[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11087-S11091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1998

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a Senator from a State with an 
excellent records of accomplishment at the secondary education level, 
but a discouraging low rate of participation in higher education, I am 
extremely pleased to rise in support of the conference report on the 
higher education act amendments of 1998. Mr. President, I have had no 
higher priority than bringing this important legislation to completion 
this year.
  I am very proud of the record of Maine's primary and secondary 
schools. We have one of the lowest high school dropout rates in the 
country, and we rank in the top third of the Nation for residents over 
25 years old with high school diplomas. More important, the academic 
achievement of our schools is impressive. Education Week's ``Quality 
Counts'' assessment found that the performance of Maine's students in 
mathematics, science, and reading was at the very top of the Nation.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, there is one dark cloud in this 
otherwise very bright and sunny picture, and that is the low rate of 
participation in higher education by Maine's high school graduates. 
That low rate results not from a lack of interest or lack of ability, 
but rather from a lack of opportunity. The legislation we are 
considering today holds the key for young people of limited means to 
get through a door that, often for financial reasons, would otherwise 
remain closed to them.
  This reauthorization of the Higher Education Act continues the 
historic commitment begun 40 years ago when Congress enacted the 
National Defense Education Act. In the NDEA, Congress stated, ``The 
security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental 
resources and technical skills of its young men and women.''
  In 1958, Congress was thinking of security in terms of the cold war 
and the recent launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union. However, Mr. 
President, this statement remains equally valid today--although the 
challenge to our

[[Page S11088]]

national security is greatly different. Today, we face an internal 
threat--not the threat of the rapidly advancing technology of a foreign 
enemy, but the quiet threat of failing to provide educational 
opportunity to all our citizens. Those deprived of that opportunity 
lose the chance to participate in our Nation's bright, technology-based 
economic future.
  Given the well-established relationship between educational 
attainment and lifetime earnings, the consequences of not affording 
educational opportunity to lower-income Americans are predictable. 
Indeed, the result is a vicious cycle, in which the income gap leads to 
an education gap, which in turn leads to an even more pronounced income 
gap. Unless steps are taken to close the education gap, one that is 
rooted in economics rather than in ability, we lock the children of 
America's lower income families into a self-perpetuating cycle of 
inadequate education and low income.
  The Higher Education Act seeks to close that education gap. It 
assumes that all qualified high school students graduating are entitled 
to higher education and strives to make this a reality through a 
program of grants, guaranteed loans, and Opportunity Programs.
  The grant programs authorized by the Higher Education Act are the 
most important part of our attempt to assure access to higher 
education. Nationwide, Pell grants have assisted millions of students 
in obtaining postsecondary education. In Maine, 15,000 students were 
awarded $24 million in Pell Grants last year. In addition, Maine 
institutions received more than $6.5 million in Supplemental Education 
Opportunity Grants, which they distributed to the most needy students.

  My strong belief in the importance of grant aid in expanding access 
to higher education has led me to introduce several bills to increase 
the level of Pell Grants for which students can qualify. One of these 
bills, the Working Students Income Protection Act, eliminated an unfair 
penalty that is imposed on low-income students who work to pay part of 
their educational expenses--just the kind of thing we ought to be 
encouraging. The bill was incorporated, I am pleased to say, into the 
Higher Education Act Amendments and, as a result, students may now earn 
$2,000 a year more before their Pell Grants are reduced.
  The act also reflects my efforts to ensure that the formula used to 
calculate the amount of a student's Pell Grant reflects the true costs 
of dependent care. As we increase the maximum level of Pell Grants, we 
approach the point at which this arbitrary cap of $750, which is in the 
current law, would limit Pell Grants to some of the most deserving 
students--those balancing caring for their children and going to 
college. The changes in the Higher Education Act will prevent such 
students from having to choose between supporting their children and 
pursuing higher education.
  In addition to Pell Grants, the Higher Education Act has provided 
funding for a joint Federal-State effort to award grants to needy 
students. This program is known as the State Student Incentive Grants 
Program. This bill incorporates a proposal authored by Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island and myself to not only maintain this important program, 
but to expand it to fund a series of other State efforts to promote 
access to higher education for low-income students. This year, for 
every dollar in Federal SSIG funds, my State of Maine is contributing 
almost $50, and the result is that 10,000 students will receive a total 
of $5 million to further their education.
  Mr. President, the combined Federal and State grant aid based on the 
Higher Education Act totals more than $35 million to students in Maine 
who are enrolled in institutions of higher education. This represents a 
direct investment in equal opportunity and bright futures for Maine 
families.
  The other major financial assistance program in the Higher Education 
Act is the guaranteed student loan program. This reauthorization 
assures that students will continue to have access to both private 
loans, as well as those that come directly from the Department of 
Education, and it establishes the lowest interest rate in 17 years for 
guaranteed student loans. This is good news, indeed.
  Mr. President, unless individuals from disadvantaged social and 
economic backgrounds aspire to higher education, no amount of financial 
aid will help them. Therefore, in reauthorizing the Higher Education 
Act, we are continuing a very successful effort by the Federal 
Government to put higher education on the radar screens of 
disadvantaged youths through the Opportunity or Trio Programs.
  In my home State, TRIO programs, such as Talent Search and Upward 
Bound, have lifted the aspirations of thousands of young people who 
otherwise never would have even considered postsecondary education. I 
am very pleased to have worked for the extension and improvement of 
these programs along with the creation of an exciting new program known 
as Gear Up, through which colleges will reach out to entire middle 
school classes.
  I have had the opportunity to visit outstanding Upward Bound programs 
at both the University of Maine at Orono and the University of Maine at 
Presque Isle. The high school students in these programs were 
enthusiastic, challenged, and so excited about their opportunities. As 
one student told me, ``No one in my family has ever been to college. I 
had no idea that college could be part of my future--Upward Bound has 
given me confidence and experience; it's opened my eyes to all sorts of 
new opportunities.''
  The Federal Government cannot guarantee equal educational 
achievement, but we can take steps and must take steps to guarantee 
equality of access by removing the barriers that prevent students from 
lower- and middle-income families from pursuing postsecondary 
education. That is the very purpose of the Higher Education Act. Its 
student loan programs have assisted countless students in overcoming 
the financial obstacles to higher education while its opportunity 
programs, such as Upward Bound, have an admirable record of breaking 
down the social and academic areas.
  Despite our successes, the statistics show that we have not yet done 
the job. The education gap still exists, and to close it we need to 
reaffirm and extend our commitment to equal access to education. 
Establishing equality of opportunity is the ultimate goal of the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998.
  The American people expect their Government to prepare our Nation for 
the next century. I can think of no better way to carry out that 
responsibility than to assist today's young people in realizing their 
full potential to become not just productive members of society but 
also the leaders upon whom America's future depends.
  I am pleased to have played a role in bringing this very important 
legislation before the Senate today. I thank the Chair and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I yield 5 minutes to Senator 
Murray, serving on the same committee, the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, I thank Senator Collins for all the work she put into this 
piece of legislation. She clearly not only has a higher education 
background but she is very committed to education. It is wonderful to 
see Senators who have her commitment, and I thank her for her work.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Minnesota 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. President, as a member of the conference committee, I wish to 
express my deep appreciation for the committee's work and its 
leadership in crafting the higher education reauthorization bill that 
is so vital to our country's future. This bill is a major victory for 
students and teachers across America. The committee provided the 
opportunity to hear from countless witnesses from across the Nation who 
testified on everything from default rates to job hunting, campus crime 
to child care.
  Mr. President, throughout the committee's effort on this bill, I 
worked to strengthen our Nation's commitment to providing the strongest 
training possible for schoolteachers. I am most

[[Page S11089]]

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 that are included in current law. I thank the chairman and the 
ranking members of both sides for their cooperation and support in 
adding these critical pieces to the bill.
  The work of the committee on the teacher education provisions is 
really very historic and is a drastic overhaul of the previous teacher 
training section. Teacher quality grants will institute State level 
reforms to ensure both current and future teachers will possess the 
skills and academic knowledge to teach children effectively in their 
assigned areas. 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 our classrooms. 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 opportunities 
and possibilities in the classroom. In order for students to tap into 
this potential and be prepared for the 21st century, they have to 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.
  We simply cannot allow students to teach our 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, 
teaching students 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 just e-mail. They must use this 
education technology to advance their curriculum and to provide their 
students with resources along the information highway.
  Last year, amazingly, just 10 percent of new teachers reported that 
they felt prepared to use technology in their classrooms; and only 13 
percent of all public schools reported that technology-related training 
for teachers was mandated by the school, the district or teacher 
certification agencies; and only 18 States required preservice 
technology training.
  This act will significantly turn those numbers around and provide our 
teachers with the training so critical to harnessing new technologies. 
So, again, I thank the conferees for their leadership on this effort. I 
also thank my colleague, Senator Wellstone, for his work on the TANF 
amendment. It is so important for literacy instruction and lifelong 
learning. I know this issue remained unresolved, and I hope my 
colleagues will listen to Senator Wellstone and will soon see the 
direct link between educational opportunities and economic self-
sufficiency.
  I believe this first generation of the new millennium will benefit 
immensely from the efforts put forth over this past year. From 
increases in financial aid, to campus security improvements, to 
technology instruction, this legislation will stand as a proud 
trademark of this Congress.
  I thank the Chair. I yield my time back to my colleague from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I 
also echo what I said. There are some Senators here who have really dug 
into the committee. The same could be said for the Chair, who is on the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee. I think this is a bipartisan 
effort. I love Senator Murray's passion for children and education. I 
say to the Senator from Washington, I think probably more people and 
more families in Washington, Minnesota, Wyoming, and the country are 
more focused on education right now than any other issue. The Senator 
has been a real leader in the area, and I thank her.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also want to thank colleagues on both 
sides. Senator Jeffords has done a great job in our committee. I feel a 
little awkward because there is a lot in this higher education bill 
that I worked on myself and with other colleagues in the committee. I 
think this is a good piece of legislation. I was pleased to vote for 
it. I am very pleased with the bill's distance education provisions, 
which I worked on a great deal. I think the Chair also is very 
interested in these issues, and we worked together on this portion of 
the bill. Distance education is very important for those of us who come 
from communities where we really still have strong rural parts to our 
States.

  I think the bill's focus on applying Pell grants to summer school is 
really important, especially for our ``nontraditional students,'' 
students who are older and going back to school. The bill's coordinated 
response dealing with violence on campus between local law enforcement 
and the institutions of higher education is real important; the bill's 
coordinated response to the problem of binge drinking also is terribly 
important.
  I think there is much in this higher education bill that is important 
for our country. I thank colleagues. I also thank Roger Wolfson, who 
has been working with me, on my staff, and has really been responsible 
for some of the good amendments that we were, working with others, able 
to incorporate into this legislation. I have not covered all in this 
legislation that I feel very strongly about.
  But I want to speak to one flaw in this higher education bill. I am 
going to speak about this with, I guess, some indignation. When we 
passed this higher education bill on the floor of the Senate, there was 
an amendment that dealt with the welfare bill, though it was an 
amendment to the higher education bill--and that is where it should 
have been. It passed 56 to 42; 11 Republicans joined Senate Democrats 
in supporting the provision. There were over 125 higher education and 
civil rights organizations that supported this amendment; there were 
strong editorials in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, Minnesota 
Star and Tribune and other newspapers around the country. As I think 
about Senators who were out here on the floor speaking about this, the 
Senator who maybe spoke with the most eloquence, certainly the 
strongest feeling, was the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford.
  Any number of Senators supported this amendment which I am about to 
describe, even though they also supported the welfare bill. I did not 
support the welfare bill. They did. I will talk about that in a moment. 
But this amendment said nothing other than this: That any State that 
wanted to would be allowed to allow a parent, a welfare parent--almost 
all of these parents are women; I think the Chair, from what I know of 
him, would agree with me that men ought to be taking more 
responsibility for their children as well--that when it comes to single 
parents, mothers--we would allow States to allow these women to 
complete at least 2 years of higher education without having any State 
penalized for doing so.
  Wyoming would not have to provide these two years, Minnesota would 
not have to provide these two years, but if Wyoming and Minnesota 
decide it would be better for these women to be able to complete 2 
years of higher education, which could be vocational-technical or 
another program like a nursing assistant program, then the State should 
be able to do that and the State would not be penalized. It would not 
count against the State meeting its work participation requirement.
  That amendment passed the U.S. Senate, and then it went to conference 
committee.
  Mr. President, this is a single photograph. It is of Troyce Williams, 
but there are a lot of women like her. This all translates into human 
terms. She is a single mother of four children who is at the 
Minneapolis Community College, a community and technical college, at 
which she is trying to get her higher education completed. There are 
many, many women like her.
  What I felt good about as a Senator was that after this amendment 
passed, we got all sorts of calls and all sorts of letters from people 
all across the country. This was an amendment that

[[Page S11090]]

would have really made a difference. It would have really made a 
difference because what a lot of people in our community colleges and 
in our higher education community were saying was that we were going to 
speak up for our students. This was a mistake we made when we passed 
the TANF. When we passed the welfare bill we probably should have been 
clear at the Federal level we would have some language that would give 
States the flexibility, if they wanted to, to allow these parents to 
complete at least 2 years of higher education.

  Now I am not going to bore anybody here today about all of the 
statistics that make the point that every single citizen in this 
country understands: If you are able to go on and complete 2 years or 4 
years of higher education, you are going to be in a better position to 
find a good job and give your children the care you know they need and 
deserve.
  This amendment passes. Then we go to conference committee. I am just 
furious about what happened in conference committee. We met, and the 
House conferees, the majority House conferees, Republicans, said no to 
the amendment, and they were not interested in talking about anything 
else by way of maybe something else we could do that would make a 
difference.
  Mr. President, it is just simply bitterly ironic that the very women 
who are on the path to economic self-sufficiency, because they are 
trying to complete at least 2 years of higher education, all too often 
get driven out of school because States feel like they will be 
penalized if they do not get these women into the workforce. Then they 
get into the workforce and they find a job at $6 an hour, and then 1 
year later they lose their medical assistance and they and their 
children are worse off. Whereas, if they could complete 2 years of 
higher education they would be better off.
  We come to conference committee and I am just going to repeat what 
happened. I do no damage to the truth, because I want to make a point 
about what is at stake here--not just on this amendment but, sort of, 
politics in our country. The Chair may not agree with me, but I get to 
speak my piece on the floor of the Senate.
  Now, the Republicans in the House come in and they say, ``We want 
this Wellstone amendment out.'' Forget my name. I am not important. 
``We want this amendment out.'' And I will not use names because there 
is no one here to debate me and that would not be fair. On the House 
side, they are not here to debate me. So the person who is kind of the 
point person in making this argument says, ``This would be a terrible 
amendment.'' And then I hear everybody saying, ``This welfare bill was 
hallmark legislation. It is the best thing we have done in a half a 
century. It is so successful that we cannot touch it--this is nothing 
less than an effort to undermine this welfare bill.''
  Mr. President, first of all, a lot of people who voted for this 
amendment did not vote for this amendment to undermine the welfare 
bill. They thought it was a modification that was needed. They thought 
that the welfare bill would work better if we allowed States to allow 
these women to complete at least 2 years of higher education. But I am 
going to make another point.
  I then turned--and for all I know the Chair was there at the 
conference committee--I turned to people who made this presentation and 
I said you keep talking about how successful this welfare bill is, and 
you talk about the number of people who are no longer on welfare, the 
number of women and children who are no longer on our welfare rolls. 
That is true; maybe 4 or 5 million fewer people.
  My question for you, since you told me how successful it is--even 
though I would rather debate this in a higher education framework, let 
me raise this question. Let me raise this question on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. We have seen a dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls. 
Have we seen a dramatic reduction in poverty? Can any of you, from any 
State, provide me with any data as to where these mothers and children 
are, what kind of jobs are these mothers receiving? What are the wages? 
Is there child care available for their 3- or 4-year-old? And when 
their first and second graders come home alone, sometimes in very 
dangerous neighborhoods, is there anybody there?
  I have said this on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am going to say 
it again. We all say how much we love children. These children count, 
too. There are children--I know, I have been in these neighborhoods--
that go home alone, now, because their mothers are working. They are 7 
years old. And they are told to go into their apartment and to lock the 
door and to take no phone calls, and don't go outside. There are 
children, when there is beautiful weather, they don't play outside 
because there is nobody there to take care of them. And these single 
mothers who are working are terrified as to what might happen to them.
  I asked my colleagues on the Republican side in the House of 
Representatives, because they eliminate this amendment, since they are 
talking about how successful the welfare bill is, could they provide me 
with data? Not one of them could; not one of them.
  I will debate anybody on the floor of the Senate, and I will debate 
anybody on the floor of the House on this question. The Swedish 
sociologist Gunnar Myrdal once said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' 
Sometimes we don't know what we don't want to know. We don't know what 
is going on in these States. We don't know what is going on with these 
mothers and children.
  I can't believe how punitive people can be. I can't believe how harsh 
they can be. Not one single argument was made against this amendment. 
Not one bit of data was presented to show that these mothers and these 
children are better off now, but they just eliminated it because they 
had the majority.
  I am not whining. I am telling people in the country that this one 
small example, one small story, tells a larger story about what is at 
stake.
  I am not out here, by the way, to defend the President's behavior, 
but I don't think the President is the issue this fall. He is not on 
the ballot. He will never be on the ballot again running for President. 
This election, I say to people in Minnesota and people around the 
country, is about you.
  I just ask, what are these kinds of priorities? Just eliminate an 
amendment to the higher education bill that allows States to allow 
women, mothers of small children, to complete 2 years of higher 
education so they and their children will be better off? Eliminated.
  Do you know that this past June, America--I think it was in June--in 
the same week this Republican majority voted to give a tax break to 
people with estates worth more than $17 million, they voted to 
eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and voted to 
eliminate summer jobs for kids? Unbelievable.
  People go to their pollsters and say, ``What are the issues people 
care about?'' The same Republicans who knocked out this amendment found 
out it is education--people care about education. They learned how to 
talk about education--I said ``talk about education''--but they have 
cut funding for education. They have cut funding for K through 12 
education.
  It is interesting. We are at a crossroads with education. We are 
going to see a dramatic increase over the next 10 years by about 10 
percent of high school students and about 6 percent of middle school 
students. The average age of our public school teacher is 50. We are 
going to need to hire about 1.3 million teachers in our country. We can 
have all sorts of men and women coming into education with creative new 
ideas, new energy, and all the rest--it is a golden opportunity--but we 
can't take advantage of a golden opportunity on a tin-plate budget.
  The same people who are in the majority in the House of 
Representatives--so punitive, so harsh, so little compassion--voted to 
deny a single parent, a mother, the opportunity to finish 2 years of 
higher education so she can do better for her children. They gave a tax 
break to people with estates worth more than $17 million, but in the 
same week they eliminated the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
so that in my cold-weather State, elderly people, families with 
children, have a choice of eating or heating, but not both. They 
eliminate low-income home energy assistance, so people go cold in the 
winter, and knock out summer jobs for kids. They give speeches about 
being for education and children and then cut the budgets.
  That is what is at stake this election. That is what is at stake. My 
strategy

[[Page S11091]]

would be for people to turn out this fall. I think the Republican 
strategy is for people to be turned off this fall, low turnout.
  I hope that from this example people in the country will realize that 
there is a lot at stake. If you care about a good education for all of 
our children, if you are committed to the idea of living-wage jobs, if 
you are committed to the idea of decent health care for every citizen, 
if you are committed to improving the standard of living for all the 
people in our country, if you believe that economic and educational 
opportunities are important, then I make this appeal to people in the 
country: Don't let people turn you off to politics.
  This election this fall is not about President Clinton. We can talk 
about his behavior at another time. Nobody needs to approve of it. I 
don't know of anybody who does. But this election, I say to people in 
the country, is about you; it is about your families. This election 
this fall--the President is not on the ballot--is about these kinds of 
issues.
  I hope people will turn out. I hope you will vote for education. This 
amendment was knocked out of the higher education bill in spite of the 
good support of Senator Jeffords. We supported it on the Senate side. I 
tell you, this Gingrich-House Republican majority agenda is harsh, it 
is mean-spirited, and if you are committed to education for children, 
make sure you vote this election. If you believe in the importance of 
health care and you think good jobs are important, just make sure you 
vote this election. If you think it is wrong in the same week in the 
House of Representatives to give a tax break to people with estates 
over $17 million and eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program and eliminate summer jobs for kids--that is exactly what this 
majority did in the House--you make sure you vote this election.
  If you are angry at people in Washington, DC, and the U.S. House and 
the U.S. Senate because you think that neither party is doing enough 
about your concerns and you think too much of our decisionmaking is 
dominated by special interest or big money or you feel locked out or 
all the rest, make sure you vote. Don't opt out. Don't let people turn 
you off. There is a lot at stake in elections in our country, and this 
is but one example.
  I will get to speak more about this after our caucuses. I see my 
colleague, Senator Graham. I wanted to start out congratulating my 
colleagues for the good work on the higher education bill.
  Roger Wolfson, thank you for your help.
  I want to tell you that what happened in the conference committee is 
just outrageous. There is nothing I can do about it, not now. I will 
bring this amendment back on the first bill I can amend. Of course, for 
the last couple of weeks there hasn't been an opportunity to amend any 
bills. I want to make sure people understand what is at stake.
  In my not too humble opinion--and the Chair is a good friend; I 
really like him, and I hope it is mutual, so I don't mean this in a 
personal way--but what is at stake in these fall elections is critical.
  I say to people in the country, this small story tells a larger 
story. I shudder at the thought of Speaker Gingrich or, for that 
matter, on the Senate side as well, there being even more of a majority 
or more power, because I think it will be an agenda that will move our 
country back 60 years. People have learned how to talk about education, 
I say to my colleague from Florida, but the budgets don't reflect that. 
On the House side, they cut funding for education. There was no action 
whatsoever on health care. There is very little concern about what I 
call some really important family-value issues, and this is but one 
example.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, is there a set time for the recess?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a set time for the recess, 12:30 p.m.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak until 12:35.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Graham are printed earlier 
in today's Record.)

                          ____________________