[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.)
____________________