[Pages H2541-H2546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRING IN SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 914, TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT, WITH AMENDMENTS

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 145) providing for the concurrence of the House
with the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 914, with amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 145

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the
bill (H.R. 914), to make certain technical corrections in the
Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to graduation data
disclosures, shall be considered to have been taken from the
Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendments thereto
be, and the same are hereby, agreed to with amendments as
follows:
Insert before section 1 the following:
TITLE I--TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Redesignate sections 1 through 5 as sections 101 through
105, and at the end of the bill add the following:

SEC. 106. PAYMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL PROPERTY.

Section 8002(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(i)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(i) Priority Payments.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B),
and for any fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 1997 for
which the amount appropriated to carry out this section
exceeds the amount so appropriated for fiscal year 1996--
``(A) the Secretary shall first use the excess amount (not
to exceed the amount equal to the difference of (i) the
amount appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year
1997, and (ii) the amount appropriated to carry out this
section for fiscal year 1996) to increase the payment that
would otherwise be made under this section to not more than
50 percent of the maximum amount determined under subsection
(b) for any local educational agency described in paragraph
(2); and
``(B) the Secretary shall use the remainder of the excess
amount to increase the payments to each eligible local
educational agency under this section.
``(2) Local educational agency described.--A local
educational agency described in this paragraph is a local
educational agency that--
``(A) received a payment under this section for fiscal year
1996;
``(B) serves a school district that contains all or a
portion of a United States military academy;
``(C) serves a school district in which the local tax
assessor has certified that at least 60 percent of the real
property is federally owned; and
``(D) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that such agency's per-pupil revenue derived from local
sources for current expenditures is not less than that
revenue for the preceding fiscal year.''.
TITLE II--COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION REVIEW

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Cost of
Higher Education Review Act of 1997''.

[[Page H2542]]

(b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to a report issued by the General Accounting
Office, tuition at 4-year public colleges and universities
increased 234 percent from school year 1980-1981 through
school year 1994-1995, while median household income rose 82
percent and the cost of consumer goods as measured by the
Consumer Price Index rose 74 percent over the same time
period.
(2) A 1995 survey of college freshmen found that concern
about college affordability was the highest it has been in
the last 30 years.
(3) Paying for a college education now ranks as one of the
most costly investments for American families.

SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE COST OF
HIGHER EDUCATION.

There is established a Commission to be known as the
``National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education''
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 203. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

(a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 7
members as follows:
(1) Two individuals shall be appointed by the Speaker of
the House.
(2) One individual shall be appointed by the Minority
Leader of the House.
(3) Two individuals shall be appointed by the Majority
Leader of the Senate.
(4) One individual shall be appointed by the Minority
Leader of the Senate.
(5) One individual shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Education.
(b) Additional Qualifications.--Each of the individuals
appointed under subsection (a) shall be an individual with
expertise and experience in higher education finance
(including the financing of State institutions of higher
education), Federal financial aid programs, education
economics research, public or private higher education
administration, or business executives who have managed
successful cost reduction programs.
(c) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The members of the
Commission shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson.
In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson will
assume the duties of the Chairperson.
(d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
(e) Appointments.--All appointments under subsection (a)
shall be made within 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act. In the event that an officer authorized to make an
appointment under subsection (a) has not made such
appointment within such 30 days, the appointment may be made
for such officer as follows:
(1) The Chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce may act under such subsection for the Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
(2) The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce may act under such subsection for
the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources may act under such subsection for the Majority
Leader of the Senate.
(4) The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources may act under such subsection for the
Minority Leader of the Senate.
(f) Voting.--Each member of the Commission shall be
entitled to one vote, which shall be equal to the vote of
every other member of the Commission.
(g) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which
the original appointment was made.
(h) Prohibition of Additional Pay.--Members of the
Commission shall receive no additional pay, allowances, or
benefits by reason of their service on the Commission.
Members appointed from among private citizens of the United
States may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem, in
lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the government service to the extent funds
are available for such expenses.
(i) Initial Meeting.--The initial meeting of the Commission
shall occur within 40 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 204. FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION.

(a) Specific Findings and Recommendations.--The Commission
shall study and make findings and specific recommendations
regarding the following:
(1) The increase in tuition compared with other commodities
and services.
(2) Innovative methods of reducing or stabilizing tuition.
(3) Trends in college and university administrative costs,
including administrative staffing, ratio of administrative
staff to instructors, ratio of administrative staff to
students, remuneration of administrative staff, and
remuneration of college and university presidents or
chancellors.
(4) Trends in (A) faculty workload and remuneration
(including the use of adjunct faculty), (B) faculty-to-
student ratios, (C) number of hours spent in the classroom by
faculty, and (D) tenure practices, and the impact of such
trends on tuition.
(5) Trends in (A) the construction and renovation of
academic and other collegiate facilities, and (B) the
modernization of facilities to access and utilize new
technologies, and the impact of such trends on tuition.
(6) The extent to which increases in institutional
financial aid and tuition discounting have affected tuition
increases, including the demographics of students receiving
such aid, the extent to which such aid is provided to
students with limited need in order to attract such students
to particular institutions or major fields of study, and the
extent to which Federal financial aid, including loan aid,
has been used to offset such increases.
(7) The extent to which Federal, State, and local laws,
regulations, or other mandates contribute to increasing
tuition, and recommendations on reducing those mandates.
(8) The establishment of a mechanism for a more timely and
widespread distribution of data on tuition trends and other
costs of operating colleges and universities.
(9) The extent to which student financial aid programs have
contributed to changes in tuition.
(10) Trends in State fiscal policies that have affected
college costs.
(11) The adequacy of existing Federal and State financial
aid programs in meeting the costs of attending colleges and
universities.
(12) Other related topics determined to be appropriate by
the Commission.
(b) Final Report.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission
shall submit to the President and to the Congress, not later
than 120 days after the date of the first meeting of the
Commission, a report which shall contain a detailed statement
of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, including
the Commission's recommendations for administrative and
legislative action that the Commission considers advisable.
(2) Majority vote required for recommendations.--Any
recommendation described in paragraph (1) shall be made by
the Commission to the President and to the Congress only if
such recommendation is adopted by a majority vote of the
members of the Commission who are present and voting.
(3) Evaluation of different circumstances.--In making any
findings under subsection (a) of this section, the Commission
shall take into account differences between public and
private colleges and universities, the length of the academic
program, the size of the institution's student population,
and the availability of the institution's resources,
including the size of the institution's endowment.

SEC. 205. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of
carrying out this Act, hold such hearings and sit and act at
such times and places, as the Commission may find advisable.
(b) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission may adopt such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to establish the
Commission's procedures and to govern the manner of the
Commission's operations, organization, and personnel.
(c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) Information.--The Commission may request from the head
of any Federal agency or instrumentality such information as
the Commission may require for the purpose of this Act. Each
such agency or instrumentality shall, to the extent permitted
by law and subject to the exceptions set forth in section 552
of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
Freedom of Information Act), furnish such information to the
Commission, upon request made by the Chairperson of the
Commission.
(2) Facilities and services, personnel detail authorized.--
Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head
of any Federal agency or instrumentality shall, to the extent
possible and subject to the discretion of such head--
(A) make any of the facilities and services of such agency
or instrumentality available to the Commission; and
(B) detail any of the personnel of such agency or
instrumentality to the Commission, on a nonreimbursable
basis, to assist the Commission in carrying out the
Commission's duties under this Act.
(d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal agencies.
(e) Contracting.--The Commission, to such extent and in
such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, may enter
into contracts with State agencies, private firms,
institutions, and individuals for the purpose of conducting
research or surveys necessary to enable the Commission to
discharge the Commission's duties under this Act.
(f) Staff.--Subject to such rules and regulations as may be
adopted by the Commission, and to such extent and in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, the
Chairperson of the Commission shall have the power to
appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without regard
to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and without regard
to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of such title, or of any other provision, or of any other
provision of law, relating to the number, classification, and
General Schedule rates) of an Executive Director, and of such
additional staff as the Chairperson deems advisable to assist
the Commission, at rates not to exceed a rate equal to the
maximum rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5332 of such title.

SEC. 206. EXPENSES OF COMMISSION.

There are authorized to be appropriated to pay any expenses
of the Commission such

[[Page H2543]]

sums as may be necessary not to exceed $650,000. Any sums
appropriated for such purposes are authorized to remain
available until expended, or until one year after the
termination of the Commission pursuant to section 207,
whichever occurs first.

SEC. 207. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

The Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is 60
days after the date on which the Commission is required to
submit its final report in accordance with section 204(b).

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] and the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Kildee] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 914. H.R. 914 was
originally passed by the House of Representatives on March 11, 1997,
under suspension of the rules. It made two simple amendments to the
student right to know provisions of the Higher Education Act. These
amendments changed the date for which schools had to report graduation
rates in order to lessen the reporting requirements faced by schools
while improving the quality of information that students would receive.
On April 16, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 914 after adding impact aid
technical amendments to the legislation. Those amendments would: extend
the deadline for filing for equalized States which deduct impact aid
revenue in their computation of general State aid for education; extend
the hold harmless for section 8002 payments for property to cover
fiscal years 1997 through the year 2000; and add expenditure data as a
factor to be considered when determining a school district's financial
profile under the section of the law, 8003(f), dealing with heavily
impacted school districts.
Today, we are again considering H.R. 914 under suspension of the
rules. The legislation before us today includes the impact aid
technical amendments passed by the other body and one additional impact
aid technical amendment added by the House to clarify that
appropriations over and above the amount appropriated for section 8002
for fiscal year 1997 are to be distributed to all eligible school
districts. However, it also includes one more very important piece of
legislation. H.R. 914, as it is before us today, includes the Cost of
Higher Education Review Act of 1997. I would like to focus my remarks
on these very important provisions.
In today's technology and information-based economy, getting a high
quality postsecondary education is more important than ever. For many
Americans it is the key to the American dream.
Let me tell my colleagues how I see higher education in the future. I
would hope that men and women, young and old, will have access to
postsecondary education when they need it. Some would go to college for
undergraduate or graduate degrees. Others would choose to go to school
or go back to school for much shorter periods of time in order to
improve or upgrade their schools for a better job and a better future.
Many could just take a class or two from home over the Internet. But I
want to see every American who so chooses have the option of receiving
a quality education at an affordable price.
As my colleagues know, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education,
Training and Life-Long Learning has already begun the process of
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion
in student financial aid this year alone. We have been holding hearings
around the country on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act,
and a consistent question we get from students and parents is why is
college so expensive and why are college prices rising so quickly.
However, my interest in higher education goes well beyond the role I
play as chairman of that subcommittee. I am a parent and a grandparent,
and I know students who are pursuing or will pursue a postsecondary
education. I have constituents, students and parents, who are worried
about their abilities to afford a college education.
Historically, the cost of getting a postsecondary education has
increased at a rate slightly above the cost of living. However, a
recent General Accounting Office report tells us that over the last 15
years the price of attending a 4-year public college has increased over
234 percent while the median household income has risen by only 82
percent and the CPI only 74 percent. A recent survey of college
freshmen found that concern over college affordability is at a 30-year
high. Parents and students across the country are understandably
worried about the rising cost of higher education.
In order to control the cost of obtaining a postsecondary education,
parents, students, and policymakers must work together with colleges
and universities to slow tuition inflation, or for many Americans
college will become unaffordable.
That is not to say that there are not affordable schools. There are
some affordable schools and there are college presidents who are
committed to keeping costs low. There are schools that are trying very
innovative things to reduce tuition prices.

{time} 1515

However, the trend in higher education pricing is truly alarming.
This trend is especially alarming in that it only seems to apply to
higher education. There are many endeavors and many businesses that
must keep pace with changing technologies and Federal regulations.
However, in order to stay affordable to their customers and stay
competitive in the market, they manage to hold cost increases to a
reasonable level.
The Cost of Higher Education Review Act contained in H.R. 914 will
establish a commission on the cost of higher education. This commission
will have a very short life span. Over a 4-month period the commission
will study the reasons why tuitions have risen so quickly and
dramatically, and report on what schools, the administration and the
Congress can do to stabilize or reduce tuitions.
There is a great deal of conflicting information around the country
with respect to college costs. This commission will be comprised of
seven individuals with expertise in business and business cost
reduction programs, economics, and education administration. Their job
will be to analyze this information and give us a true picture of why
costs continue to outpace inflation and what can be done to stop this
trend.
Members of the commission will be appointed by the House and Senate
leadership and the Secretary of Education. The commission will have 4
months to perform its duties. The commission will then sunset within 2
months of finishing its job. The cost for this commission will not
exceed $650,000.
Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, this year we will be reauthorizing
the Higher Education Act, which will provide $35 billion this year
alone in Federal student financial aid. As we go through this process,
our goals will be to make higher education more affordable, simplify
the student aid system, and stress academic quality.
In order to update and improve the Higher Education Act in a way that
truly helps parents and students, a thorough understanding of tuition
trends will be essential. The Cost of Higher Education Review Act will
give us that information and shed light on a topic which is of utmost
concern to our constituents. I urge my colleagues to join me in this
effort, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 914.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the hearing on the costs of higher education, I
expressed deep concern over the rising costs of a college education. At
that time I also expressed concern that we avoid Federal intrusion into
the day-to-day operations of American higher education. As I see it,
our job is to work with our colleges as they, and not we, seek to bring
costs under control. I do not believe that the American people want the
Federal Government to step into the management of our colleges and
universities, and I for one would oppose any such move.
I voted to report this legislation out of committee and shall vote
for its passage today. I do so, however, with both concerns and
misgivings.

[[Page H2544]]

I believe, for example, that the executive branch should have equal
representation on the commission. Examining the costs of a college
education is not a partisan issue, and I fear that not giving the
executive branch equal participation gives the commission a possible
partisan tinge it should not have.
I also believe that we are asking the commission to issue a final
report in too short a time. The issues to be addressed by the
commission are very complex, and I am not at all sure that we can get
the substantive answers we are seeking in a 4-month period.
Despite these and other reservations, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to
give the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], my very good friend,
and chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training
and Life-Long Learning, the benefit of the doubt, and not to oppose
adding this legislation to H.R. 914.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 914, which makes a technical
correction to the student right-to-know provisions of the Higher
Education Act, includes technical amendments to the impact aid program,
and authorizes the timely creation of a commission to review the costs
of higher education.
The House passed the technical amendments to the student right-to-
know provision of the Higher Education Act in March. The Senate then
added several amendments dealing with impact aid funds.
The first provision amends the provisions of the impact aid law
dealing with equalized States. Current law requires such States to file
notices of intent to deduct impact aid revenue in their computation of
general State aid by March 3, 1997. Several States missed the filing
deadline, and the Department of Education does not have the authority
to waive the statutory filing deadline. This amendment provides such
authority, but I would caution States, all 50, not to miss the deadline
again. It is entirely too expensive for States to take that risk.
The second amendment extends the hold-harmless provision for section
8002, Federal property payments, to cover fiscal years 1997 through
2000. Due to a formula change in the 1994 Improving America's Schools
Act, the Department of Education has not been able to determine exact
payments. Extending the hold-harmless at the fiscal year 1997 level
through fiscal year 2000 will allow this issue to be reviewed as part
of the next review of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The third amendment adds an important factor to a school district's
financial profile for purposes of payments to heavily impacted school
districts. During the 104th Congress, we modified this section to allow
schools to use data from 2 years prior instead of relying on current
year data which delayed payments for an extended period of time.
However, in revising this section, the use of expenditure data was not
included accidentally. This provision simply adds that expenditure data
to the financial pool.
These are the impact aid changes contained in the Senate bill. One
additional technical amendment has been added, and this amendment
clarifies that funds over and above the amount necessary to ensure that
the Highland Falls School District receives at least one-half of the
amount they would receive under section 8002 if the program was fully
funded is to be distributed to all eligible school districts.
In addition to the impact aid amendments, we have added language from
H.R. 1511 which the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported
last week. The language we have included authorizes the creation of a
commission to review college costs. This bipartisan effort reflects a
common goal of Members of this body. We want college to be affordable
for students and families across the country.
The only answer we keep getting from the college presidents and
university presidents is that they have to increase their costs because
they keep giving more money of their own to students in need. That is
called sticker price and discount price. I do not know what role we
play in that on the Federal level. All I know is that when one college
eliminated their discounted price and stuck to their sticker price,
they lowered tuition for everybody, and in doing that, they had more
students than they had room for. I think all colleges can take a hint.
I am happy to see that we are finding that they are getting costs
under control. I believe they are down closer to 6 and 7 percent. I
think they can still do better.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling], the chairman of the full committee, clarify the intent of
section 106? Am I correct in understanding that this section merely
clarifies that the difference in funding for section 8002 between the
amount appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 will first be used to
pay 50 percent of the maximum amount for any school district described
in paragraph 2 of section 8002(i), and that any remaining funds plus
any additional amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding
years will then be distributed to increase payments to other school
districts which qualify under 8002?
Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. Section 106 of the bill
amends section 8002(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to
clarify that, beginning in the fiscal year 1997, priority payments for
amounts appropriated above the appropriated level for section 8002 for
1996 shall be made to a local education agency which meets certain
specified criteria, not to exceed 50 percent of their maximum payment.
The Secretary shall then use any funds in excess of this amount, plus
any additional amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding
years to increase payments to each eligible school educational agency
under this section.
Mrs. KELLY. This section will in no way result in any reductions in
funding to the local education agency described in paragraph 2 of
section 8002(i)?
Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The only way such payments
would be reduced would be if appropriations fell to or below the amount
appropriated in 1996.
Mrs. KELLY. With that understanding, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam
[Mr. Underwood].
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 914 and in particular the
inclusion of H.R. 1511 which establishes a commission to study the
costs of higher education.
As pointed out by the chairman, a recently released GAO report found
that the price of a 4-year public institution has increased by 234
percent in the past 15 years. I urge Members to support this commission
so that as a body we are well informed about the many factors which
contribute to the increased price of college.
As a former college administrator, I can tell my colleagues that the
issues surrounding the price of tuition are complex and establishing a
commission dedicated to studying this issue will be very helpful. More
importantly, this commission will report back to Congress and the
administration to provide suggestions on how to stabilize tuition
rates. Many proposals have come forth from this Congress to help
families pay for these increasing costs, but few if any have attempted
to deal directly with the institutions themselves. It is at the
institutional level rather than in the Tax Code that I believe this
problem will be successfully addressed. Extravagant tuition increases
become not only an economic problem for individual families but a
social problem for entire communities and our Nation as a whole. When
tuition increases as drastically as it has, more and more students are
left behind, students who otherwise would be attending college. If the
current trend continues, only the very wealthy will be able to afford
college and lower income families will not have the educational tools
with which to compete in the work force of the 21st century, and we
will all suffer. The commission will cost relatively little and provide
valuable information which will help us address this growing

[[Page H2545]]

problem. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
As a former college administrator, I can help explain these tuition
costs as needed and justifiable. As a parent, I feel helpless on the
onslaught of tuition increases beyond inflation. But as Members of
Congress, we must respond intelligently to this situation which impacts
on our growth, and this legislation does exactly that.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a member of the committee.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill makes several technical corrections to
already existing law, I want to speak to one provision that creates the
National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. Normally I am not
particularly thrilled with the establishment of new commissions since
they tend to take a little too long to complete their work and very
often their recommendations have little or no impact on our
deliberations. However, in this case, the $650,000 expenditure of
already appropriated funds for this commission and the fact that it
must provide Congress with its recommendations within 4 months means
that Congress will have an opportunity to review the recommendations
during our consideration of the Higher Education Act. As the gentleman
from California [Mr. McKeon], the chairman, has already mentioned,
since 1980 the cost of 4-year public colleges and universities has
increased by 234 percent and the tuition at private 4-year institutions
is already increasing at a rate of about 8 percent annually. Yet the
causes for these increased tuition costs and whether the Federal
policies or programs contribute are very complex and they deserve
study. I recommend the study and I recommend the adoption of H.R. 914.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Deal], a member of the committee.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I commend the gentleman and the staff for their fine
work in the bringing of this bill to the floor.
I, too, like the speaker who preceded me, am not particularly fond of
commissions, but this one is of short duration, 4 months, and will
address some very serious issues that we need to be concerned about.
We are spending $35 billion in Federal aid this year for student aid
programs, but we also know that for many students who are graduating
that the cost of loan repayments is a significant burden that they will
face in the near future. This commission has some important questions
to answer: What is the role of the Federal Government? Do we have a
role? What can we do? Are there regulatory reforms that are called for
that will slow down or reduce the cost of rising tuition?
These are the kinds of questions that deserve our answers. These are
the kinds of questions that must be answered before we reauthorize the
Higher Education Act.

{time} 1530

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of H.R. 914 and
would like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for bringing
this legislation to the floor. Unlike the authorization of the seven-
member panel of experts to examine exploding costs of higher education,
the work of this panel will provide important information as we strive
to make a college education an affordable reality for American students
and their families. This legislation also contains language which is
necessary for the States of Kansas and New Mexico to count the Federal
impact aid they receive as part of their overall State education
budget. This will save the State of Kansas $6.5 million this year
alone. This technical correction will result in no costs to the Federal
Government. It simply allows Kansas to recognize the Federal impact aid
it receives as part of the State's overall education budget.
Mr. Speaker, this provision has been approved by the members of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and passed by unanimous
consent in the Senate. I appreciate the assistance of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
McKeon] for including this provision for the State of Kansas, and I
urge the passage of H.R. 914.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr.
McKeon] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for their
excellent work on this legislation. Today Congress has the opportunity
to take an important bipartisan step in addressing an issue which
affects so many American families, the rising costs of higher
education. There is perhaps no long-term issue more important to our
Nation than providing Americans opportunities within our educational
system.
Shortly after I arrived in Congress just 2 years ago, I, along with
other concerned Members of the House, made a bipartisan request that
the GAO investigate the recent history of increases in college and
university costs. The results of their report were disturbing: a 234
percent increase in the cost of attending a 4-year public college over
the last 15 years, placing a college education and the American dream
out of reach for many Americans. The legislation before us today will
allow Congress the benefit of expert recommendations by an independent
nonpartisan commission on what can be done to address rising college
costs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow House Members to support H.R. 914.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my strong support for
the Costs of Higher Education Review Act of 1997, a commission which
will create a short-term commission to study the reasons for the
constant increases in the costs of postsecondary education. As we
embark upon a debate over the reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act, the hard work and findings of this commission could be invaluable
to our efforts, Mr. Speaker. The inescapable reality is we need to find
ways to ensure that colleges, universities, and vocational institutions
remain affordable for all Americans. Anything less and this Nation's
young people will not be prepared to confront and overcome the
challenges of the high-technology skills-dependent workplace of the
21st century.
The need for cost containment is real. In fact, over the last several
months I have had numerous students and parents, as I would surmise
many of my colleagues around the Nation have had, in Memphis voice
their concerns over the cost of college, the rising costs of college.
Several young people in my district who have decided to pursue a
postsecondary education and are doing extremely well in the classroom
are nevertheless facing the prospect of having to take a semester off
or drop out altogether because they cannot qualify for loans, and/or
their Pell or school-based grants are insufficient to cover the costs
of tuition, room and board, and books. It is our duty as public
policymakers to do all that we can to make sure that young people like
those in my district who have worked hard, played by the rules and
stayed in school, that they have a meaningful opportunity to pursue a
postsecondary education. I am confident that if we work together
Congress, the President, higher education administrators, parents, and
students can find the will and the way to open and keep open the doors
of educational opportunity for all Americans.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding the time. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I am
a strong supporter of higher education. The productivity and
performance of our economy is inextricably entwined with the
investments in education that we individually and collectively make as
a nation. Clearly, higher education is a valuable commodity, and it
behooves us to make it readily available to our young people, our
veterans, and to all Americans.

[[Page H2546]]

Put simply, I want everyone who possibly can to have the opportunity
to pursue higher education, but I fear that college may be eluding many
Americans because of the costs of attending. College tuition is one of
the most important determinants of student access. Unfortunately, it
has been rising at an astronomical rate. Over the last 3 years tuition
costs have been rising at roughly 6 percent or twice the rate of
inflation, which is a vast improvement over prior years. Years of
unchecked growth and not entirely necessary growth have left a legacy
of inefficiency in many of our colleges and universities which should
be reviewed.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 914 authorizes a short-term commission to study the
rising costs of higher education and to recommend possible solutions. I
would hope that this commission focuses on identifying plausible
solutions rather than identifying the problem. I think that anyone who
has spent time looking at this issue knows what the problem is and
could identify causes. That is the easy part. The tough part is asking
the tough questions and developing creative and reasonable policies to
fix the problem.
Do colleges and universities need to examine and refine their
mission? What is a critical mass of academic programs, of professors,
of support staff and of students necessary to sustain a college or
university as a viable institution? What can colleges and universities
learn from the numerous examples of corporate restructuring in the
1980's? Can they grow smaller without compromising the richness and
depth of their academic programs? Should they carve out a niche and
specialize in a few areas? What exactly are the components of a quality
education?
As a former Governor I know well the challenges facing presidents of
colleges and universities who seek to restructure the system, make it
more efficient and reduce costs while maintaining support from their
constituencies professors, administrations, and students. It is no easy
task, and I would urge us all to support the commission bill.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. LaFalce].
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today higher education is a virtual
necessity, but there is a tremendous difficulty in achieving that
necessity, and that is the significantly increased cost of higher
education. If my colleagues go back over either a 10-year or a 20-year
period, they will see that the costs of higher education have increased
at both public and private colleges and universities at a rate of
approximately two to three times that of the rate of inflation. If my
colleagues look at the increase in the cost of higher education and the
increase in median income, they will see that higher education costs
have again increased at about two to three times the increase in the
median income.
So how can individuals afford a higher education? They cannot afford
to go to school; they cannot afford not to go to school. They are in a
bind. What happens? More and more often, students are borrowing money,
they are going into deep debt, and it is not unusual today for a
college student to graduate with a minimum of $10,000 in personal
indebtedness, but very, very frequently considerably more: $20, $30,
$40, $50,000. This imposes a huge burden on their entire future.
Mr. Speaker, at the very least we should examine a number of issues,
and I congratulate the gentleman from California on his initiative.
This is necessary. All we are doing by this commission is saying let us
look at this problem, let us find out why costs have increased two to
three times the median income, two to three times the cost of
inflation, et cetera. We have got to do something.
Who is we? Everybody. We in the Congress, yes, of course; in the
States, yes, of course; administrators at school, yes; boards of
trustees, faculties, yes. The easy answer is to just say, well,
increase tuition to whatever it might be because the students must go
to college and they will borrow more and more and more. They have been
doing this. We must bring that to a halt. We must analyze the
possibility of tying future financial assistance to some leveling off
of these constant increases in the costs of higher education. That is
further than the bill goes, but it might well be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman once again for his initiative,
and I urge everyone to support it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, but I yield
myself such time as I may consume to take just a minute to thank those
on the other side who have been so helpful in bringing us to this
point. As my colleagues know, we have been working on this committee in
a bipartisan nature. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the
ranking member, has been very supportive, even though he does have some
concerns on this. He has worked with us to make this bill better, to
bring it to the floor, and supports it at this point. The gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] has been very helpful and very supportive
on this bill, and I would like to thank him, the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Ford], and others.
Once one starts naming names, it is a danger because they always
leave out some people that have been so helpful, but I would like to
thank those Members and others who have been helpful, and especially
our staff who have worked night and day to get this to this point,
because it is urgent that we get this bill passed quickly so that we
can get the results back in time to use them for the higher ed
reauthorization.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Impact Aid
Technical Amendments to H.R. 914. I have long been a supporter of the
Impact Aid Program, and I believe these amendments add necessary
clarifications to ensure the integrity of the section 8002 funding
disbursement.
As we all know, States and localities provide approximately 94
percent of education funding in the United States. The largest source
of this funding is local property taxes. When a school district loses
10 percent of its taxable property, the local schools are severely
impacted.
In 1950, Congress responded to this problem by creating the Impact
Aid Program. The 1950 statute requires that the Federal Government
reimburse each section 2 school district for each year in ``such amount
as * * * is equal to the continuing Federal responsibility for the
additional burden with respect to current expenditures placed on such
school district by such acquisition of property.'' The meaning of this
language is very clear to me--the Department of Education should
reimburse each section 2 school district by the amount which the
Federal presence negatively impacts the school district.
My district in Illinois is home to a number of school districts
eligible for assistance under section 8002. These funds help guarantee
that the quality education they provide to their students will not be
adversely affected due to the loss of tax revenue on federally-owned
property.
Technical corrections authorization legislation enacted by Congress
in 1996, had the impact of directing a large portion of the Impact Aid
section 8002 funds to one school district. I am pleased at the way the
House has chosen to address this inequity. Technical amendments enacted
today will ensure that all funds appropriated to the Impact Aid section
8002 program will be allocated on the basis of the formula, ensuring
that schools are allowed to compete on a level playing field. I
strongly support this provision which will ensure an equitable
disbursement of funds to all eligible schools who receive funds under
section 8002.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this bill
and urge Members to support H.R. 914.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H.Res. 145.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________