Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a rather tragic set of circumstances that has taken place in the Azores in the last several hours. Some 1,500 minor aftershocks hit the Azores last night after a strong earthquake struck the islands, killing 10 people, with very severe damages to the island of Faial in the Portuguese mid-Atlantic archipelago. There are many individuals sleeping out in the open, in the parks, and in their cars, to avoid the risk of being caught inside of a building if another quake should strike. The impact of that was 5.8 on the Richter scale, which is a very, very sizable earthquake. As I mentioned, there have been some 1,500 aftershocks. And the terror and loss that has struck the people in that island and in that archipelago is a great human tragedy. Obviously, the people of the United States want to reach out to all of those islanders and all of the people and families who have lost loved ones and those who are suffering injury. I know that the United States will do what it can in terms of help and assistance to the people and to the Portuguese Government, particularly people on those islands, and we will want to give whatever humanitarian help and assistance that we can. This happened a number of years ago. Some 40 years ago I can remember those circumstances, and I think many of us in Massachusetts who are fortunate to have families and friends who have families in the Azores and from the island of Faial, know that they are suffering greatly today, and it is appropriate that we take whatever steps, as a country, to help and assist them. In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers are with all the people of the Azores.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his typical kindness. I would be glad to make my remarks after my good friend from West Virginia. It is always a pleasure to listen to him at any time, but particularly on a Friday when I can give full attention to his eloquence.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. So it was really an insurance program in terms of the loan program at that period of time. And then as the Senator makes the point now that we have virtually a strong economy, we have stable interest rates, low interest rates in terms of these programs, whatever justification was there at that time certainly is not there at the present time but still this fee has been maintained. The Senator, as I understand, has spelled out that with his amendment there is still going to be a sound economic situation in terms of the total program, and that we are going to save at a time, as the Senator from Connecticut and others have pointed out, of ever-increasing costs and the pressure that is on middle-income families and working families, you are talking about, what is it, $171?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to, first, congratulate Senator Jeffords and his staff and thank my staff and a number of our colleagues. This is an enormously important piece of legislation. I didn't really have a chance in the final moments to indicate the importance and significance of this legislation, but to the parents of this country who may be following this discussion this evening, as a result of this legislation, the students who will be attending colleges after its implementation, which will be later in this year, will be saving anywhere from $650 to $3,200 over the course of a loan. The bill also provides for loan forgiveness for teachers, some $8,000 for highly qualified teachers who will teach in low-income communities. It has very, very important quality teaching training programs. This was a high priority of the chairman. A great deal of time was taken on it. We have scarce resources, but the resources that were available were really targeted to strengthening the teaching and the training of teachers. As the debate indicated, I believe there are strong evaluation programs in the bill, and they are very, very significant. This bill increases the Pell grant to some $5,000. Then it continues along with some important initiatives for students with disabilities, campus-based child care, distance education, and a range of other kinds of initiatives, building on a very solid record. The fact that we were able to get this legislation through in one day is a clear indication of the very, very strong bipartisan support, and I think the vote is a real tribute to the chairman and his leadership and to the other members of the Human Resources Committee. I thank my staff: Marianna Pierce who has been working on this legislation for many, many months, over a year; Jennifer Kron; Jane Oates; former fellows Gloria Corral, Maria McGarrity, Eileen O'Leary and Danielle Ripich. I also thank Deborah Kalcevik from CBO and Margot Schenet, Jim Stedman and Barbara Miles at CRS; Mark Sigurski from the Office of Legislative Counsel, as well as on my staff, Michael Myers. I in particular thank Senator Jeffords and his staff. I know he has mentioned them. I thank Senator Coats who was very much involved in this legislation, and his staff, Townsend Lange. From my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd: Suzanne Day, Megan Murray, MaryEllen McGuire. They were all invaluable, as was the Senator, in working very effectively during the course of the whole day on this legislation. I thank Tom Harkin for his initiatives, Paul Wellstone, Jeff Bingaman, all who were very much involved in the debate; Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski and other members of the committee who were active and involved today; Jack Reed who follows in a very long and distinguished tradition on the Education Committee in the great traditions of our dear friend Claiborne Pell, who was chairman of the Education Committee and made monumental contributions to the education of young people across this country. To all of them, I am enormously grateful. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield--1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Iowa and 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY. What my friend, the Senator from Indiana, did not point out is that the student loan defaults were 22 percent under the Republican administration, the previous administration, now down to 10 percent, saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This debate isn't over the particular administration, because what we are talking about is a very sound idea. Let me give you what Mr. Petri, a Republican in the House of Representatives, said: The amendment would end the recurring battle--he has one that would put in place an auction program. Ours is just a pilot program. The amendment would end the recurring battle between student groups and lenders over the industry on student loans, which results in the price of the private sector services being set by political negotiation without regard to the actual cost of services. This amendment has the potential of saving the American taxpayers billions of dollars through competition for this profitable business. Up to now, with the exceptions of in- school interest and the overall interest cap, the banks have always received the same interest the students paid on interest loans. Here is Mr. McKeon, Republican of California. This is what he says: The gentleman is correct that up to now we have tried to figure out how much to pay the lenders for providing student loans in a political negotiation, and we in Congress really have no way of knowing what the right price is. These are two Republicans who believe in the market system: It would be much better if we had a market process to determine rates. That is exactly what this amendment provides, a test, a pilot. You can't implement it until we vote again, but a test and a pilot make sense for the very reasons two of the most knowledgeable leaders in the Republican Party in the House of Representatives have stated: I am interested in working in that direction. That is in the recent debate and discussion. Now, Mr. President, I indicated just a few moments ago all the different agencies of Government that use this process, the most significant, obviously, the Treasury, the FHA, dealing with a great deal more amount of funding than we are considering. Finally, Mr. President, just look at this chart that I have in the Chamber. This represents, according to the FDIC--and my good friend from Iowa was referring to various figures. Under the proposal that we have tonight, the proposal; that is, the bill, will guarantee the return on equity for all commercial banks at 16 percent. This chart here shows what the banks have made from 1958 going up to 1996, and recently, in 1994 through 1996, it has been in excess of 14 percent. All we are saying, for those Members of the Senate who are concerned about the cost of higher education, is we have an opportunity to do something and do it the old fashioned way--competition; competition, tried, tested, utilized by other agencies of our Government and which effectively works. At least a pilot project; let's give it a try.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. We obviously have the Treasury securities that are involved in these kinds of competitions. The HUD loans; the FHA auction on mortgages is a competitive bid; the HEAL loans, the Health Education Assistance Loans; the FCC wireless spectrum auctions. We had a long debate on what was going to be the best way to protect the taxpayer. And the decision by the Congress was to have the spectrum auctions. Elk Hills Oil Field of the Naval Petroleum Reserve was auctioned. WIC, infant formula, there was a bidding process and auctions; EPA pollution rights are auctioned off. The Resolution Trust Corporation relied on auctions, and the auctions were, in their view, based on their best and final bids. The last auction that went off was typical. The $450 million sale yielded 87 cents on the dollar rather than the 75 cents that the portfolio had originally been valued at, and was returned to the Treasury. Oil and gas sales on the Outer Continental Shelf were auctioned off. Conservation Reserve Program auctioned off; timber sales auctioned off; Export Enhancement Program auctioned off. These are existing Federal programs that use the auction system to provide the best kind of protection to the taxpayers, and in this case to the students. But this particular amendment says, with the urging of the Administration, let's have a pilot program independently evaluated, the result of which is submitted to the Congress, the Administration, and made public. Then the Congress can make a judgment on this matter. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle who talk about market forces and are constantly lecturing Members will support this very modest recommendation. This amendment is built on market forces and built on competition. It follows the kinds of recommendations which the U.S. Government has accepted in terms of auctions. All we are doing is saying let's have a pilot project and test how this program would work in terms of protecting student loans. We have had debates here tonight on the level of interest rates. We have had debates in our committee on the level of interest rates. Let us try in terms of protecting students to give them the best deal that they can possibly have, and use these resources to make a major difference in reducing the cost of higher education in this country. I reserve the remainder of time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have a half hour evenly divided, and I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. President, this was a very good segue--listening to the comments of my friend and colleague from Iowa--to the amendment which I propose this evening and which has the administration's support. The amendment I am offering will enable the Department of Education, working with the Secretary of the Treasury, to conduct a pilot program on methods to rely on competition to set interest rates on student loans. The results of this pilot program will be reported back to Congress within 120 days after the end of the test, and Congress must act again before any further action to implement competition on a wider scale. The bill currently calls on the Secretary to study the feasibility of using competition. That is too little and too late. It is a further delaying tactic. My amendment takes the reasonable step of authorizing a pilot program to see how competition would work in practice. The obvious way to use competition is through an auction. Under this amendment, up to 10 percent of the loan volume can be auctioned in each of 2 years. Students will be protected with the same low interest rate in the bill, and access to loans will continue. Colleges will participate on a voluntary basis. No one will be forced to be part of a pilot project. After the pilot is completed, an independent entity will evaluate the results and submit them to the Department of Education, the Treasury, and Congress. For example, one type of auction could invite lenders to offer loans to all eligible students at a college, or a group of colleges; or a State could originate loans for students at colleges in the State and auction the loans afterward, with excess subsidies returned to the Federal Government. The pilot project would be able to assess the practical problems, if any, in this procedure. In fact, there is already experience to build on. Loans for students in the health professions were conducted by auctions. Before the initial auction, the interest rate was based on a 91-day Treasury bill rate plus a premium of 3 percent. At the final auction, the premium was 1.5 percent--a significant cut in the interest rate that brought major savings for the students. According to the Treasury, lenders will make an average return of 16 percent on student loans under this bill, a higher rate of return than their historic rates of return on their other assets, even though these loans are guaranteed by the Federal Government and therefore have no risk to the banks. As the Congressional Budget Office analysis of March 30, 1998, concludes, ``banks do not require the same returns on FFELs that they require overall, since federally guaranteed student loans are less risky than the average bank asset.'' The excessive cost to the taxpayer of these artificially high interest rates is at least $1 billion over the 5 years. Mr. President, we all know what is going on here. A Washington Post editorial of March 18 is titled ``Stared Down by the Banks,'' and it pulls no punches and it accuses Congress of being intimidated by the banks. A USA Today editorial of March 23, 1998, is titled, ``Banks Acting Like Bullies''--too much subsidies for the banks. Clearly, we should let competition set the interest rate, not Congress. As the Los Angeles Times said in its editorial on June 5, ``Congress should tackle the 'larger problem: the lack of competition in the student loan system.''' This amendment that I am offering this evening is a worthwhile pilot program that can help do so. Competition can work and will work to save Federal dollars and save dollars for college students as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the various Federal programs that are involved in this kind of a competition. Examples of How Auctions Are Used in Federal Programs Treasury Securities.--Treasury auctions bills, notes, bonds and inflation-indexed notes and bonds in a sealed-bid auction. Bidders bid an interest rate and loan volume they would like at that rate. But no bidder can win more than a certain percentage of the total put up for bid. Noncompetitive bidders can submit pre-auction bids for a given volume for which they'll accept the auction-determined interest rate. Treasury usually uses discriminatory-price auctions by giving each bidder the rate they bid, but it has also experimented with uniform auctions in which all winners get the highest winning rate. HUD Loan and Real Estate Asset Sales.--HUD and FHA auction defaulted mortgages, and bidders may bid on any number of mortgages. Because any combination or all of the auctioned items can be bid on together, there is likely overlap in the mortgage packages submitted by each bidder. To address this problem and to be able to determine which combination of bids would optimize value for the government, an Auction Optimization Model was developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories. The computer model is used to select the winning bids based on total revenue for the government. Health Education Assistance Loans (HEAL).--HHS conducts a sealed-bid auction in which bidders bid an interest rate and loan volume they would like at that rate. The low bidder and all others within a certain tolerance of the low bid win the right to make loans. In the case of single winners, schools would not have a choice in that given year and might have to deal with different lenders in each year. In the case of multiple winners, each bidder would have to compete to make as many loans as they can, though it would probably be less than their originally bidded volume. FCC Wireless Spectrum Auctions.--The FCC conducts sealed- bid auctions for spectrums in which hundreds of markets are determined simultaneously. After each round, bidders see the prevailing price in each market and can place a bid in the next round in markets they had not bid for previously. The auction does not end until no more bidders want to make higher bids in any market. Telephone service provision is also auctioned in certain areas, including relatively unprofitable parts of areas. Though results have been mixed, most auctions have gone well. Elk Hills Oil Field of the Naval Petroleum Reserve.--Elk Hills was one of the federal government's largest privatization efforts, with the sale completed in February of 1998. The process involved getting five independent evaluators to determine the value of the property before publishing the offer and collecting proposals from potential bidders. Due diligence and close attention to transfer documents were components of the many legal and technical steps. The bid evaluation incorporated negotiations with the three finalists on terms beyond the payment, such as environmental indemnity issues, and ultimately a single winner was selected. WIC Infant Formula Bidding Process.--WIC purchases of infant formula comprise more than half of all formula sales within the U.S., and in an effort to ensure competitive pricing, in 1989 the federal government began requiring states to establish competitive bidding processes. The firm offering the lowest net price to the state or cluster of states wins the exclusive right to sell infant formula to WIC participants, and that firm is then billed by the state WIC agencies for rebates on formula purchased with WIC vouchers. Under this system GAO reports that after accounting for rebates in 1996, WIC agencies paid 85 percent less than the wholesale price for formula, on average, allowing WIC to be extended to an additional 1.7 million persons each month. EPA Pollution Rights.--EPA's acid rain program holds an annual auction of a Special Allowance Reserve of approximately 2.8 percent of total allowances, conducted by the Chicago Board of Trade. In addition to providing an additional means of obtain allowances (each equal to one ton of annual SO2 emissions), the auction also importantly establishes a market price signal. Allowances are sold from the Reserve before private holdings are sold. Anyone--including public interest and environmental groups-- can participate in the bidding on and trading of allowances. Spot (for that year) and advance (not usable for seven years) allowances for SO2 emissions are available through the auction, and allowances may be bought, sold, banked, or retired. This auction appears to use discriminatory pricing rather than uniform pricing. Resolution Trust Corporation.--RTC auctions collateralized and uncollateralized assets. For example, in a recent competitive (sealed) bidding process, approximately 1100 assets were divided into 30 pools based on asset type and region. A financial advisor and due diligence contractor scrubbed the relevant files and collected data to establish values and reserve prices for each asset. This information, recorded in CD-ROM format, was made available to the public, which had four weeks to review it. Bids on the 30 asset pools were received at a centralized New York clearinghouse over a two-day span. Based on the best and final bids, the $450 million sale yielded 87 cents on the dollar rather than the 75 cents that the portfolio had originally been valued at. Oil and Gas Sales on the Outer Continental Shelf.--After determining to lease the tracts, they are advertised in the Federal Register in an open bidding process. Potential investors send their checks; after the highest bidder is notified of their acceptance, the other checks are returned to the unsuccessful bidders. At this point, the government conducts its own assessment of the value of the oil and gas reserves, based on geological and mineral information provided by the successful bidder, to make sure the bidded amount meets or exceeds the government estimated value. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--The USDA solicits bids from producers for enrollment of acres into the CRP. Bids are accepted based on a formula that accounts for the environmental for each dollar from enrollment (i.e., if a bid is accepted, the government pays farmers rental payments for 10 years to idle their land and put a conserving cover crop on it). Timber Sales.--The Forest Service auctions off the rights to timber companies to cut designated areas in National Forests. After an offer of sale describing the timber and the sale terms is publicized, a sealed-bid process takes place. Non-price related terms of the sale, including environmental concerns, are all set by the government, so the highest bidder wins the auction. Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--The USDA establishes prices and bonus levels based on their estimates of the going market rates, and then accepts bids from exporters. However, rather than bidding against each other in a true-market scenario, exporters are really only bidding against the government-set price and bonus level, and they have the option of coming back with successive new bids until they hit the USDA-determined price levels.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. And that is a lot of money for an awful lot of students. I can remember in my own State of Massachusetts when the University of Massachusetts in Boston had $1,000 a year tuition, 85 percent of the parents of the students who attended that university had never gone to college and 85 percent of them worked 25 hours a week or more. And when they raised the tuition by $100, they lost 15 percent of their applications--15 percent. It is a real reflection--when you are talking $170, we are talking about a lot of books. We are talking about a real lifeline, in many instances, to sons and daughters of hard-working families, I know certainly in many of the urban areas and I believe in the rural areas, as well. We have followed this issue for a long period of time. The Senator has been a constant advocate for moderating the cost of higher education over the long time that he has been in the Senate, and it has been a challenging one. But he, I believe, has made a very solid recommendation, and I would certainly hope his position is sustained. I urge all of our colleagues to support his amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. We accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I think all of us on the Education Committee know of the enormous commitment and perseverance and persistence and wisdom of our friend from New Mexico in the development of education policy, particularly the quality of our teachers. It is a very important record. When he speaks about these issues, I think all of us take these very seriously. I do think, however, that in this particular situation, on this particular amendment, I must say that I differ with the Senator from New Mexico. Let me be very brief about the reasons. First of all, in the various education programs and recruitment and retention programs--and I won't take the time to go on through them, but as one who is a supporter and an author of a fair amount of them, they never were funded over a period of time or funded very lightly: The Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship, Christa McAuliffe Teacher Corps, National Board for Professional Teachers, Standards class size demonstration, middle-school demonstration, new teaching careers, all the various mini-corps programs, foreign language instruction, small State teaching initiative--none of these effectively were funded. None of these were funded, and we had, as the Senator from New Mexico said, no evaluation of the few that were funded. He makes a very good case about the past. I take some exception, and I ask our friends to review the parts of the legislation--I know the hour is late. We don't spend as much time in going through the particular provisions of the legislation. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2, I believe, that many of the 18 States are just the kinds of States that need this help and assistance. I will go into the various details of the programs, and many of the comments the Senator from New Mexico has made are actually the kinds of criteria which are included in the various competitive grants. I don't want to exclude these 18 States. In many instances, they need the help and assistance the most. We all need it. We have to have 2 million teachers over the next 10 years, and we have to strengthen the opportunities for teachers to teach better and give our teachers additional training programs so they can do it and hold them to a higher accountability. We are in complete agreement with that. The question is how you get there. I am not for excluding 18 States from being able to participate. When we were considering the Goals 2000, we were told that in making available resources that were going to be available to States on a voluntary basis that there were many States that said, ``We don't want to do it because we do not want to have participation of Federal programs in here.'' I do not want the States that may need this the most denied it. Let us look at the question--I will take the part of the Senator's evaluation first. If you look in the legislation on page 373, you see ``Accountability and Evaluation.'' After a State receives a competitive grant under this section, it ``shall submit an annual accountability report to the Secretary''--the Secretary of Education--but also to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, our committee, and as well as to the House. Such report shall describe the degree in which the State is using the funds to, what? Student achievement: ``Increasing student achievement for all students, as measured by increased graduation rates, decreased dropout rates, or higher scores on local, State or other assessments.'' Second: ``Raising Standards.--Raising the State academic standards required to enter the teaching profession . . .'' That is going to be part of the criteria. It will be part of the application for States if they want to participate in this program. They may have to, as part of their evaluation, have programs that will encourage the States to raise academic standards ``required to enter the teaching profession, including, where appropriate, incentives to incorporate the requirement of an academic major in the subject, or related discipline, in which the teacher plans to teach.'' This is a positive incentive. We are trying to, with the scarce resources that are going to be included in this bill, to say, yes, we want to see movement toward an academic major in the subject area and related discipline in which the teacher plans to teach. That is written right in the evaluation program. It continues with regard to the core academic subjects, and it talks about the efforts that will be made to decrease shortages for professional development in poor urban areas and rural areas and communities, and it does an evaluation of these. What it does find out, as it says on page 377: ``Each State or teacher training partnership''--that is either the State or local community--``receiving a grant . . . shall report annually on progress toward meeting the purposes of this part [upon which the grant was given] . . .. If the Secretary, after consultation with the peer review panel . . .''--and that has been spelled out-- ``determines that the State or partnership is not making substantial progress in meeting the purposes, goals, objectives and measures, as appropriate, by the end of the second year of the grant, the grant shall not be continued for the third year of the grant.'' I think that is pretty good, Mr. President, if we have a Secretary who we are going to hold accountable to this. I think that is pretty good. That is a tough evaluation. It identifies many of the points-- virtually all of the points--that the Senator from New Mexico has identified. Whether it will be enforced, whether we will be serious about seeing that it is enforced is going to be the challenge that is going to be placed upon us. Look at page 372 where it talks about the responsibility of the local partnership in encouraging teachers at the local partnership. The application will: describe how the partnership will restructure and improve teaching, teacher training, and development programs, and how systematic changes will contribute to increased student achievement; describe how the partnership will prepare teachers to work with diverse student populations, including individuals with disabilities and limited English proficient individuals; Some might say that is too prescriptive in terms of establishing at least criteria where there will be competition for these resources. Describe how the partnership will help prepare teachers to use technology. We can have all the technology in the world in our classrooms, but if our teachers do not know how to blend it into curriculum, that is very significant to mention. The point is, Mr. President, that I believe that in this program we have the most effective kind of evaluation and criteria and accountability that I have seen in higher education. We do not do as well as we should in most programs, I will agree with that. But it does seem to me that the committee has given very substantial consideration, first of all, in recognizing that so many of these programs here just did not measure up, did not have the support, and was not the way to go. And the best way we were going to try to do it was to provide some resources--half the money to the States, half to the partnerships. We had a lot of debate about the allocations of resources, and then we established criteria which is spelled out and which has included many of the points of the Senator from New Mexico about what we hope will be achieved in those applications. And we do that for the States as well as the local partnerships. Then we have a tough evaluation program to hold the States and the partnerships accountable. So I must say, although there is much to which the Senator has pointed out that I agree with, it seems to me that the danger that we are risking in accepting the Senator's amendment is that we will be denying important opportunities for States that for one reason or another will not meet the exact criteria. They will be denied. We will be cutting them off from any participation. I do not think that is the way to go. I think the evaluating programs and the enforcement mechanisms included in this bill are the way to go. So I hope that the amendment would not be accepted. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just very briefly, I hope this amendment will be accepted. I think in the study of welfare reform there are a number of items which are necessary to help move people into meaningful jobs. They have to have, one, by and large some help and assistance with child care; secondly, they have to have the health care needs of their children attended to. One of the reasons people are on welfare is the fact that health care costs have depleted their resources and they have ended up on welfare. Third, there has to be a job available; and, fourth, there has to be some training or education. That is the key element in terms of a successful movement. And taking all of those elements with an expanding economy, they have the real opportunity of promise for, I think, meaningful health care reform. I did not believe in the last welfare reform bill we were really addressing those kinds of issues and questions, and therefore I voted in opposition to that particular program. The Senator from Minnesota has offered, I think, a very important and significant amendment that will really help to assist in terms of the medium- and long-term interests of those individuals who have the ability to gain entrance into educational institutions, obviously the commitment and the dedication to be able to do so, and I think it will make a major difference in terms of their lives. I think it is very commendable. I hope the Senate will accept it. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I just need 30 seconds, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object. Cloture Motion

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this matter to our attention and for presenting it here on the floor of the Senate. As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I was there at the time the Montgomery educational programs were advanced as a part of the expanded opportunity for young people in the military services. That has been an enormously important program. It has been a vehicle for continuing education for those that are in the armed services. We have been encouraging that program for those people in the armed services. There is an incentive program for matching funds from the Federal Government for those young people who put aside and save their rather limited salaries. It has been very important and very effective. Now we have the accumulation of some of those benefits after the young people come out and save for themselves and have served in the Armed Forces, many of them in very perilous conditions, called to serve overseas. Their GI Bill benefits have been part of the contract of service. Unless we accept this amendment, we are really unduly penalizing young people who have served in the Armed Forces and set aside some savings of their own in order to carry on their education. It seems that we ought to take this very reasonable step, as the Senator from Florida has suggested, to make sure that those cumulative funds will not reduce the financial aid that these young people are eligible for. I think that this makes a great deal of sense. I certainly support it. One aspect of the proposal seriously concerns me. That is about how the amendment is paid for, because the amendment takes the money from the Department of Education's administrative funds. These funds are used for both the Direct Lending Program and the FFEL Program. Last year's bipartisan budget agreement included major cuts in the Department's administrative fund, and the Department has already had to terminate a number of major contracts to live within these reduced funding levels. Funding cuts undermine the Department's efforts to modernize the student aid delivery systems and to address the year 2000 computer problems. This can potentially hurt students and lenders. We must work in the conference to find a better way to offset the cost of this important benefit for veterans. I will work with all of our colleagues in the conference to do so. On the substance of the amendment, it makes sense. I thank the Senator. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be permitted to follow Senator Graham.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge we accept this amendment. It is basically completely consistent with what we are attempting to do with the legislation; that is, to put a high priority on enhancing teacher training and the qualification of teachers and enhance educational background for teachers. That is what this program is directed towards with the program that has been fashioned and shaped in California. This is basically not a graduate school program. It is just a continuation of a program that happens to take 5 years. There is an issue of whether we want to use the Pell funding for graduate education. I think those are policy issues that deserve a good deal of consideration, but this really doesn't fall in that category. It falls into a category where we are getting a very advanced kind of training program for young people who are going into teaching. This lasts over more of an extended period of time than in other parts of the country. This amendment is fashioned and shaped on a case-by-case method to make sure the program is going to be contained and targeted in ways that are absolutely consistent with the legislation. I welcome the opportunity to urge our side to accept the amendment, and I thank the Senator from California for bringing it to our attention. Obviously, we didn't want those young people disadvantaged. We are, again, talking about needy students who will have gone to school for a long period of time. These are extraordinary young men and women who will continue over the fifth year to be eligible for Pell Grants. These are people who are really dedicated and committed. In terms of teaching, I think they are a unique group of young people. We certainly should not discourage them from their careers in education. I urge the Senate to accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in urging adoption of this amendment. The original campus security amendment was offered by Senator Bradley of New Jersey and myself some 6 years ago. This recognizes some of the areas where there have been loopholes in the interpretation of that amendment. Senator Specter has done good work in helping all of us to make sure that we are going to have safe campuses. Students cannot learn unless they are have safe campuses. There are important loopholes that Senator Specter has identified and additional kinds of reporting requirements and a small enforcement mechanism, but an effective one. This is a good, solid amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object. I withdraw it. I withdraw it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Can I ask that as a unanimous consent request?

Mr. KENNEDY. For purposes of Members' schedules--perhaps after the Senator from New Hampshire, to indicate--we have a number of our colleagues here who have been very, very cooperative, working with the leadership to try to bring their amendments up. They have been working with us so we could move this along. Now it will be set aside from 2 o'clock to 4. That includes the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, with whom we have worked. We want to be able to accept her amendment; Senator Graham as well. Senator Wellstone is prepared to move on ahead. I hope, just without asking consent--I will, if I might, ask that, if it is agreeable with the manager--I don't want to foreclose the process of moving back and forth--but it would seem, if it was agreeable to the floor manager, after the Senator from New Hampshire is recognized that we move ahead with the Senator from California, the Senator from Florida, and then the Senator from Minnesota, if that is agreeable?