Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 117 (Monday, September 19, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 117 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10178-S10181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today in North Carolina, the Secretary
of Education, Margaret Spellings, delivered remarks that announced her
intention to create a commission to take a comprehensive look at
postsecondary education in the United States. I am here to say that
Secretary Spellings is on exactly the right track with her new
commission. The idea is an excellent one and long overdue. While the
United States has been conducting a lot of debates--many in this
Chamber--about outsourcing jobs, we have been very successfully
insourcing brain power. Insourcing brain power has been our secret
weapon for job growth. It is the main reason we have 5 percent of the
world's population and about one-third of the world's money. Our
unrivaled system of colleges and universities, together with our
national research laboratories, have been our magnet for attracting and
keeping home the best minds in the world who have, in turn, helped
provide the new jobs produced by science, who have, in turn, helped
provide half the new jobs since World War II. The National Academy of
Sciences estimates that one-half of our new jobs since World War II
have come from advances in science and technology. This secret weapon
for jobs' growth is at risk if we do not take several urgently needed
steps. Taking a comprehensive look at the Federal role in higher
education is a good first step. This should have happened years ago. In
fact, my greatest regret, as Secretary of Education under the first
President Bush, is that I did not volunteer to be the point person in
higher education in the Federal Government. Almost every Federal agency
regulates some aspect of higher education. Last year, the Federal
Government, all

[[Page S10179]]

across the board, spent about $63 billion on all forms of postsecondary
education. That includes grants, as well as what call the Pell grants,
student loans, money for research, the cost to the Federal taxpayers of
the student loans I mentioned. But despite that great interest and
despite the fact that nearly every Federal agency is involved, not just
the Department of Education, there is no one Federal official charged
with giving the President an overview of higher education.
There was a time 12 years ago--and the Presiding Officer, because of
his interest in higher education, may remember this--that the
Department of Defense was concerned about being overcharged by many of
the universities in the amount of overhead the universities were
spending in order to do Department of Defense-sponsored research. That
was a legitimate concern, but someone other than the Secretary of
Defense should have been in the room advising the President about that
because these universities, which were having to cough up money to pay
back the Federal Government, which perhaps they should have, we needed
to make sure, in our national interest, that we did not damage these
great research universities that we have because those great research
universities have been a major part of giving us the science and
technology edge that gives us our standard of living. That is what I
mean by saying there has been no one person in the Federal Government
appointed by the President to look at the whole range of activities in
postsecondary higher education, and there should be.
I am chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, a committee upon which the
Presiding Officer serves. With the consent of our committee chairman,
Senator Domenici, Senator Jeff Bingaman and I--Senator Bingaman is the
ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee--have asked the National
Academy of Sciences to recommend steps that the Nation should take over
the next 10 years so that we can keep our edge in science and
technology while we are grappling with tough budget issues. Those
hearings will begin in October. The hearings that Senator Bingaman and
I intend to conduct on keeping our edge in science and technology
should complement the work of the commission that Secretary Spellings
has established to take a comprehensive overview of higher education.
Our colleges and universities are at risk for several reasons. I am
not suggesting that we suddenly have an emergency crisis. I am
suggesting that we would be wise to look down the road to make sure we
don't have a crisis. I believe we not only have the best colleges and
universities in the world. I believe we have almost all of the best
colleges and universities in the world. When you add to that the unique
national research laboratories which we have, such as the Oak Ridge
laboratory or Sandia or a couple of dozen of those that we have, we
have an unparalleled research capacity.
Here are the reasons our colleges and universities may be at risk if
we don't pay close attention:
No. 1, State funding, the principal basis of support for higher
education traditionally grew only 6.8 percent during the last 5 years.
State Medicaid costs are squeezing State budgets. If this trend
continues, the result will be lower quality higher education and much
higher student tuition. I brought with me two charts to illustrate what
I am talking about. Here is a chart on trends in higher education
nationally over the last 5 years since 2000. State spending on Medicaid
is up 35.6 percent over those 5 years. State spending on higher
education is up 6.8 percent over the 5 years. And tuition at a 4-year
public university is up 38 percent over the 5 years. That is the State
picture.
At the same time, the Federal Government has been doing pretty well.
Federal spending on all forms of postsecondary education over those
last 5 years has risen 71.8 percent. So the picture has been that in
the States, State spending on Medicaid is up. State spending on higher
education is flat, pretty flat. And tuition at 4-year public
universities is up, way up.
In my own State of Tennessee, the situation is even more pronounced.
Tennessee's spending on Medicaid in the last 5 years is up 71 percent.
State spending on higher education during that time is only up 10
percent. Tuition at a 4-year public university in Tennessee over those
5 years is up 43 percent. Medicaid spending is way up, and State
spending on higher education is fairly flat. Tuition at 4-year public
universities is way up. That is a bad trend, if it continues over the
next 10 years.
A second reason that our university system may be at risk is that
even though Federal funding for all forms of postsecondary education
has been generous over the last 5 years, up 71.8 percent, that kind of
increase is not likely to continue as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social
Security costs put new pressures on the Federal budget. That is one
reason Senator Bingaman and I have asked the National Academy of
Sciences to suggest to us the 8 or 10 things we must be sure to do to
keep our edge in science and technology over the next 10 years. Because
while we are grappling with the budget to try to restrain the growth in
spending, we want to make sure we don't squeeze out investments in
science and technology that give us the standard of living we enjoy
today.
The next reason that higher education may be at some risk is national
security. Tight visa rules and other national security restrictions are
making it harder for the more than one-half million foreign students
and additional researchers who now come to our universities and
laboratories. More importantly, scientific conferences are being held
overseas. We have taken for granted that we have been insourcing
brains. The brightest students and researchers from China, the
brightest from India, from France, from Germany, where do they want to
go? They want to come to the United States.
When we were Governors of Tennessee and Virginia, we would sometimes
hear complaints from students who were being taught by graduate
students who did not speak English very well. But the fact is, these
brilliant people from around the world, more than a half million of
them, have come here to do the kind of work that helps us create our
high standard of living. Sixty percent of our postdoctoral students are
foreign students. One-half of our graduate students in computers,
engineering, and in sciences are foreign students.
In a way, it is a little like our natural gas problem. We are going
to be importing liquefied natural gas from overseas to try to keep our
prices down. We are already importing brainpower from overseas to keep
our standard of living up. And while we need to put a focus on
homegrown brainpower over the next 10 years, we also need to make sure
that our universities and colleges continue to be a magnet for the
brightest people from around the world.
At the same time, we have something else happening. Many countries,
including India, China, Germany, and Great Britain, are reorganizing
and improving funding for their universities and creating incentives to
keep their most talented students and researchers home. They are asking
themselves: Why should we send our brightest minds overseas to help the
Americans create a higher standard of living for themselves when they
can do it right here at home?
So we are going to be facing more competition from the Indian
Government. Chancellor Schroeder, who was visiting with us a few weeks
ago, was talking about the amount of new dollars Germany is putting
into its universities. They believe they have become overregulated,
that they have become bureaucratized, and that they have become, in
some cases, mediocre. He knows that if Germany wants to compete and
wants to have a higher standard of living, they are going to have to
have better universities that are magnets for keeping home their
brightest students and researchers and attracting the best from around
the world.
There is one red flag I would like to wave, in conclusion, about the
early reports on Secretary Spellings' decision to create a higher
education commission to take a comprehensive look at the Federal role
in postsecondary education. Some have pointed out that our system of
higher education in the United States is very decentralized, and it may
be for that reason that we are not taking a comprehensive look at
higher education.
I, for one, believe that our decentralized system of higher education
in the

[[Page S10180]]

United States is one of its greatest possible strengths. The model we
use for higher education is a very simple one. It is a marketplace
model. We have more than 6,000 institutions--public, private, for-
profit, nonprofit. They are autonomous, and we respect their autonomy.
We have generous Federal funds that follow 60 percent of our students
to the institutions they choose with Federal grants or Federal loans.
We have peer-reviewed research that goes to the very best institutions.
So I do not want to see any Federal commission that sends a signal that
we may need some Federal centralization of our control over higher
education. In fact, we need to be doing just the reverse.
I introduced earlier this year legislation that would help to
deregulate higher education, and a number of those provisions have been
incorporated into the Higher Education Act that was reported by our
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I believe our higher
education system is the best in the world because it is decentralized,
because institutions are autonomous, the Federal Government has been
generous, and the money follows the students to the institutions of the
students' choice.
I commend the Secretary of Education today for her attracting such
outstanding persons--for example, the former Governor of North
Carolina, Jim Hunt, to be a member of this commission; Charles Miller,
former chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas, to
be chairman of the commission.
I cannot think of more important work to do. We not only need to
insource brainpower, we need to home grow a lot more of our brainpower,
and if we do not, we will not enjoy this standard of living that we
have had.
I can recall last year a meeting in the majority leader's office that
Senator Frist and the Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, hosted.
It was an opportunity for several of the Senators to meet the former
President of Brazil, Mr. Cardoso. He had spent a semester here in
residence at the Library of Congress. I remember Senator Hutchison's
last question to President Cardoso. She said: Mr. President, when you
go back to Brazil, what will you take back home with you about the
United States of America?
President Cardoso didn't hesitate a minute. He said: The excellence
of the American university. There is nothing in the world like it.
That is a great compliment to our country and to our system of higher
education from one of the most erudite men in the world, the former
President of Brazil.
But the yellow flags and red flags are waving because as we look
ahead over the next 10 years, our system of higher education and,
therefore, our standard of living is at risk because of a flat State
funding, because of upcoming pressures on the Federal budget, because
of tight visa rules and other national security concerns, which are
understandable but will have this effect, and because other countries
in the world are recognizing there is no reason in the world why the
Americans should have 5 percent of the people and a third of the money.
They have the same brains we have in India, in China, in Germany, so we
will just keep our smarter people at home, they are saying, and we will
create that standard of living for ourselves.
I look forward to working with Secretary Spellings. I would like, 10
years from now when the majority leader invites the former President of
Brazil or any other President of a country to the office and we turn
around and say to that person, Mr. President, what will you take home
about the United States? I would like for that President of another
country to be able to say to us: The American university. There is
nothing like it in the world.
I believe that is true, but I believe we have some work to do over
the next 10 years to keep that truth.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Congressional
Record two charts that I referred to in my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Higher Education: Trends in State Spending and Tuition Increases

Tennessee since 2000:
Tennessee state spending on Medicaid up 71.1 percent.
Tennessee state spending on higher education up 10.5
percent.
Tuition at a 4-year public university up 43.4 percent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal spending (fiscal years) Percent increase/decrease Cumulative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- change
2000 2001 2002 2003 (percent)
2000 2001 2002* 2003 2004 to to to to (2000 to
2001 2002 2003 2004 2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Spending:
Tennessee: Total State Higher Education Appropriations (000's). $984,858 $1,039,373 1,071,515 $1,106,889 $1,008,681 5.5 3.1 3.3 -1.6 10.5
Tuition--The University of Tennessee........................... 3,104 3,362 3,784 4,056 4,450 8.3 12.6 7.2 9.7 43.4
Tennessee: State-Funded Medicaid Spending (000's).............. 1,556,000 1,901,000 2,241,000 2,381,000 2,663,000 22.2 17.9 6.2 11.8 71.1
Federal Spending:
Federal Spending on all Higher Education (all postsecondary 36,668,849 40,436,408 50,309,676 58,676,287 62,983,202 10.3 24.4 16.6 7.3 71.8
education) (000's)**..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*2002 is President Bush's first Budget covering the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2001.
**Includes Pell Grants, Other Student Aid (aid that passes through institutions or states: for example LEAP--Leveraging Education Assistance Partnerships and SEOG--Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant), Administrative costs of loan programs, Other Postsecondary Programs (e.g., Dept. of Veterans Affairs (Montgomery GI Bill), Dept. of HHS (NIH training grants), Dept. of
Defense (tuition assistance for military personnel and operation of service academies), and Federally Funded Research at Postsecondary Institutions.

Higher Education: Trends in State Spending and Tuition Increases

Nationally since 2000:
State spending on Medicaid up 35.6 percent.
State spending on higher education up 6.8 percent.
Tuition at a 4-year public university up 38.2 percent.

Total State Higher Education Appropriations (000's)................ $56,845,018 $60,690,779 $62,745,981 $62,155,526 $60,694,185 6.8 3.4 -0.9 -2.4 6.8
Average Tuition--Public 4-Year Institutions........................ 3,362 3,508 3,766 4,098 4,645 4.3 7.4 8.8 13.3 38.2
Total State-Funded Medicaid Spending (000's)....................... 77,561,000 85,620,000 96,346,000 101,807,000 105,168,000 10.4 12.5 5.7 3.3 35.6

FEDERAL SPENDING

Federal Spending on all Higher Education (all postsecondary 36,668,849 40,436,408 50,309,676 58,676,287 62,983,202 10.3 24.4 16.6 7.3 71.8
education) (000's) **.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2002 is President Bush's first budget covering the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2001.
** Includes Pell Grants, Other Student Aid (aid that passes through institutions or states: for example LEAP--Leveraging Education Assistance Partnerships and SEOG--Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant), Administrative costs of loan programs, Other Postsecondary Programs (e.g., Dept. of Veterans Affairs (Montgomery GI Bill), Dept. of HHS (NIH training grants), Dept. of
Defense (tuition assistance for military personnel and operation of service academies), and Federally Funded Research of Postsecondary.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would also like to follow my remarks
with this information from the American Council on Education that sheds
additional light on the comparison of State and Federal spending.
In 1995, the State spent $2.16 on higher education for every Federal
dollar spent on higher education. In 2000, States contributed $1.55 for
every Federal dollar spent on higher education. In 2005, States spent
94 cents on higher education for every Federal dollar spent.
So very quietly, we are seeing a major shift in how we finance higher
education. States are doing less, the Federal Government is continuing
to

[[Page S10181]]

be generous, and students are asked to do more. The insidious part of
this is that traditionally, States have been the largest part of
funding for higher education. So very quietly we see States go from
spending $2.16 for every dollar spent, which was the case in 1995, to
less than $1 spent for every Federal dollar spent, which is the case 10
years later in 2005.
That is a major shift in funding, and we in the Congress and
Secretary Spellings' new commission and the work Senator Bingaman and I
are doing with the National Academy of Sciences need to take note of
this and ask what will happen if we have 10 more years of these
financing trends.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, before I get into the third branch of
Government, I want to remark and associate myself with many of the
comments that were stated by Senator Alexander of Tennessee. I do
believe this country, for its long-term competitiveness, must interest
and encourage more young people to get involved in science,
engineering, and technology.
The fact is, 40 to 50 percent of our students in engineering schools
are from overseas. That is good. America ought to be a magnet for the
best brains in the world. I want this country to be the world capital
of innovation, and to be the world capital of innovation, we need more
young people interested in engineering, technology, and science.
I have a great concern that we are not matriculating sufficient
numbers of students in this country in areas where new inventions and
innovations and intellectual property will be created. We have about--
and I think the Senator from Tennessee will corroborate this--50,000
engineers graduating every year. India has about 150,000 engineers
graduating every year. The People's Republic of China has 250,000
engineers graduating every year.
There are a variety of things we must do in this country to be more
competitive, to make sure young people are getting a good quality
education and also develop an interest in science, technology, and
engineering. These are great-paying jobs that are important for the
security of this country, our standard of living, and our
competitiveness. Until we reverse these trends, I believe it is going
to be a problem for us in the long term. Indeed, the Senator from
Tennessee and I have worked together on a variety of issues, including
upgrading the technology capability of minority-serving institutions,
whether they are historically Black colleges or Hispanic-serving
institutions or tribal colleges.
We also have to recognize in our engineering schools that about 15
percent of the students are women, about 6 percent are African
American, and only about 6 percent are Latinos. We need to get more of
our country interested in engineering. Meanwhile, of course, we should
be attracting more students from overseas because if they come to this
country for education--and higher education. It is vitally important
for our future and the future of the young people, for these graduates
to stay in this country which I hope they do. That will continue to
make this country a leader in innovation in the transformative
technologies of the future. Whether it is nanotechnology, which is a
multifaceted discipline or life sciences or microelectronics or energy
applications to also materials engineering.
I associate myself with the remarks and sentiment of Senator
Alexander who, of course, more important than being Secretary of
Education, was also president of the University of Tennessee. Senator
Alexander understands how our very diverse and multifaceted higher
education systems in all the different States of the Union are really
crown jewels. We must work with our colleges and universities to
attract more young people--people of all ages--into technology,
engineering, and science, and also be conducive to people coming from
overseas.
I recall in our formulations hearing, when Dr. Rice was before us,
one of the points I talked with her about getting student visas working
better. Students are too queued up overseas. Visa requirements are
another impediment for students coming from countries in Europe, Asia,
or anywhere else in the world. If they are all queued up, they think,
they are not welcome in this country, it is too bureaucratic. Hopefully
the State Department will work with our Homeland Security people to
make sure quality, well-qualified people from overseas can matriculate
to our universities.

____________________