Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I understand the concern of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico in protecting the funding of international programs such as the Latin American Institute at the University of New Mexico. I would concur with my colleague from New Mexico in what he has said and I would urge the Secretary of Education to allocate funding to international programs in a fair manner.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to thank both Senators Moynihan and Senator Ashcroft for their diligent work on tenured faculty retirement incentives, and for their cooperation. I want to assure my two colleagues that there is, indeed, broad support for the measure and that I am confident that Senate conferees will give the House-passed provision the consideration it is due.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to say to the Senator from Michigan that I am tremendously impressed with the dedication, determination, and work ethic of our Olympic hopefuls. Given the opportunity, the same ethic suggests that they would apply similar dedication to academic endeavors. Balancing a schedule of rigorous training and education is very difficult for any person. Our Olympic athletes should be in the position to acquire post-secondary education after representing our country in the Olympic games. For these reasons, I pledge to the Senator from Michigan my efforts in the conference to consider the House language which reauthorizes the Olympic Education Scholarship.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate your support for higher education in Texas and your interest in this particular issue. I certainly understand your concern and your desire to ensure that all state secondary markets are treated equitably and that they are able to fully participate in the FFEL Program. I, too, want to see this important program and all its participants succeed so that students continue to have adequate access to affordable loans for their post- secondary education goals. While this specific issue is one that we have not yet held hearings on in the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I am interested in doing so in order to thoroughly review the merits of granting eligible lender status to all state secondary markets. As this process continues, I will certainly seek the input and suggestions of you as well as Senator Hutchison.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, clearly, that is the intent. We do not intend to exclude the preparation of teachers for teaching at the elementary and secondary level and we agree that good instruction in how to teach reading and elementary mathematics should be a major emphasis because giving students a strong foundation in reading and math in the early years is critical to giving them a solid foundation for learning throughout their entire lives.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Absolutely. I agree.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I would be pleased to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have an immediate vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions now be recognized for up to 10 minutes on his amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am not at liberty to say at this time. I don't know. I suspect there is opposition, but I haven't had anyone come forward who wishes to speak at this point. But since we have reached the magic hour of 2 o'clock, it is best we proceed under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will make the remarks in support of Senator Graham's amendment, and I support him. I believe that this takes care of really an important problem which some of our service people have had. Thus, I do not object to it. I did have a problem with the way the offset was chosen originally, which would have put the bill out of balance with the Congressional Budget Office and, therefore, we worked with the Senator from Florida to find a more acceptable way. I sympathize with the comments of Senator Kennedy in taking it from the discretionary fund of the Secretary. But it is better to do it this way and not put the bill out of balance, and to spread it over a number of years so that it is not a big hit. I commend him for bringing this to our attention. I thank him for allowing us to include in the managers' package language that ensures that in the aggregate, all types of Federal aid for education will not exceed the cost of the required levels. The inclusion of this provision expresses the concerns I had, and, therefore, I support it. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have one Member who would like to talk in support of the amendment who is on his way. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator from New Hampshire has arrived to comment on the pending amendment, and then we will be moving to the amendment after that.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now that we have adopted the Specter amendment, Senator Graham be recognized to offer his amendment and that there be 30 minutes of debate on the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Specter. I believe it is an excellent amendment. First of all, I commend Senator Specter for the tremendous work he has done in the field of education. And as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that handles education as well as many other very difficult subjects, he has done an extremely capable job of ensuring a good balance in all of the programs he handles. I commend him and I am pleased to have him back with us in the Senate. He was unable to be here at this particular time, so I am offering this amendment on his behalf. Mr. President, since the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, crime on our college and university campuses has continued to be a major concern. In a 1997 report on campus crime, the National Center for Education Statistics noted the following: During each of the 3 years between 1992 and 1994, institutions reported a total of about 10,000 violent crimes and up to 40,000 property crimes. For 1994, the individual crime composition for violent crimes was about 20 murders, about 1,300 forcible sex offenses, 3,100 robberies, and 5,100 cases of aggravated assault. In the property crime category, institutions reported 28,800 burglaries and 9,000 motor vehicle thefts in 1994. In 1994, institutions reported about 20,400 arrests for liquor law violations, and about 7,200 arrests for drug abuse violations, and about 2,000 arrests for weapons possession. From 1995 to 1996, for example, reports of murder, sexual offenses, and liquor- and drug-related violations for large universities increased substantially. It is not necessarily the case that crimes have gotten worse but perhaps that reporting has gotten better. Reports of crimes have continued to grow, but some institutions have still been less than diligent in accurately reporting campus crime statistics. Every Member should be greatly concerned by these campus crime statistics. I am pleased that the Senate Labor Committee has made what I think are great strides in improving campus crime provisions in the 1998 Higher Education Act amendments. We have added to the list of crimes to be reported. We have enabled information about students' criminal records to become publicly accessible. We have required institutions of higher learning to maintain daily logs of crimes on campuses. With the help of Senator Torricelli, we have strengthened the reporting of hate crimes on campuses. With the assistance of Senators Gregg and Wellstone, we created a competitive grant program to help institutions of higher education develop and strengthen the effective security and investigation strategies to combat violent crimes against women on campuses. The amendment being offered by Senator Specter today provides an absolutely essential addition to the campus crime provisions in the Higher Education Act. His leadership on this issue is much appreciated. With his meticulous crafting, he has substantially improved the definition of ``campus'' for the purpose of reporting campus crime statistics. When Senator Specter held his campus crime hearing, he discovered that if a crime was committed on a sidewalk within the perimeters of a university, that institution was not required to report the incident in their campus crime statistics. Obviously, the law needed clarification, and I applaud Senator Specter in his superb efforts. His efforts create a careful balance. This amendment minimizes additional reporting burdens to institutions of higher education while at the same time providing students and other members of campus communities with needed information to help improve their awareness about campus security issues. Such information, for example, can be used to help people make more conscious decisions about walking alone in particular areas or making sure to walk with a friend on or near a campus at night. This amendment makes four changes in the statute. As I mentioned, it modifies the definition of ``campus'' to include additional areas that must be included in campus crime statistics. It requires the Secretary of Education to report to Congress when institutions of higher education are not in compliance with campus crime reporting requirements. It gives the Department of Education the explicit authority to impose fines if institutions substantially misrepresent information about campus crimes. And it renames the campus crime section of the bill after Jeanne Clery, the woman who died tragically at Lehigh University in 1986 as a result of a brutal campus crime. The Clery family has been instrumental in creating a national awareness and focus on campus crime over the past decade. Both Senator Specter and I are indebted to their service in helping Congress craft these provisions. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer this on behalf of Senator Specter. I ask for its adoption.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. First of all, I thank the Senator from California for working closely with us in order for us to help out the State. I understand the special circumstances involved in the State of California makes it different than the other 49 States in this regard, but the amendment has been carefully crafted so that it is acceptable to this side of the aisle. We believe they should have the opportunity to provide Pell Grant assistance in the fifth year, which is generally seen, perhaps, now, as a necessary aspect of getting the teachers fully qualified for many of the areas they teach. I have no objections on this side of the aisle to the amendment. It is accepted as far as the majority is concerned.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would just say I want to expedite the movement of the bill by all possible means. The people who are here should be recognized in an appropriate order, and I have no problem with the suggestion that was made. My good friend from New Hampshire has worked so long and hard on this bill and has been an important factor in getting this to a position where it can be expeditiously passed. I look forward to listening to his statement first. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate is considering S. 1882, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. This legislation extends for 5 years the authorization of programs under the Higher Education Act and makes significant improvements in student benefits and in the operation of these programs. The Higher Education Act is among the most significant statutes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Since its inception in 1965, the Act has been focused on enhancing the opportunities of students to pursue postsecondary education. This legislation will make college more accessible for more Americans by increasing the amount of Pell grants and lowering interest rates for student loans. By increasing the access and quality of higher education, this bill will help ensure that our nation remains a leader in educational excellence for all of our citizens. By giving more students the ability to attend college, we are giving them the opportunity to pursue their dreams. 136 years ago this week, Senator Justin Smith Morrill from Vermont led the effort in the United States Senate to pass the Land Grant College Act of 1862, which opened the doors of higher education to all Americans. Today, I am proud to follow in Justin Smith Morrill's footsteps and urge the Senate to pass this important bipartisan legislation which will make the dream of getting a college education become a reality for millions of students across this nation. Over the years, the federal effort in this area has been substantial and will continue to be so. The Higher Education Act currently provides $48.5 billion in student financial assistance for 8.5 million students and $216 million for institutional development. In 1995-96, 55 percent of undergraduate students received financial aid under this Act. Over the next ten years, the Federal Government will guarantee over 88 million student loans--totaling over $383.5 billion. Over the next five years, the Federal Government will provide more than 25.4 million Pell Grants. The reauthorization bill we are considering today preserves the focus on students--who are the primary reason we have a Higher Education Act in the first place. Students now in school will be assured of receiving the lowest interest rate in nearly two decades on their loans. Students now in high school who aspire to a college education will benefit from an expanded early intervention program known as CONNECTIONS, as well as continuing to receive services from the time-tested and highly regarded TRIO programs. Students who have graduated and are faced with exceptionally high loan burdens will be able to take advantage of extended repayment options under the guaranteed loan program. Recognizing the toll which ever increasing college costs are placing on students, the bill builds on recommendations of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education so that students and their families can obtain useful cost information. This bill reflects a strong commitment to the maintenance of two viable loan programs--the guaranteed or Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and the Direct Loan Program. Among the most challenging tasks facing the committee was developing a student loan interest rate which could offer the lowest viable interest to students while assuring sufficient lender participation to preserve full access to loans. After nearly a year of consultation with students, lenders, representatives of the higher education community, the administration and financial services experts, the committee developed a compromise interest rate package. Lender yield is reduced by 30 basis points while students receive the significant interest rate reduction they have anticipated. This solution is by no means perfect, but it promises to preserve the stability of the FFEL program for the nearly 4 million students and their families who depend upon these loans each year. The legislation also includes a new guaranty agency financing model-- the goal of which is to achieve cost savings and efficiencies in the delivery and administration of student aid while ensuring that students, lenders, the Federal Government, and institutions of higher education receive high quality service. Additional efforts to improve the delivery of student aid programs include the development of a Performance Based Organization (PBO) to strengthen the management of key systems within the Department of Education. A number of provisions in the legislation also pave the way toward taking advantage of the efficiencies made possible through electronic processing and other technological advances. Looking toward the future, the bill contains several provisions dealing with the Year 2000 computer problem. The Office of Management and Budget has raised serious questions about the Department of Education's ability to meet the timetable outlined by the General Accounting Office for the testing of software renovation work. Failure to renovate all mission critical systems could result in disruptions in the management and delivery of student financial aid to more than 8 million students. This is an area in which the committee will be following closely in the months ahead. Perhaps the most exciting and far-reaching innovation in this legislation is its provisions dealing with teacher preparation. The bill before us eliminates some 15 small, categorical teacher training programs--only one of which receives funding--and replaces them with a comprehensive model for change and improvement. The teacher quality provisions included in Title II of S. 1882 are an important first step towards really improving teacher training. I think it will be viewed as one of the lasting achievements of this reauthorization. It represents a collaboration of good ideas from many members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, each who spent a great deal of time on this matter. The result is a proposal that breaks away from ``business-as-usual'' practices, and encourages States and education partnerships to reform their efforts to meet the needs of students in today's classroom. At its foundation, Title II embraces the notion that investing in the preparation of our nation's teachers is a good one. Well prepared teachers play a key role in making it possible for our students to achieve the standards required to assure both their own well being and the ability of our country to compete internationally. In fact, the continued health and strength of our nation depends on our country's ability to improve the education of our young people. Integral to that is the strength and ability of our nation's teaching force. Without a strong, competent, well prepared teaching force, other investments in education will be of little value. The bill takes a two-pronged approach to helping assure that our nation's elementary and secondary school teachers will be thoroughly prepared to offer the quality of instruction needed to assure that students achieve the standards we need and expect. Working at both the state level to promote system-wide reforms and at the local level to develop partnerships to enhance the quality of teacher training, the bill offers a comprehensive and systematic approach to this pressing national need. Title II demands excellence from our teacher preparation programs; encourages coordination; focuses on the need for academic content knowledge and strong teaching skills; and fosters state innovations in establishing more rigorous standards and exploring alternative certification. These efforts recognize the fundamental connection that exists among states, institutions of higher education, and efforts to improve education for our nation's elementary and secondary school teachers. The teacher training provisions included in this bill are unique in other ways as well. In particular, the committee included very strong accountability measures as part of this title. In order to maintain a grant, a State or a partnership will have to show improvement-- measurable results--that go to the heart of learning. It is important to consider the Title II provisions in the context of education reform because, as I have said before, good teachers are at the core of educational improvement. It has been 15 years since the national crisis in education was raised by the ``A Nation At Risk'' report. The admonition was given in these terse words: If a foreign government had imposed on us our educational system we would have declared it an act of war. Yet little has changed. There is some improvement in science but little in math. Children are coming to school slightly more prepared to learn, but this is primarily in the area of health. It is obvious that nothing is going to change unless it changes in the classroom. And nothing will change in the classroom until the teachers change. And the teachers can't be expected to change until they have help in knowing what is expected of them. In the most recent Goals 2000 Report issued last November, we learned that in more than 40 States there was no change in the percentage of teachers who reported that they held a degree or held a teaching certificate in their main teaching assignment. In 33 States no change was reported in the proportion of beginning public school teachers who participated in a formal teacher induction process. Dindo Rivera, who travels about the county for IBM raising this issue, likes to explain it this way: If you were an office worker and had fallen asleep as Rip Van Winkle did for twenty years and walked into a modern office you would go into catatonic shock at trying to do anything from answering the phone to typing a letter. However, if you were a school teacher when you walked back into the classroom after your slumber, you'd feel right at home in your subjects. Some changes are occurring. The concept of ``social promotion'' initiated in the 60's is being challenged but creating serious problems for schools requiring remedial help. Literacy programs are being initiated to stop or reduce the inflow of non readers. But as to the crisis of math and science and other critical subjects, we have seen little in the way of results. Pointing a finger at the colleges of education is not inappropriate. They need to change. They must ensure that graduates are capable of facing today's challenge--not yesteryears. But they are unlikely to change unless the universities that host them pay attention to them. Often times, the schools of education are treated as step children. In most cases the degrees issued are not enough to increase their capacity to teach updated courses--and these updated courses are sorely needed. We must focus attention on this issue. We should fully fund the new Title II Teacher Quality Program that is included in this bill. We should also call together the presidents of the universities to challenge them to take immediate action to remedy the crisis. We must enlist the teachers and the teachers unions and insist that they too help out. The Higher Education bill before us does make strides in the direction of reform and improvement. Still, we must do even more to raise awareness of the problem and the need to change. The number of teachers is not as important as the quality of teachers. On the Federal level we must focus on promoting and ensuring quality. We don't necessarily need millions of new teachers--what we really need are millions of good teachers. The need for good teachers has been recognized. The Hunt Commission Report, ``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future'' has a goal of providing 100,000 nationally accredited teachers. But their goal is too far off into the next century. Their goal would provide one teacher for every school. We need one for every classroom and, most certainly every new teacher graduating must be trained to be a good teacher. Every teacher's college must meet that challenge and every present teacher must be given the training to be a good teacher. The present bill takes a giant step in that direction. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the long hours and hard work of members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and their staffs over the past 18 months as we have worked to develop this legislation. Even with the substantial streamlining we have done in the Act, a thorough review of all its provisions is a large and challenging task. At this time, I would like to offer particular thanks to the ranking minority member, Senator Kennedy, to Senator Coats, and to Senator Dodd. These three members have gone well beyond the extra mile in helping to forge a bipartisan approach to improving the lives of American students. Throughout committee deliberations, there have been legitimate differences of opinion. The spirit of cooperation and the commitment to working through these differences has allowed us to present to the Senate a solid piece of legislation which I believe every member of this body can proudly support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pam Moran, a fellow with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, be allowed the privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 1882, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I know we are trying to get the opening statements out with respect to this bill. Senator Coats, I know, has been waiting. Senator Dodd is also waiting. So at this point I object until at least those two Members are taken care of.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, under the order, I send a modification of the committee-reported substitute to the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of S. 1882, the higher education bill, under the consent agreement of June 25, 1998.