AS YOU KNOW, LENDERS CURRENTLY MAKE UP -- MAKE VERY LITTLE
           MONEY ON STUDENT LOANS. MANY PEOPLE KNOW THIS ANYWAY. AND THE
           HIGH COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION, HOWEVER, THAT HAVE -- TIED TO
           STUDENT LOANS HAVE BEEN REDUCED IN THIS BILL AND, AS A RESULT,
           WE NOT ONLY CUT THE RATE OF THE -- THAT IT COSTS STUDENTS TO
           BORROW MONEY TO GO TO COLLEGE, BUT WE ALSO CUT THE ACTUAL
           AMOUNT THAT LENDERS ARE GOING TO MAKE. BUT THE BIG DEBATE HERE

           IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD CUT IT EVEN FURTHER. AND THE ISSUE
           REALLY WASN'T WHETHER OR NOT THESE COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION
           SHOULD BE CUT. THE ISSUE REALLY CAME DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT WE
           WERE GOING 0 SHIFT FROM A SYSTEM WHICH HAD TWO COMPETING ARENAS
           IN WHICH YOU COULD GO TO GET A LOAN -- THE DIRECT LOAN FROM THE
           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE PRIVATE LOAN FROM A PRIVATE LENDER --
           TO A SINGLE PROVIDER OF LOANS, BASICALLY THE GOVERNMENT. AND
           FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE SEEN THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTION UNDER THE
           DIRECT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM, WE SAW A DRAMATIC AND CONSIDERABLE

           RISK TO THE ENTIRE LOAN PORT FOAL YORX THE ABILITY OF STUDENTS
           TO GET LOANS, IF THEY WERE ONLY GIVEN THE OPTION OF GOING TO
           THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS
           ADJUSTMENT IN LOAN RATE WAS DEMON A WAY THAT MAINTAINED A
           VIABLE PRIVATE MARKET. IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, 96% --
           96% -- OF ALL THE STUDENTS GO THROUGH A PRIVATE LOAN PROCESS
           RATHER THAN THROUGH THE DIRECT-LOAN PROCESS. SO YOU CAN SEE
           THAT IF THE DIRECT LOANS WERE THEIR ONLY AVENUE, IT WOULD

           ACTUALLY CREATE CHAOS. WE KNOW THAT TO BE A FACT BECAUSE JUST
           LAST YEAR WHEN THE DIRECT-LOAN PROGRAM WAS GEARING UP AND WAS
           SUPPOSED TO BE READY AND ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THE AMOUNT OF
           ACTIVITY THAT WAS BEING APPLIED TO -- FOR UNDER THE DIRECT-LOAN
           PROGRAM, WE IN THE CONGRESS HAD TO PASS AN EMERGENCY BILL TO
           BASICALLY BAIL OUT THE DIRECT-LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS ALREADY IN CHAOS, EVEN THOUGH IT HADN'T
           BEN GOTTEN UP TO, I THINK, MUCH MORE THAN 25%-30% AT THIS POINT

           IN STUDENT LOANS, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW.
           SO WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM HAS SOME
           SERIOUS, SERIOUS PROBLEMS. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WE'RE SEEING THAT
           SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS INDEPENDENT OF THE FACT THAT THEY SIMPLY
           CAN'T HANDLE THE VOLUME OF LOANS WERE THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BE
           DRIVEN OUT OF THE MARKET, SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ARE TIED TO THE
           ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY. THE COST OF ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
           GOT UNDRAMATICALLY. BY ADMINISTRATION I'M TALKING ABOUT

           COMPENSATION, TRAVEL, AND OPERATION COSTS. IT'S GONE UP ALMOST
           143%, I BELIEVE, IS THE NUMBER. EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF LOANS
           HAVE ONLY GONE UP BY SOMETHING AROUND 35% DURING THE SAME
           PERIOD. THE INCREASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD IS A CLASSIC
           EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS OF COURSE WHEN YOU HAVE A FEDERAL
           AGENCY INVOLVED, WHEN THERE IS VERY LITTLE ACCOUNTABILITY IN
           THE AREA OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVER OVERHEAD AND YOU HAVE A HUGE

           BUREAUCRACY WHICH IS DOMINATED NOT BY A DESIRE TO BE EFFICIENT
           BUT BY A DESIRE BASICALLY TO CREATE WORK, IN MANY INSTANCES,
           AND TO BE AN AGENCY WHICH COVERS ITSELF ON EVERY ISSUE AND
           CREATES BUREAUCRATS FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATCHING BUREAUCRATS.
           AND SO THE WHOLE ISSUE IN THIS BILL -- OR, THE CORE ISSUE IN
           THIS BILL WAS HOW WE WERE GOING TO BALANCE THE PRIVATE LOAN
           PROGRAMS WITH THE DIRECT-LOAN PROGRAMS. AND WE DID FINALLY
           REACH ANDING ON THAT AND IT IS A REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING. IT

           IS GOING TO COST US MONEY, BUT IN THE END, IT WILL ALLOW US TO
           GIVE TO STUDENTS THE MOST IMPORTANT IDEA, WHICH IS A LOWER
           INTEREST RATE, AND AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAIN A COMPETITIVE
           MARKETPLACE WHERE THERE WILL BE PRESSURE ON THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAM IRK THE DIRECT LENDING PROGRAM, TO BE MORE
           EFFICIENT BECAUSE IT WILL BE COMPETE PG WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR
           PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE TO BE EFFICIENT IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. SO

           THAT IS A VERY BIG PLUS, THAT DECISION WAS MADE IN THIS WAY.
           THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE PUT INTO THIS BILL
           THAT I WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS ALSO.
           ONE, THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION,
           UNDERSTAND THAT WAS THE VIOLENCE ON CAMPUSES, ESPECIALLY
           DIRECTED AT WOMEN. HE HAD AN AMENDMENT IN COMMITTEE THAT
           ADDRESSED THIS AND CREATED A PROGRAM AUTHORIZING THAT UNDER THE
           VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, $10 MILLION WOULD BE SET ASIDE FOR
           THE PURPOSES OF LOOKING AT THE PROBLEM WE NOW HAVE ON COLLEGES
           AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S A SERIOUS PROBLEM. IT'S BEEN SEEN HERE

           IN THE CAPITAL REGION, AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. I DOUBT
           THAT THERE IS A MAJOR COLLEGE IN THIS NATION THAT HASN'T
           EXPERIENCED SERIOUS VIOLENCE TO WOMEN ON THE CAMPUS. SO NOT
           ONLY DID THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA BRING THE IDEA FORWARD, BUT
           IT SEEMED TO ME TO BE SUCH A GOOD IDEA, IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
           BILL WE'RE GB TO BE FUNDING THIS. THERE WILL BE $10 MILLION
           SPENT RELATIVE TO VIOLENCE ON WOMEN ON CAMPUSES. IT ADDRESSES

           THE ISSUE OF USE OF DRUGS BY STUDENTS. THE SENATOR FROM
           CONNECTICUT WAS ACCURATE. HE SAID THAT IN POLLING PARENTS LIST
           THE CONCERN FOR THE COST OF EDUCATION AS THEIR NUMBER-TWO
           CONCERN RELATIVE TO HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE THEIR CHILDREN
           WHEN THEY'RE GROWING UP. AND HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE
           NUMBER-ONE CONCERN IS THAT CHILDREN WILL -- THEIR CHILDREN WILL
           BECOME INVOLVED WITH DRUGS, ILLEGAL DRUGS SPECIFICALLY. THIS
           BILL REFLECTS THAT CONCERN CONCERN. IT SAYS THAT TAXPAYERS

           SHOULDN'T BE CARRYING THE BURDEN OF SUPPORTING A STUDENT WHO
           HAS TAKEN THE IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIVITY OF USING AND BEING FOUND
           TO BE GUILTY FOR USING AN ILLEGAL DRUG. BASICALLY, IT SAYS THAT
           IF YOU ARE COST USING AN ILLEGAL DRUG AND YOU ARE CONVICTED OF
           USING AN ILLEGAL DRUG, THEN YOU LOSE YOUR HE WILL VIBITL FOR A
           STUDENT LOAN ON A FIRST OFFENSE FOR ONE YEAR, ON A SECOND
           OFFENSE FOR TWO YEARS, AND ON A THIRD OFFENSE INDEFINITELY. YOU

           CAN AVOID THIS IF YOU -- AS A STUDENT -- GO TO -- GO THROUGH A
           PROPERLY-APPROVED, SATISFY DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND THE
           SECRETARY HAS THE CAPACITY TO SET UP THE REGULATIONS AS TO WHAT
           WILL BE A SATISFACTORY DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM. SO YOU CAN
           MUTE THE EFFECT OF THIS. BUT ESSENTIALLY IT SENDS A VERY CLEAR
           MESSAGE TO STUDENTS THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO OBTAIN THE
           BENEFIT OF HAVING THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTRY SUPPORT THEM
           WHEN THEY'RE IN COLLEGE, THROUGH GIVING THEM BASICALLY A
           SUBSIDIZED LOAN, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE

           IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY PURSUE THEIR ACADEMIC SCREER AND
           NOT USE ILLEGAL DRUGS. THIS IS I THINK, A MAJOR STEP FORWARD IN
           DELIVERING THE CORRECT PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION ON THE QUESTION
           OF USING DRUGS. SO THIS, ON BALANCE, IS A GOOD BILL. IT MOVES
           IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND MAKES -- IT CONFIRMS AND ENERGIZES
           AND REINFORCES PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE PROVEN TO BE EXTRAORDINARILY
           SUCCESSFUL AND, AGAIN, I CONGRATULATE THE LEADERSHIP OF THE

           COMMITTEE FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. I YIELD THE FLOOR. MRS.
           FEINSTEIN: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
           

           MRS. FEINSTEIN: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN WITH THOSE
           WHO HAVE CONGRATULATED THE COMMITTEE FOR WHAT I CONSIDER IS
           REALLY A FINE HIGHER EDUCATION BILL, AND I WANT TO EXTEND MY
           PERSONAL CONGRATULATIONS REPRESENTING CALIFORNIANS BOTH TO THE
           CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE. THIS IS A
           BILL THAT REALLY MEETS THE NEED OF THE DAY WITH RESPECT TO
           HIGHER EDUCATION, AND THE I THINK WE CAN ALL HOPEFULLY SUPPORT

           IT WITH GREAT PRIDE AND ALSO ENTHUSIASM. I'VE BEEN VERY
           INVOLVED IN EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THIS
           GREAT STATE, ONCE AT THE LEAD, SINK TO BELOW MEDIOCRITY IN
           TERMS OF ITS K-12 EDUCATION SYSTEM. AND THERE ARE MANY REASONS
           FOR IT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T CONTROL, DECISIONS
           THAT HAVE TO BE MADE BY THE STATE ITSELF, SUCH AS ELIMINATING
           SOCIAL PROMOTION, SETTING SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR

           STUDENTS IN EACH OF THE GRADES, NO-NONSENSE TESTS, REMEDIAL
           PROGRAMS, AND SO ON. BUT ONE THING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
           DO IS PROVIDE FUNDS TO HELP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOOD
           TEACHERS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES AND DOES SO WELL. I
           WANT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SENATE ONE ANOMALY WHICH
           THE AMENDMENT I'M ABOUT TO SEND TO THE DESK SEEKS TO ADDRESS.

           AND THAT ANOMALY IS THAT IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHER
           TRAINING PROGRAM, THERE ARE TWO STATES THAT REQUIRE A FIFTH
           YEAR. ONE OF THOSE STATES IS NEW HAMPSHIRE. THE OTHER STATE IS
           CALIFORNIA. NEW HAMPSHIRE PROVIDES THE FIFTH YEAR BEFORE THE
           BACCALAUREATE DEGREE AND CALIFORNIA REQUIRES THE FIFTH YEAR
           AFTER THE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE. ERGO, CALIFORNIA HIGHER-ED
           STUDENTS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PELL GRANTS. AND SO, IF I MAY, I

           WOULD LIKE TO SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
           

           MRS. FEINSTEIN: MR. PRESIDENT -- EXCUSE ME.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA, MRS. FEINSTEIN,
           PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3107.
           

           MRS. FEINSTEIN: I THANK THE
           
           THE CLERK:. --
           

           MRS. FEINSTEIN: I THANK THE CLERK. THIS AMENDMENT IS SENT TO
           THE DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATOR BOXER AND MYSELF. WHAT THIS
           AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS AUTHORIZE THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
           EDUCATION TO AWARD UPON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS PELL GRANTS FOR
           STUDENTS TAKING A FIFTH YEAR OF POST-BACCALAUREATE TEACHER
           EDUCATION COURSES IN ORDER TO GET A TEACHING CREDENTIAL IN A
           STATE THAT REQUIRES A FIFTH YEAR. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO MY

           ATTENTION, MR. PRESIDENT, BY THE NEW CHANCELLOR OF THE
           CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. I WANT TO JUST READ AN OPENING
           PARAGRAPH. "WHEN I CAME TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY IN
           MARCH OF THIS YEAR, I ESTABLISHED AS A TOP-SYSTEM PRIORITY
           STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF OUR TEACHER
           PREPARATION PROGRAM. OVER THE NEXT DECADE IN CALIFORNIA ALONE,

           WE WILL NEED AN ADDITIONAL 250,000 TEACHS IN K-12 CLASSROOMS.
           IN ADDITION TO CHANGEINGS DEMOGRAPHICS, THE SHORTAGE OF
           TEACHERS IN CALIFORNIA IS PARTICULARLY ACUTE DUE TO THE STATE'S
           CLASSROOM SIZE REDUCTION INITIATIVE." AND THAT IS THAT THE
           GOVERNOR OF OUR STATE HAS QUITE RIGHY DETERMINED THAT K-3
           SHOULD HAVE CLASS SIZE OF NOT MORE THAN 20 STUDENTS PER
           TEACHER. THIS IS A REAL IMPROVEMENT AND, OF COURSE, IT WILL

           MEAN THAT MORE TEACHERS WILL BE NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE.
           ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE NUMBER OF
           TEACHERS WHO ARE DUE TO RETIRE OVER THE NEXT TEN TO 20 YEARS.
           SO THE AMENDMENT SIMPLY AUTHORIZES THE DMT OF EDUCATION ON A
           CASE-BY-CASE BASIS TO AWARD A PELL GRANT TO A NEEDY STUDENT
           THAT WANTS TO GET A TEACHING CREDENTIAL BUT NEEDS THAT FIFTH

           YEAR. WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE IS COSTLY AND
           MANY STUDENTS CAN'T AFFORD IT. THAT'S THE RATIONALE, THE
           PURPOSE AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE PELL GRANT PROGRAM. WELL, IF
           YOU CAN'T AFFORD FOUR YEARS, YOU LIKELY CAN'T AFFORD A FIFTHS
           YEAR. THEREFORE, WE LOSE TEACHERS BECAUSE YOUNG PEOPLE CAN'T
           AFFORD THAT FIFTH YEAR. AND IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY TODAY
           IN CALIFORNIA WE'VE GOT 21,000 TEACHERS WHO AREN'T

           CREDENTIALED. THIS WOULD PERMIT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS A PELL
           GRANT TO BE GRANTED TO A NEEDY STUDENT FOR THAT FIFTH YEAR.
           THESE STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA WHO WOULD GET A BACHELOR'S DEGREE
           IN AN ACADEMIC SUBJECT SUCH AS BIOLOGY OR FRENCH OR WHATEVER IT
           IS AND THEN TAKE THE FIFTH YEAR IN TEACHING EDUCATION -- AND
           THAT FIFTH YEAR CONSISTS OF LEARNING TEACHING METHODS AND OF

           STUDENT OR PRACTICE TEACHING. THE UNITED STATES COUNCIL ON
           EDUCATION, A CONSORTIUM OF ALL HIGHER EDUCATION GROUPS, HAVE
           SAID THESE STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA WHO WANT TO TEACH -- AND I
           QUOTE -- "ARE UNFAIRLY CAUGHT IN A STATE REQUIREMENT CATCH-22
           AND SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED AS A RESULT." ONE OF THE CENTRAL
           PURPOSES OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION BILL IS TO STRENGTHEN TEACHER
           EDUCATION, AND IT'S LONG OVERDUE, AND IT IS WELL MET BY THIS

           BILL. AND I THINK WE CAN ALL BE VERY PROUD OF THE VOTE WE WILL
           CAST. TITLE 2 AUTHORIZES NEW GRANTS TO STATES AND TO
           INSTITUTIONS TO REFORM AND TOUGHEN TEACHER TRAINING. ONCE
           AGAIN, CALIFORNIA MAY WELL BE LEADING THE WAY BECAUSE REQUIRING
           THIS FIFTH YEAR IS
{END: 1998/07/09 TIME: 13-00 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}