Steel Industry National Historic Site Act

Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to guarantee the promise of a good education to all from birth through college. The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education and character of our people.

In recent years, on a bipartisan basis, we have been working to improve pre-school, elementary, and secondary education. We should move forward in the same bipartisan way on higher education.

Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to raise standards for students in elementary and secondary schools to hold schools and states accountable for results. These worthwhile school reforms deserve to be well-funded, so that all public school students will have a fair chance to succeed.

Last year, Senator Gregg and I also introduced a bipartisan bill to improve the quality of early childhood education in the states, and help ensure that young children begin school ready to learn.

This year, in the Education Committee, again on a bipartisan basis, we have worked to strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and ensure that special needs children receive a quality education. I hope we can pass that legislation soon, to assure that the federal government meets its full obligation to children with disabilities.

The next great challenge we should confront on a bipartisan basis is to ensure that every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college is able to afford to go to college. Education is the golden door of opportunity, but for too long, the door of higher education has been closed to many students, because of their inability to pay. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it--cost will never be a barrier to a college education.

Just as Social Security is a promise of retirement security to senior citizens, just as Medicare is a promise of health security to senior citizens, so we should make ``Education Security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we should guarantee that you can afford the cost of the four years it takes to earn a degree.

As we move forward on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, let us come together again on a bipartisan basis to make college affordable to all qualified students. No students should have to mortgage their future to obtain a college degree.

At other times in our nation's history, we have acted boldly to extend college opportunity. In 1862, a year after the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act which set aside at least 90,000 acres in each Union State--30,000 acres for each of the state seats in Congress. The Act was named for Congressman Justin Morrill from Vermont, and the funds from sales of the land were to be used for public colleges and universities in the fields of engineering, agriculture, and military science. In the following years, over 70 colleges were established, and in 1890, the Morrill Act was extended to Southern and Western States. Today, over 3.5 million students are educated in public colleges and universities first created under the Morrill Act.

The next great benchmark in higher education came in 1944 when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill to help the vast number of veterans who would be returning to civilization when World War II ended. The nation embraced the transforming principles that became a cornerstone of our democracy, that the benefits of college education should be available to all in our society, not just the elite, the wealthy or the white. In less than a decade, 8 million veterans benefitted from the GI Bill, and the immense success of that bill is in no small measure the reason why the World War II generation is now called the Greatest Generation.

In the half century since the GI Bill was enacted, we have made ongoing efforts to make college a reality for as many young men and women as possible. In 1972, we created what we now know as Pell Grants to make college affordable for low and middle income families. Since then, over 79 million students have attended college with the assistance of a Pell Grant, which are named for our distinguished colleague Claiborne Pell, who served as Chairman of the Senate Committee.

In 1993, we created the Direct Loans to make inexpensive student loans available to college students. In the same year, we created AmeriCorps to encourage young people to serve their communities and pursue their education.

Now, in this new century, in this new century, it is essential for Congress to take new steps to make the dream of a college education a reality for all.

Men and women with a college degree now earn 75 percent more than those without it--a million dollars more in earnings over their lifetime. Those who use computers on the job earn 43 percent more than those who do not. Jobs requiring at least some post-secondary education are estimated to account for over 40 percent of total employment growth over the next decade.

The need for a college education is greater that ever, but so is cost, and the soaring cost today is often pressing college education out of reach for qualified students. Last year, tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose an average of 14 percent, and the year before, 10 percent. For families in the lowest quartile of income average public university costs now consume over 62 percent of their income--compared to 42 percent in the early 1970's.

It is shameful that federal aid has not kept pace with rising tuition. Twenty years ago, a Pell Grant covered over 80 percent of four-year college costs. Today, it covers less than 40 percent. Twenty years ago, the typical package of student financial aid had 60 percent in grants and 40 percent in loans. Today, the ratio is reduced the typical package now has 40 percent in grants and 60 percent loans--and the grant-loan imbalance is getting worse.

Each year, over a half a million high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college full-time, because they cannot pay the bill. The average low-income, college student has an average of $3,800 a year in college costs not covered by grants, loans, work, or family savings.

Students who begin college have trouble staying in college and graduating from college. Only 48 percent of students from upper-income families graduate from college by age 24, and that figure is seven times the graduation rate of students from low-income families. Only 7 percent--7 percent--of low-income students graduate from college by age 24. Students from minority backgrounds and those who would be the first in their family to achieve a four-year college degree are 33 percent more likely to drop out of college.

Only forty percent of all whites in ages of 18 to 24 attend college. Only 30 percent of African-American and only 16 percent of all Latinos are enrolled in college. Four in ten Latino college students drop out within three years of their enrollment.

We cannot allow these unacceptable percentages to continue. We must do more to help students attend and finish college, and do more to help colleges train more teachers and better teachers for our public schools so that more young men and women will be able to go to college and earn their degree, and fulfill their role in the nation's future.

It is a privilege today to join our Democratic colleagues on the Education Committee, in introducing the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 to improve college opportunity for qualified students. We know that too many families and students across the country are struggling to afford the cost of college and we should do all we can to

help them. The bill will improve access to college in six key ways. It helps students pay for college by providing more financial aid. It slows the excessive increases in college tuition. It makes the repayment of students loan less costly. It encourages and rewards students working their way through school. It help minority and low- income students go to college and finish college. It improves the recruitment and training of public school teachers who will prepare the next generation of college students.

In compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of our bill is offset by eliminating windfall profits to banks that participate in the student loan program.

Fulfilling a pledge of ``Education Security'' requires renewed resolve by everyone--students, families, colleges, states, and the federal government. Students should work to save money for college. Families should pay what they can afford. Colleges should commit to reducing increases in tuition. States should continue as much support as they can for students. Federal support should fill the gap that remains.

Under our bill, $1,500 more in student aid will be available to hard- pressed, middle-class families and $3,800 to lower income families.

We increase the maximum Pell grant by nearly $500, from $4,050 to $4,500, in order to keep pace with rising costs of tuition in public colleges; 4.8 million lower income and working class students will get larger Pell grants and 200,000 middle-class students will get Pell grants for the first time.

The Act makes $3,000 in HOPE tax credit aid available to low-income families who currently do not receive this aid, in part because the tax credit is not refundable, and doubles the $1,500 HOPE scholarship tax credit that middle-class families currently receive. Over 4 million Pell grant students in families with a median income of $15,200 a year will receive the HOPE tax credit for the first time. For 3.2 million middle-income families, their tax credit will double in size.

The bill increases campus-based financial aid programs such as College Work-Study and the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, which means $200 more in aid to needy students on average.

The bill eliminates $100 in annual student taxes (also called ``origination fees'') on federal need-based loans. Over 5 million students will no longer have to pay these up-front fees for the privilege of borrowing tens of thousands of dollars.

For needy families struggling to send their children to college, these changes will provide $3,800 in additional college aid each year-- $500 in increased Pell aid, $3,000 in HOPE tax benefits, $200 more in campus-based aid, and $100 in waivers of student loan fees.

The rising cost of college is an increasingly serious problem for the nation. Students need more financial aid each year. Families need protection from tuition increases that year after year are in the hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. We have ignored the tuition increase problem in higher education for too long.

In fact, few students actually pay ``sticker price'' tuition at private colleges, since many get a discount. At private universities, 8 out of every 10 students receives a discount from the published tuition cost, and those discounts average 40 percent of the sticker price.

The sticker price of college tuition is rising for many reasons. Public colleges are dependent on state funding that has been declining with the struggling national economy. As states cut back their support for higher education, tuition rises. Colleges can reduce some costs in order to limit tuition increases, and we can help them do so.

Tuition is rising in general because colleges believe that in the constant competition for students and faculty, it is necessary for each college to have the best facilities and programs. In effect, and because of this, a ``higher education arms race,'' colleges are constantly striving to be ahead of the competition.

This bill rejects the price controls on college tuition that some have suggested. Instead, it creates incentives for colleges to reduce costs. It reduces regulatory costs for colleges and supports voluntary limits on cost growth. It requires states to do their part in supporting higher education. It ensures that families obtain better information about the true cost of college. And importantly, it rejects the idea of withholding federal student aid for students who attend colleges with excessive tuition costs, because doing so would hurt the neediest students.

Our bill supports the creation of college consortiums that will jointly buy in bulk and share the costs of health care, libraries, faculties, and other needs, so that they achieve economies of scale. It reduces regulatory burdens on colleges. When we lower the operating costs of colleges, we make it easier for them to restrain tuition increases.

The bill requires the Secretary of Education to convene a ``higher education arms control'' summit. Groups of competing colleges will be convened by the Secretary to negotiate limits on future growth in tuition. The Secretary will be given the authority to waive anti-trust protections, when the waiver is needed to achieve reduced tuition growth.

States and colleges must do their part to make college affordable. The bill insists that states must not treat college students like piggy banks to balance state budgets. The bill offers a new partnership to States, under which additional federal resources will be available to states that invest in higher education. States that dramatically cut higher education will be limited to current levels of aid.

Finally, our bill requires schools to publish their true tuition: the extent and average amount of discounts offered to students. Families should know how much school really will cost and how possible it is to bargain for the best deal.

No matter what we do on grants and college costs, loans will continue to be a large part of college aid, but that debt should not be excessive. Today, the average debt on student loans is $17,000, but it can exceed $100,000 for graduate students and professional students. This bill makes it easier to repay student loan debt or work it off. It creates a new refinancing option for borrowers now saddled with consolidated loans at high interest rates. It saves taxpayers money by rewarding student and school participation in the Direct Loan program.

The Act converts the current tax deduction for interest tax on student loans into a tax credit. This bipartisan proposal of Senator Snowe and Senator Schumer will provide low-income graduates with up to $1,500 in reimbursement for interest in student loans.

To encourage public service, the Act forgives the debt on Direct Loans for remaining after ten years for students in certain public sector jobs. Currently, student loan debt is often so large that it prevents students from accepting public interest jobs and forces them to look for higher paying jobs in the private sector. The bill rewards those who choose lower paying public interest jobs in sectors where the need is great, such as public safety, law enforcement, teaching, and public interest legal services.

In addition, the Act enables all college graduates to refinance their student loans, just as their families would refinance a home mortgage. Under current law, graduates who make payments on multiple variable interest rate student loans can consolidate their loans today into a single fixed rate loan at the relatively low interest rate of 3.42 percent. But over 5 million borrowers consolidated their student loans years ago at higher interest rates. The bill enables them to refinance that consolidated loan at today's prevailing interest rate.

The availability of new Refinanced Direct Loans will dramatically reduce student loan repayment for millions of college graduates. A middle-class borrower, for example, with $60,000 in student loan debt at 7 percent interest will save $1,200 a year, or more than $10,000 over the life of the loan, if they refinance under this proposal.

Further, the bill rewards schools and students that save taxpayers money by participating in the federal Direct Loan program. For every dollar borrowed through the Direct Loan program instead of the traditional private FFEL program, taxpayers save approximately fourteen cents. Our bill offers schools that participate in the Direct Loan program a percentage of the federal savings earmarked for student

aid. Taxpayers will save money and students will receive more financial aid, as a result of this ``Direct Loan Reward Program.'' It's a win-win proposal.

In light of the growing need today, current law imposes too heavy a penalty on students who work their way through college. Their financial aid is reduced by 50 cents for every after-tax dollar they earn.

This bill exempts from penalty the first $9,000 earned by traditional college students and the first $18,000 earned by adults attending college. Those students who work to support their college education deserve this additional assistance.

This bill includes a series of proposals to enable larger numbers of minority first-generation college students to go to college and graduate from college. Our national commitment to diversity in college education has been re-affirmed earlier this year by the Supreme Court. A major part of that commitment is preparing all young persons to approach the doors of higher education, making sure the gates are fully and fairly open to them, helping students to pay the costs, and enabling them to stay in college and graduate from college.

The Act increases funding for the successful TRIO and GEAR UP programs that provide information and counseling about college preparation, financial aid, and admissions.

It increases the access of low-income students to college preparation and tutoring programs for the Scholastic Achievement Test and American College Test that have been proven to be effective.

In addition, it assists students in making well-informed decisions on college applications and enrollments, encourages colleges to act on their own to modify policies that make it more difficult for already disadvantaged students to apply or enroll.

The Act supports partnerships between community colleges and four- year colleges, and it encourages them to provide targeted assistance in the form of tutoring, financial aid, child care, counseling, mentoring, and innovative course schedules, all with the goal of improving the admission, retention and graduation rates of low-income students, and non-traditional students.

Increased funding will be available for Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These colleges are the source of an extraordinary proportion of minority graduates from college and they deserve greater support.

The federal government must do its part in strengthening further diversity in higher education and colleges and individual students must do their part as well. Diversity is our nation's strength, and all of us have an obligation to support it.

The Act includes a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain high-quality teachers for the nation's public schools. A fundamental aspect of preparing students for college means making sure they have a good teacher in every classroom.

The shortage of such teachers is increasingly severe. America will need more than 2 million new teachers in the next decade. Today, approximately one in every three teachers leaves teaching within the first three years, and almost half leave within the first five years. The No Child Left Behind Act has set a goal of a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006. Clearly, it is time for the nation to make teacher training a priority.

The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 included a new title II program to respond to the teacher shortage. The Act scales up the current title II ``pilot program'' and strengthens and expands it, so that every State will receive funds every year, in order to assure that as many children as possible are taught by highly qualified teachers.

The Act authorizes additional for State Grants and Partnership Grants, with the goal of establishing formula grants for every State. We need to train teachers more effectively, attract more men and women to the field of teaching, and encourage them to continue in the field. These grants will improve preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers, and help States and schools put a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

By increasing the accountability of teacher preparation programs, the Act strengthens teacher preparation courses, so that teachers will have the skills and support they need to succeed in the classroom. The bill creates a new national database to provide accurate information on the quality of these preparation programs.

In addition, the Act establishes innovative programs to attract and retain teachers. A mentoring program will help train new teachers and provide professional assistance from more experienced teachers. A new home-ownership program will provide teachers in high-need districts with funds to afford the purchase of a home. A separate initiative will develop links between community colleges and four-year colleges in teacher preparation programs, and help train teacher aides in high-need communities to become teachers.

The Act also helps attract teachers to high-need areas in high-demand subjects, by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $15,000, for teachers who teach math, science, special education, bilingual education, or early education in these areas.

Good teachers in our schools are essential for preparing students to enter college. We must do all we can to support them and give them the training necessary to enable all students to achieve.

In total dollars, the size of this legislation is approximately $15 billion a year. For a sense of context, I would note that we have just approved an $87 billion package for Iraq, have a $786 billion annual discretionary budget, and a $2.3 trillion annual mandatory and discretionary budget. This legislation is comparatively small.

There are three types of cost included. First, there are the tax provisions that total approximately $9.2 billion a year--the same size as the President's tax breaks on dividend and capital gain income. We should replace those dividend and capital gains cuts for the very wealthy instead with the education tax benefits included in this legislation for families trying to pay for college.

Second, there are about $1.3 billion in annual changes to the student loan program for which this legislation fully pays. The bill eliminates windfall profits to lenders in the loan program in order to pay fully for the elimination student loan origination fees and to enable borrowers out of school to refinance their consolidated loans.

In particular, this bill closes a loophole in the student loan program whereby taxpayers subsidize a small minority of lenders to the tune of over $400 million a year in order to assure them a 9.5 percent rate of return. 9.5 percent is too much in today's interest rate environment. All lenders should receive the same guaranteed market rate of return for participating in the student loan program and no more.

Finally, the legislation includes approximately $4.5 billion in annual increases in discretionary education spending. That amount equals one half of one percent of the discretionary budget and is the same amount that education funding increased last year. It is a modest proposal, frankly.

In the past, higher education policy helped the poor and the middle class together. In recent years, though, we have developed separate approaches for these two groups--grants for the poor, and tax benefits for the middle class. The median family income of recipients of Pell grants is $15,000 a year. The HOPE Scholarship tax credit is available only to families with more than $40,000 in income.

Because of the high cost of higher education for everyone, and because each student's own interest in a college education is also in our common interest, this bill will help both hard-pressed low-income and hard-pressed middle income families to send their children to college and prepare them for the future.

Our bill has the support of a variety of national groups: the United States Students' Association, the United States Public Interest Research Group, the Direct Loan Coalition, the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, the Council for Opportunity in Education, the College Migrant Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and Kaplan, Inc.

Quality, affordability, and diversity--these are the focus of this act because these are the three great challenges we face today in higher education policy and each closely related to the others. Together, we can meet these new challenges in this new century and make the promise of Education Security a reality not just a reality for some of our citizens but a reality for all of our citizens.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander in introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act, which reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Act. I would especially like to congratulate Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and his staff for working so hard to ensure that this bill would be a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I, like many of my colleagues, was greatly disturbed by the latest U.S. Census poverty data released last month, which shows that poverty rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 34.6 million. The number of children in poverty rose by 400,000, which means that nearly 17 percent of children are living in poverty. Even more disturbing is that the number of people who lack health insurance rose by 2.4 million in 2002, bringing the total number of uninsured to an alarming 43.6 million. Although the proportion of uninsured children did not change between 2001 and 2002, 11.6 percent of all children remain without the necessary safety net of health insurance. Our children truly are our future; we must treat them like the precious resources that they are and provide them with the services and assistance they need.

There are many troubling signs for families today, particularly families with children. Unemployment continues to be a problem. Families are running out of unemployment benefits without finding jobs. The most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that welfare caseloads continue to decline overall, but in many States over the last year, caseloads are increasing. With States facing their worst budget crisis since WWII, many programs for low-income families are being cut. This is particularly a problem given that half the states are cutting child care funds. Parents need affordable child care to get and keep jobs. Clearly, this is a time of crisis for our Nation's low-income individuals and families. It is time for our government to help them through these difficult economic times and give them the opportunities and the tools to lift themselves back onto their feet.

The bill that we are introducing today will reaffirm our nation's commitment to alleviating poverty and upholding the American ethos of helping our neighbors. For over 40 years, Community Action Agencies have been using Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds to coordinate and deliver comprehensive poverty programs and services to our nation's poor. From administering Head Start programs, to delivering meals to the sick and elderly, providing adult education and literacy, and implementing the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CSBG funds are reaching and helping nearly a quarter of all people living in poverty in the United States. It goes without saying, that ideally, we would like to reach out to each and every individual and family living in poverty, but this bill is a start. It is a good start. It is a firm commitment to communities that when times are tough, Community Action Agencies will continue to work at the local level to address local needs.

The bill will enhance community flexibility in serving the poor and working poor. I don't need to tell you, that a poor person living in urban New Haven has different needs from an impoverished family living in rural Danielson, CT. The same holds true for Community Action Agencies across our Nation. One Community Action Agency could be using their CSBG funds to teach computer skills in a town where a major manufacturing plant just closed down, while another Community Action Agency is using the same funds to develop rural waste water management systems. I am pleased that this reauthorization retains and strengthens the flexibility that makes CSBG such a unique and successful program, by upholding and strengthening the successful and innovative Results Oriented Management Assessment (ROMA) system of accountability and monitoring procedures.

I am also pleased that reauthorization of this bill will allow crucial assistance to reach more of our country's poor and working poor by setting a minimum eligibility level for assistance at 125 percent of the poverty level and a maximum of 60 percent of the State median income. In Connecticut alone, nearly 32 percent, or 437,492 households, are below 60 percent of the State median income. Conversely, if we had set the maximum at 185 percent of the poverty threshold, we would only reach 269,373 households. By using the State median income as a maximum, not only will this bill be benefitting the Nation's families living in poverty, but it will also assist those working poor families just above the poverty line, including those leaving welfare to make a smooth and permanent transition to self-sufficiency.

The bill also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which allocates grants to States to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. According to the most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 4.8 million households received winter heating assistance, 250,000 benefitted from cooling aid and 87,000 received summer crisis aid in fiscal year 2001. This legislation makes funding LIHEAP more responsive to community needs by basing emergency funding triggers on the price of home energy bills and the average number of heating and cooling days in a month. These simple automatic triggers will ensure that LIHEAP funds are readily available in times of crisis.

Again, I would like to congratulate and thank Senator Alexander for his fine work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Every day in this chamber and throughout the halls of the Senate, we talk about leaving no child behind, food stamps, comprehensive health care, job training and rural housing assistance. Mr. President, this bill encompasses all of these programs and services, and many more important poverty initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in helping to strengthen low income communities, so that we can help more families become self-sufficient. In these tough economic times, families deserve this support.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Clinton and Murray to introduce the Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 (QUAD).

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of teachers.

According to a recent CRS report, tuition went up last year at four- year public universities from 1.9 percent in New York to 23.8 percent in Massachusetts. In Connecticut, tuition went up 8.1 percent. According to the College Board, the average cost of attending a public four-year college including tuition, fees, room and board is over $9,000. For private four-year colleges, the average cost is over $24,000. Another study indicates that 29 percent of an average family's income goes toward public university tuition payments and 41 percent of an average family's income goes toward private university tuition. In comparison, the average family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of the annual income.

The simple fact is that many parents are deeply worried about how they are going to pay for their children's higher education. Constant hikes in tuition are not only a source of concern for parents, in some cases they are a source of panic. The legislation we are introducing today is an attempt to alleviate this worry and help working parents and working students afford the high cost of college. We do this in a number of ways.

The QUAD Act will increase the amount of Pell grants available to working families. Two decades ago, Pell grants covered 84 percent of average costs at four-year universities; today they cover less than 30 percent. This bill will reverse this downward trend by raising the maximum Pell Grant for students by $450, from $4,050 to $4,500.

The bill works through the tax code and student loans to make sure students are getting the financial support that they need on the most favorable terms. We eliminate origination fees on subsidized student loans, double the size of the Hope Credit, and allow college graduates a chance to refinance their consolidated loans so that they can take advantage of today's historically low interest rates.

QUAD works to level the playing field in admissions by requiring universities and colleges to be more up-front about their admissions policies and by creating a grant program so that low-income students and minority students have available to them college test preparation programs that on average increase a student's SAT score by 100 points.

The bill creates two new retention programs to ensure that students that start college complete their degrees. Low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years. African-American students are half as likely as white students to graduate, and four in ten Hispanics who enroll in four-year institutions drop out within three years.

QUAD will improve opportunities for undergraduates and graduate students at Minority Serving Institutions by creating new grant programs, removing regulatory burdens and increasing the funding levels of current initiatives. The bill also helps colleges and school districts recruit and train more highly qualified teachers and provides better training for principals and superintendents.

In addition to all of this, QUAD directly addresses the problem of rising college costs. This bill puts into place a requirement that states maintain their portion of higher education funding at 90 percent from fiscal year to fiscal year. If the Federal Government is going to make a commitment to providing more resources to higher education by increasing monies for student aid, it is only fair that we require states to maintain their current share of assistance. States should not be using our proposed increases in federal aid as an excuse to decrease their own spending levels. The states and the Federal Government should be working together on higher education, and not using one or the other as an excuse to reduce their share of the costs.

This bill also creates incentives for colleges to cut costs. QUAD creates a demonstration program to provide seed money to colleges and universities that want to explore innovative ways to reduce costs and pass savings on to students. This can be accomplished across universities by pooling resources, making joint purchase of supplies or employee benefits, and creating joint degree programs.

Recently, a 20-member consortium of Wisconsin universities spent $285,000 on staff and resources to find a way to purchase health care jointly. In the first year, they realized a savings of $3.8 million. That is a pretty impressive return on an investment of $285,000. Building on this type of initiative, our bill provides grants of $200,000 to consortia in other states around the country to incentivize these same kinds of cost-cutting measures, measures that have no effect on academic mission or quality of student life.

In the end, it is essential in this reauthorization that we do everything we can to ensure that qualified students are not being locked out of college. The economic costs for families would be immense. A full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings exceeds $1 million.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that every young person in our Nation has an opportunity to rise as high as their talents, dreams and determination will take them.

Mr. President, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003. This bi- partisan

bill proposes to reauthorize important legislation that provides meaningful assistance to 18 million Americans seeking to fight their way out of poverty. The bill includes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Program.

Statistics show us that poverty touches a large proportion of Americans over their lifetimes. Sometimes poverty is a chronic condition that persists over several generations. But more often, poverty happens as a consequence of life's unexpected tragedies-- illness, job loss, divorce, or disability. These can seriously undermine a family's ability to support itself. What's needed is a safety net in such times of need. Our Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act can provide that help and can make the difference in a family's efforts to fight their way out of poverty become self-sufficient again.

The services of the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act are provided primarily through Community Action Agencies, created 40 years ago. The heart of these programs are those provided through the Community Services Block Grant, created in 1981. The block grant allows for maximum flexibility to tailor programs to meet local needs with minimal administrative cost. Today the programs touch the lives of almost 25 percent of those living in poverty. These programs fund a state- administered community services network of more than 1000 local agencies that work to alleviate poverty and empower low-income families in communities across the United States. The agencies are very effective in leveraging their funds to mobilize additional resources from local businesses and foundations, as well as other public sources, to make an effective impact in fighting poverty in their communities.

A number of social services are provided that are designed to help low-income individuals and their families achieve a better quality of life. They help people find and keep a good job, get an adequate education, obtain a decent place to live, pay their utility bills, and even learn how to manage a household income.

The Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act has five major themes for its services: to assist families in poverty address their immediate, most basic needs and work toward self-sufficiency; to serve the non- traditional poor who are facing poverty due to unexpected events such as a plant closing or a major illness or injury; to assist special populations, including those dealing with chronic poverty and for whom conventional solutions have failed; to work for systemic change in low- income communities to promote economic development and community revitalization; and to provide direct assistance to help low-income individuals pay their utility bills.

These programs are the true ``safety net'' for millions of low-income and at-risk families and individuals and serve as the centerpiece of most local social service programs in 96 percent of the counties across the country. Last year the programs in the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act served over 19 million people, primarily through CSBG, serving 13 million, and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, providing assistance to over 5 million.

In Tennessee, over 100,000 individuals were served by CSBG last year, almost 25 percent of whom were disabled. Over 60,000 families were served, 90 percent were living below the federal poverty level, and 40 percent were elderly or disabled families living on a fixed income. And those who are helped in turn help others by volunteering in the programs and giving back to their community. For example, in my home State of Tennessee, long known as the Volunteer State, those who benefitted from these programs gave back to others by working over 190,000 volunteer hours.

And there is good accountability for how those funds are spent in the community. Each agency is governed by a board of directors, a third of which consists of representatives who live in the low-income community, a third are locally elected officials, and the remaining third are community leaders from business, labor, religion, and education.

These programs are not only important to those who receive services; they also make good use of the Federal dollar. Last year in addition to the Federal monies appropriated for these three programs, the community agencies identified other state and local monies and private contributions. In total, local agencies administered over $9 billion on behalf of low-income families and individuals in communities across the country.

In addition to good fiscal accountability and effective use of Federal dollars to leverage additional resources, the programs are a model when it comes to tracking and reporting the outcomes they are helping people achieve. In Tennessee, for example, we know that 43 percent of individuals who were seeking employment were able to find a job, and two-thirds of those jobs included health care coverage. Over 75 percent of those seeking housing assistance were able to move from sub-standard to good, stable housing, and 524 families were moved out of homelessness. Over 85 percent of elderly households assisted were able to continue living independently.

Through LIHEAP in Tennessee, over 72,000 received assistance in paying their utility bills, thereby avoiding having their heating and cooling cut off, which is of very real importance for health and safety as well as quality of life. The high cost of energy is a growing problem for those families trying to get by on a lower income and for our elderly living on fixed incomes.

By helping these people in meaningful ways, the programs administered under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act have not only made a difference in thousands of lives but have also saved my state money in significant ways--by avoiding the higher costs of homelessness, reducing the number of people in poverty, reducing the need for nursing homes and institutional care, and providing an important ``bridge'' to help people moving off of welfare achieve permanent self-sufficiency,

While these programs have had many very real successes in the past, as we approached this reauthorization we also looked for ways we could improve the programs and provide even better access to and delivery of these important services. In drafting the reauthorization we gave particular attention to clarifying and strengthening the purpose of these important programs, which, in summary, is to fight and reduce poverty, working in partnerships with community and state leadership.

In this reauthorization we believed it was important to give states greater flexibility in determining who should receive services. We wanted to expand services to the extent possible to assist more of the working poor and their families achieve economic stability and self- sufficiency. While giving more flexibility, we also provided incentives to encourage States to focus on those most in need and to help those transitions from welfare to self-sufficiency. And we strengthened the accountability and monitoring of funds at both the state and local level. We explicitly asked States to hold the line on excessive administrative salaries and expenses, again at both the state and agency level.

In this reauthorization we also wanted to highlight best practices and encourage creativity and innovation in fighting poverty. We called for identifying exemplary local agencies as Centers of Innovation to promote the sharing of best practices among all community agencies.

Focusing on outcomes, we directed local agencies to have established clear goals for reducing poverty in their community and to show that substantial progress is being made in meeting those goals before receiving continuing block grant funds. These goals include leveraging community resources and fostering coordination across Federal, State, local, and private programs and services.

In the area of heating and cooling assistance, we are recommending a significant increase in the funds authorized for this important program, and we have added provisions and specific triggers that allow for better, more effective release of emergency funds for LIHEAP assistance under extraordinary circumstances.

The programs included under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003 are important to millions of Americans who deserve our consideration and need our support. The services touch almost every community in

the country and are often the only source of assistance available to the people the programs are designed to serve. Quite simply, what these services do is help restore dignity to those we serve. Every day one of these programs makes a difference in the lives of our neediest citizens. What this bill can accomplish will make possible a better quality of life for individuals and for neighborhoods and communities across this great land. I join my colleague Senator Dodd in urging the passage of this important reauthorization legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003, or QUAD, introduced by Senator Kennedy and cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Murray, Reed, Clinton, and myself.

Since 1998, when Congress last reauthorized the Higher Education Act, enrollment in institutions of higher education has risen to an all-time high, growing by nearly one million students. Half of these new enrollments are minority students, nearly 200,000 of which are of Hispanic origin. Projections show that enrollment in higher education will only continue to grow in the coming years. The increased demand for a college degree is due much in part to the changing economy. Those with a bachelor's degree now make 75 percent more than those without, and jobs requiring some post-secondary education are expected to account for over 40 percent of total job growth this decade.

While the demand for a college degree has increased, so too has the cost of college, and rather drastically. These increases severely limit access for many qualified students. For the 2002-2003 school year, four-year public universities reported an average tuition increase of over 14 percent. This comes on top of an almost ten percent increase in average tuition last year. Just three years ago the average increase was just four percent. For families in the lowest income quartile, average public university costs now consume 62 percent of their income. In the

early 1970's it was only 42 percent. What's more, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has declined. Today, Pell Grants cover only 40 percent of average fixed costs at four-year public colleges. Twenty years ago, they covered 80 percent of costs.

Every American should have the opportunity to realize his or her full potential, regardless of the depth of their pocketbook or the size of their parents' wallet. It is time for Congress to step up and meet the challenge: we must do more to help qualified students attend and finish college.

Currently, 40 percent of all whites ages 18-24 are pursuing post- secondary education, compared with only 30 percent of African-Americans and 16 percent of Hispanics of the same age. Those disadvantaged students who do start college often do not finish: low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years; four in ten Hispanic students enrolled in four- year institutions drop out within three years of initial enrollment.

The College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act will help low-income and minority students get into college. QUAD increases funding to critical programs including GEAR Up, TRIO and LEAP. It improves access for low-income students through the creation of a new grant program for proven-effective test prep programs to provide free tutoring for college entrance exams to low-income students. It improves access and awareness for low-income students by creating a partnership among the federal government, the states, colleges, philanthropies, and corporations to provide low-income students with early information and an early assurance of financial access to college.

But Mr. President, we cannot simply help a student get into and pay for college, we must help them stay in college and earn their degree. Of the 16 percent of 18-24 year old Hispanics enrolling in college, a mere 40 percent actually complete their degree. Similarly, only 38 percent of African-American students that enroll in college complete their degree. QUAD will help low-income and minority students complete their education through the creation of two new retention programs. The first program provides grants to colleges and universities, which serve high-proportions of low-income students to implement innovative programs to provide students with the support they need to persist and graduate. The second program requires schools with large discrepancies in disaggregated graduation rates to increase their investment in support services to improve retention. QUAD also increases funding for minority serving institutions, and creates new grant programs to encourage minority students to pursue graduate education at minority serving institutions.

Minorities make up an increasing proportion of the United States population, but they continue to severely lag behind white students in completing both undergraduate and particularly graduate degrees. Minority Serving Institutions are serving an increasing proportion of minorities, and can help decrease this disparity. Among Hispanics who received master's degrees in 1999-2000, 25 percent attained them at Hispanic Serving Institutions and in the past ten years, the number of Hispanic students receiving master's degrees at HSIs grew by 136 percent, the number receiving doctoral degrees grew by 85 percent, and the number earning first time professional degrees grew by 47 percent.

This past May, I proposed the Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act, S. 1190. Under this act, the burdensome regulatory barriers for the 18 Hispanic Serving Institutions in New Mexico and more than 190 HSIs nationally would be removed and opportunities for students at HSIs would be greatly expanded. QUAD takes up this effort, increasing funding for current grants to HSIs and creating a new grant program for graduate programs at HSIs. The grant program would authorize a total of $300 million in fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be necessary in future years. Grants under this program would help schools improve instructional facilities, purchase instruction and telecommunications materials, give support to needy post baccalaureate students, improve distance learning and other telecommunications capabilities, collaborate with other institutions of higher education to expand programs, and support faculty and curriculum development.

QUAD will also help to attract and retain high quality teachers at tribal universities. This past February, Senator Daschle and I introduced legislation that would create a loan forgiveness program for individuals who choose to teach at tribal colleges and universities. QUAD includes this legislation, S. 378.

Another component of QUAD that I am proud to have worked on is the teacher quality provisions of Title II. Since my involvement in the accountability sections of Title II during the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we have worked to increase the bar for teacher quality. QUAD will greatly improve the training and recruitment of teachers by expanding and strengthening teacher-training programs to help teacher preparation institutions feed more qualified teachers into the classrooms. These improvements will help States and school districts meet the goal outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act of ensuring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

QUAD will help colleges and school districts recruit and train more teachers with higher quality programs, and provide better training for in-service principals and superintendents. QUAD strengths provisions of HEA to focus on improving the quality of programs and services to teachers by ensuring that teacher preparation courses provide teachers with the specific skills and supports they need to succeed in the classroom, such as training necessary to help all students achieve high standards, including children with disabilities and limited English proficient students, and the integration of state standards and accountability in the classroom. QUAD supports innovation by establishing new financial incentive programs to professionalize the field of teaching, and attract and retain more individuals in the classroom. QUAD will also help to attract teachers to where they are needed most by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness for teachers working in high-need, high-demand areas. And QUAD helps to better prepare teachers to use technology in the classroom by increasing funding for the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program.

It is time for Congress to step up and meet the challenge: We must do more to help qualified students attend and finish college. I know that my colleagues will take this proposal under serious consideration and I look forward to working with them on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this coming year.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, today we are considering legislation to amend the Organic Act of Guam to establish the Guam judiciary as the third co-equal and independent branch of the government of Guam. Passing H.R. 2400 is an important and necessary step in the exercising of Congress's plenary authority over the territories as granted in article IV of the United States Constitution. The bill is relatively straightforward and has the full support of all Guam's leaders.

I introduced H.R. 2400 last year at the request of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Guam and the chairman of the 27th Guam legislature's Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would empower Guam's judiciary by clarifying the territory's local judicial structure. In essence, H.R. 2400 would amend the Organic Act of Guam to vest

the Supreme Court of Guam with authority over all inferior courts in the Guam judiciary, including the Superior Court of Guam and any such other lower courts as may be established by the laws of Guam.

A quick understanding of the history and evolution of the local judiciary in Guam reveals the need for this legislation. Guam's Organic Act, passed in August of 1950, provided for the organization of the territorial government. Therein, the judicial branch of the Government of Guam was created, which consisted of a district court of Guam having the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States and designated as Guam's appellate court to hear appeals from the local court.

In 1973, Guam's leaders made their first attempt at creating a Supreme Court of Guam, but that court's existence was short lived. The establishment of the first Supreme Court of Guam was ruled inorganic by the United States Supreme Court in the Territory of Guam v. Olsen. In rendering this decision, the United States Supreme Court held the Organic Act of Guam did not authorize the transfer of appellate jurisdiction from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to a locally established appellate court.

In 1984, in response to the United States Supreme Court decision, Congress amended the Organic Act of Guam through the passage of an Omnibus Territories Act, Public Law 98-454, and granted the Guam legislature the authority to establish a local appellate court. In 1993, the Guam legislature exercised its authority and created the Supreme Court of Guam through passage of local law.

However, in authorizing the creation of a Supreme Court of Guam, the Congress left the newly created court subordinate to Guam's other two branches of government. Guam's executive and legislative branches are established in the Organic Act of Guam, which in lieu of an adopted constitution serves to provide the framework and powers for the territory's executive and legislative branches.

As the current judicial structure is established in Guam law, it can be subject to manipulations based upon shifts in control of Guam's executive and legislative branches. Currently, the Guam legislature and the Guam executive branch have the power to abolish the Supreme Court of Guam, and, as such, may infringe upon the judiciary's independence.

H.R. 2400 would remedy this situation by making the Supreme Court of Guam an ``Organic'' court equal in stature to the other branches of government and providing the Guam judiciary the same protection as the other branches have in their status under the Organic Act of Guam. Just as the Governor cannot disband the legislature and the legislature cannot abolish the executive, so too should the judiciary be free from the threat of abolishment by the legislative or executive branches if their judicial decisions are found to be unpopular at any given point in time.

Madam Speaker, judicial independence cannot and should not be taken for granted. As Guam's self-governance continues to advance, the legal rights of the people of Guam should not be left to the discretion of the political branches. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, ``There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and the executive powers.''

An independent judiciary is in its purest form accountable only to the rule of law, not other political actors. H.R. 2400 seeks to solidify such an independent judicial structure for the government of Guam in the Organic Act in the highest traditions of American federalism.

The version of the legislation we are considering today, Madam Speaker, is in the same form as reported out by the Committee on Resources in the 107th Congress. This bill has evolved since it was first introduced in the 105th Congress by my predecessor, former Congressman Robert Underwood, as the Guam Judicial Empowerment Act, and in its current form reflects improvements suggested by the U.S. District Court of Guam and the Committee on Resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam in recognition of the importance of having a strong judiciary and in furtherance of Guam's efforts to achieve the greatest amount of self-governance possible.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the Governor of Guam, the Honorable Felix P. Camacho, in support of establishing Guam's judicial branch in the Organic Act of Guam; a resolution from the 27th Guam Legislature urging passage of H.R. 2400; and a resolution in support of the bill from the Judicial Council of Guam.

Office of the Governor of Guam,

Hagatna, Guam, May 7, 2004.

Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo,

Congresswoman, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madeleine: This letter is written in reference to H.R.

2400, a bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the

purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam.

I stated in previous testimony in reference to a similar

bill introduced by your predecessor in the 107th Congress,

``I certainly support the independence of all branches of

government, inclusive of the judicial branch of Guam.'' As

the Chief Executive of our Territory, I certainly appreciate

our tri-partite form of government which was crafted by the

founders of our great nation and unanimously adopted by the

states of our union. I fully recognize that the effectiveness

of our system of government, both on the federal and local

level, rests in checks and balances. To this end, I recognize

that the judicial branch of our Territory, like our executive

and legislative branches, must be ``constitutionally''

established or in our case, have an ``Organic'' existence

with similar powers to govern, reorganize, manage and account

for its branch with judicial independence founded under our

U.S. Constitution. To the extent H.R. 2400 furthers this

principle, I am supportive of your efforts and the assistance

of your colleagues.

My personal preference is for our tri-partite structure of

government to be established in a Guam Constitution. Further,

the specifics of the internal operation of our judicial

branch should be established locally. However, I am cognizant

that since I submitted my previous testimony to Congress on

this issue, local law affecting the Guam judiciary has

changed. In addition, until Guam adopts its own constitution,

the Organic Act functions as Guam's de facto constitution.

For these reasons, I support your efforts to establish Guam's

judicial branch in our Organic Act.

With Warm Personal Regards,

Felix P. Camacho,

Governor of Guam.