[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11290-S11291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong 
support for the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998.
  The Higher Education Act has been of enormous benefit to millions of 
students over the past three decades in providing more affordable 
access to institutions of post-secondary education. Many of these 
students simply would not have gone to college or vocational school 
without the assistance provided through such programs as Pell Grants, 
student loans, and work study.
  With the increased competition faced by workers in the global 
economy, the importance of these programs is even greater today, not 
only for students, but also for our nation's economy. The Higher 
Education Act programs account for 68 percent of all financial aid 
available to students. In FY 1999, the student aid programs authorized 
under the Higher Education Reauthorization Act will provide $50 billion 
of aid to over 8.8 million students.
  The cost of a college education continues to grow far faster than 
inflation, leaving more and more students with a large debt once they 
finish. Last fall, the College Board released a nationwide survey of 
tuition costs, finding that tuition and fees would rise about 5 percent 
for the fifth year in a row.
  In contrast, inflation in the overall economy has been held under 
control during these years, hovering at, or below 2 percent.
  As costs have increased, student borrowing has expanded to make up 
the difference. Student loans now comprise about 60 percent of all 
financial aid, whereas in the 1980-81 school year, loans were just over 
40 percent of the total.
  Given the increased reliance on borrowing, it is notable that this 
reauthorization legislation provides for a reduction in interest rates 
on new student loans from 8.25 percent to 7.46 percent, saving $11 
billion for students over the life of their loans. The typical borrower 
at a 4-year college, who graduates with $13,000 in debt, will save 
about $700 over a ten-year repayment period. This is a major 
educational milestone, allowing student borrowers the lowest interest 
rate in 17 years.
  Nearly 84 percent of South Dakota students receive financial aid in 
some form, with an average annual award of $5,400 to students who 
receive aid at the six public universities. Approximately 16,000 
students in South Dakota receive Pell Grants, accounting for $28 
million in federal assistance.
  I am pleased that this bill gradually increases the size of the 
maximum Pell Grant to $5,800 in academic years 2003-4. In the 1970s, 
Pell Grants covered three-quarters of the costs of attending a four-
year public school. Today, these grants cover only one-third of the 
cost. I realize that finding the budget resources to fund this maximum 
grant fully will be a struggle, however Pell Grants are the most 
effective program we have for helping low-income students afford post-
secondary education.
  This legislation also continues the essential Federal Family 
Education Loan (FFEL) program. This program alone has enabled forty 
million Americans to attend college over the past thirty years. 
Although direct lending by the federal government has consumed a 
portion of the overall student loan volume, all of the colleges and 
universities in my state of South Dakota continue to use the FFEL 
program and remain satisfied with the services they receive. 
Accordingly, I have been skeptical of efforts that might destroy the 
balance that has existed between direct lending and the FFEL program. 
Federal policy should not be changed in ways to either favor direct 
lending or undermine the financial viability of lending by the private 
sector.
  There are some lesser-noticed provisions of this bill of which I am 
particularly proud. Promoting the availability and affordability of 
child care has been one of my highest priorities in the Senate. That is 
why I am so pleased that legislation I cosponsored earlier this year, 
the CAMPUS Act, has been incorporated into this bill. CAMPUS stands for 
Child Care Access Means Parents in School. This provision will 
establish a grant program to assist colleges with the costs of 
establishing child care centers to provide campus-based child care for 
low-income parents attending college.
  The obvious benefit of easy access to child care is that students 
with young children will have a much greater probability of staying in 
school and completing their degree. More and more students today are 
non-traditional students, and the need for campus-based child care is 
greater than ever before.
  Additionally, this bill establishes an innovative new program to 
offer student loan forgiveness for those who earn a degree in early 
childhood education and become full-time child care workers in a child 
care facility. Child care, unfortunately, is one of the lowest-paying 
professions that one can find, and this low level of pay is completely 
incommensurate with the value of those who are caring for young 
children. Not surprisingly, turnover in this field is very high, as 
workers find better paying jobs elsewhere.
  It is especially tragic when highly-trained graduates, those who have 
earned a degree in early childhood education, are forced to leave the 
child care profession because they cannot pay their student loans. We 
still need to do all we can to raise wages for child care workers, but 
helping with student loan repayment is a remarkable step forward. This 
concept was included in child care legislation I cosponsored last year, 
and I am very pleased that it has been included in this bill.
  I am pleased this bill develops new distance education partnership 
models through the Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnership (LAAP) 
program. This creative initiative provides partnerships grants between 
schools and other entities to assist in the expansion of student 
achievement in distance education. LAAP, combined with the expansion of 
student aid for distance learners, will allow more nontraditional 
students to obtain higher education, including full-time workers, 
parents, people in rural areas, or individuals with disabilities.
  In addition to meeting the needs of rural America through distance 
learning, the Higher Education Act speaks to an equally important 
population of

[[Page S11291]]

students: Indian Country. This bill includes a new initiative to 
provide grants and related assistance to Indian Tribal Colleges and 
Universities to improve and expand their capacity to serve Indian 
students. The bill authorizes $10 million for FY 1999 and such sums as 
may be necessary in the years beyond FY 1999. This new initiative for 
Tribal Colleges will provide much-needed funding to strengthen academic 
programs, develop faculty, and improve student services.
  Finally, I support the extension of the Special Leveraging 
Educational Assistance Partnership Program (LEAP), formerly known as 
the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) program. SSIG provides funding 
on a dollar-for-dollar match to help states provide need-based 
financial aid to students through grants and community service work 
study awards. Without this federal incentive, many states would not 
have established state financial aid programs. As a cosponsor of the 
LEAP Act, I am pleased that states will now gain new flexibility to use 
these funds for activities such as increasing grant amounts, carrying 
out academic or merit scholarships programs, community service 
programs, and early interventions programs. This program is yet another 
example of a federal-state partnership developed to create maximum 
opportunities for students seeking higher education.
  While I am pleased with the inclusion of numerous programs that will 
benefit students pursing higher education, I am deeply disappointed the 
conference report failed to include an important amendment to count 
higher education as a work requirement for purposes of the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families program. I was a proud cosponsor of this 
amendment which enjoyed a bipartisan majority in the Senate-passed 
bill.
  Throughout this Congress, the leadership has echoed the importance of 
taking personal responsibility and achieving independence. As a 
supporter of welfare reform, I support imposing work requirements on 
individuals who receive cash assistance. However, to not allow students 
to earn a degree, a certifiable ticket to self-sufficiency, is 
irresponsible and thoughtless.
  I have heard from a number of my constituents that the current system 
has had the unfortunate effect of forcing TANF recipients out of 
college or vocational school and into dead-end, entry-level jobs. It 
seems obvious that enabling these individuals, which are usually single 
mothers, to complete a degree would be far more effective in achieving 
long-term benefits. Education leads to higher income levels, helping 
move these families out of poverty for good and making them productive 
taxpayers. Federal requirements should not be so rigid and inflexible 
that states are prevented from exercising this option. Unfortunately, 
we were unsuccessful in addressing this need in the Higher Education 
Act of 1998, however, I am committed to working with Senator Wellstone 
and other advocates to revisit this issue in the future.
  Passage of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1998 was 
absolutely essential for the continuation and improvement of a system 
that helps keep post-secondary education within the reach of typical 
American families. I was pleased with the expeditious manner by which 
Congress responded to the conference report and President Clinton's 
prompt signing of the bill.

                          ____________________