were going to try to do it was to provide some
resources--half the money to the States, half to the partnerships. We
had a lot of debate about the allocations of resources, and then we
established criteria which is spelled out and which has included many
of the points of the Senator from New Mexico about what we hope will be
achieved in those applications. And we do that for the States as well
as the local partnerships. Then we have a tough evaluation program to
hold the States and the partnerships accountable.
So I must say, although there is much to which the Senator has
pointed out that I agree with, it seems to me that the danger that we
are risking in accepting the Senator's amendment is that we will be
denying important opportunities for States that for one reason or
another will not meet the exact criteria. They will be denied. We will
be cutting them off from any participation. I do not think that is the
way to go. I think the evaluating programs and the enforcement
mechanisms included in this bill are the way to go. So I hope that the
amendment would not be accepted.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I won't belabor this because I think most of the points
have been made. I do want to join both the chairman and the ranking
member of the committee in opposing this amendment for all the reasons
that were stated. We have spent a considerable amount of time and
effort in the committee to try to address the very areas that the
Senator from New Mexico has raised. We have worked with the Senator
from New Mexico in attempting to incorporate a number of his
suggestions and ideas.
I think the Senator from Connecticut raises a critical point relative
to the fact that a chart out of Education Week does not really tell us
the full status of where each of our States reside relative to these
requirements. And because the Senator's amendment was substituted in
lieu of another amendment, most of us are not able to get ahold of our
State education departments at 8 o'clock in the evening to find out
just exactly where we stand. We end up then potentially penalizing our
States for failure to meet the requirements of the Senator's amendment
rather than providing, as the Senator from Massachusetts said,
incentives for them to do so.
Also, I point out to Members that the Senator's amendment violates
the actual Department of Education Organization Act policy, which I
would like to read from. Section 103, titled ``Federal-State
Relationship'' says:
It is the intention of the Congress, in the establishment
of the Department, to protect the rights of State and local
governments and public and private educational institutions
in the areas of educational policies and administration
programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such
governments and institutions over their own educational
programs and policies. The establishment of the Department of
Education [this was written into the code when the Department
of Education was established] shall not increase the
authority of the Federal Government over education or
diminish the responsibility of education which is reserved to
the States and the local school systems and other
instrumentalities of the States.
It goes on to talk about basically attempting to micromanage from the
Federal level decisions that even with the establishment of the
Department of Education the intent of Congress is listed.
Now, in a sense, we are doing that. But we are doing that here in
this bill in a way that encourages and still leaves the decisions to
the States to determine what their policies will be, and in this
regard, policies relative to qualifications for teachers.
We all support the goal of higher qualified teachers being available.
But the Senator's amendment, I believe, takes us one step further than
we ought to go by penalizing those States that do not have that
standard. And I think there are some 15 or 20 that fall in that
category. But as we now have learned, there may be several more. There
is no way we can find out this evening. There may be several more that
have modifications of that requirement that require it in certain
disciplines but do not require it in other disciplines.
The Senator from Connecticut cited the example of an individual
affluent in a native language that might major in a different subject,
and yet because they do not need to major in that language, but then
intend to teach in that subject, they want to have an academic major in
another subject. Are we going to penalize a State institution which
receives funds from the Federal Government for allowing that to take
place?
I think there are unintended consequences here that we ought to
realize. And we worked on this carefully in a bipartisan way. There was
a unanimous consensus coming out of committee in terms of how we would
address this particular issue--18 to nothing vote.
I urge Members to support the hard effort that has been put into this
and not at the last minute here, on an amendment we really have not had
time to review and even check with our States on, to add this mandatory
language to this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond to the various
points that have been made, and then I will yield the floor and we can
get on to other business. I gather that it is not possible, because of
the arrangements that have been previously made with some Senators, to
go ahead with the vote. So it is going to be stacked for later.
Let me just respond to a couple points that have been made. The
notion that we are trying to micromanage by putting this requirement in
[[Page S7855]]
Federal law, I do not think is accurate. We are saying, look, we give
the States $1.8 billion to support these education training programs.
Is it too much to ask that the education training programs that are
being supported with this $1.8 billion provide academic instruction to
the people who they are going to turn out to teach in our high schools?
Is that too much to ask?
I mean, we are not asking that that be done for the elementary
schools. Fine, you can continue to turn out people for the elementary
schools who take nothing but education courses. We are not trying to
interfere with that. But if you are going to teach at the high school
level, you ought to take some kind of academic training. That is what
this amendment provides.
The notion that this is overreaching by the Federal Government, the
Senator from Indiana saying this violates the spirit or the policy that
established the Department of Education, we have done the same thing
with student loan default rates. We set it up with standards that need
to be met. We have substantially reduced student loan default rates
because of what we have done in that area.
We say here, fine, if you do not want the $1.8 billion, then do
anything you want. If you want the $1.8 billion, then we will give you
3 years in which to figure out how to begin providing academic
instruction to the people who are going to teach in the high schools.
I am in an awkward position here. Most of the people who have spoken
against this amendment are from States that already require what the
amendment is intended to require.
I am from a State that does not require what the amendment is
intended to require, and I think we should. I think the State of New
Mexico ought to require that anyone who is going into high school
teaching have a major in some academic subject, not necessarily the one
they wind up teaching in but in some academic subject.
I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Massachusetts and
everyone else. They are genuinely concerned about what will happen to
the 18 States. I represent one of the 18 States. I tell you what I
think will happen to the 18 States. I think they will propose a little
stiffer requirements. They will do a better job of teaching the
teachers who are going into our schools. And I think the students of
the country will benefit from that.
I think this is a responsible thing to do. I hope very much Members
will support the amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the Bingaman amendment be
temporarily set aside. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator
Domenici be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes, and upon the
conclusion of his remarks, that Senator Warner be recognized, and
following that, we take up the amendment of Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I now have been waiting at
least 4 hours since I came on the floor. It was my understanding--just
my understanding, I didn't consult with the manager of the bill--but it
is my understanding I was to come right after the disposal of Senator
Bingaman's amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I point out, this will just take a very few minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I thought you said there was another amendment?
Mr. JEFFORDS. It is one I don't think will take any time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am the other Senator from New Mexico,
so whatever has been said about the amendment, and who is for and who
is against it, was not talking about my amendment.
First, I don't have any amendments. I rise to congratulate the
committee on an excellent bill. By authorizing this Higher Education
Act, the Senate is making a downpayment on our Nation's future.
Benjamin Franklin, in the very early days of our country, put it best
when he said, ``An investment in knowledge always pays the best
interest.'' Sometimes around here we are talking about interest rates
as if they apply only to the economy and the like. So Benjamin
Franklin, even many years ago, was talking about interest. He said,
``An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.'' I believe that
is right.
Building upon his statement and others, I say it is a simple fact
that the future is prejudiced in favor of those who can read, write,
and do math. A good education is a ticket to an opportunity to a secure
economic future in the middle class of the United States.
As the earning gap between brains and brawn grows even larger, almost
no one doubts today the link between education and an individual's
prospects for a good and substantial livelihood and a good life in
America. That is what the Senate is doing today in improving the
postsecondary education system of our country. Incidentally, I said
``improving'' because it is already the best in the world. There are no
countries in the world that have a postsecondary education system that
comes anywhere close to ours.
So we are not here to be critical, we are here to offer improvements.
In a nutshell, this bill improves the financial aid opportunities for
students, creates a unified program to promote excellence in the
teachers of our public schools, and streamlines the Higher Education
Act by consolidating overlapping programs and eliminating unnecessary
regulatory requirements.
Before I make some specific comments on provisions in the bill, I
will quickly talk about my home State of New Mexico. We are a small
State. Approximately 100,000 students are enrolled in New Mexico's
public colleges and universities, with about 53,000 enrolled in
community colleges and about 47,000 in universities. However, the
number of high school graduates is expected to increase during the next
decade and members of the current workforce are expected to seek
additional education during that period.
Consequently, we must have a very high quality, low-cost college
education available to a growing number of students. We must provide
that regardless of income level, ethnic background, or place of
residence. Students attending New Mexico institutions received more
than $200 million in financial aid, counting grants and loans from all
sources, during the 1995-1996 academic year. Thus, I believe that
educational performance is a crucial element to our State's future.
Speaking as a New Mexican, clearly, our state's future relies upon the
capacity to prosper in this extremely competitive national-
international economy and is directly related to the education we are
able to give our young people.
Our colleges and universities directly and indirectly contribute to
the economic vitality of our country and our State as they produce
graduates with considerable intellectual depth and breadth, workers
whose skills allow them to meet the demands of their employers, and
first-rate research that helps to expand the boundaries of our
knowledge.
Let me make a few comments about some provisions.
Title II: I congratulate the committee for improving teacher quality.
Focusing on the two areas they have with reference to teacher quality
and recruitment of teachers for underserved areas, first, the bill
seeks to improve student achievement, improving the quality of the
current and future teaching force by improving preparation of
prospective teachers and enhancing professional development of
activities; second, it seeks to increase the number of students,
especially minority students, who complete high-quality teacher
preparation programs.
Title III: the institutional aid title, creates a new grant program
for tribal colleges--those are our Indian colleges, which obviously are
severely underfunded and severely lacking in maximum professional
qualities of their teachers--and the universities to strengthen
services to Native American students.
Student financial aid is given a huge boost through several changes
which I believe are in compliance with the 5-year budget agreement we
made last year, which annually increased maximum Pell grant levels to
the following amounts: $5,000 for academic year 1999-2000; $5,200 for
academic year 2000-2001; $5,400 for academic year 2001-2002; $5,600 for
academic year 2002-2003; and eventually up to $5,800 for academic year
2003-2004.
There are TRIO Programs that are given a boost through changes to the
Student Assistance section under title IV which provides benefits to
700,000
[[Page S7856]]
students nationwide. Two-thirds of the participating students come from
families where neither parent attended college and incomes are below
$24,000. This bill reserves up to 2 percent of that program for the
evaluation and dissemination of partnership grants.
The new Dissemination/Partnership provision would encourage
partnerships between TRIO programs and other community based
organizations offering programs or activities serving at-risk students.
The Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL) is stabilized in the
following way. Student loan rates will be equal to the 91-day T-bill-
plus-1.7-percent while students are in school, and plus-2.3-percent
during repayment after graduation. The interest amount is capped at
8.25 percent and for PLUS loans, rates will be the 91-day-T-bill-plus-
3.1 percent, capped at 9 percent for borrowers and lenders.
An innovative loan forgiveness program is also included for teachers.
Thirty percent of a teacher's loans will be forgiven after the fourth
and fifth complete years of teaching in a high-poverty school and 40
percent after the sixth complete year after meeting certain eligibility
requirements.
Finally, there is the creation of new part within Title V dedicated
solely to supporting the needs of Hispanic Serving Institutions that is
authorized at $45 million for fiscal year 1999.
Mr. President, I believe we are taking an important step forward
today by making an investment in our nation's future with the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
I close by saying, frankly, I believe that we have a magnificent
post-high-school education system because there is great competition.
As a matter of fact, there is no question in my mind that if we had
similar competition or even a little bit of it in our public school
system, we would not have the education bills that we bring before the
U.S. Congress which are so detailed and give so much direction and have
so many hundreds of programs.
Higher education is competitive. You can make your choice. It can be
a private school, a public school. You can find the very best; you can
find less than the very best. But everywhere you look, you will find an
opportunity to get a good college education. That is because there are
so many institutions that want to do this, love their work, and think
they are part of America's future.
I end tonight congratulating the committee, in particular the
chairman, for the good bipartisan work that has been accomplished on
this bill. I am glad, on a matter of this importance, we are not
fighting in a partisan way here on the floor but tonight will approve
this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote which means we support
secondary education in America in a big way. It is our future. I yield
the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am in consultation with the
distinguished managers of this bill in hopes that an amendment can be
accepted, and I am receiving, I think, very fine cooperation.
I would like to state my case so that Senators can fully understand
the purpose of this amendment. There is an ever-increasing problem,
regrettably, throughout America at our colleges and universities, and
that is binge drinking. But first I would like to congratulate the
chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, for all his hard work in
crafting an excellent Higher Education Reauthorization bill. I am
privileged to serve on the committee with the distinguished Chairman.
Indeed, our distinguished ranking member, Senator Kennedy, along with
Senators Coats and Dodd, must also be recognized for their efforts in
this successful reauthorization legislation.
S. 1882 has several important provisions aimed at reducing and
eliminating the illegal use of drugs and alcohol on college campuses. I
applaud the provisions for competitive grants to institutions programs
of alcohol and drug abuse prevention and education. In addition, the
collegiate initiative to reduce binge drinking, included in the
legislation as a Sense of the Congress, is also noteworthy as
institutions try to change the culture of alcohol use on college and
university campuses.
Mr. President, more can be done, I think, to change this culture of
alcohol on college campuses. This past year--and I regret to have to be
on the floor of the Senate to say this--there have been five alcohol-
related deaths at colleges and universities in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Five. One inebriated student fell out of a dorm window to her
death. A second inebriated student fell down a flight of stairs to her
death.
In response to these deaths, the then-Attorney General of Virginia,
Richard Cullen, created a ``Task Force on Drinking by College
Students'' in November of 1997. The task force included forty-four
members. Among them were parents of the deceased students, a
representative from every college and university in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, representatives of the business community, representatives of
the law enforcement community, representatives of the legal community,
and a number of members of the General Assembly of Virginia, our state
legislature. The current Attorney General, Mark Early, assumed
leadership of the task force in January of this year when he was
inaugurated. He should be commended for all of his hard work and
dedication in bringing to a conclusion the important work of this
volunteer group, as it relates to the use of alcohol on college
campuses. The task force met for the final time on July 1 of this year
and prepared its recommendations.
One problem the task force recognized immediately was the restriction
placed on colleges and universities by the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, for schools to disclose a student's
educational record to a parent without the consent of the student. The
recommendation continues that it should be the policy and the practice
of each college and university to notify parents of dependent students
of violations of law as they relate to alcohol and drugs.
Mr. President, I could not agree more with this recommendation. As a
parent, and indeed as a grandparent, I would want to know if my
children were in the unfortunate position of being in violation of the
law as it relates to alcohol and drugs while they were students at a
college or university. I would want to step forward in a constructive
way, as would other parents, to lend a hand and assistance to work with
the faculty and administration of the college or university to help
that student. But sometimes parents are not aware of these problems
because of the provision as construed in FERPA. Our colleges and
universities should be free to notify the parents of dependent students
who have violated the law relating to drugs and alcohol.
My amendment, which I am still working on--and I understand, of
course, it has to be accepted by the managers of the bill. There is no
way to bring it to the attention of the Senate through a vote. The
Amendment I seek is simple. It reads: ``Nothing in this bill shall be
construed to prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from
disclosing, to a parent of a student, information regarding violation
of any federal, state, or local laws governing the use or possession of
alcohol or drugs, whether or not that information is contained in the
student's education records, if the student is under the age of 21.''
The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA,
creates, we believe, an impediment to the disclosure of a nondependent
student's educational records to parents without the student's consent.
Notification of parents of dependent students of violations of alcohol
and drug law should be the policy and practice of colleges and
universities all across our Nation.
As a member of the Virginia delegation to Congress--and I am
privileged to be one--I am trying to see that there is appropriate
legislation--so that there is a presumption of dependency by colleges
and universities for all students who are under the age of 21 for the
purposes of this notification to parents. This would ensure that
parents are informed when their sons and daughters had the misfortune
of violating state alcohol law or drug laws.
Mr. President, that summarizes my views. I shall continue to work
with the distinguished managers of this bill through the evening in the
hopes that we can reach some understanding and that this measure may be
incorporated in the bill.
You know, it is interesting. Tonight, I was very pleased to see an
announcement by the President of the United
[[Page S7857]]
States of a decision to expend literally hundreds of millions of
dollars on an advertising program to combat drug abuse to these young
people. It seems to me that this provision I am offering simply enables
the universities and colleges to bring in the parents of dependent
students under 21 and involve them in a process, hopefully, to help the
university and the administration. We are placing a tremendous burden
on the administrative staffs of the universities and colleges. Why
should they not have the benefit of parental help in tragic situations
where there has been a clear violation of law as it relates to drugs
and alcohol?
I thank the distinguished managers. Perhaps during the course of the
evening, we can work out an amendment. The one I have here technically,
for some reason, is not correct, but I have full confidence in the
managers to see that we can get this done.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, who
has been a tremendous help to me on the committee. I just point out
that since he has been on there, the ability to get a consensus has
grown immensely. A lot of it is through his savvy way of being able to
pull people together to walk in the same direction. I deeply appreciate
that. I assure him that this is a critical area, which all of us happen
to be deeply concerned about. I will work with the ranking member of
this committee to find a solution.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for those kind words.
I don't think I deserve any special credit. But I have over a quarter
of a century of association with the distinguished ranking member. We
went to the University of Virginia Law School at slightly different
times. I was a member of the law class with his marvelous brother,
Robert Kennedy, whom I adored in law school. I wish he were here
tonight. He could stop this thing in a minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. We accept the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, then I will be seated.
Mr. DODD. I am sure your parents recalled quite frequently that you
were both at the university. [Laughter.]
Mr. WARNER. I am not sure we wanted them to.
I thank the managers.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if I could ask the indulgence of the
Senator, I think we are both willing to accept the Warner amendment, if
we could have that offered and accepted, if that would be all right
with the Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 3117
Mr. WARNER. I thank both managers.
I send an amendment to the desk
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 3117.
Mr. WARNER. 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 insert:
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to prohibit an
institution of postsecondary education from disclosing, to a
parent of a student, information regarding violation of any
Federal, state, or local laws governing the use or possession
of alcohol or drugs, whether or not that information is
contained in the student's education records, if the student
is under the age of 21.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that it is
acceptable to both managers. I thank them.
Mr. JEFFORDS. It is acceptable.
Mr. KENNEDY. I urge acceptance of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3117) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3118
(Purpose: To reduce student loan fees, and for other purposes)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, and Mr.
Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3118.
Mr. HARKIN. 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 IV, insert the following:
SEC. __. REDUCTION IN STUDENT LOAN FEES.
(a) Federal Direct Stafford Loans.--Section 455(c) (20
U.S.C. 1087e(c)) is amended by inserting ``, except that the
Secretary shall charge the borrower of a Federal Direct
Stafford Loan an origination fee in the amount of 3.0 percent
of the principal amount of the loan'' before the period.
(b) Subsidized Federal Stafford Loans.--
(1) Amendment.--Subparagraph (H) of section 428(b)(1) (20
U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``not more than''; and
(B) by striking ``will not be used for incentive payments
to lenders'' and inserting ``shall be paid to the Federal
Government for deposit in the Treasury''.
(2) Repeal.--Subparagraph (H) of section 428(b)(1) (20
U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)) is repealed.
(c) Unsubsidized Stafford Loan and PLUS Loan Insurance
Premium Redirection.--
(1) Unsubsidized stafford loans.--Section 428H(h) (20
U.S.C. 1078-8(h)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';
(B) by striking ``not more than'';
(C) by striking ``, if such premium will not be used for
incentive payments to lenders''; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following: ``The proceeds
of the insurance premium shall be paid to the Federal
Government for deposit into the Treasury.''.
(2) PLUS loans.--Section 428B (20 U.S.C. 1078-2) is amended
by adding after subsection (f) (as added by section 427(2))
the following:
``(g) Insurance Premium.--Each State or nonprofit private
institution or organization having an agreement with the
Secretary under section 428(b)(1) shall charge the borrower
of a loan made under this section a single insurance premium
in the amount of 1 percent of the principal amount of the
loan. The proceeds of the insurance premium shall be paid to
the Federal Government for deposit into the Treasury.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Subsection (b)(1).--The amendments made by subsection
(b)(1) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act.
(2) Subsections (a) and (b)(2).--The amendments made by
subsections (a) and (b)(2) shall take effect on July 1, 1999.
(3) Subsection (c).--The amendments made by subsection (c)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I just sent to the desk
really can be called the Tax Reduction for College Students Amendment,
because that is exactly what it is.
So all Senators who are interested in cutting taxes, I say listen up
because this is your amendment because that is what this amendment
does. It cuts taxes, and it cuts taxes for college students. Let me
explain.
First of all, I would like to say the legislation we are considering
today, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, is a strong bill. There
are many positive features of this legislation.
I want to commend Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Coats, and Dodd for
putting together a strong bipartisan bill. However, I believe that this
amendment I am offering will do more to strengthen it even further.
So the amendment is simple. It cuts the tax which has become known as
origination and insurance fees. But a tax by any other name is still a
tax. That is what it is. This amendment cuts this tax, this student
tax, by 25 percent.
In other words, it cuts it from 4 percent to 3 percent for students
with Federally subsidized guaranteed and direct student loans. It is
paid for by eliminating or reducing excessive government subsidies paid
to the student loan middlemen--the guaranty agencies.
My amendment eliminates the 1-percent insurance fee paid by students
on the subsidized Federal family education loans, and reduces the
origination fee on subsidized direct loans by one point. The net result
is that all students with subsidized loans will have these taxes cut to
3 percent. In real terms it means up to an additional $171.25 while a
student is in school.
[[Page S7858]]
Sam Barr, from the University of Northern Iowa, wrote,
I have been in the financial aid profession since 1985. . .
. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to meet with and
counsel hundreds of students regarding loans. Many of these
students have expressed concern regarding the fact that they
received less money than they borrowed, and were very upset
that they had to pay back the fees--with interest [even
though they didn't get anything.]
Currently students pay the following taxes on their loans. Students
with direct loans pay a 4-percent origination fee. Students with
guaranteed loans pay a 3-percent origination fee, and a 1-percent
insurance fee. In some cases, guaranty agencies currently waive a part
or all of the insurance tax for some students with guaranteed loans.
For example, the Iowa agency waived half of the fee for students with
guaranteed loans. California and Pennsylvania waived the entire 1-
percent insurance fee.
So I have to ask, Mr. President, if some agencies are currently
waiving the insurance fee on a selective basis, we really must question
whether this revenue is really needed by the agencies.
Second, this benefit should be available to students on an equitable
basis in all States and in both loan programs. Unfortunately, Federal
law does not provide a similar break for students with direct loans. As
a result, in my State of Iowa, more than half of the students that
attend direct loan schools cannot receive this cut. In other words,
Iowa waves half of the fee. So that brings it down to 3\1/2\ percent.
That is for guaranteed loans, but half of the students in Iowa go into
the Direct Loan Program. They have to pay the full 4 percent. That is
simply not fair.
So my amendment provides an equitable distribution of the tax cut by
providing relief for all students with subsidized guaranteed and direct
loans instead of just a select few. It creates a level playing field
between the two programs by cutting the combined student loan tax by 25
percent. The amendment will also ensure that all agencies will operate
in the most efficient manner possible.
Mr. President, this insurance fee has been a part of the Guaranteed
Student Loan Program since its inception. However, over the years
additional subsidies were added to support the guaranty agencies. As a
result, these agencies have accumulated huge reserves, currently in
excess of $2.4 billion. So what we are doing is recalling about half of
that money. But agencies will continue to hold over $1 billion in
reserves needed to reimburse lenders for defaulted student loans.
In addition, the excessive subsidies have enabled agencies to pay
lavish salaries in the past. At one point, a CEO of U.S.A. Group, the
Nation's largest guaranty agency, was paid over $1 million in salary
and benefits.
To be sure, the Department of Education has cracked down on this
practice and has established a compensation ceiling to prevent agencies
from using Federal funds to pay exorbitant salaries. However, it is
clear that generous subsidies enabled this to occur. The Senate bill
has revamped the guaranty agency subsidies.
Even with my amendment, these agencies will continue to be paid
handsomely for their work and will receive in excess of $4.5 billion
over the next 5 years.
So if you have heard from some of your guaranty agencies that the
Harkin amendment is going to break them and cause them to go bankrupt,
this chart will prove otherwise. Over the next 5 years, if you add up
their fees, collections, investment income, and prevention fees, it
adds up to almost $4.6 billion that they are going to get over the next
5 years.
Without my amendment, they are going to get probably about double
that, about $8 billion over the next 5 years. So this is quite
sufficient to take care of any problems that they might have--$4.58
billion.
Mr. President, I am fully aware of the opposition to this amendment.
The guaranty agencies are obviously opposed to it. Critics have called
it a thinly veiled attempt to destabilize the Guaranteed Loan Program
to force schools to enter a Direct Loan Program. But how could that be
true? For example, in Iowa, as I said, in my home State, the State has
waived half the fee. Students under the Guaranteed Loan Program pay
3\1/2\ percent. Under the Direct Loan Program, they pay 4 percent.
These kinds of anomalies occur in a lot of States. All I am saying is
make them both the same; make them both 3 percent.
That is what my amendment does. As I have stated in committee
repeatedly in the past, I have supported the two loan programs. The
competition of the Direct Loan Program has led to dramatic improvements
in the Guaranteed Loan Program, and I think the result has been very
positive for our students when we have both of these programs. But they
are uneven and they are unfair.
Now, opponents also allege my amendment would cause individual
agencies to become insolvent, thereby jeopardizing the payment of
default claims by lenders. Absolute nonsense. In 1992, in the aftermath
of the failure of the Higher Education Assistance Foundation, the law
was changed to make it clear that default claims would be paid by the
Federal Government in the event of the insolvency of an agency--period.
Well, Mr. President, over the past 17 years, since the inception, in
1981, of this program, the lender subsidy has declined dramatically,
from about $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1982 to less than $300 million
last year. Unfortunately, students have not seen a commensurate
reduction in the student loan tax. In fact, students are actually
paying more. Revenues from the program, the origination fees, have more
than doubled. In 1982, when it started, revenues were $292 million;
last year, they were $629 million. So students are paying more.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposed phasing out the fee
for the neediest students over the next few years. I wish we could do
that this year. However, I recognize that elimination of the tax
probably does not seem possible at this time. So this amendment takes
the first step with a 25-percent cut in the tax for the neediest
students.
Last year, we provided a significant boost to the Pell grant. We
raised the maximum grant by $300 million to $3,000 per student. This
effort received strong bipartisan support. My amendment will have a
similar impact for students. It puts more money in their pockets to pay
their educational expenses. This chart shows that.
What this amendment does is it basically says that over a 4-year
period the reduction in the tax will mean a savings of about $171.25
per student. Now, to those of you who don't think that is much money,
that buys a lot of textbooks for a student going to college. It buys a
lot of textbooks.
These students, the neediest of students need every penny they can
get to pay tuition and buy their books in school. Again, they are
frustrated when they go in and borrow the money and they pay the fee,
and they get less money than what they borrowed. And then when they pay
it back, they even have to pay interest on the money they never got.
Very unfair.
Well, my amendment has the support of virtually every major higher
education group, and I have a number of letters in support of this
amendment. I ask unanimous consent, first of all, that a list of
organizations supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Organizations That Support the Harkin Amendment
Secretary Richard Riley.
American Council on Education.
American Association of Community Colleges.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.
Council of Graduate Schools.
Council of Independent Colleges.
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education.
National Association of College and University Business
Officers.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges.
National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators.
U.S. PIRG.
U.S. Student Association.
The Education Trust.
The National Association of Graduate Professional Students.
Association of American Universities.
California Community Colleges.
California Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators.
[[Page S7859]]
Mr. HARKIN. I have several letters here--one from the Secretary of
Education, Richard Riley, in support of this amendment; one from the
American Council on Education in support of the amendment; one from a
consortium including U.S. PIRG, United States Student Association, the
Education Trust, and the National Association of Graduate Professional
Students in support of this amendment, and, lastly, one from the
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators in support
of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the Senator's understanding that this origination
fee was really developed to help pay costs of the loan program when we
had soaring interest rates?
Mr. HARKIN. That is exactly right, these huge, high interest rates.
Mr. KENNEDY. So it was really an insurance program in terms of the
loan program at that period of time. And then as the Senator makes the
point now that we have virtually a strong economy, we have stable
interest rates, low interest rates in terms of these programs, whatever
justification was there at that time certainly is not there at the
present time but still this fee has been maintained.
The Senator, as I understand, has spelled out that with his amendment
there is still going to be a sound economic situation in terms of the
total program, and that we are going to save at a time, as the Senator
from Connecticut and others have pointed out, of ever-increasing costs
and the pressure that is on middle-income families and working
families, you are talking about, what is it, $171?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, $171.
Mr. KENNEDY. And that is a lot of money for an awful lot of students.
I can remember in my own State of Massachusetts when the University of
Massachusetts in Boston had $1,000 a year tuition, 85 percent of the
parents of the students who attended that university had never gone to
college and 85 percent of them worked 25 hours a week or more. And when
they raised the tuition by $100, they lost 15 percent of their
applications--15 percent.
It is a real reflection--when you are talking $170, we are talking
about a lot of books. We are talking about a real lifeline, in many
instances, to sons and daughters of hard-working families, I know
certainly in many of the urban areas and I believe in the rural areas,
as well.
We have followed this issue for a long period of time. The Senator
has been a constant advocate for moderating the cost of higher
education over the long time that he has been in the Senate, and it has
been a challenging one. But he, I believe, has made a very solid
recommendation, and I would certainly hope his position is sustained.
I urge all of our colleagues to support his amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank Senator Kennedy for those comments in support of
this amendment.
The Senator is absolutely right. This came in at a time when there
was extremely high interest rates, used as an insurance policy. And
then for some reason it just continued on and on and on and on. Again,
as I pointed out, we have reduced some of the subsidies over the
intervening years, but for some reason this student tax continued
on. There is absolutely no reason for it today, and, as the Senator
from Massachusetts pointed out and as this chart clearly shows, even
with my amendment, over the next 5 years they are going to get $4.6
billion that they really don't even need. But they have it. Do they
need twice that much? Do they need $8 billion? I don't think so.
So let's give our students a little bit of a tax break. Everybody is
always talking about giving people tax cuts around here. Here is one
you can vote for. Here is one that has an immediate impact right now.
That means these students going to college this fall will have an extra
amount of money to buy that textbook or to pay their tuition costs. For
some people, $171 may not sound like a lot of money. But for a low-
income student, families working hard trying to get their kids into
college and through college, that is a lot of money. And it is money
that is not needed by these guaranty agencies. It is just not needed.
They get plenty of money, $4.5 billion. So I hope the Senate will
support this very modest amendment. It is not cutting the whole thing.
It is just cutting it by 25 percent. I think our students deserve that
tax cut.
I am a product of student loans when I went to college. Neither one
of my parents went to college. They didn't have any money, so I had to
borrow money to go to college. But in those days we had the National
Defense Education Act which came in under the Eisenhower
administration. We borrowed the money. We never had to pay any interest
on it all the time we were in school, never had to pay any interest on
it when we were in the military. Finally, when I got through law
school, I had to start paying back the loans and the interest started
accruing on it.
I always thought what was good for our generation ought to be good
for the present generation. I don't know why it shouldn't be that way.
This is one step we can take to tell at least the neediest students
today that they deserve to have a tax break and they deserve to have a
little bit more money to buy their textbooks. So I urge the adoption of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment put forward by my colleague, Senator Harkin. I think what is
really intended here is an effort to try to undermine the effectiveness
of the FFEL Program. I know my good friend from Iowa is a fan of direct
lending. I know the same is true of my colleague from Massachusetts.
And any way that they can try to undermine the FFEL Program and
increase the capacity of the direct loans to somehow supplant it, is an
effort which I can understand.
I have been involved in this a long time. I was involved in creating
the commission that ended up recommending direct lending. We have tried
very hard to make sure these programs operate on a basis of fairness
and comparability. So far, that has worked well.
This bill provides nearly $1 billion each year in new benefits. Many
of these benefits were paid for by offsets found within the guaranteed
student loan program.
Pell grants--S. 1882 raises the maximum Pell grant to historically
high levels and authorizes $85.6 billion in Pell grants over the next 5
years.
Other student assistance--S. 1882 authorizes more than $15 billion
over the next 5 years for work-study grants, TRIO Programs, SEOG,
childcare grants for low-income students and other important programs.
Loan forgiveness for child care providers--S. 1882 authorizes more
than $50 million over the next 5 years to provide loan forgiveness to
low-income individuals who pursue careers as child care providers.
Loan forgiveness for teachers--S. 1882 authorizes more than $615
million over the next 10 years to provide loan forgiveness to teachers
who pursue teaching careers in private or public secondary or
elementary schools that serve low-income families.
Extended repayment options--S. 1882 permits, at a cost of $290
million over 5 years, borrowers in the FFEL program with debt levels
equal to or greater than $30,000 to be offered extended and graduated
repayment terms similar to those available in direct lending.
Student loan interest rate--And finally, and without doubt the most
important benefit we are offering to students, is the low interest
rate. S. 1882 preserves two vital and healthy loan programs while
providing students with the lowest interest rates they have enjoyed in
nearly 20 years. By some estimates, this interest rate will provide
students with a new benefit (in reduced interest costs) of nearly $11
billion.
These examples speak for themselves and they reflect the strong
commitment I share with my colleagues to encouraging greater
participation in higher education. The debate in which we are now
engaged does not reflect upon one's commitment to student benefits. S.
1882 already provides nearly $1 billion in new student benefits each
year. The issue which we must now confront is whether we are truly
committed to preserving the stability of two student loan programs. The
Harkin amendment, I believe unintentionally, would destroy the hub of
the FFEL program by putting more than
[[Page S7860]]
twenty-two guaranty agencies, including the Vermont Student Assistance
Corporation, out of business--out of business.
I want to reiterate this point. In order to provide some students
with a maximum of a $42 per year benefit, this amendment undermines the
guaranty agency financing model and threatens the continued viability
of the FFEL program both now and in the future. The choice is quite
clear--a vote for the amendment offered by Senator Harkin is a vote to
destabilize the FFEL program. A vote against the amendment offered by
Senator Harkin is a vote to preserve the many benefits that the FFEL
program so successfully offers to students and their families. I
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I point out that the $172 that was mentioned is over 4 years. It
doesn't sound quite as much when you talk about 4 years as it does in 1
year. That is a few six-packs of beer a year. It is significant,
perhaps a single text book, but certainly not something that is going
to make a huge difference to any student.
I point out, this Federal fund and the insurance premium were created
to try to take care of student loan defaults, to take care of the times
when student's default on their loans, or loans are discharged due to
death or disability.
Mr. President, 43 percent of the total cost of the FFEL Program are
student loan defaults. This insurance premium helps take care of those
defaults.
I would like to address for a moment the student and family benefits
that are provided in this bill. S. 1882 reflects a strong bipartisan--
in fact, unanimous commitment of members of the Senate Labor
Committee--to craft a bill which strengthens and expands the access to
higher education.
We have built up a dual system of competition perhaps. But we have
two student loan systems that are more in balance now, and this bill
balances those two systems again. This amendment would attempt to
unbalance it, to again favor the direct lending program by taking a
benefit away from one program and giving it to the other, and along the
way, perhaps putting many of the present guaranty agencies that provide
assistance to our college students out of business.
So I urge Senators to take a look at what this amendment really does.
The minimal gain, $42 a year, which might possibly occur, is no balance
to the risk of putting this whole program into a position where it
could fail, at a cost of billions to students and the Federal
Government.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered
by the Senator from Iowa. This amendment, which purports to lower
guarantee fees on student loans, would, in actuality, increase fees for
borrowers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Under current law, student loan guarantee agencies participating in
the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) have the option of
charging borrowers a guarantee fee of up to 1% for subsidized Stafford
loans, unsubsidized Stafford loans, and PLUS loans. Amendment No. 3117
would eliminate the optional guarantee fee for subsidized Stafford
loans, and it would reduce by 1% the guarantee fee on Direct subsidized
loans administered by the Department of Education. The costs of this
provision would be offset by obligating guarantee agencies to charge
the full 1% guarantee fee on all unsubsidized Stafford loans and PLUS
loans.
The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), which
guarantees loans for borrowers within the Commonwealth, presently
waives the guarantee fee for both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford
loans, as well as the fee for PLUS loans. In addition, PHEAA also
waives all guarantee fees for borrowers in West Virginia and Delaware,
the two states for which it has been designated by the state's governor
as the guarantee agency. Should Amendment No. 3117 become law, PHEAA
would be compelled to begin charging a 1% fee on unsubsidized Stafford
loans and PLUS loans. Consequently, total guarantee fees charged to
student borrowers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware would
actually increase.
Consider that in FY1997, PHEAA guaranteed $651 million in
unsubsidized Stafford loans for 172,000 students and $171 million in
PLUS loans for 28,000 parents. None of those borrowers were charged a
guarantee fee. However, if this amendment had been law, it would have
cost those borrowers $8.22 million in total guarantee fees. Moreover,
20% of FFELP borrowers nationwide receive fee waivers or fee reductions
from their guarantor. Consequently, Amendment No. 3117 would increase
fees for borrowers in states other than just those serviced by PHEAA.
As such, I must oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in doing so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Harkin amendment. I commend our chairman for the outstanding leadership
on this legislation, but I have concerns on the impact of this
legislation, what it would do to making student loans accessible to
millions of our students.
At the core of making higher education affordable and accessible are
two programs we have heard much about: The Federal Family Education
Loan Program, or FFEL Program, which, through public-private
partnership, has successfully provided loans to millions of students
since 1965. The second program is the Direct Student Loan Program, a
program initiated by President Clinton, and a program I think designed
to make the Department of Education the largest student lender in the
country. In fact, there are currently 36 active State and private
nonprofit guaranty agencies, including the Student Loan Guarantee
Foundation of Arkansas.
These guaranty foundations work closely with students, with families,
with schools, and lenders to process loans, prevent loans from going
into default, and pay claims on and collect on those loans that do
default as a part of the traditional Guaranteed Student Loan Program,
the FFEL Program.
Over the past 33 years, FFELP student loan providers have reliably
delivered more than 92 million loans totaling $245 billion. Two-thirds
of all student loans are provided by the private sector via the FFEL
Program.
FFELP is cost effective for the Government, and the competitive
environment spurs FFELP innovation and high-quality service. Reducing
student loan original fees--which this amendment does not do--reducing
student loan origination fees which are paid by students to the
Department of Education, I believe, is a laudable goal, something we
need to study and something we may do, but the amendment we are
debating, the Harkin amendment, does not reduce the 3 percent
origination fee paid by students in the Guaranteed Student Loan
Program. Rather, it eliminates the 1 percent insurance program, also
called the guaranty fee.
It is interesting, when you are against something, you call it a tax.
And this fee has tonight been called a tax. Suddenly, we are voting for
a tax decrease, a tax cut. But this guaranty fee has, in fact, preceded
even the nationalizing of this loan program. It goes all the way back
to 1965. This was not enacted as a temporary measure because of
economic conditions. The original fee, in fact, was, but we are not
dealing with the original fee, we are dealing with the guaranty fee,
the insurance premium fee. That is what the amendment would do this
evening.
That serves as the primary source of revenue to guarantors, intended
to help offset the risk of default on student loans. Without the
insurance premium coming in on the new guaranteed loans, guaranty
agencies will have insufficient funds in their Federal reserve fund to
pay lender claims on defaulted loans. Many of them will for sure. In
fact, losing the 1 percent insurance fee equates to approximately 40
percent of revenue for the Student Loan Guaranty Foundation in my home
State of Arkansas.
I believe--I think I am correct in this--that of all the institutions
of higher learning in Arkansas, there is only one currently using the
direct lending program. All the rest have opted to continue in the FFEL
Program, and we seriously jeopardize the guaranty foundation with the
Harkin amendment; therefore, we jeopardize the accessibility of student
loans to hundreds of thousands of students who are going to need those
loans now and in the future.
[[Page S7861]]
With less money in their reserve to process loans and pay lender
claims on defaulted loans, the Arkansas guaranty agency could be forced
out of business in less than 2 years. So I say to the competition,
which has been lauded as being such a good thing, such a meritorious
thing, it would be eliminated as the bias is made toward direct student
lending, and the FFEL Program which has served my State so well would
be jeopardized.
Madam President, the Harkin amendment, I believe sincerely, is a wolf
in sheep's clothing. It would essentially kill the guaranteed loan
program by driving guaranty agencies out of business. If schools really
wanted to be in the Direct Loan Program, then over 80 percent of them
would not have chosen to remain in the guaranteed loan program, which I
believe we threaten by this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the loan program, which provides
private capital and servicing for nearly two-thirds of all Federal
student loans, and do so by opposing the Harkin amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a little colloquy
on that issue to try to get something straightened out.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield. I will be delighted.
Mr. Harkin addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask my friend from Arkansas----
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield for a question. I am not sure
I have the authority to yield for a colloquy.
Mr. HARKIN. I will enter into kind of a colloquy on the floor here. I
thought I would ask a question----
Mr. FORD. Just ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would be delighted.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I submit to my friend from Arkansas that one of the
greatest myths about the guaranteed loan program is that the agencies
are the real guarantors of the loans. I listened to the Senator and I
listened to the Senator from Vermont also talk about putting the
agencies in jeopardy by reducing the amount of money to pay for
defaulted loans--at least that is what I heard--that my amendment might
put them in jeopardy.
I think, contrary to popular belief, the Federal Government is the
guarantor, and this changed in 1992. So I think there is a holdover
from the previous era. In 1992--and I will just read to the Senator
from the law itself: ``Consequence of guaranty agency insolvency. In
the event that the Secretary has determined that a guaranty agency is
unable to meet its insurance obligations under this part, the holder of
loans insured by the guaranty agency may submit insurance claims
directly to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall pay to the holder
the full insurance obligation of the guaranty agency.''
Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I might respond, if I understand what you have
just read from the law, that while that ensures the fact the Federal
Government is the ultimate guarantor, that that only occurs when the
guaranty foundation, the guaranty agency, has faced solvency, and that
is my very concern.
Yes, while there may be an ultimate protection, before that ultimate
protection is realized, the agencies that have served our students so
well would, in fact, face insolvency. That is my concern for the State
of Arkansas; that is my concern for the students of Arkansas.
Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator makes a good point. As I pointed out,
even with this modest cut of 25 percent, that leaves, over the next 5
years, $4.58 billion for these guaranty agencies. I haven't seen any
evidence that this would be at all insufficient in the future for these
agencies.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I might just conclude, we can stand here and
debate and have a colloquy over the numbers you presented. I cannot and
would not question the numbers you presented my colleagues, so I will
not speak on the aggregate that you presented. But I will say that
while you are dealing with the aggregate, you are not speaking to the
specific circumstances and situations of guaranty foundations across
the country. I only know in particular how it would impact the Arkansas
Guaranty Foundation, which has served our State well, and I believe
that the numbers in Arkansas reflect that it, in fact, could face
insolvency in a matter of years should the Harkin amendment be adopted.
And that is the basis of my very sincere and very strong opposition.
Mr. HARKIN. And I understand that. I want to make a couple points, I
hope, clear, and that is, the Federal Government is the ultimate
guarantor, not the guaranty agency.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I understand, though, that if the guaranty foundation
is insolvent, if I heard you read the law correctly----
Mr. HARKIN. That is correct.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is my very concern--then we would force students
into direct lending. We would force institutions to adopt that program
whether they want to or not.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, Madam President, I just want to point out, again,
I do happen to have these figures available. For the State of Arkansas
right now, the reserve fund is $7.9 million--$7.9 million that Arkansas
has in its reserve fund. Even under my amendment, the yearly revenue
for the next 5 years will be $3.8 million a year. So for the next 5
years, that will be another almost $20 million coming into Arkansas,
and Arkansas has, as I said, a $7.9 million reserve fund right now.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I might just respond to that, the numbers we have
indicate--and these are as of July 3, 1998--the cash reserve is $6.8
billion, which is considerably different from the numbers that you are
presenting, and that, in fact, the information I have is that reserve
would be jeopardized to a far more significant degree than what you
have reflected.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator may be right. My figures are from the end of
the last fiscal year.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Then I think it is certainly precarious for the
foundation.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator just said the reserve fund was $6.8 million
as of the end of this last month; is that what the Senator said?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is what I said.
Mr. HARKIN. $6.8 million. Even under my amendment----
Mr. HUTCHINSON. What was the number that you gave for----
Mr. HARKIN. $7.9 billion as of the end of the last fiscal year.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That would be a drop of $1.1 million in less than a
year.
Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Without the Harkin amendment. With the Harkin
amendment, it will be a considerable decrease in addition to that. Once
again, I would say the projections are, within 2 years they would be
insolvent, and the worst case scenario would become a reality in the
State of Arkansas.
Mr. HARKIN. In the State of Arkansas, the Harkin amendment would
continue to give $3.8 million over the next 5 years. That is hardly
going insolvent.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. They have lost $1.1 million without the Harkin
amendment in the reserve fund. So, Madam President, I would say, once
again, my concern is for the students of Arkansas, that they have a
competitive environment for student loans. I believe that will not
continue if the Harkin amendment is adopted and that, in fact, the end
result, intended or otherwise, will be to force institutions into
direct student lending, which I do not think is in the best interest of
the students of my State or this country.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. HARKIN. I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Arkansas, once again, without
going further, I don't know why that went down $1.1 million. A lot of
times these agencies dip into reserve funds to pay salaries and
benefits and things like that. I don't know why they dipped in the
reserve funds.
I just say that even $6.8 million for the State of Arkansas, with
$3.8 million per year, is more than enough for
[[Page S7862]]
the reserve fund. And, secondly, I say that in the worst case scenario
that the Federal Government still is the guarantor. And, lastly, I just
point out that unless one is totally pessimistic about the economy over
the next 2 or 3 or 4 years, saying that everything is just going to go
down the tubes, that we are going to have plenty of money in this
reserve fund, even with this amendment.
(Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.)
Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, I just say to my friend from Arkansas, who now
has assumed the chair, that there was some mention made that this
amendment was a direct threat to the Guaranteed Loan Program and a way
of tilting it toward the Direct Loan Program. And, again, I say that
nothing could be further from the facts here, because my amendment
takes a cut of 25 percent in both the Guaranteed Loan Program and in
the Direct Loan Program. It puts them both at 3 percent. So it makes
the playing field absolutely level. It does not give one a benefit over
the other.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
I believe the Senator from Iowa has introduced a very worthy
amendment that is consistent with the overall thrust of the legislation
to provide more affordable access to college for hundreds of thousands
of American students. I hope that his amendment will prevail.
It also, I believe, compliments many other portions of this
legislation which is particularly directed at providing more
opportunities for Americans to go on to higher education.
One aspect that I think it compliments is the existing State Student
Incentive Grant Program. This is a program that has been operating for
years to provide Federal resources to local communities, to States,
which they match dollar for dollar, which provides grants and work-
study programs for students.
As you recall, last year this provision was threatened with
extinction because of no appropriations. But we in the Senate were able
to rally support by an overwhelming vote and restored this program. I
am pleased to say that the legislation that we are debating today, the
underlying bill, makes significant improvements in the State Student
Incentive Grant Program. It strengthens it, provides more flexibility
for the States. And I hope we will provide further support, not only
here but in the other body, so that we can continue to fund this very
worthy program.
Once again, this program, like the Senator's amendment, is designed
to provide particularly low-income American students access to higher
education, to make higher education more affordable.
Also, having this opportunity to speak briefly for a moment, I would
like to point out another aspect of the underlying legislation which I
think is very important, and that is the strengthened provisions for
teacher education.
I was very pleased to note that many provisions of legislation
introduced to strengthen teacher education have been incorporated in
the underlying legislation. In particular, I was very pleased to
introduce legislation under S. 1169, the Teacher Excellence in America
Challenge Act, or the TEACH Act. This legislation was based upon a
national commission to report what matters most, teaching in America,
which essentially pointed out that we have a long way to go to ensure
that every child in this country has a high-quality teacher in the
classroom. Yet, we can take steps to get us to that worthy objective.
One step we can do is to force partnerships between schools of higher
education and actually elementary and secondary schools and other
participants, essentially incorporating a model of education much like
medical education. We would never think about going to a physician that
had no extensive clinical training, yet we send young teachers into the
classroom that have barely weeks of actual classroom experience.
So I hope building on this commission's report, building on the
language of this particular legislation, that we can improve
dramatically the quality of education and teachers in this country.
Just as an aside, several weeks ago, Massachusetts conducted its
first intensive testing of prospective teachers. They found, in a
shocking way, that 59 percent of these teachers failed an examination
which was designed to test a strong 10th grader, basically focusing on
simple grammar, English, writing, and mathematics. This is a shocking
indication of how far we have to go to improve teaching in America. And
the underlying legislation has provisions which I have introduced
separately which have been incorporated which will do that.
By and large, this is an excellent piece of legislation. I, of
course, commend Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their
leadership, and Senator Coats and Senator Dodd, and all the members of
the committee. And, once again, I hope that we will quickly not only
adopt the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, but also the underlying
legislation which is a strong bipartisan attempt to further increase
and strengthen the access to college for American students. In doing
so, I think we will go a long way in keeping faith with a very
important part not only of our country, but making sure that the future
of our country is strong.
With that, I yield back my time.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the hour is getting late. I doubt too many
Members are listening to this debate. I will be brief because I know we
want to move on to get these amendments finished so we can begin
voting. I would like to just briefly respond regarding this amendment.
And I will not repeat the benefits that flow to students under this
legislation. Senator Jeffords of Vermont outlined those benefits:
almost $10 billion in new student benefits paid through extensive loan
provider cuts and other means over a period of years.
I think it is important to recognize that students benefit greatly
from this legislation. It is kind of ironic that we are spending this
amount of time debating a bill that came out of committee on a
unanimous vote, 18-0. We felt we had a bipartisan package put together
that would sail through the Senate here, but we are obviously tied up a
little bit on some of the provisions. Hopefully, we can resolve some of
them.
I think it is important to recognize that what those of us who oppose
the Harkin amendment are doing, as we have done on a number of other
amendments, is trying to preserve a viable, competitive system in terms
of providing service and collection and the provision of loans to
students. There has been a concerted effort over the past 6 or 7 years
to eliminate the private sector loan program in favor of a full
Federal-run program. There were efforts to take it to 100 percent.
Those were thwarted after a lot of contentious debate under previous
Congresses.
But I thought at least finally we had settled on the concept that
competition is good, competition within the system is good, and we
ought to have two programs side by side--a direct loan program run by
the Federal Government, the Department of Education; and a private
program that was operated in the private sector, involving guarantor
agencies and banks and others that provided students benefits for
years. And it was, of course, backed by the Federal guarantee. But it
operated pretty well. There were concerns that those guarantor agencies
were reaping too much benefit from that particular program.
So over the last several years there have been a variety of measures
enacted which substantially reduce the fees that go to the guarantor
agencies. This bill takes $500 million from the guaranty agencies to
pay for student benefits. Between 1993 and 1997, revenue to student
loan guarantors was cut by $2 billion. That is $2.5 billion we have
taken out. Student loan guarantors get back another $1 billion in
reserves over the next 5 years under the Balanced Budget Act that the
Congress entered into last year. As a consequence of that, the concerns
that were raised by the Senator from Arkansas become very real.
Ten student loan guarantors have ceased operations due to increased
[[Page S7863]]
risk, declining revenues. The Alabama Commission on Higher Education,
Delaware Higher Education Loan Program, Maryland Higher Education Loan
Corporation, Mississippi Guaranteed Student Loan Agency, Ohio Student
Loan Commission, Puerto Rico Higher Education Assistance Corporation,
the State Education Assistance Authority of Virginia, the State Student
Assistance Commission of Indiana, the Student Loan Funds of Idaho, and
the Virgin Islands Board of Education have all ceased operations.
I don't think it is possible to accurately predict just which future
agencies will go out of business as we keep squeezing the private
sector and keep expanding benefits and provisions through the public
sector, but a list has been put out that guaranty agencies would fail
in a number of States over the next several years if the Harkin
amendment is adopted and if the process of continuing to impose
restrictions and squeezing the revenues of the private sector so they
can't compete equally with the public sector continue to be enacted.
Now, the ultimate decisionmakers shouldn't be Members of Congress or
the Department of Education. The Department of Education, obviously,
has a bias in favor of expanding their scope in this program and
becoming the only provider. That is what their intent was originally.
That is what they have been working for. They have had the support of
some Members of Congress on that.
I think we ought to go back to some basic philosophic understandings
of what it is in this country that has proven over time to provide the
most effective service and benefits at the most effective cost. And it
hasn't been the Federal Government. You can't point to agencies of the
Federal Government--whether it be Post Office, which used to be under
the Federal control, but now is semi-independent--you can't point to
any agency and compare it to a private agency and say the Federal
Government is a more efficient provider of services at a more effective
cost.
I remember asking the First Lady when she presented the Clinton
health care plan, I said, ``Mrs. Clinton, you have done a lot of work
on this particular plan, but there is, in my opinion, a faulty
assumption underlying the entire proposal, and that is that the Federal
Government can provide services more efficiency and cost effectively
than the private sector.'' I said, ``In my experience here in
Washington, I haven't come across any Federal Government program that
has been able to do that. When matched head to head, they haven't been
able to do that.'' The reason they haven't is because they don't have
to compete. They don't have stockholders to whom they are accountable.
They don't have a bottom line they have to reach. They simply turn to
Congress for additional funds to fund whatever service they are
providing. The very nature of bureaucracy and the very nature of
monopoly leads to the inevitable conclusion that the taxpayer loses in
the long run when the services aren't provided.
So here we are yet again with yet another amendment designed to put
the private sector at a less competitive advantage. As I said, the real
decisionmakers in this process ought to be the users of the product.
And the users of the product are the schools.
Despite credible efforts by the Department of Education, in fact,
some fairly heavy-handed tactics in some cases, two-thirds of all
students choose to use the private sector to provide their loans and
only one-third choose to use the Department of Education. The
Department of Education, even within that one-third, which is less than
what they had planned for, is having trouble even providing effective
services to that one-third.
Let me refer to a GAO account which gave failing marks to the Federal
Government and a number of Federal credit programs. Their report is not
news to anyone who has followed the debacle that has occurred at the
Department of Education in administering the Direct Loan Program.
During its first 5 years, institutions have been unable to fully
reconcile disbursements received in Federal funds. There have been cost
overruns estimated at $40 million, despite ongoing problems in the
Direct Loan Program and their attempts to protect it, either through
the imposition of additional fees, cuts, additional revenue squeezes on
the private sector, and additional protections for the Direct Loan
Program.
So I think putting aside the intricacies of this program and whether
there was an origination fee or an insurance fee, whether there is
enough in the reserve fund for 5 years or 3 years or whatever, we ought
to go back to the basic premise of, do we want to substantially expand
the role of a department of government which has not proven itself an
efficient administrator of these services, which has not proven itself
as an entity capable of providing services in an efficient manner?
But if we are not going to do that, do we at least want to have a
viable, competitive process, whereby the users of the product can make
the choice? I think that is really what this is all about. We need to
remember that last year's bipartisan balanced budget agreement called
for the preservation of two healthy loan programs and that if there
were cuts, those cuts should be equally divided between those two
programs. That has not happened under the Harkin amendment. The cost of
the 25-percent reduction that the Senator from Iowa is talking about
doesn't come out, it is not equally divided between the Direct Loan
Program and the FFEL Program, the entire cost savings comes out of the
FFEL Program.
So it is a violation of what the agreement was last year, the
balanced budget agreement. It violates the principle of that agreement
by taking the fee from the private sector program and using it to cover
the cost of loss of revenue in the public sector program that results
from the change that occurs under the Harkin amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Harkin amendment, preserve
the benefits and the balance that was created by the committee,
supported by the committee in an 18-0 vote, and move forward with this
education program that I think is important for our students and
important for education initiatives that are in it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe we are reaching conclusion on this amendment.
It is my intention to make a few comments and then I believe Senator
Harkin will close in a few minutes.
In the interim, let me first make a very few comments. We are
comparing apples and oranges here and you can make the apples look bad
if you want to because you can't compare the oranges. The ``oranges''
are the direct lending program. It is a great one to cover things up.
What you do when you lend out the money is create an accounts
receivable on your ledger sheet. It doesn't show up anywhere regarding
who doesn't pay back; it just shows up who does pay back. So it is very
hard to trace where the losses are. On the other hand, the private
sector one is a balanced one, with the student paying a 1 percent
insurance fee which helps take care of default. The lenders absorb 2
percent of the cost of defaults, which helps, and the guaranty agencies
absorb 5 percent, and the Federal government absorbs the remainder,
which balances out and provides the money to pay for the default. So
you can't really compare the two programs. You can make this one look
bad because you don't know what the other program has done. There is no
way of telling.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of
Senator Harkin, the Harkin amendment be set aside, that Senator Kennedy
be recognized to offer his amendment, that there be 30 minutes equally
divided on the Kennedy amendment, and that no second-degree amendments
be in order. I further ask that upon the conclusion of debate on the
Kennedy amendment, votes occur first on the Kennedy amendment, and then
on the Bingaman amendment, and finally on the Harkin amendment, and
that there be no second-degree amendments to any of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes, equally divided, of debate between the votes for an
explanation of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. On the unanimous-
consent agreement just propounded, did
[[Page S7864]]
that include the yeas and nays on all of the amendments?
Mr. JEFFORDS. No, it did not.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for
the yeas and nays on the three amendments with one show of seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. So for the information of all Senators, Mr. President,
we expect three votes to occur at about 9:45 or 10 o'clock, first on
the Kennedy amendment, then the Bingaman amendment, and then on the
Harkin amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will wrap up my comments on the
amendment I offered. Again, Mr. President, I listened to the Senator,
my good friend from Indiana, talk about schools choosing to stay out of
the Direct Loan Program. Well, I point out that in the first 2 years
there was a tremendous increase in schools joining the Direct Loan
Program. But then in 1995 Congress began to make all of these threats
about ending or killing the Direct Loan Program. So what has happened
is that schools are apprehensive about whether or not they want to keep
the Direct Loan Program, and that put a dampening effect on the
tremendous growth we had in the first couple of years.
Secondly, I can't help but be somewhat amused by all this talk about
the private sector--the private sector involved in these students
loans. We want this private sector to keep going --this private sector.
Let me point out, Mr. President, that the ``private sector'' involved
in this Guaranteed Loan Program gets a subsidy from the taxpayers of
this country to the tune of $7.5 billion a year. That is right--this
private sector enterprise gets a subsidy from the Federal Government
every year of $7.5 billion. Private sector? Hardly. Subsidized sector?
Yes.
So all of this talk about this private sector out there in the
Guaranteed Loan Program is nonsense. Now, if you want to make it
private sector, let's not give them any subsidies. Let's knock out the
$600 million to lenders for the special allowance payment. Let's knock
off the $3 billion to cover defaults. Let's knock off the $2.5 million
for interest subsidy for students. Knock off all that stuff--the $7.5
billion a year in subsidies that we put out for the guaranty loan
agencies. If you want to talk about competition, that is fine; I don't
mind having competition. In fact, it might be pretty good. But let's
keep it balanced.
The point is that this amendment that I have offered for the students
cuts their taxes by 25 percent on both the Guaranteed Loan Program and
on the Direct Loan Program. It cuts it by 25 percent on both. It keeps
them both even in that regard. So if you want to keep competition, I
say vote for my amendment. You get a tax cut for the students, which
allows them to buy textbooks, and it keeps the Direct Loan Program and
the subsidized, private sector Guaranteed Loan Program in balance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes, equally divided, on the Kennedy amendment.
Amendment No. 3119
(Purpose: To provide for market-based determinations of lender returns)
Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 3119.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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 458, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 425. MARKET-BASED DETERMINATIONS OF LENDER RETURNS.
Part B of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 427A the following:
``SEC. 427B. MARKET-BASED DETERMINATIONS OF LENDER RETURNS.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) in the field of consumer lending, market forces have
resulted in increased quality of services and decreased
prices, and more extensive application of market forces to
the Robert T. Stafford Federal Student Loan Program should be
explored;
``(2) Federal subsidies to lenders making or holding loans
made, insured, or guaranteed under this part should not
exceed the level necessary to ensure that all eligible
borrowers have access to loans under this part;
``(3) setting the level of lender returns necessary to
achieve the objective described in paragraph (2) in statute
is necessarily inexact and insufficiently flexible to respond
to market forces, and therefore lender returns should be
determined through the use of market-based mechanisms;
``(4) alternative market-based mechanisms must be tested
before a final selection is made as to the particular
mechanism to be used for all loans made, insured, or
guaranteed under this part;
``(5) the results of testing alternative market-based
mechanisms should be evaluated independently; and
``(6) if the independent evaluation concludes that the
testing of alternative market-based mechanisms has been
successful, a market-based mechanism to determine lender
returns on all loans made, insured, or guaranteed under this
part should be implemented as expeditiously as possible.
``(b) Joint Planning Study To Select Auction-Based
Mechanisms for Testing.--
``(1) Planning study.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
the Treasury jointly shall conduct a planning study, in
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, the
Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office,
and other individuals and entities the Secretary determines
appropriate, to--
``(A) examine the matters described in paragraph (2) in
order to determine which auction-based mechanisms for
determining lender returns on loans made, insured, or
guaranteed under this part shall be tested under the pilot
programs described in subsection (c); and
``(B) determine what related administrative and other
changes will be required in order to ensure that high-quality
services are provided under a successful implementation of
auction-based determinations of lender returns for all loans
made, insured, or guaranteed under this part.
``(2) Matters examined.--The planning study under this
subsection shall examine--
``(A) whether it is most appropriate to auction existing
loans under this part, to auction the rights to originate
loans under this part, or a combination thereof;
``(B) whether it is preferable to auction parcels of such
loans or rights, that are similar or diverse in terms of loan
or borrower characteristics;
``(C) how to ensure that statutory, regulatory, or
administrative requirements do not impede separate management
and ownership of loans under this part; and
``(D) what is the appropriate allocation of risk between
the Federal Government and the owners of loans under this
part with respect to interest rates and nonpayment, or late
payment, of loans;
``(3) Mechanisms.--In determining which auction-based
mechanisms are the most promising models to test in the pilot
programs under subsection (c), the planning study shall take
into account whether a particular auction-based mechanism
will--
``(A) reduce Federal costs if used on a program-wide basis;
``(B) ensure loan availability under this part to all
eligible students at all participating institutions;
``(C) minimize administrative complexity for borrowers,
institutions, lenders, and the Federal Government; and
``(D) facilitate the participation of a broad spectrum of
lenders and ensure healthy long-term competition in the
program under this part.
``(4) Report.--A report on the results of the planning
study, together with a plan for implementing 1 or more pilot
programs using promising auction-based approaches for
determining lender returns, shall be transmitted to Congress
not later than April 1, 1999.
``(c) Pilot Programs.--
``(1) Authorization.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, after the report described in subsection (b)(4)
is transmitted to Congress, the Secretary is authorized, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to begin
preparations necessary to carry out pilot programs meeting
the requirements of this subsection in accordance with the
implementation plan included in the report.
``(B) Determination.--Before commencing the implementation
of the pilot programs, the Secretary shall determine that
such implementation is consistent with enhancing--
``(i) the modernization of the student financial assistance
delivery systems;
``(ii) service to students and institutions of higher
education; and
``(iii) competition within the program under this part.
``(C) Implementation date.-- The Secretary may commence
implementation of the pilot programs under this subsection
not earlier than 120 days after the report is transmitted to
Congress under subsection (b)(4).
[[Page S7865]]
``(D) Duration and loan volume.--The pilot programs under
this subsection shall be not more than 2 years in duration,
and the Secretary may use the pilot programs to determine the
lender returns for not more than 10 percent of the annual
loan volume under this part during each of the first and
second years of the pilot programs under this subsection.
``(2) Requirements.--In carrying out pilot programs under
this subsection, the Secretary--
``(A) shall use auction-based approaches, in which lenders
bid competitively for the loans under this part, or rights to
originate such loans (such as a right of first refusal to
originate loans to borrowers at a particular institution, or
a right to originate loans to all such borrowers remaining
after a right of first refusal has been exercised), as the
Secretary shall determine;
``(B) may determine the payments to lenders, and the terms,
applicable to lenders, of the rights or loans, as the case
may be, for which the lenders bid; and
``(C) shall include loans of different amounts and loans
made to different categories of borrowers, but the
composition of the parcels of loans or rights in each auction
under a pilot program may vary from parcel-to-parcel to the
extent that the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(3) Voluntary participation.--Participation in a pilot
program under this subsection shall be voluntary for eligible
institutions and eligible lenders.
``(4) Independent evaluation.--The Secretary shall enter
into a contract with a non-Federal entity for the conduct of
an independent evaluation of the pilot programs, which
evaluation shall be completed, and the results of the
evaluation submitted to the Secretary, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and Congress, not later than 120 days after the
termination of the pilot programs under this subsection.
``(d) Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--As part of the planning study and pilot
programs described in this section, the Secretary shall
consult with lenders, secondary markets, guaranty agencies,
institutions of higher education, student loan borrowers,
other participants in the student loan programs under this
title, and other individuals or entities with pertinent
technical expertise. The Secretary shall engage in such
consultations using such methods as, and to the extent that,
the Secretary determines appropriate to the time constraints
associated with the study and programs. The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to such
consultations.
``(2) Services of other federal agencies.--In carrying out
the planning study and pilot programs described in this
section, the Secretary may use, on a reimbursable basis, the
services (including procurement authorities and services),
equipment, personnel, and facilities of other agencies and
instrumentalities of the Federal Government.''.
On page 457, line 23, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as
the Secretary of Education may otherwise provide under
section 427B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the''.
On page 505, strike line 5 and all that follows through
page 506, line 16.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have a half hour
evenly divided, and I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. President, this was a very good segue--listening to the comments
of my friend and colleague from Iowa--to the amendment which I propose
this evening and which has the administration's support.
The amendment I am offering will enable the Department of Education,
working with the Secretary of the Treasury, to conduct a pilot program
on methods to rely on competition to set interest rates on student
loans. The results of this pilot program will be reported back to
Congress within 120 days after the end of the test, and Congress must
act again before any further action to implement competition on a wider
scale.
The bill currently calls on the Secretary to study the feasibility of
using competition. That is too little and too late. It is a further
delaying tactic. My amendment takes the reasonable step of authorizing
a pilot program to see how competition would work in practice.
The obvious way to use competition is through an auction. Under this
amendment, up to 10 percent of the loan volume can be auctioned in each
of 2 years. Students will be protected with the same low interest rate
in the bill, and access to loans will continue. Colleges will
participate on a voluntary basis. No one will be forced to be part of a
pilot project. After the pilot is completed, an independent entity will
evaluate the results and submit them to the Department of Education,
the Treasury, and Congress. For example, one type of auction could
invite lenders to offer loans to all eligible students at a college, or
a group of colleges; or a State could originate loans for students at
colleges in the State and auction the loans afterward, with excess
subsidies returned to the Federal Government.
The pilot project would be able to assess the practical problems, if
any, in this procedure. In fact, there is already experience to build
on. Loans for students in the health professions were conducted by
auctions. Before the initial auction, the interest rate was based on a
91-day Treasury bill rate plus a premium of 3 percent. At the final
auction, the premium was 1.5 percent--a significant cut in the interest
rate that brought major savings for the students. According to the
Treasury, lenders will make an average return of 16 percent on student
loans under this bill, a higher rate of return than their historic
rates of return on their other assets, even though these loans are
guaranteed by the Federal Government and therefore have no risk to the
banks.
As the Congressional Budget Office analysis of March 30, 1998,
concludes, ``banks do not require the same returns on FFELs that they
require overall, since federally guaranteed student loans are less
risky than the average bank asset.'' The excessive cost to the taxpayer
of these artificially high interest rates is at least $1 billion over
the 5 years.
Mr. President, we all know what is going on here. A Washington Post
editorial of March 18 is titled ``Stared Down by the Banks,'' and it
pulls no punches and it accuses Congress of being intimidated by the
banks. A USA Today editorial of March 23, 1998, is titled, ``Banks
Acting Like Bullies''--too much subsidies for the banks. Clearly, we
should let competition set the interest rate, not Congress.
As the Los Angeles Times said in its editorial on June 5, ``Congress
should tackle the 'larger problem: the lack of competition in the
student loan system.''' This amendment that I am offering this evening
is a worthwhile pilot program that can help do so.
Competition can work and will work to save Federal dollars and save
dollars for college students as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the various Federal programs that are involved in this kind of a
competition.
Examples of How Auctions Are Used in Federal Programs
Treasury Securities.--Treasury auctions bills, notes, bonds
and inflation-indexed notes and bonds in a sealed-bid
auction. Bidders bid an interest rate and loan volume they
would like at that rate. But no bidder can win more than a
certain percentage of the total put up for bid.
Noncompetitive bidders can submit pre-auction bids for a
given volume for which they'll accept the auction-determined
interest rate. Treasury usually uses discriminatory-price
auctions by giving each bidder the rate they bid, but it has
also experimented with uniform auctions in which all winners
get the highest winning rate.
HUD Loan and Real Estate Asset Sales.--HUD and FHA auction
defaulted mortgages, and bidders may bid on any number of
mortgages. Because any combination or all of the auctioned
items can be bid on together, there is likely overlap in the
mortgage packages submitted by each bidder. To address this
problem and to be able to determine which combination of bids
would optimize value for the government, an Auction
Optimization Model was developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories.
The computer model is used to select the winning bids based
on total revenue for the government.
Health Education Assistance Loans (HEAL).--HHS conducts a
sealed-bid auction in which bidders bid an interest rate and
loan volume they would like at that rate. The low bidder and
all others within a certain tolerance of the low bid win the
right to make loans. In the case of single winners, schools
would not have a choice in that given year and might have to
deal with different lenders in each year. In the case of
multiple winners, each bidder would have to compete to make
as many loans as they can, though it would probably be less
than their originally bidded volume.
FCC Wireless Spectrum Auctions.--The FCC conducts sealed-
bid auctions for spectrums in which hundreds of markets are
determined simultaneously. After each round, bidders see the
prevailing price in each market and can place a bid in the
next round in markets they had not bid for previously. The
auction does not end until no more bidders want to make
higher bids in any market. Telephone service provision is
also auctioned in certain areas, including relatively
unprofitable parts of areas. Though results have been mixed,
most auctions have gone well.
Elk Hills Oil Field of the Naval Petroleum Reserve.--Elk
Hills was one of the federal government's largest
privatization efforts, with the sale completed in February of
1998.
[[Page S7866]]
The process involved getting five independent evaluators to
determine the value of the property before publishing the
offer and collecting proposals from potential bidders. Due
diligence and close attention to transfer documents were
components of the many legal and technical steps. The bid
evaluation incorporated negotiations with the three
finalists on terms beyond the payment, such as
environmental indemnity issues, and ultimately a single
winner was selected.
WIC Infant Formula Bidding Process.--WIC purchases of
infant formula comprise more than half of all formula sales
within the U.S., and in an effort to ensure competitive
pricing, in 1989 the federal government began requiring
states to establish competitive bidding processes. The firm
offering the lowest net price to the state or cluster of
states wins the exclusive right to sell infant formula to WIC
participants, and that firm is then billed by the state WIC
agencies for rebates on formula purchased with WIC vouchers.
Under this system GAO reports that after accounting for
rebates in 1996, WIC agencies paid 85 percent less than the
wholesale price for formula, on average, allowing WIC to be
extended to an additional 1.7 million persons each month.
EPA Pollution Rights.--EPA's acid rain program holds an
annual auction of a Special Allowance Reserve of
approximately 2.8 percent of total allowances, conducted by
the Chicago Board of Trade. In addition to providing an
additional means of obtain allowances (each equal to one ton
of annual SO2 emissions), the auction also
importantly establishes a market price signal. Allowances are
sold from the Reserve before private holdings are sold.
Anyone--including public interest and environmental groups--
can participate in the bidding on and trading of allowances.
Spot (for that year) and advance (not usable for seven years)
allowances for SO2 emissions are available through
the auction, and allowances may be bought, sold, banked, or
retired. This auction appears to use discriminatory pricing
rather than uniform pricing.
Resolution Trust Corporation.--RTC auctions collateralized
and uncollateralized assets. For example, in a recent
competitive (sealed) bidding process, approximately 1100
assets were divided into 30 pools based on asset type and
region. A financial advisor and due diligence contractor
scrubbed the relevant files and collected data to establish
values and reserve prices for each asset. This information,
recorded in CD-ROM format, was made available to the public,
which had four weeks to review it. Bids on the 30 asset pools
were received at a centralized New York clearinghouse over a
two-day span. Based on the best and final bids, the $450
million sale yielded 87 cents on the dollar rather than the
75 cents that the portfolio had originally been valued at.
Oil and Gas Sales on the Outer Continental Shelf.--After
determining to lease the tracts, they are advertised in the
Federal Register in an open bidding process. Potential
investors send their checks; after the highest bidder is
notified of their acceptance, the other checks are returned
to the unsuccessful bidders. At this point, the government
conducts its own assessment of the value of the oil and gas
reserves, based on geological and mineral information
provided by the successful bidder, to make sure the bidded
amount meets or exceeds the government estimated value.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--The USDA solicits bids
from producers for enrollment of acres into the CRP. Bids are
accepted based on a formula that accounts for the
environmental for each dollar from enrollment (i.e., if a bid
is accepted, the government pays farmers rental payments for
10 years to idle their land and put a conserving cover crop
on it).
Timber Sales.--The Forest Service auctions off the rights
to timber companies to cut designated areas in National
Forests. After an offer of sale describing the timber and the
sale terms is publicized, a sealed-bid process takes place.
Non-price related terms of the sale, including environmental
concerns, are all set by the government, so the highest
bidder wins the auction.
Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--The USDA establishes
prices and bonus levels based on their estimates of the going
market rates, and then accepts bids from exporters. However,
rather than bidding against each other in a true-market
scenario, exporters are really only bidding against the
government-set price and bonus level, and they have the
option of coming back with successive new bids until they hit
the USDA-determined price levels.
Mr. KENNEDY. We obviously have the Treasury securities that are
involved in these kinds of competitions. The HUD loans; the FHA auction
on mortgages is a competitive bid; the HEAL loans, the Health Education
Assistance Loans; the FCC wireless spectrum auctions. We had a long
debate on what was going to be the best way to protect the taxpayer.
And the decision by the Congress was to have the spectrum auctions. Elk
Hills Oil Field of the Naval Petroleum Reserve was auctioned. WIC,
infant formula, there was a bidding process and auctions; EPA pollution
rights are auctioned off. The Resolution Trust Corporation relied on
auctions, and the auctions were, in their view, based on their best and
final bids. The last auction that went off was typical. The $450
million sale yielded 87 cents on the dollar rather than the 75 cents
that the portfolio had originally been valued at, and was returned to
the Treasury. Oil and gas sales on the Outer Continental Shelf were
auctioned off. Conservation Reserve Program auctioned off; timber sales
auctioned off; Export Enhancement Program auctioned off.
These are existing Federal programs that use the auction system to
provide the best kind of protection to the taxpayers, and in this case
to the students.
But this particular amendment says, with the urging of the
Administration, let's have a pilot program independently evaluated, the
result of which is submitted to the Congress, the Administration, and
made public. Then the Congress can make a judgment on this matter.
I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle who talk about
market forces and are constantly lecturing Members will support this
very modest recommendation. This amendment is built on market forces
and built on competition. It follows the kinds of recommendations which
the U.S. Government has accepted in terms of auctions.
All we are doing is saying let's have a pilot project and test how
this program would work in terms of protecting student loans. We have
had debates here tonight on the level of interest rates. We have had
debates in our committee on the level of interest rates. Let us try in
terms of protecting students to give them the best deal that they can
possibly have, and use these resources to make a major difference in
reducing the cost of higher education in this country.
I reserve the remainder of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being
offered by my colleague Senator Kennedy. While I share his interest in
exploring mechanisms for improving the delivery of student loans, as
chairman of the Labor Committee, I strongly oppose his effort to
provide the Department of Education--whose desire to disadvantage the
FFEL program has been aptly demonstrated--with unbridled authority to
conduct an experiment on the FFEL program.
The impetus for this concept arose out of the lengthy deliberations
we have had over the past eighteen months about setting the appropriate
interest rate for students and lenders. In 1993, when the Student Loan
Reform Act was being drafted, its authors--including Senator Kennedy--
anticipated that the Federal government would shift entirely from the
FFEL program to the Federal Direct Loan program. A transition provision
was included in the law which changed the way that student loan
interest rates were to be calculated effective July 1, 1998. This
change was primarily intended to reflect the budget scoring needs of
the Direct Lending program. The consequences for student borrowers in
the FFEL program, however, would have been dramatic.
There is general agreement that, if the interest rate that was set
for July 1, 1998 and which was delayed until October 1, 1998 is allowed
to go into effect, it will become unattractive for lenders to
participate in the FFEL program.
S. 1882, as reported from the committee, confronts the challenge of
trying to provide students with the lowest viable interest rate on
their student loans while ensuring sufficient lender participation to
preserve open and full access to student loans. After nearly a year of
consultation with students, lenders, representatives of the higher
education community, the administration and financial services experts,
the committee put forward a compromise interest rate package.
This package sharply reduced lender yield by 30 basis points while
allowing students and their families to enjoy the lowest interest rates
in nearly twenty years. The process of developing this package was long
and difficult and the stakes were very high. While by no means perfect,
the bipartisan compromise meets the twin challenges of low rates for
students and continued stability in the FFEL program.
[[Page S7867]]
As I wrestled with my desire to balance the twin objectives of
reducing the interest rate paid by students and preserving access to
loans under the FFEL program, I encountered several budget analysts who
were interested in using market-based mechanisms to establish student
loan interest rates.
It became clear to me, however, that market-based mechanisms, while
attractive a first blush, quickly reveal themselves to be far more
complicated to design and implement than is ever fully appreciated.
These analysts, who often focus only upon economic considerations,
often fail to recognize that student loan programs are designed
primarily to offer a social benefit--that is, to offer loans, at
reasonable rates, to students without respect to credit history,
educational program, loan size, geographic location, or potential as a
consumer of future credit products. Market-based mechanisms, if they
are to be implemented, must be carefully designed to ensure that all
students continue to have equal access to student loans without regard
to any particular characteristics of the borrower or their program of
education.
Further, any changes to the delivery system for the FFEL program,
must strive to preserve the high level of service that students and
institutions of higher education currently enjoy. Under an auction
model, schools and borrowers may be forced to deal with a different
lender and servicer each year. Regional lenders in small states may
lose the ability to participate in the program. Students may lose the
ability to select the lender of their choice. And equally important,
particularly in light of the collapse last year of the Department's
loan consolidation program, students may find themselves forced to make
payments to myriad lenders each of whom has different practices and
procedures. An auction, improperly designed, could add new and
unintended layers of complexity to the program.
As a result of these concerns, as well as concerns about the ability
of the Department of Education to administer an auction model, the
American Association of Medical Colleges and others have publicly
stated their deep reservations about moving toward a market-based
model. These issues may be resolvable but I cannot support providing
the Department with the authority to experiment on the FFEL program
until they have been studied and addressed to my satisfaction and the
satisfaction of my colleagues on the Senate Labor Committee.
In an effort to answer some of these questions, our bill directs the
Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study of the feasibility of
employing market-based mechanisms. After consultation with students,
lenders, and institutions of higher education, the Secretary of
Treasury is required to analyze the potential impact of these
mechanisms on the delivery of student aid, the implications for
students and institutions of higher education with regard to access to
student loan capital, and provide a plan for structuring and
implementing a mechanism is a manner that ensures the cost effective
availability of student loans for students and their families. This
report shall be provided no later than September 30, 1999.
It is my strong belief that any pilots, if appropriate, should only
be developed after careful study and full Congressional participation.
In this spirit, S. 1882 contains a provision directing the Secretary of
Treasury to conduct a thorough study and report to Congress on the
feasibility of designating and implementing market-based mechanisms for
setting student loan interest rates. I look forward to receiving this
report and working with the Congressional Budget Office, my colleagues
in the Senate, and all of the participants in the FFEL and Direct
Lending programs to fully assess whether or not market-based mechanisms
can contribute to improvements in the availability, cost, and
efficiency of the student loan programs.
In closing, I want to make one very important additional point. From
all of this talk, one might think that there is a crisis within the
FFEL program which we are trying to fix. The FFEL program continues to
be the program of choice of the vast majority of colleges and
universities. As a result, the higher education community has deep
misgivings about the Kennedy amendment because it is concerned that
efforts by the Department to conduct experiments upon the FFEL program
will disrupt the benefits and services that students and institutions
currently enjoy. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Indiana such time as he may
require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I just want to make a
couple points.
Point No. 1, the legislation that is before us, the base legislation,
already contains a carefully designed analysis and feasibility study of
market-based mechanisms for student loans. The Kennedy amendment goes
much further than that. We have a study in place. We will get the
information needed to make a determination as to whether or not we want
to move to an auction market-based program.
Secondly, the last thing the Department of Education needs right now
is another big responsibility. It can't handle the responsibilities it
currently has. It has not been able to successfully manage the Direct
Loan Program and the FFEL Program. Why would we want to consider giving
it something else to manage?
Let me just cite a few things from the inspector general relative to
the Department's administering of the Direct Loan Program. The IG has
concluded that audits at 16 direct loan schools found 8 major
weaknesses in 16 of those programs. They also stated that in their
audit, the weaknesses they found were representative of the majority of
direct loan schools. They said:
They are very likely to exist at these other direct loan
schools. The Department reviewed disbursement amounts
recorded at one school and found a total of nearly $300,000
hadn't been entered into the direct loan system.
The IG's report said that 3 of the 16 schools maintained excess cash
as a result of improper cash management practices.
Let me quote again from the IG's analysis of the department's
ineptness in running the programs that it has now. And I quote:
The Department does not currently have a process in place
to match specific drawdowns with specific disbursement
transactions.
The IG goes on to say:
53 percent of student status reporting was inaccurate. On
average 71 percent of student records in the national student
loan data system were inaccurate; 58 percent of transactions
were not reported by schools through the department in a
timely manner.
The IG says that today, if data is not reported timely, due diligence
and timeliness of reconciliation of loan data may be adversely
impacted.
We probably all remember, or should remember, that in the 1995-1996
academic year, 1 million applications were backlogged at the Department
of Education which caused families and students all over the country to
be put in a position where they didn't know whether they were going to
get a loan or not. Two years later, the Department sent out 2.7 million
forms to fill out and had the wrong shading on it, and therefore the
forms were not processed right, and they ended up with hundreds of
thousands of backlog as a result of that.
This goes on and on and on, the inability of the Department to handle
the one-third of direct loans that it now has. So why do we want to
throw in another major initiative at the Department of Education. Let
them at least get the initiatives that they currently have jurisdiction
for under some control. So I would urge my colleagues to join with the
chairman of the committee in defeating the Kennedy amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. What my friend, the Senator from Indiana, did not point
out is that the student loan defaults
[[Page S7868]]
were 22 percent under the Republican administration, the previous
administration, now down to 10 percent, saving hundreds of millions of
dollars a year. This debate isn't over the particular administration,
because what we are talking about is a very sound idea. Let me give you
what Mr. Petri, a Republican in the House of Representatives, said:
The amendment would end the recurring battle--he has one
that would put in place an auction program. Ours is just a
pilot program.
The amendment would end the recurring battle between
student groups and lenders over the industry on student
loans, which results in the price of the private sector
services being set by political negotiation without regard to
the actual cost of services.
This amendment has the potential of saving the American
taxpayers billions of dollars through competition for this
profitable business. Up to now, with the exceptions of in-
school interest and the overall interest cap, the banks have
always received the same interest the students paid on
interest loans.
Here is Mr. McKeon, Republican of California. This is what he says:
The gentleman is correct that up to now we have tried to
figure out how much to pay the lenders for providing student
loans in a political negotiation, and we in Congress really
have no way of knowing what the right price is.
These are two Republicans who believe in the market system:
It would be much better if we had a market process to
determine rates.
That is exactly what this amendment provides, a test, a pilot. You
can't implement it until we vote again, but a test and a pilot make
sense for the very reasons two of the most knowledgeable leaders in the
Republican Party in the House of Representatives have stated:
I am interested in working in that direction.
That is in the recent debate and discussion.
Now, Mr. President, I indicated just a few moments ago all the
different agencies of Government that use this process, the most
significant, obviously, the Treasury, the FHA, dealing with a great
deal more amount of funding than we are considering.
Finally, Mr. President, just look at this chart that I have in the
Chamber. This represents, according to the FDIC--and my good friend
from Iowa was referring to various figures. Under the proposal that we
have tonight, the proposal; that is, the bill, will guarantee the
return on equity for all commercial banks at 16 percent. This chart
here shows what the banks have made from 1958 going up to 1996, and
recently, in 1994 through 1996, it has been in excess of 14 percent.
All we are saying, for those Members of the Senate who are concerned
about the cost of higher education, is we have an opportunity to do
something and do it the old fashioned way--competition; competition,
tried, tested, utilized by other agencies of our Government and which
effectively works. At least a pilot project; let's give it a try.
Mr. HARKIN. If I could ask the Senator to yield just briefly.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield--1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator
from Iowa and 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. HARKIN. I just want to ask the Senator again on this chart--this
is outrageous--there is the return on equity for commercial banks. For
a number of years it averaged about 11, 12 percent. Now it is up over
14 percent. That is a return on equity for banks. Is the Senator saying
that this bill that we are passing will guarantee them a 16-percent
return on guaranteed student loans?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is the estimate by the FDIC. And was used by the
committee.
Mr. HARKIN. Not only do they get the 16-percent guarantee, they get a
$7.5 billion subsidy from the taxpayers of this country. So I think the
Senator is absolutely right. If they want to be private sector, let's
put it out for bid. Some years ago, as the Senator remembers, we put
the WIC Program out, the Women's Infants and Children's feeding program
out for competitive bidding, good old free enterprise competitive
bidding, and we have saved billions of dollars for the taxpayers of
this country and improved the program. I think the Senator is right on
target on this. If there is so much money floating around here, let's
put it out for bid. Let's put it out for good old free enterprise,
competitive bidding.
Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. KENNEDY. I have 1\1/2\ minutes left, I believe. Is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a total of 3 minutes left.
Mr. COATS. Could I ask a question, just ask the time? How much time
is left on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 4 minutes 6
seconds; the Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 53 seconds.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield me 1
minute on our side?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, you may have it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. We may have the makings of a real deal here. From what I
hear it is that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from
Iowa are willing to put the whole program out for bid. And if we would
take the whole program, including what is run by the public sector,
maybe we could cut a deal and just turn the whole thing over to the
private sector. Is that what the Senator is suggesting?
Mr. KENNEDY. The pilot program, yes. This is for a pilot program. We
will have to come back. But to test and put both aspects out, to have
it fair.
Mr. COATS. The Senator is extolling the virtues of the market system?
Mr. KENNEDY. That's fine.
Mr. COATS. Let's take the whole program.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am not prepared to take the whole program, Senator. I
am talking about a pilot program.
Mr. COATS. I think I have the floor, Mr. President? Do I not have the
floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana still has the floor.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask the Senator for an
additional minute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator an additional minute.
Mr. COATS. I thought I heard the proposal that the virtues of the
market system were so wonderful that the whole thing ought to be put
out into the market system, and that is probably a good idea. So why--I
don't understand; you can't have it both ways. You cannot try to
attract it into the public sector and not provide competition in the
Department of Education and yet kick everything else into the free
market.
So I am saying we may have the makings of a deal here. If the
Senators think the whole thing ought to go in the market, why, we can
probably get that done pretty quickly and it might benefit everybody.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Just for 20 seconds, Mr. President. You have to start
someplace. This is a pilot program. If the Senator--if we accept this
this evening, I guarantee we will work with the Senator from Indiana to
try to make any kinds of adjustments in any types of ways to get
whatever kind of pilot program that will accurately reflect the market
forces on student loans. Whatever way the Senator wants to, we will
work with him closely and we will look forward to his vote this
evening.
I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am reluctant to take the time. I am
enjoying this going back and forth. I just wanted to add my voice on
this. In fact, I think, what the Senator from Indiana may have just
proposed, it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of an amendment
here. Because I think a pilot program, as one who has supported
allowing institutions to make the choices on direct loans and
guaranteed loans, that is really the best way to work. Let the
marketplace work this out. I would certainly be amenable to such an
amendment here.
I think what the Senator from Massachusetts is proposing and offering
here is going to be a great asset to all of us. What we are doing right
now is guessing. This is a guessing game, and it need not be a guessing
game. So we are being asked arbitrarily here to sort of accept some
numbers, disregarding what the larger economic picture is across the
country.
And by establishing this study with a pilot program, we can come back
in 5
[[Page S7869]]
years. That is when we come back to this issue. In that window we will
be in a far better position to make a determination as to what should
be those rates and how the marketplace could work. Why shouldn't we
take advantage of that? It doesn't lock us into a particular answer one
way or the other. It just gives us the opportunity to try to see if we
can't come up with a more reliable, predictable solution as to how
these rates ought to be determined.
Given the fact that we hear from the Congressional Budget Office
that, under current rates, the banks have earned rates of return on
student loans between 16 and 35 percent--by anyone's estimation that is
excessive. That is their estimate. Analysts predict that we will lock
in generous profits. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts
that the rates of return under the interest rates in the bill will be
between 10 and 25 percent. The Treasury Department calculates an
average return under the bill of 16 percent. That is really excessive.
So by allowing a pilot program in the marketplace deciding these
factors, we are not allowing a situation that costs taxpayers a
tremendous amount. We have done so much here to alleviate some of the
pressures for students in this bill, it would be a tragedy not to take
advantage of doing something for the taxpayers who underwrite this
program. I urge we adopt this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont has
2 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. What we are faced
with here is a bill that says these are ideas we ought to study, but we
ought to have them studied not by an agency that is dedicated to
killing the program, so we give it to the Department of Treasury. We
say here is an idea; study it, and then make recommendations, and then
we can maybe go to a pilot if it looks good. You don't give it to an
agency who is dedicated to doing the program in unless you obviously
want to kill the program. And that is obviously the design here.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous
order, the question is on the Kennedy amendment, No. 3119.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--58
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Hutchison
Kyl
Moynihan
The amendment (No. 3119) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I ask all the Senators to stay in the
Chamber so we can get through the next two votes quickly. The managers
have done a good job getting us to the point where we have two more
amendments left. There is one other issue that is being worked on, and
then we would be ready to go to final passage. If the Senators will
stay close, we can get through the two remaining amendment votes in 20
minutes and hopefully be ready to go to final passage after perhaps a
brief colloquy right before final passage.
I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited
to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? Do we have any information on
how we are doing on our Patients' Bill of Rights?
Mr. LOTT. I don't believe that has come up today. We have worked on
higher education. There is a vision on the horizon of how this could be
done. I am sure we will find a way to do that in the next week.
Mr. KENNEDY. You will let us know--next week?
Mr. LOTT. Like to; unless there is obstruction or resistance.
(Laughter.)
I am sure when the time comes, the Senator may have some second
thoughts.
But at any rate, let's do higher education and then we will talk
about that.
Amendment No. 3116
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Bingaman amendment No.
3116, with 2 minutes equally divided.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to improve
the academic preparation of our teachers. This is an area of great
concern all around the country. The amendment says to States: You
should require an academic major for the people you are training to
teach in high schools--that in addition to the education course they
take, they should have an academic major. Mr. President, 32 States
already have in place this requirement.
What we are saying is that over the next 3 years each State should be
able to adopt a plan to get to this same point. It will substantially
improve the preparation of teachers at the high school level. It has
been shown to do that in the States that have adopted it. I believe
this would be a very good policy for us to adopt as part of this bill.
I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity. It will be 6 years,
again, before we pass a reauthorization of the Higher Ed Act and we
need to get on with the business of improving teaching in this country.
This amendment will help to do that.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I must oppose the amendment offered by my colleague
from New Mexico. He has done a wonderful job in assisting us in taking
a serious look at the problems we have with respect to teachers and
whether or not they have a major in the subject which they will be
teaching.
The problem with this amendment is that it mandates to the States
that they must do something. The bill itself provides incentives for
them to make sure that the people wanting to be teachers have studied
the things which they will teach. We do it by enticement and through
assistance with loan programs--with programs--whereas this amendment
would order it done.
It is a mandate, and I think it is inappropriate and that it would be
counterproductive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 74, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]
YEAS--23
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Cochran
Conrad
Daschle
Domenici
[[Page S7870]]
Dorgan
Durbin
Ford
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kerrey
Lugar
Moseley-Braun
Reed
Reid
Robb
Torricelli
Wellstone
NAYS--74
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Hutchison
Kyl
Moynihan
The amendment (No. 3116) was rejected.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3118
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the Harkin
amendment.
There are 2 minutes equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment cuts the tax on subsidized
student loans by 25 percent--from 4 percent to 3 percent. So it puts
more actual money into the pockets of students so they can buy
textbooks. It also continues to pay guaranty agencies over the next 5
years.
If you hear an argument that somehow this is going to put our
guaranty agencies at risk and jeopardize the banks, I point out that
even under my amendment by cutting this tax by 25 percent on students,
the guaranty agencies will get almost $4.6 billion over the next 5
years, more than enough to handle any contingency.
So this basically is a tax cut for students. It is supported by a
long list of colleges and student organizations. I think it is the
least we can do for our students--to give them a tax break, also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Harkin amendment. It sounds nice but it really doesn't do what was
anticipated. It saves maybe $42 a year for the students; that is, if
the program doesn't go belly up.
It undoes a very careful balance between the share of the risk that
the student takes, that the guaranty agencies take, and that the
Federal Government takes. It unbalances it. It would put about 22
guaranty agencies out of business.
The present system, which is the FFEL system, is working very well.
The direct lending is helped with competition. The last thing we want
to do is put out the system which takes care of 80 percent of the
colleges and 66 percent of all loans.
It is a dangerous amendment. And I strongly oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Iowa. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan )
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Daschle
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--56
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Hutchison
Kyl
Moynihan
The amendment (No. 3118) was rejected.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues. This has been
a long day, and we have a very important bill and we are about 2
minutes away from final passage. We just have a few little housekeeping
things to do and then we can all go home.
Amendment No. 3120
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an
amendment numbered 3120.
Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 end of title VII, insert the following:
SEC. __. RELEASE OF CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND REVERSIONARY
INTERESTS, GUAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONVEYANCE,
BARRIGADA, GUAM.
(a) Release.--The Secretary of Education shall release all
conditions and covenants that were imposed by the United
States, and the reversionary interests that were retained by
the United States, as part of the conveyance of a parcel of
Federal surplus property located in Barrigada, Guam,
consisting of approximately 314.28 acres and known as Naval
Communications Area Master Station, WESTPAC, parcel IN, which
was conveyed to the Guam Community College pursuant to--
(1) the quitclaim deed dated June 8, 1990, conveying 61.45
acres, between the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator for Management Services, and the Guam Community
College, acting through its Board of Trustees; and
(2) the quitclaim deed dated June 8, 1990, conveying 252.83
acres, between the Secretary, acting through the
Administrator for Management Services, and the Guam Community
College, acting through its Board of Trustees, and the
Governor of Guam.
(b) Consideration.--The Secretary shall execute the release
of the conditions, covenants, and reversionary interests
under subsection (a) without consideration.
(c) Instrument of Release.--The Secretary shall execute and
file in the appropriate office or offices a deed of release,
amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating
the release of the conditions, covenants, and reversionary
interests under subsection (a).
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING GOOD CHARACTER.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the future of our Nation and world will be determined
by the young people of today;
(2) record levels of youth crime, violence, teenage
pregnancy, and substance abuse indicate a growing moral
crisis in our society;
(3) character development is the long-term process of
helping young people to know, care about, and act upon such
basic values as trustworthiness, respect for self and others,
responsibility, fairness, compassion, and citizenship;
(4) these values are universal, reaching across cultural
and religious differences;
(5) a recent poll found that 90 percent of Americans
support the teaching of core moral and civic values;
(6) parents will always be children's primary character
educators;
[[Page S7871]]
(7) good moral character is developed best in the context
of the family;
(8) parents, community leaders, and school officials are
establishing successful partnerships across the Nation to
implement character education programs;
(9) character education programs also ask parents, faculty,
and staff to serve as role models of core values, to provide
opportunities for young people to apply these values, and to
establish high academic standards that challenge students to
set high goals, work to achieve the goals, and persevere in
spite of difficulty;
(10) the development of virtue and moral character, those
habits of mind, heart, and spirit that help young people to
know, desire, and do what is right, has historically been a
primary mission of colleges and universities; and
(11) the Congress encourages parents, faculty, and staff
across the Nation to emphasize character development in the
home, in the community, in our schools, and in our colleges
and universities.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress should support and encourage character building
initiatives in schools across America and urge colleges and
universities to affirm that the development of character is
one of the primary goals of higher education.
On page 379, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
``SEC. 235. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROGRAMS THAT PREPARE
TEACHERS.
``(a) Information Collection and Publication.--
``(1) Definitions.--
``(A) Within six months of the date of enactment, the
Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics,
in consultation with States and institutions of higher
education, shall develop key definitions and uniform methods
of calculation for terms related to the performance of
elementary school and secondary school teacher preparation
programs.
``(B) In complying with this section, the Secretary and
State shall ensure that fair and equitable methods are used
in reporting and that they protect the privacy of
individuals.
``(2) Information.--
``(A) State report card on the quality of teacher
preparation.--States that receive funds under this Act shall
provide to the Secretary, within two years of enactment of
the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, and annually
thereafter, in a uniform and comprehensible manner that
conforms with the definitions and methods established in
(a)(1), a state report card on the quality of teacher
preparation, which shall include at least the following:
``(1) A description of the teacher certification and
licensure assessments, and any other certification and
licensure requirements, used by each State.
``(2) The standards and criteria that prospective teachers
must meet in order to attain initial teacher licensing or
certification and to be licensed to teach particular subjects
or in particular grades within the State.
``(3) A description of the extent to which those
assessments and requirements are aligned with the State's
standards and assessments for students.
``(4) The percentage of teaching candidates who passed each
of the assessments used by the State for licensure and
certification, and the ``cut score'' on each assessment that
determines whether a candidate has passed that assessment.
``(5) The percentage of teaching candidates who passed each
of the assessments used by the State for licensure and
certification, disaggregated by the teacher preparation
program in that State from which the teacher candidate
received his or her most recent degree. States shall make
these data available widely and publicly.
``(6) Information on the extent to which teachers in the
State have been given waivers of State licensure or
certification requirements, including the proportion of such
teachers distributed across high and low poverty districts
and across subject areas.
``(7) A description of each State's alternative routes to
teacher certification, if any, and the percentage of teachers
certified through alternative certification routes who pass
state licensing assessments.
``(8) For each State, a description of proposed criteria
for assessing the performance of teacher preparation programs
within institutions of higher education, including but not
limited to indicators of teacher candidate knowledge and
skills as described in (b)(1)(A).
``(B) Report of the secretary on the quality of teacher
preparation.--The Secretary shall publish annually and make
widely available a report card on teacher qualifications and
preparation in the United States, including all the
information reported in (A)(1-8), beginning three years after
enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The
Secretary shall report to Congress a comparison of States'
efforts to improve teaching quality. The Secretary shall also
report on the national mean and median scores on any
standardized test that is used in more than one State for
teacher licensure or certification. In the case of teacher
preparation programs with fewer than 10 graduates taking any
single initial teacher certification assessment during any
administration of such assessment, the Secretary shall
collect and publish information with respect to an average
pass rate on State certification or licensure assessments
taken over 3 years.
``(C) Institutional report cards on the quality of teacher
preparation.--Each institution of higher education that
conducts a teacher preparation program that enrolls students
receiving federal assistance shall, not later than two years
after the enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of
1998, and annually thereafter, report, in a uniform and
comprehensible manner, the following information to the
State, and the general public, including through publications
such as course catalogues and promotional materials sent to
potential applicants, high school guidance counselors, and
prospective employers of its program graduates, in a manner
that conforms with the definitions and methods established
under (a)(1):
``(1) For the most recent year for which the information is
available, the passing rate of its graduates on the teacher
certification and licensure assessments of the state in which
it is located, but only for those students who took those
assessments within three years of completing the program. A
comparison of the program's pass rate with the state average
pass rate shall be included as well. In the case of teacher
preparation programs with fewer than 10 graduates taking any
single initial teacher certification assessment during any
administration of such assessment, the institution shall
collect and publish information with respect to an average
pass rate on State certification or licensure assessments
taken over 3 years.
``(2) The number of students in the program, the average
number of hours of supervised practice teaching required for
those in the program, and the faculty-student ratio in
supervised practice teaching.
``(3) In States that approve or accredit teacher education
programs, a statement of whether the institution's program is
so approved or accredited.
``(4) Whether the program has been designated as low
performing by the State under (b)(1)(B).
In addition to the actions authorized in S. 487(c), the
Secretary may impose a fine not to exceed $25,000 on a
teacher preparation program for failure to provide the
information described in (a)(2)(B) in a timely or accurate
manner.
``(b) Accountability.--
``(1) States receiving funding under this Act, shall
develop and implement, no later than three years after
enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, the
following teacher preparation program accountability measures
and publish the measures publicly and widely:
``(A) A description of state criteria for identifying low-
performing teacher preparation programs which may include a
baseline pass rate on state licensing assessments and other
indicators of teacher candidate knowledge and skill. States
that do not employ assessments as part of their criteria for
licensing or certification are not required to meet this
criterion until such time as the State initiates the use of
such assessments.
``(B) Procedures for identifying low performing teacher
preparation programs based on the criteria developed by the
state as required by (b)(1)(A), and publish a list of those
programs.
``(C) States that have, prior to enactment, already
conformed with (b)(1)(A-B), need not change their procedures,
unless the State chooses to do so.
``(2) Not later than four years after enactment of the
Higher Education Amendments of 1998, any teacher preparation
programs for which the State has withdrawn its approval or
terminated its financial support due to the low performance
of its teacher preparation program based on procedures
described in (b)(1).
``(1) shall be ineligible for any funding for professional
development activities awarded by the Department of
Education; and
``(2) shall not be permitted to accept or enroll any
student that receives aid under title IV of this Act in its
teacher preparation program.
Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment contains items that have been agreed to
on both sides, and I ask for its immediate adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3120) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no
additional amendments be in order and that further action be as
described in the order of June 25.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee substitute, as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report H.R. 6.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6) to extend the authorization of programs
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other
purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
[[Page S7872]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the
enacting clause of H.R. 6 is stricken and the text of S. 1882, as
amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 6), as amended, was ordered to a third reading and was
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Helms
NOT VOTING--3
Hutchison
Kyl
Moynihan
The bill (H.R. 6), as amended, was passed.
(The text of the bill (H.R. 6) will be printed in a future edition of
the Record.)
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend the managers of this legislation.
This is very important legislation. We needed to get it done so that
they would have time to go to conference and get it completed without
any doubt before this session ends. Students all across America depend
on it. As a former employee in a placement and financial aid office at
a university, I know how important these loan and grant programs and
work study programs are. I thank Senator Jeffords, the chairman, and
Senator Kennedy for staying with it today to get this bill completed.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate has completed
action on S. 1882. It is a good day for the Senate and a good day for
America's students and their families.
The prompt action on this measure today would not have been possible
without the concerted effort of Members of the Senate--particularly
those serving on the Labor and Human Resources Committee--and their
staffs over the past 18 months.
Each and every member of the Committee made a positive contribution
to the development and refinement of this measure. I very much value
the time, effort, and commitment they have brought to this task.
I would also like to extend my sincerest thanks to the many staff
people who sacrificed their evenings and weekends to further this
cause.
I would like particularly to recognize the efforts of Townsend Lange
with Senator Coats, Marianna Pierce, Jane Oates, and Jennifer Kron with
Senator Kennedy, and Suzanne Day and Megan Murray with Senator Dodd.
These individuals--along with my own staff members Scott Giles, Susan
Hattan, Cory Heyman, Pamela Moran, and Jenny Smulson--went ``above and
beyond'' in terms of their diligent work on each and every aspect of
this measure.
I would like also to recognize and thank the staff of other members
of the committee--all of whom have shown great dedication to this
cause:
Jackie Cooney with Senator Gregg;
Lori Meyer with Senator Frist;
John Connelly with Senator DeWine;
Chad Calvert with Senator Enzi;
Jenny Saunders with Senator Hutchinson;
Julian Haynes with Senator Collins;
Angie Stewart with Senator Warner;
Robin Bowe and Holly Hacker with Senator McConnell;
Bev Schroeder with Senator Harkin;
Deborah Connelly with Senator Mikulski;
Alexander Russo and Rena Subonik with Senator Bingaman;
Roger Wolfson and Robin Burkhe with Senator Wellstone;
Mike Egan with Seantor Murray;
Elyse Wasch with Senator Reed.
I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary assistance offered by
Debb Kalcevik, Robin Seiler, Josh O'Harra, and Justin Latus with the
Congressional Budget Office, Mark Sigurski with Senate Legislative
Counsel, and Margot Schenet, Jim Steadman, and Barbara Miles, with the
Congressional Research Service.
This process has been a collaborative and bipartisan one every step
of the way. It has produced a measure of which we can all be proud.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's
time to, first, congratulate Senator Jeffords and his staff and thank
my staff and a number of our colleagues. This is an enormously
important piece of legislation.
I didn't really have a chance in the final moments to indicate the
importance and significance of this legislation, but to the parents of
this country who may be following this discussion this evening, as a
result of this legislation, the students who will be attending colleges
after its implementation, which will be later in this year, will be
saving anywhere from $650 to $3,200 over the course of a loan. The bill
also provides for loan forgiveness for teachers, some $8,000 for highly
qualified teachers who will teach in low-income communities.
It has very, very important quality teaching training programs. This
was a high priority of the chairman. A great deal of time was taken on
it. We have scarce resources, but the resources that were available
were really targeted to strengthening the teaching and the training of
teachers. As the debate indicated, I believe there are strong
evaluation programs in the bill, and they are very, very significant.
This bill increases the Pell grant to some $5,000. Then it continues
along with some important initiatives for students with disabilities,
campus-based child care, distance education, and a range of other kinds
of initiatives, building on a very solid record.
The fact that we were able to get this legislation through in one day
is a clear indication of the very, very strong bipartisan support, and
I think the vote is a real tribute to the chairman and his leadership
and to the other members of the Human Resources Committee.
I thank my staff: Marianna Pierce who has been working on this
legislation for many, many months, over a year; Jennifer Kron; Jane
Oates; former fellows Gloria Corral, Maria McGarrity, Eileen O'Leary
and Danielle Ripich.
I also thank Deborah Kalcevik from CBO and Margot Schenet, Jim
Stedman and Barbara Miles at CRS; Mark Sigurski from the Office of
Legislative Counsel, as well as on my staff, Michael Myers.
I in particular thank Senator Jeffords and his staff. I know he has
mentioned them.
I thank Senator Coats who was very much involved in this legislation,
and his staff, Townsend Lange.
From my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd: Suzanne
[[Page S7873]]
Day, Megan Murray, MaryEllen McGuire. They were all invaluable, as was
the Senator, in working very effectively during the course of the whole
day on this legislation.
I thank Tom Harkin for his initiatives, Paul Wellstone, Jeff
Bingaman, all who were very much involved in the debate; Patty Murray,
Barbara Mikulski and other members of the committee who were active and
involved today; Jack Reed who follows in a very long and distinguished
tradition on the Education Committee in the great traditions of our
dear friend Claiborne Pell, who was chairman of the Education Committee
and made monumental contributions to the education of young people
across this country.
To all of them, I am enormously grateful. I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I see my colleague from Ohio
here, I want to add my voice to those who have spoken in praise of
Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the committee, his staff, and the
wonderful job they did in leading this piece of legislation and working
with Senator Kennedy as the leading Democrat on our side.
What we witnessed today is a wonderful example of how the legislative
process ought to work. It is hard to imagine taking on a piece of
legislation that has a 5-year lifespan to it, a higher education bill
that affects so many millions of Americans. We did this in one day in
large measure because the committee worked very closely together, Mr.
President. A lot of work went into trying to resolve issues as a
committee. There were a couple we couldn't, so we left those to our
colleagues, which is the way it should be here when you can't come to a
final resolution.
That shows remarkable leadership on the part of the chairman and the
ranking Democrat, that they can take a bill as complicated and as
comprehensive as this, one as long in duration as this and bring it to
the floor and, in the space of virtually 12 hours, provide the kind of
unanimous--it may have been unanimous, I don't know what the vote was
here--almost unanimous vote in support of the Higher Education Act for
our Nation.
I want others to know that this is a good example of how we ought to
work here. I hope others will heed this example.
For Dan Coats, who is not on the floor this evening, our colleague
from Indiana, this will be the last higher education bill he will be
involved in, as he made the decision to leave the U.S. Senate at the
end of his term. Certainly, there will be other bills between now and
when the session ends. I am certain Senator Coats feels a sense of
pride, as he should, having played a major role in the last higher
education bill he will be involved in in the U.S. Senate. I commend him
for his efforts.
Let me join in commending staff: Mark Powden for his fine work, Susan
Hattan, Scott Giles, Jenny Smulson, Corey Heyman.
Senator Kennedy's staff: Marianna Pierce did a wonderful job on the
Democratic side working on this and keeping us well informed and trying
to work out amendments during the committee process and on the floor.
____________________