Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions 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, in June 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.

Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.

I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.

First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual property system get legal

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''

The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to- four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.

About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual property.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.

This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re- engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.

In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.

This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must respect those of others.

I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect important rights, will be upheld.

I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a series of dead ends.

We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the international ramifications here. American trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has created.

Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology.''

The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation without further delay.

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

Mr. President, I have joined today with Senators DeWine, Grassley, Cantwell, and Domenici to introduce legislation that will help State and local governments reduce crime by providing more effective treatment for the mentally ill. All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. Law enforcement officers' ever scarcer time is being occupied by these offenders, who divert them from their more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill give State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public's safety, and mentally ill offenders.

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont.

Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.

This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, to see this bill enacted this Congress.

Mr. President, imagine for a moment you have gone to the doctor to have a medical condition evaluated. Uncertain as to what your injury may be, your doctor sends you to a specialist for a medical imaging examination to determine the extent of your injury and the proper course of treatment for it.

Or, imagine, having heard the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, going to the same facility for radiation therapy.

In either case, our sense of concern and anxiety about our medical condition will serve to focus our attention on ourselves, and not on the caregivers providing us with the treatment we need to recover, or in the case of cancer, to survive.

But, what would you say if you knew that the individual helping to direct your diagnosis or the one providing your course of treatment is someone who has done nothing more to earn his credentials than spend a few weeks getting some on the job training.

Imagine how you would feel and the level of trust you would have in a system that allowed such a thing to happen.

Unfortunately, that's an all too common occurrence with the present state of our health care system.

But, it is a problem that we can solve with the passage of legislation I am introducing today.

The Consumer Assurance of Radiological Excellence, RadCARE, Act will ensure that there are coherent standards in place for those who plan and deliver radiation therapy treatments. I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, in this effort, which will bring peace of mind and restore the confidence of the health consumer in the treatment they receive from those who perform radiologic procedures. It will also increase awareness of the skills of these health care professionals and raise the level of visibility their profession enjoys in the public eye.

It is important that we establish standards for personnel who perform radiologic procedures because physicians depend upon medical imaging examinations to diagnose disease and identify and treat injuries of all kinds. The quality of a radiologic procedure hinges upon the expertise of the professionals who assist in administering them.

Currently, 15 States as well as the District of Columbia do not regulate or register radiologic personnel.

To address that lack of attention, the RadCARE Act will strengthen the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981. The current law calls for States to establish voluntarily a set of educational and credentialing standards for radiologic and medical imaging personnel. Yet many States still do not have licensing laws in place that meet the standards recommended by the Federal Government. The RadCARE Act will require that radiologic and medical imaging personnel meet a minimum credentialing standard.

The RadCARE Act will not affect states that have a suitable licensing system or those that have mandated higher standards than required by Federal law. If a state has no meaningful

regulations or licensing system, however, then the Federal standards will apply. The RadCARE Act also has a provision to ensure access to quality healthcare in rural regions where a one-size-fits all approach may not be applicable. Enforcement of the RadCARE Act would be achieved by restricting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to facilities that employ personnel who meet the minimal federal standards.

The RedCARE Act will improve the safety of radiological procedures by reducing the risk of harmful overexposure to radiation. Healthcare costs will also be lowered by decreasing the number of repeated procedures due to personnel error. Additionally, the RadCARE Act will enable radiologists and other healthcare professionals to have access to quality information so that patients receive the best health care possible.

This legislation is supported by a variety of organizations concerned with the quality of these procedures, including the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section, the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board, the Association of Vascular and Interventional Radiographers, and the other members of the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, which represents the more than 275,000 medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in the United States.

When it comes right down to it, it's a big enough battle to fight the cancers or the injuries to our bodies that require such invasive treatments or diagnosis. We shouldn't have to worry about the level of competence of those who are providing us with the services we so desperately require for the maintenance of our health.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this much needed legislation. It respects the power of the states who have addressed this problem as it provides minimum standards for those who have not.

More importantly, its enactment into law will do a great deal to increase the level of confidence of the American health consumer in our healthcare system.

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

Mr. President, one of the great benefits of the revolution in information technology has been its effect on education. With the information superhighway and the number of online research and information sources it has made available, modern technology and higher education have become inseparable.

The notion of distance learning and the access it provides to students--especially those in rural areas--could use a little more support, however, so that is why I am introducing the Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on principles already found in the Higher Education Act to help reach populations that have traditionally been excluded from attending institutions of higher education.

Wyoming is a very rural State. There is only one four year school in the entire State, and there are only seven community colleges. If you include the University of Wyoming's satellite campuses, that adds up to nine institutions of higher education in an area of nearly one hundred thousand square miles. By contrast, there are one hundred twenty nine institutions of higher education in the State of Massachusetts, which makes up an area roughly one tenth the size of Wyoming. In fact, the only State that has fewer institutions of higher education is Alaska.

Expanding access to higher education for our rural communities has been a challenge for many years. Now, the Internet has made it possible for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend college online. They may now spend their time studying, rather than commuting back and forth between school.

At present, the most significant barriers that distance learners and online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who cannot afford to do so.

The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud and abuse.

The Distance Learning and Online Education Act ensures students will receive a high quality education by requiring online educators to become accredited by an agency that has an appropriate focus on distance education. As provided under current law, the accrediting body must also be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an agency that can determine the institution's eligibility under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This is a slightly higher standard than is expected of the brick and mortar institutions that have been entrusted with Title IV funding since the Higher Education Act was originally passed.

My bill will also protect against any fraud and abuse of Title VI funds by requiring distance educators to demonstrate their financial responsibility. In addition to meeting the default rates already established in current law, institutions interested in becoming eligible must also have a record free from audit findings or program review findings resulting in significant penalties for a period of at least two years. Distance learning institutions must also show that they have not had their participation in Title IV limited, suspended or terminated during the previous five years, and they must create a system of assurances that the student participating in the program is the individual completing the work.

It is clear that the shape of higher education in this country is changing and it will never be the same again. We have an opportunity, through technology, to reach student populations that have been excluded from participation in higher education because they cannot afford to attend or travel to classrooms or campuses located many miles from their homes. We can change part of the equation by changing the way we view those programs that hold the greatest promise for non- traditional students. Making them eligible for federal student assistance will go a long way toward making a higher education available to everyone with

the interest in learning and the determination to get the job done. The Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003 will provide a hand up--not a hand out--to those whose interest in a higher education is limited only by their resources. By offering them a helping hand we can eliminate that obstacle and help a new generation achieve their goals and live their dreams.

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

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.