[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.

                          ____________________