[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6286-6289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IMPROVEMENT ACT

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3629) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve 
the program for American Indian Tribal Colleges and Universities under 
part A of title III, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3629

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. APPLICATIONS FOR AND AWARD OF GRANTS.

       (a) Simplification of Applications.--Sections 316(d)(2) and 
     317(d)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1059c(d)(2), 1059d(d)(2)) are each amended by inserting after 
     the first sentence the following: ``The Secretary shall, to 
     the extent possible, prescribe a simplified and streamlined 
     format for such applications that takes into account the 
     limited number of institutions that are eligible for 
     assistance under this section.''.
       (b) Special Rules for Awards.--
       (1) Tribal colleges and universities.--Section 316(d) of 
     such Act is further amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Eligibility.--No Tribal College or University that 
     receives funds under this

[[Page 6287]]

     section shall concurrently receive funds under other 
     provisions of this part or part B.
       ``(B) Exemption.--Section 313(d) shall not apply to 
     institutions that are eligible to receive funds under this 
     section.
       ``(C) Distribution.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall, to the extent possible and consistent 
     with the competitive process under which such grants are 
     awarded, ensure maximum and equitable distribution among all 
     eligible institutions.''.
       (2) Alaskan native and native hawaiian institutions.--
     Section 317 of such Act is further amended by striking 
     subsection (e) and by inserting at the end of subsection (d) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Eligibility.--No Alaskan Native-serving institution 
     or Native Hawaiian-serving institution that receives funds 
     under this section shall concurrently receive funds under 
     other provisions of this part or part B.
       ``(B) Exemption.--Section 313(d) shall not apply to 
     institutions that are eligible to receive funds under this 
     section.
       ``(C) Distribution.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall, to the extent possible and consistent 
     with the competitive process under which such grants are 
     awarded, ensure maximum and equitable distribution among all 
     eligible institutions.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     be effective on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3629, as amended, which 
makes technical improvements to sections 316 and 317 of title III of 
the Higher Education Act.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for 
introducing H.R. 3629 and bringing this matter to our attention.

                              {time}  1545

  The bill we are considering today makes two technical improvements to 
title III that relate to tribal colleges and Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian-serving institutions. These institutions are located primarily 
in remote areas not served by other postsecondary education 
institutions.
  They offer a broad range of degree and vocational certificate 
programs to students for whom these educational opportunities would 
otherwise be geographically and culturally inaccessible.
  Under title III, grant funds are provided to postsecondary 
institutions for improving academic programs, for improving their 
management and fiscal operations, and to help institutions make 
effective use of technology. Funding is targeted to institutions that 
enroll large proportions of financially disadvantaged students and have 
low per-student expenditures.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, 17 institutions received grant awards under 
this program. One used its funds to add computer hardware and software 
to improve the college's physical management, academic programming, and 
student services.
  These improvements will include Internet access for instructors. 
Another institution is using its grant award to acquire new technology 
and provide staff development related to distance education programs.
  Another institution is using its grant to acquire computers and 
Internet access for its students in order to improve academic 
achievement and increase student retention. Others are using their 
grant funds for many similar purposes.
  The first technical improvement that we are making in this bill 
directs the Secretary of Education to simplify the application process 
for the limited number of institutions eligible for funds under this 
section 316 and 317.
  Currently, institutions spend a great deal of time and money 
preparing applications for funds under the highly competitive title III 
grant program. For poorer institutions, these costs are often 
prohibitive. However, if the process is simplified, it is possible that 
more of the poorer institutions will apply for assistance.
  The second improvement will allow these institutions to apply for a 
new grant without waiting until 2 years lapse after the expiration of a 
prior grant. Under current law, an institution receives a grant for a 
5-year period and then must wait 2 years after the expiration of the 
grant before applying for another grant.
  This 2-year wait-out rule was part of the original title III 
legislation, and its purpose was to ensure that title III funding 
reached the maximum number of institutions. However, in the case of 
section 316 and 317 institutions, the 2-year wait-out rule is 
unnecessary.
  Based on the current funding available and the limited number of 
institutions eligible for this program, there is no need for a wait-out 
period. By removing this restriction, funds for institutional 
development can go to the maximum number of institutions that submit a 
qualified application during next year's competition.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education has included the elimination 
of the wait-out period in its lists of technical amendments to the 
higher educational amendments of 1998 and agrees that the wait-out is 
unnecessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these technical 
amendments to title III of the Higher Education Act. I want to express 
my thanks again to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for 
introducing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3629. As our Nation becomes 
increasingly diverse, it is imperative that all of our segments of the 
population are afforded the opportunity to receive a quality 
postsecondary education if this Nation is to remain a world power.
  Currently, 30 tribal colleges and universities and 13 Alaska-native 
and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions are doing an excellent job of 
reaching out and providing services to some of the hardest to reach and 
most disadvantaged minority students in the country.
  During the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress 
created two grant programs, based on the existing Federal aid program 
for historical black colleges and universities to assist these 43 
institutions whose mission it is to serve Native Americans and Native 
Alaskans and Native Hawaiian students.
  Eligible institutions can use program funds for a number of 
activities including faculty and academic program development and 
instructional faculty construction and maintenance.
  Mr. Speaker, in many cases, these grants make the difference in an 
institution's viability. However, the Congress inadvertently placed 
hurdles between these vital institutions and this essential funding by 
requiring an unnecessary 2-year waiting period and an overly burdensome 
application process.
  H.R. 3629 removes these hurdles by eliminating the waiting period and 
streamlining the application process. H.R. 3629, which provides some of 
the poorest schools educating some of the neediest students with easier 
access to funding that Congress made available to them in 1998, was 
reported favorably by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and 
has the support of the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, as such, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3629.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the sponsor of the bill, the original author of 
H.R. 3629
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by 
thanking my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon), for his support and work on this legislation, as well as my 
colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez). I do appreciate their help on this.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to reach out to educational 
institutions all across America. These institutions may be small in 
number, but they serve a very great need. Most importantly, the need 
they serve is experience by a dramatically underserved portion of the 
population. And for this portion of the population, these Americans, it 
offers, I believe, some great hope.

[[Page 6288]]

  Today, we reach out to tribal colleges, not by spending more money, 
but making sure that for the dollars we do spend that those dollars are 
more accessible, distributed more equitably and easier to access by all 
involved. There are 32 tribal colleges in America right now and 12 
States serving 25,000 Americans. My own home State of Wisconsin has 
two, the Lac Courte D'Oreilles Community College and the Menomonee 
Indian Tribal College.
  For the Native Americans served at these institutions, these colleges 
are closing the gap between the America that is and the America that 
can be.
  In 1998, Congress created the American Indian Tribally Controlled 
College and University Institutional Development Act. In fiscal year 
2000, $6 million has been awarded in a competitive grant program for 
these institutions in this program.
  Last year, 16 tribal colleges applied for grants and eight received 
grants. We can do more, I believe; and we can reach more tribal 
colleges, and we can reach more Americans, the Americans that they 
serve; and that is what this bill attempts to do. Through technical 
changes that have been supported on both sides of the aisle, voice 
voted through the subcommittee and supported by the American Indian 
Higher Education Consortium, this bill will, by removing barriers, get 
more dollars to more tribal colleges.
  As was mentioned previously, it makes some very simple changes. 
Number one, it directs the Secretary Of Education to simplify and 
streamline the application process. The current application process 
requires applicants to address no less than 16 different subject areas, 
well intended. Unfortunately, I am afraid it may be overkill. It has 
the unfortunate effect of discouraging fledgling tribal colleges from 
taking on the grant application process.
  We worked closely with the Department of Education in developing 
these minor changes.
  Secondly, this bill would direct the Secretary of Education to ensure 
a more equitable distribution of these limited dollars to the maximum 
number of institutions. We are not talking about a lot of dollars here, 
but it is obviously crucially important that those dollars go as far as 
they can.
  Finally, as has been mentioned, this bill would exempt tribal 
colleges from the 2-year wait-out period required under title III part 
A. Again, we have a small number of institutions; but we want to make 
sure that this money is available to the institutions that most need 
it, a small number of institutions and perhaps a small number of 
Americans. But I believe the ripple effect in the area surrounding 
these institutions will be enormous and help them realize the potential 
of the American dream.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education 
Act require all institutions receiving funding under part A of title 
III to wait 2 years after their 5-year grant expires to apply for an 
additional grant. We created this wait-out period to maximize fundings 
to institutions receiving funds under title III. This wait-out period 
applies only to tribal colleges, universities and Alaska-native and 
native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Without eliminating this wait-out 
requirement, there will be a situation in which Federal grant dollars 
are available but no tribal colleges, universities and Alaska-native 
and Hawaiian-serving institutions would be eligible to apply because of 
the small number of these institutions that exist.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill so that these 
institutions can continue to provide the very high quality education to 
their students.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member is pleased to be a cosponsor 
of H.R. 3629, the American Indian Tribal Colleges Universities 
Improvement Act. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for 
introducing this legislation and the committee for bringing it to the 
floor.
  This is almost orphan legislation. There are too few members 
unfortunately that pay attention to Native American issues and 
certainly to tribal college issues. So I am particularly pleased that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has taken this initiative. The 
committee has brought it to the floor. People like the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), always active on Native American issues, are 
supporting it, as I would always expect him to be supporting it.
  Tribal colleges and universities do play a critical and important 
role in providing postsecondary education opportunities for American 
Indians. These colleges are among the youngest, poorest, and smallest 
group of institutions of higher education in the United States.
  As mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), these 32 
tribal colleges in the United States serve over 25,000 students. They 
are severely underfunded. There are two tribal colleges located in the 
first congressional district in Nebraska, the Nebraska Indian Community 
College and the Little Priest Tribal College. These two young colleges 
work with very limited resources to provide educational opportunities 
where none existed before.
  Native Americans in Nebraska already have benefited from the services 
provided and the education offered by these institutions. This 
legislation, as we have heard, makes important technical corrections to 
the Higher Education Act title III strengthening institutions 
provisions.
  This Member would focus on three that seem particularly important to 
my Native American constituents. First, the bill simplifies the 
application process. As we heard, it puts all colleges on equal footing 
regardless of age, size, or level of development.
  Second, it directs the Secretary of Education to ensure equitable 
distribution of funding to the maximum number of tribal colleges 
possible.
  Third, this measure exempts tribal colleges from the 2-year wait-out 
period now required under title III as mentioned by both the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  These three changes simply give tribal colleges the same application 
procedures now allowed for historically black colleges and universities 
in this country. Therefore, it is equitable. It is needed.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to 
support H.R. 3629.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I 
rise in support of H.R. 3629, Representative Mark Green's bill to make 
technical corrections to Sections 316 and 317 of Title III of the 
Higher Education Act with respect to Tribal Colleges and Alaska Native 
and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Title III provides grant 
funds to post-secondary institutions for improving academic programs, 
management and fiscal operations, and the use of technology, which was 
something I strongly supported during reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act. Funding is targeted to institutions that enroll large 
proportions of financially disadvantaged students and have low per-
student expenditures.
  In Nebraska, our two fully accredited tribal colleges--Little Priest 
Tribal College in Winnebago, Nebraska, and Nebraska Indian Community 
College in Niobrara and Macy, Nebraska, will benefit from this bill. 
Major challenges face tribal colleges and their communities, and these 
schools could use all the support they can get for their important 
work.
  H.R. 3629 helps by authorizing several technical changes that have no 
cost implications. The first technical change requires the Secretary of 
Education to simplify the grant application process for a limited 
number of institutions eligible for funds under Section 316 and Section 
317. If the process is simplified, and institutions don't need to hire 
expensive grant writers, it will be possible for more of the poorer 
institutions to apply for assistance.
  The second, and perhaps more important change, will allow 
institutions to apply immediately for a new grant after the expiration 
of the prior grant. Under current law, an institution receives a grant 
for a five-year period and then must wait two years after the 
expiration of the grant before applying for another grant.
  Based on the funding available and the limited number of institutions 
eligible for the program, there is no need for a wait-out period. By 
removing this restriction, funds for institutional development can go 
to the maximum

[[Page 6289]]

number of institutions that submit a qualified application.
  H.R. 3629 makes small but significant changes in the Higher Education 
Act. The bill should have the unanimous support of the House.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3629, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________