ED 342 299
TITLE
INSTITUTION
REPORT NO
PUB DATE
NOTE
AVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 025 270
Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act of 1965: Secretary Lamar Alexander.
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education of the Committee on Education and Labor.
House of Representatives, One Hundred Second
Congress, First Session (May 8, 1991).
Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education.
ISBN-0-16-037168-6
92
76p.; Serial No. 102-71. Portions contain small/light
print.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402.
Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)
MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.
Access to Education; Accountability; Ecommically
Disadvantaged; Educational Finance; Faculty
Development; Federal Aid; *Federal Legislation;
Government Role; Hearings; *Higher Education; Student
Financial Aid; Student Loan Programs
Congress 102nd; Department of Education; *Higher
Education Act 1965; Presidential Initiatives
At this hearing, part of a series of hearings on the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Secretary of
the Department of Education, Lamar Alexander, gave testimony dssigned
to present the Bush administration's recommendations on
reauthorization of the Act to the Congress. Before the Secretary's
testimony the following congressional RepresntativeE offered brie:
comments: E. Thomas Coleman of Missouri; Joseph M. Gaydos of
Pennsylvania; William F. Goodling of Pennsylvania; William J.
Jefferson of Louisiana; Marge Roukema of New Jersey; and Thomas C.
Sawyer of Ohio. The Secretary then presented the administration's
recommendations, a short verbal presentation followed by submission
of a written report. The primary.recommendations included target.ing
grants to lowest-income students, promoting greater accountability
from individuals and institutions, improving the integrity of student
loan services, establishing higher loan limits, improving outreach,
expanding merit scholarships, and increasing teacher opportunities.
There followed a lengthy discussion between the secretary and members
of the committee. The prepared statement of Ron de Lugo, delegate to
Congress from the Virgin Islands, is included.
(JB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************x**
c4.1
HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION
OF THE
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965: SECRETARY
LAMAR ALEXANDER
HEARING
BEFORE THE
"11
SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
CI'Z
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, Dr' MAY 8, 1991
Serial No. 102-71
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
/It
U.S. OEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION
Office of Educational Smirch and trnarovarnant
EDUCATIONAL RFSOURCES INFORMATION
CEkTER !ERIC)
This documant has beim ropropucad as
ricaniad from rho person or organization
originating
0 Minor chanLIPS have boon made to Improve
riltroduction Quality
Points of wow or opinions statod in Ind dot ir
niant do not risicessanly reprownt official
OERI position or policy
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-526 .
WASHINGTON : 1992
I 01 ,11:1,\ flit
.S I imciiiinclit
Mkt'
(Il I hh,
()1ticc. Vashillooll.
21111)!..
ISBN 0-16-037168--6
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan, Chairman
jOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM (BILL)
t AY, Missouri
GEORGE MILLEK, California
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
CHARLES A. HAYES, Illinois
CARL C. PERKINS, Kentucky
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
ROBERT A. ANDREWS, New Jersey
WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JOHN F. REED, Rhode Island
TIM ROEMER, Indiana
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands
JAIME B. FUSTER, Puerto Rico
PATRICIA F. RissLER, Staff Director
ANDREW J. HARTMAN, Minority Staff Director
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
E. THOMAS COLEMAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
SUSAN MOLINARI, New York
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMIME ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan, Chairman
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
E. THOMAS COLEMAN, Missouri
CHARLES A. HAYES, Illinois
JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania
GEORGE MILLER, California
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
JOLENE UNSOELD, Washing Ion
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas
JOSE E. SERRANO, 14ew York
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
ROBERT A. ANDREWS, New Jersey
WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JOHN F. REED, Rhade Island
TIM ROEMER, Indiana
DALE KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN MOLINARI, New York
SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan
RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
3
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, May 8, 1991
1
Statement of:
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
11
Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera:
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
17
Coleman, Hon. E. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri, prepared statement of
10
de Lugo, Hon. Ron, a Delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands,
prepared statement of
71
Gaydos, Hon. Joseph M. a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania, prepareCI statement of
5
Good ling, Hon. William F., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of
2
Jefferson, FIon. William J., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, prepared statement of
8
Roukema, Hon. Marge, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey, prepared statement of
4
Sawyer, Hon. Thomas C., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, prepared statement of
7
4
HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIIZATION OF THE
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1991
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., Room 2175,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William D. Ford [Chairman]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Ford, Hayes, Gaydos, Lowey,
Sawyer, Payne, Unsoeld, Serrano, Andrews, Jefferson,
Reed,
Roemer, Kildee, Coleman, Molinari, Klug, Good ling, Petri, Rouke-
ma, Gunderson, Henry, and Barrett.
Staff present: Thomas Wolanin, staff director; Jack Jennings,
education counsel; Diane Stark, legislative associate; Maureen
Long, legislative associate/clerk; Gloria Gray-Watson, administra-
tive assistant; Eliza Evans, staff assistant; Michael Lance, minority
staff director; Jo-Marie St. Martin, education counsel; and Beth
Beuhlmann, minority education counsel.
Chairman FORD. I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Sub-
committee on Postsecondary Education this morning on the reau-
thorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Today we will
hear from the Secretary of Education, the Honorable Lamar Alex-
ander, who will present the administration's recommendations for
reauthorization.
This hearing is particularly noteworthy for three reasons. First,
this will be the first time that a Secretary of Education will testify
before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education on the reau-
thorization of the Higher Education Act. Previous Secretaries have
not been able to make up their minds in time to come over here
and tell us anything, both Democrats and Republicans. So you're
an exception to the rule, a pleasant one.
During the previous authorizations since the creation of the De-
partment of Education, administrations have either been insuffi-
ciently organized or insufficiently interested to send the Secretary
before this subcommittee to present their recommendations.
Second, the subcommittee will be receiving timely recommenda-
tions from the administration for this reauthorization, and this
means that we will have before us as we proceed with the hearings
the recommendations of the administration, the recommendations
of over 150 interested national organizations that have submitted
(1)
5
2
their recommendations, and a number of bills introduced by House
Members.
Therefore, we'll be able to have a full and comprehensive discus-
sion and debate with a full range of relevant proposals before us as
we proceed.
But third and most importantly, I believe that the administra-
tion is committed, as the Secretary's statement says, to improving
the availability and quality of postsecondary education for all
Americans. Their recommendations include serious proposals for
increasing grant assistance to low income students, to restore the
integrity of the student aid programs, to simplify the programs,
and to provide for early ontreach to students in middle school and
high school.
With the administration putting these proposals before us and
clearly willing to be actively engaged in the reauthorization proc-
ess, we have an opportunity to go beyond tinkering and make
major strides in reforming and restructuring the Higher Education
Act to better serve the needs of the Nation and its citizens.
Mr. Secretary, I welcome you and your appearance before this
subcommittee and look forward to hearing your statement.
Mr. Goodling.
Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pinch hitting for
the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Coleman, temporarily. He is with
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee right now but will be
here with us very soon.
I want to thank you for holding the hearing today on the reau-
thorization of the Higher Education Act, and for inviting the Secre-
tary of Education, Lamar Alexander, to testify. I want to welcome
him and I also want to welcome members of the press from my dis-
trict who are down here watching the Congress at work today.
Hopefully, they'll give a better report than people usually get in
relationship to how hard we really work.
Even before our hearings began, we on the committee had al-
ready learned about a number of the problems facing higher educa-
tion in the country. The integrity of the loan programs have come
under serious question, and also the opportunity for middle income
America to receive a higher education has become very difficult.
And so I look forward to the reauthorization process and to the
Secretary's testimony and, then, putting a package together with
the Chairman and seeing whether we can't improve what you de-
signed a long time ago that's good but needs to be updated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. William F. Good ling follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank you for holding a hearing today on the reauthor-
ization of the Higher Education Act, and for inviting the Secretary of Education,
Lamar Alexander, to testify. I would like to welcome him and thank him for his
testimony in advance. I am pleased that the Secretary has already shared with us
his outline for changes to the program effecting Federal student financial assistance
through his letter to the Speaker.
I would also like to welcome several members of the local press from my district.
They are visiting for the day and have taken this opportunity to come to Washing-
ton and watch Congress at work.
3
Even before our hearings began, we on the committee had already learned of a
number of the problems facing higher education in this country. The integrity of the
loan programs have come under serious question. As you know, defaults have risen
to an unacceptably high level, over $2 billion annually iscurrently going to pay for
the defaults of the loan program. We have also learned of the abuses in the program
by unscrupulous schools swindling students and taxpayers. I very much appreciate
your proposals for strengthening Title IV programs and reducing the default costs
through default prevention and improvement of default collections. I feel certain
that this committee will pay close attention to the proposals you suggest and I look
forward to your legislative language that I understand you intend to offer later this
month.
I am also increasingly concerned about middle income student access to postsec-
ondary education. My hope for the reauthorization is that we structure programs
that restore the ability of all students to participate in higher education.
Again, I wish to thank Chairman Ford for this hearing and I wish to thank the
Secretary for his testimony. I am certain that your recommendations will guide us
wisely for decisions we will be required to make for the reauthorization.
Chairman FORD. Does anyone on this side want to make a state-
ment?
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the sentiments of
my colleagues in welcoming Secretary Alexander here today. I, too,
am very anxious to hear in greater detail the administration's pro-
posals on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Whenever I have the opportunity to meet with students in my
district, I always point out my belief that education is key to the
survival of this world. I encourage them to stay in school and seek
some form of higher education. This is truly my believe.
However, in our earlier hearings, Mr. Chairman, we have
learned that the needs of this Nation's work force are not being
adequately met by our higher education system. I hope that this
Secretary will address this very issue today.
I also look forward to the Secretary addressing issues such as in-
creasing the access to higher education for the minority students in
this country. I know that you have read statistics just as I do, and
so you know that minority participation and retention rates are
very low. By the year 2000, 91 percent of the new work force will
be minorities and women, so the issue of access must certainly be
addressed.
There are many other issues which we will consider as time goes
by, but in the interest of time, I will reserve any further comment
and just, again, welcome the Secretary here today. And as we
embark upon this reauthorization, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Chairman FORD. Mrs. Roukema.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
time, I know we're pressed today and I'm very anxious, as are
other members, to hear the Secretary and allow him adequate
time. I would ask unanimous consent that the full context of my
statement be included in the record.
Chairman FORD. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. And I would simply like to reiterate, Mr. Chair-
man, what many people here already know. My commitment to the
Higher Education Act, and particularly my interest in the authori-
zation of the student financial aid levels and the methodology
whereby we define those levels.
It is clearly a priority for us here if we are to remain competitive
in the global economy to put a higher priority on access to higher
7
4
education for all young Americans. And I know the Secretary
shares that feeling.
I feel sirongly that we must first dispatch our obligation to
higher education and adequate funding for these programs prior to
expanding into other areas, which may have great merit. But my
chief concern is proper funding for the higher education programs,
student loans and Pell grants.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been very active in seeking
reforms to stem the tide of red ink. And I think there has been ex-
cellent progress made in that area. And I look forward today to
hearing what the Secretary has to say further in that regard.
Certainly, we must put a stop to this defrauding of the govern-
ment, the taxpayers, and the students that is latent in the proprie-
tary schools. I am particularly interested in the new Congressional
Methodology and the question of how we treat the fixed asset,
whether it be a home or the family farm. And I have legislation to
that effect, Mr. Chairman, and would like to go into some serious
discussion of this with the Secretary today.
Mr. Secretary, we thank you for being here and we are eager to
hear your comments.
[The prepared statements of Hon. Marge Roukema and Hon.
Joseph M. Gaydos follow]
STATEMENT OF HON. MARGE ROUKEMA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased that this committee is beginning a badly needed assessment of
the Higher Education Act. The committee knows this member is particularly con-
cerned with Title IV, the heart of the act, which authorizes student financial aid.
It is clear to me that the student loan and Pell grant programs can play a pivotal
role in our efforts to halt the erosion from leadership of the United States in an
increasingly competitive global economy. The growth of new economic powers in
Asia and Europe has altered the international political landscape and will change
the United States' position in the global community and the international economy.
The challenge to recapture and maintain this country's economic momentum will
require American higher education to provide a highly educated, highly trained
labor force. The first step is to make adequate funding levels our highest priority.
Before expanding to other educational programs, we must fully fund programs of
proven ability.
However, as currently constituted, our Federal higher education assistance pro-
grams need an overhaul. We have already waited too long to stop the rising tiee of
red ink in the student loan program. For years, I have been working to reform ;.he
student loan program as well as calling for a change in the current formula useii to
determine student eligibility for financial assistance.
As in years past, I have introduced two pieces of legislation relating to the default
problem and student eligibility. The first bill, H.R. 1118, Student Low, Reform Act,
would increase available Federal funds by reducing defaults and eliminating fraudu-
lent operations that are defrauding the Federal Government. I find it more than
curious that the growth in defaults coincides closely with a growth in the trade
school industry (propriety for profit-schools) and is clear evidence that the system is
lacking in the necessary safeguards against fraud, waste, and abuse. Make no mis-
takeour aim is not to eliminate the trade school industry. However, we can and
must dredge from the system the scam schools that are profiting from the taxpayer
and harming deserving students.
The second bill, H.1R. 1117, would remove the value of the family home, small
business, or family farm from the calculation of need for Federal assistance. Too
many families today are "house rich, cash poor," can't afford a home equity loan,
and are disqualified from receiving Federal aid. For example, the most current up-
to-date figures show that the national medium income for a "household"
is
$28,906the New Jersey medium income figures for a "household" is $39,012. At
the same time, many homeowners have seen their home value skyrocket over the
past decade. The current "Congressional Methodology" has resulted in the loss or
serious reduction in the amount of Federal financial aid to the nearly 40 percent of
New Jersey students and previously eligible students who depend on this aid to
pursue a college degree.
I have 'had the opportunity to review the administration's proposals and I have
noted the proposed changes for Title IV, student financial assistance. While I am
glad to see that the administration has included many of the same provisions as I
have in my bills, we must move forward.
I look forward to hearing Secretary Alexander's proposals for reauthorization, to
working with the Chairmanwhose years of experience provide the committee with
excellent leadershipand the administration
in seeking these much needed
changes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
The Higher Education Act of 1965 and its legislative predecessors have assisted
millions of Americans achieve their educational dreams and improve the economic
situations of their families.
Not only have individual families benefited from this commitment to higher edu-
cation, but the Nation, as a whole, has seen a tremendous return for every dollar we
have invested.
Following World War II, for example, we invested $14 billion to educate and train
7.8 million veterans. According to a study by the Joint Economic Committee, the
United States got no less than $5 back for every dollar invested and, in some cases,
as much as $12 back for each dollar.
By any standards, this is a significant and substantial return on investment, and
demonstrates the economic value of continuing to invest in all types of education.
As a Nation, we have always prided ourselves on the diversity and accessibility of
our higher education system.
We will always need our rocket scientists and physicians. I don't think anyone
has ever argued against supporting these types of education. However, I am con-
cerned that the benefits of another sector of higher educationthe career training
sectormay be completely overlooked in the reauthorization process.
Common sense tells us that short-term educational programs are a viable and val-
uable alternative for those men and women who are unemployed, underemployed,
or dislocated. We may well reduce reliance on other less productive welfare benefit
programs and enable unemployed, underemployed, and dislocated workers to go
back to work or find a better job faster. This translates into higher tax revenues,
more disposable income, and a greater return on invested educational dollars.
I thank you for coming here today, Mr. Secretary, and look forward to receiving
the legislative language that will fill out the skeleton of the department's higher
education proposals.
Chairman FORD. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief in the inter-
est of time. I'm just delighted to join in welcoming the Secretary
here today and I look forward to working with you on the reau-
thorization of the Higher Education Act. I represent Westchester
County, where we have 11 institutions of higher education, and I
often meet with our college presidents to discuss their needs.
They're all feeling the crunch.
Student aid is critical, and I'm particularly interested in talking
with you about the current controversy concerning aid to those
neediest of our students who desperately need assistance if they're
going to fulfill their potential.
But I'm also interested in pursuing with you what opportunities
we can look at to help that middle class that is feeling crushed. In
fact, just recently I spoke with a group, one mother got up and she
said, "I sent seven youngsters to college." And this was a union
worker, a minority union worker. And she said, "And then when
the youngster got to college, I couldn't pay the $150 for books."
9
6
So it's not only the tuition; there are also other costs and sup-
portive services, helping that youngster to college. There are a lot
of opportunities for us to work together as we reauthorize this act.
And I know of your commitment, and I was honored to be at the
White House to hear your presentation and to participate in the
briefing that you gave us on elementary and secondary education.
And I eagerly await your recommendations on the Higher Educa-
tion Act and I know that we can come out with an outstanding bill
working together.
Thank you very much for being here today.
Chairman FORD. Steve Gunderson.
Mr. Gur DERSON.
k;assing. Let's go.
Chairmdn FORD. Msviolinari.
MS. MOLINARI. No, thank you.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT. Nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Roemer.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, Democrats like to talk so maybe I'll
take over from what Ms. Molinari was not going to say. Welcome
this morning, Mr. Secretary. I just have a few very brief comments.
Pardon me?
Ms. MOLINARI. I said I may change my mind.
Mr. ROEMER. Yield your time to me?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ft0EMER. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Pardon me, Mr. Chair-
man?
Chairman FORD. Go ahead.
Mr. ROEMER. Even though my own Chairman has welcomed you,
I would just like to welcome you. As a freshman Member of Con-
gress, Mr. Secretary, as I go back and forth between my rducation
and Labor assignment and my Science, Space and Techaology as-
signment, I hear from teachers that are pink-slipped to major
CEOs in my district and throughout the United States that educa-
tion is the biggest problem this country faces.
I was also at the White House briefing on education, and thank
you for the invitation. I am willing to support many of the Presi-
dent's proposals, innovative proposals, within education. However,
.1 think, Mr. Secretary, we've got to be abie to put money into this
program, money toward innovation and change and into Head
Start programs that are working. Sever out of ten of kids in my
district can not get into Head Start programs because that pro-
gram is not adequately funded. I think we've got to be willing to
put the budget priorities in education.
A
I finally, Mr. Secretary, I would just say that I have nine in-
stitutions of higher learning in my district. It's not just a question
of jobs in the Third District of Indiana; it's a question of jobs for
this whole country and our future competitiveness.
I look forward to working with you in this endeavor on higher
education, as well as in the K through 12 initiative. Thank you,
Mr. Secretary.
Chairman FORD. Anyone else? Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I would request that the
full text of my opening statement be placed in the record at the
appropriate point, but would take this opportunity simply to say,
7
Mr. Secretary, that it is again a pleasure to continue this conversa-
tion that we have begun and will pursue throughout the next
couple of years.
My own concerns are directed to that point in the course of this
next decade, where educational trend lines and the force of demo-
graphic change in this country come together to demand that we
begin to redefine the kind of important role that higher education,
indeed education in general, needs to play in our society. As we ex-
amine the Higher Education Act we also need to take a look at the
way in which we drive dollars to those people who may not need
the full measure of a college education throughout the course of
their working careers but nonetheless can benefit enormously from
exposure to higher education.
VVe need to keep in mind the role that higher education has to
play, both at traditional colleges and university settings and, also,
off campus and into the work place itself.
With that, I'm going to reserve the rest of my comments for the
record, but simply, again, say thank you. The work that you're
doing is enormously encouraging arid we look forward to being a
part of it.
Chairman FORD. Without objection, the text of the gentleman's
full statement will be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas Sawyer follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today with you a;:d my colleagues on the
subcommittee to welcome the Secretary of Education.
I certainly share the administration's goals of educational excellence, and expand-
ing access to postsecondary education.
I am, however, concerned with factors that have not traditionally been seen as
educational issuesdemographics and the changing American and world market-
places.
During the next decade there will be a slow-down in the number of new workers
entering the, American labor force, while the need for skilled workers will increase.
By the year 2000, over half of the jobs will require some postsecondary education.
An estimated 40 to 50 million Americans currently working must be able to up-
grade their job skill, during the next decade in order for America to remain com-
petitive in the global marketplace.
We must find ways to bring higher education to all people who need it because
this country needs each and every one of those people.
This may mean holding classes on a job site, in conjunction with local universi-
ties
We also may need to be more flexible about giving financial aid to less than part-
time students to allow them to obtain postsecondary education.
For instance, we might want to make grants and loans available to workers who
need just a few courses to improve their job skills.
I look forward to working with Secretary Alexander and the administration to
make this reauthorization process a positive force for productive change in higher
education.
Chairman FORD. Are there any further opening statements? Mr.
Jefferson.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the need to be brief,
so I will ask that the full text of my remarks be submitted.
Chairman FORD. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFERSON. But I do want to say, Mr. Secretary, that since
1965, the Higher Education Act has been the main vehicle by
which educational opportunities in the postsecondary context has
8
been expanded to students who otherwise wouldn't have had a
chance to go to college.
And my major concern is to insure that these financial barriers
that are now cropping up for students are diminished or removed
as we go through the reauthorization process. And I'm very con-
cerned about what has been happening in recent years as Federal
resources devoted to aiding minority and low income students have
been reduced, and particularly about new interpretations that have
now been placed on civil rights laws that, perhaps, portend the lim-
itation of private and State scholarship for minority and low
income students.
And since, as most have pointed out this morning, what the ap-
proaching decade offers with respect to the emerging changes in
the work force, it's critical that we pay attention in this area and
we pay attention to it now.
In my district there are five colleges; three of them are histori-
cally black colleges or universities. There has been a recognition by
the Higher Education Act of these colleges as national resources.
And I frankly think that that role of awarding baccalaureate de-
grees to persons from these institutions has not diminished, Mr.
Secretary, but has increased over the years.
And I think we have to keep the emphasis there to make sure
that the flow of productivity is not stemmed and that it is, in fact,
enhanced and strengthened. So with those brief remarks, I would
urge that your consideration be given as we speak today on those
issues and that the full text of my statement be submitted per the
chair's already permitted.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Hon. William J. Jefferson follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleagues on the Postsecondary Education Sub-
committee, Secretary Alexander, I appreciate the oportunity to participate in this
hearing on the Bush Administration's Higher Education Act proposals.
Mr. Secretary, as you mentioned in your April 30th letter to Speaker Foley, the
Federal Government s commitment to enhancing equal opportunity to higher educa-
tion dates back to the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that was enacted in
response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik. In the light of the perceived tech-
nological advancement of the Soviets, this 1958 act articulated a new national
policy"The security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental
resources and technical skills of its young men and women... .This requires pro-
grams that will give assurance that no student of ability will be denied an opportu-
nity for higher education because of financial need." We would do well as a Nation
Mr. Secretary, to keep this still relevant purpose at the center :if our discussions as
we work to reauthorize this years Higher Education Act today.
From 1965 forward, the Higher Education Act has been the primary vehicle for
expanding access to postsecondary education to all Americans. Despite the com-
mendable progress that has resulted from the programs authorized by the act, the
financial barriers that block access to higher education have not been removed for
all Americans.
In recent years, Federal resources devoted to aiding minority and low income stu-
dents have beer, reduced, and new interpretations of civil rights laws that limit
State ani private scholarship assistance are conspiring to limit access to college fnr
minority and low income students. In the approaching decade, the overwhelming
majority of the workforce will be comprised of minorities and women. Thus in the
future, America will slip into a weaker global economic competitive position than
ever before if continuous efforts are not made to augment the participation and suc-
cess of low income students, minorities and women in higher education. Congress
12
f:
previously found a significant need to aid "students who have been denied access to
postsecondary education because of race or national origin and whose participation
the American system of higher education is in the Nation's best interest so that
equality of access and quality of postsecondary education opportunities may be en-
hanced for all students.
These findings can be stated in stronger terms today, Mr.
Secretary Ak ander, and need to be backed by strong aggressive leadership and
programs.
In authorizing Title III Institutional Aid, the Congress found that Historically
Black Colleges and Universities "play an important role in the American system of
higher education, and there is a strong national interest in assisting them in solving
their problems and stabilizing their management and fiscal operations and in be-
coming financially independent." A close examination will reveal that this role has
not diminished, but rather has increased and that a concomitant increase in Federal
commitment to the strengthening of these institutions is warranted.
Mr. Secretary, I represent a district with five nationally recognized colleges and
universities, three of which are historically black. Therefore, I will be closely scruti-
nizing the administration's proposals for the Higher Education Act to determine
whether they are a step forward or a retrenchment on the Federal commitment to
keep the doors of this Nation's colleges and universities truly open to low income
and minority students. According to a Congressional Research report, college costs
have been escalating at an annual rate of between 5 and 8 percent over the past few
years, increases that have outpaced the rate of inflation. This means that the aver-
age student attending college for 4 years saw his or her college expenses increase
from 25 to 32 percent from his or her freshmen to senior year. At the same time
studen s and their families are feeling the effects of the dramatic shift from grants
to loans as the primary source of Federal aid. According to the College Board, in the
mid 1970s about 76 percent of Federal aid was awarded in the form of grants and
about 20 percent in the form of loans. Today this trend has completely reversed
itself. In the 1987-88 academic year, about 67 percent of Federal aid was awarded in
the form of loans and about 29 percent in the form ofgrants.
Mr. Secretary you have noted on other occasions that "education is increasingly
the key to advancement in our society," and a necessary part of achieving the
American dream. I would like to see the American dream become a reality for all
American students. I believe that if we are to make good on the promise that all
this country has to offer is available to those who put forth their best effort, and not
just to those of fortunate birth, then we must ensure that in advocating proposals
for equal educational access we do not confuse solutions that sound good with good
sound solutions.
Again, I commend you Mr. Chairman for calling this important hearing and I
thank you Mr. Secretary ,or appearing here today.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Henry, did you have anything to say?
Mr. HENRY. No opening comments. Thank you.
Chairman FORD. I see that we've been joined by a former
member of the committee, Mr. Pursell. We like to have him here,
Mr. Secretary, because he's one of the votes we need to get the
money to fund what you're going to propose here.
Anyone else?
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I? I know I've been late
Chairman FORD. The late Mr. Coleman is with us.
Mr. COLEMAN. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It's certainly good to
have you officially before our subcommittee. I think there are sev-
eral important things that we all need to address during this reau-
thorization, and you've touched on several of them in your remarks
that you'll make shortly.
I want to emphasize several. One is that we need to restore
public confidence in these programs, which have become fodder for
some popuiar press interpretations and, sometimes, well deserved
criticisms. Otherz, perhaps, the public perception is that all of
these programs have so many problems, maybe we ought not to
have them. And I think that would certainly be something that we
ould not agree should be. So we need to restore public confidence.
13
10
Two other things I think are extremely important. One of them
has to do with that public confidence. A.nd that is making these
programs more accountable and quantifying in some fashion out-
puts of higher education so that we, as policy makers, might be
able to better judge how our tax dollars are being spent. And so
that accountability factor, I think, is verY important.
And, third, I would emphasize a fail aess issue that for too long
now I think the middle income working families of this country
feel that they, and rightfully so, have been excluded from eligibil-
ity on these programs. In the face of rising tuition and increased
cost of attendance, these folks who do pay their taxes have become
ineligible for even loan programs in many cases, a program that
originally was designed to help working middle i.icome families.
So I think we need to expand those eligibility opportunities for
those folks, and that we look upon this as a good challenge for us
in this reauthorization. I have some proposals I'd like to work with
other members of this committee on trying to deal back in the
middle class into some of these programs.
And, lastly, let me say how refreshing it is that the administra-
tion wants to be a player in this reauthorization. That was not the
case 5 years ago. Very frankly, we look forward to working with
the administration, with you personally, and your commitment to
higher education, as well as elementary and secondary.
And I hope that the Departmentand I'm sure you personally
areare capable of working on two tracks at once, these challenges
of the elementary and secondary levels, and then also the higher
education challenges on another track.
So welcome, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to working with you in
this very important reauthorization.
[The prepared statement of Hon. E. Thomas Coleman follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. E. THOMAS COLEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Chairman, I want to join you this morning in welcoming Secretary of Educa-
tion Lamar Alexander to testify before this subcommittee on the reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act.
The Higher Education Act contains over 60 programs, but the heart of the legisla-
tion is Title IV, which provides more that $20 billion annuallyin grants, loans and
work studyto nearly one half of the Nation's 12 million students enrolled in col-
leges and job training programs.
I want to emphasize that this reauthorization promises to be one of the most dra-
matic and comprehensive since the early 1910s. Student aid programs have, in the
past several years, received unparalleled scrutiny and criticism both in Congress
and in the press. As a result, I believe that we must make fundamental reforms to
restore public confidence in these programs. I commend the administration's recom-
mendations to reduce waste and fraud in student financial aid programs, and your
appointment of a senior-level manager with primary responsibility to reorganize the
department's administration of these programs.
Clearly, program "accountability" will be a central goal of reauthorization. We
must ask ourselvesHow well are our Federal student aid programs working to
insure a quality education? How can the Federal Government provide incentives for
broadened access to higher education, and simultaneously improve retention and in-
crease quality education for students at postsecondary institutions?
Another of my goals for his reauthorization wir, be for expanding eligibilitj for
moderate and working middle-income families. I strongly believe that this is a
fair-
ness" question. Working, middle-income families bear a disproportionate burden of
the taxes. They do not rely on the Federal subsidies on an on-going basis, but they
do need short-term assistance in meeting the rising costa of a college education,
which now equals what many middle-income families paid for their first home. I
14
11
also feel that increased participation by middle-income families will broaden and
strengthen the political base for Federal student aid programs.
Finally, if we are to make substantive, far-reaching changes in current programs,
the administration must play an active role in reauthorization.
We need to address the postsecondary educational needs of Americans who must
function in a much tougher and competitive worldand I am talking about job-
training programs which are a fundamental to meeting the work force needs of the
coming century and about expanding resources for traditional and so-called "non-
traditional" students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees at colleges and
universities.
I understand your concern and focus on the elementary and secondary school
crisis. Many of the educational problems in the postsecondary sector are rooted in
the massive, structural prob!ems of our elementary and secondary schools. Drop out
rates, particularly for minorities, are simply appalling. And those who do graduate,
too often leave high school without basic literacy skills.
I hope that you will balance your efforth on behalf of the pressing problem of
school reform with an active role with Congress at this fundamental crossroad in
postsecondary education policy-making. We look forward to your working with Con-
gress on two tracks: on school reform and on the higher education reauthorization.
We welcome the administration's active participation and particularly welcome
your meaningful involvement in the reauthorization process.
Chairman FORD. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.
Without objection, the Secretary's prepared statement submitted to
the committee will be inserted in full in the record following his
statement. You can proceed in any way you deem most appropri-
ate.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LAMAR ALEXANDER, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the invitation. I've looked forward to coming and I've enjoyed our
visits prior to this day with you and with many of the other mem-
bers of the committee. It's given me a little pause to realize what
you said earlier, which is that I'm the first Secretary to show up at
this stage in the proceedings on this subject. And it makes me
think that maybe my predecessors knew something I didn't. And so
they may be wiser than I am.
Chairman FORD. Well, Mr. Secretary, I won't use any names, but
one of your predecessors called me about a quarter to 7 in the
morning on the morning he was supposed to appear and said, "I
know how hard you've been trying to get me up there, and I was
ready to go, but the President called me last night and aecepted my
resignation. And I would not like to be sitting in front of your com-
mittee when it was announced to the world." So there has been
some hazard in the past.
Secretary ALEXANDER. I try not to take any late night telephone
calls.
Chairman FORD. Good idea.
Secretary ALEXANDER. I've been a parent for 20 years, a student
for a number of years before that, a Governor for eight, a universi-
ty president for three, and Secretary of Education for about a
month. So I'm arriving very early in my tenure here, and I'm not
going to pretend that I know a lot of things that I don't know.
We talked about that before. You encouraged me to come on. Mr.
Good ling did the same, and Mr. Coleman. And so I hope it is all
right if I bring with me some people who have been very deeply
involved in an intensive review of the Higher Education Act within
15
12
the Department over the last year or so. We are looking forward to
the opportunity of being a part of this process.
Ted Sanders, the Deputy Secretary, whom all of you know, is fa-
miliar with the act. And Ted has worked especially hard on trying
to bring more integrity to the student financial aid prograr-3. He
and the Office of Management and Budget produced an excellent
report a few weeks ago that I'd love to take full credit for, but I
can't. And so when we get to that, any of those questions, I'll do
my best with them. Ted is available to do even more.
I would like also to present to the members of the committee
someone sitting right behind me whose name is Mike Farrell.
Mike, if you would stand, if that's all right, Mr. Chairman, for just
a moment. Many of you have met him. Mike is a very able manag-
er and business leader. And he's come in to take over the, manage-
ment of the spending of the annual appropriations for student fi-
nancial aid.
We will be bringing into the Department, as soon as the Presi-
dent makes a nomination, an Assistant Secretary for Postsecond-
ary Education. That's not what Mike plans to be, but what he does
plan to do is to work hard on the question so that we spend the
dollars well. That's a subject that many of you have mentioned to
me, and I'm very delighted that he's come in.
Sally Christiensen and Bob Davidson are both here from the De-
partment. They're veterans with our Department. I've worked care-
fully with them since I've come, and they've worked hard on our
proposals. And we're all glad to be a part of the process. We think
we ought to be here. We realize this is the beginning of a conversa-
tion and we'd like to be a part of the rest of the conversation.
And we understand that we'll have some ideas and you'll have
some, and in the end, you'll pass a bill. But we want to be a part of
that. We think that's part of the administration's responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's necessary for me to take the
committee's time to read what I've already given you. I would like
to highlight some of the points of my statement, and then stop and
see if members would like to say something to me or ask questions,
to which we'll then try to respond.
I mentioned earlier that we have examined carefully within the
Department the Higher Education Act. I have submitted a 30 page
summary of how we intend to proceed to the Speaker. We have vis-
ited informally about some of these ideas, and by the end of the
month it's our intention to have to you, Mr. Chairman, our pro-
posed reauthorization bill for your consideration. That's got to go
through a number of places in the administration, but we're all on
that schedule and we're still looking forward to that.
As I was thinking about what has happened, I had to think per-
sonally over the last 25 or 30 years because that's the way most of
us think. And perhaps that would help put this into perspective. I
was thinking back to the bipartisan role that has been played since
1958, and especially since 1965, in making it easier for Americans
to continue their education beyond high school, and what a success
story that has been.
It s been a success story for Americans for whom more education
is a way to get from the back to the front of the line, a way to un-
1 6
13
derstand the world, a way to get a better job, and a way to under-
stand and function in our democracy.
And it is also a success story because of the way the money's
been distributed because it permits students to have a say in where
they choose to spend the help we give them. It has helped to create
a broad based, very accessible, generally affordable, highly competi-
tive system of colleges and universities that President Bush has
said is the best in ihe world.
Now, America does some things better than anybody else does
them. And one of the things it has done is to create the best system
of higher education in the world, public and private. And then the
last 25 or 30 years have been a wonderful success story in making
it possible for more people to go to that.
Let me take that out of the abstract and take it down to my own
experience, because sometimes I think that helps. I graduated from
Maryville High School on the edge of the
.eat Smoky Mountains
in the year 1958 and had to think about where to go to college.
There were no Federal grants or loans for me at that time except
about $30 million that were a part of the National Education De-
fense Act.
In 1991, or for 1992, the year we're talking about, we're talking
about that $30 million from 1958 that was available to me or my
classmates graduating that year; instead of $30 million, $12.6 bil-
lion will be spent by the taxpayers, and that will be leveraged to
make the amount of money available closer to $18 or $20, the
figure being $19.7 billion.
From the time I graduated from high school to the time I testi-
fied before you, the amount of Federal help for students going from
$30 million to nearly $20 billion in terms of that available, that's
not only not a problem, that's a wonderful success story. It's some-
thing in which you, Mr. Chairman and others, should take great
pride.
The University of Tennessee would have been one place I could
have gone in 1958. I didn't go there. There were about, maybe,
15,000 or 20,000 students there in that year. There were no stu-
dents there except on Federal grants or loans except those few who
might have had the National Education Defense Act grants.
When I left the University of Tennessee a month ago, there were
25,000 students on the campus in Knoxville and 8,000 of them had
a Federal grant or a loan to help pay for part of their college.
Generally speaking, I'm told by the Department that one out of
every two Americans who goes on to college or university or post-
secondary education has either a Federal grant or a Federal loan.
Now, what has happened between 1958 and 1992? What else has
happened? Well, the access question is one of the biggest success
stories. There were not in Tennessee in 1958 any community col-
leges at all. None existed until 1968. There probably were not any
in most of your States.
We had a number of what we call teacher's colleges at that time,
as you probably did in your States. They are now in our State
major universities, with student bodies as large as the University
of Tennessee had in 1958. There was segregated education in the
public part of our higher education system in 1958. That is not the
47-526 0 - 92 - 2
17
14
case today in our State or in yours. And many millions more Amer-
icans go to college.
I suppose in 1958, the year that I graduated from high school,
the number of Americans with a college degree probably was
around 5 percent, the number of adult Americans was around 5
percent. It's less than 20 percent today. Most people are surprised
to learn that, although as we all know, maybe half the people who
go out of high school today want to go on to some sort of further
education.
So I guess the point I would like to make is before we begin this
reauthorization, I think it's a good time for the committee to stop
and think of how well it's done so far. Because it has opened up
our system to an enormous number of people, and it dramatically
changed not only the number of students who can go to college, but
the number of institutions that are available.
And before we get into the difficult issues of how do we take the
available money and apportion it, I think it's useful to go back to
specific example of how a student spends his or her college money
today. And let me go back to the situation I know best at the Uni-
versity of Tennessee. Now, I'm talking about grants and loans.
Every single student who arrives at the University of Tennessee
Knoxville campus arrives with a scholarship from the State gov-
ernment that pays 70 percent of the instructional cost. In other
words, the instructional cost, what it costs to educate a student at
the University of Tennessee Knoxville is about $6,000. That's what
we call the instructional cost. And the State taxpayers pay about
70 percent of that. That's by policy in our State.
The taxpayer will pay 70 percent and the student will pay 30
percent. And that's roughly what it works out to be. Tuition is
about $1,700 or $1,800 for the year for a student. So already, a
middle income or a low income or an upper income family in Ten-
nessee, and I assume in most of your States, can go to the State's
major State land grant research university and have 70 percent of
the cost paid 6r by the State government from tax dollars, 30 per-
cent by the student.
Then comes the Federal money, the Federal grant and the Feder-
al loan, the Pell grant and the variety of loans. And they help to
pay. in the case of the University of Tennessee student, the $1,700
or $1,800 for tuition that needs to be paid, and then pay the addi-
tional $4,000 or so that needs to be paid for other expenses.
So in think ing about how to apportion money between low
income families and middle income families, I think it's important
to understand what the real choices are: That tuition, as it is at
most State universities, is $2,000 or less, even for the major ones;
that many of those universities are among the best in the country;
and that, in addition to that, partially as the result of this commit-
tee's actions in creating the Federal grants and loans, a system of
community colleges has developed.
In our State, they are within about 30 miles of every student.
They're open in the afternoon, they're open at night. They have
transfer courses; that is to say, the University of Tennessee has an
admissions officer on the campus of the community college so that
the student who wants to continue to college but would rather
15
start at the community college, may take courses there for 2 years
and be guaranteed admission to the State university later.
The tuition at the community college in Tennessee is about $800
a year, and the expenses in addition to that are not any because
there are no dormitories and you live at home.
So those are the real choices that are there for students in our
State today as a result of the great success story of this committee
and the Federal Government in broadening the access of Ameri-
cans to college. One out of two in America at our colleges and uni-
versities have some help.
It's important to remember that tuitions, on the whole, are low,
at our State universities and our community colleges. They're
available and they're generally affordable. And so that is why the
administration, when we make our recommendation to you, which
may be one of the two or three most important that we have to
make, in the statement I prepared that is why we suggest that we
take the available money we have and concentrate it on the lowest
income families, and as a result of that, increase by a total of 54
percent the amount of the Pell grant.
We believe that's putting the money where it does the most good,
because it is those families, we believe, for whom money is the
largest and most difficult barrier. Now, we understand and readily
admit that that's not an easy choice because there are other fami-
lies that feel the pinch. It's never easy to borrow money to go to
college. It's never easy to go to college.
And with the increasing number of students who are what we
call nontraditional, who are so nontraditional they're getting tradi-
tional, that is the commencement ceremony that has the applause
for the mother crossing the stage instead of the son and the cheers
are, "Way to go, Mom." That for the increasing number of those
students, it's especially difficult to continue education.
But we're talking about how do we focus $6 billion of Pell grant
money. For example, on which 3 million students shall we focus it?
And we suggest focusing it with more emphasis on the lower
income families and with significantly larger grants, up to $4,200 a
year.
And taking that back to the University of Tennessee situation,
you could see that if any student were to arrive with a Pell grant
of $4,200, and in effect, a State scholarship for $4,000, and about
$2,000 or $3,000 left to go, which could be made up a variety of
other ways in terms of self help local scholarships. So it would take
the Pell grant, and for the lowest income families, move that stu-
dent's opportunities on up.
Now, it is true that that wouldn't pay to go to Harvard, and
that's something to consider. Most students don't go there, and
most of those that do who need the money have their way paid.
And that's a part of the calculus that we have to make.
But we would suggest taking that picture in. And I hope you
don't mind my going into some detail about that because I think
that the campus experience is one way to think about it.
19
16
The other initiatives that we have suggested in here, Mr. Chair-
man, are fairly straightforward, with special emphasis on the in-
tegrity of the programs. I've mentioned them all in my statement. I
think I'll reserve the rest of the time for question from you or from
the committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Lemar Alexander fol-
lowsj
17
Testimony By
Lamar Alexander
U.S. Secretary of Education
before the
House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education
on the
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Wednesday, May 8, 1991
Accompanied by:
Ted Sanders, Deputy Secretary
Sally H. Christensen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Planning,
Budget and Evaluation
Robert H. Davidson, Director, Postsecondary Analysis Division,
Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
21
18
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
It is a pleasure to be here today, and to have
this
opportunity to talk about the Administration's plans for
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA).
As you
know, before President Bush appointed me to the position of
Secretary of Education, I had the good fortune to serve as
President of the University of Tennessee.
So it is with a
special interest, and I hope an extra measure of understanding,
that I come before you to present our proposals for improving the
availability and quality of postsecondary education for all
Americans.
As you know, last week I sent a letter to Speaker Foley
which outlines our approach to reauthorization, and which
includes a detailed, 30-page summary of the Administration's
proposals for reauthorizing the HEA.
I believe the comprehensive
nature of these proposals demonstrates our agreement, Mr.
Chairman, that this reauthorization must include a thorough
reexamination of all HEA programs, ane, as you put it in a speech
earlier this year, that no program should be sacred or
untouchable.
The Department will submit its reauthorization bill later
this month.
What I would like to do today is provide some
perspective for our current efforts to improve postsecondary
education, outline the principal themes of the Administration's
22
19
2
reauthorization plan, and then describe some of the highlights of
that plan.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
As members of this Committee so well know, the Higher
Education Act of 1965 was a bipartisan commitment to
postsecondary education that had its origins
in the GI bill for
World War II veterans and, more recently, the National Defense
Education Act of 1958 (NDEA).
The launch of Sputnik in 1957 had
sparked great national concern about our ability to compete with
the Soviet Union in fields of advanced technology.
With the help
of Federal education support provided through the NDEA, America
met that challenge, putting a man on the moon a little more than
ten years later, and forging a lead in advanced research and
technology that continues to this day.
In the 1990s, however, our task is to maintain -- and in
some cases to recover -- our lead in the fiercely competi.ive
environment of what we now all recognize as a global economy.
Success in this competition, as in that earlier challenge
dramatized by Sputnik, will depend in no small measure on the
access of all Americans to postsecondary education,
and on the
quality of that education.
While the National Defense Student Loan program of 1958 was
20
3
the first Federal program to provide general
financial assistance
to undergraduate students, the Higher Education Act of 1965 has
created a comprehensive framework for Federal postsecondary
assistance to both students and institutions of higher education.
Just to give you an example of the growth in size
and scope
of Federal postsecondary programs that was made
possible by the
HEA, consider this:
/n 1959, the total appropriation for student
financial aid was $31 million -- all of it for the
National
Defense Student Loan program, now known as the Perkins Loan
program.
For fiscal year 1992, we are requesting $12.6 billion
for nine student aid programs that will generate $19.7 billion in
aid for 5.7 million students.
Over the last 25 years, HEA programs have
contributed
greatly to improving access to postsecondary education.
At the
University of Tennessee, for example, some 8,000 out of
roughly
25,000 full- and part-time students are receiving Federal grant
and loan assistance during the current academic year.
That's
one-third of all UT students, many of whom undoubtedly would not
be attending this or any other institution of higher education
without the programs authorized under the HEA.
Federal support for postsecondary students also has
contributed to a tremendous expansion of educational
institutions
participating in Federal student aid programs, from approximately
24
21
4
3,000 traditional colleges and universities to approximately
8,000 postsecondary institutions offering a wide variety of
programs and career training opportunities.
I believe this
expansion is a healthy development that reflects the growing need
of the American work force for postsecondary education, as well
as a growing competitiveness that improves the quality of
education across all types of institutions.
This is why
President Bush has said that "our higher education systom is
clearly the finest in the world -- creative, innovative, and
highly competitive."
However, there are important issues to consider as we review
the Federal role in postsecondary education during this
reauthorization.
First, we must restore public confidence in the
integrity of our student aid system by addressing such serious
problems as excessive student loan defaults and institutional
abuse of Federal aid programs.
Second, we must ask not only, "do
our students have access," but also "access to what?"
Access to
an institution that produces mostly dropouts, not graduates, or
that produces graduates who are not employable in the fields for
which they have trained?
Or access to an educational program
that is responsive to the needs of both students and the Nation?
Third, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, "what
do we really need from our higher education system."
We live in
a rapidly changing world, where everyone must know more and be
Z;
4#4..0
22
5
able to do more in order to participate in America's economic and
social life.
And I'm not talking just about children here, or
the 18 to 22-year-olds that traditionally have constituted the
vast majority of postsecondary students.
Many adults now, and in
the future, will need to change careers several times in their
lifetimes, and higher education must be prepared to help them
ee.:0
that challenge.
To put it another way, in an age when
changes in technology occur almost overnight, we must work to see
that our citizens and the postsecondary institutions they attend
keep Up with those changes.
THEMES OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S REAUTHORIZATION PLAN
The Department of Education has undertaken a thorough review
of all current Higher Education Act authorities that expire at
the end of fiscal year 1991.
This review was a comprehensive and
open process that included substantial input from schools,
lenders, guarantee agencies, States, the higher education
community, and the public.
The Department sought to gather the
best ideas and information froln all who are concerned about the
challenges facing higher education during the coming decade.
As a result of this effort and with a view toward
incorporating in our proposals the principles and goals of the
President's Message on Building a Better America and tha National
Education Goals that relate to postsecondary education, the
23
6
Administration developed several themes that have guided our
proposed changes to the HEA.
These include (1) improving access
to postsecondary education for all Americans, (2) improving
educational quality and rewarding excellence, and (3) ensuring
integrity and improving service delivery in all HEA programs.
We would increase access to postsecondary education by
targeting grants to the lowest-income students, by expanding
precollege outreach and retention efforts, and by simplifying the
student aid delivery process.
Our reauthorization proposals seek to Improve the quality of
bigbir education and reward excellenge by promoting greater
nt%bility on the part of both individuals and institutions,
,:o4:iding individual achievement, and by enhancing choice and
1 .,:lctlity in higher education programs.
Improving the quality of postsecondary education demands
that we take a hard look at the accrediting agencies and State
licensing bodies that we have traditionally relied upon to ensure
institutional quality.
We are evaluating the extent to which the
system has worked, and will decide what course of action should
be taken to achieve consistently high levels of educational
quality throughout American higher education.
'
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
24
7
Finally, the Administration's reauthorization plan includes
a variety of provisions designed to ensure the integrity of HEA
programs, particularly the student loan prngrams, and to IMRE2Ye
the delivery of services under many of these programs.
These
provisions will safeguard Federal resources nt all levels by
requiring sound management practices and emphAsizing
accountability by individuals, institutions, lenders, guarantee
agencies, and the States.
As I describe some of the specific changes that we are
requesting, you will see that most of our reauthorization
proposals reflect more than one of these themes.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S REAUTHORIZATION PLAN
Federal student aid zesources should always be used first to
help the lowest-income individuals and families.
Research shows
that low-income students are the most affected by rising college
costs, and that grant aid can make a positive difference in
whether they enroll in and complete postsecondary programs.
This
is why we are proposing to make Pell Grant awards more sensitive
tu the incomes of families and students.
We also would increase
the maximum award by 54 percent, from $2,400 to $3,700, to better
ensure access and expand educational choice for students from
low-income famil'es.
26
25
8
In addition, we are proposing to promote high academic
achievement among Pell Grant recipients through a new
Presidential Achievement Scholarship program.
This program would
provide a merit-based award of up to $500 for high-achieving Pell
Grant recipients.
The lowest-income Pell recipients who are
academically outstanding could receive as much as $4,200 in
annual Federal grant assistance.
Pell recipients also would
continue to be given priority in the award of campus-based
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.
For the neediest students, this increase in grant aid would
significantly reduce their need to borrow.
However, for Pell
Grant recipients who wish to attend higher cost schools, and for
those students who do not qualify for Pell Grants, we would raise
the loan limits under the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) programs.
First- and second-year Stafford Loan borrowers would be able to
obtain up to one-third more loan assistance than currently
available.
Loan maximums in subsequent years would rise by 25
peruent.
Limits on the less subsidized and non-need based
Sueplemental Loans for Students (SLS) would also be increased
significantly for upperclass students and graduatp students.
In addition to higher loan limits, our reauthorization plan
includes a number of measures to ensure the integrity of Federal
student loan programs.
On Monday, April 8, the Department
announced the results and recommendations of a GSL management
29
26
9
study to improve the quality of student aid management under
current law.
It was conducted in cooperation with the Office of
Management and Budget and included participation of experts from
other agencies.
We have begun implementing these
recommendations, including the reorganization of the Department's
Office of Postsecondary Education.
Our reauthorization proposals
include many other measures needed to safeguard the public
interest and to increase accountability for public funds.
The Administration is proposing, for example, to encourage
greater efforts by States to ensure the quality of institutions
participating in HEA programs.
States would share the risk of
borrower's default by providing the equivalent of full faith and
credit backing to their designated guarantee agencies.
In
addition, States with high institutional default rates would pay
a share of the default costs,
These proposals also reflect the
shared interests of Federal and State governments in ensuring
quality education, consumer protection, and positive economic
contribution6.1:rom the public investment in education.
Let me also note that the Administration is still
considering alternatives that might replace some of the higher
education loan programs.
I will keep the Committee informed of
any future proposals regarding this issue.
27
10
In addition, the Department will reexamine the previously
announced proposal for requiring minimum student academic
achievement as a condition of eligibility for Title IV student
aid programs.
We intend to develop a workable approach to
ensuring that Federal aid goes only to those students who
recognize the importance of education and who take their studies
seriously.
This reexamination will begin with an assessment of
the current law that requires satisfactory academic progress
toward a postsecondary degree or certificate.
We are also proposing an expanded and consolidated
Precollege Outreach program to encourage disadvantaged students
to pursue higher education, to disseminate information about the
availability of Federal student financial assistance, and to
support secondary school persistence through tutoring and other
kinds of remedial services.
This program, working through the
States, would support local partnerships between secondary and
postsecondary institutions in those areas with the greatest
concentrations of disw;vantaged students.
Our reauthorization plan also v.'
'.nclude important
proposals for improving Federal support for graduate study in
areas of national need, and for training the next generation of
teachers for America's schools.
28
11
Our proposal for a new pational Graduate rellowships program
would consolidate six current graduate fellowship programs into a
single, more flexible and responsive program.
This program would
provide competitive grants to colleges and universities for the
support of graduate students studying in areas of national need -
- such as mathematics and the sciences.
It would provide need-
based stipends up to $10,000 per fellow in FY 1992, and authorize
an additional payment to the school up to $6,000.
We are also proposing to expand substantially the Rational
Science Scholars program, which was included by the President in
his education initiatives of 1989 and enacted last year by the
Congress.
This program would provide college scholarships of up
to $6,000 to graduating high school students who have excelled in
mathemat4cs and the sciences and who plan to study and pursue
careers in these critical fields.
Improving the quality of our teaching force is central to
President Bush's strategy for revitalizing American education.
We will be proposing legislation as part of AMERICA 2000 to
establish Governors' Academies for Teachers, whose aim is to
improve the skills of our current teaching force.
Many of the reforms I pursued as Governor were aimed at
improving the teaching profession and rewarding good teachers.
This is why I am especially pleased that our HEA reauthorization
29
12
plan includes a new program of pittntrathipm_tQLintmedyg,
Teacher Education.
This program would support the establishment
of teaching schools, each of whose mission, in addition to
providing the best possible education for students, will be to
provide a site for formal collaboration between institutions of
higher education and schools to train prospective teachers.
These partnerships would focus on strategies
to make teacher
education more rigorous, to utilize the latest research on
teaching and learning, to prepare individuals without prior
education training to teach in our schools, and to help teachers
continue their professional growth throughout their careers.
We believe that all of these proposals that I have described
would not only continue but would improve on the HEA's tradition
of effective rederal support for postsecondary education.
I urge
you to give them careful consideration.
If you need further
information or explanation of any of our proposals, I encourage
you to contact the Department.
Senior officers who have been
closely involved in preparing the Adminiaceation's
reauthorization plan will be happy to assist you in any way
possible.
I look forward to working with you over the coming weeks and
months on this important legislative task, and
I will be happy to
take any questions you may have.
47-526 0
92
3
33
30
Chairman FORD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I'm sure the
members of the committee appreciate, as I do, your kind remarks.
It was only a few years ago that all we heard coming from spokes-
persons from the Executive Office was that all of this Federal
money we spent since 1965 had been wasted and that our efforts
have been a faililre in every way. So I'm happy that we're starting
off assuming that we have something to build on that we can make
better.
I am a little bit distressed, as I was over the weekend when I
looked at the statement that you forwarded to the Speaker that
came to us, to see the administration's insistence on narrowing the
scope of aid to a smaller band of the most economically needy pop-
ulation of the country. It's a difficult thing to grasp because I find
it hard to have Bill Ford suggesting to somebody from your party
that I want to do more for the middle ..:lass while you're telling me
that you want to do more for poor people.
In defense of doing exactly that, I should tell you that I've been
supporting programs for poor people since I came here and helped
to write the poverty programs. But we're hearing more and more,
Mr. Secretary, that we're expanding the size of the pot of people
that are falling through the cracks.
While it's true that when you count the part-time students and
the nontraditional students coming back to school, who frequently
are part time, there are more people in our colleges and universi-
ties. The cohort of full-time students who are pursuing degrees is
not expanding; it's contracting.
And when you look at what's being lost, we're losing in two
places: We have fewer representatives of minority populations as a
percentage of their population on our college campuses than we
had 10 years ago, but we also have a reduction in the number of
working class blue collar kids on the campus. And some of us were
hoping that we were going to be able, and still do hope, that we can
nudge the White House, and particularly OMB, toward the idea
that we need to do something more.
I noticed that 7 Senator introduced a bill we passed in 1978
called the Middle Income Student Assistance Act last week. We
had, for just a very short time, the ability to say to American work-
ing people, "While we aren't going to make you eligible for much,
if any, grant money, we are going to make it possible for you to
borrow some money while you go to school."
And then in 1981, that was thrown away because it was capped
at $30,000 for total family income, and that was an absolute cut-off
for eligibility without regard to need. Since then, there have been
some modifications, but the truth of the matter is that we have
slipped further and further away from helping that family that
can't make it without the help.
Do you think that we have some possibility of looking at an ex-
pansion that would include more attention to people that are re-
ferred to in this town as middle class? I'm talking about the fami-
lies of the average family out there with both mother and father
working, they're still making less than $50,000. They don't have
any money to help their kids go to school now that the price has
gone crazy.
34
31
The cost of education has increased every year in the last decade
by sometimes as much as twice as the cost of living index. The cost
of attendance has gone up tremendously while the economists tell
us that the average working families' purchasing power has gone
down. So there's less in the way of family resources to purchase
education than we had 10 years ago. And that may account for the
fact that we're changing the mix on the campus.
And I think we would lose a lot for the future of this country if
we allow that mix to change so much that we're only providing
education and educational access for the very poor and the very
well off. In my generation, Mr. Secretary, I'm a little older than
you, before World War II, only the very well off went to college,
unless they were children of school teachers. And somehow, with
the lousy wages that we paid school teachers, they found a way to
get their kids into college.
But I never met anyone in my life that had gone to college
except a school teacher. I had never talked to anybody who had
been on a college campus except to see a football game by the time
I went to high school, and as a matter of fact, by the time I went
into the Navy.
So we changed that with the GI Bill and we put a mix into our
colleges. We're starting to slide back now. Admittedly, we're doing
more for the very poorest economic sector of the population, but
we're losing ground with another group. And as Mr. Coleman said
in his opening statement, we are lending money now to people we
intended to give grants to.
I was encouraged part way through your statement when I saw
the Pell grant go up to $3,700 per grant until I found out that the
way you're going to pay for it is just shrink the size of the pot of
people who will be eligible for the Pell grant in order to make up
for the difference.
Presently, we authorized $3,100, and for that we get a $2,400 ap-
propriation. Does your $3,700 mean that the administration woulol
be willing to support an appropriation that would fund a maximum
Pell grant at that level, or would we still be dealing the way we are
now where $3,100 only produces $2,400 at the maximum?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, let me generally answer
that and BobI want to give you a specific answer to your specific
questions. Bob, what's the specific answer to the question?
Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Our budget for 1992
would fully fund the $3,700 authorized level that we're seeking.
Chairman FORD. It's not an increase in dollar amount, is it? You
don't ask for more money to do that, do you?
Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir, we are seeking additional funds, as well
as the eligibility changes.
Chairman FORD. There's a couple hundred million dollars, I
guess, the staff tells me, in your request. But, really, the way that
you would fund the $3,700 is to reduce eligibility numbers so that
there would be a much smaller number of Pell grants out there.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir. There's a reduction of about 400,000 re-
cipients. The overall increase in appropriation compared to the pre-
vious year is about $700,000 million, and we're funding that
through transfers within the student aid account from other pro-
grams.
35
32
Secretary ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, if I may add to that.
You're correct. The choice is whether to give lower income families
large grants or whether to give more families smaller grants. Now,
one thing that's often overlooked here is that in the choices be-
tween 3 million Pell grants and 3.4 million Pell grants, roughly.
And the difference has to do with the following three things: the
definition of the independent student; tightening up on our de-
faults; and a minimum academic progression performance.
So, in fact, in all of the categories of families, you'd still have
some slight increase. We're not really taking it from the middle
income family and giving it to the low income family.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Secretary, the maximum Pell grant cuts off
now at about $11,000. Are you going to change that up or down?
And $11,000 is below the poverty line in most parts of this country
for a family. So you have to be below the poverty line to even
quantify. So we're not suggesting you're going to take something
away from somebody and give somebody more.
The next factor I'd like you to look at, and I would ask you not
today but for the record, to give us a computation from your De-
partment on what you think the average size of a low income stu-
dent's Pell grant is going to be. Because, realistically, if you look at
the distribution of that population amongst our colleges and uni-
versities, you're going to find them at the lowest cost schools, the
community colleges.
Seventy-five percent of all Hispanics in this country who go to
any kind of postsecondary education are in community colleges.
And a majority of black students who go to any kind of college are
at community colleges. A community college's tuition will not gen-
erate, under either your formula or the present formula, a maxi-
mum grant. If you go to Harvard, you'll generate a maximum
grant, or any other expensive school, but not at a cheap school.
So I suspect that it's not going to cost as much as you're guessing
because once you use this dollar amount to screen them out and
then you look at where they're going to be developing their need
through the needs analysis, the probability is that you'll have
plenty of money to pay for it but fewer people are going to get
money of any kind.
That's what I'm worried about, and I wish that your people could
put together an estimate of what the distribution under your for-
mula of the Pell grants by size would be. Because a maximum
grant, if I understand it correctly, would be for a below poverty
level family attending a school that costed enough to leave a re-
maining need of $3,700. And that rules out every community col-
lege in the country and a whole lot of the State colleges for that
matter.
So it really isn't what it seems to be when you look at the
number, unless you iook behind the numbers to see what it's actu-
ally going to do in terms of the consumers who will use it. And I
think that we ought to pursue that a little bit further so that we
aren't at cross purposes here about what we're trying to do. And
I'm not trying to be critical because your proposal does not suggest
more money to pay for it. I fully realize that if we want to spend
more money, we'iv going to have to find it someplace.
3 6
33
Secretary ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, we have that data general-
ly now if you'd like to have it. Just partly in comment on that, par-
ticularly in the middle of a recession, I'm not going to sit here and
say it's easy for families to find the money for children or them-
selves or the parents to go to college.
My sense of this being on campus, campuses all over our State, is
that you're right about what was going on 30 or 40 years ago. Most
people didn't go to college. College was for the elite. Ninety-five
percent of the people didn't have a college degree.
But today, the campuses are filled with middle income students,
working class people. That's who's there. That's most people. And
we feel like that the most difficult barriers, the most difficult
money barriers, are for the very poor families. And that, therefore,
a larger grant for them is a better way to spend the amount of
money we have.
Now, if we have an unlimited amount of money, of course, we
could then tax middle people to give middle income people scholar-
ships to college. But when I was Governor, I was reluctant to do
that because I was basically taxing low income people to give col-
lege scholarships to middle income people. I know that in Washing-
ton we do it a little differently; we spend money we don't have,
which I haven't gotten used to.
But I think it's a question of money. And it's the difficult ques-
tion, then, of how do you allocate it. Bob tells me that, for example,
at a Tennessee community college where the tuition is about $1,800
a year, a student who qualifies for the Pell grant could get up to 79
percent of that
Mr. DAVIDSON. Of the total cost, not just the tuition.
Secretary ALEXANDER. The total cost wouldn't be much more be-
cause students don't live there.
Chairman FORD. Well, Mr. Secretary, I don't want to take more
time because there are others who are anxious to question you. But
I would like to see if we can talk about the same football game
here before we count the score up.
Your testimony and submission that came up here is couched in
terms of the 1992 budget. We're here about the business of reau-
thorizing higher education from the years 1994 to 1998 or 1999.
We're looking, really, 7 years down the road as we sit here.
And I'm not willing to concede that we're going to have the re-
cession with us 2 years from now when this kicks in for the first
time. So I hope that your planners and others will bear in mind
that what we're really trying to do is guess what the target is going
to be between 1994 and 1999. And, really, it's the last half of the
last decade of this century. It's a great time for us to go out with a
boom, not a whimper.
So I hope we keep in mind that we're not talking about 1992 dol-
lars; we're talking about 1994 and thereafter.
Thank you. Mr. Coleman.
Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, two of
the fundamental foundation blocks upon which the Higher Educa-
tion Act has been premised over the years are access, which you
have obviously paid much attention to in your proposal, and the
other one is choice. And I want to, like the chairman, kind of con-
centrate on the choice issue for a moment because I see the Higher
37
34
Education Act being the first empowerment, if you will, of the
American people to have, if you want to characterize it, a voucher,
a voucher to go anywhere they want to go to college. It might be
Harvard, it might be Maple Woods Community College in my dis-
trict.
But the fact is they could take this piece of paper, this grant or
this loan, to any institution certified by your Department and they
could go and apply that towards their cost of attendance. And that,
I think, is what the chairman, and certainly I indicated in my
opening statement, is a little bit of a concern to us as far as how
you have tried to propose the use of the funds. And you have, obvi-
ously, a very solid basis on access, but I think we have to temper it
somewhat with the choice issue.
There are a number of institutions in this country that are what
we would characterize as private institutions. They do not get that
70 percent of the taxpayers' money to help fund their tuition costs,
as you indicated.
They are 21 percent of the undergraduates in this country. They
turn out 33 percent of all baccalaureate degrees, 40 percent of Mas-
ters, 36 percent of all Doctoral degrees, and 60 percent of the pro-
fessional degrees in this country. So I think it's extremely impor-
tant that we recognize that opportunity.
And, certainly, I believe that competition is very important. I've
heard you aay that, too, in the elementary and secondary levels.
And I believe that. And I believe my institutional presidents on
Monday when Chairman Ford was in my district in Missouri and I
asked the question to some public educators, presidents of public
institutions, community colleges and 4-year schools, whether or not
they felt that it would be important for them to receive more stu-
dents because of the inability of many others to go to private insti-
tutions. And they were firmly of the apinion that competition made
them a better institution with the privates.
And I think that if we fail to recognize this issue of choice that
we're going to undermine to a certain extent, and certainly erode
the financial support of the private institutions in this country. So
as I understand the general proposal that you have mentioned
today is thatand I think Chairman Ford is correct in characteriz-
ing thisif your premise is taken of a $3,700 maximum grant, that
those who would be helped the most to use the maximum grant
would be those poorer people who would go to a higher priced, per-
haps private, institution.
They will get the benefit of the maximum grant, and I see that
your analyst is nodding affirmatively there. At the same time, we
aren't going to give a whole lot of support to the middle class, who
would not get much support from this proposal to go to community
college or a State institution.
So I think that my concern, as expressed in my opening state-
ment, and I hope that we might be able to arrive at some sort of
middle ground on this, is to recognize the tremendous importance,
the cost of attendance, and the realization that middle class and
private institutions and the way that the grant system is arranged,
and the loans, that we might be able to bring these things closer to
be what I sense is a great need out there.
35
And, also, a final comment, and if you want to comment after
this, your graduate education proposal is interesting. I would not
want to have some suggestion that the success that we have made
in Title IX, certainly in the areas of national need where we have
grown to a $25 million appropriation this last year, and, I think,
training very fine people in this country for Ph.D.'s in math and
science and foreign languages, that we do anything to harm that
program and to reduce it to any extent, not just financially but
meritoriously in any way.
So I look at that very closely a2 this comes on out into proposals.
But, again, I don't want to be critical. I do want to be constructive,
and that's in the tone I've made my comments. And if you wish to
comment back, I'd be more than happy to hear you.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Mr. Coleman, I'll be brief out of respect to
the time for all the members, but I would like toof course, that
was constructive, and I appreciated the tone. And the emphasis on
private education is very helpful from my perspective. Our family
lived in Australia for 6 months, and one of the things I learned
there was that at that time Australia had no private universities
whatsoever. They now have one, I think.
The United States is the only country in the world that has such
an extensive system of private higher education, and it helps in a
lot of different ways: It includes some, maybe half, of our best re-
search universities; it provides a competitive force and a check on
what we're doing in the public sector; it provides different sorts of
institutions that students might choose to attend; and it saves us
money in the long run because it doesn't cost the taxpayers as
much when students choose to go there.
So I think it's very important to keep that system in mind. But,
again, I think our fundamental question has to be, now that we're
trying to help half the Nation go to college or go back to college
instead of 5 percent, making it possible for people to go to really
first rate community colleges at $800 a year or to a State universi-
ty at $2,000 a year in terms of tuition.
I think those are the first places to think about in terms of ex-
panding opportunity because they're available and they're accessi-
ble and they're more affordable. And we may not be able to have
enough money to help everybody go to the very high priced col-
leges, even though the Pell grant is structured in such a way. So
that if you go to a more expensive college, your Pell grant goes up.
Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman FORD. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowsv. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you, Mr. Secretary, again for your testimony. And I don't want to
belabor the controversy concerning low income students and
middle class students; in fact, it seems to me that we really should
be committed to both and it pains me greatly that we have to look
at it as an either/or issue in this great country of ours. And if we
really mobilize, it seems to me that we could do both. And I hope
we can work towards that goal.
One of the things that concerns me is that even when a needy
student is given assistance, they receive a Pell grant and a State
grant, and they still can't get enough assistance to enable them to
go to a public college. Many States, many universities, have adopt-
39
36
ed programs to support these students to guarantee a full tuition,
such as New York. We know of the I Have a Dream Program.
There are several programs providing supportive services and a tui-
tion guarantee, and the GAO, I believe, has reviewed these pro-
grams very positively.
I'd be interested in your comments. Have you reviewed the range
of programs that have been offered to guarantee a needy student
the opportunity to go to college? And what is your view of these
programs?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you for asking that. I have not
looked at them all. I am familiar with some of them, and I would
suggest that they are, as the chairman was talking a few moments
ago about looking ahead from 1994 to 1999, one of the trends that I
see happening in the States is our plans like the Taylor plan in
Louisiana or the Lang plan in New York, the idea of saying to low
income student, "Work hard, make your grades, and we'll guaran-
tee you that you have a chance to go to college."
And if the States are going to say thatthey're close to the stu-
dents, they're involved in the communitiesthis is a big part of
motivation, sending a signal to people who can't see any way out of
where they are up to where they want to go, then I think we
should make sure that our system of grants and loans fits into that
as best we can predict.
I don't think we can substitute for that, nor would we want to.
But the structure is set up that way in many ways now so that the
Pell grant and the loans fit into whatever the States are doing. I
think the States, despite their current financial difficulties, may do
more in terms of what you're talking about.
And I think we should be very careful the next few months to
see that we fit into that. For example, a $4,200 Pell grant plus a
State tuition grant would about pay the whole cost of attending the
University of Tennessee, all costs. And that's probably the correct
goal for a student from a very low income family. It's uncomplicat-
ed, simple. You do what you'i.e supposed to do, and we'll give you
the whole amount of money.
Mrs. LOWEY. The financial status of most of our States is ex-
tremely bad at this point. Let's hope we look forward to more posi-
tive times. But in light of the current problems, should it be the
role of the Federal Government to make a commitment to access to
a public university for all students, for all needy students in this
country. We would hope that the States could contribute, but given
the current economic state, should it be a commitment of the Fed-
eral Government as we reauthorize this act?
Secretary ALEXANDER. I don't think we, or, if I may respectfully
suggest, you should legislate based upon the current recession be-
cause it's not going to last very long, I think. And the second thing
is that all the money comes from the same pockets, basically, the
taxpayers at home.
I think, generally, it ought to be a State commitment and that
the Federal Government ought to do as it has done, build on the
trying to craft a targeted set of additional grants and loans to
Americans of all ages so that they can further their postsecondary
education.
ti 0
37
Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I hope that we can continue to work on these
programs. From what I understand, you are supportive of these ini-
tiatives, and I think our goal has to be how we can mesh our Fed-
eral programs with these State initiatives.
Secretary ALEXANDER. I think they're very encouraging because
so much of what we try to do about elementary and secondary edu-
cation, as Pat Taylor once said, is just changing the size of the
water trough for the horse. These kinds of incentives at the State
level help make the horse thirsty, which is a blunt way to put it.
But these are motivational grants in many ways.
And I'm encouraged to see the States doing that.
Mrs. LOWEY. Which is a good segue to my next question. I'm par-
ticularly interested in the intervention efforts in the pre-college
outreach programs you are proposing. You've discussed that some-
what in terms of collaboratives, getting businesses, community
groups, and religious institutions all working together to insure
that these youngsters are successful.
And I know this committee, myself in particular, believes very
strongly that early intervention is key. We have to get the student
ready and then we have to move them forward to the point where
they can qualify for this assistance and be successful in college.
I wonder if you can expand on your proposal for a pre-college
outreach program. What would it really entail?
Secretary ALEXANDER. If I may, the points are that we would
consolidate some very successful existing programs in order to
focus them, again, on the students who need the help the most, and
to permit the States and the universities to have more flexibility
locally.
Sally has worked pretty hard on that, and if you don't mind, I'd
like to ask her to give a brief answer to that.
Mrs. LOWEY. Fine. Thank you.
Ms. CHRISTIENSEN. Mrs. Lowey, basically what we're proposing is
that we would consolidate the upward bound and the talent search
and the educational opportunity centers into one prog 'am. They
would be awarded to States on the basis of the chapter o.
formu-
la, and the States, then, would hold competitions for schonis within
their higher education institutions within their area that are in
those areas serving low income and disadvantaged populations.
They could work in partnership with the school district to get at,
really, those children who are most at risk of not entering college.
They will provide the same kinds of services that are provided now
under those programs, whether it's tutorial services or remedial
services or giving the students information on where they can go to
college and where they can get aid.
Right now, we think the program is very, very successful. The
administration has supported the TRIO programs year after year
with proposed increases, and Congress has even addled to that. The
problem is that they're spread over a wide range of areas now and
they are not targeted where we think they should be. So this
would, I think, really enhance those services and enable new insti-
tutions to come into the program, as well as really involve the
schools. And that's really what we want to do.
Chairman FORD. Thank you. Mrs. Roukema.
41
38
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Let me state that I really do appreciate the work
that you're doing on the reforms and the default program. And I
look forward to working with you. I think there are ways that we
can improve it even further. At least there are some minor differ-
ences between my approach and the approach of the Department,
but I think that you'i.e really doing a wonderful job and I'd like to
work with you in that regard.
I also want to make a pitch for the question of home equity, the
use of the fixed asset in the needs formula. I won't go into that in
great detail now, except to say that there is a definite regional bias
in using that system. And, by the way, you should know that this
has only been a recent innovation in terms of the Congressional
Methodology. Prior to that, prior to 4 years ago in the reauthoriza-
tion, we used a much more flexible program. And I hope that we
could go back to that.
For example, in higher income, high real estate areas like New
Jersey and many others around the country. We have been unfair-
ly disadvantaged. These people are cash poor, and they need the
help. And it is, as I say, a regional bias, and a bias, really, against
two worker families and some small businesses. And the family
farm certainly comes into this consideration.
So I'd like to work with you on that, and I hope we can come to a
meeting of the minds.
Mr. Secretary, I've got to associate myself with the prior remarks
of both the chairman, as well as the concerns expressed by Mr.
Coleman. And I want to give some emphasis to this in terms of my
own understanding of the problem.
I think Mr. Coleman put it well, and it certainly reflects my
opinion, when he says that I hope we can deal back in tne middle
us. And it's not simply because it's our constituency; it's because,
think, based on my experience, my husband's experience, and the
experience of my constituents, this group badly needs the help.
They pay back their loans, they need cash flow, and the case can
be made as strongly for them as it can be made for the very poor.
I'm speaking of low and moderate income families.
I think that maybe you've told some of your background and
what has helped to mold your opinions. Let me tell you one of
mine, and it goes back to my first conversation with David Stock-
man, which maybe some of you will remember back in 1981, when
he came in with a proposal that sounds very much like your pro-
posal. He came into a Republican caucus and wanted to know if
this was going to give anybody heartburn. And after a moment's
hesitation, I said, "Yes, it surely is going to give me heartburn be-
cause what you're saying is the poor can go to college and the rich
can go to college, but the middle class are being dealt out and ig-
nored by the Federal Government."
I think it's very important for us not to do that. I think that we
have got to find a way to help all these groups of people, otherwise
we are going to be very counterproductive in terms of an erosion of
the middle class and their access. I'm not necessarily saying choice;
I'm saying access to college.
And in that regard, I understand that you have been asked by
the chairman to give a computation for the record on the subject of
42
39
the Pell grants. I would like to enlarge that to include a specific
analysis for the student loan program as well.
Because as I read the numbers, as I read your statement and
what we have been hearing out of the administration, dating back
to the now no longer relevant OMB numbers that were included in
the President's first budget, I think there is a decided effort to seri-
ously erode the commitment of the student loan program that I
certainly don't want to see happen. So I would like your computa-
tion to include the student loan program as well as the Pell grants.
And I will conclude simply by making two observations, one, I
referred to both my husband and myself, and I will say, Mr. Secre-
tary, that we're a little older than some others around here and
there wasn't a student loan program when he and I went to col-
lege. And I will say categorically had my husband not been able to
receive a scholarship loan on a private basis, he never would huve
gotten to medical school.
Now, I think we owe people of that income group, and they're
not rich and they're not in the well off middle class. We're talking
about low to moderate income people. We owe them, if we really
mean that education is a priority, we owe them that access through
a payable back loan program.
And, finally, I was recently at a place in my district where I
thought we were going to be talking about the possible closing
down of Piccatinny Arsenal on the Defense Secretary's close-down
list. I gave my speech on that and other issues referring to family
matters when we opened it up for questions.
And, Mr. Secretary, true story. To my surprise, do you know the
one question that generated the most follow-up and the most
heated discussion? It was, "Why am I penalized as a hard working,
tax paying, middle American, and I can't get my kids to college? I
am, you know, borrowed up to here, and I'll just never be able to
pay it back. Well, we'll be able to pay it back, but we don't have
the cash flow for the third child, who is now coming of college
age."
So this is a heated issue. They want accountability in the pro-
gram. They want to know that it's been reformed and that students
are paying back their loans, but they need that cash flow desper-
ately. They're very strapped, no matter which real estate market
in the country you're looking at.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. And I don't know
whether you want to have a response or not. I don't usually lecture
his way, but I thought I'd take my cue from the chairman today.
It might be the last time I have a chance to tell you these things.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Secretary, this might be hard for you to be-
lieve on your first visit here, but this is the way we treat our
friends. You ought to see what we do when we don't like the
person down there.
Mr. Reed.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I too want
to welcome you here to the committee. Your cooperative spirit in
addressing this issue is deeply appreciated and you already have a
remarkable record of creativity and competence, which when you
don't have a lot of money comes in handy. So we'll call upon both
your competence and creativity.
43
40
I want to follow up on a question which my colleague from New
York raised with respect to TRIO programs. The administration is
proposing to consolidate those programs. My concern is that in the
consolidation we're going to lose a lot of assistance for adults who
are now being served by the EOC programs.
Statistics that I have from Rand suggest that it is the adult popu-
lation, minority population particularly, that is most in danger of
dropping out and most in need of these services. And, again, my
concern, if you could respond to it, would be that in your proposals
for TRIO, we would be losing the type of program that is targeted
towards adults.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Mr. Reed, could Sally respond to that
point, please?
Mr. REED. Certainly.
Ms. CHRISTIENSEN. Mr. Reed, we're not proposing to do that. We
are saying that in the grants to States or the competitions that the
local educational agencies in which they would participate in this
projects could also, obviously, include the adult population. So
we're not eliminating those.
There are also a variety of contracts for special population
groups that now participate in those programs, for instance, ones
that serve Hispanic populations or other kinds of special popula-
tions around the country. And they have offices set up around the
country. Our proposal would also provide that those kinds of agree-
ments would continue in the new proposal. We'll be happy to pro-
vide for the record for you a description of how the adult popula-
tion absolutely would continue to receive the kinds of assistance
that they do now.
Mr. REED. Just a quick follow-up question. So is it your projection
that the adult population will be served just as well under your re-
targeting as it is now in terms of the number of adults and, essen-
tially, the same volume of resources?
Ms. CHRISTIENSEN. There's no reason that they would not be. Yes.
Mr. REED. I also want to follow my colleague from New Jersey
and indicate that I, too, am concerned about the calculation of
home equity, for example, in the awarding of Pell grants and other
Federal assistance. Over the last several years in Rhode Island, the
entire Northeast, we've seen a tremendous growth in the apprecia-
tion of these assets.
This has created a tremendous burden on people who bought
their homes 20 years ago and now are seeing them appreciate, and
who, because of that, are not able to qualify for scholarships. I
would appreciate your efforts to look closely at this issue. I know
Senator Pell has introduced legislation to eliminate home equity
from the calculation. And I think that's something that would be
very, very crucial to a revision of Title IV.
Finally, if I can take this opportunity, Mr. Secretary, to address
a particular problem in my home State of Rhode Island. Numerous
financial institutions have been closed by the Governor because
their private insurance fund failed. This situation is really creating
havoc. And one aspect of that havoc is that parents, who are apply-
ing for financial aid, are in a quandary with respect to the treat-
ment of assets in the closed credit unions: they do not have access
to their savings.
4 4
41
And I would ask you if you and your staff, together with my
staff, could cooperate and in some formal way help alleviate this
problem. If they can't get the money, then they shouldn't have to
count it as far as financial aid goes. And this situation could
stretch on for 3 to 5 years or more.
Secretary ALEXANDER. That's an important question, Mr. Reed. It
deserves a brief response, if I might ask Ted Sanders.
Mr. REED. Thank you.
Mr. SANDERS. I think, yes, we would be more than happy to
follow up with your staff and look very carefully at that situation.
Mr. REED. Well, thank you very much. We will be in touch imme-
diately. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary.
Mr. KILDEE. [PRESIDING] Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, two
particular points of interest to me. In 1980, for the GSL, the SLS,
the PLUS and the Pell grant programs, we spent $3.8 billion. In
1991, we will spend $9.5 billion, certainly an increase well above
and beyond inflation.
If one would look at adjusted family income for a family of four
from 1980 to 1990, it increased 6 percent above inflation, but tui-
tion at 4 year public schools increased 36 percent above inflation,
and at private schools I think it was around 44 percent above infla-
tion.
One of the problems we have in this committee is that we, no
matter how much money we appropriate, can not keep up with the
cost of higher education continuing to increase at two and three
times the rate of inflation each year.
What do we do?
Secretary ALEXANDER. I don't think it will continue to do that.
The private schools, 3 million students of our 13 million who go to
colleges and universities go to the private schools. Most of those
have costs of less than $8,000 or $10,000 a year. The most expensive
of those try to make sure that money is not a barrier to students
who want to go there.
I think the market place competitive system that we have in
American higher education is going to tend to keep the costs of col-
lege down. I notice across America this year many universities,
public and private, making a special effort to keep their tuition in-
creases lower.
And maybe I've still got my other hat on too much, because I'm
only recently out of the university world. But in 1958, when I
thought about going to college, tuition at the University of Tennes-
see was a few hundred dollars a year. In 1992, it's $1,700 a year
and it's still a pretty big bargain. And we still have available com-
munity colleges at $800 a year.
It's never easy. And in the middle of a recession, it's especially
tough. But I think it's a wrong picture to suggest thatI mean,
we're overlooking a great success story if we don't point out that
instead of just a few people going to college today, most people are
going to college, trying to continue their education.
They have this whole range of institution3, many of them avail-
able, accessible, more affordable. And one out of every two in col-
lege gets some Federal help.
45
42
So I think the short answer is that the market place is going to
help keep tuition down.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Well, but just to follow up briefly. To share
with you, from the State of Wisconsin, the UW system, these are
numbers adjusted backward for inflation so that they're all the
same value. A typical student had an average debt in 1980 of
$2,108 graduating from the University of Wisconsin system. That
student in 1989, same dollar value now, adjusted for inflation, has
a debt of $7,758.
So you can see that their debt load has increased three and a
half times.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, Mr. Gunderson, I run the risk.
when I was Governor I used to say things that caused people to
think I didn't understand how difficult it is to go to college. I had
five jobs and worked hard all the way through college; my parents
weren't able to contribute too much.
Coming out of college, coming out of the University of Wisconsin,
which is one of the premiere higher education institutions in
America, owing only $7,000 is a tremendous opportunity for an in-
dividual, a tremendous opportunity. There are people all over the
world who would love to have that chance.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Okay. Let me go on to the other question. We'll
let the press handle that one. But we have an opening at the presi-
dency at the University if you don't like this job.
You indicate in your education reform package four points,
which I am strongly supportive of all four, particularly, I am en-
thusiastically in support of point number three, which is creating a
Nation of students. It's the first time a Secretary has recognized
the need to do just that.
My concern, however, is that the primary place for us to do that,
it seems, would be in the Higher Education Act reauthorization.
You've heard me before talk about the fact that we simply do not
address the unique needs of the nontraditional student. We don't
do it in the needs analysis test; we certainly don't do it in terms of
funding Pell grants for less than full time students; we certainly
didn't do it in chapter one, which was never funded.
You look at the campus based programs, such as SEOG and
work/study, and they seem to be moving away from campus discre-
tion to respond to the unique needs of that unique individual.
What can we do in this reauthorization to meet your goal of cre-
ating a Nation of students by giving them the financial ability to
go to school and have continuing education?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, that's a very perceptive question,
and you've been a leader in that area. And I know, that we've
talked about this within the Department during the time I've been
there and it may be that our proposals do not reflect quite as well
as they might the changing nature of the student bodies in our
system of higher education. I mean, I'm not saying they don't; I'm
just saying they might not because I haven't had enough time to
satisfy myself completely on it.
One thing to look at is to make sure that the grants and the
loans that we award take into account the fact that many of the
students are not 18 to 22 anymore, and the particular circum-
stances that a single mother has or a father going back to school.
4 f ;
43
A second thing we might do is give some encouragement, and I'm
not quite sure how to do this, to university administrators who are
trying to encourage their faculty to be more responsive to this
change. To be very blunt about it, one of the problems is that most
faculty members would rather not teach in the afternoon and the
evening, and many students can only go then.
So it would change the nature of the way colleges and universi-
ties are organized to make them more available. That's why com-
munity colleges are so popular: They're available; they're accessi-
ble; they're open till 10 at night; and they're nearby.
I will think about that question and try to respond to you with
some better ideas. But if we're looking, as the chairman said, to
1994 to 1999, we ought to think about that hard.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Secretary, I think
this is the third time I've had the privilege to welcome you here in
Washington in your new capacity, and I look forward to working
with you, particularly when you appear before my own subcommit-
tee in the near future.
With prior permission from Chairman Ford, I have some ques-
tions, not related to this subcommittee but to my own subcommit-
tee, concerning the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
NAEP, and the recent interim report on the 1990 evaluations of
the 1990 NAEP State assessments.
I would like to submit these to you in writing. I've given them to
Mr. Bill Hanson, behind you. If you could reply to them for the
record of this committee, I will have them prior to your testimony
before our full committee, which would be very helpful.
Secretary ALEXANDER. It would be a pleasure.
Mr. KILDEE. That's all I have at this time. I commend you for the
work you're doing. You bring great credentials to your job here, as
well as a great reputation as a consensus builder. I look forward to
working with you.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in somewhat
the same position that you've expressed. I have some questions I'd
like to raise, but I know if this hearing is going to be kept open
long enough to submit them in writing, I'd be glad to do so and
hope to get a response from the Secretary.
There's one comment that I would like to make to the Secretary
and the people who are with him. It appears to me that, and I
agree, that the middle class is becoming a breed of extinction
almost in our society, primarily because of the opportunity and
lack of opportunity they have in earning a decent living in many
respects.
But I don't share your opinion when the indications are that
you're placing emphasis on educational opportunities for the poor.
It certainly hasn't trickled down into my area, and particularly
among minorities.
When I look at the University of Illinois, for example, which is
one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the country,
which puts you in the position if you get a degree in engineering to
be able to be very successfully employed because of the need.
4 7
44
But when I look at the University of Chicago, one of the best
medical schools they have in the country, and look at the number
of minorities that are enrolled. Out of the University of Illinois'
25,000 plus students, less than 2 percent of them are minorities. I
think it's the same percentage when it comes to the University of
Chicago.
These are institutions where the tuition are very high, as you
well know. We find more students from foreign countries enrolled
in the University of Chicago than blacks who live in Chicago. Now,
I don't know whether the program that you're suggesting is going
to increaseI hope sothe opportunities for the numbers of people
who are in that category who would like to go to school.
It's a waste to our society for them not to have an opportunity.
When we look at the amount of money they spend to imprison
people v-ho resort to crime, some of it is a result of a lack of an
opportunity in the educational field.
When I sat here last week and listened to the representative
from IBM say that in order toand they're interested in engineer-
ing students. They're now going overseas to get their students to
fill their needs because their requirement is to have at least 2
years of college in order to get a job with IBM.
And I just think that we ought to begin to look in that direction
and begin to gear our sights in terms of our educational system to
open up opportunities for the poor and the middle class to get an
education, not so much emphasis, as the trend indicates it to be,
money will be going towards Harvard or Yale or some of these
prestigious colleges, and not to those areas where people are who
really need our help.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. We would hope
that our proposal to increase by 54 percent the size of the Pell
grant so that at its highest it would be $4,200 a year and to target
that money on the lowest income families, which could include a
disproportionate number of minority families, that would help with
what you're talking about.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Petri.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. I know
we have to go and answer the quorum call.
Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you for a very realistic and
well based presentation this morning, and also tell you how im-
pressed I think people are around this town with the quality of the
staff that you are assembling. And it's a real signal to people that
you and the administration for which you work are very, very seri-
ous about doing the best job you possibly can for our country in the
education area. I commend you for that.
I know that you testified that you will be coming forward within
the next several weeks, by the end of the month, with the adminis-
tration's suggestions for reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act. And I would just like to urge you and your staff not just to
tinker, but to take the whole thing apart and put it back together
again and go back to fundamentals because there are lots of prob-
lems with the act that have gradually accumulated over the years.
And I think the chairman of this committee and, certainly, the
very competent staff he has, are open to hearing some really pro-
,
4 3
45
vocative and fundamental suggestions from the administration if
they're willing to do it.
I would just say that the current Stafford program, as best we
can tell, costs about $400 to the taxpayer for every $1,000 of debt
that a student assumes, which is not a very good buy and is really
startling. It gives a lot of money to the banks and it gives a lot of
money to people who end up defaulting rather than really target-
ing as well the available resources to provide access to middle
income people like us or lower income people who do need to sup-
plement with loans.
So I thani you again for your testimony, and I look forward to
your and the administration's recommendations in the higher edu-
cation area in a timely fashion. Thank you.
Mr. COLEMAN. Will the gentleman yield if he has a moment left?
Mr. PETRI. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. Before I leave, Mr. Secretary, let me raise one
issue which we haven't talked about, which I was glad to see the
President talk in his address to the University of Michigan gradu-
ates.
And that is this phenomenon of free speech on campus. I think
we have to examine it in some fashion in this reauthorization, and
I believe that this would be a very appropriate vehicle in which to
examine this phenomenon.
And I hope that you, as well as the President, have some ideas
about this. I thought his comments were right on target, but we
want to do the right thing, the appropriate thing, and assure free
speech and expression, not just on the streets of this country, but
on the college campuses as well.
So I want you to know that, and I want to work to try to develop
something regarding this.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. I think maybe
the most appropriate way to go about it would be to have some
seminars celebrating the 200th birthday of the First Amendment.
You know, I think we have to be a little bit caudous about legis-
lation. We wouldn't want to legislate a correct way to look at politi-
cal correctness, and I'm not sure how to do that. But I agree with
you, and of courre I agree with the President, that it is a strange
phenomenon Oh American campuses today, and it's one that we
ought to resist and help people understand that of all places in
America, the places where there must be an opportunity for people
to say many of the most outrageous ideas they have is on our cam-
puses, and for there to be developed a sort of orthodoxy about what
is proper to discuss and what is not is really an alien thought in
this country, and especially it ought to be on our campuses.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for that re-
sponse. Mr. Coleman and I haven't had the time to explore this
very much, but you just expressed the same kind of concern I have.
Obviously, we're all concerned about what appears to be a new
phenomenon out there and everybody wants to rush to a legislative
solution. But you just sounded like the lawyer, not the Secretary,
when you talked ;.bout the First Amendment.
I have a lot of confidence in the ACLU's ability to protect the
First Amendment rights of students at a school like the University
of Michigan, but I recall that it was only a few years ago when the
9
46
university had to chastise a young man who was running the radio
station bfcause somebody gave him a whole slew of racial and
ethnic jokes that he thought were hilariously funny but many of
the stueents there did not think were hilariously funny.
And I'm reminded about Wendell Holmes' line in the First
AmerLdment case that your right to free speech does not include
the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. So we have all kinds of
limitations on it. And, like you, I'm a little concerned about wheth-
er we have the wisdom to improve on the First Amendment that's
200 years old.
When I was going to school right after the war, I was at a school
where the student body ostensibly controlled what kind of outside
speakers could appear on the campus. And the Governor at that
time of our State did not like it because one of the people he sus-
pected of being a communist, a famous writer that I was at the
same time studying in a literature course, appeared and spoke, and
he thought he was a communist.
So exercising the Governor's right to a line item veto, he line
itemed out the money for that university for the year and said,
"I'll put it back when you promise you won't let any more commu-
nist sympathizers speak on it."
Now, that was after World War II, just before we went into the
McCarthy era, but it was already becoming popular to do commie
bashing.
But, then again, in the 1960's, we experienced it here, even after
the unfortunate circumstances that occurred in Ohio with the Na-
tional Guard and the students. We had people on this committee
who would take us on on the floor each time an authorization bill
or an opportunity presented ithelf to cut off all funds to any college
that did not clamp down on war protesters.
If the university did not take affirmative action to prevent
people from protesting the war on the campus, then all the stu-
dents in that university would lose their aid.
It's sort of seasonal what is offensive to any one of us that's
going on on the campus. And I have the feeling, as I think you've
just articulated, that if we maintain our cool here the season will
change and it will be something else that's offensive in a couple of
years.
It's very difficult for us in the eye of the public to appear not to
be concerned about what's happening there, but it wouldn't be at
all difficult for a runaway amendment out there on the floor to put
us in a terrible long battle over academic freedom in this country.
And I'm sure that if you pursue this the way you've pursued
other sticky subjects like the race specific grants problem that was
created before you got here, that we'll get through it. I hope
nobod'
Lampedes your Department into doing anything precipi-
thus
it what's said because the very university people who
migh
e to have some relief from exercising their own discretion
and
.ugment in managing that university will be the very first
ones to come in here and attack us if we interfere with their aca-
demic freedom.
You've been a university president and you know that the ad-
ministration of a university is constantly caught between this dy-
namic constituency of thinking young people with a lot of anxiety,
47
and at the same time, letting them do all this but keeping enough
order so that people who are there to learn can learn.
And this new phenomenon, when the President mentioned it at
the University of Michigan, I don't know that the people who
wrote his speech knew what the recent history on that campus has
been. Mr. Purse 11 was here; it's in his district, part of it in mine,
part of it in his. But they have been going through a tremendous
agony of trying to maintain a tradition of an open society on the
campus and then deal with little hate groups that are popping up,
and trying to move that kind of conflict, at least, off the campus.
Let them go downtown and fight, but don't do it here on the
campus.
Most of it is generated by race, but not entirely by race. Some of
it is, and most recently, in our part of the country. We saw a lot of
things happening to people who looked like Arabs or had names
that sounded like Arabs. And the campus, really, is kind of a re-
flection of what's going on in society. And it's always very tough
for the people there.
Mr. Good ling nuuged us very strongly toward a greater responsi-
bility for the administrations of colleges and universities to protect
the safety and integrity of the students. And he had in mind, par-
ticularly, protecting them from attacks of any kind by other stu-
dents. And we have actually adopted some language here in the
past to nudge them toward a greater sense of responsibility to
maintain a peaceful and safe environment for their students.
And now, we would be hard pressed to come back and say,
"Except that we don't want you to stop somebody just because
they're attacking somebody's race or religion or ethnicity." I don't
know how to find an answer to it, but I'm gratified that you say
you don't have a quick answer for it and that you are fully alert to
the fact that it's one of those things that I suspect will bite whoev-
er comes up with the answer the first time because it's just not
going to go away.
We have some more people back now. What's happening here,
Mr. Secretary, is that General Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf is
going to speak, maybe as I'm talking, to a joint session. Has he
started already? He's going to momentarily, I guess, speak to a
joint session.
I have the highest regard and respect for the general, but I think
the work we're about here is every bit as important as what he's
going to say today, and I can watch it on television tonight
anyhow.
Mr. Roemer.
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you. I have two quick points and I will, in
kind of a perfunctory manner, outline them and then make a state-
ment on education, if you'll just bear with me.
The first question, and I'd like to associate myself with the re-
marks of the chairmPn and the ranking member, Mr. Coleman,
and also Mrs. Rouk
, is about access and eligibility for middle
class and low income people for higher education.
Now, the second question is about, the possibility of establishing
some type of a national award for performance based, quality
schools, along some of the same lines as the Malcolm Baldridge
5 1
48
Award, which is getting all kinds of great recognition in my com-
munity, for instance.
And, thirdly, the question is about money that the Chairman,
again, brought up in his initial remarks.
Mr. Secretary, I don't have a poll that says this, but I went to
20,000 doors, door to door, personally in my campaign for Congress.
I found that middle class families are getting squeezed out of
higher education. If they have two and three and four children,
they can't afford the costs of college. Although I still have a stu-
dent loan to pay on for graduate school at Notre Dame, Notre
Dame and the University of Tennessee are not the average institu-
tions. Many of these people in the middle class have no hope of get-
ting their kids into higher education.
It's one of tilt themes that I had in my campaign that I heard
more of than anything else. I think we have to address that prob-
lem in terms of fairness and squeezing out middle class people from
their dreams of achieving better things for their kids.
Secondly, I'd also like to talk about just the focus of this bill,
looking at the time period 1994 to 1999, and our willingness to lead
in Congress and in the Education Department. As I told you before
in my initial remarks, I'm willing to work with you on many of the
President's proposals for innovative, creative changes for educa-
tion, but it's going to take some money and some leadership and
some political capital to do that.
If we're not going to do it based upon what we're looking at in a
10 year time frame projecting into the next century, I don't know
where our priorities should be as a Congress.
On my Science, Space and Technology Committee, I told the
Chairman I was going to vote against a 10 percent increase for
NASA. That's not to say I don't support the space station or sup-
port the NASA program. Let's take some of that increase in NASA
and make sure that we have the technicians and the engineers and
the astronauts going into the next century to build those next gen-
eration of discovery programs.
It's going to take more than the Federal Government giving 8
percent of the money. It is going to take some leadership and some
money to drive the change. I don't think we should throw money at
this problem, either, but some money linked or attached to some of
the innovation and change in some areas that the President talks
about and in programs like Head Start and in middle class loans
and low income loans and grants for kids. I think this makes sense
for us as a competitive Nation looking toward the next century.
If we can't spend it on our kids in education, we are in dire con-
sequences in the future. I'd just like to let you answer those ques-
tions and just conclude by agreeing with you when you indicated
that the GI Bill, which was a national bill, and Sputnik led educa-
tional revolution in the past. We need revolution right now, Mr.
Secretary, in education.
We have got to have the leadership and the money and the polit-
ical capital in endeavor this or we are not going to make it against
the Japanese and the Germans. We are not going to make it as a
middle class society trying to have our middle class achieve their
dreams.
52
49
I would appreciate it if you could address those three questions
for meaccess and eligibility for middle class people for these
loans and Mrs. Roukema's concerns for recalculating eligibility and
then the money problem. Thank you.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, thank you. I appreciate the spirit of
your comments, especially both then and what you said earlier.
And, in general, of course, we agree that the President's whole edu-
cation strategy is sensed on the really very unusual idea that a
President ought to lend part of the office to a strategy to help move
the country.
And looking through his strategy, I think one can see that it in-
cludes most of the boldest thinking possible in transforming
schools, colleges and universities, and maybe even more important-
ly, attitudes about education in America.
Now, going to your particular points, your idea about quality for
colleges is a very good one. I don't know if the governrient could
have a Baldridge Award for quality in colluges. We had a business
school at the University of Tennessee that is trying that. We tried
to apply that. They teach other businesses how to apply Dr. Dem-
ming's principles to the businesses, but they have a much more dif-
ficult time when they try to apply it to themselves or to their col-
leagues. Somehow it doesn't seem to fit.
But I think, probably, it should fit, and I'll discuss that with
David Kerns, who hopefully gets confirmed within a few days,
whose company just won the Baldridge Award, and he might have
some special insight on that.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Secretary, just as a point aside from that, IBM
just came into my district talking about their recognition of the
Malcolm Baldridge Award and had a dinner for 80 community
leaders and business leaders trying to promote the quality and the
new production levels and the kind of award for their workers that
comes with that recognition.
And it's not just the company, as you well know; it's the quality
that spreads from that. And I think in education we need to get
morale up and we need to have that kind of recognition for schools
that are performing well.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Your other two points go to middle
income families and money. And I'm not going to disagree with
you. I think the best poll you could take is knocking on 20,000
doors and sensing how people feel. I'm sure people feel like college
is hard to achieve for themselves and their families, and may be
growing harder as more families have two parents working and
budgets are tight and here we are in the mithile of a recession on
top of that.
But, in fact, more middle class Americans are going to college
than anyone 25 or 30 years ago could ever possibly have imagined.
Half of them have Federal grants or loans. College tuition or com-
munity college tuitionand I don't want to just be repetitive, but I
think this keeps getting overlooked.
They're there and they're available in those places, and they
don't cost very much. And I think the problem is that many Ameri-
cans don't understand what their opportunities are. Now, of course,
we can increase those opportunities. And when I was Governor, the
question I had to think about, and I used to think about it this
5 3
50
way, was, "Should I tax a lower income person, raise his taxes,
someone working here in the elevator or sweeping this place out or
working in a low income job here, should I raise that person's taxes
in order to send to school a son or daughter of the person in the
office who makes more?" And I concluded no.
Now, in Washington, since you don't raise taxes and you just
spend money you don't have, maybe you have a different calculus.
I don't mean you, I mean this system here. But it's a matter of
money. And you may be taking a responsible attitude when you
say, "I'll vote no over here on this proposal so I'll free up 10 per-
cent of the money that might have gone to space. I'll free it up for
this." I respect that as a responsible budgetary decision even
though that would be different than the President's proposal.
If we had another billion dollars to spend, would we try to in-
crease the opportunities for minority families, lower income fami-
lies, disadvantaged families to go to college, or would we spread it
out among the middle income? I would say still that the first prior-
ity ought to be to help disadvantaged Americans get their foot in
the door, rather than to give it to middle income.
Now, that's just a policy disagreement, and I respect the other
side. But after thinking about it, that's where we've come down.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Secretary, I think that we do spend money like
it's going out of style around here, and we do need to make educa-
tion a priority. The money must be cut from somewhere.
I came to Congress at a time, Mr. Secretary, when a budget
agreement has been hammered out last yt.:ar that makes it impossi-
ble for me to move money around into education.
Secretary ALEXANDER. That makes two of us.
Mr. ROEMER. I think you, along with the Chairman, have a little
more power to get that billion dollars for education than I do. I
sure would support your efforts in trying to get that reallocation or
reappropriation of money, sir.
Thank you.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Secretary, I've heard from several members
on both sides that they would like to submit some questions to be,
with your answers, included in the record after todu.
And I'd like you to take one question with you that just occurred
to me when you mentioned the magic number of a billion dollars.
There was a proposal that floated out into the newspapers earlier
this year and caused a great deal of excitement, particularly a flut-
ter in the hearts of all the bankers who saw their special allowance
going out the window of a government loan program. And at the
center of that was the claim that it could save a billion dollars.
We operate on the assumption that if you save a billion dollars
from education, it ought to be spent someplace else on education.
But there's nothing in the 30 page presentation except a brief ref-
erence that you may be considering another loan program. I hope
that you'll have your people look specifically at what merit, if any,
there was on what purported to be when it was reported in the
newspapers an administration initiative in the loan area.
And I don't endorse it at this point, nor do I condemn it at this
point, because I know that it has a tendency to be, and it will be,
controversial. But at least it was a radical new idea that shouldn't
5,1
51
just get tossed in the dust bin until we look it over very carefully
and see if it has any merit.
And I hope that while looking at the other questions that are
given to you that your people could give us some idea about wheth-
er that's being examined as a viable possibility to consider in our
loan portfolio.
Secretary ALEXANDER. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. That
option is not now being actively considered, just so you'll know.
Our focus, with Mr. Farrell es the point person, is to get control of
this entire process of loans and grants and see that we're spending
the money wisely in the way that we're supposed to be spending it
now. That's priority one.
Priority two is to look quickly and carefully to see if there are
alternate ways of managing this big enterprise in a way that would
save money and improve services. When we get to that, of course,
we will consider the direct loan idea. And if it were to be a good
idea, we would recommend it to you. We're not prepared to do that
now. We will be glad to answer your question.
Chairman FORD. Someplace in your shop over there, the staff re-
minds me, is a letter that I sent a couple of weeks ago with a series
of very specific questions about the background and underpinning
of concepts that were outlined in that loan program. And maybe
that could be a good starting point for you to get a response for us.
Mrs. Unsoeld.
Mrs. UNSOELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you
know the hazards of being the messenger, and also we would like
to convey a message that be carried back. You said that the choice,
the very difficult choice that we are facing, is between 3.4 million
students getting a smaller amount of assistance or a lessar number,
3 million, getting a larger amount of assistance.
You said that community colleges, relatively speaking, are less
expensive and, therefore, ought to provide greater opportunities for
more of America's working families' children for education. But
not just relatively speaking but in actuality, there has been over
the last decade-plus an 18 percent drop in actlal average wages of
white male high school graduates with 5 years of experience.
So this country has increasingly been attempting to become more
competitive internationally by lowering wages and lowering the
standard of living for working America.
Now, you said we've got this terrible dilemma: It's either this or
that. And it's a question of money. It's a matter of money. And I
want to submit to you, isn't there another choice? Couldn't this
Nation be brought together with the same kind of unified commit-
ment for investing in this Nation's future and investing in this Na-
tion's young people as we demonstrated in the Gulf?
We demonstrated that we Americans can do anything when we
set our minds to it. Couldn't the President go before the American
public and say thiu usue of our Nation's future and how we edu-
cate our children is of paramount importance, and make the case
for raising the higher tax bracket, increasing the amount of real
money rather than this Hobson's choice that isn't really a choice.
Because if he doesn't, if he isn't willing to Fo before the Ameri-
can public and make that kind of a pitch, isn t the administration
saying that education is of less importance than the Persian Gulf?
52
That it's of less importance than the $40 billion, $50 billion, it
keeps going upward, that we're going to cough in to bail out the
savings and loans?
Isn't that also a choice for this very, very popular President?
Secretary ALEXANDER. The President did precisely that 2 weeks
ago. He went before the American people and outlined an educa-
tion strategy. He said, "Now that the war is over, we ought to turn
our attention to home, and here is the way that I would propose
helping America move itself toward the national education goals."
He hopes to do just that.
He did not recommend that the Federal Government start fund-
ing all of education any more than the States should start funding
the Persian war. Six percent of elementary and secondary educa-
tion comes out of here, and maybe 15 percent of higher education.
And any meaningful change in terms of financial support for
education or support generally, has to come community by commu-
nity and State by State. And the President is trying to provide the
framework for that.
He didn't recommend that the first thing everybody do is go out
and spend more money because that's, in fact, what we have been
doing. In between 1980 and 1990, spending for education went from
$160 billion to $400 billion, and spending for defense is $300 billion,
and going down as spending for education is going up. So they're
both very important. Defending the country is important; under-
standing what we have to defend is equally important.
And the President wants to help use the Presidency to cause
America to transform its thinking and change its structures and
value education more highly. One big reason why white males that
you mentioned are making less money is because they don't know
enough and can't do enough to compete in a world of people who
can do more and know more.
And that's what we need to change. And it's hard to go from
here.
Mrs. UNSOELD. You're correct. And you're correct that the em-
phasis has been described in the President's strategy for education,
but it can't be delivered without also the dollars. And given where
we are, the kind of, "You've got to cut one to do the other"unless
the President is willing to go before the American public and say,
"This is so important we really do need to raise taxes to do it."
And it ought to be to increase the tax bracket at the highest
level, so that we do not have to choose between dropping those
400,000 students in order to give a little bit more to a fewer
number, so that we don't have to address early childhood education
by saying that we will only fund Head Start for the eligible 4-year-
olds.
We know that that is a cost-effective program, that if we are
going to turn around having 40 percent of our kids who are pro-
grammed to be at risk to fail when as 5-year-olds they come to the
school house door, we have to invest. And it means real dollars.
The States don't have it; the local communities don't have it. More
and more, Federal responsibilities have been shifted there. They're
laying off teachers.
53
We have to have a leader go to the American public and make
the case that it isn't shifting money; we need real dollars if we're
going to win this one.
Secretary ALEXANDER. That's a very eloquent statement. I appre-
ciate your making it. I'm sure the President's position at this time
is not to recommend additional Federal taxes. And if he were to
recommend some, I assume he would suggest what every Governor
would do in their State, which is reducing the deficit before you
create a bigger one.
Mrs. UNSOELD. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was going to be through
but thatwe've got two deficits we're dealing with. Yes, we've got
to reduce our fiscal deficit. But the deficit in our Nation's future, if
we don't invest in those children, is greater than that other debt.
And we have to do both. We can not wait to invest in our chil-
dren until the other is completed. And that means moie real
money. Thank you.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Jefferson.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions won't
involve quite the passion of Mrs. Unsoeld's. I don't doubt that any-
one's could at this point.
But let me, if I may begin by just making some remarks. I am in
agreement with you,if we're working with any limitation of money,
as to where the emphasis ought to be placed with respect to aid to
those who are seeking access to higher education.
I must say, however, that I do not believe that the two issues
ought to be at war. The issue of helping the low income student
and the issue of helping the middle income student, I don't think
those two ought to be at odds with each other. They are, as you
point out, because of a lack of money.
The real culpi it, of course, is the cost of going to college now.
And the stress is coming because it's just a lot more expensive and
it's a lot more difficult for people to afford it, even given the level
of programs that have been offered in the past. They just don't
make up for it for the cost now.
You also have the other issue of more children in the family
going to college, which is an added burden for families. You take
those two things together and it's a real, it's a major new problem.
I don't think that the present programs take those two into ac-
count nearly well enough. And somehow or other, to meet this
issue, perhaps we ought to think about what to do about families
that have more than one child in college, as against treating them
as if you have one or you have several it doesn't make any differ-
ence. It seems that it ought to make a difference.
Somehow or other, the programs that we're involved in ought to
have some relation to cost. We ought to try and provide incentives.
Tim is talking about incentives on the one hand for achievement,
but I think we ought to also talk about controlling these costs
somewhat because there are severe questions as I-) what's causing
them and why they're growing to rapidly and ptting out of the
reach of the folks who want to go to college.
The other thing is this: I don't think we're on all fourF when we
talk about community colleges, proprietary schools and 4 year col-
leges. And if someone has access to either one of those three
things, it's not the same access. The 4 year degree, of course,
5 7
54
means a heck of a lot more. And when we were down having some
debates in my State of LouisianaI served in the legislature down
there for 11 years as a State senatorthat there wasn't much con-
fidence in expanding the community college system there.
And the reason was because there was a very low transfer rate
from the 2 year schools to the 4 year schools. And they were kind
of like that old advertisement on the roach motels that you get in,
but you don't get out. There was a huge drop-off because students
who started never made it even through the 2 years. And those
who made it the 2 years, 8 percent made the transfer to the 4 year
schools.
So it was an illusory opportunity. And as we look at the limita-
tion of money, we ought to really make a judgment as to whether
we give the same emphasis to money for those schools as we do to
the 4 year schools.
And I'll say one other thing, too. The chairman makes an inter-
esting point when he talks about the costs for the concentration of
minority students in junior colleges and 2 year colleges, whatever.
And when you have the duality of an emphasis on increasing the
grant amount for low income students and, at the same time,
taking away the number of grants available, and when you look at
---.hat the concentration is, in effect, what you may be doing is lim-
iting access for students when you really are hoping to increase it.
Now, on the other hand, if your emphasis is going to be away
from those junior colleges and so on to 4 year schools, then it may
make a little more sense. So I'll just throw that out for whatever
it's worth. And, generally, the advice we give up here is about
worth what it costs you. It didn't cost yeu anything so you can
value that.
But I want to ask you a question after all that talk that I hope
you'll give some consideration to the thoughts that I have thrown
out. I really think that there needs to be a good look-see at what
we want to do with 4 year college access and with proprietary col-
lege and with junior college access, and treat those in ways that at
least allows us to discuss them differently because they are, in fact,
very different.
There hasn't been much talk, and I suppose if I don't bring it up,
given as short as this meeting has gotten, it won't be discussed.
Title III of the act does a lot of talk there about strengthening our
historical colleges and universities. I just want to know what your
thinking is on that, whether you see the role that was stated in the
1965 act as still a viable and one worthy of continuing the
strengthening, or whether you feel otherwise.
It seems to me these schools are playing a greater role now, it
turns out, than they were then. They are more rroductive than
they were then, but I just want to know what your thinking is.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, that's a wide ranging set of con-
cerns, Mr. Jefferson. Thank you very much. My thinking is that
the historically black colleges are very important. I met yesterday
for a while with the President's newly appointed advisory commit-
tee on historically black colleges to try to set up a line of communi-
cation with them so that I could understand from their point of
view what their needs are.
tçj
55
These are institutions that are important to the administration,
among other reasons, because they have traditionally been impor-
tant to the President in his private life and his personal contribu-
tions. He's interested in them and sees their role. So they're impor-
tant to us. I don't have any major recommendations today to make
other than what we have said in our statement, but they're impor-
tant.
On the various questions that you raised, I thought I should
point out that the formula we have now for grants and loans do
take into account the number of students in a family, and they do
take into account the cost of the different colleges. For a more ex-
pensive college you might get a larger grant.
And insofar as the community colleges go, I don't think you have
community colleges in Louisiana, I don't think.
Mr. JEFFERSON. A handful. We don't have a system as you have
in Mississippi.
Secretary ALEXANDER. I think you'd be better off if you did be-
cause our experience has been that, you know, most people don't
graduate from university, even I think the students, the people
who got all concerned about the athletes and their graduation rate.
And I think it may have included some people on this committee
last year discovered that the athletes generally have higher grad-
uation rates than the rest of the students.
And what we found out is that the graduation rates aren't so im-
portant anymore because we have the typical student that comes,
the single mother who starts college in 1981 and finishes in 1989,
and so she wouldn't fit within any normal 5 year graduation rate.
Or the colleges, and especially the community colleges and techni-
cal institutes, are populated by people who don't want or need de-
grees. They just want to learn more, understand more, about a par-
ticular area or discipline. So it's not as if they were poor students;
they just are getting the further education that they think they
need to improve their job or make their life better.
I agree that community colleges have a different role than uni-
versities, but we're going to go from a situation in America where 4
or 5 percent of the people are going to have college degrees to a
place where half of the people will have a college degree, which is
where we hope to be, maybe, by the end of the century. Maybe it
will be 40 percent.
Then I think we have to build in an alternate system for the
more expensive 4 year college. And I think the community eollege
system, keeping tuition at a level below $1,000, being available so
people can live at home, is an excellent alternative. And increas-
ingly, those campuses offer what they call transfer courses so that
people may, as you indicated, at a greater rate take college courses
there and then transfer to LSU or wherever they might like to go.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Well, I suggest in my remarks that there was a
raging debate about whether we should go to a community college
system. And the decision that has been, at least for the moment,
made that it shouldn't be done because the reason that we're talk-
ing about it was to provide access for students who are underpre-
pared in certain high school courses to take on the college curricu-
lum at certain schools and State 4 year schools. And so the idea
5
56
was to give them other opportunities leading, hopefully, down the
line to their suitability for transfer to another.
That turned out o be a discussion that didn't lead us anywhere.
Now, it may be that there are students who go to these schools who
simply want to get a certificate or, maybe, not even that, who
simply want to go there to take a course. But those ought to be sep-
arated from those who aspire for higher things and who don't
achieve them.
The other thing is I think it's quite a good measure for how well
the schools are doing as to whether you graduate. After all, if you
don't graduate it has certain consequences which are different
from than if you do.
And schools are continually judged as to whether they are able
to produce graduates. Now, about half the students, maybe a little
less than that in the country who go to college are able to get out
of it. Now, if you say there are certain circumstances where stu-
dents go and it takes them 6 or 7 years to go, but those are ones
which are more isolated, if you will, than the regular student who
starts off as a freshman and wants to finish in 4 and 5 or 6 years.
Anyway, you know a lot more about those details than I do.
Secretary ALEXANnER. Mr. Jefferson, the number of students
who graduate in 4 years in American colleges and universities is
like 20 or 25 percent. I mean, it's not a very meaningful statistic
anymore. And the students who go to community colleges, 60 or 70
percent of them are over the age of 25. They're not kids; they're
people who need to go back to school. They're adults who are in the
work force, who went to work for the phone company and never
learned the computer and they have to go back and learn about a
computer to keep their job.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Here's a question. Let's, so we don't get off track
too far, as I kind of feel like maybe we are. In the context of what
we're doing here, that is to say, to reauthorize the Higher Educa-
tion Act, looking at what our goals are in higher education, in post-
secondary education, are they to provide assistance for someone
who wants to go back to have a course in computer literacy, or are
we talking about reaching the people that Tim Roemer is talking
about whose family wants their kid to go to the University A Indi-
ana, I guess, or some other 4 year college?
And do we, when we talk about American competitiveness, are
we talking about the traditional college setting, or are we talking
about something else? And if we're talking about something else, of
course, we can structure it a iot of different ways. But ifwe're talk-
ing about the 4 year school and the baccalaureate degree, and edu-
cation beyond that, then it seems that we are speaking of the tradi-
tional college setting.
So maybe we are unclear on what we are trying to achieve
through our efforts here. But my emphasis on the 4 year school,
the graduate school the baccalaureate degree, and I think there's
something to be said for that. We have to decide which way we're
want to go, though, Mr. Secretary. We can't do it all, as you point
out. And we need to decide which place we're going to place our
emphasis.
Chairman FORD. Do you have any response to what he said?
fi ()
57
Secretary ALEXANDER. I can always keep talking, Mr. Chairman,
but I don't want to take up time from other people. Well, I think
we have a little different emphasis of opinion. I think there are
limits on the amount of money that any of us could make avail-
able. That a principal objective ought to be to move America's com-
petitiveness over the next 10 years. Eighty-five percent of the
people who are going to be in the work force 10 years from now are
already there. They're not the children; they're the adults.
And the quickest, fastest, cheapest, most efficient and most effec-
tive way to improve our competitiveness in this country would be
for the parents to go back to school, not the children. Now, the
children ought to also go to school so we'll be competitive in the
next century, but if we want to move in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, and 1996, it would be for the parents to go back to school and
improve their skills.
And they will principally go to a wide range of institutions. And
because of cost and accessibility and because they're open at night
and offer courses, I think the community college system and the 2
year system are a very appropriate and effective place for them to
go.
I know in our State, if they're at the Saturn plant in middle Ten-
nessee and want to go to the University of Tennessee, they can't go
because of the rules of the State. So the only options are to go to
Columbia State Community College or drive into Nashville. Many
of them do that and they're happy to have the opportunity.
We're not really arguing. I think we're talking about the relative
importance of the emphasis of the 4 year college, which I've been
president of one for the last few years so I think it's terrifically im-
portant. I've also come to admire the community college system.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also mean no disre-
spect to General Schwarzkopf by being here, being the fact that
he's from New Jersey and I'm from New Jersey. Although I do
think the one lesson of the war that we have clearly learned is that
when you want something done right, put someone from New
Jersey in charge of it, which is why we're here with you.
We began these hearings last week with some excellent testimo-
ny about the context in which we're going forward, about competi-
tiveness. The chairman put together a panel about the new Ameri-
can economy and how this act fits into it, and I'd like to think that
today is another step in that conceptual framework that we're de-
veloping.
And I'd like to ask a couple of questions which I wouldn't expect
you to have statistical answers to today, but I'd like you to try to
get them for us so we could frame the conceptual approach to the
problem.
First, let me say that I completely embrace and agree with your
call for improvements in quality and awards for excellence. I think
that your focus on insuring integrity and improving service deliv-
ery in all the programs is very well placed because it helps build,
and in some cases, rebuild public trust.
My first question is this: Can the Department tell us how many
Americans who wish to get a higher educationand within that
umbrella of higher education I would include 4 year schools, 2 year
58
schools, proprietary schoolshow many Americans who wish to get
a higher education aren't getting one today because of a lack of re-
sources?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, we can tell you how many can,
which are 6 million. There are 13 million people in our colleges
and universities, 10 of those are in our public colleges and universi-
ties, 6 have a Federal grant or aid.
Ms. Christiensen, do you have any way to estimate how many
people don't go to college because they don't think they can afford
it?
Ms. CHR1STIENSEN. No. I would just say right off that I think with
the combination of the Pell grants and the campus based programs,
which are supplemental educational oppertunity grants, and work/
study programs and the campus based loan programs, as well as
the general loan program, as well as the other kinds of State aid
such as the State student incentive grants, as well as the subsidies
to public institutions that the Secretary referred to earlier, I think
that my own impression is that if a student really wants to attend
a college, even a 4 year institution, that there are substantial re-
sources available to do that.
And, also, at the college level there are various kinds of scholar-
ships. There are scholarships even put out by nonprofit private in-
stitutions and private companies. I just don't think that there
would be any sizable number of students who are not able to get
into college. We can look into it and see if there's any study. I have
never seen it.
Mr. ANDREWS. I'd be very interested. I suspect that at some of
the 20,000 doors that Mr. Roemer knocked on and some of the
thousands of doors that I knocked on, that people might disagree
with that conclusion. Although I think that maybe they're speak-
ing to a slightly different question, and let me phrase it this way.
We might categorize some groups of people in our society as the
undereducated, where people have access to opportunities more
limited than their abilities might justify. And I wonder if there's
any measure that the Department has of this situation.
How many people do we have in the country who have the aca-
demic skills and the desire to go to a 4 year school, a quality 4 year
school, who are unable to do so because of financial limitations and
resource limitations?
How many students? And, by the way, let me preface it this way.
I am a great believer in support of community colleges. My back-
ground is in county government and I was the chief elected official
of a county government that funded an outstanding community col-
lege. And I mean no derogation whatsoever.
But how many students are in 2 year programs not because
they've chosen a 2 year program but because they can't afford a 4
year program that would lead to a baccalaureate or a higher
degree?
Secretary ALEXANDER. I would assume a lot, Mr. Andrews. That's
the whole reason for the existence of community colleges, so that
as we seek to educate 10 times more people beyond high school
that we have reasonably affordable places and are accessible so
that they can go.
59
Mr. ANDREWS. Is there any measure that would be more specific
about that question?
Secretary ALEXANDER. I wouldn't imagine that we could. As I re-
member the time of going to college, I don't guess I met very many
people who didn't think it was difficult to go or that they needed
more money or could have used more help. And as a university
president, I spent time every day with families who were having a
difficult time paying their bills. So their course is never easy.
Mr. ANDREWS. Do we have any target estimate of the cost of clos-
ing that gap, how much it would cost us to build on that $12.6 bil-
lion you make reference to in your testimony to open the doors of
all the 4 year schools?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, since I didn't define the gap, we
don't have any target, no. And I don't know that that's an appro-
priate goal. I think the goal should be to provide a wider range of
opportunities for Americans of all ages to continue to get a quality
education.
And I would argue very strongly to a family that in many cases
a community college is not only an equal opportunity in the first
couple of years of an undergraduate degree, it is sometimes a
better solution for a student, and a lot cheaper.
Mr. ANDREWS. Let me just ciose with this question. And I would
ask just conceptually ifyou would agree or disagree with this state-
ment, if the administration would agree Jr disagree with this state-
ment: The policy of the United States should be that every person
who wishes to obtain a higher education and is willing to work for
it should receive one.
Secretary ALEXANDER. The
policy of the administration
is:
number one, that the responsibility for education of all ages is pri-
marily a State and local matter; number two, that it is the particu-
lar function of the Federal Government to help limit the degree to
which money is a barrier to education; and that, third, the last 25
or 30 years are an enormous success story because we've gone from
a place of where maybe 5 percent of Americans had a college
degree to a situation where maybe half the high school graduates
go and many adults are going back, and where one out of every two
students has a Federal grant or a loan to help with that.
Mr. ANDREWS. I guess the discomfort I would have is that I agree
that the last 25 years are a terrific success story. I would not have
gotten my education in the last 25 years without the kind of pro-
grams we're talking today about
reauthorizing. Unlike Mr.
Roemer, I did pay my student loan back already. Let the record
show that.
But I guess the discomfort I have is precisely because the Federal
Government took such an active interest in 1965 and in other years
that we were able to do this. I mean, why is the administration re-
luctant to embrace a goal that would create universal access
through a Federal system? What's wrong with that?
Secretary ALEXANDER. The only thing wrong with that is that is
the $300 billion deficit, Mr. Andrews, annually.
Mr. ANDREWS. Don't you think there's a very strong argument
that that's one of the solutions to the deficit problem, rather
than--
G3
60
Secretary ALEXANDER. No. I think the way you reduce the deficit
is to have enough money coming in to pay your bills. I mean, that's
what I was used to as Governor. I always wanted toI mean, I
rarely found anyone in education that wouldn't enjoy having, and
usually use well, some more mon
3ut there was a limit to it.
And if we have more money to spend than we think we do, why,
then we can suggest ways to spend it. You can always do that. And,
of course, it would be wonderful to reduce further the barrier that
exists to going to college. But I think that when we start with the
fact that 70 percent, for example, in our State of the costs of at-
tending a 4 year university are paid for by the State to start with
and the student only pays 30 percent and then we come in with a
Federal grant or a loan for hal! the students to further reduce that
amount of money, that in the United States we've come a long
way.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank you very much.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I, too, am from New Jersey
and as my colleague said so is General Schwarzkopf. And if you
want it done right, you have someone from New Jersey do it. I
thought he was going to say if you want to have it right, you spend
the right amount of money to get it done right.
1 don't think anyone can quarrel that our priorities over the last
decade have been, that we should build a better plane, a sneakier
plane and a smarter bomb. And we spent, I guess, about $3.5 tril-
lion over the past 10, years zooming for another $3 trillion over the
next 10.
And when I look at what we spent on education, about one-tenth
of that, I just wonder in this Nation, how we talk about the fact
that we're moving towards competition and I get a little concerned.
I just look at the fact that in the year 2000 we're going to need
17,300 Phil's in science and math. We will graduate 9,300, leaving
us 8,300 short.
In the year 2020, it's interesting that 50 percent of the students
in school are going to be the black, Hispanic, Asian or Native
American. And 23 of the 25 largest school districts in the Nation
today are majority minority. There are 25 percent less 22 year olds
in 1991 than there were in 1981. Moreover, there are going to be,
25 percent less 22 year olds in the year 2001.
So what we're going to have, actually, is a tremendous increase
in minorities. We're going to run out of white men so we're going
to have to expand science and technology to people who have been
traditionally shut out women and minorities.
My question, then, deals with, and of course we're now discussing
higher education, but have you given any though to how are we
going to be able to prepare inner city youngsters with the skills
that will be necessary to move into science and math in the year
2002 and 2010 since a majority of these students are going to be
minorities and women?
And, secondiy, years ago we had the opportunity with the brain
drain to have people from other countries, and particularly third
world countries, come to the U.S.A. for employment. But now, as
we know, with this world technology, we don't attract the people to
I'
61
come in anymore so we're not going to be able to supplant the
number of people we need by taking them from other places.
How do you see yourself going about addressing these statistics
as it relates to our competitiveness worldwide?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you very much for your point. One
way to maintain a brain drain toward us is to continue to have the
finest system of colleges and universities in the world. Some of the
best students on our American campuses are students who are at-
tracted from other countries.
And while sometimes that bothers people and they say, "Well,
why should they be here and our folks should not be there," the
fact is that where would we rather they be? The University of Beij-
ing, somewhere in the Soviet Union learning about another cul-
ture?
The truth is our colleges and universities have been a magnet for
a lot of the brain power that is very important to America. And we
should be happy that those universities are in our country, not in
some other one.
As far as your excellent point about the number of disadvan-
taged students, minority students, who need to be a part of the
technical or science or math or Ph.D. group, we would hope that
our proposal for the Pell grant would be a substantial help because
what we're suggesting is to dramatically increase, by 54 percent,
the size of the Pell grant and to target it toward low income fami-
lies, a disproportionate number of which are minorities.
And, hopefully, that will provide an incentive for those students
to go to college, a way for them to stay in college. And then, hope-
fully, that will produce the larger number of students that you're
talking about.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Just one last question. One of your as-
sistants, I guess you inherited them all, since you're new; But one
of them that made some brilliant stat int about the Fiesta Bowl
and the violation of the Civil Rights
xt because $100,000 was
being created as a scholarship fund of brand new money that had
never been out there before. But his brilliant interpretation was
that there was a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
I thought that when you came in you were going to at least at-
tempt to clarify that issue since we already know that we are un-
derrepresented in higher education. As a matter of fact, there are
less minorities in higher education today than there were 10 years
ago.
You need to clarify that so that we can stop havin'; universities
in my State and other areas who seem to be questioning whether
they're violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act by having minority
scholarships. Because I think the quicker that it's clarified, and I
hope someone else does it, other than the one who announced it,
because it was very confusing out there. It would be great if they
could move on to that so that we can go on.
Where does that stand at the present time? Has there been a
clarification from your office?
Secretary ALEXANDER. Well, I hope there's been a clarification.
Number one, there should be no problem for a college or university
today to pay much close attention to what we say because we've
made it absolutely clear that they should keep doing whatever
5
62
they're doing. I've said that numerous times, and that's what we're
telling them.
Now, the second thing is that we are reviewing the question of to
what extent race can be a factor in a scholarship. And rather than
just jumping to some conclusion about that, we thought the correct
thing to do would be to fmd out what we're talking about first.
So we've entered into an arrangement with American Council on
Education, which includes most of the colleges and universities, I
guess all of them, really, and we're surveying the colleges and uni-
versities to see to what extent race is a factor in scholarships and
what. is the rationale for that.
And when we find that out, then we'll see if we then have a
problem comparing that with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,
which prohibits, basically, the spending of Federal money making a
distinction based on race.
If there is, then, a problem, a problem being that there's a prac-
tice on some campuses that seems to violate what the Attorney
General tells us is the law, we will sit down with the colleges and
universities and seek to help them continue our main thrust, which
is to provide opportunities for disadvantaged Americans to go to
college. And we'll try to work through the problem without jeop-
ardizing the opportunity for disadvantaged people.
Our goal is to help disadvantaged Americans get in, not to get
them out. And that's what we'd like to make clear. Bdt there may
be, before we get through the end of all this, some area of which
there has been some use of scholarships with race only as a factor
that may create some problem with the Civil Rights law. We don't
know that and we're not deciding that yet. It's be another 2 or 3
months, I would suppose, until we can finish the survey of all the
colleges and come to a conclusion.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you for your question.
Chairman FORD. Mr. Secretary, just on that point, you said that
you were surveying the colleges to determine the existence of, I
take it, race specific awards. Really, my understanding, and I share
Mr. Payne's obvious admiration for, was that he's talking about the
Civil Rights Act in totality so I hope that your survey is also look-
ing at gender and ethnic specific awards as well.
Because if race specific awards are not right, then gender and
other ethnic considerations are in trouble also. And I come from a
State where we have institutions that do both. My principal State
university will only give you a Ph.D. free ride in .mlitical science if
you are an oriental woman, not a citizen of the United States. And
we have one school that will give you money to go to school only if
you're of Finnish descent.
And it goes on and on. We have some Indian grants and others,
and this man's opinion, to some of us, throws a cloud over all of
these kinds of awards that pick some characteristic other than aca-
demics for the recipients.
So I hope in your survey it's broader than simply how many of
them are out there for race because if it's determined that we're
going to bring down race specific awards or schools that engage in
race specific awards, then at the same time we will undoubtedly
66
63
bring down the gender specific and ethnic or religious specific as
well.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield for a second.
Chairman FORD. Sure.
Mr. PAYNE. Also, in many schools, as a matter of fact, I think it's
probably more of a practice than not, that a faculty member has
the right to have their child attend that school free of cost.
Now, if we really want to get into it, I was so shocked when the
whole question of this $100,000 grant to the University of Louis-
ville to try to increase the number of minorities at that institution
was, not only attacked, but then a clarification 2 weeks later came
back more strongly than the initial statement.
And so, as the chairman said, we need to see whether a faculty
member has the right to have his or her child have an education
free because they're on the faculty. So as you are going through
these programs, I hope you reexamine this whole question, which I
think was ridiculous in the first place.
Currently there is an all time low of minority students getting
an opportunity for higher education and we've got a tremendous
declineand that's certainly not your fault, you're brand newit's
just a lot of social and psychological issues.
I, too, worked my way through college and I was saying that to
some young people and they say, you know, "That's great. Could
you tell me where I can find a job?" And there's a big difference
when we use our own reference about how we made it through
school.
There are no jobs in my city, especially for people 18 to 24 years
old. And that's why they all join the military. Its the only viable
option in my town for a kid who wants to move ahead. And that's
sad.So I would just like to see whether all of this will be examined.
Secretary ALEXANDER. If I may make brief comments to those
two points, Mr. Chairman. The controversy exists because of the
provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. There's nothing in
that about faculty members.
Now, if Congress wanted to provide rules about what universities
might do in permitting its own employees to have discounts to go
to college, it could do that, I suppose. I would argue that it
wouldn't want to, that you would want to leave that to local gov-
erning boards.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the survey which we have undertaken
with the ACE has to do with race because that was the issue that
was raised with us. It's a fairly comprehensive survey.
Chairman FORD. I submit that the incident that caused the issue
to be raised, or was referred to by the now famous letter, involved
race, but the Civil Rights Act that it makes reference to goes
beyond race. The kind of scholarships that he was responding to,
the suggestion was that there would be scholarships for minority
students as defined by race, but the Civil Rights Act does not limit
itself to race. It also deals with gender and religion and other mat-
ters.
Secretary ALEXANDER. I think in our survey we're only looking
at race or national origin. And I'll send you a copy of the survey
64
and let you see what we're doing and see if you want to have any
further questions of me about it.
Chairman FORD. Thank you. I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary,
for this long morning you've put in with us here, and apologize to
you for the interruptions. Let me just give you one more thought to
take with you without holding you up.
In describing the President's initiatives in talking about choice,
on more than one occasion you have said publicly that what you
picture choice in the elementary and secondary schools is some-
thing like the Pell grant where you assign a student an amount of
moneyas I understand it, it would come out of Chapter Oneand
let the student take it to any school they want to take it to.
I think you've been into Pell long enough to know that we don't
do that in Pell grants. And I'd like to suggest that you spend a
little time exploring the difference between the way you determine
who gets what under Chapter One and the way you determine who
gets what under Pell. In neither case do we give a student money
and say, "Take it wherever you want to."
You can't, for example, use the cost at the University of Tennes-
see to establish your eligibility for a Pell grant which is based, in
large part, on the cost of education and take that amount of money
and go to a community college and pocket the difference. There is
no package of money that moves with the student from institution
i
to nstitution. The amount of money that a student is eligible for
under Pell is very much a function of which institution that stu-
dent is applying to enter.
Now, in the case of the Chapter One money, the student is in no
way identified, and the characteristics of the students economics
have nothing to do with where the chapter money is. The fact that
they live in an area that's heavily impacted by low income popula-
tion directs some money into that county. And then when it gets
inside of the county they decide how they'll divide up the money
between the school districts in the county.
And then, when it gets into a school district, they'll decide which
schools are impacted by whatever characteristics they want to use,
not entirely economic, and need the Chapter One programs. And
we've had so much trouble, Mr. Secretary, over children who lived
in an area that made them eligible to go to school that had a Chap-
ter One program in remedial reading and they needed the remedial
reading, and then a Federal judge came along and said, "We're
going to help you by busing you to a school that has a majority of
children who aren't poor but also doesn't have any Chapter One re-
medial reading program."
And we've tried every way possible to figure out how to get off
the horns of that dilemma. And I wanted to leave you with the
thought that you are suggesting the creation of a new dilemma for
us by putting apples and oranges together in this comparison that
you use of treating Chapter One money like we treat Pell grant
money.
And I hope that you'll spend a little time looking at that because
it's already creating reactions from people who are asking us if you
really mean it. And I say, "Well, I think he really means it but I
think he needs to become a little bit more familiar with the pecu-
liar characteristics."
65
It took us years, Mr. Secretary, to convince school superintend-
ents that they didn't have to ask kids how much their daddy made
to put them in a Title I program when it was called Title I. It just
didn't come across to people that we don't identify specific chil-
dren. It's not like the school lunch program, the free and reduced
price lunch.
We do not put a child in a remedial reading class in a school,
thereby making him a Chapter One child, because of his economic
situation. We put him in because of where he lives and is sent to
school. And if he's lucky enough to be in a school that has a reme-
dial reading program, it doesn't matter whether his father is the
town banker or the town drunk. He gets into the class because he
needs remedial reading, not because of his economic status.
You get money in Pell because of your economic status, not be-
cause of an educational measurement of any kind. And I hope that
you will, before you create some false hopes out there with people
about the adaptability of these two programs, have another close
look at it.
I would not have raised this publicly but for the fact that you've
now raised it publicly often enough so that the questions are start-
ing to come back. And we want to avoid having people misunder-
stand.
Believe me, after 1965, when we devised this formula, it took us,
literally, years to convince people that there was no means testing
involved in the program because they had the experience of the
school lunch program and said, "Oh yeah. Congress once again has
said if you're a poor kid you can get remedial reading." We never
did say that, never have. And there's no difference in it now that
it's called Chapter One, than from old Title I.
But even educators had a hard time bringing themselves to un-
derstand that that program was not tailored to the individual
needs of a student as measured by their economic status. It's en-
tirely possible for the richest kid in town to be in the remedial
reading program just because he goes to a school that has it be-
cause there is no identification of the children in the remedial
reading program under Chapter One with economics at all. It's the
school district's economics, measured by who lives in that school
district.
And I think you've got somebody over there in the Chapter One
department who could give you a quick briefing on the wide varie-
ty of ways in which Chapter One money is distributed when it gets
inside of a county or inside of a school district.
The way in which is was done in the former chairman of this
committee's Los Angeles district is very different than the way it's
done in my Michigan district, and they're both legal and they both
meet all of the requirements of the law. But there is an unlimited
amount of individual ingenuity at work out there. There is no
single formula that gets the money down to a specific child.
And the last time we reauthorized elementary and secondary
education, we chased our tail around here trying to figure out how
you could generalize on how the Chapter One formula works
within States after you get past the county because the only census
data we have goes down to the county level. And a majority of the
66
States have school governance and attendance areas that are
than county wide.
So there was a vacuum left between what the census can tell us
and what's really out there that the ingenuity of people at the
State and local level has filled. They rushed in and took care of
that vacuum.
So I hope you will have people have a look at it and particularly
look at this concept of Chapter One being somehow portable be-
cause that's what's getting the public school people upset now is
that they think you're talking about taking money out of a Chap-
ter One school and letting somebody who has the ambition to do it
take it someplace else. And they say, "How do we run the program
for the people who are left?"
And when we bussed the child out of the Chapter One school for
school integration and took him away from the Chapter One pro-
gram, we didn't at the same time take any money away for run-
ning the program for the kids who stayed in the poor part of town.
And that's the real difference in the way we see what you're doing.
And I bring it up only because it's essential that you understand
pretty clearly what kind of hurdles you have to jump to try to
make Chapter One money look like Pell grant money. It really be-
comes very complicated. I don't think the Pell formula would work
any place except in higher education.
And, as you may have noticed, Mr. Coleman and I made refer-
ence to what we think was generated by OMB, as the young lady
from New Jersey pointed out that she'd heard this before. She was
the first one unkind enough to bring up the name of my former
colleague from Michigan, Mr. Stockman.
But the plan you're now giving us was a David Stockman plan
that cut the cost of Pell grants. And somebody has put together for
you and sent you up here with what David admitted to us, and
what he wrote about in his book, had no motivation except to
reduce the number of people who got Pell grants and save money
for the budget and back that as a new idea about how to help the
r. It won't sell that way, Mr. Secretary, because it wouldn't sell
fore as a budget cutter. Nobody believed that it was really in-
tended to help poor people.
And if your staff, and you've got great number crunchers sitting
right there next to you, is telling you that this has an educational
motivation rather than being budget driven, either that person is
mistaken or they're misleading you. And I hope you'll have a look
at these things so that we can start working together on being able
to define where it is you want to go. And we'll go as far as we can
go with you. We're not quite sure that we're singing out of the
same book.
And I think you saw here this morning on both sides of the aisle,
we really want to work with you. It depends a great deal on us
agreeing. We have to get an agreed statement of facts, as lawyers
like to state, before we argue about what the law is. And we're not
yet at that stage.
I thank you very much.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, if you'll permit me just
toI listened very carefully to what you had to say. I understand
very well except, maybe, for the application form for financial aid
I
7 0
67
in higher education that the Chapter One program is probably the
most complex piece of legislation I've run into. Ana I know you're
the ranking expert on that.
But I think I've got my concepts right. And as you get to know
me, you'll understand that nobody makes up something for me and
sends me up. I speak my own mind, although I'm a part of the ad-
ministration.
I do think that the Pell grant system is a very instructive system
for us to think about as we spend money on behalf of elementary
and secondary students. Most of that money is spent by State and
local governments, not by us.
And the analogy that I was seeking to make there was that in
the Pell grant system, if I'm poor and entitled to some money, I
can spend it where I want. I can go to UT or I can go to Vander-
bilt. It'll be a different amount of money, but I could go to either
place. And the university is the agent for the government and the
money is there because I am there. And if there's any extra money,
it goes to me.
That sort of system, I think, would be perfectly consistent for a
plan of giving disadvantaged students a broader freedom of the
choices they have in elementary and secondary education.
In terms of Chapter One, I understand it's different and that it
services areas where there are concentrations of children who are
both economically disadvantaged and educationally deprived.
And in any proposal that we might make in the legislation later
this month, we would be very careful not to disrupt those services.
What we would try to do in terms of Chapter One is try to respect
first what a local school district might want to do, a
then let the
Federal money in our recommendation go as far as the local school
district wanted to go with its own money.
Now, that may not be something that appeals to you, or that line
of thinking. You may not buy it; you may reject it. But the way I
was using the Pell grant earlier was that we've had nearly 20 years
of experience now with letting students choose institutions with an
amount of money in their pockets, so to speak, an amount of
money that at least followed them. And that that might be instruc-
tive to State and local governments as they thought about devising
similar programs for disadvantaged students who might want a
wider range of choices. I understand that Chapter One may be dif-
ferent.
Chairman FORD. Well, one of the differences that comes quickly
to mind that you'll appreciate as a good lawyer is that the court
has nailed down very tightly the idea that since most private
schools at the elementary and secondary level are church related,
that using public money for private schools is prohibited by the
First Amendment. And the same court, cver the years, has said
that since, except for seminaries, college education is not primarily
for the purpose of inculcating into or teaching a child about reli-
gion, and therefore, we don't find a problem with financing private
schools.
But if you look at our programs, you could go to the university
that I went to for my law degree with our programs, but you
couldn't go to the school of theology on that campus with our pro-
68
grams. We won't pay for your theological education with student
loans. And that's been the case ever since the beginning.
So, actually, there is a clear distinction against a school that you
would be attending to get religion, and I don't think you'll find
very many parents with their children in private schools who
would want to deny that their primary concern is a proper Chris-
tian education for their child. Others might say they want their
child to go where there won't be so many poor kids or black kids or
whatever, but I've never had anybody, a friend or a member of my
family, and some of my family have attended private schools, ever
say that it was for any reason other than religious education.
There are a very narrow band of people who are in colleges and
universities for religious education, and we don't help them with
Federal money. So it's not a very good analogy for you to follow out
to its logical conclusion.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Can you not take a Pell grant to Notre
Dame, Mr. Chairman, or the Holy Cross?
Chairman FORD. Absolutely, so long as you are not attending
that school in a course of study on religion. You can incidentally, if
your school provides one, go to chapel every morning, but you can't
go there to study to be a minister or a priest with the program.
And that was done to protect us against law suits. We've never
successfully been sued on higher education going to any kind of a
private institution.
Secretary ALEXANDER. I understand your point about the court's
ruling about the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It
does place limits, but I don't see so much difference between the
elementary education you might get at a parochial school in Man-
hattan and the college education you might get at Fordham or
Holy Cross.
Chairman FORD. Well, I'd like to send you an article I wrote a
number of years ago for a publication called, "Education and the
Law," on a study of the Lemon v. Kurtzman package of cases and
what came before it.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Okay.
Chairman FORD. And that's when the court finally nailed it down
and said, "Look, we're just going to assume that a purpose of ele-
mentary and secondary education in a private school is the incul-
cating or teaching of religion so don't bring us back any more cases
and try to make a distinction."
In that same package of cases, however, they upheld the idea of
public money being in a private institution of higher education be-
cause people don't go off to college or send their child off to college
to teach them to be a good member of their religion, as a general
rule.
Now, I started that article with a statement that I think went,
"If you're looking (or the wall of separation between church and
State and you're trying to picture something like the Great Wall of
China, you'll be disappointed because the Supreme Court has con-
structed a wall based on smoke, and they, when it's convenient,
have gone over, under, around and through it to justify aid for col-
leges and universities. And they've gone over, under, around and
through it to deny aid to elementary and secondary schools."
69
I can understand the frustration of parents who feel the court
hasn't dealt with them fairly, but it's pretty well settled that we
don't want to get back into that fight. Those are the kind of issues
that for 20 to 30 years tied up Federal aid to education in the days
when the southerners in this Congress were the great advocates of
Federal aid to education.
And the first chairman of this committee, who was from my
State, and I succeeded his son in Congress, said he was not going to
let any legislation go through here unless Catholiche didn't say
public or nonpublic, he said Catholickids shared dollar for dollar
with the public school kids.
He was then succeeded by a gentleman from North Carolina who
took exactly the opposite position. "There is not going to be any
Federal aid to education if one dime goes to those Catholics." And
so that's where we sat here for many years, until finally it became
politically untenable for southern populace to continue to support
Federal aid. In 1954, that became very much out of vogue for
people in the south and some people in the north because of school
desegregation.
Let me just add one thing about the formula. From the very ear-
liest days on this committee, I was on the subcommittee that wrote
that formula, and I didn't like it. And I had, as a mentor on this
committee, Jim O'Hara from Michigan who had come a few years
ahead of me. And we had Hugh Carey from New York who later
became Governor, and we had John Brademas.
And none of us liked that formula because we looked at it from
the areas of the country we were from and said, "This is going to
shovel all the money into the rural south." We subsequently found
out that was part of the Johnson strategy to get the thing passed
because I have in my office from the Johnson papers at the John-
son library memos that were sent to him while we were consider-
ing the act.
I'm very pleased with one of them that said, "Mr. President,
you've got to get Adam Powell to move that bill quick because
O'Hara and Carey and Brademas and this new kid that they've got
from Detroit named Ford have figured out your formula and
they're going to shoot it down if it stays in the committee very
much longer."
Now, we tried for years to figure a better way to do it. And the
reason we couldn't beat the formula in Title I is that in this town
you can not beat something with nothing. You have to have some-
thing to beat something.
Over all those years, with no little bit of effort by us and all our
friends in education, we tried to find a better way to do it and
couldn't do it. And that's why it's so imperfect. It's because it's as
close to a reel measurement as you can get.
And as I sit here talking to you, it's becoming obsolete already.
We don't even have the numbers that will distribute Chapter One
money for the next 10 years, and a lot of them are already obso-
lete. They will be obsolete the minute that they're published be-
cause for 10 years it presupposes that everybody stayed frozen in
place on April of 1990, and they didn't. They've already moved
around and changed, and their circumstances have changed. But
for 10 years, we're going to pass the money out.
70
Nobody on this committee will defend that kind of rigidity in a
formula. And if you can come up with a formula that more accu-
rately measures down to a finer distribution system than we have,
you'll have a lot of people attentively listening here. But until you
do that, you've got to limp along with this beat up old hack we've
got because nobody has ever been able to figure out how to make it
better.
And it is terribly frustrating to look at it. It's almost impossible
to explain to a lay person why we came up with this stupid way of
doing it, except it has one virtue: It gets Federal aid into 95 percent
of all the school districts in the country, and no other formula that
we could come up with that would pass muster with the court does
that.
And every time you start looking for an alternative, you find out
that it either shoves the money toward the west coast or the east
coast or the north or the south, and you can't make changes.
So I'm bringing all of this up simply to indicate that there is a
growing growling taking place out there. We're hearing from
public school people because they're taking you at your word that
you're going to transfer Chapter One money out of Chapter One
schools.
And if you have an occasion to put that to rest soon, it will be
helpful because we don't need those public school people getting all
riled up for another fight.
The Secretary has an appointment and I'm taking him past his
appointment. I'm very sorry. I apologize.
Secretary ALEXANDER. No, no, this is helpful. I appreciate it and
I've enjoyed this. Thank you for inviting me.
Chairman FORD. Well, we certainly have enjoyed having you.
And I mean what I said about this is the way we treat a friend.
You should see how we treated your predecessors.
One of your predecessors was here yesterday. Ted Bell was up
here, but he was talking about job corps. He was one of the most
admired people who ever had your job by members on both sides of
the aisle here and one of the most admired educators in this coun-
try. But not everybody has been treated as gently in your job, as I
indicated earlier, not because of the words "Secretary of Educa-
tion," I might say.
This committee was very reluctant about creating the Depart-
ment, but once it was created it became fiercely and violently op-
posed to a President who wanted to abolish it. And you don't have
any idea how much different it is in only 10 years to hear what
you've been saying about Federal aid to education than what we
were hearing for a period of time.
So you've opened the doors here, Mr. Secretary, without any fear
of exaggerating, to more cooperation than any of your predecessors
have ever had, and I hope you take advantage of it.
Secretary ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject
to the call of the chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
74
71
STATEMENT OF HON. RON DE LUGO, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of this distinguished committee for
the opportunity to join you here this morning as you continue hearings on higher
education in America.
I want to commend you, Secretary Alexander, on your appointment and confirma-
tion as the Nation's Education Secretary. You certainly have the credentials, the
proven commitment, and the support of Americans who want to see our President
fulfill his promise to be an "Education President."
My remarks will be brief. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Insular and
International Affairs, I want to take this opportunity to impress upon you, if I may,
Mr. Secretary, the importance of this country's insular and outlying areas. Far from
the mainstream, they are this Nation's outposts in the Caribbean and the Pacific.
Though small in size, they wield considerable influence in those regions.
For example, in my home, the University of the Virgin Islands has established an
Eastern Caribbean Center for learning that has attracted students and scholars
from more than a dozen island nations. When their studies are complete, they
return to their homes to share the American experience and the American influ-
ence with their countrymen and women.
Our Virgin Islands public school system has become a mecca for thousands of' stu-
dents from throughout the region, helping to erect new bridges of learning and un-
derstanding throughout the Caribbean.
But this has not come without a price. The Virgin Islands has, at times, struggled
to cope with so many seeking an American education, and this has strained our
system and our community. It has created very special needs today.
Mr. Secretary, as the President proposes education strategy, such as America
2000, as this Congress develops education policy, and as the administration imple-
ments it, we must take special care to include all of the American people. Innova-
tive programs such as the "New Generation of Schools," if they do become a part of
our education strategy, must include the territories and commonwealths of the insu-
lar areas where new approaches to education are, if anywhere, even more critically
necessary.
I pledge my 100 percent support for education and America's future in education,
through policies and programs that will allow every American, regardless of race,
color, or location, to excel and to be a part of the American dream in the next cen-
tury.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
47-526 0 - 92 (76)
9
ISBN 0-16-037168 6
78016
37168
76
9 0 0 0 0